Deflating Over A Dozen Gospel Contradictions (Holy Kool Aid Response)
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 08. 2024
- In this video, we'll be taking a critical look at a popular videos titled "12 Contradictions in the Bible and 13 More Bible Contradictions" by the popular Atheist CZcamsr Holy Kool Aid. Holy Kool Aid's video claims to have found numerous contradictions in the four Gospels. In the last video we looked at his claims of contradiction in the Old Testament.
He we'll examine each of the supposed contradictions presented in the video and evaluate whether they hold up to scrutiny. Many of the contradictions presented by Holy Kool Aid are based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the Gospels, while some are a little more difficult to reconcile. But overall, there is nothing here that should put a dent in one's confidence in the Four Gospels.
0:00 Why Harmonization
02:23 Jesus' Genealogy
09:26 Jesus' Nativity
15:33 Peter's Calling
16:55 Death of Judas
18:35 Jairus' Daughter
20:39 Double Donkey
22:32 Peter's Denial
24:28 When Did Jesus Die?
27:33 Stay In Jerusalem or Go to Galilee?
29:35 When Was the Spirit Given?
30:49 Conclusions
Previous response to Old Testament contradictions: • Busting Holy Kool-Aid'...
Response to Useful Charts on the census: • When Was Jesus Really ...
Original videos: • 12 Contradictions in t... and • 13 More Bible Contradi...
Some helpful resources:
Testimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrew amzn.to/41RdIcw
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig Blomberg amzn.to/41T9Bg7
Hard Sayings of the Bible, Kaiser, Bruce, et al amzn.to/3ZnRTQs
New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer amzn.to/3kQYK5P
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: New Testament, Michael Brown, amzn.to/3ZrqFZ3
Blog posts by Jonathan McLatchie. 3-part response to Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted jonathanmclatchie.com/why-you...
Are the Differing Narratives of Peter’s Denials Reconcilable?, Craig Blomberg www.thegospelcoalition.org/ar...
Lydia McGrew's Playlist on the Virgin Birth: • The Virgin Birth 1: Ma...
Triablogue Christmas resources: triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/1...
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
No matter how much we disagree, Holy Kool-Aid gets props for his Princess Bride reference. 👏
@@jacobolson8537there are some in the description
What’s your opinion on Gabe the street preacher ministry? Does he speak truth?
@@goosewagon280never heard of him
The Bible was written by God the master mind times a billion our little infant minds try to figure it out and it looks like a book of contradictions and now have so many churches that disagree because they contradict each other's understanding of the Bible but the Bible says not to lean on our understanding we need God to interpret his word.
I like how you low key roast this guy. Never assume good faith on someone like Holy Kool Aid.
As a tax collector I don't think Mathew made a calculation mistake in the Gospel
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 by your logic you must be a Holocaust denier because you must not be able to confirm anything in history. Why would a man lie about being a tax collector? Not exactly a strong flex.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Since there's no other attestations, yes there is
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 There is no good reason NOT to believe that Matthew (and Mark and Luke and John) weren’t written by those authors. In fact, have you ever thought about this: If you were to write a fake gospel you want people to believe, would you ascribe authorship to a tax collector (who the Jews hated with a passion and wouldn’t trust at all), a physician who wasn’t even present during any of these events (i.e., Luke), and interpreter who also wasn’t present for any of these events (i.e., Mark)? You might pick John, but no one would falsely claim one of those other authors. They would be FAR more likely to claim one of the people who figure prominently in the stories wrote them. Which, by the way, is exactly what the gnostic authors did when they wrote the clearly fraudulent Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, and other false Gospels.
That being said, I do think Matthew as a Tax Collector and likely fascinated with nice even numbers would have felt free to group things like the genealogies into nice even groupings by skipping some generations just to make an overall pleasing picture. Matthew often took liberties with certain details that are filled in by the other Gospels based on what Matthew was trying to emphasize in his Gospel. To modern readers, we see this as “dishonest” or making a mistake, but this was actually quite common with first century Greco-Roman biographies. They were all about arranging events in the subject of the biography’s life into themes, and were not at all interested in providing a day-by-day accurate sequence of events. This is also why the order of events in the synoptic Gospels differ: Matthew grouped events in to themes and not chronology, while Luke was more interested in presenting “and orderly account.” Neither approach was inaccurate or dishonest. They were merely different commonly understood means for sharing why the central focus of a biography was important.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 //So, what common denominator, so to speak, would those three people be more likely to have than approximately 95% of the Roman population in antiquity? If you guessed literacy, you would be correct.//
Okay, so I am confused. Are you arguing FOR these Gospels being written by these three authors, because they were literate? I thought you were arguing AGAINST them by saying there is “no good reason” to think these were the authors. You just provided at least one “good reason.”
However, I will also point out that while the literacy rate in the Roman Empire may have been low, that was not the case in Judea. All Jewish males (at least) were taught to read and to memorize the Jewish Scriptures, and the ones most adept at this were then selected to be trained further as scribes, Rabbis or Pharisees. The literacy rate in Judea was much, much higher than the rest of the Empire as a result.
//And btw, the gospel of “Matthew” was very likely written after the Jewish War…//
*Why?* Whenever people make claims like this, they absolutely must provide reasons or evidence backing up those claims. I see absolutely zero *external* evidence that establishes any date after the Jewish war, and the *internal* evidence that Matthew was written before the destruction of the Temple, the martyrdom of Peter, or any of these highly significant events had yet occurred.
//…it defies credulity to believe that an eyewitness to many of the events described within is giving his version of the story, yet uses 90% of the gospel of “Mark” to do just that.// This is both factually false, in the sense of Matthew does not align perfectly with Mark and does not incorporate 90% of Mark just as Mark wrote it (which you yourself make clear later), as well as an unsound argument. First of all, Matthew was not an eyewitness to everything that he recounts in his biography of Jesus (a.k.a., his Gospel or “Good News” book about Jesus). And so it in no way defies credibility that he might have incorporated what had already been widely circulated orally by other eyewitnesses to those events he did not witness, such as the details of Jesus’ birth and childhood, or what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, or other events he did not personally witness. And so we are left with Matthew relating his own version of certain common events differently, and including other people’s recollections of other events, which really doesn’t stretch credulity at all.
//The author of “Matthew” repeatedly uses “Mark” verbatim, quoting the predecessor with as many as thirty words verbatim.// Which is it? Did Matthew use 90% of Mark verbatim? Or only up to 30 words in certain common passages verbatim? You are beginning to contradict yourself.
//…yet “Matthew” repeatedly keeps the exact same sentence structure verbatim as “Mark,” typically only changing to “correct” him.// Again, which is it? Did Matthew NEVER change Mark’s word order or did he change Mark’s word order when it was grammatically incorrect? And if Matthew only changed Mark’s word order to “correct” him, does that not imply that Matthew had no need to use a different word order because Mark didn’t get it wrong? This whole criticism keeps getting less and less coherent and more and more contradictory.
//Scholars have been aware of this for centuries.// I know. I was also well aware of this. You haven’t even mentioned the other theory commonly accepted by Scholars, known as “Q theory,” that presupposes that all three synoptic Gospel writers made use of some even earlier collection of quotations and stories about Jesus that were widely in circulation already, known as “Q.” It is from this proposed Q that scholars even infer the order of which Gospels were written in which order (Mark, then Matthew, then Luke).
But this whole argument BACKFIRES against skeptics. Because, we know when Acts ends, and know that Acts was therefore written during Paul’s first imprisonment, and before his second trial and martyrdom, which was before the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple. And since Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts, that means Luke was written before then. And since Q-theory would have Matthew and Mark written before Luke, that would place both Gospels well before the Jewish Revolt. And since Q was already widely in circulation before then, that would place THAT source even closer to the events in question. You are only tightening the timeline and putting all of these closer to the actual historical events being described by all of these documents. And leaving less time for legendary development to occur.
//There is so much more to this. I would recommend that you read some of the serious modern scholarship done on this topic.// Assuming of course I haven’t, when I actually have. But I have also made it a point to read both skeptical and supportive scholarly accounts, and not just stop with one side. Have you bothered to read any of the scholarly articles countering most of these points?
By the way, the hypocrisy becomes pretty clear in these discussions. I literally had a person on this thread in a SINGLE comment on the one hand pointing out discrepancies between Matthew and Mark while at the same exact time criticizing Matthew for “copying” 80% of Mark.
Which is it, folks? If the four Gospel writers wrote completely identical accounts without any discrepancies, you will shout “AHAH! PROOF THEY COLLUDED AND MADE UP THE STORIES!”
But when they happen to disagree on some minor points, you will shout “AHAH! PROOF THAT THE WRITERS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER SO THEY MUST HAVE MADE UP THE STORIES!”
Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? You are really looking for any excuse to discredit them because you already have decided that you don’t want to believe they were what they claimed to be: A collection of first and second-hand accounts of real, historical events that actually happened over 2,000 years ago.
Being what they claim to be actually explains why they agree on all major points, and even share a lot of the same source materials (the 2nd hand content they heard from other first hand eye witnesses), while also not being carbon copies of each other, and even providing accidental clarification when one writer neglects to share some detail that another includes. This is exactly what one would expect to find in four independent 1st century Greco-Roman biographies of the same person: Jesus of Nazareth.
So are you saying there wasn’t any copying?
@@billyb7465 Define copying. Most scholars think that there was a collection of sayings of Jesus already in circulation before Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels. This unknown source is dubbed “Q.” It is plausible that all three synoptic writers included many of not all of the sayings recorded in Q, both because it was they themselves had already been sharing verbally and because the Churches had already heard those sayings before. But if you are picturing Matthew sitting down with Mark’s gospel and literally copying directly from it, that’s neither likely nor what most scholars believe happened. And it is also interesting (but not conclusive) to note that while Mark is the first of the gospels in Greek we have today, the early Church Fathers recorded that Matthew wrote the first gospel, although in Aramaic. It is possible that Q is that lost Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. So Matthew wouldn’t even be copying from anyone else.
Regardless, we know there was at least one earlier Gospel we no longer have copies of, and it is also perfectly plausible that a collection of Jesus’ sayings and teaching was already circulating between the Churches just as the letters of Paul and Peter and John were.
What is not plausible is the idea that Matthew literally just copied from Mark without any firsthand knowledge of the events in question. And Luke explicitly says that he interviewed the surviving eye witnesses when collecting his account, so that is not a problem.
Again, which is it? If the idea is the gospels are unreliable because some portions match each other that doesn’t lessen credibility. What might would be if they matched exactly across all four gospels in all details. That is more indicative of collusion.
Some sections are word for word the same, showing they were obviously copied from the same source text, indicating the stories that "corroborate each other" are actually from only one source (such as most of the miracles and the sayings of Jesus). Other portions (such as the genealogies of Jesus and the entire resurrection story) are contradictory in key details, making their supposed corroboration unreliable.
You're calling PB&J a ham sandwich, and then demanding we make up our minds on whether the sandwich is full of peanut butter or kull of jelly. Part of it is peanut butter. Part of it is jelly. None of it is ham.
@@plantsinrocks (1) Some sections are word for word the same, and (2) there are contradictions. Thank you for making my EXACT POINT FOR ME. You just literally did what I said atheists do, and argued out of both sides of your mouth. Which is it? Did the authors conspire together so that all the details are the same and even were word-for-word copies of some other document? Or did the authors NOT conspire together leading to “contradictions” between the accounts? Which is it? Make up your mind. Because you can’t have it both ways. Also, there is a third option: The authors did NOT conspire to make up ANYTHING, but three of the authors incorporated portions of either an oral tradition or (now lost) earlier collection of sayings that people were already familiar with. Note: That does not make even those sections necessarily from “one” source. The collection of sayings likely were consolidated from accounts of the 500+ eyewitnesses and their personal recollections. Just like the Hadith in Islam is a single “source,” but traced back every saying to a set of known companions of Muhammed. That doesn’t make any quotes from the Hadith backed only by a “single source,” and so the use of “Q” by Mark, Matthew and Luke doesn’t prove they borrowed from a single “source.” And the fourth did not include any direct quotes from Q, but John wrote from personal recollection and stories shared by his adopted mother, Mary, Jesus’ mother, covering Jesus’ early years and life that appears in John and not the others. So, we have four authors all writing a BIOGRAPHY of Jesus (not a personal memoir or a formal history), and did so independently, leveraging some existing material where it existed and filling in the rest from their personal recollection or the recollection of other eyewitnesses (Peter in the case of Mark, and living eyewitnesses interviewed by Luke in his case). The very differences are evidence that they neither collaborated nor borrowed their entire material from some single source.
And regarding “contradictions,” there are none. Not in the logical sense of a claim that A and Not A were true at the same time. It is NOT a contradiction form me to say to a family member that “Esther and I were at a party and…” and to another mutual friend “Esther, John, Mary and I were at Luke’s party…” Including some named people and not others doesn’t mean the others weren’t there, just not mentioned. I will even say it is not a contradiction for one writer to remove a middle man in a conversation between the Centurion and Jesus, while another writer includes the servants who were carrying the messages back and forth. Those aren’t contradictions, merely elicitations of details one author felt were unimportant for simplicity. So, if you are going to cite contradictions, you’ll have to be more specific regarding what actual contradictions are there.
@@plantsinrocks Did you read my response above in full? Because I already showed that just because three of the four have some shared sections that may have come from an earlier source does NOT by itself prove they all came from a single source with no independence. First, because the earlier source most likely was itself a collection of remembrances by multiple eyewitnesses that were captured and circulated widely before the first Gospels were finally written. Just like the Hadith is not a single source despite being a single collection of quotes and remembrances by dozens of different witnesses. Second, you focus on the 30% and ignore the 70% of material that is not verbatim across the three synoptics and so is unique material. Third, you are not even bothering to try to answer the question about whether these authors conspired to create a new religion based on a set of carefully crafted lies, or if they were telling the truth as best they could. Honestly, I don’t expect you are open minded at all at this point, but your points are REALLY, REALLY BAD. They are only convincing to people who are looking for reasons to not have to consider the Bible as real history. But to any person trying to approach this question as objectively as possible, the argument you made is not even internally consistent, let alone convincing. Sorry.
There is a difference between contradiction and discrepancy. A contradiction claim both A and not-A. A discrepancy claims A and B (i.e. the two accounts simply differ). Either could be true or both could be true. B does not necessarily imply not-A (and A does not necessarily imply not-B). A little basic logic would solve most of the claimed "Bible contradictions".
Many of the skeptics arguments even boild down to "If A then B, B, therefore A" which is a basic logical fallacy.
The bible is a man-made book with man-made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man-made errors :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the Earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the sun can’t be stopped for having longer light in a battle, it already stands still
+ etc etc
If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
@@user-hr8dx9qw4n Hi u/aalewis. Nice try but next time try quality over quantity.
@@user-hr8dx9qw4n What a bunch of absolutely nothing you typed out here
@@user-hr8dx9qw4n Are you kidding me insects have different number of legs depending on the insects
The Bible explains why there Earth came before the Sun simply put read Revelation and the other verses in old testament
In revelation it says that there will be no need of moon or Sun because God's light will light up the World meaning God himself can do it without the sun existing
These aren't contradictions
Homosexuality is not natural animals don't decide to oh I will have sex with my fellow mail lions homosexuality happens because humans create there own instincts because of background male to female is clearly what our bodies were built for homosexuality doesn't provide or do anything to a relationship or the body it produces nothing if we were all homosexuals the we would stop existing God is right as homosexuality to s not a natural concept it's an idea you choose to except depending on influence
I don't understand Cain and Abel aren't contradictions
The sun being stopped to have longer light could be chopped up to being a metaphor because there is no evidence in the Bible that it did example the flood is referenced so many times in Bible to show God's power if the sun did stop it would be referenced
Joseph adopted Jesus
Saul adopted David
It’s almost like the Bible is full of symmetry and foreshadowing and symbols
not at all, jesus lied about malachai 4 5
@@BLMacab blasphemous, Jesus has never lied.
@@BLMacab You say it like somebody can't just look up Malachi and read it for themselves... Before you blaspheme the Lord you should take a second to consider your actions.
@@rodney8075 so jesus did malachai 4 5?
@@albanianvalor yeah he does, are did he lie when he asked why he was forsaken by god on the cross?
Given the amount of "unknown" background context, proving or disproving a contradiction is near impossible. If we have good independent evidence that Christianity is true, then I see every reason to be "charitable" to the NT writers and assume that a reasonable harmonization exists even if I cannot see it.
100%. When we can corroborate so much in the Gospels, then harmonization is a reasonable thing to do. There are a few stubborn ones out there, but even if we admitted they were a contradiction they don't amount to much. There's nothing in here that screams that they were making things up or deliberately changing the facts.
So true. One of the hallmarks of reliable eyewitness testimony is that it is going to agree on the basics, and yes, it _will_ disagree on the details, which may need harmonizing. Or maybe not, it depends.
If everything exactly matched down to the last detail, we should rightly suspect collusion, or at least only one source, which makes such testimony actually _less_ reliable, not more.
Skeptics (like HK) who talk about contradictions seem to be addressing a brittle fundamentalism that seems to say “The Bible is inerrant, infallible, and without contradiction, and if even _one contradiction_ is found, THEN IT’S ALL GARBAGE!!!”
The skeptics simply refuse to admit that millions of Bible-believing Christians vary widely when it comes to inerrancy.
They just put out videos like this, gleefully claim to have debunked Christianity, and their followers lap it up.
Too bad.
@@Mark-cd2wf Well said. Yup these atheists are constantly straw manning. If it doesn’t meet their rigid silly caricature it’s all nonsense and they declare themselves brilliant and brave. If it was all perfectly ‘dictated’ like Muslims erroneously believe about the Quran they’d mock it for being untrustworthy because it’s ‘too perfect’ and reject the veracity because it was a ‘controlled text’.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 No, it is not.
I’m just a layman, but I remember reading somewhere that when it comes to textual criticism of ancient documents, the #1 rule is this: the benefit of the doubt always goes to the _document,_ not the skeptic.
Anybody here keep a journal? A fun exercise is to go look at your old journal writings for key events in your life. Now, take note of many of the "contradictions" you find in your journals. Can you harmonize them? Yes. Because you know the contexts and how you didn't cover every single detail in every single mention of the event. Very few of these contradictions skeptics bring up are hardly worse than some of those I have found in my own journal. I think it is more special pleading to say you can't harmonize than it is to try to harmonize.
exactly you must know the spirit in which it was said It's just like here on youtube I could say something and three people could take it three different ways unless they knew from where I was coming from with my words.
Amen I'll probably make hundreds of minor discrepancies about what I did and saw last week let alone ten years ago and if we're assuming the synoptic Gospels were written ten years after Jesus returned to The right hand of The Father, then its likely the apostles weren't recalling every minor detail each time.
All of these "contradictions"dont effect the truth of the bible tbh
I think atheists try to gloss over this very clear and salient point you’re making by saying “Okay sure, makes sense, but this book is supposed to be inspired from a perfect God, and can therefore not contain a single error.” They’re taking this idea and vastly over-stretching it to incorporate an unrealistic standard of perfectly synchronized eyewitness accounts. Ask a detective how confident he or she will be in the exactly duplicated testimony of 3-4 people. They will be suspicious as hell lol
@All About Britain Sure, thanks for asking. I believe he did.
I find no reason why the current consensus on the dating of the earth has to contradict the creation account. I believe that either 1) The events of Genesis ch 1 really did occur 6,000 years ago, and God gave the universe/earth inherent age. Everybody ignores the possibility of that last part, somehow limiting an all-powerful God from birthing an already aged creation. Or, 2) The dating methods we use are wrong. The geologic column doesn’t even exist, after all :)
And yes to the Adam and Eve point as well.
I’m not an expert, and I’m not going to pretend that I’m 100% sure on these points. But for every “you’re a science-denying fundamentalist idiot” I receive, I dole out a “God can create however He wants, including giving something age.” Thanks for asking, would love to hear your takes
@All About Britain hey, fun fact, time distortion is a thing. And time has slowed down as the universe expended. If you do the math of the age accounting time dilation, you get 6000 years!
Bottom line: Different accounts from different people who remember different details is going to result in some differences within the accounts, but that doesn't mean the story overall is inaccurate. Especially when the Gospel writers pretty much agree on everything else.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Depends on what one means by “inspired.”
There is a wide variety of disagreement among born-again, Bible-believing Christians when it comes to the subject of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j If any sort of contradiction, historical/scientific inaccuracy, or minor discrepancy is a point of contention for belief, your problem isn't God - it's man-made fundamentalistic literalism. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (a very manmade and, to me, a downright silly statement) is perhaps the primary source for this problem for many.
In one part, it says that the authority of Scripture is “inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.” The "this" it's referring to is God's 6-day creation, any recorded biblical events in world history, etc. - the writers of this statement literally set believers up to fall. They backed themselves into a dangerous corner; they stood on a hill and said they will die on it because Scripture _has_ to be the way they want it to be, else it's all for naught. And as soon as any adherents to the Chicago Statement discover _any_ contradiction, inaccuracy, or minor discrepancy pertaining to ANYTHING, their entire faith comes crumbling down. This type of literalism is why Bart Ehrman lost his faith. Rather tragic if you ask me, and all over an approach that is simply unbiblical to begin with.
In both John 5:39 and Luke 24, Jesus says that the Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets) are written to bear witness to Himself. The New Testament authors had this understand as well - they reasoned from the Scriptures the things concerning Christ, His life, His death, and His resurrection. And that's what one really needs to read, trust, and understand the Bible's message - that Jesus is the central message of the story. No such words like "inerrant" are used in the New Testament. God-breathed, sure, but why equate God-breathed with "free from error"? God worked with and through fallible humans to communicate a story of redemption for mankind that culminates in Christ. When I encounter errors, I enjoy them because it shows God's invitation for humans to step into and be a part of the story.
So that's my concluding question to you - why believe human limitations being included precludes Scripture's divine inspiration?
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Depends on what one means by “inspired.”
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j How do you know my definition is correct? Like I said, there’s a great difference of opinion among Bible-believing Christians over terms like inerrancy, inspiration, infallibility, and etc.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Yes, the various writers of the Bible books were inspired by God, but they are still human, and humans are inherently imperfect. Does that mean the Bible could have a few good faith mistakes like a wrong number or date? Sure. But that doesn't invalidate the overall message in any way.
Just like 2 Timothy 2:21 says:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
The Bible doesn't view itself as the literal, infallible speech of God like the Quran does, but rather, as a manual for instruction that is a useful tool in teaching how to live a good life in obedience to God.
HK would do well to pay heed to one of his heroes:
“Essential Christian beliefs are _not_ affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
Bart Ehrman, _Misquoting Jesus_
(appendix to paperback edition, p.252)
If only Ehrman would be this honest in his CZcams debates 😂.
Absolutely. It just becomes a problem when people claim the Bible has *zero* textual errors. Minor contradictions like the exact date of Jesus' death aren't essential to the core beliefs of the Christian faith, but they still show how the Bible can't be 100% without error.
@@gothamwarrior Exactly. These kind of criticisms only expose the kind of brittle fundamentalism Ehrman (and so many others) came out of when they apostatized.
They were fed a steady diet of “The Bible is the Word of God and is 100% without error! If there’s even ONE jot or tittle of the Bible that can be proven wrong, _then it’s not the Word of God and Christianity is false!”_
All this from their Sunday School teachers, pastors, Bible college professors, etc.
So then they find errors in the Bible in copying, or what look like contradictions, and they throw the Bible out the window and proclaim “It’s not the Word of God and Christianity is false!”
And some of them go on to make pretty good money writing books about it, apparently.
To be Frank, nothing makes me cringe more than when someone says they’re consulting the “original Greek” while using a meh online interlinear.
If you don’t understand the language, ask an expert… Holy Kool-aid needs to listen more and speak less.
I’m still stuck on the fact he doesn’t know what a scrabble error is, despite the fact he supposedly has 20 years of research under his belt and he’s literally interviewed Bart Ehrman he has no excuse.
To think about "original greek". Jesus was a jew, so he spoke biblical hebraic as tought in the synagogues and the peoples aramaic. Most likely he spoke greek as today people in europe often learn english. It is said that Matthew wrote the first gospel in hebraic for the jews.
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
John 17:17
“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13
O excellent Erik Manning, I hope you never forget the impact you have; by the decrees of our common Lord, you have been an instrument to convert many, and have strengthen the faith of the brethren. You are an example of what we as Christians ought to be. Persevere onward O Erik, and may the God of Heaven bless you forever and evermore. Godspeed to thee.
He doesn’t understand what a contradiction is so he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Two different details from two different sources about the same event isn’t a contradiction. If those two details were opposing like how Jesus died or something then we’d have a problem. But there is nothing like that.
An atheist CZcamsr alleging contradictions in the Bible, who knows the definition of contradiction, would itself be a contradiction.
I think the genealogy contradiction is problematic because 1) claiming it’s Joseph’s lineage means that’s NOT Jesus’ lineage so the prophesy is void. If you change it to be Mary’s lineage, it still has an error because the 2 didn’t lines have different fathers. It’s obvious the 2 authors were trying to force the lineage to prove the prophesy, but one didn’t have all the details. And he was a Christian scholar who has more education on theology than you do. He became an atheist after researching & realizing how faulty the core beliefs are with this religion
The seemingly ever-present problem of reading Scripture through a modern, Western lens.
isn't the message supposed to be forever true and universal? If it doesn't work for a time and a place, is the problem really the place and the time, or the book?
@@bzhyoyo it is still true and universal, if read in context.
@@natebozeman4510 so I've been told, and then all the atrocities in the Old Testament are then cool, because "context". There's no context that could excuse slavery, ever.
@@bzhyoyo If you conflate the slavery of the Old Testament with chattel slavery taught to us in school (the kind that happened in America), I could see how you would come to that conclusion.
The only issue is that the slavery in the OT is NOT chattel slavery, or anything resembling it.
Conflating two different ideas into one and saying "Well if THAT'S what Christianity affirms, then I'm out" is weak sauce, man.
This is exactly the point of my original comment. We read Scripture with a modern, Western lens, and wonder why anyone could believe those stories.
You have to remove yourself from the modern context (which takes a lot of time, effort, and study) in order to read the Bible properly.
But this objection your posting has been answered many times.
@@natebozeman4510 As have been this argument that it's different from chattel slavery, I suppose. I've read about the differences (the wikipedia page about "Bible and slavery" is quite complete) and I don't see it as an excuse. Anyway, it all boils down to "cool story, Bro" if you take the unsavory bits away, like so many Christians do.
For anyone who's not read it yet, I recommend J Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity. The author's an LAPD cold case homicide detective who specializes in harmonizing witness statements in murder cases, figuring out when apparent discrepancies point to truth and when they are lies. He analyzed the Gospels using this skill set when he was an atheist and came out convinced that the New Testament is reliable and true.
I'm sure that Jesus was hoping someone like him would finally do that and set the record straight for the rest of us.
@@truncated7644 Is that sarcasm or a genuine statement?
@@StageWatcher Sarcasm, Wallace is not a scholar and his understanding of the ancient near east, biblical texts, etc. is very limited and often wrong. Even Lacona struggled to walk back all the claims Wallace made about NT authorship, dating, etc. Wallace has a single hammer and everything he sees is a nail.
@@truncated7644 Examples please?
@@StageWatcher Well, if you are truly curious, @Paulogia has a whole series on these issues. Wallace thinks that his detective logic can prove that Mark was written in the 50's, when even virtually all evangelical scholars disagree. Wallace totally misunderstands the probable dating of the creed Paul quotes in 1Cor 15. Wallace fails to comprehend the enormous dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark's gospel. Yet he goes on and on about how he knows when suspects are colluding.
Jimmy Akin in his debate with Bart Ehrman last year said that he thinks Joseph may have had two residences. When I first heard the claim it initially sounded ad-hoc and perhaps even absurd, but when explained in full, rather than a short segment in a cross examination, it actually makes quite a bit of sense. Akin wrote an article on this titled "Where Was Joseph’s Residence?" which is worth checking out.
I really like Jimmy Akin and I do agree that Joseph probably did have two residences. I need to watch that debate, I think I only watched the debrief on it. See the playlist in the description from Lydia McGrew, she has a video on the possibility and why it makes a lot of sense. All of these contradictions could take up an entire video so I was trying to shotgun solutions I found plausible.
@@TestifyApologetics it was a really good debate you should definitely watch it jimmy was very well prepared
@@djpodesta Having two places where he could live where both of them are backwater towns actually seems... Not that big of a claim. "I have two trailers, one in a small town where I work and one in my childhood home of a small Appalachian mountain village" is like... Incredibly achievable. If that's your idea of wealth, you don't need to be a 1%er to be wealthy.
I don't think anyone would claim that Joseph had two really nice houses. He can't even stay with family and willingly takes his pregnant wife to a cave to shelter out the night according to Luke. And you're like "how could this cave dwelling man possibly have two caves, ridiculous!"
@@soulcutterx13 I just don't see why its a problem in general. The reason there was "no room" in the inn was clearly some kind of seasonal or event based form of overpopulation... like hotels during the Olympics. Once the surge dips, he could easily have procured a lasting place to stay.
They weren't POOR, they were more like what we'd call middle class.
And it makes sense that he'd be staying somewhere near Jerusalem (Bethlehem isn't far away, and it's in the ancient claim area of his family, so it's preferable to a random place) because now that they hsve the baby, unnecessary long travel isn't a solid idea if they're just going to come right back and visit the temple.
While there maybe Joseph made some good business connections so they stayed longer than anticipated, and only left when soldiers started killing babies, so they fled to Egypt, and then went back to his main residence in Nazereth.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but I'm simply saying it's perfectly plausible, which shows the ridiculous version is just ad hoc and lacks imagination. It's a "put on" absurdity.
@@TestifyApologetics
""Where Was Joseph’s Residence?" which is worth checking out."
To quote my mother, "What Does That Have To Do With The Price Of Tea In China?"
Have anyone noticed that Holy Koolaid’s depiction of Jesus is rather…unsavory?
Wonder what HK is going to say to Jesus on Judgment Day…..
Then I [John] turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was One like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around His chest. The hair of His head was white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were like a blazing fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. He held in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp double-edged sword came from His mouth. His face was like the sun shining at its brightest.
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. But He placed His right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of Death and of Hades.” (Rev. 1:12-18).
@@Mark-cd2wf Amen. His depiction of Jesus reminded me of how unbelievers accused our Lord and Saviour.
“The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.” - Matthew 11:19 KJV.
The bible is a man-made book with man-made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man-made errors :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the Earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the sun can’t be stopped for having longer light in a battle, it already stands still
+ etc etc
If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
@@Mark-cd2wf I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of Odin instead of Jesus and Odin will think long if he lets you into Walhalla, or send you to Hels realm.
Christians were pretty brutal to pagans ;)
@@clayton4349 I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of Odin instead of Jesus and Odin will think long if he lets you into Walhalla, or send you to Hels realm.
Christians were pretty brutal to pagans ;)
Testify is demolishing misconceptions and false facts at this point and I'm all for it.
Misconceptions?
People are reading the words of your book and they call out the problems loud and clear,
You're the one who involves yourself in mental gymnastics in order to explain a thing, you have no idea about.
Let me ask you, how many of the accounts came from the original time of the people they are testifying? Who testified for Moses? Do you have anything remotely close to his time?
You're like a pigeon that tries to play chess and says he's won by shitting all over the chess board. He didn't present a refutation, he only presented a perspective, that is not even present in the book he believes in.
The genealogy theory, its all theory, that his book do not contain, what now?
"demonlishing" according to who? Both Jewish and Muslim and Secular scholars do not accept your excuses, so who's the authority that accepts the explanations? Lmao, that's like commiting a crime and saying that you're not in the wrong, while the majority disagrees with you.
Yeah I can see the democracy the Christians once used to hold, their world view of pure bias and prejudice, absolutely disgusting!
Why are there fabrications in your book? What about them? 1 John 5:7 king james version compare it to 1 john 5:7 to revised standard version. You see 2 different verses, king james one is a fabrication and a later addition, admitted by your own christian scholars, so why do you still keep it in your books?
Why?
Good
Love your pfp
@@ramigilneas9274 i understand what you saying it is very to bring up arguments against any texts but what is not easy to do is to actually make facts of those arguments the Bible doesnt have contradictions cause for any contradiction people come up with there is someone who has factually answered it. Cant say the same for many of the other religious texts
@@ramigilneas9274 that is why i stated to prove things with facts is difficult the Quran and the book of Mormon can't conclusively explain some of their texts but when it comes to the Bible then all 'contradicting' texts have been answered by someone. Ps. The Quran and book of Mormon are full of misleading texts and falsified information.
I wrote a full report on Judas’ death, with scientific, historical, and biblical evidence of how Judas died , how long it took for his body to decompose, as well as how he did it and what historical trees he could of used to hang himself. Most important take away from all of it , read Acts 1:18 word for word and see that he did not buy the field with silver , the Pharisees did , Judas however purchased the field with wages of unrighteousness. Peter was speaking spiritually about his impure blood purchasing the field with the wages of his sin. That’s why it was called the field of blood by everyone in Jerusalem at the time to the point where they wanted nothing to do with the cursed ground even if it was open for sale.
What’s clear is God demands justice and we are terribly sinful. We need Jesus, and without Him we will perish. That’s no koolaid.
@@CWRobinsonMusic Amen.
It's always hilarious to me when 20 something year olds with no education or background in historical scholarship are try-harding to "debunk" Scripture by applying their XXI century high school novel-reading experience and skills to a two thousand year old documents from a completely different times and culture. And of course, they could not be bothered to do throughout research on the subject and reference all the counter arguments provided by actual historians and scholars over the last two thousand years. Their go to approach is that all billions of Christians who lived before them, including those who had twice their IQ and 10 times their experience on the matter, are just coping idiots who can be leveled in 10 minutes. I mean the ego on that guy. Uffff, talk about cringe.
It's all they have. They are more excuses than anything else. I imagine he rejects God because that would mean there are objective moral standards he has to adhere to. That gets in the way of enjoying sin, so can't have that.
@@capitalm4605 Seriously? You truly think that is what motivates him? Do you know his story? If that is how you love your enemies by judging them in this way, you are deeply in the wrong.
I prefer to read the scholars rather than the research communicators too. But your statement isn't an argument and it doesn't make HK wrong. @Testify is doing yeoman's labor here, and the amount of effort shows. There are a lot of contradictions, but deeply held convictions leads him and all believers to cling to what is possible and not always what is probable.
@@truncated7644 I am familiar with his story and have seen it many times. I can see the idea makes you angry, but sometimes loving your enemies means delivering harsh truths.
@@capitalm4605 Not angry. Why would I be? about what? If you define truth as repeating what you understand the Bible says, go for it. It doesn't make it true. But it does seem to cause you to define other humans as defective (captured by sin, not believing in objective morality) in a way that believers, who you think have found the truth, are not.
Apparent discrepancies or minor errors are at least good evidence against deceitful collusion between the authors.
Some of these would have been incredibly easy to harmonise artificially.
Can you prove that those minor errors weren't slipped in intentionally to make it look realistic?
@@Jewonastick I imagine that testing this hypothesis would introduce just as many issues than it would solve.
@@xravenx24fe how does one test such a thing? Were talking about stories that have been copied and re-written many times..... Stories from mostly anonymous authors written decades after the alleged events. What's there to test?
@@Jewonastick😂 how desperate
Y this special standard for only the Bible
Honestly, look at how some secular historians and internet athiest pundits treat the new testament vs another historical text
It's embarrassingly desperate
@@ultracrepiderian Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with sort of claims that no other historical text makes.
Is my eternity at stake if I reject the story of Napoleon?
Does any non religious historical text mention anything about a talking donkey, ressurecting from the death, walking on water, virgin birth and so on?
I just started this video, and I'm only on the first supposed contradiction. It's clear that Holy Koolaid has never studied the theological points that Matthew is trying to get across through the way he constructed his genealogy. It's a shame honestly.
@@allaboutbritain3367why die for something that you know other ppl invented?💀
@@allaboutbritain3367 why did the apostles die for something they invented?
@@Kingrich_777 who says they did?
@@truncated7644 literally James from the account of non Christian historians
@@jonathandelarosa8333 its like they avoid the truth
All offenses that aren't calling someone's hardest sauce weak or chidin' them like Neltzen from the Simpsons aside...this skeptic sounds like me when I was an atheist and thought I was dismantling people's responses and experiences with God/Jesus
but the only person I was destroying was myself and in a very Nietzschen/Fight Club way....
the same people I picked on and Grinch'd at their faith motivated by their experience and Bible learning with apologetics, logic, and sciences tend to weave together in confidence as the ones I stand behind now
Thanks alot for making videos like this!!! I honestly would love to see a long indepth video disproving "contradictions"!!
I will go in depth on more specific ones here and there
I would also recommend looking at InspiringPhilosophy's Bible Contradictions series. He answers _tons_ of weak arguments with finesse.
On the lineage in Matthew, the term used for Joseph is gabra/gvra. Consider the 2 points a) Yusef (Joseph) is a common name and b) gabra (Hebrew/Aramaic) can be used for her head of household, it is possible that is Mary's lineage through her father Yusef (Joseph). Luke is more specific in that it says the lineage is through supposing Jesus being the son of Joseph and thus that Joseph would definitely be the husband rather than father.
Regarding Herod, Quirinius, and the census, Josephus lists a number of events that occurred between Herod's sickness, death, and burial, which would better fit in 1BC, due to the events of the Passover slaughter by his son and there not being enough, or being too much time, for other presumed dates. Quirinius was legate of Syria-Judea for the census taking for Caesar Augustus's tributary census for his silver jubilee, which would occur in 2 BC.
Regarding Judas, the gospels mentioned he was a thief who handled the treasury monies for the group. Hmmm, I wonder where he could possibly have gotten a price of iniquity to buy the field. Maybe there's more than one iniquity that he had committed and that he got monetary gain from.
Regarding the entries into Jerusalem, there seems to be enough differences that there were two entries, one in triumph and one pronouncing judgement.
For the timeline on the trial, torture, and crucifixion, this was Passover time, which is a High Sabbath, and there is the weekly Sabbath. The torture and beatings were across more than one day.
Regarding the post resurrection appearances, there's a holiday in Jerusalem called Pentecost, which holy koolaid demonstrates he knew about, so travelling back to Jersualem forty days later would be not only not odd, but normal and appropriate.
25:17 This one is fairly important.
Michael Caerularius of Constantinople used John to "prove" Our Lord wasn't using Matsot at the Last Supper.
He fails to note that St. John says "it was the day of preparation of the Jews" - and everywhere elsewhere, his narrator voice, but not the direct quotes of Jesus (except before Pilate) uses "Jews" as shorthand for different categories for enemies of Jesus.
Thank you for these videos, Keep up the good work 👍
Personally I don't care if people think I'm stupid for being born again.
Your stupid for believing a lie.
That view would be consistent with most Christians faith. You should care. But as the saying goes you can’t fix stupid.
@@wo26ws
Spot On
I like how you rebuked every one of his claims with a straight face ! So badass !
I didn't choose the thug life, it chose me.
@@TestifyApologetics 😎
@@TestifyApologetics This is objectively the best thing I've read all day
I’ll call this the emotionless fallacy.
Rebuked with "could be", "it's possible", "maybe", "perhaps". Sounds about right for the "possible", could be", perhaps", "maybe" word of god.
A new video from one of my favorite people! Whoo, let's go! 💖
Also, many atheists forget that Jewish days were evening then morning, while some instances tell what Roman times would be, and many treat every instance as morning then evening, being half a day off.
The breathing on the Disciples was not the general giving if the SPIRIT, but the beginning of the Priesthood of the Apostles. Completely different things and easily understood by Catholics.
great video, thanks for your job.
Grace be with you.
Great video! A lot of useful explanations given!
"Is he really saying that Jesus is disqualified from being the Messiah because God is His Father?" Hahahaha 😀
If I were an atheist, I would say less about that objection. I've seen it a lot and it needs a proper burial.
@@TestifyApologetics Disagree. What evidence exists that his mother was a descendant of David? What you offered was very timid. You acknowledge that he wasn't Joseph's son, and your claim that Mary is a descendant doesn't come from anything other than weak inferential evidence. Why should skeptics back off this given how much weight it carries for Christians?
@@truncated7644 we have in the early rabbinic literature denouncements of Jesus as practicing sorcery (a rejection of the claims of his miracles) and leading Israel away from monotheism (a rejection of his claim to divinity), and, possibly, of Mary as being a prostitute (a rejection of the claims regarding his virgin birth).
In other words, we would expect his detractors to say things against his claims if they could. Do we have anything that similar that rejects his Davidic descent?
@@Norbingel Well, using your argument, his detractors wouldn't believe in the virgin birth, so then the genealogy of Jacob (or at least one of them, they contradict each other) could apply if he actually was the father. But claims that Mary was a prostitute is not just a claim she wasn't a virgin, but that Joseph wasn't her husband.
Your argument that there aren't early critics on this point is basically an argument from silence (ask @Testify what he thinks about them).
Way to miss the point, the point is that according to prophecy Jesus was supposed to be a descendant of David. God promised David that the Messiah would come from his lineage. If Joseph wasn't his actual father, then the prophecy is false and God lied. Pay more attention next time.
Btw, according to prophecy, the Messiah wasn't supposed to be the son of God. In fact, nothing about the son of God is in the Old Testament. That is why most Jews rejected Jesus, the messiah wasn't supposed to be divine. It is even called as the "Son of Man", which even jesus himselfs describes himself as that. It is only in the later Gospels were Jesus's divinity becomes explicit.
To me these discrepancies are the evidence that these were real eye witness accounts from what they saw and remembered.
Any competent Bible scholar will tell you Mattew and Mark had Luke on the table when they wrote their gospels.
@@kevinkelly2162 so your point is they wanted to fabricate a story but were bad at copying
Exactly, if there were no discrepancies between 4 different eye witness accounts, then that would be evidence that the authors conspired to creat a completely consistent narrative and then set it up to look like they had each decided to write their own narrative.
Evidence of such a conspiracy would cast doubt on the truth of Christianity.
Thing is, that is our point.... That just proves there is nothing special to the bible when it is just as fallible as us humans and every other historic account of that time.
No one is saying the bible is not 100% unreliable. We are saying it is not 100% reliable, because it was written by humans and not God.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Bart Erman.
I have to say, I don't really understand where these contradictions are supposed to get the skeptic. Even if we grant them all, so what? The stories all remain almost identical and the over all story is the same. You can't get that it is historic fiction from the contradictions and the overall narrative doesn't change.
It really does just feel like a meaningless objection.
I agree. And I will go one further. Even if everything in the gospels are true, the evidence for it isn't sufficient for belief. Relying on the testimony of a handful of uneducated, pre-scientific people (or even modern people) simply isn't good evidence. If God wanted everyone to believe, he would have done things in a way that would lead to belief, in the same way we believe in air and gravity. Clearly he didn't want that. Or, it isn't true.
@@truncated7644 so you agree the supposed contradictions don't prove the Bible false and your one step further is to make a different point that renders the court system useless, history of any kind unknowable, and even scientific experiments you didn't do yourself untrustworthy?
Not so much a step further as to leap off a cliff.
@@euanthompson To be blunt, eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable, as human memory has a tendency to fill in the gaps rather than actually remember all the details of what happened, especially during traumatic events, which is what I believe @Trun Cated was trying to say. And while much of history, especially ancient history, can't be known for sure, there are still methods we can use to investigate whether or not certain events in ancient history were true. No such methods exists for many of the claims of the bible, especially for its supernatural claims. In fact, modern scientific methods have actually proven that many of the supernatural claims of the bible (like a world wide flood, for example) are not only highly unlikely, but are basically impossible to have occurred.
@@euanthompson Can you please explain your comment? Why would the court system be useless?
@@billyb7465 the court system is heavily reliant on testamony. If we throw out testamony as insufficient the entire system collapses. You also lose most of history since the majority is based on testamony. You also lose science because you are relying on the testamony of those who did the experiments.
Throw out testamony and a lot of stuff collapses.
The moment their skepticism goes away, is the moment it’s gonna be too late. I feel bad for them
What a horrible God to allow that
@@timom8498 can’t be a horrible God when he gives you chance after chance. A cruel horrible god would Destroy you on the spot without warning.
@@timom8498 man the only thing that accounts for the receiving of your mercy is to believe. Very clearly to believe. If you can’t even simply do that, why are you complaining and whining “injustice” when you don’t wanna receive the legal mercy you’ve been given?
Belief has nothing to do with works. You don’t have to live the typical American evangelical life to be saved or to retain salvation. Salvation is by a one time belief that Jesus is God’s Son, and that he died for all human sin, and rose again on the 3rd day.
If you can’t do that, then I hate to break it to you, but that’s on you. No one else but you. That decision came from no ones will except your own
Is belief so hard? Is it so hard that it’s mentally easier for children to do? You don’t have to pop a vain to believe lol.
@@timom8498 turn to Christ.
@@phineas8532 How does a person go about choosing to believe? Could you choose to believe you haven't watched this video?
That guy is an insult for the good old Kool-aid drink
His "Kool-Aid" his terrible.
Great video. In Eusebius church history, there is a piece on the genealogy of Christ, when even early on people saw a discrepancy.
This guy Africanus, found out from Jesus human relations, which had been passed down.
Both lists are correct, either by nature or by law ie By nature, when there was a genuine offspring to succeed, By law, when another man gathered a child in the name of a brother who died childless.
He writes: Matthau, Solomons descendant, begot Jacob. On Matthan’s death Melchi, Nathan’s descendant, begot Heli by the same women. This Heli and Jacob had the same mother. When Heli died childless, Jacob ‘raised up’ offspring to him, begetting Joseph - by nature his own son, by law Heli’s. Thus Joseph was the son of both. “
Africanus was a boss. Also, Augustine proposed that Joseph was adopted, which would make him especially suited to be Jesus' adoptive father. It's quite speculative yet also interesting.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks I’ll check that out.
Yes he sounds a impressive figure Africanus, it’s a pity his work of history was lost.
@@TestifyApologetics Given the billions of people born millenniums later, why would these genealogies be so controversial, and therefore ineffective in inspiring belief? Should everyone who reads these need to know esoteric explanations that at most can be considered possible, even when most scholars view them as improbable? Do you have to have faith first before the Bible makes any sense?
The issue is that these are the so called "inspired word of god" the fact that there are any inconsistentes between the gospels proves that these are the writings of mere men. Nothing more.
@@aubreyreed5046 I think the issue with your comment and by proxy is very perspective amongst the masses is that its strength more so comes from manufactured expectation through individual private interpretation/opinion rather than what the text actually claims about itself: The text has only described itself as recorded scripture that is given for instruction in righteousness and that the teachings and prophecies within are not of man made origin. (Romans 15:4 + 2 Peter 1:20-21 + 2 Timothy 3:16-17) No more no less. Anything else claimed is simply not found in the text…
No one said they aren’t writings of mere Men to be fair, but Jesus did tell his disciples that he will give them the Holy Spirit to help them with remembrance. And if they weren’t written at exactly the same time, I can imagine that details that are eye witnessed could be discrepancies. I can already see you saying they were copied from each other of the details matched too perfectly, this is being skeptics just for the sake of being skeptical. If one claimed Jesus died on the cross as the son of God and the other claimed Jesus said he was the uncle of God, then we might be having some issues. But how does this affect the theology?
God Bless fellow brother in Christ. These videos are beautifully made and explained. Keep up the work
Sounds like Holy Kool aid needs to read J Warner Wallace 's Cold-Case Christianity. 4 accounts of the same event written verbatim by 4 different people naturally seems less likely than 4 accounts written by 4 different people with differing details. They all still tell the same story and when you factor in human fallibility from recalling the event or events, their sequence and all details after much time has passed plus copying and translation errors, the likelihood of synoptic validity rises. Then there's the issue of your own bias which is not only the lens through which you view the facts but the filter through which you process these facts for coherence. Is the point that Jaïrus' daughter died when told Jesus, was at death's door when he told Jesus or that Jesus miraculously raised her from the dead/restored her health(which are technically synonymous)? The gospels are synoptic and John (not commonly considered synoptic) shakes hands in the most important places with the synoptic gospels. The same issues arise when you compare the accounts of 1 and 2 Chronicles and 1 and 2 Kings. You find details that exist in both accounts but you also find details that are specific to one account or the other. Yet they both tell the same stories when it comes to the kings of Israel. Read the accounts of King Hezekiah in both Kings and Chronicles plus the book of Isaiah. They even reference each other for details in the text. Excellent video.
Appreciate you putting in the effort to tackle all of these.
It would be cute if not so pitiful.
Modern CZcamsr try-hard atheists:
"WeLl AcKsHuAlLy"
The Scripture: 🤣
* laughs in literal millennia of established text and historicity
Great response again, Testify. Take them out!
I love how these skeptics are so elementary. As though he’s the first person to add and discover an arithmetic error in a two thousand year old text.
Yeah, crazy how people still believe in those error filled embellished texts. At least it's fun to see someone point out some of the funniest stuff in them.
@@JuhoPurola yeah, that’s all they are. They, and all the commentaries, aren’t the accumulation of thousands of years of wisdom and human experience, they’re just a collection of silly superstitions. On an unrelated note, how great have things been going since we stopped taking those texts seriously? Just dandy.
@@Evongelo how great were things when it was taken seriously? Should we ask the Native Americans? I think there’s still a few of them left.
@@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus no natives were killed in the name of Christ. You can take that elementary level pseudofact and go back to school cause you look like a fool. But I’ll tell you this, none of them are sacrificing babies to their false gods anymore, so I’ll call it win regardless.
What an ignorant reply, you live in the fruits of a Christian world, And what do you mean by taken seriously? Does the New Testament say Slay the native Americans? Human error is human error, don’t blame it on Christian tradition ☠️
Thank you for your ministry 🙏💝🙏💝🙏💝🙏
Long time listener, first time caller.
Always wonderful. Thank you for what you're doing.
I do have one small correction to make. Hopefully, it is understood to be constructive and not a 'knowitall' comment.
*pushes glasses back on top of nose*
Chet in חגיגה is pronounced like that hard, phlegmy 'k' rather than the 'ch' as in 'chapter' or 'sh' as in 'shy'.
That's all! Keep it up!
I should probably consult my Greek friend Than (Athanasius) to help me with pronunciation. No worries, sir. I appreciate it.
A few years ago I saw a CZcams video which neatly combines the two accounts of Jesus's birth showing consistency. It is a theory not a claim that it must be right. It requires very close timing.
First Joseph was from Bethlehem. He was in Nazareth for work but still considered himself "of Bethlehem ". Abother video says that there was a major building project near Nazareth. When registration for taxes came Joseph and other family members away from home had to go register and there wasn't room for everyone. Jesus was born, some people left again and there was room for Joseph, Mary and Jesus. Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and almost immediately the Magi arrived. Joseph and the Magi were warned and they went home and Joseph went to Egypt. The border was only a few days away. Herod had one of his characteristic murderous fits of anger then died. Word reached Joseph that Herod was dead and they returned reaching Jerusalem just in time for Jesus's dedication as firstborn in the Temple. It looked like Herod's already violently antisemitic son was in charge in Judea so they went to live near Mary's family in Nazareth instead of his in Bethlehem. It does fit but requires precisión timing, which of course, God does regularly.
On dates, there is a known error by the monk who formulated the Gregorian calander. His name is known but I don't remember what was reported. The date was determined from records of the Roman Emperors and it was missed that Octavian and Ceasar Augustus are the same person. Also the year I BC was followed by I AD because there is no zero in Roman numerals.
A fun fact that is rarely talked about is that the post of imperial legate was not Quirinius' first post in Syria, but Quirinius already held another office in Syria before succeeding Lucius Volusius as "governor" of the province in 6 CE.
After the death of Herod the Great (in 4 BCE) Gaius Caesar was sent to Syria as the new imperial legate in 1 BCE (Quirinius as his tutor, "rector," Marcus Lollius as his assistant, "adiutor," and Sejanus as his commander, "praefectus") because Varus had been sent to Judea to quell the "golden eagle" unrest and Herod's sons were in Rome fighting over their father's several wills and taking this opportunity Parthia had invaded Roman Armenia driving their king to Rome.
When they arrived in Syria, they sent the treasurer Sabinus to collect hundreds of thousands of sesterces from Judea that Herod the Great had promised to Emperor Augustus. But this triggered a new unrest during Shavuot and it ended with the fell of Jerusalem and the crucifixion of the 2,000 when Varus returned from Gaius Caesar back to Judea.
And funny enought, this has turned out to be something that many modern history researchers don't seem to like because it goes against the knowledge they were taught in school (i.e. they have never heard of Gaius Caesar and Sabinus but instead Quirinius was in Syria for the first time in 6 CE and succeeded Varus and not Lucius Volusius as Legate of Syria). But they can't deny it because Roman historians Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus and Josephus wrote about it, of which Velleius Paterculus was already with Gaius Caesar and Quirinius in Syria and Armenia.
And I bet that many of the readers of this channel didn't know this either. But the fault lies not with the professors, but with the universities that train them, because they apparently ignore Gaius Caesar and Lucius Volusius.
I'm shocked at how stupid holy Kool-Aid arguments were. With that many subscribers I expected more and he actually just reaffirmed the Bible for me even more because if you have to grasp that straws like he did then you know it's true
One needs to keep on mind that the Gospels were eyewitnesses. None had the complete picture, but what they proclaimed was true. Eyewitnesses keep us from jumping to premature conclusions, whether it is a murder mystery or any other scenario.
The Gospels don’t even claim to be eyewitnesses, though...
@@billyb7465 What does an eyewitness do?
@@billyb7465 what you're talking about? Have you read Luke? Clearly he says that his accounts are based in the testimony of eyewitnesses
@@filopon7116 Did you misread my comment? Luke is not an eyewitness account. It claims to be *based on* eyewitness accounts. Not once does Luke or any of the Gospel authors themselves claim “I saw this” or anything like it. Being supposedly based on eyewitness accounts is not the same thing as being an eyewitness account. The Gospels were written decades after the fact, and not one of the four authors claims to have personally witnessed any of the events, themselves.
@@billyb7465 John does in the end of his gospel
Luke was also not Jewish. I think he was Greek.
Per Wikipedia, for what it's worth: "Many scholars believe that Luke was a physician who lived in the Hellenistic city of Antioch in Ancient Syria, born of a Greek family, although some scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew."
I have a question, I just read Numbers 36:1-12, at the end it says: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to sons of their father’s brothers.”
Numbers 36:11
And in Lev. 18 God prohibited incestuous behavior, could you please explain it, I’m just confused, my intent is not to attack nor trick you, I just haven’t read much of the OT.
that was prelaw, but jesus came back and made incest ok
Marrying cousins was never prohibited. And it isn't even today in most countries.
What do you think about the explanation that when people repeat stories back then they would change details to keep things from becoming dull recitations?
"How can we know the will of God if there's contradictions" funny how none of the 'contradictions' have to do with the will of God.
Anyway, I don't know how people have a problem with the whole priests/judas field thing. The verse even specifically states that they called Judas' money blood money. they wouldn't have claimed the field or the money for themselves
I think the problem with these discrepancies is when certain churches uses them to hurt outsiders or to promote a certain ideology. Some clear examples are The rapture, salvation and the meaning of saints. This doesn’t go far by looking at diferencies between churches. The catholic church has a completely different uses for them; catholics for examples use Matthew 16:27 and revelations 20:12 as pre-basis of their work while those who justify Sola fide tend to emphasize Ephesians 2:8-9. Or other things such as homosexuality, many attest that Sodom and Gomorrah, was about sexual assault, however many claim it was about homosexuality. If we look at Ezekiel 16:49-50 it gives a completely different reason on why sodom was destroyed and it was on the basis of greed. Among other things that churches tend to differ on. So, if a church such as Orthodox, catholics and some protestants argue that salvations is only through their church, then it becomes problematic and all these words have weight in all these issues.
I wonder if there is a missing chapter if it atarts abruptly
Thanks for the recognition that expectations need to be clarified ( 1:18 ) and the examples of Josephus and early American construction. One factor for calibration to also inject into this calculus: the consequence of deviation. Proper credit for the addition of a feature to a building is good to have, but misattribution doesn’t mean the addition isn’t there - it is, we can see it plainly. Nothing in Josephus need be true for the state of our soul today and in eternity. With the Bible, laser precision is necessary: “not one jot or tittle”, “all Scripture is God-breathed”, etc. The stakes for “getting it wrong” as set by the Bible itself are so incredibly high! As eternity hangs in the balance (according to the proponents of Bible inerrancy), a small deviation misses the mark as much as a large one.
I love the Bible and think the Bible and its history are one of the Western world’s greatest and most influential documents. Contradictions and mistakes, late additions, missing books from the cannon, etc., don’t bother me anymore at all. They used to - I spent over 30 years in a fundamentalist off-shoot of the Plymouth Brethren just to cut straight the Word of the Lord - but now I only see the Bible as a work of man with no bearing on eternity. I am freed from having to compromise truth to contort obedience to the idea of Divine Inspiration let alone inerrancy of the Bible, present form or Original Documents.
Perhaps make a video to clarify your view with some detail/precision: Are there errors or not? Is the bible infallible? What exactly is meant by "God's Word" exactly. If the bible is historically reliable, then to what extent? How do you define "historical reliability" exactly? ... I grew up as a fundamentalist. My church leaders were so vague on their view of the bible. They could bend their ambiguous definitions to defeat any problems in the bible.
see this blog post from my friend Jonathan McLatchie to sum up where I am at in the moment: jonathanmclatchie.com/is-the-bible-without-error-inspiration-inerrancy-and-christian-epistemology/
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks for the link.
@@TestifyApologeticsinteresting link. Might I make a comment as a biblical scholar who studied Greek? The Greek text doesn't say that "all scripture is inspired by God" there is no "is" there. It's one possible translation but another might be, "All scripture (that's) inspired by God, etc." and indeed there are some Bible translations which translate it that way. It makes not much of a difference for my personal faith just wanted to mention it.
Fundamentalism is blessed
Thanks Testify for all your work and great job!
On the first one, the secondary genealogy is more likely a legal genealogy using a legal framework of inheritance laid out in the Talmud (somewhere in Leviticus numbers duteronomy)
Fact is, no 4 witnesses can describe d scene identically, our biggest critique, d absuls, should look at their own book supposedly written by 1 man, moped, and see how many contradictions there are to d same stories
Let's remember luke was not a disciple of Yeshua so his accounts would be a little off especially since he was writing after Yeshua resurrection and going to heaven! Luke was following Paul after his road to Damascus encounter. Matthew was a direct disciple of messiah!
Thank you, brother
Kind regards Kim
For apparent contradictions, there can always be an unseen explanation that we have not thought of, so unless the contradiction necessarily logically proves that one must be false, we could never conclude we know for sure there cannot be a solution. This is why the better methodology is to establish whether the source is inerrant or not *before* reading, rather than question it retrospectively. The best quote on this matter comes in my opinion from St. Augustine, who wrote in Contra Faustum: "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood."
"It is a better methodology to establish whether the source is inerrant or not before reading it."
Surely this must be a typo.
Honest question: would you personally argue against Biblical inerrancy?
It could all still be true, Jesus as Messiah and God-made-flesh, who died and rose on the third day, etc., without adhering to strict inerrancy. But if we say that small contradictions actually line up with how we would expect separate eyewitness accounts to describe historic events, can we still believe *inerrancy*?
(And I’ll reiterate that I don’t think inerrancy is 100% necessary to affirming the dead, resurrection and Lordship of Jesus, but I’d imagine it would open up a pretty serious can of theological in the modern church, at least in our “sola scripture” Protestantism.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land
The sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere,
And somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing,
And somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Skepticville,
Holy Koolaid has struck out.
(With apologies to _Casey at the Bat)_
While he spoke with Jesus he thought she was alive. A person catching up then said she was already dead. Both true what was said
4:02 Here is a Catholic view, from Haydock comment on Luke 3:
_"To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds, 1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in S. Matthew. 2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law. 3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim. - "S. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But S. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That S. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in S. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in S. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Heli, in S. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Neri, in S. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. By Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. S. Mat. carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; S. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men." "_
Idk why but when I turn the audio off it looks like the two guys are arguing for the others point lol
Well done, Testify!
Hey Erik, just out of curiosity, what church are you part of?
Thanks for your Videos.
Non denominational but our doctrinal statement is identical to Assemblies of God or Foursquare.
Hey Eric, could you make a response to the fallacy of narrative? This argument claims that we impose meaning and sense in everything, so the disciples of Jesus, with messianic expectations, view Jesus prophecy as fulfilled, but it is only a coincidence. For example, Mathew quotes Hosea to quotes to say that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of going to Egypt, but Hosea doesn't claim a prophecy, he only told about Israel comeback from Egypt.
I have just stumbled upon your channel. I like how you use historical sources to respond to the critics - Useful charts and kool aid.
On the genealogy of Joseph, there is another view i read. It is stated that Eusebius says both views are correct if you look at it from the Levirate marriage angle
God is smart and able enough to have included King David directly into the genetic make up of Jesus, whether Mary had a bloodline to David or not. Skipping names in the genealogy is not that impressive especially if some, i.e. David to Zerub, is available in the OT anyway.
Right - In the days before passports, mass surveillance, and cell phone tracking how would a king or anyone take notice of an average looking Jewish couple and their baby entering the temple for a ritual, and having a happy conversation with another elderly couple.
I left a long response on both of his videos on contradictions, and I can safely say that your videos are much better than my responses 👏👏👏👏, I originally wasn’t even gonna do it but no one was responding so I feel like I had to.
CZcams needs more people like you.
@@chubbyclub2502 Thanks but I don’t really think my stuff is that remarkable, I would make videos but my editing skills are not the best.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Well whether you make a video or not it is still good to correct false information.
In history, often the simplest explanation is the truth. There are absolutely wild extremely long workarounds for a lot of contradictions, but to me it’s so senseless trying to get it to work. There are hundreds of contradictions, however it ultimately does not effect most of the theology presented, and that’s what mattered most to the writers anyway.
Servants r people too
Anyone with a thumbnail like his will not be taken seriously by me
It is funny to me that skeptics emphasize the authors’ genius or meticulous care in ensuring all these details line up, but then also argue that they were so careless that they missed (what a modern reader might perceive as) obvious contradictions & mistakes in their *own* account. Which is it?
Need more of this!
Good faith mistakes??? I thought this book was perfect and the pen of these writers were guided by god himself?
This is not Quran, supposed to be directly dictated by God and the human author merely serving as a secretary.
Bible authors are believed to be inspired by God, but they were free to choose their exact wording and consequently free to make small mistakes. We believe God shielded them from sharing a completely false message, but their accounts are necessarily limited by their own understanding of the revelation, their scientific knowledge, their literary experience etc.
Thanks, brother. That was both careful and insightful.
Marc was a source of luke?? Do i understand correctly ?
That is a very common theory, yes
God bless
Good stuff and work
To God be the glory.
I love talking with someone who will lose it if I mention the Bible. That can't be trusted, they say. Yet they'll happily discuss any other history you like as if it's factual😂 I'm like, c'mon man. Most historical events and figures? We're lucky to get within multiple hundreds or even thousands of yrs of the original sources. If we can't discuss the Bible then we can't discuss much of history, period.
Next videos please respond to his Faith Healing Fails videos and your response to Tyler Vela's deconversion.
I think it would be fun.
2:00 One recommended correction: Human testimony when truthful may contain inconsistencies but not direct contradictions. A contradiction is where on person claims A happened and another claims A did not happen. One person claiming A happened in a particular way and another claiming that A happened but slightly differently is no contradiction at all. Typically just a matter of their own perspective (i.e. where they were when witnessing the event, or what they felt were important details to include and what were unimportant details not worth mentioning).
Testify, what are your thoughts on inspiring philosophys playlist "the reliability of the new testament" good or bad?
I say good, just want to know your opinion on it.
I'm friends with Michael, it's been a while since I've gone through it and even he himself says he wants to update it. Sorry if that isn't helpful.
@@TestifyApologetics its helpful by a bit. Thanks for the response, was thinking to use his arguments to prove the nt reliable but I'll probably educate myself more in the mean time. I think he dates the books of the bible in the playlist
Galatians, 1 thessalonians and possibly 2 thessalonians, 49-52 AD
1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians and Romans, 54-56 AD
Mark, 57-60 AD
Philippians, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians, 60-62 AD
Luke And acts 60-62 AD
Matthew, 56-63 AD
1st and 2nd Timothy and titus, 63-67 AD
John, 66-96 AD
What's your thought on the dating here? Or when would you date them
This was nothing more than what we EXPECT in these, "LAST DAY,"
SCOFFERS-----Just like the SCRIPTURES PREDICTED!
AMEN!
Timothy McGrew has some good videos on youtube that cover a variety of so called "errors" or "discrepancies" and he also goes into the reliability of the Gospels and evidence for the Gospels, search his name and watch all you can, well actually he goes over the Gospels and Acts.
I can tell you from raising horses: easiest way to get a never ridden colt to behave is to bring Mom in front of it.
If I say that Pufferpeeps can't jump up on the couch due to being disabled at birth but the day before I said that Pufferpeeps jumped up on the couch, did I contradict? No. She can't jump up on the top but can jump up on the side with 4 paws
Or by disabled you could mean mentally.
@@grubblewubbles could
As an ex-Christian, I wanted to give this here because I always wanna try to hear both sides of the argument
But bro, you just completely invalidating your own point, yeah, different people having different perspective right in the book differently, but then how does it become the word of God?
The Bible answers this question,
2 Peter 1:20-21, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
Now notice how it says “prophecy” while the Holy Spirit does do more than just carry along prophecies the apostles who are humans still wrote it from their perspectives.
This channel encourages a healthy dose of skepticism when taking even the words of biblical scholars into consideration, which I can definitely appreciate. However, when I apply this same level of skepticism to the counter arguments in this channel, I am just not convinced that some contradictions can ever be reconciled in a way that can preserve the trustworthiness of the Bible.
@@greenspring9437You are speaking about a book with over 88,000 words. And maybe 10 verses causes contradictions, you’re being too critical just for the sake of. The gospel message is still the gospel message. The early church father added a lot of contexts to these things even before the Bible was written down itself. There’s too much history not to see the full picture
Luke's account only helps Matthew's account. For the fact of the priest saying what he said only means that Herod would definitely hear that about Jesus. Therefore confirms each other along with affirming each other.
What most people do not consider when amounting these 'contradictions' is the very fact that human witness is not only unreliable, but it grows more unreliable the longer time passes. These small contradictions do not change the message Jesus came here to send, and the discrepancies that are from 12 hrs long to 10 years long according to the NT writers only prove the Bible to be a true, fundamental, and reliable scripture.
The reason as to why the discrepancies do not prove the fallibility of the Bible is due to the simple fact that we do not have any other ancient text that is as reliable as the Bible itself. For example, we have all heard of Alexander the Great, and we have come to study him to a great detail, yet the only reliable sources we have detailing him, his motives, and all, are sources that came nearly 400 years after his death. Meanwhile, the NT gospels were completed 10-12 years after Jesus' resurrection (earliest date scholars will believe, 90-110 AD being the latest date as the gospels having been written, which place it near the work of apocalypsus, which is around 80-96 AD). This does not include Paul's sources (which are the strongest in terms of historical proof due to his naturally philosophical mind, social status, witnesses, disciples, etc.), can detail even the span of what happened even 2-4 weeks after Jesus' resurrection.
We can say we know about Alexander the Great, his motive, his politics, philosophy, and whatnot; but with this comparison of pure history and what we know of the ancient world, I believe it is even safer to say that we KNOW who Jesus was, his message, and his disciples even better. These minor contradictions do not change anything of what God had established to be true from the OT, and definitely do not change the reliability of the gospels, considering they're from different perspectives, written at different times, and even then, are capable to remain perfectly parallel to one another.
People can say what they want about the word of the Lord, but since it's beginning, it has remained. Glory to the Lord, for He is good. Selah.
All nonsense from the mind of a skeptic