Skeptics Look for ERRORS in the Gospels, Look Foolish 

They will never critique anything as hard as the Bible because they don't want it to be true. If the gospels get details correct, it doesn't matter. But if they get something wrong, it must mean it's all bunk.

@@ButConsiderThis indoctrination? Skeptics have been going crazy saying places and events mentioned in the bible werent true or never existed... Every time pproven wrong. Try harder

@@redknight8215 I'm sure if they live in India or something, they'll critique the local Hindu texts more then the Bible. Justl ike how apostate Muslims criticize the religion of Islam a lot. You criticize most what you are most familiar with.

too funny

Jews were performing a bunch of other stuff that was not in the law of Moses around that time because they believed "cleanliness was next to godliness" man made traditions so washing their hands is definitely not so far-fetched at all.

Anyone can write this garbage.

very true anyone can be accepted by Christ, even you. Please don’t disrespect your neighbour in such a way. If you have an argument make it if not then don’t make yourself look foolish by posting this kind of pointless nonsense.

@@MrCmon113 God loves you and wants a relationship with you. He doesnt love your sin though and because we sin we are spiritually seperated from God but God did something amazing. For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in him would never perish but have everlasting life. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came as God in the flesh. He lived a perfect sinless life. He taught people who to live and treat others. He was hated and was crucified and died on a cross for your sins, was buried and was resurrected on the 3rd day. We cant die for our own sins because we are not good people and needed a perfect sacrifice,in our place. Gods standard is perfection. Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself and to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Us as humans are selfesh and rather love ourselves and the things that benefit us. Jesus said if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out. He also taught that hating someone in your heart is murdering them in Gods eyes and that lusting after someone is commiting adultery. Jesus loves you very much and can give you peace, love and joy. He can deliver you from addictions, suicidal thoughts and depression just like he did me. Repentance must be made though which is changing our mind and turning away from sin and changing the way we are going. We must be remorseful for sinning against a just and holy God who loves us and gave his life for us and was beaten, spit on and mocked so we can forgiven of our sins. Cry out to Jesus to forgive you of your sins confess Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and you will be saved from Hell and be given Holy Spirit to dwell inside you and help you life a holy life.

​​@@peepmmm8995 no he's talking about the fact many Christians use the " i was an atheist once" card when in fact they never were

@@MrCmon113​​⁠​⁠how are you gonna know his life story? I swear you people always carry so much hate and negativity In your heart, let it go

Soon it will we don’t know how many hairs david had .

@@Lurkingdolphin Not to mention we have record of one of a pagan king 300 years after David conquering most of Israel reporting that he was fighting a dynastic decedent of David and conquered only up to the second biggest city in Israel. (which clearly suggests for some odd reason he wasn't able to conquer Jerusalem, I wonder...)

To be fair, I also believe in king Arthur.

Can you give a citation for that Jerusalem one? I'd like to read that.

What's your argument here? Following the actual evidence is bad? The OT is still totally wrong about a myriad of things and the authorship of texts is complete bollocks.

Not many other books make such extraordinary claims or have such a massive cultural importance.

@@ratthechicken Lots of ancient books claim that miracles happened. And there are some which seem to have a similar frequency of miracles as the gospels. And the cultural importance of a work is not a good reason to treat it significantly mroe sceptically than any other comparable work.

not many other books are taken seriously and have thier claims tested as much ​@@ratthechicken

We have the original Greek manuscripts dating back to 130 AC even! It's astonishing!

@@ratthechicken got it, double standards are okay when they get you out of admitting that Christ is Lord.

and over and over critics have alleged that certain Bible facts are false only for archeology to eventually uncover evidence to support. It's happened so often that I know we just have to wait awhile and evidence will be found. I have a feeling some bombshell archaeology will be coming in the next 5 years. The time seems right for it.

@@onlylettersand0to9 You mean like Pilate having it written on Jesus cross in three different languages "The King of the Jews"?

​​@@onlylettersand0to9Moses we don't have direct archeological evidence for, yet. But the others. There's at least one site that might he Noah's ark, the rubble from Jericho's walls are still there, we have multiple foreign sources that mention the house of David, including that of the Assyrian King who went up against Hezekiah. Also, Pilate only caved because the Jews threatened to accuse him of treason.

​@@christiancrusader9374nono, the archeological evidence for David was a conspiracy between the Israelites and their worst enemies, so that when they invented David 400 years later they would have a challenging puzzle for 21st century scholars

No. The Taylor Prism contradicts the story that an angel killed 185,000 Assyrian troops overnight. It relates how Hezekiah paid tribute to Sennacherib and he went away and carried on another campaign.

@@michaelsbeverly And honestly every single ex Christian atheist just makes similar if not the same faulty arguments that Erik has disproven in the video.

@@michaelsbeverly When atheists attack the bible they always ignore context; historical, cultural, textual. 1, Take one verse to interpret it the way you want and ignore the surrounding context. 2, only read the modern English translation and ignore the original language it was written in. 3, if a verse sounds goofy/evil/illogical, ignore the cultural or historical context behind the phrase. 4, if a bible passage SEEMINGLY contradicts an ancient historian who wrote on the same subject the bible author mentioned, ignore the possibility that the historian may be wrong or there’s more underlying beneath the surface waiting to be unearthed. 5, if a bible passage mentions a subject and the bible is the only source for the said subject, always assume the subject must be something made up that never happened/existed because something can only be a historical fact if it is mentioned by an extra biblical source (this strict and rigid historicity criteria only applies to the bible and of course no other text in history). 6, always assume the bible is guilty until proven innocent. Even if the bible was proven innocent just ignore it pretend it never was proven innocent and keep insisting on the faulty argument until it universally gets acknowledged as faulty.

michael is banging the bandwagon drum again....

There are skeptics that turned to Christians. Ex-Christians and Ex-Sceptics are alot. Lee Strobel and CS Lewis are probably the most widely known. Also there are others like Anthony Flew Rosalind Picard Given this the understanding the bible correctly while considering the historical background and the person of Jesus is a great way to remain Christians and turn people into Christians as its a great case in defense of it.

Say what you want to about Strobel but stay out of his personal life, plz

Also it shows that Bart doesn't know Jewish history and doesn't care to research it. I mean going back hundreds of years to Exodus and Leviticus to point out that scripture didn't require handwashing for average Jews entirely misses the point. The Gospel writers had access to the Septuagint and would have been able to read these passages for themselves. If they were fakers you'd at least expect them NOT to claim that average 1st century Jews washed their hands.

@@derrickbonsell Additionally, in Mark 7, Jesus quotes Isaiah specifically to criticize the Pharisees for "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men," such as the washings and the example that He gives of Corban. His criticism would be consistent with not finding those types of washings (applying to all at least) in the Old Testament laws and statutes. That seems obvious, right? Or am I missing something?

Hey so I'm an orthodox Rabbi. Bart Ehrman is right actually. hand washing was instituted in Yavneh. Over 40 years after the death of Jesus. Conclusive proof that Mark is a lier.

@@jacquesalbert8942 I think you're right. That sort of thing was how I read that verse about the hand washing too.

What Jews do today isn't evidence of what Jews did in the first century. A steelman version of his argument on this point would be that Jewish hand-washing traditions only began after the New Testament period.

Your name is Daniel too. It can't be a coincidence!

how many jesuses are there??

More proof the Bible is fake. Daniel didn't write the Book of Daniel because Daniel is right here in the comment section.

@@SDsc0rch well, the name Jesus derived from Yeshua, which is a different spelling of the names Jeshua and Joshua, of which there were multiple prominent holders of those names. Joshua for whom the book was named, Joshua/Jeshua, first high priest of post-exile Jerusalem.

three! if you also include the patriarchal 'daniel' meantioned by Ezekiel that if he was in the land he would only deliver his own soul.

I laughed out loud at the Bart Ehrman one. Also that he didn't use his name

Well you see, spiderman is a book and the bible is a book therefore spiderman is real christanity = destroyed

He will forever be enshrined as spooderman.

At least no one was ever enslaved or murdered by spiderman followers.

​@@MrCmon113hitler was a spiderman fan

Can you explain to me how this should make sense? Then, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the document universally? I don't see this ending well.

Absolutely not. I don't even know wtf that's supposed to mean. When an ancient text says "he became a wolf and ate their children", a critical scholar doesn't simply assume that the guy actually turned into a wolf. That's not even on the table. The questions are whether people believed that and when and where and what other stories it might be inspired by and what it tells us about their culture and so on.

@ButConsiderThis The same can be said about yourself, except I read about other religions and atheistic philosophy, both of which I doubt you do, considering you come straight with an ignorant accusation. Not only that, you claim that your channel is for reasonable discussion, yet you begin with ad hominem and mud-slinging. Your channel shows how much you dislike other RU-vidrs; however, you never have the galls to debate any of them. You just react to them.

I liked the part where you proved the guy you insulted right.

You mean they don't bend over backwards to make excuses for your religion, but instead draw plausible conclusions.

Your source is, I MADE IT UP!

I don't know if Testify has done a video on this, but can we please get a longer form video on the abuse of non-existent source in biblical scholarship? The idea that for an argument you can use a document that only exist as a theory and CITE THAT THEORETICAL DOCCUMENT AS A SOURCE is absolutely insane. Theoretically God exist, Do I now get to cite my divine revelations for the sake of argument? Obviously not, if someone did that they would be rightfully laughed out of the room. Apparently however critics can do what is essentially atheist divine revaluation and nobody seems to bat an eye? Maybe I'm just an uppity person but that seems like some minimum scholarship basic stuff we should be enforcing even if atheist scholars outnumber Christian scholars. At the very least we should be responding to their arguments in kind "Well actually Q says Jesus is God and he claimed to be God" next time Ehrman tries to say Q never mentioned Jesus as God.

The gospels contradict each other and show evolution over time. I don't think you've listened to Bart or ANY non apologist on the topic.

@@MrCmon113 except "contradictions" have been largely answered, as for the supposed evolution of the gospels that has been refuted many times. It only works when you cherry pick the gospels.

He could probably find a way to use the gospel of Thomas to prove that Christian doctrine is rubbish.

Exactly! It's like every time they see this the either miss the point completely or they move the goalposts when met with evidence that the Gospels are historically accurate.

​@@Mike00513Likewise, Christians should take it on the chin when things go against their worldview. Given, most people I've seen here do that, which I respect, but this should be encouraged more in the wider circle. Getting things wrong is a learning opportunity.

​@@Boundless_BorderThe Bible is only known to be inerrant through the church's teachings. The Gospels don't need to be of divine inspiration to provide an agnostic with sufficient evidence that miracles happened at the hands of Jesus of Nazareth

​@@Boundless_Border it's not a tangent..it's not a complete argument.. it's supporting evidence. However there is rarely if ever concession made to christians.. but this is simple. If i was accused of a crime and brought to court and said i was in paris at the time, me being able to point out my hotel or specific street details on the day of the incident may not be sufficient to prove the argument that i'm innocent. But it certainly would be taken into account as making it more likely that i was. This is only doubled by the fact that traveling took long arduous journeys during the time of the apostles a journey of many days which might take hours today. And many things were only recorded locally or difficult to find. So it makes it even less likely. Again many of these things changed in following years. He's simply proving historical accuracy in many points which makes the others more likely in the same way you would with josephus or any other writer. If i dont make pressupositions that the historian is trying to write in an objective style then i have to bring evdence that supports historical accuracy. Notice, his arguments deal with likelyhood. The more little things that make sense, the more likely its correct, even if it doesn't "prove" anything by itself. The same is true for athiests. proving a man made a mistake in matthew wouldnt prove that matthew is a lie. Even many mistakes doesnt prove that specifically things like the crucifixion are untrue.. but it would add to that argument. So just reverse the reasoning. If there are mostly facts and a couple mistakes its good supporting evidence for a larger argument.

@@Boundless_Border you can't verify all the claims of the Bible, the best you can do is to double check the few claims that can be verified to convince yourself that it's a set of reliable books. Through natural means you can't go any better than "reliable, with no claim that is decisively false". That is enough to prove the miracle claims in the Gospels are sufficient evidence to believe in the fact these miracles happened.

I address the census here. I'm sure I'll address it more in the future too ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3kmEQIbpP58.html

I think the common apologetic argument about Quirinius is wrong, but so are the critical scholars. The passage in Luke is exceptionally awkwardly written, especially by Luke's standards. There is *no* way of reading it that makes complete sense. The best way to interpret it is to mean "before Quirinius was governor" rather than "while Quirinius was governor." This makes sense as it now contrasts with the parallel passage in Acts 5.

What Jewish custom? What are you on about. Also how do you know they weren't? At first theyw ould have been insignificant. Then theyw ould have started burning the writings of their opponents.

Realistically any rational person will give benefit of the doubt to the document’s claims (which as you mention, would have been called out as patent nonsense at the time if it didn’t make sense to the population of 1st century Judea.) Who is more likely to be correct? The one who lived and wrote in the era, had an integral understanding of the social dynamic and politics, or people trying to parse details 2000 years later? Add in that there could well be some copyist errors, translation confusion muddling our reading of this minor historical passage, and it’s pretty clear the fault lies with us rather than the Gospel author being full of it.

Thanks for the kind words. I have discussed it here in an older video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3kmEQIbpP58.html I will probably cover it again with the new style sometime.

No one believes that BS.

You mean the contradictions in the texts that make up the core of your religion? The clear signs that claimed authors weren't the authors? You continue to harm others based on biblical texts having special authority.

​@@MrCmon113 What "harm" is being done based on the Bible?

​@@GoofyAhOklahomaAmerican religious rights trying to ban abortion and kill the gays because the bible says so in Leviticus 20:13

Ah yes, because referring to an area by its modern name is crazy behaviour. Same as talking about ancient Japanese people. No, they were from Yamato or Wa, not Japan/Nippon/Nihon because Japan/Nippon/Nihon was not the name of that area yet. Lunacy.

@@JuhoPurola thanks for the false equivalency. But Judea is no where near Palestine (Japan / Nippon) Jews lived there at the time of Jesus and it’s my understanding that NO OTHER NATION have ever lived in Japan / Nippon Again thanks but you need to understand before you write

@@One_voice369 You’re the one in need of a history lesson. Judea is entirely within the area of what is and was considered to be Palestine for a over a century. Now, whether to call it Palestine or Israel in modern day is a different thing, but for a good part of the last century and before it was Palestine. And there have been multiple ancient nations in Japan, even more if you count the revolutions and shogunates.

@@JuhoPurola so which nation lived in Japan besides the Japanese ? Was it the Russians or the Chinese? Or am I missing a nation? Please do tell Like I said, Jews have always lived in Judea as Mark says. So you are putting up a false equivalency

@@JuhoPurola “Judea is within the area of Palestine” No it’s not. It was called “Syria-Palaestina” (NOT PALESTINE) in 133 AD by the Romans look it up

More like "where is Palestine?"

Consistent with most ancient historians. There is no harm in using the literary skills at your disposal to spread your message in a clear and concise way.

read Lydia McGrew's The Mirror or the Mask. Mike's an good guy, but I think he's wrong about what Greco-Roman historians did (or at least broadly wrong) and he's wrong about what kind of authors the gospel writers are.

do you post this on every video?

Oh boy, here comes some credentialism. Golly, if you can’t read Greek, you should shut up and listen to the experts. When are you gonna start addressing arguments instead of… oh, I don’t know, people’s motives or supposed lack of expertise when you haven’t even read what she’s said? And I mean why would biblical studies need help from an expert epistemologist when they got their act so together?

@@TestifyApologetics only those with credentials that are critical to the Bible are "objective," so they say.

Jesus is born. Because of the census, all the extended family is in the house (the word translated in is actually staying place. Judea had no inns at this point in history, so your staying place was with family), so Mary gives birth in a stable. Once the family members go home, she and Joseph move into the house because it would not be safe to travel with a newborn and they have dedication and purity laws to fulfill. 8 days in they circumcise Jesus at the temple. At least 33 days after the dedication (to fulfill Mary's required purity sacrifice of two doves) the wisemen come and Joseph gets the dream to flee to Egypt. When they come back from Egypt, Joseph likely hears that Caesar is building Caesarea and is looking for carpenters (and hearing Herod's son was now ruling in Judea, and having met all the requirements of the law for Jesus' birth) he chooses to avoid Judea and return to Galilee, to Nazareth which is a nearby labor town for Caesarea. Hope that helps the niggling.

@@b_korthuis Thanks for the answer, but no it doesn’t help. I knew all of what you wrote, because I have studied the Bible quite enthusiastically for a few years. I’ve been a Christian all of my life, but that doesn’t help explain the paradox of the 2 passages in Matthew and Luke, which appear to be in direct contraction to each other. Beyond that, obviously the onslaught of all of the hound boys in Bethlehem would appear to be an awful carnage, which Mary would only know 2nd hand, however she obviously told Luke about it. As to whether Josephus or anyone else wrote about it, I don’t know. However if they went directly north after the circumcision then it would not have happened at all. I trust you can possibly see the reason for my question.

Its because Bart fans are almost as insane as LF are against Calvinists.

It's an internet thing.

As well as the origin of the Israelite nation. And the origin of El, the Israelite God. And the gods surrounding

yeah it was a scholarly consensus that the Pool of Siloam was not where the Bible describes it and that David was a legendary figure. Scholarly consensus claimed that Luke referred to locations that never existed. Until Archaeologist found all that was true.

Congratulations!! I’m so happy you decided to find the true way!

I've addressed this already here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3kmEQIbpP58.html

@@TestifyApologetics I have left a response in that video. You have so many mistakes.

Disregarding anything else, what historical source do you have to say it happened 6 AD? Why do you consider it ironclad and certain?

@@johnnylollard7892 The source is Josephus. There are also coins issued by Quirinius as governor of Syria, dated 5/6 AD, which confirm this position.

no, I really didn't make the mistakes you claim. put the red pen down or maybe make a response video

If I'm being sloppy then why did Ehrman correct himself over the issue in a blog post when presented with the info ? ehrmanblog.org/dont-trust-what-you-read/

​@@TestifyApologetics Thanks man, you do excellent work But these guys must fulfill the scriptures in their unbelief If you know what I mean.😉

Water. Water is in common. Cleaning is in common. Come now.

@@logicianbones I don't doubt people washed their hands. But do YOU wash your hands in a bathtub? Of course not. And neither did the Hebrews. So evidence that there were ritual baths in a few places in the area does NOT provide any data on the question of whether they washed their hands before eating.

The baths were for ritual cleanliness, and being ritually clean before eating was a common practice. Are you suggesting that they would take the time to bathe, but not wash their hands? Especially considering the scarcity of clean water in ancient Judea, it makes sense that they would at least wash their hands if they didn't have the time or means to bathe.

Mate, it’s not listed yet because he hasn’t listed them yet. It’s all good. Free early access.

Where's the evidence they were not?

​@@christophertaylor9100you prove it, burden of proof is on you.

You mean this episode? And, behold, men brought in a bed a paralytic man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling... - What's the critic's criticism of this one?

@@AnHebrewChild the problem is 'through the tiles', since according to archaeology, tiles weren't used there in that time, but rather in Antioch

@@nukeplatine ok, got it. thanks.

Dude, no. I'm an orthodox Rabbi and hand washing before eating BREAD!* came about in Yavneh. That is after 70 CE. Meaning if that event actually happened, all Jesus had to say is hold on, since when do we have to wash our hands? This isn't tahor? And if you say that Jesus didn't keep taharah, then he wouldn't have been given tahor produce but tamei. We had a certification process. Because Jesus didn't point out that it wouldn't have been tahor food and thus he didn't have to wash his hands we know that Mark isn't refering to that. (He also could have said my hands are tahor, I don't need to wash or any number of excuses. I am not an expert on taharah however.) This therefore mean that Mark went out and saw us Jews washing our hands before bread. He then thought it was silly and put it in his gospel. A historical error and dates Mark to probably around 75 CE. Finally imposed? Tell me you are completely ignorant without saying such. Are you not aware that the elders were instituted by the Almighty? My opinion of christians dips ever lower.

@@walleras Deuteronomy 18 says God was going to send a prophet like Moses and that anyone who refused to hear him would be removed from the rolls of Abrahams seed. Jesus was and is that prophet. If you haven't bowed your knee to him... Your opinion doesn't matter to God or me.

@@johngregory4801 Christianity doesn't hold Jesus as a prophet. You hold that he is god chvs. Ergo he cannot be the prophet like Moses. It is also said that in Deuteronomy 13 if a prophet says to worship another god that your father did not know even if he gives signs he isn't from Hashem. Hashem is merely testing us. As a matter of fact my fathers did not mention Jesus. Ergo he cannot be the prophet like Moses. Scripture condemns him. As it is written, "Do not fear him." Uhhh who is the prophet like Moses. Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, around 1.2 million men and women actually.

@@walleras Shows how little you know. He walked as a prophet and the Son of God. When John Baptist was asked if he was the prophet Moses spoke of, John pointed to the one he came to introduce, Jesus, who was also the King that Father God so happily told Israel of is Psalm 45. He also came as the Lamb of God Zechariah prophesied of in 11:10-11, Beauty, who was sacrificed by God "to break the covenant he made with the people". Your understanding of the New Testament is typical in its ostentatious refusal to understand what God prophesied about the Messiah who was to come.

@@johngregory4801 How in the world can you be a prophet and god at the same time. That is impossible. Ohhhh god can do anything. Well he cannot simultaneously be not god and god. The definition of a prophet is one who experiences prophecy which is a certain awareness of the Almighty where He can give you messages. Now it is quite impossible for someone who is god to reach this state. Much like it is impossible for me to be a messenger for myself. I am myself. Patently ridiculous. Zechariah 11:10 is about the annauling of the covenant between the Almighty and the goyim. Not sure how that helps your Jesus guy at all. Psalms 45 cannot be about Jesus because well, none of that has happened. Where is his throne? Same place Shabtae tzvi. Ohhh second coming. Then don't bother my dude. Ngl I could see this Psalm applying to King Solomon. Afterall, it fits him more then Jesus. It is amazing how you christians accuse us Jews of ignoring prophecies yet it is you that ignore them by proclaiming a second coming which the scripture is silent upon. Let us make a compromise. If Jesus comes and fulfills Zechariah 9 and Isaiah 2, Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 14, etc etc, then I will become a Christian. Until then seeing as how we have unfulfilled prophecies, why don't you come and embrace Torah?

ok thanks for letting me know

yes

"Skeptics" are just scholars and historians. Your religion is at odds with all knowledge and science, not just history and archeology. That's not the fault of scholars or scientists.

Archaeology and facts roving people wrong is not confirmation bias. Its only valid critique if its done in good faith in an attempt to improve, not disprove and attack

@@christophertaylor9100 In scholarship, everybody is trying to disprove your hypothesis. And that is normal. Good ideas are not proven right but fail to be proven wrong. You are too enamored of the hypothesis if you interpret that as an attack in bad faith.

@@gergelymagyarosi9285 good faith scholarship would be done using basic proper literary criticism, which almost never takes place in this kind of skepticism.

@@christophertaylor9100 My experience is the polar opposite, but I get where you're coming from. Assuming the conclusion beforehand and looking for evidence to reinforce that is not a reliable path to truth.

Let's be honest. Some people would still reject it even then. A lot of people in this world are closed-minded to the possibility.

@@darkwolf7740 Even when? Which situation? For the record, I am just upset that people use clickbait that is too far from reality. Christians should be truthful.

I'll consider changing it

If you haven't seen Vertasium's video on when to use clickbait, then check it out. It seems that you're doing us a favour, when you do use at least a little. It seems that some clickbait can still be honst.

yeah it's a good vid. I changed it.

Where did he claim they were "impassible"?

​@@christophertaylor9100His argument is mount heron is in the way but there's a pass to Sidon. The inference is that they could only use the pass which would explain the detour but all he does is show a photo of the mountain, say look at a topographical map, and leave the viewer to draw the conclusion that the mountain wasn't passable except to Sidon. None of that was established.