The Resurrection Stories Didn't Gradually Develop

Certain skeptics like to say the resurrection stories get more detailed over time. Mark has no appearances of the risen Jesus while John has Jesus walking through walls and having people touch his wounds. But do the resurrection stories really show a pattern of development over time, or are skeptics engaging in cherry picking?
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.com/recommended-...

[@DanielApologetics]

Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Better answer: This video.

[@King.Ambrose]

How the emojis

[@mellieg.7543]

It baffles me how this argument about Mark not mentioning post resurrection appearances neglects the Epistles written before the Gospels 😑

[@uncensoredpilgrims]

Even more baffling is how Mark actually *does* mention them in Chapter 16.

[@danielboone8256]

@@uncensoredpilgrims Where? Verses 9-20 are not considered as part of the original ending of Mark.

[@palereaper]

Depends who you ask

[@uncensoredpilgrims]

@@danielboone8256 They are considered original by the vast majority of extant manuscripts of Mark.

[@Mike00513]

@@danielboone8256 Mark 16:7 the angel predicts that Jesus will go ahead of the disciples into Galilee and there they will meet him. He doesn’t narrate the appearances like Matthew, Luke and John, but does reference them.

[@fatstrategist]

r/DebateReligion has to be one of the worst subreddits ever

[@citylightsish]

Reddit in general has to be among the most degenerate places on the internet, I was genuinely baffled seeing all the non sense that circulates on there.

[@JamesIronhawk]

Last night I looked at the reddit homepage for way too-long and found two okay posts; I will never do that again.

[@chrismtucson5573]

​@@citylightsish Agreed. Big Duning-Kruger vibes there. When I joined Reddit, I checked out a sub relevant to my area of expertise (language acquisition). Someone asked a question, I answered it as someone with an advanced degree in the subject. I was down voted into oblivion because my answer was slightly divergent from the hive mind. It wasn't outright different, but it was slightly more nuanced. Someone argued with me in the comments. I provided citations. Said someone disregarded the citations based on personal experience. My answer was correct, while the most popular answer was at best misleading. I didn't last long on Reddit.

[@theharoldsshow]

Even r/christian is trash. Basically just liberals and atheists that barely get Christianity and trying to preach it to people sharing legitimate doubts. R/atheism is famously bad as well, I enjoy browsing Reddit to see which ones are the worst of the worst. Unless you are in a fandom and want to find theories and questions on books or video games, Reddit is a cesspool.

[@Austin-kt7ky]

r/atheism would like to have a word with you

[@bruhfella1257]

This is really nice. I think lots of skeptics are hopping on the bandwagon of: “if it serves any apologetic reason in said gospel, that means it’s fake”. Gospel writers have a specific audience in mind and can select from different historical details to serve the purpose of their gospel. Just because a certain detail is useful for the gospel writer’s overall point doesn’t in itself show that said detail is embellished. These videos are very enjoyable while also remaining informative. Keep up the great work!

[@Boundless_Border]

I mean. I wouldn't do that. I may say that if the Gospel authors are focused on theological points for how they write their accounts then it lends credence to the idea that they aren't using only things that have the best evidence. I may go so far as to say that they may not care about how strongly evidenced something is as long as it supports their point. Can you kind of see my issue as an atheist side when it is put forth as reliable?

[@BornAgainGabe]

@@Boundless_Borderyou’re literally saying what he’s accusing you of in fancy words bro 😂

[@Boundless_Border]

@scoundrelgabriel He said, "If it serves any apologetic reason, it must be fake." Where do I say that in fancier words? In fewer words, I say that writing for a theme may lead you to utilize less evidenced material. Leading to the idea, this text may not be reliable, at least with things pertaining to the theme. Like I can see if you don't notice nuance, you may equate the two. But these are very different positions.

[@jhurt3824]

@@Boundless_Borderas an atheist I don't know why you spend your time on Christian channels. I don't believe in ghosts. So my time is better served in learning new things and living my life. Unless your identity is simply to be an antagonist. But hey. You do you

[@bruhfella1257]

@@Boundless_Border I think what you would need to do is show independent evidence that supports the claim that a certain story or detail in a given gospel was made up. As a popular example, take the census of Quirinius in Luke. In the current archaeological record, it looks like Luke places the census too early because Quirinius wasn’t governor of Syria at that time. (All the details can get a little fuzzy because Luke may even be saying that this was the census before Quirinius became governor, see NIV text note Luke 2:2). At the surface level, Luke either got it wrong or used a fictional census in Jesus’ birth narrative. So now we need to see how each theory can account for the evidence. (On the surface), the theory that the census was fictional better accounts for the evidence compared to the theory that the census was fact and indeed during Jesus’ birth. A piece of data becomes evidence for or against a theory when said theory can better account for the data compared to another competing theory. Without independent evidence, both the theory that general details in a gospel are fact and the theory that the details in gospels are fiction can equally account for the data, which means this can’t be used as evidence for or against the historicity of the gospels. I mean this for general details like the story of doubting Thomas, for example. You may look for contradictions in the narratives as evidence for embellishment but, by my lights, they don’t do much and can be harmonized without much issue. This was long but I hope it helps 👍

[@kiwisaram9373]

Ever notice in todays news reporting that the news reports become more detailed as they get more information about the event? Hence Mark's account merely suggests it is early and that the later accounts are in fact the same report indicating the writers were only ever including the information they had to hand at the time.

[@alc27321]

I like having another voice for the interlocutor here. Could just be misremembering your other videos but I think that's the first time. The dialogue format is very effective. God bless you/your work.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I thought of doing more in lieu of responses

[@Draezeth]

​@@TestifyApologetics Who did the voice?

[@Visions_arent_real]

It was a strawman though.

[@Lord9Genesis]

Skeptic: But muh new theory... Testify: your new theory is warmed over garbage Skeptic: ...but my theory!

[@stever786]

It's also interesting that differences between Mark, Matthew, and Luke get brought up when the development argument is being used, but those same signs of independence get dropped when the synoptic problem argument is being used. Gotta pick a lane and stick with it!

[@marksnow7569]

Nope. Just gotta pick an explanation which takes account of all the available evidence and doesn't cherry-pick.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Agree. On one hand the Synoptics supposedly colluded, on the other they contradict each other. Skeptics can't play it both ways.

[@marksnow7569]

@@sliglusamelius8578 Another "excluded middle" fallacy. The Synoptic writers did not "collude" but the Matthew gospel is based on the Mark gospel plus at least one additional source, with lots of individual "clarifications" to emphasise connections with earlier Jewish scriptures (i.e. with our "Old Testament" and "Apocrypha"). The Luke gospel is based on Mark and the same additional source, with a different set of "clarifications," possibly based on reliable information contradicting Matthew.

[@ryankelly9032]

@@marksnow7569oddly enough, no one has ever found this supposed additional source. Could it maybe be that there isn’t one and that the similarities are commonly known information and the differences are based on the various perspectives of the eyewitnesses?

[@marksnow7569]

@@ryankelly9032 The similarities of some non-Mark material are too close to based just on "commonly known information" but it is possible that Luke was accepting trustworthy material in Matthew. What's odd is that Matthew & Luke agree on certain points in their early-years and post-resurrection sections (the periods omitted from Mark), yet differ wildly overall. That suggests there may have been a sort of basic FAQ supplement to Mark.

[@mewmasterjash]

Hello. I would just like to say that I have just discovered this channel, and am hooked on your videos. The way you discuss these topics are great, and I look forward to watching many more of your videos im the future. God bless.

[@lucasalamini5537]

Hey Testify, I like you because you usually answer questions on comments, thanx 😊

[@TestifyApologetics]

I try, within reason

[@lordxenrak1088]

The dialogue format is very nice. Keep on going. God bless 🙏🏽

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

I feel like this video does a really good job communicating the needless generalization by scholars. Honestly, I feel like the undesigned coincidences argument is a foil to these 'designed coincidences.' Unlike the undesigned ones, there is every reason in the world to play up theories and speculations.

[@ventriloquistmagician4735]

kek, well said!

[@enderwiggen3638]

The gospels themselves make it clear that they picked and chose details they wanted to cover. All of it being the best recollection of what they experienced first hand or by word of mouth from other witnesses. People who do modern biographies do the same thing. You can get a biography on a celebrity from multiple authors and some will contain details the other author did not. Partly based on different witnesses used as a source, partly based on a retelling from the same source that recounted additional details. It doesn’t invalidate any of the biographies that this happens. And each other is not going to produce an exact replica of someone else’s biography.

[@marksnow7569]

Modern biographies rarely flat-out contradict other biographies without explanation, as Luke does to Matthew in his accounts of the resurrection.

[@enderwiggen3638]

@@marksnow7569 when you take personal eyewitness testimony there are often discrepancies or even differing accounts of detail that are part of the narrative but not important enough to detract from the main message.

[@marksnow7569]

@@enderwiggen3638 The resurrected Jesus in Luke saying (paraphrased) "Stay here in Jerusalem until you receive the Great Commission" versus the Matthew "Return to Galilee to meet the resurrected Jesus and receive the Great Commission" is a discrepancy no skeptic can ignore!

[@enderwiggen3638]

@@marksnow7569 the text in Matthew says he told the women to go tell the disciples and that he would go before them to Galilee and that he would meet them there. The women go and tell the disciples and Jesus appears to them and says go ahead and go to Galilee and I will meet you there. In Luke it doesn’t even give a passage of time. Luke 24 45 it says he opened their minds to understand the scripture. Does it say to you how long it took for them to learn all Christ had to teach about scripture? Was it an hour? Days? Weeks? The text doesn’t elaborate. Only if you assume it took moments would you expect Jesus went nowhere else or didn’t spend days teaching them and didn’t got anywhere else. Luke is recounting other peoples testimony as he himself was not there but was a student of Paul. Acts 1 alone says Jesus was with them for 40 days after his resurrection teaching them. And it doesn’t go into detail what he taught them or where. These texts don’t seem to contradict each other the way you think they do. Seems like you are inserting timeframes and restricting places where Christ was that the text literally doesn’t provide details for the contradiction you claim. Absence of descriptive text in one account doesn’t mean an event didn’t occur. Especially when you have accounts from multiple sources that provide the same overall narrative with differing details that help to paint the wider picture from multiple eyewitnesses.

[@marksnow7569]

@@enderwiggen3638 You have read the words, but not the text. Look again, more closely, and edit your comment.

[@favouradeyemi2880]

"Flavius Brosephus" killed me 🤣

[@csmoviles]

Thank you for your ministry ❤❤❤❤

[@MrMortal_Ra]

Lack of Relevance: Each Gospel writer had different audiences, theological emphases, and narrative purposes. Therefore, the absence of specific details or events in one account does not necessarily imply that those events did not occur but may reflect the author's focus on other aspects of the resurrection narrative that align with their specific goals. Alternative Explanations: The Gospel writers may have omitted certain details or events for reasons unrelated to the events' historicity, such as theological emphasis, literary structure, or narrative flow. Without additional corroborating evidence or clear indications of intent, it is speculative to draw conclusions about the historicity of events based solely on what one Gospel does or does not mention. Incomplete Information: The Gospel accounts provide complementary rather than identical perspectives on the resurrection. Differences in details or emphasis may reflect the authors' selectivity in what they chose to include rather than contradictions or inaccuracies in the accounts. Without additional external evidence, it is challenging to determine the historicity of events solely based on the absence of mention in one account.

[@Apollo1989V]

The earlier a story is written down, the less likely details would have been embellished. Since Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written within 40 years of the crucifixion, they are likely to contain much of the original version. Compare this the Hadiths and Biographies of Muhammad, which were written down over 200 years after his death, and the Iliad, written down over 400 years after the Bronze Age collapse.

[@Apollo1989V]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5j not saying it is. But 40 years means less time for embellishments.

[@Visions_arent_real]

Paul is actually the earliest and only account written from a firsthand perspective and he seems to equate his visionary experience with the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This leads us to believe they were all originally appearances of the Exalted Christ from heaven. But, of course, we can see each gospel author provides an entirely different account of what took place which leads us in the direction that these events weren't actually witnessed by anyone. The latest accounts in Luke and John even have clearly stated apologetic reasons for invention.

[@ryanrockstarsessom768]

Thank you

[@jondear772]

In my opinion, Luke is the best book in the Gospels. Luke, being a physician, he was much more verbose in his writings, he provided greater more in-depth detail the others didn't. Being a physician, he was very "technical" in his writings. For example, in Luke chapter 23, he discusses the two criminals and what they said in detail as they hung on crosses next to Jesus, to include my favorite, "Lord, remember me when you enter into your kingdom", and Jesus replied, "today you shall be with me in paradise". Not found in other Gospels. Why? Not sure why.

[@pgpython]

I think the most obvious to that is that at the start of lukes gospel itself. We know that luke was a physician but we also know from the start of lukes gospel that he was commissioned by a noble to find out the truth to the stories that he had heard. So it seems highly likely that luke set out his gospel gathering eye witness accounts and trying to be detailed as possible to convince his benefactor that the events he heard about actually happened. We can assume that his account was well received after all it lines up well with the other gospels and we have acts which he was also seems to be commissioned by the same person

[@ventriloquistmagician4735]

the end caused my heart to rejoice

[@yukiminsan]

Why would Mark leave out the meeting with Jesus in Gelilee if from his and his audience's perspective it should've already happened decades ago? 🤷 Sounds like a case for the lost ending theory.

[@donjezza]

Reminded me a bit of an infomercial but i liked the dialogue style.

[@addersrinseandclean]

Keep up the good work Testify

[@MrMortal_Ra]

Simply the accounts being in more detail then the other accounts, does not have to mean hopelessly unreliable. There are differences as does every text recoding or reporting the same event does, however, what’s crucial and quite significant to note is that the mere fact of differences does not therefore necessarily equal development. Another explanation could simply be that one author is incorporating additional information then the other because they knew more than the other account. An another is that the authors had different emphases, narrative purposes, literary structure, or narrative flow. Without additional corroborating evidence or clear indications of intent, it is speculative to draw conclusions about the historicity of events based solely on what one Gospel does or does not mention.

[@KingOppSanti]

Still here!

[@liljenborg2517]

And the whole argument is based on Markan Priority, which is not a certain thing. In fact most of the modern “scholarly” arguments for Mark being the first written gospel are the reverse of this guy’s argument: we “know” the Jesus story evolved over time; Mark is the most “primitive” gospel; therefore Mark was first. Because it couldn’t possibly be something like later writers (worried that the original witnesses were dying off and that stories WERE getting distorted) with more time and research were able to correct those distortions by including more details. Maybe it’s not that the story is evolving, but that the later writers are actually trying to protect the story from changing.

[@logicianbones]

And all ancient attestation said Matthew first, then Mark. Plus the ancient trend was later was simpler. Etc. Either way the development claim is silly though.

[@liljenborg2517]

@@logicianbones Yes, but when you've _a priori_ eliminated that any of the gospels are accurate, eye-witness testimony of Jesus actual life, you've got to come up with some explanation. And when your whole worldview is obsessed with evolution . . . The idea that Mark might have just been trying to write a "reader's digest condensed version" of Peter's stories about Jesus for a largely illiterate audience of slaves in Rome gets ignored.

[@ernestrobinson8441]

@@liljenborg2517 Agreed. And when you a priori eliminate the possibility of miracles, you have to date the Gospels after 70 AD. It makes no sense that a Gospel written primarily to gentles would be the first Gospel. Dr. David Alan Black in his book, "Why Four Gospels", believes that Mark's Gospel may be a transcription of a sermon given by Peter when he was in Rome, and that Peter may have used Matthew's and Luke's Gospel for talking points. And this is why Mark's Gospel is simpler and less "evolved". Spoken words tend to be less refined and not as well thought out than written words.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Love the Christian sceptic dialogue

[@dandy4040]

4 men sat on a hill and they were asked to look upon the vista and report what they saw. 1 man said he saw a bird flying through the air, another said he saw a rabbit digging in the brush, a 3rd said he saw leaves falling from a tree, and the last claimed to have witnessed a doe and her fawn feeding on some grass. Behold, says the atheist, these men are liars for their reports vary so greatly, and they all stared at the same vista.

[@gthompsonbjj]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu again, a false claim with no evidence to support it. All of the accounts recorded say the same thing: Jesus resurrected. historians and researchers have found over 90 details in Luke that would have only been known by eyewitnesses.

[@dandy4040]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu "None of these authors are eye-witnesses". No, actually, in most case Matthew, Mark, Luke, and especially John were present for the accounts written of Christ

[@dandy4040]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu You're telling me Luke and Mark didn't provide first hand written accounts of Christ?

[@kearlanventures]

This only has a chance at being a debate when we (wrongly) view Mark as first. So many of these fake controversies come from the blundering by scholars of the order of the Gospels...

[@franzescodimitra8815]

​@user-gv8xf9ul5j what evidence does the scholarship have??

[@marksnow7569]

@@franzescodimitra8815 Style, for a start

[@hikari_manekineko]

Heh, that "brb" on ascention... :D

[@metaldisciple]

I have a feeling you will grow in many subs soon

[@Michael-bt6ht]

Nice

[@ExploringReality]

I know a particular someone who’s going to be very triggered by this lol

[@Visions_arent_real]

It's triggering because he doesn't represent the growth argument fairly or in its strongest form. He knocks down his own strawman and then threatens to censor any posts that represent the argument accurately.

[@ExploringReality]

@@Visions_arent_real no your argument just isn’t that great.

[@franzescodimitra8815]

​@Visions_arent_real you are the only one here strawmanning

[@Visions_arent_real]

@@ExploringReality Where are the examples of this phenomenon occurring in other reliable eyewitness accounts? What other events from history do the eyewitnesses tell totally different stories of what took place and in entirely different locations? If you can't find a single example, then it's a really good argument because it demonstrates eyewitness testimony doesn't evolve the way the resurrection narratives do. If the gospels are inconsistent with what we know about eyewitness testimony, then that's a huge problem.

[@Visions_arent_real]

@@ExploringReality If the gospels are inconsistent with what we know about eyewitness testimony then that is relevant in assessing their historicity. In order to demonstrate they're reliable despite the growth, inconsistencies and totally different sequence of events you must provide other examples of this occurring in other reliable reports. So where are they?

[@daylightsober6138]

3:28 in addition to this point, verse 9 and verse 17 has Jesus’s disciples worshipping Him outright.

[@italkaboutbasketball8438]

Question @TestifyApologetics . I believe mark 16 longer ending is in the Syrian Peshitta and definitely has reliability. Correct me if I’m wrong

[@brock2k1]

I agree. Nobody can top Matthew for resurrection stories. All the zombies coming out of their tombs and wandering around Jerusalem --- how can you beat that? Curious that nobody else, not even the other gospel writers, said anything about it.

[@TestifyApologetics]

This is called an argument from silence

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Lack of Relevance: Each Gospel writer had different audiences, theological emphases, and narrative purposes. Therefore, the absence of specific details or events in one account does not necessarily imply that those events did not occur but may reflect the author's focus on other aspects of the resurrection narrative that align with their specific goals. Alternative Explanations: The Gospel writers may have omitted certain details or events for reasons unrelated to the events' historicity, such as theological emphasis, literary structure, or narrative flow. Without additional corroborating evidence or clear indications of intent, it is speculative to draw conclusions about the historicity of events based solely on what one Gospel does or does not mention. Incomplete Information: The Gospel accounts provide complementary rather than identical perspectives on the resurrection. Differences in details or emphasis may reflect the authors' selectivity in what they chose to include rather than contradictions or inaccuracies in the accounts. Without additional external evidence, it is challenging to determine the historicity of events solely based on the absence of mention in one account.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@simonodowd2119 Lack of Relevance: Each Gospel writer had different audiences, theological emphases, and narrative purposes. Therefore, the absence of specific details or events in one account does not necessarily imply that those events did not occur but may reflect the author's focus on other aspects of the resurrection narrative that align with their specific goals. Alternative Explanations: The Gospel writers may have omitted certain details or events for reasons unrelated to the events' historicity, such as theological emphasis, literary structure, or narrative flow. Without additional corroborating evidence or clear indications of intent, it is speculative to draw conclusions about the historicity of events based solely on what one Gospel does or does not mention. Incomplete Information: The Gospel accounts provide complementary rather than identical perspectives on the resurrection. Differences in details or emphasis may reflect the authors' selectivity in what they chose to include rather than contradictions or inaccuracies in the accounts. Without additional external evidence, it is challenging to determine the historicity of events solely based on the absence of mention in one account. I would argue in favour of traditional authorship in response to your remark that it was off a none eyewitness.

[@brock2k1]

@@TestifyApologetics Are the gospel writers trying to convey that Jesus was the son of God, or not? If they are, then why would they relate that he asked for a piece of fish after being resurrected, but not relate that the tombs opened and the dead walked around Jerusalem, one of the greatest miracles in the Bible? Use some common sense.

[@pigzcanfly444]

​@user-gv8xf9ul5j this is still an argument from silence. There are plenty of single attestation events recorded in historical documents which we all believe are true based upon said attestation. Whether or not you admit that fact is regardless of the point. At best you can say that a single person mentions this event and it's possible that it were contrived but it's also possible that it happened or we are somehow misunderstanding the claim altogether.

[@danielboone8256]

I like this point counter-point format. I’m still a little doubtful that the argument has no merit to though. It does seem like the physical encounters in John and Luke are more detailed than those in Matthew. Perhaps the purported differences between the empty tomb accounts might also be used as evidence for the development theory. I suppose if the dating of Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts are all relatively close and early that would raise some problems for the theory though.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

Simply the accounts being in more detail then the other accounts, does not have to mean hopelessly unreliable. There are differences as does every text recoding or reporting the same event does, however, what’s crucial and quite significant to note is that the mere fact of differences does not therefore necessarily equal development. Another explanation could simply be that one author is incorporating additional information then the other because they knew more than the other account. An another is that the authors had different emphases, narrative purposes, literary structure, or narrative flow. Without additional corroborating evidence or clear indications of intent, it is speculative to draw conclusions about the historicity of events based solely on what one Gospel does or does not mention. Especially when we take into considerations.

[@JM-jj3eg]

Actually it's only Matthew that explicitly states the risen Jesus was touched. Not Luke or John. In John Jesus invites Thomas to touch Him, but there's no indication he did. It's true that John has more details but that's John's style. He has fewer events to report and so can take longer space to go into details.

[@crz2366]

LOL That end caught me 😂😂

[@feliperodriguez4187]

🙏💯

[@jhedjoardumago7691]

Video gave me more ammo when my friend moves the goalpost

[@amt4653]

Everytime when you prove then wrong, it ends like that

[@Twisty_26]

Mark 16:11 says "he appeared to the eleven"

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5jYou are aware that Mark being the author is not the eyewitness at hand?

[@MrMortal_Ra]

The ending narrative of Mark 16:9-20 is widely agreed upon and held by the majority of New Testament scholars, critical and evangelical alike, to be an ending most likely not original to the work. Codex Sinaiticus (א): This manuscript, dating from the fourth century, is one of the most significant early copies of the New Testament. It contains the shorter ending of Mark. Codex Vaticanus another fourth-century manuscript, Codex Vaticanus also includes the shorter ending of Mark. Codex Washingtonianus (W): This manuscript, dating from the early fifth century, includes the longer ending of Mark (verses 9-20), but it is shorter than the traditional version found in most modern Bibles. The text of these verses in Codex Washingtonianus is somewhat abbreviated compared to later manuscripts. Minuscule 274 (also known as the Codex Minuscule 274): This manuscript, dated to the twelfth century, contains an ending that includes verses 9-20 but is shorter than the traditional longer ending. It is one of the later witnesses to the Gospel of Mark. The differences in wording and arrangement of verses suggest that there was not a single fixed version of the longer ending but rather variations and adaptations of it in different manuscript traditions. Thus it is (in short) the conclusion that Mark 16:9-20 was not original to Mark and was not what the original author had written.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Is it relevant to your original comment about an author who is considered to be be an eyewitness to an event, narrate that event in first or third person?

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5j I don’t know where the confusion is at. My point is is that Mark was not an eyewitness to the events that he records and reports, but rather was said to have recorded down eyewitness accounts from Peter. If Mark being the author was not the eyewitness himself, then why expect him to narrate the accounts he records in first person if you would record events in first person only when you yourself was the eyewitness to that event? Not recording an account from someone else.

[@MrMortal_Ra]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Your first remark does not hold up to half of historians from the ancient world, historians simply didn’t place footnotes and much sources to the large amount of the history and historical events that they recorded. Historians may either go through certain historical methods to find underlying sources that may be behind a certain part of the text, or they’ll generally give the author the benefit of the doubt. One example is the recorded event of the fire of Rome by the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, he simply does not lay out his sources from whence he got his information from. Let’s say that Tacitus’ sources were official records or eyewitness, why wouldn’t he lay them out even when he knew that it would boost the credibility? We don’t know.

[@davidholman48]

It's little things we miss. How did anyone know there were 500 people in that crowd. Did someone count them?

[@JM-jj3eg]

It says "more than 500", it could have been a thousand people, and we are just given a lower estimate. The disciples were used to dealing with crowds of thousands by this time and so could make an estimate by just looking.

[@dillanklapp]

You make some really fair points, but I’m always skeptical when someone is scripting how they think their opponent would respond. You should have this conversation with someone who uses this argument.

[@TestifyApologetics]

this is based on real conversations that I've had but sure. I don't really have the time for long form these days.

[@rick2402]

I think we should refrain from making fun of people who makes these arguments, as it may push them away from Christ

[@jellyface401]

2:00 BASED!

[@berniefynn6623]

Another sabbath that week, Mary went to the tomb BEFORE DAWN and Jesus was gone, so no three nights and three days, body taken down because next day was a prepaRATION DAY.

[@ndjarnag]

What about the part where Jesus flies in the clouds?

[@TCM1231]

Basically a 1:1

[@heroicdog2824]

1:55 Neutralplier spotted

[@uncensoredpilgrims]

Jesus DOES appear to the disciples in Mark. That's a false claim. Check Chapter 16.

[@danielbrowniel]

The earliest manuscripts do not include 9-20

[@uncensoredpilgrims]

@@danielbrowniel The earliest manuscripts are not the best, and are vastly outnumbered by the manuscripts which do contain it. In some cases they were literally pulled from ancient trash heaps where it appears they had been discarded.

[@danielbrowniel]

@@uncensoredpilgrims Well I'm just explaining how someone would make that argument. My gut says the ending is supposed to be longer, because the added ending seems awfully abrupt compared to the other gospels.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

​@@danielbrowniel The earliest manuscripts you are referring to are just 2 . That's it. And they are both from the alexandrean text family. That's a big problem for the argument against the ending of mark. Because the way we sus out textual variant as opposed to what was original is by comparing different text family's from different geographic areas, that way whe a varient pops up it is obvious because all the other textual family's will agree, and the variant won't. And that's exactly the case with the two manuscripts being used against the ending of mark. Not only that but the cherry on top is that we have quotes from the longer ending of mark going back to the 2nd century, whereas the manuscripts lacking in in question only go back to the 4th century. So we know for a fact the longer ending existed before those manuscripts were scribed, we just don't know why those ones in particular didn't include it. So it can't be argued that the origional lacked the longer ending and that the longer ending go added later because the oldest manuscripts we have are predated by quotes from the longer ending. What's most likely is that the long ending got corrupted or damaged in whatever copy of mark the akexandean family used, but was no corrupted, or destroyed in the copys of mark all the othervtext family's used.

[@danielbrowniel]

@@anthonypolonkay2681 I'll have to look into it, I know very little on this topic. I'm only learning this stuff for the sake of non-believers I'm already beyond disbelief but I still have the challenge of obedience and the stuff that I'm really curious about is prophecy/ and similarities of people having unearthly experiences with God.

[@way2tehdawn]

Yeah I really don’t trust secular academics after getting my bachelors at a secular university.

[@lilchristuten7568]

Tomas doesn't actually touch Jesus' wounds, he sees Him and proclaims Him as Lord and God.

[@Canaanitebabyeater]

Behold, I have depicted my opponents as wojak and myself as a chad

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thus they have already lost bc Chad Paley always wins

[@Canaanitebabyeater]

@@TestifyApologetics oh great heavens

[@TestifyApologetics]

​@@CanaanitebabyeaterGarfield pfp detected opinion rejected

[@Canaanitebabyeater]

@@TestifyApologetics Leave Garfield out of this

[@TestifyApologetics]

​@@Canaanitebabyeaterno 😹

[@MrGoodwell]

I'm only 30 seconds in and I see holes in this argument. Most scholars agree that the end of Mark is missing, so we don't know if there were resurrection accounts in there. I also mentioned this on a previous video but some of the early commentators on the Gospels claim that Matthew was written first in a simpler form and Mark actually used the early version of Matthew. That would line up with their imaginary Q Gospel too. 🤷

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yep I cite several scholars who do think that in the video on the end screen, just because they don't get in line with consensus doesn't mean they don't have valid or sound arguments. Hort, Gundry, Witherington, Wright, Croy, Stein, Metzger and Edwards count as scholars.

[@Guilherme-JK]

What the atheist said at the end LOL

[@fluffysheap]

Flavius Brosephus 🤣

[@Visions_arent_real]

Which gospel matches Paul's appearance chronology (who Jesus appeared to) from 1 Cor 15:5-8?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Do you understand what contradictions are?

[@Visions_arent_real]

@@TestifyApologetics Would you mind answering the question? As for contradictions, Paul seems to imply a chronological and complete ordering _"and that he appeared to Peter...and last of all appeared to me."_ This would seem to contradict Matthew and John where it says Jesus appeared to Mary or Mary and the "other Mary" first.

[@TestifyApologetics]

oh brother so the resurrection didn't happen then because they didn't mention the women in the creed

[@Visions_arent_real]

@@TestifyApologetics You said provide a contradiction. I did that and then you switch topics to - "so it didn't happen?" It seems nothing will satisfy you.

[@TestifyApologetics]

an argument from silence isn't a contradiction. Paul never mentions Jesus' miracles, like healing or exorcisms. The Gospels do. Is that a contradiction? Is Paul's lack of mention a statement that Jesus was not considered to be a healer and exorcist?

[@justinspence8341]

All the Gospels were written much earlier than this person is mentioning. The books of Mark, Matthew, and John were written very close to the resurrection of Jesus, possibly a few days after.

[@franzescodimitra8815]

What if they were written BEFORE the Ressurection ⁉️⁉️ (I'm joking 😇🙏)

[@colinsmith1288]

​@@franzescodimitra8815Then they would be called prophets.

[@franzescodimitra8815]

​@colinsmith1288 The Scholarship is gonna come for my head for sure

[@morlewen7218]

Just compare the gospel of Mark with the gospel of Peter.

[@InitialPC]

no one thinks the Gospel of Peter is connected to Mark

[@jfr45er]

If you want to see evolution of a basic man becoming a miracle worker look at Islam. A plain human warner in the Quran becomes able to quench thirst with his fingers and splitting the moon in just a few centuries later.

[@AffectionateComputerChip-re4iq]

😂😂😂😂😂 good one

[@Yan_Alkovic]

Wait was that an AI-generated voice?

[@TestifyApologetics]

yes

[@Yan_Alkovic]

@@TestifyApologetics You used it to great effect to make this very comedic and instructive video but it's good practice to list the AI tools used in the description.

[@WayneRossi]

The atheist commentator mentions "angels" in Mark. It may be unintentional but this is a mistake. Mark does not mention an angel; it mentions a young man dressed in a white robe. The notion that this is an angelic figure is eisegesis, reading the angel in Matthew (or possibly the two men in dazzling robes, who are not explicitly angelic, in Luke). As far as the notion that he had some unknown source - this would be speculative, and neither of us is an expert in biblical Greek. The attempt to say that Matthew has a comparable amount of detail to Luke and John doesn't pass the smell test. In terms of actual post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, there are literally six verses in Matthew. Two describe the appearance to the women, and four the appearances to the disciples (with a mention of some or all of them doubting). Each section of the appearances in Luke and John is considerably longer than the almost parenthetical appearances in Matthew. If you read just the appearances in 1 Corinthians, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, in that order, it is quite obvious that there is a ton of detailed development. There are also a number of strange red herrings that have nothing to do with what clearly looks like a developmental pattern. The expanded prodigies at Jesus's death in Matthew are not what's at issue; neither is the obviously apologetic addition of guards at the tomb. Scholars see clear motives for these that is totally unrelated to the fact that Matthew seems to lack detailed post-resurrection stories of the kind we see in Luke and John. To put it this way: you can only list off two events of note in Jesus's appearances in Matthew 28, that the women take his feet and worship, and that he gives the disciples the Great Commission. But in Luke 24 and John 20-21 you can make a long list of such events, including the strange appearance on the road to Emmaus, Jesus showing his hands and feet, his eating a piece of broiled fish, his granting understanding of the scriptures, and his ascension in Luke; his appearance to Mary in the guise of the gardener, his appearance to the disciples and showing his hands and side, the doubting Thomas episode, the fishing miracle, the breakfast of fish, the commission to Peter, and the strange case of the beloved disciple in John. Appealing to the quantity of appearances in 1 Corinthians seems moot as Paul tells us nothing about the development of detailed traditions; your response didn't change anything about that.

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's a young man dressed in white. Angels in the Old Testament frequently appear as men. It's pretty clear that Mark is saying that it's an angel, even if it's not explicitly stated. You are technically correct that Mark only mentions one young man. I don't think that length by itself means they are gradually 'making things up to make the story cooler.' I don't think Luke is aware of Matthew, personally. There's debate about that. But clearly from other places on my channel, I argue that the gospel authors aren't like that. They are interested in relaying factual truth and not embellishing details. But the point in this argument is there are several categories of alleged apologetic development in the Gospels that the person who says they are developed legends argue. Development in: 1.) the number of narrated appearances of Jesus. 2.) the level of detail 3.) apologetic intent 4.) higher theology 5.) development in the weirdness factor of the stories. These aren't just things I'm making up; I've read and heard skeptics do all five of these things. The sheer number of appearances argument is DOA because it fails to take into account 1 Cor 15 and looks at the gospels alone, and Luke and John have the same number of appearances, and it's just a small sample to be making firm conclusions about. The level of detail argument doesn't work because Paul isn't giving us a gospel; he's citing a creed because of false ideas in the Corinthian church that were saying there is no resurrection. I'd argue that Mark's ending is lost, so we don't know what he said, but clearly he has a physical resurrection happening. And John and Luke have about the same level of physical detail, and clearly Matthew has women touching Jesus' feet. I have a hard time thinking John is reading Matthew and going, 'no, no, no, that won't do, let's have someone poke his finger in his side,' as if that makes it so much more super powerful than what we have in Matthew. The apologetic intent argument doesn't work because scholars say Matthew has apologetic intent by allegedly inventing a guard at the tomb, among other things. The higher theology argument doesn't work because Matthew has a baptismal formula that sounds incredibly developed, and high Christology existed already in Paul's letters, like in Romans and Philippians. The weirdness factor doesn't work because there are equally strange stories in Matthew, and all four gospels contain things we'd find 'weird.' I'm just trying to make a short, goofy version of Lydia McGrew's argument here kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaGcnqenpsmbq7csi=vP09_KC3vflaLxmj She goes into more details in that video.

[@Mike00513]

*The atheist commentator mentions "angels" in Mark. It may be unintentional but this is a mistake. Mark does not mention an angel; it mentions a young man dressed in a white robe. The notion that this is an angelic figure is eisegesis, reading the angel in Matthew (or possibly the two men in dazzling robes, who are not explicitly angelic, in Luke).* Angels in the Hebrew scriptures are typically characterized as appearing to people as a man. So it's not at all erroneous to infer that the man who appeared to the women was an angel. *The attempt to say that Matthew has a comparable amount of detail to Luke and John doesn't pass the smell test. In terms of actual post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, there are literally six verses in Matthew. Two describe the appearance to the women, and four the appearances to the disciples (with a mention of some or all of them doubting). Each section of the appearances in Luke and John is considerably longer than the almost parenthetical appearances in Matthew.* Matthew may have fewer post-mortem appearances, but that doesn't mean much considering Paul lists six post-mortem appearances and he was writing presumably a couple decades before the Gospels were composed. Moreover it can't lack in physical detail because Matthew records the women touching Jesus' feet when he appeared to them, and he leaves an empty tomb behind when he is risen from the dead. *There are also a number of strange red herrings that have nothing to do with what clearly looks like a developmental pattern. The expanded prodigies at Jesus's death in Matthew are not what's at issue; neither is the obviously apologetic addition of guards at the tomb. Scholars see clear motives for these that is totally unrelated to the fact that Matthew seems to lack detailed post-resurrection stories of the kind we see in Luke and John.* I don't see how it's irrelevant at all. The addition of the guards at the tomb and the cover up story explaining how Jesus tomb became empty strengthen the notion that his death and resurrection was physical in nature which matches up quite well with the physical nature of Jesus resurrection in Luke and John. There doesn't seem to be any clear progression in the physicality of the story and more or less remains physical all throughout. *To put it this way: you can only list off two events of note in Jesus's appearances in Matthew 28, that the women take his feet and worship, and that he gives the disciples the Great Commission. But in Luke 24 and John 20-21 you can make a long list of such events, including the strange appearance on the road to Emmaus, Jesus showing his hands and feet, his eating a piece of broiled fish, his granting understanding of the scriptures, and his ascension in Luke; his appearance to Mary in the guise of the gardener, his appearance to the disciples and showing his hands and side, the doubting Thomas episode, the fishing miracle, the breakfast of fish, the commission to Peter, and the strange case of the beloved disciple in John.* You're omitting other important details in the resurrection account found in Matthew. Not only does he have the women touching his feet and worshiping him, and the appearance to the disciples with the great commission, but the zombies to appeared out of their tombs when Jesus died, the earthquake that occurred when the women approached Jesus' tomb, the empty tomb, along with the narrative of the guards at the tomb and the cover up story the chief priests invent to explain the vacant tomb. This is arguably just as miraculous as the extraordinary events that happen surrounding Jesus' resurrection in Luke and John. *Appealing to the quantity of appearances in 1 Corinthians seems moot as Paul tells us nothing about the development of detailed traditions; your response didn't change anything about that.* Paul doesn't say much about the appearances because he was only reciting a short creed created by the early Christians that give a list of witnesses who saw the risen Jesus. It was not supposed to be a comprehensive account of what happened. And if any skeptic tries to argue that the development lies in the quantity of appearances growing throughout the Gospels, this can be used as a defeater to the claim.

[@WayneRossi]

​@@TestifyApologetics with Mark I think it's worthwhile to treat these documents independently and with their own integrity, so I prefer to say it's a young man as the text does. The angel point is a frequent hermeneutical explanation and isn't a major issue. I think that the question of whether Luke is aware of Matthew is an open one among scholars. There are good reasons to accept several of the hypotheses and I don't have a horse in the race. If pressed I think the "Q" source is most likely but that's merely based on how I've seen evidence. I am open to various models in the synoptic problem. What I will say is that Luke and Matthew do not appear to be relaying the same factual truth. Luke clearly and unambiguously portrays the disciples as remaining in Jerusalem until after the ascension (specifically Pentecost) while Matthew clearly and unambiguously places its only post-resurrection appearance to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee. I'm sure you know that, and I'm sure you have an explanation for it; but on a plain reading of the texts I find them to be very difficult to reconcile. Honestly I find the way you want to dismiss level of detail as a clear change between Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and Luke and John on the other, to be perplexing. To me it just looks like there is a clear fact of additional content in the specific area of post-resurrection appearances, some of it quite perplexing. Both include, for instance, the motif where someone sees Jesus but does not initially realize that it is him - this seems to me like a legendary trope. I'm not sure where Luke and John would have received this content, but it seems logical to think that oral tradition could have developed more, and more elaborate, post-resurrection stories as the years went by. This pattern of development appears to be consistent with legendary development over time. I also don't understand how Matthew having apologetic intent impacts the analysis that changes in Luke and John also have apologetic intent. This would be perfectly consistent with how most scholars treat these gospels. Unless you're going to hold Matthean priority - and I suppose you can, but I think Markan priority is quite well established in the scholarship by this point - then Matthew changed Mark. And he appears to have done so with apologetic intent, to rebut certain stories. To me this is one of the biggest problems with the resurrection accounts: they're quite different from each other, and the content that we see seems to line up with particular agendas that Christians at the time would have had. I'd imagine that Matthew and Luke were writing separately and for different audiences, and altering Mark (and Q if you accept that) in ways that fit their goals. I agree that Matthew has more weird stuff than the other gospels. I don't think that argument holds from the skeptical side. As far as the more elevated theology - that's a whole can of worms and I'm not as well versed in what scholars say there to get into the differences between Paul and Mark's theology. Honestly I find the differences a bit strange, as Paul's view of Jesus does seem quite high. The one point I find most interesting with Paul is where he seems to contrast with the gospels - specifically in 1 Cor 15:35-57. That discourse on the resurrection body seems very strange to me when one compares the idea that Jesus gave his hands and feet as evidence in Luke, and the wound in his side as well in John. Paul's concept of a spiritual body (about which I'll point out that ancient thinkers largely did not believe spirits to be incorporeal or immaterial but usually that they were made of a higher substance) appears to be at odds with the idea that the resurrected Jesus had these wounds. It seems to me to be a tension in its view of the resurrected Jesus, although I'll admit that this is simply a place where I see a tension between these views.

[@expressoevangelism80]

If the resurrection didn’t occur then the disciples would have reverted back to fishing etc within a month. Just as Peter was trying to do, as written about at the end of the book of John. The development and growth of the church after Jesus’ eventual rise into Heaven would have been crushed, by the authorities of the Jews and the Romans if the rising of Christ had not occurred. During that time we note that it is accounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people, and carried out more works than could be accounted for. The arrival of the Holy Spirit in the heart of 3000 people on the streets in one morning at the feast of Pentecost was a very real event, otherwise how do you account for what happened next. The persecution throughout the times of some awful emperors would have got any believer running away if it were not true in their lives back then. Unfortunately the development of the state church, which was constructed as a result of recognising Christianity within Rome, legally crushed many of the active parts of church life out of society, and that generally as to how it has remained, until the past 100 years, where it would appear to be entering into Christian life once more. Hallelujah! The days are running short, as we can tell by the signs that Jesus warned us to look out for. Be sure of what we believe. Check it out. Listen to our soul.

[@pamperdut1]

double donkey xd

[@KingoftheJuice18]

There are many, many differences in narrative detail and thematic treatment in the four gospels-not to mention Paul's particular concerns. You highlighted a few of them in this video. Is the claim that God inspired them to be exactly different in these specific ways? Or is the claim that different people wrote different things, in which case it's not "inerrantly God-breathed"? Seriously, why should there be FOUR different gospels if, as Christians like to preach, there''s only ONE religious truth?

[@InitialPC]

They're different therefore they're not true??? What kind of backwards logic is that???

[@thesmileyman6817]

“Why should there be four gospels” - would you believe it any less if there was one?

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@InitialPC They're different therefore they're true? That seems to be the approach of this channel: if they were all consistently the same, that would make them more likely to be false. But contradictions and different points of view means it's all true...Now that seems like backwards logic to me.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@thesmileyman6817 I think you meant "any more," but do you have any answer for why four were needed?

[@thesmileyman6817]

@@KingoftheJuice18 no i meant any less, it’s an inherently ironic comment. I’m not sure what you mean by needed to be four. It needed to be four because God called them all to write it in four accounts…two witnesses is better than one, and three even better. What difference would it make if it were one? (Besides the flare up of skepticism regarding the testimony)

[@dougsmith6346]

The earlier the story, the higher the Christology and resurrection surety.

[@cloakedsquid]

so your whole argument relies completely on "well maybe the vast majority of scholars are wrong and we're missing the end of mark"

[@King.Ambrose]

Was like you willingly meet the first part up in over, exaggerated the last part of your statement, as if we didn’t watch the video

[@Anonimo-ue5pq]

Hello Erik, I gotta say, when I saw this video in your "videos" tab I clicked faster than the speed of light, mainly because I really wanted to know what you had to say about his topic, especially when that's one of the main reasons why I don't believe the New Testament anymore, and, consequently, deconverted (I considered myself now an Agnostic Atheist). I'm writing this comment because I find your response very unsatisfactory. I hope you see this comment and answer in the best way possible! OBS: I know that you, probably, got that from r/DebateReligion, and, as many people already said, that sub is very, very bad. Despite this, the point that the resurrection stories grew in retelling is still valid, and I think there's a way better and stronger version of the argument. First, some preliminaries: 1. Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark independently: I think you agree with this point, but the main idea is that Matthew and Luke didn't contact each other or elaborated stories together. 2. Mark 16:9-20 is not original: We can argue all day on whether or not there is some "lost version" of the last verses in Mark, but the fact is that the end is missing and most scholars (even Christian ones) think that the ending is not original. Given those two points, I proceed with a better version of the "gospel evolution argument". 1. *1 Corinthians 15 is not a good "resurrection account"*: Paul's testimony of the resurrection is missing a bunch of details of Jesus's resurrection. Paul basically tells us that Jesus appeared to a bunch of people, and that's it. No angels, no women, no empty tomb (even though I think you debate that), no earthquake, no guards, no eating of fish. And Paul makes no effort to differentiate his appearance to the ones experienced by the disciples, making it sound like the resurrection appearances where merely visual and not physical (I know that that's another debatable point, but I think there are way better arguments in favour of the "spiritual visions" side of the debate). Paul, like any other details related to the life of Jesus, tells us only the "bedrock" details of the resurrection, nothing beyond that. I don't know about you, but that sounds very "primitive" to me. 2. *The "evolution" pattern is not _necessarily_ linear*: You tried to argue that Luke and Matthew have a similar level of "physicality". I would completely disagree with that and argue that Jesus eating with his disciples is way better than some random earthquakes, but let's assume that you're right for the sake of the argument... This is the part where our preliminaries will become very important... Knowing that Matthew and Luke developed independently of one another, it's very easy to explain the point you've brought. Matthew and Luke are simply making (or receiving) different traditions (no wonder why their stories are so different from one another...), and are simply telling us a different development of the "Jesus tradition". For me, it's beyond coincidence the fact that the stories that don't appear (or are very hard) in Mark are so different between Matthew and Luke (the nativity account, the resurrection narrative, and I would add the trial before Pilate), apologists can try all they want, but the stories differ very greatly, and the best explanation to that (coupled with a bunch of other points) is that those stories are simply evolving in different directions... Unless, of course, the apologist wants to argue that Matthew (being, supposedly, an eyewitness of all the events), simply forgot to mention Jesus touching and eating with his disciples and the Ascension, and decided to mention a bunch of facts he couldn't have possibly been there to witness (the conversation between the guards and the high priesthood, and the angel killing the guards); Mark (being a follower and close companion of Peter) not mentioning Peter being scolded by Jesus and eating with him; and Luke mentioning all details that he received from a bunch of "completely trustworthy sources", and forgetting to mention how a bunch of raised saints walked through Jerusalem and the earthquake that happened that day. (Don't let me even get started with John...) I recommend watching Hartke's video on the resurrection, he points out very sharply how different the tales are. I think you will probably say "well, that's an argument from silence", but, c'mon, everything has a limit right? Once this better version of the evolution pattern is understood, the argument is way stronger and fits even better with the data we have. 3. *Liking it or not... Theology also evolves from Mark to John*: Before getting into the main point, I find the appropriate to say that I'm not debating whether of not the gospels think that Jesus is God. For me it's pretty obvious that the apostles and gospels writers thought of Jesus as God (Mark 1:2 spills the beans very plainly). (It's important to point out that "Jesus being God" and "Jesus claiming to be God" are different debates). With that out of the way, it's clear from a plain reading of the Gospels that they tend to emphasize Jesus's divinity very differently. Mark's Jesus is all "hey guys, don't tell anyone, shh!" and only is portrayed to be divine is some parts in some not really obvious ways, and in some parts it's quite debatable and ambiguous (like Mark 10:18, for most readers, it sounds like Jesus is denying his divinity). Matthew goes all his way trying to establish that Jesus is not only the Messiah (or God), but that he was foretold in the OT, and goes to some very extreme points to make that sure (like the double donkey story). Luke does almost the same as Matthew, but tries to make some other theological points (like Jesus being a teacher right from a young age, and being more sympathetic to people). For more details on Luke, I really recommend watching "The Non-Stamp Collector's" video on the gospel of Luke. And I don't think the gospel of John needs any introduction... John simply makes Jesus say that he is God, the way, the truth and the life, and that he is living water, between other things. I don't know about you, but that seems very "evolutionary" to me. Well, this is the better version of the argument, forgive me if my English is a little "rough", it's not my native language.

[@TheMasaposo]

Very well said, I'd love to see a response to this version of the argument

[@IslandUsurper]

1 Corinthians isn’t supposed to be an “account” of the resurrection, but more of a reference to it. 15:6 in particular says most of the 500 were still alive, so if someone was skeptical about the resurrection, they could go find those people and investigate their story. Paul assumes the Corinthians have heard the account already (because he was the one to teach it to them) so he doesn’t repeat it. As for the differences in the gospels, that seems explainable by noting that they are written to different audiences and slightly different purposes. Also, Mark was likely taking dictation from Peter who wouldn’t want to recount *all* the dumb things he said. Honestly, I don’t think anything you’ve said actually amount to an argument that the gospels didn’t describe what really happened. It sounds more like, “I wouldn’t have written it that way, and I don’t like it.”

[@Anonimo-ue5pq]

@@IslandUsurper Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, my point still stands, Paul doesn't tell us what really happened, so we can't really be sure on how the resurrection story was during the first years. Paul's account either amounts to nothing or really is the "early creed". And I still think Paul not mentioning details is a strong point. I don't think that "the gospels being written for different audiences" is a strong argument. If it were a couple differences only I would have no problem with this explanation, the problem is that the gospels are remarkably different, and tell very different stories. I also don't think that Peter, if he was really preaching in Rome (and idea that I found very implausible), would forget to mention how he ate fish and touched Jesus after his resurrection.

[@logicianbones]

1. He addressed this briefly in the video, or at least something he said is the standard answer -- Paul was writing an epistle, not a gospel. As for "making it sound like" they were only visual, nobody thought that until very recent skeptics made that up. You're passing over a more likely meaning of his words for a less likely one, which is just circular reasoning. Mere visual appearances would have been taken as a different thing, like the witch of Endor case, unlikely to prompt anything like the Christianization of the West we saw.

[@logicianbones]

2. "Random" quakes that happen right when the guy died who fulfilled all this prophecy and so on.

[@Visions_arent_real]

Can I respond without being censored?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Depends on how many screen names and sock accounts you actually have. I've said in the rules no copypasta, and if you're who I think you are, that's basically all you do. I allow all kinds of disagreement, but I don't allow spam.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

Yes

[@BongBing11]

Depends on KZbin automod

[@Visions_arent_real]

@@TestifyApologetics You're not actually representing the development argument fairly. No set of reliable eyewitness testimony evolves this much or has this many discrepancies between accounts written by people who were present for the events.

[@TestifyApologetics]

​@@Visions_arent_realuh I didn't realize that you were an expert in eyewitness testimony

[@KenCunkle]

But don't forget about the zombie attack on Jertusalem in Matthew 27. Sure, that's totally credible!

[@ajmittendorf]

NO. Not at all.

[@JTFtheTheoPhPoliticalHistorian]

This comment is just to help us think A LITTLE different. ⬇️ "If you're going to argue against the resurrection try a different angle." I got one, they're all just claims and not factual evidence of a resurrection. that's why it requires Faith, not blind faith but capital F Faith in Christianity.

[@runachan2910]

Please note this argument isn't really a "response". It's more of a perspective: I think it must have been something BIG for all those disciples and believers to go preach like that. The problem is: until a better claim pops up, we technically are stuck with "He has risen. It DOES, as stated by you, require faith with a capital F but I think we should REALLY be looking into what they've ACTUALLY seen instead of treating them as liars without actually knowing what it is that they so that made them think Jesus rose after three days. Again, this is a hot take, possibly fallacious, but you actually sounded respectful and open to responses. So, her's a little response. Maybe someone will give you a better one, soon!

[@runachan2910]

Ps: I forgot to add that it's a mystery. "He has risen" is the claim I believe but some people say we don't know

[@Maxinestabile]

The Creed in Corinthians is entirely meaningless You do realize that it’s a creed you say it to reassure your faith you don’t say it because it’s true you say it because you want it to be true and you wanna make sure that you’re convinced it’s true. scholars Both agree that Corinthians is the earliest source with that creed, but they also agree that the creed is meaningless, because creeds are meaningless. to get to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John I read the gospels in the order they were written, and it’s very clear that they evolved. Mark has an adoption view that Jesus became the son of God when he was baptized, Matthew believes he was born that way and adds in details like what you described the zombies and stuff, but he kept the human elements such as Jesus having struggles, begging to not be sacrificed, but in Luke and John, he is very clearly far more divine, He doesn’t struggle, He just accepts his fate, and lets himself be crucified. and my final point in this comment will be that mentioning the father the son and the Holy Spirit does not mean you’re trinitarian and the fact that you think that that’s what that means makes me kind of offended mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses both believe in the father of the son and the Holy Spirit, but are not Trinitarian please do more research on this stuff, or actually debate an atheist on this instead of just assuming that you have the argument to destroy them.

[@nopainnogain3345]

Can you give out your references that scholars think that the creed is meaningless?

[@Maxinestabile]

@@nopainnogain3345 it’s a Creed dude it literally just states what Christians believe. It doesn’t state what Christians actually saw or know for sure you don’t have creeds about truth do you because you don’t need them because the truth is true evidently, we don’t need creeds about the big bang, and we don’t need creeds about evolution. The fact that Christianity needs creeds at all makes me a bit suspicious of it.

[@Mike00513]

*You do realize that it’s a creed you say it to reassure your faith you don’t say it because it’s true you say it because you want it to be true and you wanna make sure that you’re convinced it’s true.* Can you provide evidence for that claim? *scholars Both agree that Corinthians is the earliest source with that creed, but they also agree that the creed is meaningless, because creeds are meaningless.* Scholars agree creeds are meaningless because creeds are meaningless? That's a very circular argument. *to get to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John I read the gospels in the order they were written, and it’s very clear that they evolved. Mark has an adoption view that Jesus became the son of God when he was baptized, Matthew believes he was born that way and adds in details like what you described the zombies and stuff, but he kept the human elements such as Jesus having struggles, begging to not be sacrificed, but in Luke and John, he is very clearly far more divine, He doesn’t struggle, He just accepts his fate, and lets himself be crucified.* I'd argue for the position that all four Gospels portray Jesus as God in someway and there was no Christological development. As in Mark's Gospel (the earliest Gospel), he is not the adopted Son of God as in Mark 1:2-3 he quotes Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In Malachi 3:1, it talks about God sending a messenger who will prepare his way to come to the temple, and Isaiah 40:3 speaks of preparing the way for God and making straight paths for him. And he applies those verses to Jesus. Meaning he is equating Jesus with YHWH and depicting Jesus as the fulfillment of scripture of God coming to see his people. So before his baptism, Jesus is portrayed as God in the flesh, which means he cannot be the adopted Son of God, but was always the Son of God. *and my final point in this comment will be that mentioning the father the son and the Holy Spirit does not mean you’re trinitarian and the fact that you think that that’s what that means makes me kind of offended Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses both believe in the father of the son and the Holy Spirit, but are not Trinitarian please do more research on this stuff...* Right they do believe in the Son and Holy Spirit but do not believe they are God. But I they're arguments for why Trinitarianism is false I find to be unconvincing, and they have their own ways of explaining Matthew 28:19. But I think the best interpretation of Matthew 28:19 is a Trinitarian one because Jesus is equating himself and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, and commands his disciples to baptize people in the names of those three persons. This seems very Trinitarian.

[@Maxinestabile]

@@Mike00513 I directly explained to you why the creed is meaningless it’s there to reassure your faith not there to tell you the truth I directly explained this to you please learn to read just because you don’t find the arguments for why those verses aren’t trinitarian convincing doesn’t mean that they’re not convincing you already have the idea that those verses are Trinitarian in your head so of course you wouldn’t find the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses explanations convincing you’re reading these verses with the ideas that they already mean these things in your head. If you were reading this book as a regular book, you wouldn’t have these preconceived notions in your head stop reading it with your Christian faith in mind, and read it as a book.

[@Mike00513]

@@Maxinestabile *I directly explained to you why the creed is meaningless it’s there to reassure your faith not there to tell you the truth.* Yes can you please substantiate that claim with evidence. How do you know it's not supposed to give the truth? You say scholars agree that the creeds are meaningless, yet you can't even cite one scholar who thinks this. So I literally have no reason at all to think what you are saying is accurate until you provide evidence. *just because you don’t find the arguments for why those verses aren’t trinitarian convincing doesn’t mean that they’re not convincing you already have the idea that those verses are Trinitarian in your head so of course you wouldn’t find the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses explanations convincing you’re reading these verses with the ideas that they already mean these things in your head.* Or maybe it's just because they are legitimately bad arguments. Unless you want to enlighten me and show me why my Trinitarian understanding of Matthew 28:19 is flawed. *If you were reading this book as a regular book, you wouldn’t have these preconceived notions in your head stop reading it with your Christian faith in mind, and read it as a book.* How about you stop assuming I have ulterior motives and actually provide good arguments.

[@Boundless_Border]

Interesting attempt at depicting a discussion until the pretty blatant nut picking (if not strawmanning) at the end. Your statement does encapsulate an issue with discussing this topic. Calling it comparing apples to oranges is very common when there isn't a clear metric being used or if the metric being used can't be translated between the entities. I think you'll agree that clear development could be relevant to compare texts. An obvious example is Superman and how his powers were described over time. So after establishing that it could be relevant, I think it is reasonable to discuss in what way it is happening. It would also be good to establish in what way it would reasonably develop. Time is one factor. And region is another. For instance there would be variations in development from a common source if the interactions between the latter two were limited. Much like fanfiction writers may "power up" or "worldbuild" differently from the same source materials. So. What types of development would we expect from a religious group, the given time factors and location factors with the starting point of the first written source. From the first source sources that are aware or derived from that source will want to expand on ideas of theological significance. Either in ways demonstrating the truth of their religion, clearing up misconceptions/disagreements about their religion, and making it clear that their religion should be followed, and other miscellaneous details that slip in due to personal beliefs of well respected leaders. The greater emphasis on how exactly Jesus appeared after death as that didn't appear in the first Gospel as we have it seems to fall in line with the first two notions about trying to legitimize the truth and providing clarification. It is an interesting topic of discussion since while the text is now pretty steadily fixed it seems obvious that the beliefs of Christians change over time and this is kind of reflected in books they may write about Christianity. That was a bit off topic. The main point is that you did a decent job at discussing it with your atheist drawing there. And both could be well served by discussing what is meant by development a bit more. This can help avoid cherrypicking examples and a more systematic analysis.

[@TestifyApologetics]

The strawmanning is based on a lot of real conversations actually. Just read my comment section more often.

[@Boundless_Border]

@TestifyApologetics That depends a little on context. They'd have to do what you said in response to this particular discussion the way you depicted for it not to be a strawman. Although, I am in your comment section and rarely, if ever, see similar things happening. To be fair, I've mostly watched your UC videos. But if you notice, I led with nut picking. This is another similar fallacy of picking out the weakest and easiest to knock down to demonstrate the oppositions position. Like if I were to make YEC the Christian position. Or the somewhat frequent red herring way some Christians argue like. This is a weaker position to discredit that doesn't represent the strength of the position well, even though some members do hold that position.

[@thesmileyman6817]

@@Boundless_Border the “gospels are different therefore not true” arguments aren’t particularly strong anyways. In a court of law, it would be considered suspicious if all eye witness testimonies were exactly the same.

[@Boundless_Border]

@thesmileyman6817 And I don't say that either. Notably, discussions on development are about the way in which they are different. Not the simple fact that they are different. P.S. We do find copying in the Gospels. Yet that are still considered independent eyewitness accounts for some reason. So maybe we can agree their is nuance and discuss a bit about the reasons we say what we do.

[@thesmileyman6817]

@@Boundless_Border right, they are composed of those discussions, but their general consensus is what i said (in it’s essence, i simplified it.) And yes they are still independent eye witnesses testimony, not in spite of copying; but rather because of individual differences. The court of law point is more of an example of the literary representation of truth. If A attests to B, but also adds individual details not found in B, that would make it a collaborative effort; which can still be independent. Which kinds of nuance do you observe between the gospels? Which differences change the narrative in some major way?