This Couple Shows Why Acts is History

Рет қаралды 10,899

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 35

@joshd3502 10 ай бұрын

Oh come on! These undesignated coincidences are as real as Napoleon. Enjoying the Series. Looking forward to the next installment.

@mikesarno7973 10 ай бұрын

Mr Manning, thank you, so much for everything you do. I pray for you every night, by name. Your videos really helped me at a time when I needed it. Your videos continue to aid me. You are truly doing God's work; may He continue to bless you.

@frostyf27 Ай бұрын

Amen, God Bless you!!! 🙏✝️☦

@theodorerogers5809 10 ай бұрын

Really excellent series!

@5BBassist4Christ 10 ай бұрын

I think random lists of names are an unappreciated argument for authenticity. There are so many vague mentions of people throughout the New Testament, -people whom we know so little about. This is something that's done when writing historical settling, but not something that's done when making up stories. I can think of so many vague mentions of people in my own journals and writings. An example would be my journal from when I visited Israel and the list of people who got baptized in the Jordan River. Very few if any of them get mentioned much outside that section of my journal. When people make stuff up, they reduce cast size and use characters already talked about for such events rather than just listing names with no background. But this names with no background is what we often see in the NT.

@seanhogan6893 10 ай бұрын

Although anything that seems convincing will be mimicked by people who want to seem convincing.

@sponge6171 10 ай бұрын

@@seanhogan6893would paul have killed Christians just to make his spiritual experience and conversion more convincing by that logic

@Frank-np4sp 10 ай бұрын

@@seanhogan6893very true but then a copy will probably have more than one indicator that it’s just that

@ggpt9641 4 ай бұрын

Similarly in the Old Testament, the genealogies. Nobody is inventing that many names, whose son they are, what tribe they're from, simply because of the length put into them. 1 Chronicles 1 - 7 is just genealogies, broken up by 1 prayer if a man named Jabez, and is AFAIK the only mention of him in the Bible.

@oscaralegre3683 3 ай бұрын

you are very smart. The holy spirit is in you.

@kiwisaram9373 10 ай бұрын

Skeptics never give evidence just doubts.

@sabhishek9289 10 ай бұрын

God bless you, Erik.

@sylviesherman4797 10 ай бұрын

I appreciate your research and effort in putting these episodes together. Super interesting and inspiring.

@csmoviles 10 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for this ministry! May God bless you❤❤❤

@ex-engineer6657 9 ай бұрын

Thanks, bro. Keep up the good work.

@rampartranger7749 5 ай бұрын

Anyone who thinks Luke did not travel with Paul is not a serious scholar. Did Bart actually say that? Crazy.

@CaroleMcDonnell 10 ай бұрын

One of my favorite undesigned coincidences occurs with the number of Esau's wives. Folks can think the Bible made a mistake if they don't see that Beeri (in one account) means "well man" (in another account.) There's also the bit about the Ishmaelites and their earrings.

@seanhogan6893 10 ай бұрын

I searched for Ehrman writing that the author of Acts made stuff up and instead i found an article from last year where he agreed with people who suggested he must have had other sources - Ehrman says the author wasn't just making things up but there are contradictions with Paul's letters so it isn't completely reliable. He does think it's unlikely that the author was a travelling companion. Do you have some links to Ehrman writing that Acts is invention?

@jerrybessetteDIY 8 ай бұрын

It reads like a first-person account of someone who did his research with eyewitnesses and also journeyed with Paul. You can see it in the introduction to Luke and in Acts where he starts using the term "we." Bart is looking for excuses to reject Jesus. And the contradictions are imaginary.

@chrisazure1624 10 ай бұрын

I always struggled with this passage. It seems a little OT. But must check my behavior in light of the evidence.

@TestifyApologetics 10 ай бұрын

@chrisazure1624 10 ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Opps, Ananias and Sapphira. For some reason I always confuse the two.

@Idishrkdmd 10 ай бұрын

Really displays how these documents were crafted by a meticulous fraud these details show how planned out these epistles are.

@TestifyApologetics 10 ай бұрын

😂

@Pyr0Ben 4 ай бұрын

The scary thing is, I have no idea if you're joking

@greenshirtiv4n211 10 ай бұрын

Hey, some people take the theory Josephus and others were told by roman emperors to create the gospels. Could you make a video on that?

@greenshirtiv4n211 10 ай бұрын

Also, theres a small sect of people who believe the new testament was a contemporary account of the destruction of the second temple, with the day of resurrection being when you die. Im strongly in favour of this

@seanhogan6893 10 ай бұрын

I'm pretty sure that's also in the category of "The Big Lie".

@rafexrafexowski4754 10 ай бұрын

@@greenshirtiv4n211 Then it wouldn't make sense for them to include things like Paul's letters or the Book of Acts, and if Acts does not refer to the destruction of the Temple, the Gospel of Luke also does not, because they were written by the same author. And yeah, one of the most important Gospels not being part of this Temple metaphor is very bad for the theory, especially because John likely had a copy of Luke's Gospel. And don't even get me started on the fact that this would imply Jesus didn't exist (unless you have another explanation for that).

@signaltraditions 10 ай бұрын

Are you saying that because Paul is commending to the church in Rome "our sister Pheobe," that the tacit assumption is that she is being sent to Rome from the general vicinity where Paul is? At first I was having trouble tracking with why that necessarily meant Paul was writing from somewhere near Cenchreae...

@ЛаисЛ 8 ай бұрын

More than that, it's entirely logical to suppose that Phoebe was the one to deliver the letter to Romans...

@portalstoourpast6366 10 ай бұрын

2:10 I think you took the wrong interpretation of this passage. It seems far more likely that Sosthenes was Paul’s chief accuser, and having wasted the Romans’ time, was attacked for his actions. This is echoed in the commentaries of Gill, Poole, Brown, Barnes, etc., and is reflected in some ancient manuscripts that specifically identify them as Greeks. Logically speaking, if it were because of his association with Paul, they would’ve also attacked Paul himself. He was right there, no? And it is probably this attack that then later tempered Sosthenes’ pride and hatred of Paul, leading to his future conversion that we see in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. All this being said, your primary thesis of the greetings providing added evidence for authenticity is still sound even without Sosthenes being attacked for being a friend of Paul. Paul was still in danger there, being forcefully brought by Sosthenes and other Jews to a government official in order to persecute him. The danger Paul was in was still present. Had the proconsul ruled against him, that same mob may have attacked him instead. Thanks for this video, as it was incredibly intriguing and brought an even greater appreciation for the Bible to my heart!