Gospel Reliability: Secret Proofs in Jesus' Trial 

Yea and luke got alout of his gospel from paul so maybe

@@jasonplayz6861 Matthew and Luke are believed by some scholars as based on Mark. Mark is allegedly the first to have been written. John's gospel is not believed to be based on Mark.

@@derekardito2032 Why would the gospels have to be signed to be authentic writings of the persons who wrote them? Suppose they were signed, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There were, no doubt, many men by those names at that time. Not worth the paper they were written on? Well, for one thing, the gospels were passed orally before and after the four Gospel writers put them to paper.

That's nonsense. There are loads of proof even from his enemies.@@derekardito2032

@@derekardito2032 Jesus very much existed, Pretty sure most athiests agree that the man existed.... Idk what you're saying, there is proof of his existance

Man must've been so confused

This is why 109

Yeah.. but he was a coward that prefered democracy over justice.

@@rafaelacosta5724 Not so much democracy as a way to get himself out of a jam: Jerusalem was packed with pilgrims for Passover, who would be easily able to whip up into a religious frenzy considering they're already celebrating a festival about being liberated from their enemies. Pilate didn't have the resources to suppress a full-scale insurrection at Passover, and he was already on thin ice with Rome due to his reputation for provoking the Jews and his mentor recently having been executed for treason. Then, he hears and believes reports about Jesus being the Son of YHWH. Recognizing Jesus as at least a demigod, Pilate knows that Jesus could kill him easily if He were so inclined. Thus, Pilate tries to think up ways to resolve this situation peacefully, or failing that, to get Jesus to blame anybody but him for this mess, so that when the wrath of Jesus and/or His Father comes down, it won't be on Pilate. Naturally, the God of Israel sees through such sophistry, but Pilate is a pagan, reasoning as a pagan.

@@rafaelacosta5724 Yep, he knew what he should've done but still chose to go with mob mentality. Same as now.

Bro, your observation is genius! It makes a lot of sense. A real threat to Rome would be a someone like spartacus with a big slave army at hand, someone hard to catch Instead the Jewish authorities being a man armiless, richness, beaten up man and say to Rome: this guy is a threat And Rome be like: lol, a threat? You bunch of weaklings just beat him up and his supposed followers didn’t do a thing to protect him and you call him a threat to us, to all mighty Rome?

Hints at the Trinity (the tri-unity between the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit as each one is identified as God, speaks in the first person as God, and has attributes and can do things only God can do like being identified individually as being the eternal creator of the universe) are found throughout the Old Testament from Genesis 1:1 (which yes, hints at the Trinity) all the way through. For example: In Isaiah 43:13, Deuteronomy 32:39, and Psalm 95:6-8, God speaks in two of those and one is written about God. God's Holy Name is used so we know those are God speaking directly. In those passages, God says that HIS people are the sheep of HIS pasture and that HIS gives life and no one can snatch them out of HIS hand. In John 10:27-29, Jesus says that HIS sheep hear and know HIS voice and that HE gives them eternal life and that none can snatch them out of HIS hand and that none can snatch them out of the Father's hand. Then in verse 30 he says that he and the Father are one. John 10:30-33 says that the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus and he asked them, for what good work do you stone me? and they said not for good works, but for blasphemy, for you being a man claim to be God. The Old Testament and the New Testament are one continues story that all intertwines beautifully.

They're not in perfect harmony at all. They're clearly an increasingly fantastical series of literary constructions, as evidenced by Jesus being the not-at-all omnipotent adopted son of God in Mark vs the existent before time, part of the fabric of the universe Jesus in John

@@JohnM-cd4ou Oh yeah, the usual age old objection that has been debunked hundreds of times. Come back when you got something more exciting buddy.

@@manne8575 it hasn't been debunked at all. Nice try though. Jesus's power is limited in Mark by people not believing in him in his hometown. How does that square with Jesus of John, exactly?

@@JohnM-cd4ou It has literally been debunked and answered countless of times. You must quite literally have done zero research at all.

For example ?

​@@donnalambs9578One example is the prophet Jonah being mentioned in 2 kings 14:25.

How do we know that?

Absolutely right. Luke and John are explicit that they are written to sustain belief. The gospels just weren't written for modern historians.

What pun? I missed it.

I see it now, the actual text. Thought it was something he said.

I lost it at "happy new ear" just laughed till tears. I think the Lord would appreciate the humor, He gave us the ability to appreciate it.

4:04 no 1 remember it being a Roman Solider or Guard and not a high priest ?

Man, this went over my head as I was doing something else while listening

I totally agree with you

May I ask what was your experience ?

@@camelotenglishtuition6394 I was an athiest in my teens, and was a horrible person. Lied and stole any chance I could, and was doing stuff behind my family's back that I knew they wouldn't approve of. I was in the back yard, about half an acre of land with only a handful of trees on it, so pretty bare. I was right in the middle and was trying to meditate to find peace. Everything got so still for a moment, stiller than I've ever felt before or since and I heard an audible voice from in front of and above me say, "Tell them." I opened my eyes and there was no one anywhere around me. Didn't see a single person. I knew that was God who spoke to me and I broke down weeping. It took a couple months before I gained the courage to confess to my family what I was doing, and listening to that voice was the best decision I ever made. A few days later, my dad gave me his Bible and told me to actually read it (never read it for myself yet called it fairy tales for years). I was blown away by how beautiful the words of the New Testament was. Then, in wanting to be able to share my faith with people close to me, I began to actually study the text and the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, specifically the New Testament, and became convinced in that research that what we have today is accurate, and that the text actually teaches the Trinity. Thank you for asking.

@@camelotenglishtuition6394 The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit speak to each other and about each other like they are seperate people. There are passages where God speaks in the first person in the Old Testament, and Jesus will quote these in the first person about himself. He will claim things that are titles of God alone about himself and tells us he can not only hear our prayers but has the ability to answer them too. Psalm 95:7 - for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care. Today, if only you would hear his voice, Isaiah 43:13 - Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?” Deuteronomy 32:29 - “See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. Two of these are God speaking in the first person, one about God. John 10:27-30 Jesus speaking, - 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” It continues to 33 with the Jewish audience picking up stones to kill Jesus, he asks for what good works do you stone me, and they say not for good works, but you being a man make yourself out to be God. John 14:13-14 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. John 5:19-23 Jesus said that he does everything exactly as he see the Father does and does everything the Father does and that Jesus will be judge and the Father will judge no one. John 8, Jesus says that he saw Abraham and Abraham didn't try to kill him like the Jews were and Abraham was glad to see him. John 8:58, Jesus said that before Abraham was, I AM, which is what God told Moses his name was. John 1:1,14 Jesus is the Word who was there in the beginning with God, and who was God, who took on flesh and dwelt among us. A human being is what I am. trenititybrehm is who I am. God is what the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are. One God, who is three people. The only reason the Trinity exists is because scripture teaches that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus said, "Destroy this temple (meaning his body) and in three days, I will raise it up!" He did not say his Father would raise him, although the Father and the Holy Spirit are each explicitly given credit for raising Jesus. Isaiah 43:11, God said there is no savior besides him. Titus 3:6 Jesus is called our Saviour. John 6:46, Jesus says no one has seen the Father, yet Abraham spoke face to face with God in Genesis 18:19, Moses spoke face to face with God in Exodus 33:11 and Moses and the elders of Israel went up Mount Sinai and saw the God of Israel seated on a throne and ate with him. Jacob wrestled with God in Genesis 32:22-32. Jesus is the one who ascends and descends out of heaven and the appearances of God throughout the Old Testament is Jesus. This is why he said before Abraham was, I am in John 8:58 Gensis 19:24 "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens." When LORD is all caps it's using God's holy name in Hebrew, and Abraham was just pleading face to face with God to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Gen 19:24 says Yahweh rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah from Yahweh out of heaven. Jesus is the Yahweh who spoke to Abraham face to face and called sulfur and brimstone out of heaven from Yahweh the Father. Jesus is God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus IS the Messiah, friend. The Trinity is what scripture taught from the beginning because it is from the scripture that the idea of the tri-unity between the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being God teaches. Not something come up with later. Mark 1:1-4, the very first verses of the very first chapter of what is cited as the very first Gospel calls Jesus God. It refrences Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 where Yahweh says he will send his messanger who will be like a voice in the wilderness to make the way before he himself comes to his temple. Mark says John is that voice in the wilderness, making the way for Jesus. John 1:23 and Luke 3:4 also say the exact same things. In Mark 10:18, Jesus said,"Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." Meaning: "You call me good when only God is good, do you understand what you are calling me?" To further the point, Christ then lists the 6 commandments that relate to how people deal with each other and asks the man if he's followed those. The man says yes. Then, instead of listing the 4 commandments on how to relate to God and asking if he's followed those, Jesus tells the man, "Follow me," because following and worshiping Christ is following and worshiping God. In Mark Jesus heals the paralytic man, but first, he tells him your sins are forgiven. The Pharisees around thought in their hearts this was blasphemy, because only God can forgive sins. Jesus instantly know what they were thinking and called them out on it, and said to prove to you I can forgive sins, get up and walk and the paralytic could walk. Jesus proved he is God for only God can forgive sins, only God knows the hearts of men (Jerimiah 11:20 and 17:10), and only God can heal people. Jesus did all three IN MARK'S GOSPEL, which is often considered the oldest of the four. Read Hebrews 1:8-12. Old Testament scriptures are quoted that are talking about God creating the universe, and Hebrews 1:8-12 quotes them and attributes the Father calling Jesus God, the Lord who created the everything, who is eternal. Hebrews 1:10-12 Is directly quoting Psalm 102:25-27, where the Psalm is talkling about Yahweh (God) and Hebrews is talking about Jesus, the Son. Philippians 2:5-7 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. Isaiah 48:16 “Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit Have sent Me.” (God is speaking, saying he was there from the beginning, and that the Lord God and His Spirit sent him. The Trinity in the Old Testament.) These next passages are about the Holy Spirit being a seperate person from the Father and the Son, and also being God. John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 15:26-27 But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning. John 16:13-15 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. 2 Samuel 23:2-3 (David calling the Spirit God) “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue. 3 The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: ‘He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. Acts 5:3-4 (Peter calling the Spirit God) But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

@@camelotenglishtuition6394 We have the writing of the disciples of the Apostles and the disciples of those disciples, and they not only quote much of the New Testament, but all the core idea of Christianty are present. Jesus being God, the Son of God, dying for sins, burial, resurrection, ascension to heaven. We also have writing of Jewish and Pagan contemporary historians who were hostile towards Jesus, who say the same things : Jesus being worshipped as God, the Son of God, dying for on the cross, burial, resurrection. The archeology matches the Bible perfectly all the way from Genesis through the New Testament. It's mainly because of the archeology, "friendly" writers, and "hostile" writers mentioned above that the Jesus Seminar, who are PhD level ashiest/agnostics who study Christ and the Bible, concluded that Jesus really lived in Judea 2,000 years ago, was known as a miracle workers, died on the cross under Pilate, and that his disciples really believed they had seen him risen from the dead. The fact that there are contradictions between manuscripts is often sited as proof against trusting scripture, when it actually does the opposite. The fact that there are so many manuscripts makes it easy to tell when someone changed one, and modern Bibles are transparent about any differences in the footnotes. Over 5,000 manuscripts in the original Greek and 20,000 in other lanuages. None of those differences found between manuscripts change anything about any core doctrines of Christianity, they are mainly a handwriting error on a letter or a different way to word something that means the same thing. There is 99.5% accuracy between the manuscripts according to scholars. There is also all the undisigned coincidence between not only the four Gospels, but the rest of the New and Old Testaments too. Matthew 2:22 talks about Joseph not wanting to return to Judea after fleeing to Egypt because Archelaus was ruling. That's all the info on that the Bible gives. Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us about the things Archelaus did and how evil he was. Put these two peices of evidence together, we get the full picture. This sort of thing happens through the text with the seemingly useless details matching up perfectly with extra Biblical sources, lending to the credibility of the text. The Apostles willingness to be killed not for saying they believed Jesus had risen, but they knew he had risen, because they saw him. If the tomb wasn't empty, they would've paraded the body around to stomp out any idea of Jesus being ressurrected, but Christianty spread because there was no body in the tomb. If someone stole the body, why were nearly all the Apostles willing to be killed for saying they'd seen Jesus risen? They were thousands of miles away from one another before phones and the internet and were being threaten, tortured, and murdered for their claim. Not one "broke" and said it was a lie to save themselves. It's because of the evidence that I believe in Jesus.

this is a great example of how undesigned coincidences can be assembled by picking out a loose collection of datapoints across sources and just assuming a story that would tie them together if true

Interesting. How does the underlying Greek read for the account of Diogenes? Do you know? It seems like that would be important to know.

@@AnHebrewChild I do not know. I think there are several versions of the account. (But 380 years later and speaking off the cuff, I wouldn't expect Pilate to quote him exactly anyway.)

I don't think I would label these as undesigned coincidences

Theres just no evidence to link Pilates exclaimation with the Greek story. Saying Pilate ‘just would have know the story bc he was a Roman and probably well educated bc he held his office’ isnt evidence. Also the story and Jesus situation are unrelated.

😂😂😂 oh gosh. What a fucking joke. You honestly think that a the medivle forgery acts of Pilate, is historically reliable? Especially when it claims that Jesus was a white skin, blue eyed, golden hair man? 💀

These letters are most likely forgeries, read the Wikipedia article for "The Pilate cycle"

I already addressed that several videos ago

Skeptics usually prefer to attack on the basis that the gospels are so different that "it's basically a different Jesus" so they can't very well turn around and say "John read the synoptics really closely and tried to chime with them really well, to the point of filling in tiny gaps in the story". Those views contradict. So we have them in a catch 22. Either it's obviously a consistent Jesus in the four accounts or the complimentary differences prove these are eyewitness accounts of real events.

​@@rysloanoh they _absolutely can_ and often do. It's called a tea cup argument. When one throws every possible argument at the wall, even ones that are mutually contradictory, just looking for something to stick. And it's a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty

Or even that "John" was trying to reframe the narrative and needed to appeal to having an even greater insight than the other gospels. "Sure, you've heard Peter's perspective - but what about the disciple whom Jesus loved?"

@@seanhogan6893 thanks for the example.

I have that book but have yet to read it. No, these come from JJ Blunt and Lydia McGrew

@@TestifyApologetics could you include references to your sources in video descriptions? I know you're busier now but you have in the past and it feels an important part of being thorough.

​@@seanhogan6893doesn't he list the scriptures in the video?

I talked about this at the video in the endscreen

Or he was he just saw him as another Jewish present who was an esoteric mystic guy who bears no actually serious threat to the romans or himself. This idea of “oh Pilate for some reason realised that a poor Jewish Galilean peasant was somehow a divine binge from the Roman deity’s” is bullshit.

It was done in a public forum. It was a trial that many attended.

John 18:15Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard, 16but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in.

Jesus himself could have after the fact. He was on the earth for another forty days, though we don’t know everything he did and said then.

"Context indicates that it means, 'Yes'." Did Jesus tell Pilate "Yes" under His own initiative? Or did Pilate say it was so about Him?

@@Gutslinger Pilot asked Jesus if He is the King of the Jews. Jesus answered " You say so" In context Jesus's answer means YES Do you get it now?

​@@markhorton3994It sounds like He's saying that Pilate is saying it is so. In context...Jesus follows by saying that His kingdom is not of this world. If it were, His servants would be fighting so that He wouldn't be handed over to the Jews. Then He goes on to say that *"You say* correctly that I am *a* King." His original answer sounds more complex than a simple "Yes", given the full context of the conversation.

what do you know? you're a skeleton

"I am"

i don’t think that’s a sound argument: because this supposes 2 things: the pharisees would’ve wanted to tell to Pilate and that they would’ve tought Pilate would’ve believed them: i think both are unlikely: the first is because the jewish clergy wouldn’t have wanted to attribute healing powers to Jesus as they were accusing him of being a blasphemer: from the same narrative of Luke we read: 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven and giving the fact most scholars agree Luke was written after mark; and the synoptic problem. this is most likely a reference to Mark 3 that says: 22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” 23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” they wouldn’t have wanted to admit he had divine powers, if he had them. Other than this: this supposes that even if they said that to the roman authority they would’ve believed them: even if the men that went to arrest Jesus testified they had been attacked but had no scars (or in this case no ears missing) it would’ve been very unlikely the authorities would’ve believed them and just tought they were either crazy or corrupted (to make the case against Jesus worse).

@@danielesorbello619 the roman guards would be the ones who saw their guy get his ear cut off so they would be the source. but even your point about the pharisees not wanting to attribute magic to him, they already have an explanation that he's an evil sorcerer, this wouldn't really be a stumblingblock. this is what jews think about someone who does miracles but they think is a false prophet, it's in the torah. there's no teaching of "hey if you admit he does miracles that means you have to admit he's a true prophet" so this all works perfectly fine within their own framework jesus' response and reasoning there only applies to him casting out demons not healing an ear, but the text doesn't say that the Jews then agreed with him and proceeded to say "ok so we can't admit he's a sorcerer anymore" they would just make up some belief preserving thing to maintain the idea that he's a sorcerer and people shouldn't listen to him or take his miracles seriously this all misses the point though that even if john's story internally doesn't have the ear getting healed, Jesus would still be perfectly able to make that statement in response to the presentation of the bloody guy where he would say "Malchus hello do you remember when I also told Peter to cool it and turn myself in and stop swinging his sword? that has to do with what I am telling Pilate right now, about how my kingdom isn't of this world and that's why nobody's attacking the complex to try to free me"

@@danielesorbello619 i love it when i type a long reply and it disappears :) the point is that if they brought a bloody guy to Pilate Jesus would say "Malchus hello do you remember when I told Peter to stop doing that and turned myself in to be executed? it has to do with the point I am making to Pilate right now" and there would be no problem that needs to be solved by the detail in Luke's account also being true, because they're all tied to what actually happened. there's no question that needs to be answered by another interlocking testimony. so that was the main point, but also, they wouldn't have any problem with admitting that he does miracles, they think he's a sorcerer. mark doesnt say "and then they actually listened to what Jesus said about a house divided and updated their model about him going forward, shifting instead to miracle denial." they already have a framework to maintain their belief that he's a false prophet but also has supernatural powers.

@@Greyz174 “Yes, you're right about that but this is the only time he speaks. In the rest of the verses he stays silent which is inconsistent with how John presents what happened. These are obviously not descriptions of the same event. But they're supposed to be! This doesn't address the problem. I never said "he stays silent in one story but not the other." There is an obvious problem with the historicity of these narratives because they are so different from one another. Both cannot be a correct depiction of events.” i’m gonna respond to those at the same time: yes it does address the problem: because: in mark Pilate asks jesus if he claimed to be the king of the Jews and he responded briefly while the account in John is longer here. Then the witnesses make other accuses and Jesus doesn’t speak both in mark and John: there’s no contradiction between the two events because Jesus stays silent in different parts of the dialogue. “Or Mark's more accurate because he's earlier and John's account has been fictionalized....That's what it looks like anyway.” it is 5-8 verses longer. The purpose of undesigned coincidences and other arguments for the reliability of the gospels is to argue against this impression: the stories can both fit together and have an undesigned coincidence inside them.

@@danielesorbello619 i think that response was mistakenly for someone else in another thread, i didn't make those quotes and the subject matter doesn't relate to the ear chop one

Can you flesh out your last sentence a bit more? I guess it's unclear to me what you're saying there.

@@AnHebrewChild if John was written decades after the Synoptics then why does he have such deep and intimate knowledge of Luke and apparent obliviousness about Mark and Matthew? To put it another way, why do Luke and John have a source in common that neither of them shares with Matthew or Mark? This is a rather bizarre anomaly that the Two Source theory not only cannot explain but I'm not aware of even a single advocate of the theory that has attempted to explain it.

the same idea is in Mark, which is where Luke got it from

@@Michael-bk5nz Interesting. I guess my question tho is, what makes you say John is oblivious to M&M? Some would say that he is aware of the Markan & Matthean material due to things like Mk14:58 & Mt26:61 (in light of John 2:19) as well as due to explanatory statements which assume the reader's knowledge of traditional stories about Jesus. For a striking example, see John 11:2 (which has, it would seem, reference to Mt26:6-10 & Mk14:3-7 and NOT to Luke ch 7:37-47 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. *(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)* Therefore his sisters sent unto him... That statement above comes out of nowhere in John's account… In other words, it assumes the reader's knowledge of some event corresponding to it.

@@Greyz174 really? The gospel of Mark has John a and Peter rushing to the tomb with John arriving first? Mark has Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest? Where? These are details that are only in John and Luke, and there are several other things like this.

I get so many insincere questions so I have to ask, are you changing the subject away from this video, or do you really wanna know? Because there's a lot of videos on this platform on this very topic.

His guts spilled from botched suicide by tree 🌳

If you are the king it means you won the fight. Also Jesus told them not to use violence. He was expecting to be arrested.

I don’t know who the naked man was. Just seemed weird but it had to be one of the disciples 🤷‍♂️

That was probably Judas lol.

You guys really need to stop with the while reading Mark, added this detail, took this out. Could it explain a coincidence or 2? Maybe. Dozens? No.

​@@TestifyApologetics i explained the mechanism in my last paragraph, i wasnt under the impression that this type explanation only covers one of your examples and i have to come up with a completely different type of thing for each one of them

​@@Greyz174yes and I think the latent memory lemme fill a detail in and leave out others repeatedly just isn't a good explanation

@@TestifyApologetics isnt that what youre saying is happening on reportage? One witness says one thing and doesnt say another thing, and so do the others

“Mark already has Pilate not finding guilt in Jesus, because the perspective that Mark is giving is that the Jews put him on trial and Pilate is like "what why are you guys doing this what crime did he commit" and is wowed by Jesus' compliance with everything” the central poi t of your argumentation is that Pilate was wowed by Jesus’s compliance: i would ask from where do you derive this? the account of the trial from Mark 15:2-15 says: “2 Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus replied, “You have said it.” 3 Then the leading priests kept accusing him of many crimes, 4 and Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer them? What about all these charges they are bringing against you?” 5 But Jesus said nothing, much to Pilate’s surprise.” 6 Now it was the governor’s custom each year during the Passover celebration to release one prisoner-anyone the people requested. 7 One of the prisoners at that time was Barabbas, a revolutionary who had committed murder in an uprising. 8 The crowd went to Pilate and asked him to release a prisoner as usual. 9 “Would you like me to release to you this ‘King of the Jews’?” Pilate asked. 10 (For he realized by now that the leading priests had arrested Jesus out of envy.) 11 But at this point the leading priests stirred up the crowd to demand the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. 12 Pilate asked them, “Then what should I do with this man you call the king of the Jews?” 13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!” 14 “Why?” Pilate demanded. “What crime has he committed?” But the mob roared even louder, “Crucify him!” 15 So to pacify the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified. not only does he affirm he is the King of the jews but doesn’t respond to other accusations: this surprises Pilate but how do you derive that Pilate was surprised in a positive way and decided Jesus was without guilt? “Looks like he just did a quick job summarizing the idea of Mark, just like you would think he did a quick job summarizing the real events that actually happened that are in John. And we are all on the same page that Luke used Mark, so this is a pretty good explanation with uncontroversial presuppositions.” i don’t really understand what you are trying to say here so it’s likely i’m gonna give you a response that doesn’t really have anything to do with the point you are giving. First who is “he”? Luke? Then yeah i think it is reasonable he is summarizing Mark but Mark gives us the same problem: why would Pilate think he has no guilt if he hadn’t responded to any of the accuses and confirmed or alluded he declared himself as king? “Either way it's just an author having a bunch of background facts in his head from his sources (either from reading Mark, or eyewitness testimony) and then writing what comes out, because people casually write pieces of whats in their head whether or not they are eyewintesses, so this doesnt tell us that it's more likely eyewitness. Like I said in another comment some time ago, not being an eyewitness doesnt mean youre going to be really explicit and heavy handed about everything, both types authors will just have a set of background information in their head, and then they will write what pieces of that come out when it's time” i think you are missing the point of undesigned coincidences: the argument isn’t about proving the writers and scribes were eyewitness but that the content of these text are derived from eyewitness testimony. As you said:”and then writing what comes out, because people casually write pieces of whats in their head whether or not they are eyewintesses” even if i believe the process of writing was much more intricate and the scribes’s work was also to contribute to writing the text in the best way possible as second authors; i can agree with you that the authors didn’t obviously write it in extreme detail: and that’s the point of UCs, we don’t believe they were trying to cover up what the authors of previous gospels wrote: the argument simply points out that there are a lot of instances when these random pieces combine and explain each other.

Mark was a follower of Peter who was one of Jesus' closest disciples and Luke was a follower of Paul who was close to people who knew Jesus personally

You are wrong. And if you did any semblance of research you would find out just how wrong you are. Perhaps before spouting untruths on the internet you would do your research first.

@@zackk7501 Nah i'm 100% correct. Anyone can google it and see that. The Ethiopian bible is the oldest bible we have in existence and it contains near 30 more books in it than the canonical version. FYI "canonical" is a word in this context that actually means "approved by humans thinking they know better than God". The people who ripped apart the word of God should put it back and apologize. We have a right to God's word unabridged, edited, or mutilated.

@@zackk7501 The truth is that modern day organized religion thinks they can just do what the Jews did for thousands of years and shove God behind a veil. They cannot. Jesus Christ died and when he did the veil was torn down and God was freed and we all have access to God as a result. No organization, church, pastor or preacher required to commune and communicate directly with God.

I'm not a presupposionalist. I'm not coming to the text believing it's true to prove it true. I could always not choose to be a Christian if these evidences didn't hold weight, and the evidence was against Christianity. It's best to attack the argument. This is just ad hom fallacy. Show me where I've gone wrong.

you trying to examine my head and motives doesn't say anything about the argument itself

@@TestifyApologetics I was referring to the argument

If it's God's word, and he's the God of all truth, then why can't his word be held to scrutiny? Didn't the apostles preach about what they were witnesses to, and that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, which is publicly available data? Evidence is nothing to be afraid of, it's our ally in apologetics and evangelism. Second, I never said that they aren't designed to bring us close to God. You're making up a false dilemma here.

It's not God's words though! It written by men who are fallible and are easily scrutinized. That scrutiny doesn't negate the universal truths that Jesus brought to us. It is his beautiful and God inspired stories that bring us close to God which is the real purpose of it all. Each gospel has a different take on certain aspects of the story line to some degree. They can be scrutinized at a certain level, but not at how close Christ's example and stories bring us closer to God, the Universe, or whatever you want to call that energy, that some people believe in and other's don't. No matter what, if we all were as Christ was, it would be a much better world.

I am not a Christian, but this idea of the Bible being "rewritten many times" is not true. There are certain things that were added in later (the ending of Mark, the story of the woman taken in adultery, and the KJV version of 1 John 5:7), but the Bible was not made like a game of telephone where everything was retold from person to person and got changed over time, this is a misconception. I'm pretty sure the majority of the text (New Testament at least) is believed by most scholars to be almost the same as (or at least significantly similar to) the original autographs. This doesn't make them true, but I just thought I would point it out

Midwit response @@AnakinGuyChopper

@@shrippie-4214 Bro what 😂 Just insult me for no reason and don't respond to a single thing I said then I guess lol, that's clearly what God wants