Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Why Acts Isn't Fake History: Paul's Convo Clues
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 04. 2024
- Scholars argue that Acts is fake history from the late first or early second century. Yet, two key conversations involving Paul, a Roman commander, and high priest Ananias point to authentic mid-first-century events. These details challenge the theory of late dating and suggest Luke was not writing fiction.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...
Paul's unrelenting troll-tier responses probably got him killed lmao. Paul is my spirit animal.
my favorite story is when he caused the Pharisees and Sadducees to get into a fight in Acts 23
@@jalapeno.tabasco that was hilarious 😂
It is interesting how People want to be like Isaiah and other prophets. Paul is something else to me. I was raised catholic and I still have to get rid of the horrible teachings they did.
Paul amazes me how he got it all the way down to how circumcision was no longer needed for the gentiles. Why? because the promised one had come. There was no more need for the sign of the promised one.
@@dw3403 You threw a “catholicism bad” in there randomly with no qualification. The Catholic church uses Paul extensively in the reasoning for its teachings, often the more debated ones among denominations. So if we’re talking about Paul specifically here, it’s weird to randomly pretend the CC is the one going against his views.
I'm not sure why no one likes him, even to this day. He was relentless in spreading the gospel of Jesus. He's one of my favorites people in the Bible.
The cheekiness of Paul's comment is increased all the more when you realize that in his theology, Jesus is the true High Priest.
Well said... Very well said!
exactly what I was thinking 😂 man I love this
@anastasiaschultz5719 Yes. A very cool channel with some great information.
Paul played the "I know my rights" card and it worked!
Hi I'm Paul Goodman (formerly known as Saul Goodman) did you know I have rights?
They didn't call him Saul (Goodman) for nothing.
The amount of casual details recorded in the NT is truly astounding. We take all these for granted with everything at the tip of our fingers, 2000 years ago getting details like this right is truly stunning
@@danielburger1775 Those guy, at least Johnson, were probably biased against Christianity, and for this reason they made these radical criticisms of Christianity that were probably unfounded. Besides, he seems to have concluded that "there is no reliable documentary evidence to prove the existence of Jesus Christ or the Apostles", which by this point has been thoroughly debunked
@@danielburger1775read Carsten Peter Thiede and Martin Hengel.
@@danielburger1775 I strongly doubt the validity of their assertions, given that more modern evidence (the Dead Sea scrolls are just one example) suggests otherwise. Their conclusions honestly sound like conspiracy theories
@@danielburger1775 I understand your point. However, we know for a fact that Jesus was actually truthful and reliable, unlike the average "conspiracy theorist"
daniel do you have a point here about the actual video?
Paul: "We do a little trolling.""
Paul got trolled in Rome
@@Promislandzion no he trolled them so bad they killed him, it’s the equivalent to blocking someone after they troll u good
I remember taking a history of the new testament course as an undergrad. It was the first time I had read the NT as letters instead of as "THE BIBLE".
My takeaway? Paul was an absolute madlad, and would have been a top-tier memelord if he were born in this era. The absolute cheek on him was hilarious to read.
I never get why people think Acts isn't historically accurate. It is history.
Wow, those are such amazingly obscure details that fit so perfectly. The power of God through Luke be droppin Easter eggs again!
Love this comment😂 May The LORD bless you🙏
I'm sure you meant Paul, but you're correct. God Bless you!
@@user-io9ie5cs8j Luke was the author of Acts, not Paul :)
@@ProductBasement Ah, thank you for the correction
Easter eggs is a poor choice of words, but otherwise yes!
I always struggled with the passage of "High Priest" because it seemed out of character for Paul to suddenly go "oh no! I didn't realize it was the high priest". Knowing he was being cheeky gives me a lot of relief, hah
The Apostles were basically just a bunch of gigachads mogging on everyone around them and saving their souls.
Preaching the gospel in modern zoomer terms. LOL 😂😂😂😂
Please don’t disparage the Apostles by saying that kind of thing
@@givepeaceachance940
It does not disparage them. They are the strong and enlightened messengers of God, sent to protect His flock and guide them in His ways.
@@givepeaceachance940 I agree! We ought to extend such formalities to everyone who believes, not just the 12 who followed Christ!
Yeah but the Apostles didn’t “mog” on people. They shamed the people who were persecuting Christians
Just imagine telling a cop “I’m a citizen” and like “yes Sir”
Basically what elites do in our society already
Technically an American equivalent would be them attempting to put you in a chain gain or force you to pay a huge fine, all BEFORE you even have a trial. Then informing the closest officer of this fact as you attempt to defend yourself.
I just read acts 22, 23 today as my daily reading and was kinda curious about why Paul would say he didn’t realize that he was the high priest…. Then this shows up in my feed! Incredible how God does the things he does!
At that moment the soldier turned his body cam off
God bless you and your work, brother! I think the skeptics forget that information was a lot harder to find before our modern age❤
Yep, Tim McGrew calls it the Wikipedia fallacy
It was also only 50-100 years apart, meaning that any documents would be copied more. A lot of copies are lost.
@@TestifyApologetics Would you mind explaining the Wikipedia fallacy? I've never heard of it. Also, wiki and Google have been proven to be inaccurate on a great many things.
One important thing to consider however is that the patrons of the early church around 3-400 AD were wealthy, powerful, highly educated, and well connected. I’m not saying that it’s more likely that they fabricated it later, it’s more likely that they didn’t. However, if there was ANYONE in the classical world that could have done it, it would have been them.
Clever illustrations are much appreciated. Your effort and diligence in researching Paul's journeys is only surpassed by the clarity of your explanations and your heart-felt faith. Thanks for another excellent video.
Thanks for all of the details here. It'd be great to have a cheat sheet of all the small details like this that we gloss over in our reading at the end of this series!
Woah 47 views in 2 minutes? Glad to see more people finding you!
Good ending
Almost 9k in 7 in hours
17 hours
These videos are awesome, Acts was already my favorite book, and you're making me like it even more
Interesting as when Paul was saying "he didn't knew this dudeis the high priest", I didn't know that it was a high level factual trolling
I believe you have presented such a compelling argument that it leaves Bible skeptics with little to say. They might be searching for more biased interpretations and false narratives to discredit your points, but you have skillfully dismantled their claims with well-researched facts.
Dude.
This is not how historians work.
It's not some grand conspiracy against the Bible.
The scholars are trying to figure out what is and isn't historical and use the same approach for this as for anything else.
-I'm not going to watch this video,- as it's clearly biased. I'm also simply uninterested in the subject matter. I don't even know what's in Acts, so it's not like I'm desperate to not be proved wrong. I know there are historical things in the Bible, and I know there are non-historical things in the Bible. Because, it's a collection of writings by people of the time, some of which were stories and some of which were recordings of events, and many of them were passed down orally, so even the attempts to keep an accurate record of events require analysis to determine what is and isn't likely to be true.
But, you are also clearly biased against unbiased scholarly research.
This is in the description: "Scholars argue that Acts is fake history from the late first or early second century."
If "scholars" refers to the consensus view, then that is most likely correct, or as correct as we're going to get.
@@Mythraen Go cry somewhere else 😂😂😂
@@Mythraen Nice try. You just showed your bias and flat out incompetence right there kid. Sit back down and stop acting like you know what you’re talking about. You VERY clearly do NOT.
@@Mythraeneveryone has biases and there are many many cases throughout history where historians show biased
In fact I’d say more often than not historians are biased. Like how they talk about the Tiger Tank being this unstoppable beats when it wasn’t. Or how the T-34 changed the war and was the reason for the Soviets counter attacks but really it was right there from the beginning in 1941. It just wasn’t good in the defensive and also it’s sloped armor wasn’t some new invention nor did it make the tank impervious.
Those are just two examples off the top of my head but if you really look into historians they can really be some of the most biased people you can find.
@@Mythraenjust because scholars have consensus doesn’t mean they’re accurate. Scholars can be wrong
Did they know these little details about life in Roman Judea at the time? Probably not and so didn’t take them into account when they just said this work came from the 2nd or 3rd century when these details wouldn’t have been a thing then
Imagine id you tried to write a story set in the early 1900’s or even 1800’s and tried to pass it off as if it was written back then. Sure you can do research on that time period but you didn’t live it. You don’t know all the details of that time period and so you’d be missing many of them
These details can be found in the Bible. They lend heavily toward it’s credibility
Just happened to run across your video after having read Acts 23 this morning. Perfect timing and very fortunate of me to find your wonderful channel!
There's elements like this all through the Bible. There are things in Genesis which only make sense if Genesis was written really early. Same with Daniel and many other books. There's a series of books by Bill Cooper which argues for the authenticity of many Bible books. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis is amazing. I don't know of he published his book on Daniel, but he has a pdf of it. I think he has books on the NT books as well.
@@soarel325 what do you mean by that?
@@soarel325 Jesus seems to, so yes
@@soarel325 no, you can be a creationist and study science. Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, etc
@@soarel325 nope, Jesus created those fields, they just haven't caught up yet
@@soarel325 "So you deny essentially every single existing field of science?" I am pretty sure you are inserting a false dichotomy here my friend. If you genuinely desire an open mind and refining your way of thinking, then I would recommend diving into the literature from Christian scientists and philosophers, as well as their non-theist counterparts. Best wishes.
Wow.. Great but subtle information. You deserve more subscribers.
This series is the most helpful hands down in defending the reliability of the NT. God bless you and your work!
Love these
This channel is without a doubt quite incredible I must say. The historical dialectic explanations are the icing on the cake.
“Nah, written a good 300 years after the fact. Source? Trust me bro.” -Skeptics
So... you don't know what a skeptic is?
As a skeptic (not of whatever you're talking about. I have no idea what you're talking about.), I can tell you that I don't accept ideas just because someone said them authoritatively... and I also don't expect anyone to do that with me... because I expect them to also have basic epistemological standards.
So yeah, I'm skeptical of your claim that a skeptic would say "trust me."
@@Mythraen it’s an expression. Not everything is so literal. I could have used any number of synonyms for this joke which is a joke which you decided to take so literally
@@Mythraen and yes my point still. There is tons of evidence that disproves your claim Acts was written in the 3rd century and very little (I’d go so far as to say none even) that supports it was. Where is the evidence Acts was written later other than just belief that it was?
@@thewestisthebest6608 I made no such claim.
Also, you don't know what synonyms are.
Perhaps you'd like "denier"? A denier is not a skeptic.
Sorry for caring that, as a skeptic, you lied about me, and anyone like me.
Also, being analytical, the thing you're complaining about, is a common trait among skeptics, in my experience. It might be a prerequisite.
@@thewestisthebest6608 I asked ChatGPT about Acts. I don't trust it, generally speaking (I'm a skeptic, you see), but this looks pretty solid:
---
You:
When was Acts written?
ChatGPT:
The Book of Acts in the New Testament is believed to have been written sometime between 62-64 AD. This dating is based on various historical and textual clues within the book itself, as well as external historical evidence. It's important to note that exact dating can be somewhat speculative, but scholars generally agree on this timeframe.
You:
Who claims it was written in the third century?
ChatGPT:
There is no mainstream scholarly position that suggests the Book of Acts was written in the third century. The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that Acts was composed in the first century, likely between 62-64 AD, as I mentioned earlier. Any claims suggesting a third-century origin would likely be outliers or fringe theories that are not supported by the majority of academic scholarship.
---
So, um, who are these skeptics, anyway?
❤ subscribed. I’m so invested in the intersection of the Bible and historical accounts of the time. Thank you for all your hard work.
An Atheist is watching this with teeth gritted, tears welling up, and his only response is "muh... muh spooderman fallacy"
Great videos as always, dude!
@@danielburger1775 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. I dare you to find Fabrication of this much caliber my friend. There are an insane amount of these coincidences and the amount of detail needed to fabricate them wouldn't be possible unless the entire Roman empire put effort into lying to make a new religion. Come on buddy
@@danielburger1775 keep your brainlet delusions to yourself
@@munashemanamike4217 lol. Daniel deleted his comments 💀
@@jaycefields756 Bro couldn't defend his claims lol 😂😂😂
@@jaycefields756 I don't know what Daniel said, but your belief that he deleted his comments, as opposed to being banned from the channel is...
Interesting.
Found this channel and I love everything about, God Bless You.
It just so happens that I'm in this part of Acts in my daily Bible reading. Great and surprising explanation!
I love your content brother! Thanks for every video you uploaded so far!
It's possible that Paul wasn't being cheeky and was actually being sincere. It is possible that since Paul became Christian, he fell out of touch with the Judean religious political structure in the midst of a tumultuous high priest claimant dispute. Paul may have been saying, "Oh? Has that issue been resolved? I was unaware." That scenario is also plausible from and congruous with the historical facts.
Just found you through this video. I'm reading my Bible from Matthew's onward right now. Looking forward to Paul.
Thank you, subscribed!
Imagine hearing the crowd go, "Oooo!" after getting roasted by Paul.
5:15 I think Luke is probably contemporaneous to Paul’s journeys as well, this is one of my favorite parts of acts because I’m so into history (both biblical and secular) and I agree that this is strong evidence for acts being composed before the turn of the second century.
Interesting, I literally just read this chapter yesterday in my current "read one chapter or more a day" prayer routine.
Just stumbled upon this video and I absolutely adore the concept! Thank you for delving into history and contextualizing Scripture. The Bible is such a good historical record and it includes all the messiness of humanity while pointing us to the redemption of Jesus
Great video. Subscribed to your channel
That o brother where art thou reference was well played sir 👌
Glad someone finally caught it
The fact that we have to go through these loops and resort to circunstantial evidence to prove the acts are written by the random people they are allegedly written by, should tell us alot.
Brother that’s how most historical pieces are proven. If one historian talks about a war, and another doesn’t, we have to resort to other sources to see which author is telling the truth. If we find a journal from a farmer about how his done was drafted into war, then we can clearly see that the historian talking about the war was telling the truth.
Anything that isn't direct evidence is circumstantial evidence. The only form of direct evidence is a living eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is given the same weight as direct evidence in legal cases; it is just as valid, especially when there's so much of if that all adds up to point to the same conclusion. In this case there is so much evidence for the reliability of the New Testament that it's overwhelming.
I'll never get tired of the "unf!" Kid meme sound effect.
This was awesome thank you. Please know I really enjoy these videos and y'all are doing great work and I appreciate it. God bless
The whole “I didn’t know he was high priest” carries another dig, which in similar fashion appears in John 11:49, which refers to Caiaphas being high priest “that year.” According to Jewish law, the high priesthood was a lifetime appointment. The fact that it had become almost entirely political, a pawn of the Romans, is also very much in play in these texts. Paul, and John after him (John’s Gospel was written after Acts) both put their finger directly on a watered down, political, and spiritually powerless priesthood in Jerusalem.
I love your content bro! Just found you man. God bless and praise God of the Bible from New Zealand!
A shocking study is the conflict between Paul and James and Jude( not apostles, Jesus' half brothers who pushed "another gospel.") James and Jude were not Christian. Nor are their books. They were disavowed by Jesus. They were trying to set themselves up as high priests to this new Jewish cult. They set themselves against the Gospel at every turn, even sending cronies to undo Paul's missions. They are accursed.
This period of history is fascinating, and I'm so glad this video was recommended to me.
The opening statement in the Gospel of Luke tells why Luke's accounts are spot-on accurate. He says in Luke 1:3 that he had "perfect understanding from the very first.." The phrase from the very first is the Greek word 'anothen', meaning literally "from above". The only perfect understanding from above has to be revelation from none other than the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, from Acts, if one watches closely the pronouns used regarding Paul and company the record changes from "they" to "we" in Acts 16:10, meaning Luke joined the party. Sometime later the pronouns change back to "they", indicating that Luke was no longer travelling with Paul.
The problem with the so-called theological experts is they do not hold the Bible to be the inspired word and will of God. Jesus proclaimed "sanctify them through thy truth; thy Word is truth". (John 17:17) He should know as He is the Word in Person whereas the Bible is the Word in writing.
Nice work, as always!
BTW, Paulogia Live made a video 5 months ago claiming "A plan to destroy the undesigned coincidences apologetic". Any thoughts?
Paulogia is probably going to stick with his strategy of gaslighting. Just like he always do. Because Paulogia is not confident in his own arguments. And other cynics like him also do the same and they are guilty in the same way.
Yes that video made me laugh so hard. Imagine offering to drop out of school (for the right price, of course) to OWN the apologists. 💀💀💀
If Gregor's name statistics debunk is any indication of what would come out of that, (which is about to be shredded even further) I suggest evangelical atheists save their $$$
@@TestifyApologeticsthe polemical evolution from "i have an idea for a project but i have a lot of stuff that i am working on for my phd so people would need to pay me to put everything off for it" to "wow he really is offering to DROP OUT of school to OWN the apologists for MONEY" is why we dont trust polemics in ancient history at face value, contra the argument from "Tertullian made a bunch of strong statements about how Marcion is ridiculous"
@@Boundless_Border complete personal speculation, but i think it's an over correction against hyper skepticism
there are some really bad takes like a host on the atheist experience saying "how do you know the apostles even existed" and "muh claims are not muh evidence" (look up the "matt dillahunty's denial of history" supercut, it is fair honestly) and then they have a dialog tree about skeptical double standards that unfortunately gets applied to actual common sense skepticism about "hey we are only hearing one side of the Marcion controversy, maybe dont put a lot of stock in the strong statements from a guy writing 60 later, who opens his work with a bunch of insults, about how no one in the church would ever have an anonymous text ever in the prior generation when there wasnt even a canon until Marcion put together his" and the dialog tree kicks into "you wouldnt doubt the works of hippocrates" because of that Augustine quote against Faustus that isnt even accurate
@@Boundless_Border You are very ignorant. Today, we live in the era of the second industrial revolution, and that is why it's possible for us to have a middle class that can make these kinds of decisions today. It's already impossible for the early church to make such decisions like today without considering the fact that the early church faced unfathomable persecution for their beliefs.
Well done. Very illuminating. The Bible is still an undiscovered treasure house. ✝️✡️☦️🦁
Dude I love these type of videos that you are making. The knowledge you are sharing doesn't go unappreciated. God bless you in Jesus Name brother
There's a theory out there that Luke and Acts were originally the equivalent of legal briefs, written to get Theophilus (the high priest at the time, and the one who was bringing charges against Paul) to drop the charges. Acts ends abruptly, with Peter and Paul still alive. If it were a later composition, it's likely that their martyrdoms would have been included, as well as editing out the "we" sections, the inclusion of which also indicates running out of time on a deadline.
Luke will be my confirmation saint name. Cool to see info like this about him.
Paul a little Elijah in him being cheeky like that to Ananius. Elijah also mocked the prophets of bail.
As a Bible Study teacher this is a great series of videos, looking forward for more. Context is a key component to inderstanding history & religion. 😉👍
Paul in Acts is in 2 parts.
The first is the disciples and Paul.
Paul goes to the temple, stirs up some bad stuff
The disciples kick him out to Cesarea
The second Part is Paul's perspective.
Annas was the chief priest who talked to Jesus before Caiaphis
nice that you used a Halo meme.
I see... you are a man of culture as well :D
WOW, this is good. I’m at a loss for words. Thank You for this.
Praise God in Jesus Name! All glory to God!!! Keep honoring God with these videos!!! Praise God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in One in Jesus Name Amen 🙏
God bless brother!
Love it love it love it , Keep up the good work brother
4:40 What would you say then about Acts 23:2 "And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth."?
I probably shouldn't have put that "then" there
Ok.. This is just awesome!
I was up to this part in acts today in audiobook version on my walk home from work what are the chances I'd stumble across this of all videos a few hours later.. When you ask God to grow as a Christian he delivers.
Wow this amazing thx so much for this content🙏💜
Thank you for your ministry ❤❤❤❤
Can’t believe things would be even more complicated. May God Bless Everyone Have Faith In Christ Amen 🙏✝️❤️
GOD Loves You ! (everyone)
This is INCREDIBLE! Definitely need to subscribe now 💯
Yeah, that response to Ananias does sound pretty confusing without that extra historical context. I would've taken it at face value, not knowing that.
Though, I do wonder if Paul would've refrained from responding that way if it was towards the actual High Priest, or apologized for responding that way towards a High Priest. He also refers to the people persecuting him as "brothers". Does he mean "brothers" in the sense that they're Jews?
I think he was referring to the fact that he used to be a member of the sanhedrin.
I’ve been wondering how Paul’s parents were able to procure him a citizenship. It typically more difficult for someone who refused to worship the Olympic “gods” to obtain one, although there were obviously loopholes, not just for Jews, but also for such as Zoroastrians, who as Duotheists, only worshiped their 2 “gods”, and some of them were allowed to become citizens. I’m just not clear on the process for these exceptions, but this helps make sense.
The motive is fairly obvious; Paul was obviously groomed from childhood to be a traveling Rabbi for supporting the Jewish communities around the Empire & representing their interests to the Imperial Court; he was literally born to do already something very similar in what he ended up doing.
Most interesting bible-related video I've watched in a while!! Glad I found your channel.
The historical context certainly makes sense of why Paul didn’t recognize Ananias, but I don’t see how Paul is being cheeky/mocking here. His quotation of “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people” seems sincere to me-or at least I’m not sure how to read it as snarky.
Paul, being a former member of the sanhedrin, would have known exactly who Ananais was and the circumstances surrounding his office at the time.
Paul's words were deliberately crafted to demean Ananais. It was shade. 😂 😂 😂
Paul says it is against my religion to bad mouth the rulers, I can't do that.
It is a round the houses way of reminding them he is fallen from grace and from power and deserves no respect any more.
THIS WAS FUNNY, ENTERTAINING AND INFORMATIVE! THANKS!
The bible spoken like that is so much simpler and easy and funny to understand. Thank you 😢
It's euhemerism.....
There is no fake history.
It's either history, euhemerism, fiction, or unknown.
You don't get to choose which, the facts (not wishful thinking) and logic dictate whether or not the story is credible.
Paul being cheeky and sarcastic are my favorite parts of the Bible, he does it all the time, it’s hilarious.😂 I didn’t know about this one!
The algorithm truly algorithm'd 🔥 a Christian and history nerd finding such material is gold
Seems my hunch about Paul being sarcastic about his high priest comment was the right interpretation after all. 😅 God bless brother! 🙏
A historical book is historical!? 🤯🤯🤯
Can you make a video on the sermon on the mount please, having heard that Matthew actually composed it confuses me
Consider a different take on Paul's statement about Annanias being the High Priest. In the record of Jesus, with Peter, James and John, God anointed Jesus as the true High Priest in Mathew 17 and also in Luke 9: 28-36. The writer of Hebrews knew that Jesus was ordained the High Priest in Heb: 4:14-16, so I believe that Paul would also have known that the Lord was the real High Priest and that Annanias was superfluous, as it were, to the Office. The text could have the emphasis "I did not know HE was the High Priest.." emphasis mine, but to indicate that Paul knew full well that Jesus filled that office and not Annanias.
The changing of His garments to snow white and the vision of Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the Prophets) attest to this anointing. God's statement of this being His Son, in whom He was well pleased seals the deal.
That works well.
The algorithm sent me, hopefully it'll send more, this was a pretty interesting video.
Feel free to sub!
@@TestifyApologetics I did, I meant more people to the video :)
So you have circumstantial evidence to say that acts was written in the 1st century. Fair enough, but thats not evidence to say that it was a historically accurate text. Its merely contemporary fiction.
Its well shown by the mythicists that acts is fiction, not historical
Any thoughts on why Paul's multiple conversion accounts contradict eachother?
If I accurately wrote down everything that Joseph Smith said, does that means he was a true prophet?
This is fantastic! Thanks for this!
It may also be a comment about that the old Levitical Priesthood is no longer in effect as the new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek has come. So in reality even if he is truly the Levitical High Priest, still he is not the High Priest in Power.
Subbed!! Great content:)
Really well done!
So you're telling me that Paul trolled everyone? Wow, I guess it's okay to do then
Claudius was Emperor from 41-54 and was succeeded by Nero from 54-64. Messalina married Claudius in 38 and was executed (by Claudius) in 48. When do you date Paul's trial in Jerusalem?
That is cool. I wonder if Paul's lengthy stay in prison before being seen by Aggrippa had anything to do with his mocking his old faction?
That one evidence must be good enough to convince an honest enquirer that Acts is not fiction but a record of the author's experience.
The so-called skeptics with dogmatic counterbiases won't try to check its validity but instead find holes, even through intellectual gymnastics, if needed. Though most of them rely on magic words. The thing is that those magic spells only work on them.
This is Great synthesis.. thank you
You left out the role of James in this episode. He is the one who encourages Paul to go into the Temple in the first place. Did he not know the risk Paul was facing? One way to read the story is to regard James as setting Paul up for the trouble he barely escapes. A lot of contemporary scholars (Robert Eisenman, James Tabor, and others) make a lot of the conflict between Paul and James and see in the NT attempts to cover it up.
This is conspiratorial. James gave Paul the right hand of fellowship, Paul himself tells us so in the letter to Galatians. You can't accuse someone of trying to off a religious rival based on such flimsy reeds.
We could really take a hint about the value of citizenship from history.
At 1:23 there is a mistake.
Paul wasn not "born" with the right. You cand still buy it and be considered "born" with it. It is the highest title of roman citezenship.
I always thought Paul was being sarcastic when he said he didn't know Ananias was the High Priest, but I didn't get why. Now it makes sense 😁
Awesome video, I am loving this series. Christ is King.
I found this very useful. Thanks
You said paul is being cheeky but how do we know he wasnt informed about the power vacuum? Why did ananias not introduce himself as the high priest in the jail?