Surprising Details That Show the Gospels are True 

My favorite is where John says he ran faster than Peter lol. Absolutely unnecessary, but exactly something a lay person would throw in

And not to mention John bragging about him beating Peter in a race to the tomb

يسوع المسيح هو الطريق والحق والحياه ☦️

This how people tell stories today. My brother in law was telling me about a funny work incident from the other day and he was dropping in names of people I have never met and work details I have little clue about as well. Its how we all try to add validity to or experiences. We add as many details as we can recall to prove it is true. Human nature has not changed.

This is one of the strongest arguments from Paley, the McGrews, etc. in my opinion. Skeptics want to say that the Gospels are elaborate, fictional narratives. Talented fictional authors wouldn't write like this. This evidence very obviously cuts against their theory. Also, as you said at the end, it doesn't read like a fairy tale, but straight forward history.

I like how John 3 mentions John the Baptist’s Big Chungus t-shirt

Also pretty much the fact that the disciples were hesitant to accept the reality of a literal resurrection in the middle of history of what they would have thought was a failed Messiah, until it happened. If someone having had that happen, personally presented themselves to you, you would naturally find it quite hard to initially grasp, they knew dead people normally stayed dead before the general resurrection.

Matthew, Mark, Luke: one of the disciples struck the servant of the high priest. John: It was Peter, Peter did it.

Why are the replies to jokes so mad? Literally dad jokes and people get mad.

Another unexplained allusion is when Jesus bent down to write on the ground in John 8:6. We are left guessing on what exactly he wrote, and why - no explanation is given in the text. There is debate on why that detail was even included. Even more interesting is that we know this passage was probably not in the original Gospel of John. Yet, a detail like this implies that even though it might have been added later, it was probably still based on a real account.

One thing I learned recently was that Onkelos (a Jew who lived around the time of Jesus) when writing the Targum on Deuteronomy put in a dig at Jesus when translating the part about "cursed is every man that hangs on a tree". This would be one more example of a nonChristian historical evidence of Jesus' existence since it confirms with what Paul was saying. I heard this in the One for Israel discussion on the Christian roots of the Jewish faith.

re Alexander and Rufus... I've heard it was a custom of the time to honor a contributor of a story (eyewitness in this case) by naming them in the work so.. Simon of cyrene was tasked to carry yeshuas cross, but the people actually relating the story to mark may have been his sons

In Genesis, Abraham is offering a sacrifice, and depending on the translation, the scene is followed by other animals trying to take the sacrifice, but Abraham shoos them away. This is omitted from the NKJV (probably because they thought the scene was irrelevant), but it adds the realism of the event

On a roll brother I binge this like Netflix. Keep up the great work! Hallelujah

Thank you very much! Makes a lot of sense.

An event that comes to my mind that back up your reasoning is from Mark 14:51-52. Mark is explaining the arrest of Jesus and then, randomly starts talking about a man who flee away when he saw Jesus being taken away. This event and many more gives a lot of authenticity and historical reliability of the gospel.

Another couple of details I'd like to add: 1) Let's remember that the Jews were not the Greeks, a country of philosophers, they were mostly fishermen and shepherd. The one who could have had the culture to really create such a tale would have been the high priests and the nobles, both of whom would have against their interest such a story. 2)but let's suppose that they falsified: the kind of falsification that they could have been inspired off would have been roman annales or Egyptian chronicles and all of them glorified the politican (in an "artsy" way, as the video said) as all might hero, the exact opposite of Jesus. Heck, one of the reasons the Jewish priets rejected Jesus was because they perceived him as weak, not in one billion years a faker would have glorified a "weak" person, someone who underwent the worst of the humiliation, crucifixion. So, in addition to the video, I would add that a falsified gospel would have been drastically different.

I am studying Esther. In chapter 1 it lists several names of Chamberlains and Advisers. How do we understand this? Does it suggest the book was written at a time when the names were still known and relevant? I don't see the Hebrew meaning behind the names to have significance. Any suggestions?

Keep up the good work guys. These videos are needed.

Love these undesigned coincidences and random irrelevant details!

Ur channel is amazing man, found it yesterday and have been watching all ur stuff. God Bless bro🙏

The one that always surprised me was Mark 14:51-52.

Great video as always ! Suggestions for next video : Top 3 or 5 of the best undesigned coincidences that are easy to remember and share in a debate 😄

unknown writers, contradictions, false prophecies, fabrications, jewish supremacy, paganism...etc imagine going to hell over this 😕

It is the same Rufus, I don't remember the cite but Paul literally says it was his father that helped with the cross (In the king James translation and Reina Valera)

Nice video.

I need to learn something from every video I watch. I automatically hit the like button when he gave me a term I hadn't heard before: Unexplained allusion. Must add to my quiver.

thank you for your work!!!! i have read many books and watched lots of videos, but your videos in particular have made me start to actually believe the Gospels are true. thank you for all the work you have done and continue to do ❤️

Your argument isn’t wrong or bad. I understand the logic behind, but I feel like you’re jumping to conclusions. Fictional stories can also have unexplained allusions in it as well to either contextualize the story or add additional insight to a character. I do believe that Jesus was a real person and so were his disciples. The only problem that I’ve heard from other Atheists were discrepancies within the Gospels. I definitely agree with Alex O’Conner on his takes. If you want to clarify some of these discrepancies, you definitely can, and I’ll lend an ear.

The Gospels are legit!

Hey Testify, I love your videos--would you ever consider doing a few videos covering the Book of Mormon / Pearl of Great Price etc., and how it lacks the historical verisimilitude of the New Testament? Since you covered Islam, it seems only logical to cover the American version of Islam.

Thanks

4:55 This was a reference to Jesus sending his disciples out and saying to carry nothing but their coats

Nice

what do you say to muslims when they use this argument as well as the undesigned coincidences between the hadiths and quran? What should our response be to show them its not the same or of a different quality?

Great video here Erik - man I feel like a broken record saying this, but you are definitely my favorite YT apologist. Thank you for always speaking so highly of JESUS and his salvation. > - Daniel

Take the elevator example with the big chungas t-shirt lady. If after they mention that little detail, they then say that lady opened the elevator doors with her mind, does the detail about her t-shirt convince you of the telekinesias?

Not sure if this is a good example but the passage where it says John ran faster than Peter to the tomb

I never thought about this. Very interesting............... 🙃

Jesus IS Truth.

Please do some videos on the talmud and the talmudic jesus

Well done.

One criticism I might add is that these unexplained allusions show that some parts of the gospels are very likely true, but not the complete gospels. There might be some parts of the gospels that are true and others that might be false.

Video idea: make a video about Mohammed hijabs crucifixion contradiction. He said a passage in the psalms was a contradiction to the crucifixion and Islam’s view makes it correct. It would be a super cool video

Why didn’t the creed in 1 Corin 15 mention the women? It’s a question on my mind any help is appreciated thanks

Another subtle reason to believe the gospels are genuine. The names. Their usage fits our historic understanding of the names of the time. Names are popular in waves. Someone named “Pearl” probably is 85 not 15 today. You see the same popular names in the same proportions as you’d expect at the times the New Testament represents compared to extra biblical sources. No one writing a forgery would be able to make names up that accurately.

Hi testify! I have a question. If humanity started with Adam and then the flood desyroyed almost all mankind, then how could people be in different continents when they were discovered? If anyone can answer pls do. Youve been a blessing from God. Love what u are doing! God bless u!

I see Big Chungus, I click thumbs up. Thems the rules.

Please make a video on the Johannes Comma and also the Periscope Adulterae. I’ve lost my faith because it seems that the books in the bible have been manipulated with added verses. Even my bible says that the adulterous woman story isn’t in the earliest tmanuscripts

A lot of these are from John. Now the thing is John is very late, at appears like 30 to 40 years after the others. If you are going to invent a new gospel, it would make sense that you add details of your own to the existing stories, since otherwise you would be just repeating the same thing. The detail on Simon of Cyrene does not seem that random to me, it could be a way to identify people in the same way that "son of X" is used. Simon was the most popular name back then. There were so many Simons that if the writers said just "Simon", people would get their Simons mixed up.

Good use of various memes! 👍

Y'all didn't mention the disciple who ran naked?????????????

For the algorithm

Sometimes I get bored, especially because of the genealogy And mention the family tree of the prophets. I mean, what's the use of this?

I’m kinda happy the Islam series is over I like this stuff more

I at least understand the idea behind the undesigned coincidences, even if I don't think they get you where you want to go. But I have to say, from my reading I really don't see what how you think these examples help your case in the slightest. Fictional books allude to something seemingly irrelevant as a lead-in to the next thing they are talking about, or mention seemingly unimportant events and details that never come up again, ALL THE TIME. Just looking at the Odyssey as an example. Book I, it is talking about Euryclea leading Telemachus, and then just randomly mentions "Laertes had bought her with his own money when she was quite young; he gave the worth of twenty oxen for her, and shewed as much respect to her in his household as he did to his own wedded wife, but he did not take her to his bed for he feared his wife’s resentment." Why mention specifically twenty oxen? Why mention he feared his wife's resentment and then never bring anything up about that in relation to the story ever again? I'm sure the author had their reasons, and I could make some educated guesses. But I don't think it means those details are most likely based on a memory of actual events that happened, and there was a Euryclea and Laertes did pay twenty oxen for her. Book II, Telemachus goes down to a store room to get some supplies. It then says that "The room was closed with well-made doors opening in the middle; moreover the faithful old house-keeper Euryclea, daughter of Ops the son of Pisenor, was in charge of everything both night and day." He goes on to talk to Euryclea, so it makes sense she is mentioned. But what is up with the well-made doors opening in the middle? Who cares how they opened? Is this a sign there WERE well-made doors that actually opened in the middle? Again, the fact that I personally don't understand why the author chose to put that detail doesn't in any way seem to me to justify me jumping to "Maybe those things actually existed and that is why he mentioned them!" Book IV, Telemachus shows up in Lacedaemon where Menelaus reigns. As introduction the text says that they "found him in his own house, feasting with his many clansmen in honor of the wedding of his son, and also of his daughter, whom he was marrying to the son of that valiant warrior Achilles. He had given his consent and promised her to him while he was still at Troy, and now the gods were bringing the marriage about; so he was sending her with chariots and horses to the city of the Myrmidons over whom Achilles’ son was reigning. For his only son he had found a bride from Sparta, the daughter of Alector. This son, Megapenthes, was born to him of a bondwoman, for heaven vouchsafed Helen no more children after she had borne Hermione, who was fair as golden Venus herself." Alright, so they are feasting because of the wedding of the son and daughter. But if this is just a story, what is up with the reference to the daughter anyway? The son has later parts in the story, and it makes sense to explain that he is getting married and they are having a celebration now because of it. But why mention the daughter was marrying a specific person, and that she was being sent over by chariot to a specific city? She's never mentioned in the entire story ever again. And you can't just say that the author was trying to get rid of her for the rest of the story, because that would mean she DID exist. If the author didn't want to have to mention her any more, why even add her to the story in the first place? Does this mean that she actually did get married, and the author is just recounting some other events he recalls happening involving her at this time as well? Again, I can think of and have seen other explanations for why this seemingly irrelevant detail would be included. The fact that the allusion seems irrelevant and unexpected does not in any way seem to make it more likely that the details are a reference to actual historical events that happened and the author is just remembering and mentioning them. I could go on and on with examples like this, but I think that gives the general idea. To me at least, it seems just as plausible that there reasons other than "this is a true historical detail the author is remembering" for why the allusions you mention that on first glance may not seem fully fleshed out to us are made. Take the John 3:25-26 example. Sure, it doesn't come out and directly say what the discussion about purification was about. But then right after it starts talking about baptism, which had a lot of relation to purification rites. Would this reference have been completely clear to the audience of John, who were used to disputes about baptism versus other purification rites, and thus didn't need any further explanation in their mind? I can't say that is most likely the case. But in the same way I'm definitely not comfortable saying it is most likely that the author is just remembering an actual discussion he heard and therefore mentions it in the story. Trying to say this verse specifically demonstrates that one or the other is more likely just seems silly to me, either one is entirely possible. Same thing in John 12:20-23. You ask what Jesus' answer has to do with the Greeks coming and asking to see Jesus, as though there is no possible good answer that could be given besides "well, that is just what Jesus actually said so they are relating the actual events that happened". That's simply not the case though. In fact, the way I personally naturally read that verse was that what Jesus said is OBVIOUSLY related to the Greek's coming. The Greeks are mentioned as asking about Jesus. Jesus is glorified by all the people of the earth coming to him as their savior. The author is having him say that his glorification in having all people on earth come to him has begun, as even Gentiles come to seek out the Savior. Is that actually what the author intended? Again, I'm not going to say absolutely that is the reason the author wrote those words, because that is silly. I'm not a mind reader. But I don't see any way you could possibly say that the clearly more likely reading is that this is just an event that happened so the author recounted it even though the two don't seem that connected. And what seems to be an additional problem to me with this approach is that even GIVEN your interpretation that these events actually happened, it doesn't explain the choice of the author to include those specific details AT ALL. The author of John necessarily left MANY details out of his stories. It is simply not possible or reasonable to recount every single minutia occurring in the events of life. So even assuming he is drawing from actual memory, he STILL made the purposeful decision to say that some Greeks came to Jesus, and he also then chose to mention a specific set of words Jesus said afterwards. He's not just choosing what events and details he mentions willy-nilly, HE certainly saw something meaningful in this interaction and Jesus' response as well. But if there is a connection and good reason to include it in the story, that reason exists regardless of whether or not the events actually happened historically in that exact way. The whole idea of getting from "I don't know the answer" to "therefore the answer is most likely this" has always struck me as a futile methodology. The allusions are "unexplained" to you because YOU (and some others you are quoting) can't think of another explanation for them. That doesn't mean that one does not exist, or that therefore by default "historical accuracy" is the most likely explanation. Especially since it doesn't seem like you put even a week's worth of effort on trying to figure out what the explanation might be. Figuring out why people thousands of years ago wrote what they did is often extremely difficult. Failing to figure out the reason for an allusion in a few days of just thinking about it, or even a few days of very intensive study, could in fact be extremely difficult or downright impossible. People spend literal DECADES building up the knowledge they use to try do so, and still sometimes just don't have enough data left that has been saved from the ravages of time to be able to pin down one most probable answer.

So you're telling me Big Chungus is real,

This doesn’t confirm the Gospels because even Atheists agree that Jesus did exist Buddha,Muhammad, etc were all real people the real question is if their claims were true when I see other Christians try to 100% prove the Bible it just makes me annoyed we will never know if we were correct or not until we pass away and get to see for ourselves like the Israelites crossing the Red Sea is true but we don’t know if Moses actually did split the Red Sea apart

There are several unexplained illusions (details that are not relevant and don't seem necessary to the main plot in the story) in the gospels but guess what we also find such unexplained illusions in Shakespeare's plays such as Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Macbeth there are several details in those stories that the author doesn't bother to explain does that mean that we should also accept them as divine and literal historical accounts even though they are completely made up stories. There are several details which the author doesn't bother to explain which creates further speculations. Their are several fairy tales or historical fiction shows, literature and books that have many unexplained illusions which makes the reader speculate. At the end of the day, this video is just speculative and does not prove anything just a desperate attempt to prove that Christianity's central claims are true but nice try only those who are deluded and are desperatly trying to hold on to their faith will accept what Eric Manning is saying.

152 views in 8 minutes fell off

Speaking of details. There are some historically false details in the bible

BIG CHUNGUS

we don't have any original or copies of the Greek Gospels prior to 3rd century AD. Moreover, there is no ancient document prior to 2nd century AD to confirm the authors who wrote them. It was only Justin and Irenaeus of the highest church in Rome mentioned this for the first time. A religion resting upon third party narratives originally written by anonymous authors, in a language other than the native language of Jesus, is a matter for serious concern You are following a religion that was formulated by the Roman Catholic Church in 4th century AD in Greek language for the Gentiles in the Roman lands. It was about Jesus NOT by Jesus. Original teachings of Jesus are found in The Didache which was ordered to be destroyed by the church and called it as Lost Gospel until . It was found by Philotheos Bryennios in 1873 in the Library of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople.