The Surprising Truth Behind Luke’s Gospel | The Historical Tell | Episode 4 

Yes!

Just finished her latest book. She rocks.

I’m going to give you your moneys worth for this. If you want to withstand what is to come, go read the hypostasis of the archons, the Apocryphon of john and all of the enochic literature.

@@dirtydevil the question is not if one believes miracles happened because they were written about but, if God exists, and is who He says He is, whether there’s any reason at all to doubt that those feats are within His power to perform.

@@dirtydevil No. Being a Christian is not required. Believing God is a possibility is. Answer this question: If God exists, and if He truly is the Creator, and if creation obeys Him, is there any reason why a miracle could not happen?

What is the source that says John and Mary lived in Ephesus?

​@@dirtydevil all truth can be written in a book, and all lies can be written in a book. My point is that if the Bible is true, it would make sense those eyewitness accounts would be collected in a book just as modern journalists or historians collect first-person accounts following important events. Your statement implies it can be wrong to believe something that would be difficult to believe just because it is written down, but that is exactly the medium for conveying truth for the last several thousand years.

@@dirtydevil that’s actually not the relevant question to this discussion because I was referring to a very specific point of discussion in the video. I have no problem with anyone scrutinizing the miraculous claims in Christianity. That’s a valid endeavor which, I believe, is fairly well evidenced. As for other the claims of other religions, as a Christian, necessarily, I don’t adhere to them but would encourage you to subject them to the same scrutiny as you do Christian miracles and compare the results.

Theres literally no reason to think Luke relied on John. Luke relied on Mark and copied Marks Gospel. Over three-quarters of Mark's content is found in both Matthew and Luke, and 97% of Mark is found in at least one of the other two synoptic gospels. Additionally, Matthew (24%) and Luke (23%) have material in common that is not found in Mark. No serious scholar argues for John using Luke. Anyone who argues or even suggest this should be ignored. The same way scholars ignore Richard Carriers mysticism arguments.

Beware so-called "scholars".

@@statutesofthelord Right. If they arnt labeled Christian apologists we don’t listen to them!

@@KaijuOfTheOpera dear Kaiji the argument from this video is that Luke utilised John as an oral source and their evidence is that tue parts of Luke not directly taken from Mark agree more with John than Matthew.

@@statutesofthelord anyone can propose a hypothesis. Anyone can submit an article to a journal and see if it passed the peer review. You don't have to be employed by a University or official research facility to do so. Indeed, all theories were new once and being new meant, by definition, that most scholars didn't hold to them. Edit: Luke Vander Wegh has a PHD from the University of Aberdeen so he isn't just "some guy"

Jesus could have told John after the resurrection. Which won't convince a sceptic, but is coherent for a believer

Even if not that, a Roman governor would never be alone with a criminal. A guard, a servant, any number of people would have been present for potential later interview.

So Pilate's wife is considered a Saint by a large number of Christian Groups, even fairly early on. Secondly, Pilate himself is considered a saint by some Christian groups. And finally, as people have pointed out, guards, servants, military officers, scribes, and a variety of other persons would have been present at an official hearing such as this. And finally, assuming Jesus did rise from the dead, he could have related it himself. So there are a myriad of ways for this to have been provided to the evangelists. Thinking that this argument is a good one is proof that not all persons are capable of rationally making up their own minds on things.

In his writings to the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius, Justin Martyr referenced the Acts of Pontius Pilate, which was a report to Tiberius filed in the Roman annals. The document is lost today, but was an account of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus by Pilate, himself. n.b. Not to be confused with the later, still extant spurious document of the same name.

It is possible that Pilate’s wife who is mentioned in Matthew’s became a believer and was aware of Jesus and the examination process that took place in Pilate’s residence.-only a possibility.

What does that even mean?

So, I take it that you didn't read about salvation through a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in a book?

@@crazymandavy Holy Spirit has been speaking to me since I was six years old. I don’t think I needed any book. Jesus is Living Water. He didn’t tell the woman at the well she needed a book.

@@dirtydevil the fact they claim to be perfect= ignorance. Many aspects of the Bible are on point based on the current time. Some knowledge is timeless such statements “ my people perish because of the lack of knowledge”. Most Christians did not go to college to take at least one semester of theology or have not read the Torah. Please understand that the moment you start having a conversation with a person who is not familiar with history or cultural aspects of the Bible they will try to silence you with pure ignorance.

@@dirtydevil Maybe God is not 'perfect' in the way some people would think. Maybe he will act 'dirty' in allowing some to corrupt the Bible, and then use it as evidence of their rejections of, or rebellion against His word.

Is he a Jesus mythicist?

@@Draezeth yes. There is a debate between him and Ehrman on YT. Ehrman wins by a mile.

congratulations!! I will love to be your friend dear as well. as sharing some ideas which you're benefiting.

please how do you earn or should I say how does it work. are there steps I need to take, I need guidance my friend.

How does this trading stuff work? I'm really interested but I just don't know how to go about it. I heard people really make it huge trading

It's not as easy as you think my friend. As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided by Maymuun J Choi a widely known crypto consultant

I strongly advise you against self trading, it's really dangerous and has brought many investors down, you need someone with the right strategies and expertise to do the work for you, I recommend M j Choi

I have not read this 'lost gospel' you mention, but it a nice idea to have a 'prototype' of Issa/Jesus, but did they have evidence of an actual Issa/Jesus? And did he bring actual salvation through baptism/repentance - actual saving of souls? A prototype could be merely a model of something that could happen but didn't. Also, some would say that the Old Testament prophesied the coming of Jesus, so the 'prototype' was already there. Maybe the Arabians/Arabs copied the idea?

He was posing the question from the point of view of a skeptic. Not his own.

exactly @@nate679

Yes, charlie. We should beware of "scholars" today just as Jesus warned his disciples of them in his day.

They're taking the term from "poker tell" - when a poker player gives away his hand unintentionally by body language or something. So in this case it's unintentional clues in Luke's gospel to its reliability. This has been the weakest tell from the episodes I've seen imo so I recommend going back to get more of an idea lol. I really liked last week's -Episode 3

This joke goes deep 😂

If I step on my shoe lace, then it is possible that I will trip, when the leg of that lace can't move forward in time to stop me from falling. It happened to me in a slightly different way.

@@eugenetswong There are thousands of different possibilities that could have caused you to trip. My point is the shoe lace may or may not of had anything to do with you tripping.

@@jacoblee5796 In my situation, the lace got caught on the hook of the hiking boot. When I started tucking in the laces to solve the reoccurring problem, the problem disappeared. I think that you would even try to say the first sentence, because you are basically saying "How do I know?? I wasn't there!". That's fine, but it comes across as offensive, because it sounds like "How do you know that your lace getting caught on the other boot made a difference?? Maybe there was a stick in the foyer/hallway where you walked!". I agree with your specific point in and of itself, but a lace does add support, when the question is how: could a person trip, when the scene has nothing to trip on?

@@eugenetswong Are we starting to talk passed one another? This is in relations to UC's and the gospels. Just because in one gospel it says the guys shoes on tied and in another it says this same guy tripped, in no way means the shoe being untied is why he tripped. These two things could be completely unrelated.

@@jacoblee5796 You have to assess whether or not they are unrelated. Is it possible they are unrelated? Yeah. Anything is possible. But how likely is it that they actually are unrelated based on the facts given? Every undesigned coincidence I have seen seems to relate to the other. If you are going to reject the argument you have to show how it is unlikely they relate to one another, as on face value they do

I don't know about saints but I do remember talking about the rosary

Is that a scoffing question? Why can't he do something for the benefit of all Christians?

I made a public announcement a while back that my personal denominational status is being kept private for now. The principle reason for this is that my conversion was made into a spectacle (by my own doing) and was ultimately a distraction.

Maybe because the rosary, Mary, indulgences, has nothing to do with your salvation or anyone else’s. The harm of indulgences, selling forgiveness for money; the false gospel of works, you participate in your salvation by your good works, the abomination of idols and relics, the perversion of forced celibacy. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalted himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God

@@CapturingChristianity I respect that you focus on things that are universally useful to Christians in a broad sense. I don't necessarily dislike Catholic topics, but I certainly find this stuff much more useful as a Protestant.

I believe your main point is a bit misguided. (Almost) no one denies that there is literary dependence between the Gospels, most likely Matthew and Luke on Mark, plus a separate source. The kinds of corroboration that the likes of McGrew defend is on details that are not copied from each other, particularly things that are very subtle and don't seem intentional. You may still think that the level on which this happens is not convincing, of course. But the argument is not at all based on the features that can easily be explained by literary dependence. Some of the ones that McGrew argues for, by the way, are between documents that don't show literary dependence.

@@Imheretohelpnhavefun I'm going to tell you how they're wrong. The dependent details predominantly involve Matthew and Luke or Matthew and/or Luke looking prospectively at John. Mark is rarely used because though Mark is abundant in imagery it lacks specificity. For example, Mark uses the least amount of character's names. I believe in all the miracle stories in Mark there is only one miracle with a name associated with a character: Blind Bartimaeus. So the undesigned coincidence crowd almost always point to Matthew, Luke and John, not Mark. This disingenuous and stems mainly from a refusal to acknowledge Markan priority. Even in the instant example they cite in this video-the one involving Joanna in Luke- we're instructed to look at Matthew even though the source of the death of John the Baptist appears in Mark. In any event Joanna only appears in Luke, not in any other gospel. And Luke includes her in his gospel because later he has Joanna appear at the tomb along with Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James. Curiously, what the apologists don't tell you is that Joanna does not appear at the tomb in any of the other gospels. In fact the only consistent character at the tomb is Mary Magdalene. In addition to her, in Mark it's Mary the Mother of James and Salome; in Matthew it's Mary the mother of James and Joses and Mary the mother of Zebedee's son; in Luke it's Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and in John it's Mary Magdalene solely. Now is that undesigned or are they not blatant contradictions? My point is that once when one recognizes Markan priority, all this undesigned coincidence inanity falls apart rather quickly.

You clearly havent read the gospels if you say they are word for word the same. Criticise if you want, but stay honest. Oh and read the gospels sometimes.

@@lebell79 I have and I am. If you doubt me you should get your hands on a parallel gospel and yellow hiliter. Ther exact and near exact wording is jaw dropping.

@@lebell79I’ve read enough of the Greek gospels to know Matthew and Luke definitely used a prior existing source that wasn’t Mark. That is the source called Q, a text scholars more recently have characterized as a gospel of its own right.

Source?

@@lebell79 he’s not even defining faith right. I wouldn’t worry about his comment here.

surprisingly, some 2000 years thereafter many people are still reading / researching / arguing about the 4 gospels -- NONSTOP why there seems to be "silence" from harry potter's camp? how about from the star wars or the marvel's camp? 😁

@lebell79 if this info is news to you, then you might want to read a few scholarly books on the topics for a flood of evidence supporting, but I'm not here to do your research for you... this isn't 2nd grade library time.

@connerdozier6689 how did I misrepresent the word FAITH here? Please enlighten me.

What you doing here watching then you little baby?

@@Philip__325Maybe forgot how to suck his thumb.

Lazarus wasn’t one of the disciples, aka; The Twelve, but he and his sisters were friends who opened their house to Jesus and the Disciples. Unlike the other Gospels, John’s Gospel was written near the end of the first century, at around the time he wrote Revelation.

@@BigAl53750 Its interesting how both of you are making things up. You guys are just so lost in this. Lazarus isnt the one who wrote the Gospel of John. And to reply to you, John, the person who knew Jesus couldnt read or write says Acts 4:13. The Gospel of John was written by an unknown author and then redacted.

⁠@@KaijuOfTheOperaJohn was the son of a fisherman whose dad owned a business. To be able to read in that culture doing that business is a skill that is needed. You’re presumptuous to think he couldn’t read. Lastly let’s say he couldn’t read that doesn’t mean it was written by him using a scribe. However this is unlikely as for example we know the Gospel of Mark was written on the testimony of Peter yet that gospel is attributed to Mark. This lends further credence that John the Apostle actually wrote the Gospel according to John with all the other circumstantial evidence that points to him Jesus could clearly write as well which is demonstrated in the NT. Are you forgetting the spot where he wrote in the sand? So not sure where you’re getting this from that he was illiterate, no way you can substantiate that. Being uneducated doesn’t mean they can’t write. Making assumptions again that’s not backed up in facts Acts 4:13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

@@KaijuOfTheOpera, Acts 4:13 doesn’t say John can’t read, it says he had no training in the scriptures.

​@@catholicguy1073 John was the son of a fisherman. I agree with this because in the Gospels, John is said to be a fisherman. Does this mean he could read or write? Absolutely not. Its not a presumption to say John cant read or write. Acts 4:13 literally tells us he couldnt. The Greek here is literally that they cant read or write. If you dont think Acts is historical or has historical elements. Thats a different conversation. So of our best estimates guess 3% of people could read or write and even less for both. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine by Catherine Hezser if your interested to learn more about this. Dont say "Well lets say if he couldn't read or write" He couldnt and we have no reason to think he could and many many reasons to believe he couldn't. Acts 4:13 says, in the Greek, that he cant read or write. But like I said, if you dont think Acts is historical, thats a different conversation. Also Mark was written by an unknown author. The only evidence we have that Mark was peters scribe comes from the early church father Papias. Eusebius, another church father, calls Papias an idiot. Eusebius was Papias more intelligent peer and I agree with Eusebius. Mark is an unknown author. Also, Jesus probably couldnt read or write either. I know you want to use some verses in the NT to argue he could, but the NT isnt written by eyewitnesses. All I can do is fall back on the data we have. To be able to read or write was rare ad usually required wealthy families. Jesus didnt have a wealthy family. A lot of what you said is just apologetics though that isnt backed up by the scholarship. Thats why I was able to answer and correct everything you said.

So you must not believe anything about ancient history. WOW

@@Justas399 Your reply makes zero sense and you should add more context. The gospel riders were not trying to write history, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to bring history into this.

@@KaijuOfTheOpera The gospel accounts are historical accounts written by eyewitnessness and those who knew the eyewitnesses. Much of what they have written has been proven history. To dismiss the gospels would mean you would have to reject all of ancient history.

@@Justas399 No, the Gospels weren’t written by Eyewitnesses and we have no reason to even think such a thing. We can’t ignore the composition of Mark. He does not write his Gospel as an historical account nor does anywhere in Mark say who wrote it. We can’t ignore that the author of both Luke and Matthew had a copy of Mark in front of them when they wrote their Gospels. 80% of Marks Gospels appears in Luke and Matthew. Let me stress what I’m trying to say so you understand. Luke and Matthew copied word for word from Mark. This alone proves they arnt eyewitness unless you want to claim an eyewitness is someone who copy’s someone else’s testimony. I’d like to think you’re intelligent enough to know an eyewitness isn’t going to copy someone else’s testimony. John was written by a high level Greek author. This author was an elite and wealthy, who ever he was. Who ever wrote John had more schooling and could write better then even some people who exist in modern times. John, the person who knew Jesus was said to be illiterate in Acts 4:13. He never went to school, doesn’t know his letters and so on. This person did not write the Gospel of John. The evidence shows he didn’t. To quote Ehrman on this from his book Forged The anonymity of the Gospel writers was respected for decades. When the Gospels of the New Testament are alluded to and quoted by authors of the early second century, they are never entitled, never named. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. For Justin, these books are simply known, collectively, as the "Memoirs of the Apostles." It was about a century after the Gospels had been originally put in circulation that they were definitively named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This comes, for the first time, in the writings of the church father and heresiologist Irenaeus, around 180-85 CE. Irenaeus wrote a five-volume work, typically known today as Against Heresies, directed against the false teachings rampant among Christians in his day. At one point in these writings he insists that "heretics" (i.e., false teachers) have gone astray either because they use Gospels that are not really Gospels or because they use only one or another of the four that are legitimately Gospels. Some heretical groups used only Matthew, some only Mark, and so on. For Irenaeus, just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels, and they are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 4 Modern readers may not find this kind of logic very compelling, but it is not difficult to see why orthodox writers like Irenaeus wanted to stress the point. Lots of Gospels were in circulation. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were legitimate. For Irenaeus and his fellow orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that had apostolic authority behind them. The authority of a Gospel resided in the person of its author. The author therefore had to be authoritative, either an apostle himself or a close companion of an apostle who could relate the stories of the Gospel under his authority. In the year 155, when Justin was writing, it may still have been perfectly acceptable to quote the Gospels without attributing them to particular authors. But soon there were so many other Gospels in circulation that the books being widely cited by orthodox Christians needed to be given apostolic credentials. So they began to be known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Why were these names chosen by the end of the second century? For some decades there had been rumors floating around that two important figures of the early church had written accounts of Jesus's teachings and activities. We find these rumors already in the writings of the church father Papias, around 120-30 CE, nearly half a century before Irenaeus. Papias claimed, on the basis of good authority, 5 that the disciple Matthew had written down the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew language and that others had provided translations of them, presumably into Greek. He also said that Peter's companion Mark had rearranged the preaching of Peter about Jesus into sensible order and created a book out of it. There is nothing to indicate that when Papias is referring to Matthew and Mark, he is referring to the Gospels that were later called Matthew and Mark. In fact, everything he says about these two books contradicts what we know about (our) Matthew and Mark: Matthew is not a collection of Jesus's sayings, but of his deeds and experiences as well; it was not written in Hebrew, but in Greek; and it was not written- as Papias supposes- independently of Mark, but was based on our Gospel of Mark. As for Mark, there is nothing about our Mark that would make you think it was Peter's version of the story, any more than it is the version of any other character in the account (e.g., John the son of Zebedee). In fact, there is nothing to suggest that Mark was based on the teachings of any one person at all, let alone Peter. The authority of the Gospels was then secure: two of them were allegedly written by eyewitnesses to the events they narrate (Matthew and John), and the other two other were written from the perspectives of the two greatest apostles, Peter (the Gospel of Mark) and Paul (the Gospel of Luke). It does not appear, however, that any of these books was written by an eyewitness to the life of Jesus or by companions of his two great apostles. For my purposes here it is enough to reemphasize that the books do not claim to be written by these people and early on they were not assumed to be written by these people. The authors of these books never speak in the first person (the First Gospel never says, "One day, Jesus and I went to Jerusalem..."). They never claim to be personally connected with any of the events they narrate or the persons about whom they tell their stories. The books are thoroughly, ineluctably, and invariably anonymous. At the same time, later Christians had very good reasons to assign the books to people who had not written them. As a result, the authors of these books are not themselves making false authorial claims. Later readers are making these claims about them. They are therefore not forgeries, but false attributions.

@@Justas399 perhaps doubting all of ancient history is wise, if the alternative is shaping your entire life around a storybook.

The text of the new testament is incredibly stable. Passages have certainly be added, but the vast majority of the text is part of a consistent tradition that likely stems from original manuscripts written by the authors that were accepted in the early church. The last of the things added to the text deliberately have almost certainly been removed from your modern text. If you want to learn more, just ask!

You’re committing a logical fallacy here. Yes chapters and verses are a tradition that helps avid readers of the Bible to understand. And someone who engages the texts should understand this when trying to comprehend passages that at that point the chapter for example doesn’t come into play when doing exegesis. The purpose of this video is to try and show that the Gospel of Luke is reliable thus the story of Jesus is reliable.

I'm not sure what the chapters and verse numbers being added have to do with anything. But many of us like knowing that the story of Jesus isn't just another myth, religion, fairy tale, and that it has historical backing and evidence behind it. If you trust so easily I'm glad you came across a Bible and not a Quran first. I, for one, needed evidence to convert, so thank you to videos and research like this.

There is no a single historian at least not a professional ome who will dismiss that jesus in fact existed , i dont know where your commentary came from and the point of those videos is that people realize how accurate the gospels are.

If I made your comment into a chapter and your sentences into verses, would I be inventing a new RU-vid comment or would it be the same comment?