Undesigned Coincidences - Dr. Lydia McGrew

Рет қаралды 10,965

Ratio Christi WMU

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 60

@imageinkdesign 7 жыл бұрын

An example of a scholar's curiosity that results in a gift to us all.

@rationalsceptic7634 Жыл бұрын

There are no undesigned Coincidences in the Bible Thus lady doesn't do History but Apologetics

@Ben94729 Ай бұрын

@@rationalsceptic7634there are you are just ignorant of the facts and arguments, do double-checking before you speak.

@joelrodriguez1232 6 жыл бұрын

This is an awesome gift. This argument is so useful argument. I am so happy that Dr. Mcgrew brought it back. FF Bruce and others highly benefited from this, and this is a great tool for comparing the gospels in a fair way.

@rationalsceptic7634 Жыл бұрын

There are no undesigned Coincidences in the Bible Thus lady doesn't do History but Apologetics

@joshuavan8391 6 жыл бұрын

Loved this video. Also I love how at the very beginning of the video she said we haven’t gone back in time even though she looks exactly like Sarah Conner 😂

@basilrex4105 7 жыл бұрын

Dr Lydia McGrew is a first rate apologist. I wish to offer her a bowl of special alphabet soup i.e. may the blessings of the Lord from A to Z nourish her life.

@rationalsceptic7634 Жыл бұрын

There are no undesigned Coincidences in the Bible Thus lady doesn't do History but Apologetics

@josephthistle7026 4 жыл бұрын

Im surprised over 1 million viewers are not viewing this frank turek mentioned this or id not know about it

@passiveincome905 4 жыл бұрын

Impressive.

@rationalsceptic7634 Жыл бұрын

There are no undesigned Coincidences in the Bible Thus lady doesn't do History but Apologetics

@dfgfdsfsdfsdfds5349 3 жыл бұрын

there are also undesigned coincidences between the new testament greco roman history and the talmud and joespheus

@rationalsceptic7634 Жыл бұрын

There are no undesigned Coincidences in the Bible Thus lady doesn't do History but Apologetics

@SR-zu9pn 2 ай бұрын

To deny the thematic writing style - yes - of what is being reported is to not be familiar with how the ancients wrote. Of course the four gospels tell the collective story, but the richest of rich themes are not realized. :(

@mytwocents7481 2 жыл бұрын

In John 21, McGrew sees a close connection between "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" and Matthew 26:33 “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” But the connection is not that striking. While devoting lots of analysis to it, she casually ignores the much bigger questions about John 21. Why would only John choose to share this long, detailed story of the risen Jesus? Why does this appearance, which John officially labels as the third appearance, sound more like a first appearance?

@josiaseverett5677 Жыл бұрын

John pretty much answers that himself when he says that a written account of all the things that Jesus did would fill all the libraries in the world. He wrote about those things he found most important. And that's true for the other gospels as well. We cant just presume that something mentioned by only one of the gospels is untrue.

@mytwocents7481 Жыл бұрын

@@josiaseverett5677 "He wrote about those things he found most important. And that's true for the other gospels as well." So that's your explanation for why Matthew didn't report the discussion that Jesus has with Peter in John 21. That passage is sometimes described as the "restoration" of Peter. Peter denied knowing Jesus three times and Jesus gives Peter three chances to renew his loyalty. And Matthew doesn't mention it because he didn't find it important? That's surprising because Matthew pays more attention to Peter than other writers. He's the only gospel writer who records that Peter walked on the water with Jesus. He's also the only gospel writer who records Jesus saying that Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his church. But when Jesus has a one-on-one chat with Peter and brings him back into the fold, Matthew decides that's not worth sharing? Since it's not important? Do you also think Matthew considered the Ascension unimportant? Do you think Matthew considered Jesus' promises regarding Pentecost unimportant? Matthew skips that stuff too.

@MsJohnnythunder 4 жыл бұрын

What about the many contradicting details? Like in the death, resurrection and appearances of Jesus. I tried to harmonize the stories, but they just seem to be too different. Just try to reconstruct what Jesus actually said to who and in what order after he got out of the tomb. It just doesn't make any sense. I'd rather be wrong, but it just doesn't seem like it can be done. I hope I'll come around eventually and figure it out.

@tieskedh 3 жыл бұрын

Can you give such an example that is still bothering you? In most of the times it's just something left away... Dont forget that Jesus was teaching 3 years and when you read a gospel it's around 2 hours 30. A lot is left away, but to understand the message we don't need to know.

@sathviksidd 3 жыл бұрын

Well, the crucifixion and resurrection appearances are stretched over multiple days, so there's a lot of data to report, so it may not be fruitful to construct one long detailed chronological report. It's much better to focus on specific details which appear to contradict and then weigh the most probable options. Most of what I'm aware of boil down to reconcilable variations. Inspiringphilosophy's playlist supposed Bible contradictions is a great help

@japexican007 2 жыл бұрын

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZ6XdYqkeZxliqc

@michaelbrickley2443 Жыл бұрын

He used flawed man to communicate His Truth. He used His Son to pay the debt.

@nobs4898 5 жыл бұрын

The problem is the criteria of what counts as an "undesigned coincidence" is so vaguely broad that you can just find them anywhere. The criteria is not well defined in the first place. An example from the Gospels that Lydia would accept is comparing Mt. 4:21 and Lk. 5:6. Mt. 4:21 _"As he went from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John, in the boat with their father Zebedee, *mending their nets*, and he called them."_ Lk. 5:6 _"When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to break."_ Luke explains why the nets were being mended - an undesigned coincidence. But now compare Jn. 2:15 to Mk. 11:16. Jn. 2:15 _"So he _*_made a whip out of cords,_*_ and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables."_ Mk. 11:15-16 _"Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts."_ John explains that he used a "whip of cords" to drive the people out and not allow them to carry anything in the Temple. The problem is Lydia would not accept this "undesigned coincidence" because she thinks Mark and John are describing *two separate events.* She thinks Jesus cleansed the Temple twice and that's why it's found at the beginning of John and at the end of the synoptics. Otherwise, she'd have to argue that John moved the cleansing of the Temple to the beginning of Jesus' ministry, thus, showing this "undesigned coincidence" is actually just a fictional narrative device which is not the desirable outcome she would prefer for her hypothesis. So if we can find "undesigned coincidences" in the gospels which are indistinguishable from fictional literary devices then I think that's enough to question the methodology altogether.

@seekeroftruth2747 4 жыл бұрын

undesigned coincidences are just corroborative evidences for reliability of gospels. and this methodology is done by historians, and even homicidal detectives. and how does your reply above,even disprove the methodology??

@nobs4898 4 жыл бұрын

@@seekeroftruth2747 Done by historians? Ok, which ones?

@seekeroftruth2747 4 жыл бұрын

@@nobs4898 would you mind answering my question too? Anyways, I don't know names of historians exactly, but very sure criminal case detectives use it.. so anyways the methodology is working.. so go on, tell me why you reply has anything to do with questioning the methodology..

@nobs4898 4 жыл бұрын

@@seekeroftruth2747 Ok so no historians you know of use this. Also, a detective case is irrelevant because they use physical forensic evidence. Sorry, but until this is shown to be an actual methodology used for other historical sources then I fail to see why we should take it seriously.

@seekeroftruth2747 4 жыл бұрын

@@nobs4898 lol..different witness statements with undesigned coincidences is different from statements of these gospel authors? seems to me like your using "irrelevance" as a cop out... and even cold case detectives use statements made before 30 or 40 yrs by witness who are dead now, look for reliability using such techniques. And there is even a department called forensic statement analysis which uses these techniques in very very old cases.. i think your ignorance is profound when you said, you didnt know anyone who uses this method in real life.. anyways, i suggest you to read some books by authors who have worked on forensics..eg cold case christianity by j waner wallace, or forensic faith book by him.. but you can also read books on forensic statement analysis on cold cases..