You dropped onto the post Christian KZitem scene out of nowhere and have quickly become one of my favorites. I am VERY excited to see what comes next from you! Thank you for putting in this work.
@onedaya_martian1238
2 жыл бұрын
Diddo !!
@AzukaTheGoat
3 жыл бұрын
This was so good! I love how these compact the most important issues so well.
@chrisose
2 жыл бұрын
It is interesting that the apologists who use the most tortured logic to harmonize the narrative discrepancies also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
@RussellHernandez73
2 жыл бұрын
That's exactly what you'd expect.
@scambammer6102
2 жыл бұрын
"contradictory" is the least of their problems. Billions of people have died. Not one has ever returned. It's nonsense, just a story. Like talking snakes and donkeys.
@nuttysquirrel8816
2 жыл бұрын
@@scambammer6102 According to Matthew 27, after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, many people who were dead came back to life. They came out of their graves and interacted with the general population. Obviously, lots of people would have witnessed this. News of such an event would have spread far and fast. However, there appears to be no sources outside the Bible from that time period to confirm this mass resurrection.
@JM-ot8ux
2 жыл бұрын
@@nuttysquirrel8816 Well, you see, they took that phrase, "they were afraid, and told no one," and took it OUT of the one part and put in another, so none of the 500 told anyone because they were the women at the tomb? :D
@NathanTrail
3 жыл бұрын
Clear and succinct description of a confusing Resurrection narrative. Very tempted to share this with my mostly Christian family.
@Reignor99
2 жыл бұрын
Don't. Convincing people that their god isn't real is bad. It doesn't end well. If someone wants to lose their faith, they need to do it at their own pace, of their own will.
@NathanTrail
2 жыл бұрын
@@Reignor99 why is it "bad"? Should I inform someone that there is poison in the cup that they are about to drink, or would that be bad because I am influencing the "free will"?
@Reignor99
2 жыл бұрын
@@NathanTrail I convinced my mom that her god wasn't real, and she had a mental breakdown. I spent the next hour hurriedly helping her back to her faith by giving all the apologetic arguments that I'd heard. Although thats just my mom, shes fragile. Your family may be different.
@nygeriunprence
2 жыл бұрын
@@Reignor99 That's exactly why it's best to leave people's faiths be. It's what keeps people sane, it's a worldview and needs to be treated with care if you got some kind of truth you want to share to them.
@derinderruheliegt
2 жыл бұрын
@Nathan Trail I agree with sloop, but for a different reason. People tend to dig in their heels when it comes to religion. Many will view your conversation as an affront, and it’s confirmation of the “persecution” they’re expecting. So, counterintuitively, your attempt ends up reinforcing their beliefs. I no longer actively bring this up in conversation unless someone asks me very specific questions (or it’s a public discussion forum).
@edwardtbabinski
3 жыл бұрын
And… In Matthew the passion & resurrection story features TWO earthquakes, TWO groups of terrified soldiers, and TWO stupendous public miracles, none of which are mentioned nor alluded to in any of the other Gospels: (1) earthquake, opening of tombs, raising of many saints, terrified soldiers (2) earthquake, angel descends from heaven, sits on stone outside tomb, makes announcement to terrified soldiers But neither of those doubled “earthquake+many raised saints (or angel from heaven)+terrified soldiers” events are mentioned by Mark nor by subsequent Gospel authors, who don’t mention a single earthquake, nor any risen saints , nor any soldiers being terrified, nor any at the tomb, let alone an angel speaking to them. Though the passages preceding and succeeding Matthew’s “many raised saints story” are shared by Mark.
@resurrectionnerd
3 жыл бұрын
This is interesting and I wonder if it's part of an overall pattern. Notice how in Mt. 8:28-34 Jesus restores TWO demon possessed men when the original story in Mk. 5 just has one man. Same thing in Mt. 20:29-34 where Jesus heals TWO blind men instead of just Bartimaeus in Mk. 10:46-52.
@edwardtbabinski
3 жыл бұрын
@@resurrectionnerd Also consider these differences between Mark and Matthew: 1) In Matthew the fig tree withers “immediately” rather than the next day as in Mark 2) In Matthew the blind man is healed without hesitation with no second go needed as in Mark. 3) In Matthew the daughter is already dead not merely “near death” when Jesus is summoned. 4) In Matthew we see not just Jesus walking on water, but Peter too. (And when Peter calls Jesus “the Christ” in Mark, Jesus says, tell no one. But Matthew inserts between that several lines where Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom.) 5) In Matthew the passion and resurrection story features TWO earthquakes, TWO groups of terrified soldiers, and TWO stupendous public miracles: (5-1) earthquake, opening of tombs, raising of many saints, terrified soldiers (5-2) earthquake, angel descends from heaven, sits on stone outside tomb, makes announcement to terrified soldiers But neither of those doubled “earthquake+many raised saints (or angel from heaven)+terrified soldiers” events are mentioned by Mark nor by subsequent Gospel authors, who don’t mention a single earthquake, nor any risen saints , nor any soldiers being terrified, nor any at the tomb, let alone an angel speaking to them. Though the passages preceding and succeeding Matthew’s “many raised saints story” are shared by Mark. Mark even left out the virgin birth and the name of Jesus’ father (two things Paul, the other earliest source, also never happened to mention). We could even add that Matthew’s Jesus rides 2 animals into Jerusalem rather than 1.
@brettbrewer6091
2 жыл бұрын
One of my favorite silly stories from Matthew is when Jesus rides two donkeys into Jerusalem, then Luke corrects Matthew's misinterpretation by putting him on only one donkey.
@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279
2 жыл бұрын
@@brettbrewer6091 Jesus was a trick rider too...no end to the dudes abilities. He was also a great soccer goalie...very good on crosses.
@mrmaat
2 жыл бұрын
@@edwardtbabinski Matthew’s author makes Jesus twice as miraculous as Mark portrayed him. It is a pattern.
@brianalmeida1964
2 жыл бұрын
Why is anyone assuming that the gospels are eyewitness accounts? They don't say they are eyewitness accounts and they don't read like eyewitness accounts. They read just like fiction with each subsequent gospel being more fantastical than the last.
@scambammer6102
2 жыл бұрын
They clearly aren't eyewitness accounts. At no point do the narrators claim to be personally observing the events.
@BitchspotBlog
2 жыл бұрын
@@scambammer6102 The Gospels were written anonymously. Nobody has any clue who actually wrote them and the names were not associated with them until many years later.
@thoward_ht
2 жыл бұрын
Very interesting video. I'm a practicing Christian trying to get to and understand the truth. Thanks for posting this!
@proculusjulius7035
2 жыл бұрын
All the best to you. Keep an open mind and follow the evidence.
@onedaya_martian1238
2 жыл бұрын
It will set you free !!! Be prepared for that.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
Go well.
@Peter-wl3tm
2 жыл бұрын
@Tim Howard m.kzitem.info/news/bejne/sqKul46LhYKoh34
@cricketdhamaka1973
Жыл бұрын
How is it going?
@johnelliott5859
Жыл бұрын
Well done! Concise and thorough. A difficult combination.
@karlu8553
5 ай бұрын
Great summary. I hope you'll continue to make content as time and priorities allow
@derekwalker1114
2 жыл бұрын
In court discrepancies are seen as evidence against collusion however that information is also disregarded if not corroborated by evidence. That is something Christians neglect in regards to the gospels
@davidlafleche1142
2 жыл бұрын
There are no contradictions in the Bible.
@richardbluett958
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidlafleche1142 You think read the new testament.
@scambammer6102
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidlafleche1142 ^ has never read the Bible
@alanthompson8515
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidlafleche1142 No "contradictions"? OK, what word would YOU use to describe the many places when one biblical "book" says one thing and another "book" says another? Is there, for instance, a special word for this that applies ONLY to the bible? Anyway, why should we not expect such textual differences in a collection of ancient literature? Unless, of course, some later dogma (based upon circular reasoning) has been invented to invest the whole collection with a single magical authorship?
@darthvirgin7157
2 жыл бұрын
how about the nonsensical idea of women heading out to the tomb to anoint HAY-sus’ body while there’s a 2-TON stone blocking the entryway. not to disparage women, but even if it were ten men, how are they going to move that stone. it’s as if gospel writers were coming up with a contrived plot device or something.
@TheBeNimble
2 жыл бұрын
And according to one account they saw the burial.
@peteralleyman1945
2 жыл бұрын
While taking into acount that Joseph of Arimathea supposedly already spent tons of annointments on the dead body during the burial..
@mbs8001
Жыл бұрын
Oh this is the best I’ve seen! And I’ve been researching this for 2 years. Thank you!!!!
@ast453000
2 жыл бұрын
Yup. And no one talks about the motive the disciples had to insist that he didn't die, or that he "rose from the dead". When Jesus was killed they had two options: 1. give up the movement, admit that they are wrong, that they lost, go home in shame and try to get a job somewhere, or 2. claim victory and keep going. They just pulled a Trumpism: in the face of all evidence to the contrary, just keep insisting that you won. Some people will believe you. They'll have to give up reality, but the persecution and ridicule they will face as a result will just make them stronger believers. As for the claim that no one will die for a lie, that's just silly. What do you think jihadists do? And look at how many Trump supporters were willing to risk it all on January 6? History is chock full of people eager to die for a lie. Isn't this obvious? Why is this never mentioned?
@houghton841
2 жыл бұрын
In fairness, most people who die for a "lie" don't believe it's a lie. They are mislead into believing it's true, so maybe it's more accurate to describe it as a misunderstanding or delusion. I don't doubt people "experienced" Jesus after his death. Heck, I clearly saw my grandmother sitting in her sitting room by the window after her death. The experience was real, and can be explained by the way our brains model reality, taking time to update our visual field. In a much more credulous age it's hardly surprising people who had committed themselves to follow Jesus, expecting the imminent arrival of the apocalyptic kingdom of god, and had their expectations crushed, ran with vague experiences that in some way he had returned to them from death.
@ast453000
2 жыл бұрын
@@houghton841 Sure. I'm happy to amend my statement to something like, "many people are willing to die for what reasonable adults should know is a lie, fabrication, or untruth, or for what they have insufficient or bad evidence for believing." I'm thinking of cults like Heaven's Gate, etc. But I think people are far too willing to concede that the disciples must have had some experience that led them to claim Jesus resurrected. I don't think that's necessary to explain why they claimed Jesus resurrected. We saw on January 6 that hundreds of people were willing to risk it all. And surely no mystical experience was involved there. Some were motivated by bad information, but I suspect the leaders just didn't want to admit defeat, and so they started a disinformation campaign.
@tedgrant2
Жыл бұрын
My wife just asked me, "What did you say yesterday about your plans for today ?" I said, "Can't you remember ? It was only yesterday !" "No, I can't remember !" She replied. When she gets around to writing my biography, she'll have to make up most of it.
@Sm64wii
Жыл бұрын
Like I commented before, you are very respectful with your approach. Im just gonna type stuff out as I see it. 1) It is believed that the end of Mark's gospel is lost 2) Some of this was an argument from silence, the gospels are supplementary accounts, and a lot of times the disciples were not all there at the same time, and some find details more important to include/exclude depending on the audience. For example Mathew wrote to a Jewish audience, so his is a lot more "theatrical" in a sense and focuses a lot more on fulfilled prophecy than others like Luke the Historian might. 3) I would be able to agree on what you said about what Jesus said to his disciples, but it is again an argument from silence. If they all said he said different things it would be a problem, but just because one reports it and others don't, doesn't mean it didn't happen or the others didn't know about it. 4) The difference in Mark and Mathew's tomb story relates back to my first point that the ending to Mark is likely lost, but even if it wasn't and we just stick to the original ending that we have, it doesn't mean that "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" applied to the disciples. People they ran into on the road there were likely asking questions and they just said nothing and continued to run, and this fits perfectly with Mathew if it is true that they told the disciples, because obviously they would be filled with excitement to tell the others what they had seen. For them to have just made this part up is unlikely, as women were not reliable witness's back then. So if their whole idea was to orchestrate the resurrection, why did Peter not find it? That would be much more reliable in convincing others that Jesus had truly risen. I disagree that these are larger differences than normal historical accounts, as they are supplementary in these cases. 5) at 6:00 I don't see your point. These appear supplementary. " Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee (where he was at a lot of the time, and where he got a lot of his disciples from as they were fishermen) that the son of man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. But go, and tell the disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." appears to be the full quote, but Mark did not feel the need to include the prophecy Jesus said multiple times, as this is mentioned in the Gospel already. 6) Jesus appearing in and around Jerusalem doesn't mean he was ONLY there 7) He did not urge them to stay in the city, or more specifically tell them NOT to go to Galilee, he told them to stay until they receive the power from the most high (Holy Spirit). They were also walking when Jesus came and found them, because if you remember the disciples did not believe the women. The order is like this: First the women see the empty tomb, then the disciples not believing them, then Jesus appears around the same time to the two walking to the village. Peter sees the women are right and departs, and as the leader he was most likely followed by the others. They go to Galilee, see Jesus (as in Mathew) and in Luke it skips to where he Jesus is disappearing from the two after eating with them, and the two ran to Jerusalem and saw the 11 and they said "The Lord appeared to Simon!" meaning they saw him at Galilee, or at least Peter did if we assume the others did not follow him. If you truly read them ALL side by side, you will see that they supplement each other to paint a full picture. It is easy to get confused on it when certain gospels mention certain things, then skip over others, and then another gospel doesn't mention it at all, but if they were all merged into one book it is very easy to paint the picture just by going back and forth between them. It is just easy to get lost as there are time skips and such. 8) Luke does not tell about the ascension happened on Easter. He wrote both Acts and Luke, and as he opens up in Acts he explains "In my first book, I told you, Theophilus, about everything Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions through the Holy Spirit. During the forty days after he suffered and died, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God." In the end of Luke, they are in Jerusalem and then without stating a time, it says that after he led them out to Bethany (a 40 minute walk) he blessed them, and then was taken into heaven. So by Luke's own words, he said he told them everything about him in the first book, so it appears to be a quick summary on his part that Jesus died, spoke to them, and rose. It never states how long this took, but in the first chapter of Acts (that he wrote) he gets more specific about it. This definitely is not a contradiction, it is just Luke summarized the end and Acts went more specific on it at the beginning before continuing on with what the Disciples did after his ascension. 9) The Gospel writers cannot both be copying each other, and being "completely contradictory" in other parts. Mark is Peter's preaching, so obviously as the leader of the disciples others would use him as a source, but it is questionable if Mark was even first as it is stated by early church fathers Mathew came first, and a criminally underviewed video kzitem.info/news/bejne/pY6Zt4OpqqGcY2k explains it very well. I do think Mathew was first, and Mark unintentionally combined Mathew and Peter's preaching into one story, appearing as copying from either mark to mathew or mathew to mark. This is a common phenomena where if you read two identical stories with slight difference multiple times, then try and rewrite it from scratch you will unintentionally combine both of them. This is true whether or not Mathew came first, because if Mathew came first obviously Mark would use an eyewitness as a source, or unintentionally use it because he is familiar with it as its the first, or if Mark came first its reasonable to assume Mathew would use it as a source since Peter was there before him. Either way I do not see this as an issue. I obviously disagree, but thank you for encouraging conversation and I hope one day you'll consider Jesus, but until then I am thankful for how you approach topic and do so respectfully. Good work as always my friend!
@FionaBranker
2 жыл бұрын
I really enjoy your content. Please keep them coming
@grayintheuk8021
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video. I really like your clean presentation style and think that you could be a narrator of audio books. Hope you take that as a complement of your professionalism. I agree Bart does that cross examination and it does show the problems. I only have a few friends left after I left Christianity and they think there is no contradictory passages so I will direct them here next time I see them.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
Doesn't sound very Christian of your friends.
@grayintheuk8021
2 жыл бұрын
@@tomellis4750 I was a Christian for decades and then had doubts. The more I researched and found out that I could not remain convinced and I stopped believing. As this happened my Christian friends dropped away. They did not want to be with the same person but now a godless heathen. Personally I had not changed and was a kind as ever, they would give me a wide passage. Thanks for your comment.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
@@grayintheuk8021 I presume you are in USA. Have heard it is difficult there as lives may be built around church, Bible classes, Christian social life. Coming to rationality might mean the end of those contacts. In the part of Scotland, where I live, it is just about moribund. Better for that. It just isn't an issue. There are many folk in my acquaintance whose religious affiliation, or lack of it, is unknown to me. Go well.
@larrys9879
2 жыл бұрын
It might be helpful to understand that the Biblical authors were writing stories not an historically accurate account of events. These stories were written some forty plus years or so after the supposed events occurred. There was no way to fact check these stories for accuracy. That is why they must be believed on faith and faith alone, because there is no valid peer reviewed historical evidence that validates them as being true.
@exmormonroverpaula2319
2 жыл бұрын
Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
@larrys9879
2 жыл бұрын
I’m convinced, based on the complete lack of creditable historical evidence, that “Jesus” was a fictional literary character. That, of course, would make the Gospel stories fictional too. Christianity appears to be a man made religion that is built on mythical stories. None of it is true in any literal sense.
@clarkelaidlaw1678
2 жыл бұрын
ex mormon rover Paula...why on earth would you,or anyone,accept as fact the anonymous bronze age stories told by fearful,uneducated,supersticous,mysigonistic desert tribesmen in the most backward part of the middle east. there were more than 300 self proclaimed messiahs who were cruxified by the Romans.there is not the slightest reason to suggest that Jesus knew any more,or was a better person than any of the others.we know that the laws of our universe are unchangeable.there has never been any evidence whatsoever that any God,miracle, or supernatural event has ever happened.there have been some ten thousand gods proposed by humans over time in hundreds of different languages and in hundreds of countries. gods worshipped........10,000 gods proven to exist.............0 no body rotting for days in scorching desert heat for days has ever revived.
@exmormonroverpaula2319
2 жыл бұрын
@@clarkelaidlaw1678, I tend to find it astonishing myself that people believe still believe this.
@cardcounter21
2 жыл бұрын
Weren't the gospel accounts supposed to be inspired by God himself? (presumably to make sure they were completely accurate)
@McCoymiked
2 жыл бұрын
This series is fantastic. Way to stick to the most salient points.
@MatthewCaunsfield
2 жыл бұрын
Perfectly consistent with evolving myth. 😉 Makes you wonder just how many different sects of Christianity there were in those early years, before the one "true" church stomped them all out
@bradleymosman8325
2 жыл бұрын
There were a lot of them. But thinking is a narrowing process. And it culminates in a theorem or a dogma. "Stomping down' happens today. Some scientist has a theory, a book deal, probably tenure, and a lot of prestige. Any scientist with a competing theory is very often "stomped down", usually by means of reputation destruction.
@MatthewCaunsfield
2 жыл бұрын
@@bradleymosman8325 If that were really the case, then nothing in science would ever change.
@bradleymosman8325
2 жыл бұрын
@@MatthewCaunsfield Physicist Max Planck explained that science advances one funeral at a time.
@MatthewCaunsfield
2 жыл бұрын
@@bradleymosman8325 That paraphrase is indeed attributed to him! Yet change (however slow) happens nonetheless.
@scambammer6102
2 жыл бұрын
@@bradleymosman8325 This is complete BS and shows an appalling ignorance of how science works. Scientists love to attack current learning in an effort to make their own reputation. Don't waste money on advanced education.
@mytwocents7481
2 жыл бұрын
This is excellent. Many thanks for a beautiful argument clearly stated.
@pentelegomenon1175
2 жыл бұрын
I once read a book that tried to pin down Christ's message by discarding all discrepancies in the gospels, and assessing only what remained. This led to some unusual conclusions regarding the parables, brief stories told and interpreted by Jesus; because although there is general agreement regarding the narratives of these stories, there is significant variation regarding the interpretations, which crucially underpin all of Church doctrine on the entire planet.
@CalumCarlyle
2 жыл бұрын
Was it The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q And Christian Origins by Burton Mack? Because that is a fascinating piece of investigative work using only the content of the received synoptic gospels.
@pentelegomenon1175
2 жыл бұрын
@@CalumCarlyle That sounds familiar, like it had "The Book of Q" in its name.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
Bit odd there are so many discrepancies, and yet the Sermon on the Mount is recalled perfectly. Perhaps I am in error.
@CalumCarlyle
2 жыл бұрын
@@tomellis4750 the sermon on the mount appears to have been copied wholesale from GMark, though, which is a source in common for GLuke and GMatt. To see some of the source matetial for the serkon on the mount, you can check the Gospel of Thomas, which is just a lost of sayings. It only survives in a later form, so it is difficult to compare exactly, but in its origi al earlier form, it looks like many of the sayings that ended up in the sermon on the mount are listed in GThomas, and not in the same order, or all in one place, iirc.
@bigboy9983
2 жыл бұрын
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story
@onedaya_martian1238
2 жыл бұрын
Or the overthrowing of a democracy !!
@mikekolokowsky
2 жыл бұрын
He flew up to Heaven like Superman. That’s where Heaven is, in the clouds. Turbulence on an airplane is from bumping into angels.
@JoeyGee1000
2 жыл бұрын
Those poor angels- I'll never fly again 😢
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
So they've stopped having their backs to the planets pushing them around their orbits?
@user-oh5gz4ue6r
Жыл бұрын
i still don't get this point. how else was he supposed to show that he was going to heaven? weak argument
@mikekolokowsky
Жыл бұрын
@@user-oh5gz4ue6r Heaven is a myth, and 2000 years ago humans thought it was up in the clouds because no one had ever been there. Now we have been past the clouds and sent Voyager 14 billion miles out into space and it still hasn't encountered Heaven. Heaven isn't vaguely "up".
@user-oh5gz4ue6r
Жыл бұрын
@@mikekolokowsky ???? it was obviously a representation of going to heaven, not literal and physical.
@derekwalker1114
2 жыл бұрын
Its interesting that no one has successfully explained why the most important part of jesus life, namely his post resurrection life is the least witnessed. Surely he should have been more popular and seen more often by larger crowds after such a feat!
@MrPloppy1
2 жыл бұрын
Right. And anything he taught and did between resurrection and ascension would have been more memorable, more significant, and more inspiring than anything he did pre-execution. It would be like writing a Superman biography and 95% of it is about Clark Kent’s accomplishments, with a small appendix saying he also becomes Superman.
@derekwalker1114
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrPloppy1 totally agree with u. Its like watching a magic trick and focusing on the patter
@alanthompson8515
2 жыл бұрын
Derek Walker Hi. You can add to the dearth of J's post resurrection detail, the all but total lack of reference to JC's earthly life by the earliest NT author - Paul of Tarsus. He was writing close enough in time to events he could well have personally witnessed but no, the pre-existent Cosmic Christ revealed by revelation it is, with nothing about the rabbi from Nazareth. Makes you think the historical details post dated the theological ones.
@derekwalker1114
2 жыл бұрын
@@alanthompson8515 that's a really good point. I also wonder if scholars have done a very thorough literary analysis of the 4 gospels to identify the presence of precise stylistic and the content related differences in pre and post resurrection writing. We all suspect it but do the academics confirm it?
@alanthompson8515
2 жыл бұрын
@@derekwalker1114 Um, I'm pretty some have tried, but when did academics ever manage to agree on anything?
@TMPreRaff
2 жыл бұрын
They're not contradictory if you're willing to make up excuses for the differences...You know, like Christians.
@ChristianMcAngus
2 жыл бұрын
The crucifixation narrative itself seems unlikely. Why would the Roman governor be in residence in Jerusalem over Passover? Was this normal practice? And why would the Romans crucify prisoners on Passover eve, knowing what an affront it would be to Jews to have men publicly dying on Passover day? It would normally take a couple of days for men to die by crucifixation. Weren't they trying to appease Jews at this point in history?
@davidgould9431
2 жыл бұрын
I'm probably missing something obvious, but how could Mark's women run off and tell no-one anything and nevertheless Mark knows that that's what they did?
@erichodge567
2 жыл бұрын
No, you're absolutely right.
@stanrogers5613
2 жыл бұрын
Simple. It's the same way that we know that Charles Foster Kane's dying word was "Rosebud", uttered to no-one, alone, unheard, in an otherwise unoccupied room. (A genuine Pitch Meeting-quality "woopsie" of a plot hole.)
@peteralleyman1945
2 жыл бұрын
Do you know a woman who can keep a secret? Also in that respect the bible is obviously wrong.
@mbs8001
Жыл бұрын
Probably the same way we know Moses’ final words, when he was up alone on the mountain and then died. Must’ve been writing it down as it happened 🤔
@davidgould9431
Жыл бұрын
It's rather like the Coen brothers' film Fargo, which had people looking for the buried money. The Coens did say it was based on a true story, but later admitted it wasn't: how could it be? [Spoiler alert] Everyone who knew anything about the money was dead by the end of the film. A great watch, by the way. Thanks to everyone who took the time to answer my (rhetorical) question.
@tedgrant2
2 жыл бұрын
In a court, if a witness said they saw a dead man walking about, would that evidence be permitted ? And if they said they saw the man earlier, walking on water, would the judge dismiss the witness ? I suspect everything the witness reported would be struck from the record. I rest my case.
@kalords5967
Жыл бұрын
In the court, you'll raise your right hand and place your left hand on the Bible and start swearing, " ........ so help me, God. "
@tedgrant2
Жыл бұрын
@@kalords5967 I've been a witness in court and everything I said was questioned by the Prosecutor. He asked, "This happened over a year ago, so how can you possibly remember all these details ?" Good point, huh ?
@tedgrant2
Жыл бұрын
@@kalords5967 So when I get around to writing my Gospel, 50 years later, I'll have to make up most of it.
@kalords5967
Жыл бұрын
@tedgrant2share So should you say, " So you could read my mind and you could read my memory? If that's the case, why don't you tell the jury what I could remember. "
@kalords5967
Жыл бұрын
@@tedgrant2 Well, I guess your childhood memoir is untrustworthy. Right?
@johnramirez3247
Жыл бұрын
It's amazing how mark knew there were two women who fled from the tomb 😅 like he was stalking the tomb and coincidentally saw two women.
@lrcavalli290
Жыл бұрын
It's amazing that Mark knew anything...he knows what pilot said and what he was thinking...all kinds of stuff
@Phoenix0F8
Жыл бұрын
What I always thought was weird was how the Pharisees supposedly gave Jesus' corpse over to one of his disciples, Joseph to be prepared for burial, then worried how it might be stolen by his disciples. One of whom they had just freely given it to. This would be like if I gave someone my credit card and then accused them of trying to steal it.
@joeblow9657
Жыл бұрын
Yeah but didn't that gospel also mention that Joseph was also a secret follower of Jesus? I don't believe in the gospels but IIRC he was a reasonably well connected guy who played the side of Jesus and the pharisees. IDK tbh I don't think he would've been able to get that body
@TankUni
Жыл бұрын
Yeah. I suspect Joseph of Arimathea was an insert character created to avoid having Jesus rising from a potentially very unclean place such as a ditch or charnel pit, and which could have led to accusations of Jesus remaining unclean in some fashion by pagan critics.
@joeblow9657
Жыл бұрын
@@TankUni Also, it's a lot harder to rise from the dead if you're out in the open and everyone can still see you being dead
@tedgrant2
Жыл бұрын
It was the Romans who supposedly allowed Joseph of Aromatherapy to take the body down. Imagine, carrying a bleeding dead body and placing it in your own tomb that took months to make. Why bother ? (unless you had read the script beforehand).
@TankUni
Жыл бұрын
@@tedgrant2 And why attempt to anoint a dead body with spices for burial when it's been three days buried already, in a tomb apparently sealed by a stonking great rock?
@CalumCarlyle
2 жыл бұрын
The number of women and the difference between an angel and a man are actually quite big differences. That is something that should be clear, even among second or third hand witnesses (being charitable to the anonymous gospel authors, of course).
@martinhorn7246
Жыл бұрын
I'm afraid that Matthew Hartke reads too much into the account at the end of Luke of the "ascension" since Luke also wrote the book of Acts where he describes the actual ascension event of 40 days later. Luke obviously did not see this as a contradiction in timing because he was speaking about two separate events. Jesus was clearly appearing and disappearing at will at this point and holding fairly private meetings with a variety of people. Those at the end of Luke may even have perceived that he had left for heaven (for good) at the end of their encounter, when in fact this was not yet the case if he was just disappearing to end that particular encounter. It is only in the incident 40 days later that Jesus gives the disciples their commission before leaving and makes it clear that He is now leaving earth for a long time and that the Holy Spirit will effectively replace His role in the disciples' lives. The apparent discrepancies about the disciples going to Galilee are also a red herring. First he met them in Galilee and later they returned to Jerusalem and he told them in a later appearance there to wait because he was going to send the Holy Spirit once they were all gathered together in one place. Basically, the resurrected Jesus met various disciples on multiple occasions in various places so each writer is only recording the ones he personally witnessed or the ones witnessed by people he actually spoke to get their testimonies.
@gabri41200
Жыл бұрын
Or jesus never ressurected and the narratives are made up. I think that it is more probable than a man returning from the dead, since lies are common and miracles are not
@josipbozic7917
2 жыл бұрын
Did anyone ever ask the question how the evangelists knew all the details?! For example, in Matthew the Jewish priests go to the Romans and tell them that the Christians took the dead body away. HOW did they know about this?? Did the Roman soldiers tell them or somebody they knew?! 40-70 years after it happened? Or did the Jewish priests tell them? The same with all the „don't tell anybody" accounts. How did the writer know if nobody told them the details?!? Even better, Jesus and two apostles (I think in Mark) go to a mountain and talk to the Jewish prophets of old with the tents (I don't want to comment on this). How do you know the story if it were just three people alone at a mountain?!
@forexiscoolandall124
2 жыл бұрын
Another example is : How did the writers know what pilate and Jesus discussed if they were both alone? Did pilate narrate it to them some 40 years later?
@josipbozic7917
2 жыл бұрын
@@forexiscoolandall124 I think that it was a public hearing. Fact is, we don't know what Jesus did during his stay in Jerusalem. His followers might even be militant followers (in fact, at least one of his followers was a sicarius, member of a group of political murderers, similar to assassins) so there might have been much heavier accusations than described in the Gospels.
@forexiscoolandall124
2 жыл бұрын
@@josipbozic7917 you can read more about these distorted memories of Jesus in Bart Ehrman's "Jesus Before The Gospels" it gives detailed discussions on these contradictions. Oh wow, I never knew that one of his followers was a Sicarius. That's crazy.
@josipbozic7917
2 жыл бұрын
@@forexiscoolandall124 Thank you for the hint. Yes, in fact, Judas Iscariot was one of the group. Iscariot means sicarius and I am sure that he earned his nickname. But to be fair, he seems to be Jesus' most unstable follower.
@johanbadenhorst908
5 ай бұрын
Thank you, I have just discovered your videos and I am impressed with the erudition and the presentation. Is there somewhere I can find out a bit about your qualifications and occupation especially as it pertains to teaching theology or ministry? And even a bit at your ‘journey’ to arrive at this place?
@wesbaumguardner8829
Жыл бұрын
There is also the contradiction between the various versions of when the Last Supper actually took place. Matthew, Mark, and Luke claim that it took place at the start of Jewish Passover. John claims that it took place after Passover. John's version makes absolutely no sense to Jewish people because Passover is celebrated with a feast, which is what the Last Supper was. John is basically claiming they are having a feast after the feast time Jewish people traditionally held the feast on per their religious beliefs.
@bradleymosman8325
2 жыл бұрын
The Twelve Apostles and close disciples of Jesus hadn't read the Gospels. They were convinced by a powerful direct encounter with a Person. Today, we would have no idea what a resurrection might look like, nor a resurrected person. The people who launched Christianity would be unimpressed by contractions in the Gospels.
@exmormonroverpaula2319
2 жыл бұрын
That's a big part of the whole problem. How do we know that the Twelve Apostles and close disciples of Jesus had a powerful direct encounter with a person?
@bradleymosman8325
2 жыл бұрын
@@exmormonroverpaula2319 A pretty strong hint is that, 2000 years after the Event, you and me are talking about Jesus on this comment board. Human nature hasn't changed much since then. Today, people hear this weird story about somebody named Jesus and they reject it. People "back then" were told a similar story and rejected it. How did a movement based upon this weird story take root unless there was some Event that was more than just a story. After all, very few works of architecture, or great works of art or literature were inspired by Zeus, Santa, or "hocus pocus fairies in the pond." (Dawkins) My comment here doesn't "prove" a resurrection. But there is far more to the Jesus event than can meet our eyes two millenia after the fact.
@exmormonroverpaula2319
2 жыл бұрын
@@bradleymosman8325, it's true that Jesus has been very influential.The spread of Christianity was amazing. However, there are several other religions which also spread in an amazing way, like Buddhism and Islam. Mormonism today is about 190 years old and has about 16 million members. That's probably a lot more than Christianity had 190 years after the death of Jesus. Buddhism, Islam and Mormonism all have great works of architecture. Zeus also had many temples, including a famous one at Olympia that was destroyed by the Christians. Buddhism and Islam have many great works of art and literature. It doesn't require truth for a movement to "go viral". Back in the early days of Christianity, what's odd is that the people with the best access to the actual facts about Jesus--Jews living in Jerusalem or Galilee--mostly did not join the Christian movement. This is mirrored in Mormonism. Most of the people who knew Joseph Smith in his early years, including people from his home town, did not join the Mormons. Most Mormons today, including myself, are descended from people who converted to Mormonism in England in the 1800s. These converts were not in a position to be able to check up on the facts of Smith's checkered career at the time they made a commitment to their new faith.
@silkkslimm9608
2 жыл бұрын
So one sacrifice worked?! Yeah right look at the world
@LM-jz9vh
2 жыл бұрын
*In Reference to Deuteronomy 32:8-9* "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance.6 It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. *Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). *They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El.* ***Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*** Google *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Canaanite pantheon was conceived as a divine clan, headed by the *supreme god El;* the gods collectively made up the *Elohim.* Through the centuries, the pantheon of Canaanite gods evolved, so that *El and Asherah* were more important in earlier times, while *Baal* and his consorts came to fore in later years. *Asherah* - early semitic Mother goddess, "Lady of the sea," *consort of El,* also called Athirat, *the mother of 70 gods* *El* - the *chief deity,* god of the sky, *father of many lesser gods* and ruler of the divine assembly, *also worshiped by the Israelites* *El Elyon* -Special title of El as *"God most High"* The Book of Genesis itself describes the *patriarch Abraham* as a worshiper of El-also called El Shaddai and *El Elyon* -- building altars, offering sacrifices, and paying tithes to him. ------------------------------------------------------------------ *Deuteronomy 32:8* *When Elyon (El) gave to the nations their allotted inheritances,* when he divided the sons of Adam, he established the boundaries of the peoples *according to the number of the sons of El* (El and Asherah had *70* sons and in line with the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 *(70 nations)* each son *(Elohim)* received a particular territory or people like the Canaanite god Chemosh in Numbers 21:29) Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob, the lot of his allotted inheritance *(Yahweh was given Israel by his father, the chief Canaanite god El).* *Psalm 82* *’Elohim (Yahweh)* stands in the *council of ’El (chief Canaanite god)* In the midst of the gods *(Elohim)* he holds judgment. “How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Render justice to the weak and the fatherless; vindicate the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding; they walk around in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods (Elohim), sons of Elyon (El), all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” Rise up, O *’Elohim (Yahweh),* judge the earth; for you shall inherit the nations! ------------------------------------------------------------------ Watch Dr Christine Hayes at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* Google *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - **Realhistoryww.com**"* Google *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."* Google *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* Google *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* Google *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."* Google *"Yahweh - **WorldHistory.Org.**"* Google *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"* Google *"The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."* Google *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"* Google *"Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."* Google *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."* Google *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."* Google *"Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."*
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
That's quite a reading list. My knowledge is little, but enough to know the likelihood of any god is very low.
@mrmaat
2 жыл бұрын
It’s even worse for the synoptic gospels. Because Matthew and Luke use Mark, any changes to Mark’s account are glaring. It appears the authors of Matthew and Luke made changes for theological and rhetorical reasons as “corrections” to Mark’s account, which is devastating to any argument they were based on historical memory or even less likely, eyewitness testimony.
@fredfox3851
Жыл бұрын
Since every word in the Bible was inspired (therefore authored) by God, how dare we question its accuracy even when it contradicts itself? Oh yeah...Why didn't anybody ask all the other people resurrected that day about where they were?
@MoonMan-Moonie
Жыл бұрын
You have brought me to thought, I will say that, but I do believe there are ways to account for these differences. A big one I think you are forgetting is the style differences between these works. I intend to do a study though and return with a follow up comment, because this is important to discuss. Godbless.
@jon4574
Жыл бұрын
Yes.
@farrex0
2 жыл бұрын
If the bible and or Gospels were written by God, it wouldn't need Apologetics.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
You'd think god could write clear, unambiguous English wouldn't you?
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
@@SNORKYMEDIA I know, you'd think a god could write in plain, clear English.
@briansimons9472
2 жыл бұрын
They really are quite separate accounts intimately connected to the previous narratives of each gospel and the particular theological perspective found in each gospel.
@Shermanbay
2 жыл бұрын
Somebody made up a story. Others copied it, with changes and enhancements. It's pretty obvious that this is the work of men, much like fairy tales and how Paul Bunyan stories are written. Any god wouldn't be this disorganized. We need to recognize how ridiculous these narratives look after 2000 years.
@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana
Жыл бұрын
I wouldn't say it is obviously the work of men. 1-3 John has the narrator reference himself in both singular and plural first person and very direct contradiction to Legion's story. Seems like something Legion would write. Revelation is written so it can be interpreted as the villains winning. So either men or dark forces work. Not really anyone nice though.
@LM-jz9vh
2 жыл бұрын
Check out *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Atheologica. The fictional Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
@proculusjulius7035
2 жыл бұрын
Awesome, definitely checking it out.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
@@proculusjulius7035 Presume you are not one of the faithful. Pity they don't know as much about religion as most Atheists.
@timdavis832
Жыл бұрын
It may be some deficit in my character or abnormality of some sort. I never read the Bible like that. I was unbeliever for about twenty years. Trying to remember what drove me away. I don't think this sort of thing really bothered me all that much. So what is the ultimate take away? At the end of the day all four gospel writers were involved in creating the early church. Even though gospel accounts don't harmonize as if it were a newspaper. Bart grew up in home that ascribed to more literal take. I don't know the underlying meta cognitive basis of different approaches. I don't see it. How can we conclude that nothing happened. This all or nothing line of thinking is foreign to me. Even more so being an Orthodox Christian. I subscribed, thanks for the content.
@cygnusustus
2 жыл бұрын
Subscriber earned, sir. Well done.
@pauljosephbuggle3722
Жыл бұрын
As an Irishman I can believe all the versions at the same time. A crucifixion is a relatively straight forward event whilst the resurrection isn't. However, all the Gospels and St. Paul agree that it happened. I suppose that there was some confusion and the different accounts might embellish or try to take credit. As far as I'm aware the empty tomb is fairly well attested. As for Historical evidence, if all versions were similar there still wouldn't be any hard evidence. The Shroud (of Turin) is actually mentioned as having been folded.
@Pikee
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine drawing such ridiculous conclusions. For shame
@kuyabashi
Жыл бұрын
Im okay with the discrepancies in the testimonies between synoptic gospels what i dont agree on is the apologetics claim and insist on the inerrancy of bible and even calling the gospels the words from G-d. Is the great creator G-d of confusion? 1 Corinthians 14 - For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
@brisadelcastillo2840
Жыл бұрын
I agree. If the bible is inerrant, then why all the confusion? Why are there thousands of denominations and they are all using the same book/s? Why was God's name taken out of the bible? And the prophets names changed? Is Jesus God, or the son of God? Is God going to keep people alive supernaturally for eternity so that He can burn them alive as punishment because they don't think the way the apologists say they should? How many people are sitting in churches asking themselves these same questions but are afraid to ask because they know they'll be ostracised if they do?
@gflem
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent analysis
@drlegendre
2 жыл бұрын
I didn't realize that there was even a single resurrection narrative in the canonical gospels. (That's because there isn't - they all pick up post-resurrection, jumping straight to the 'empty tomb' scene. If you want a narration of the actual resurrection, you need to look to the non-canonical gospel of Peter).
@Peter-wl3tm
2 жыл бұрын
Why would anyone look to the non-cannical gospel of Peter? The gospel of Peter was written in the midsecond century, Peter died in the first century, so how could this be the gospel according to Peter if Peter was dead at the time this book was composed? The book is dishonest from its onset, claiming to be the gospel according to Peter even though Peters already dead, I’m surely not gonna trust a book that starts off lying from the beginning to relate to me accurate and historical information about an event that happened in the first century. In fact, due to the fact that someone it’s falsely claiming that Peter and in the second century writing about an event in the first century gives us good reason not to consider that book to be historically reliable, as we know the more time that goes on between an event the more likely legends and myth gets inserted. So the gospel Peter surely isn’t a reliable source
@user-oh5gz4ue6r
Жыл бұрын
lol why would i read a forgery
@CalumCarlyle
2 жыл бұрын
I'm also quite surprised that you don't see it as HUGELY significant that the earliest gospel does not even consider it important to even include a resurrection and ascension narrative. It's almost like the whole idea was concocted later by the authors of the later gospels, just like the entire book of Acts which is obviously completely fictional (and which cannot be reliably dated to earlier than 172CE)
@tedgrant2
2 жыл бұрын
The resurrection of Lazarus is just as real as the idea that spinach will make you super strong. It's a fictional account in a book that is mostly fictional accounts composed for entertainment. We know this because there are many miraculous claims that obviously can't happen. You cannot move a mountain by faith alone. You need a shovel, at least. (Matthew 17:20).
@svendhellested3463
2 жыл бұрын
Why are the theists working so hard to "prove" the bible? If god is real, christ exists, and the bible is true, then go ahead and believe it. The bible itself claims it is faith alone that saves. Why put any effort into verifying the bible? The reason is simple. It was never about faith. It has, and will always be about money. From the inception of the god yahweh by the jews, to his elevation as the god of the universe by christians, the money within the faithfuls pockets has been the driving force to expand the numbers of paying believers. Fast forward to modern times. The theists are now more than religious leaders. They are the leaders in our governments. They collect monies openly to buy jets and mansions. "Proving" and verifying religion is essential to thier contined enrichment. As theists decrease in percentage of the population, and the young ignore this religious nonsense, the leaders must convince thier followers to pay more. That is only possible when the believers become fanatics. The time has come world wide to ban religion. Allow home worship by those who desire. But organized religion has got to go.
@guaro-0914
2 жыл бұрын
Genius are you aware how many people the atheist Communists have killed right?
@kelvinloeb812
2 жыл бұрын
@@guaro-0914 Genius you are aware that the Communists didn't kill people in the name of atheism right?
@emptyhand777
2 жыл бұрын
@@guaro-0914 - silly and weak argument. They didn't kill because they were atheist. Just like Christian nations don't kill because they are Christian. However, you can't argue that theists don't kill in the name of their God(s). When has anyone ever killed in the name of atheism?
@certs743
2 жыл бұрын
This is interesting. I am not a Christian although I did grow up in the church. That being said I don't see the inconsistencies as being that strong of an argument especially because of what we know about how memory works. Most people think it is an exact record or our experiences. That could not be further than the truth. And anyone who has worked in security or law enforcement will tell you the minute adrenaline starts pumping eye witness testimony is almost a complete waste of time. They have done studies where they have found people mix up, age, race, hair, and eye colour, height, weight and basically anything but gender once their adrenaline starts pumping. It would be more suspect if the stories line up. As for the rest of his life there is nothing there that would be particularly exciting that would trigger a flight or fight state like someone you care about coming back as a zombie to hang out.
@mnamhie
Жыл бұрын
Couldn't have said it better myself.
@carlharmeling512
Жыл бұрын
The resurrection narratives are intentionally confusing. Jesus arose a spiritual body within the physical bodies of his believers. He thus did rise in the flesh and continues to do so. His teaching is entirely spiritual as when he said, ‘’the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that quickens the flesh’’. Most people cannot attain to this understanding. ‘’Few there be that find the way of life’’. That one may hear but not understand, see but not perceive unless you are saved by his word.
@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video :)
@stanrogers5613
2 жыл бұрын
Now, I'm not saying that there might have been a little swipe at J. Warner Wallace there, but...
@onedaya_martian1238
2 жыл бұрын
Nah, no swipe at all ;-) move along.
@chillydoritos7304
2 жыл бұрын
Regarding Mark 16:8 Matthew 28:8 as being one of the "numerous irreconcilable conflicts"; are you thinking hard enough, because it doesn't seem you are, considering you called this an irreconcilable conflict... Let's see exactly what both scriptures said and place them in chronological sequence. MARK: (1) Women went out and fled from the tomb because terror and amazement had seized them. (2) Didn't tell anyone because they were afraid. MATTHEW: (1) Women left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy. (2) Ran towards Jesus' disciples. (3) Told Jesus' disciples what they saw. Now let's see what the scriptures DIDN'T say. MARK: (1) They were full of terror for the rest of the day. (2) That they were overwhelmed by terror/fear for the rest of the day (3) That the period of time where they could not say anything due to fear was lasted throughout the day. MATTHEW: (1) The women telling the disciples happened directly after they left the tomb. (2) If that were the case, then the running towards the disciples would have to be the same event as the running away from the tomb. If they weren't the same event, that would allow a period of time in between the running away from the tomb and the running towards the disciples, in which the women telling the disciples would not have directly succeeded the leaving of the tomb, that is, after they finished fleeing from the tomb(which is when Mark says they couldn't tell anyone). (3) Affirm or deny that there was a length of time between the running away from the tomb and the running towards the disciples', during which they could have done something else(The "and" in Matthew 28:8, between the fleeing from the tomb and the running to the disciples could indicate that the running towards the disciples succeeded, by a certain time period, the fleeing of the tomb with great fear and amazement... For example, if I said I ate dinner and dessert yesterday, it could mean that I had both dinner and dessert together at the same time. But it could also mean I had dessert AFTER I had dinner. You can't be 100% sure which one it is, though common sense will lead you to infer that my dinner preceded my dessert, won't it?). (4) Mention the length of said period of time(if it even exists). It could be several hours for all we know. When you put all this together, you CAN in fact draw a logically consistent conclusion that doesn't involve one of them lying/one of them being ignorant of the situation/both of them making the whole thing up. Now, I cannot prove this with 100% certainty, but then again, you can't prove the above conclusions with 100% certainty either. All are valid possibilities. MARK could have wanted solely to detail the event that directly succeeded the encounter, where they ran away from the tomb, stunned with terror and amazement, and couldn't tell anyone after they finished fleeing from the tomb. And that's it. That's the end of the account. Why did he end it that way and leave out information? We don't know, but there could have been a pretty cool reason for Mark the end his account that way. :) And MATTHEW'S job could have been to highlight a different part of the experience. Matthew could be detailing what came after they finished fleeing the tomb with so much amazement/great joy and terror/fear(due to which they couldn't say a thing to anybody); which is run and tell the disciples. Maybe Matthew is trying to tell us what succeeded the whole, "so fearful they said nothing" moment; they could have stopped being so overwhelmed by terror that their joy and amazement finally moved them to run and tell the disciples. But neither scripture affirms nor denies that there was a period of time in between these 2 events(the running away from the tomb and running towards disciples) where something else could have happened, and neither scripture says anything about the length of the period of time for such a supposed event(it could have been an hour, 2 hours, or even more). But, in order for Mark and Matthew to plainly and undeniably contradict themselves, the fleeing away from the tomb and the running towards the disciples would have to be the exact same event, for them to not have been able to say anything to anyone(as it says in Mark) and thus make it a contradiction. But, once again, the scriptures neither affirm nor deny this. So, it's possible this is a contradiction, but it's possible that it isn't. How? (1) The women encounter Jesus and are filled with terror/fear and joy/amazement. (2) The terror and fear overwhelm them at first, and so they flee the tomb. (3) They reach someplace other than where Jesus' disciples are, where they are still so afraid that they say nothing. (4) Eventually, the terror/fear stops overwhelming them so much, and their joy/amazement overcomes them to make them run towards the disciples. (5) They tell the disciples what they saw. I mean, when(when? As if that's something that ever happens to most people) you witness an event SO grand and SO amazing and SO joyful that you are completely seized by terror and fear that you can't even say anything to anyone, what's the next reasonable thing to do once the terror eventually(which it reasonably would, sooner or later) subsidies? Tell people about the grand, amazing, and greatly joyful event you witnessed! It's all a perfectly reasonable sequence of events. If you're struck with both amazement and terror, it's most likely the terror that will overwhelm you first(I mean, you aren't going to be so joyful at such a grand event that you run and tell everyone first and THEN afterward be completely seized by fear you can't tell anyone at all. The latter logically precedes the former). Why would the women go straight to the disciples after being struck with terror and fear? Then they wouldn't be able to tell them anything and it would be a waste. It's more reasonable that they would go somewhere else first where they can wait out their inability to speak by letting their terror and fear subside. And after their terror subsides, the amazement and joy would then take over and move them to run towards the disciples so as to tell them what they saw. And this is a perfectly valid possibility. The scriptures can neither confirm nor deny this. Once again, I can't completely 100% prove this conclusion, but it IS a valid possibility, which means the "irreconcilable" contradiction is gone. This is a logically consistent conclusion that doesn't involve one of them lying/one of them being ignorant of the situation/both of them making the whole thing up; meaning, no doubting faith is necessary. Then again, I can't prove any of this beyond the shadow of a doubt, but you can't disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The point is; Matthew: "One of numerous irreconcilable conflicts." Me: Hold my beer.
@chillydoritos7304
2 жыл бұрын
@@SNORKYMEDIA What do you mean? What does not knowing the exact authors of the gospel have anything to do with it? Oh, maybe you think I think Mark wrote Mark and Matthew wrote Matthew. No, when I say the names, I just mean the author the gospel. So when I say, Matthew wrote this, I mean the author of Matthew wrote this. I'm just saying that as shorthand to waste less time, but you know what I mean. Or are you wondering why one gospel said one thing and the other another thing? If so, that is a good thing to wonder. Even though the contradiction is resolved, the question is still there for why they did what they did in the first place. I have a few theories. Maybe Matthew and Mark highlighted different parts of the stories for a reason. Mark maybe wanted to highlight that the primary reason the women didn't tell anyone at first was because they were afraid. And boom, end there. Why? Maybe as a call to action for his readers! They were afraid, and didn't tell anyone of the amazing news at that moment due to their great fear. But what are you going to do about the good news? And it ends there to let YOU, the reader, decide what the good news of Jesus' resurrection means for you, instead of telling you. Mark left you in suspense for a reason(but a later scribe maybe didn't understand that, so he/she filled it in with extra scriptures). And then Matthew, having known that Mark's gospel left the reader in suspense(so that they could analyze the women's fear, which led them to not say anything, and draw a conclusion for themselves about it. Hopefully that, despite the good news being so fearful and terrifying and amazing and shocking and incredibly joyful, all these things simultaneously, that we should be overcome with the desire to share it with anyone we can), decided he didn't need to add that part(where the women couldn't say anything) and continue the story(that Mark did know, but probably left out for a reason), so that the reader WOULD know that the women, despite being seized by fear, eventually DID share the good news. And thus it all fits together like pieces of a puzzle. Mark leaves you on a cliffhanger as a call to action(for sharing the good news), by letting you know that the women were afraid and consequently didn't tell anyone and ending it like that. And Matthew, knowing that Mark did that, decided to continue the story and let the reader know that, despite being seized by fear to the point of not being able to say anything to anyone(which the reader would have known by reading Mark), they eventually DID share the good news. That's why he does say that they were full of fear AND great joy, and then says that they ran away from the tomb and went to share the good news with the disciples. He's building upon what Mark ended with in his gospel. That way the reader gets all the feels the authors wanted them to have. Reaction at Mark: "Wow, the women were so afraid AND amazed by the good news that the fear overcame them and they couldn't say anything! This good news must be something else, huh? Will I share it? Or will I tell no one?" Reaction at Matthew: "Huh, they were afraid, and yet they ran and shared the good news with the disciples. Maybe I should do the same! Reaction at Matthew + Mark: "Wow, the women were so seized by fear that they couldn't tell anyone at the moment. But, eventually, the joy and amazement of the good news overcame the fear, and thus they ran and shared the good news. Maybe I should try to overcome whatever fear I have of sharing the good news, and try my best to share it, like the women eventually did!"
@r3ggi3000
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, they are hopelessly contradictory.
@mikekolokowsky
2 жыл бұрын
They should have kept a single writer, like they did for the Old Testament, and Islam and Mormonism. They wouldn’t have to do all the retcons.
@Carl_Frank
2 жыл бұрын
Re-boots are all the rage these days; the NT was just ahead of its time. ;-)
@zucc4764
2 жыл бұрын
The OT did not have a single writer tho
@mikekolokowsky
2 жыл бұрын
@@zucc4764 Whoever the writer was that gave the dimensions for Noah's Ark didn't have to contend with different sizes given by different authors for the same boat. New Testament gives several accounts of the same things, and they don't completely match up. Thus, the "inerrant word of God" is error-prone. You'd think they'd have made the corrections with the rewrites, translations and edits over the centuries.
@sabin1166
2 жыл бұрын
The bible is the big book of make believe.
@USELECKSIONS
2 жыл бұрын
Do videos regularly
@christophercripps7639
2 жыл бұрын
So if the contradictory accounts of the resurrection makes these accounts more reliable, does that mean the consistent accounts of the crucifixion, death & burial are less reliable? So someone was definitely resurrected who may or may not have died in the first place?
@cardcounter21
2 жыл бұрын
_'...the consistent accounts of the crucifixion...'_ I don't see how the four crucifixion accounts can be satisfactorily harmonised either! Jesus' only consistent dialogue between any of them is "My god my god why hast thou forsaken me". The optimistic line in Luke "Today, you will join me in paradise" opposes the previous 'forsaken' line from Mathew and Mark! And Pilate's iconic washing of his hands and the 500 saints who rose from their graves are strangely only recorded by Mathew! If God concocted the whole Jesus saga to get a vital message of salvation and damnation across to us you'd think he'd have ensured complete consistency across the accounts to promote authenticity and quell potential seeds of doubt! After all, our eternal fates depend on whether or not we believe and accept the 'inerrant' bible!
@alanthompson8515
2 жыл бұрын
@@cardcounter21 Hi. "My god my god why hast thou forsaken me". These are the opening words of Psalm 22 so it ain't surprising they all used it! Many years ago I taught Religious Education in a UK State School (not my main subject - long story). A senior colleague asked me to proof read his magnus opus, prior to finding a publisher. He HAD, he said, "satisfactorily harmonised" the four passion accounts into one narrative! Well, I did, but I limited myself to comments on SPAG (spelling, punctuation and grammar) having quickly realised that (IMO) he HADN'T. At the end of term I asked him re: progress. He quickly changed the subject. I didn't ask again.
@angelmirmartinez9096
Жыл бұрын
I understand that discrepancies are difficult to reconcile but not imposible to reconcile. Christians have done that. Many think that attacking the bible on this apparent contradictions will undermine Christianity. The first thing you have to ask yourself is: is Genesis 1:1 possible? If it is possible I don't have any problem if I can't understand or reconcile any other part of the Bible. Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Time,space, matter and energy had a beginning. Everything we know had a beginning. There was no gravity, no vacuums nothing. You are free to believe everything came out of nothing ( contradicting science and reason) or that an Eternal, omnipotent, personal, and inmaterial God created the heavens and earth. Secondly the universe shows a fine tunning level of precision to allow the universe to be formed and earth to survive destruction and allow life in the planet. Many parameters have very low tolerance for mistakes. Gravity force, the expansion rate of the universe, having big planted around to absorb impacts from meteorites, an atmosphere with the right proportion of gases, water, the exact temperature to allow life, and so on. You can think that it is chance or the multiverse ( it requires more faith than being a Christian) or you can believe in a God that took every detail into account. We also have conciousness. There is no other being with conciousness. It is something inmaterial interacting with a material body. I don't think rocks are going to start talking one of these days. So a case for God is plausible. And in His word, God says that there are some things difficult to understand but gladly most of christian teachings are easily understood. Although I think the bible is inspired by God, Christianity will continue to be true with or without a Bible. Christianity is not built on a book but on a fact. Jesus rose from the dead. The apostles didn't have the motivations to lie. They didn't get money, sex or power by telling a lie. In fact they were rejected by fellow Jews and many of them died as martyrs. Additionally they saw, heard and touched the risen Jesus, it was a first hand experience. So if a case for God is possible and a case for Christ too, if I found an apparent contradiction I could think that the problem is on me and my limited capacity to understand or reconcile these facts. As James 4:6 states. "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" If there is no God ( I might be mistaken in my beliefs) I loose nothing. I live a full happy life, I love people that even disagree with me, I try to follow the beautiful values of christian life. I have never seen anything close to it's perfection... But if God exists people can also live a happy life on earth ( or not) but the eternal consequences won't be any good. God bless you .
@DrSales-zl3kq
Жыл бұрын
Clearly Mark has been misinterpreted. When he says they said nothing to anyone it simply means they didn't talk to anyone on the way home it does not mean that they didn't tell the disciples when they got home. Mark's basically saying they didn't leave the tomb screaming to everyone Jesus has risen
@mytwocents7481
Жыл бұрын
No, that's not what Mark is saying. Here are a couple things Mark might have been trying to say: 1) the women didn't tell anyone what they had seen - not anyone 2) the women didn't tell complete strangers what they had seen When the women leave the tomb, the reader is wondering what they will do next. 1 is a comprehensive answer to questions the reader might have. 2 is not. No reader would ask whether the women shared their story with complete strangers because no reader would expect them to. So Mark wouldn't address that question. On the other hand, a reasonable reader would definitely want to know if the women got in touch with the disciples. Mark wouldn't leave the reader in suspense about that. Narrators don't answer questions that reasonable readers wouldn't ask. They do answer questions that any reasonable reader would ask.
@DrSales-zl3kq
Жыл бұрын
@@mytwocents7481 Thanks for the simple breakdown friend so even I can understand it. Now I understand I couldn’t disagree with you more. It’s unreasonable to think that the women would keep it an entire secret to themselves. it makes no sense. they were not told to keep it to themselves, why would they keep it a secret? sometimes being a moron and reading a simple answer is the best answer.
@mytwocents7481
Жыл бұрын
@@DrSales-zl3kq Mark himself explains why the women didn't share the information: "They said nothing to anyone, BECAUSE they were afraid." Have you read the Gospel of Peter? There's only a small piece left so you can read it all in less than 15 minutes. The women in that gospel also flee from the empty tomb and tell no one and for the same reason as in Mark. What happens next is unclear because the text is incomplete but it sure sounds like the start of John 21.
@mytwocents7481
Жыл бұрын
And furthermore .... :) The empty tomb is fiction. You can't expect the characters to behave realistically all the time. Once in a while, a character may have to do something to better hide the fact that the story is made up. In Mark, why does Jesus want to keep his identity as the Messiah a secret? Because during his life, people who heard him speak never heard him claim to be the Messiah. The Messianic Secret is a device for explaining why there wasn't more fuss about Jesus back when he was alive. Likewise, the silence of the women is a device. It explains why the disciples, unaware of the resurrection, simply went home to Galilee and first saw Jesus there as hinted at in the angel's pronouncement in Mark 16.
@DrSales-zl3kq
Жыл бұрын
@@mytwocents7481 What’s all these words device, fiction, made up, characters? Both Dennis MacDonald and Richard Miller say calling Jesus a myth is a mentally bankrupt argument. are these two titans people you want to go up against with your flimsy Richard carrier hypothesis? Jesus said don’t tell anyone but didn’t everyone do the exact opposite of that? “Jesus ordered them to tell no one but the more he ordered them the more zealously they proclaimed it.” The demoniac jesus actually asked him to tell everyone what the Lord had done for him. And so “he began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him and everyone was amazed.” Please wash Richard carrier out of your eyes and go back and read Mark with fresh eyes. And now because I think you’re special I’m going to share a secret with you and you should tell everyone. Mark worked overtime to document Jesus’s ministry. Yes the empty tomb is an attempt to deify. But the miracle stories are allegories and represent the vast number of people that Jesus healed in his time. maybe they weren’t divine miracles but for example when a man abuses his wife and through the association of Jesus he turns his life around, well that is a miracle. But how many stories do you want to hear like that? it’s far more interesting if they’re all wrapped up in the demoniac with 2000 demons. And how do I know all this profound wisdom? Because I’ve taken the time to read the works of Josephus myself. a man who shaped the jewish war and had no need to rely on fiction. And yet his writings are full of fiction but not only that, both Mark and Josephus use homer as a
@maghercushag1902
Жыл бұрын
Matthew 27:52 etc
@davidsonmercy1118
Жыл бұрын
Hey mark also talked about the ascension so you're wrong
@mikeash7193
2 жыл бұрын
What they really found in the tomb was chocolate eggs.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
So it was Easter then. Where were the bunnies?
@physnoct
2 жыл бұрын
The most critical parts of the bible are also the less documented. Descriptions in Genesis are too much short and lack much details.
@marjonylewinton4839
2 жыл бұрын
Sometimes am quite surprised by how some people reason. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John recorded the gospel of Jesus Christ from different viewpoints which are in harmony with each other. The resurrected Jesus met the disciples on multiple occasions. There were at times when some of the apostles may not be around so they couldn't make a record of that incident. What we are interested in is what message was given to them on those occasions and not a description of how they took place.
@MrEVAQ
2 жыл бұрын
How can they be different view points when they are not in harmony, but contradict each other? How could Jesus have appeared to the Eleven for the first time in Galilee as told in Matthew, but also in Jerusalem for the first time as recorded in Luke and John?
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
Well, you could get a good paying job as an apologist.
@marjonylewinton4839
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrEVAQ As John was reporting, he had appeared to all the 11 disciple as a group 3 times. Mathew reported one, Luke and John reported others too. It wasn't a one-time meeting and he left. John 21:14 This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after being raised up from the dead.
@MrEVAQ
2 жыл бұрын
@@marjonylewinton4839 They're not reporting different incidents, they're reporting the same first incident. The first time Jesus appears to the Eleven according to Matthew is in Galilee, while in Luke and John it is in Jerusalem. How can the first appearance to the Eleven be both in Galilee and Jerusalem? It's a contradiction
@marjonylewinton4839
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrEVAQ Galilee was the final destination where they were to meet Jesus. They didn't go to Galilee straight away. They hid in Jerusalem first because they were wanted. After the first two disciples had confirmation that the of Christ wasn't in the tomb they went to the rest of the disciples. Jesus appeared to the first two first on their way to the other disciples. After that he appeared to then when the doors were locked(Thomas wasn't around then). 8 days later he appeared to them again but this one Thomas was there. He again told them to meet him at Galilee. After they made the trip to Galilee they didn't know what to do there. At one point Peter told them he was going fishing and went with about 6 of the disciple to the Sea of Tiberias and that was where they met Jesus again. He left them at Galilee(Bethany) and went to heaven. As I've told you, Mathew, Luke and John gave accounts of different meetings. Luke and John gave similar accounts when they were in Jerusalem. So what is the contradictions here again?
@NielMalan
3 жыл бұрын
It was easy for the gospel writers to make the different crucifixion narratives correspond, because crucifixions were so common that they didn't even think it necessary to explain what it was and how it was done.
@Sportliveonline
2 жыл бұрын
how do you know what the writers wrote down at the time is true
@osr4152
Жыл бұрын
Its interesting that the synoptic accounts vary so much on the details after the women flee the tomb, where Mark's account finishes. As Matthew and Luke were copying Mark it makes sense that they went off piste when there was no existing narrative to follow.
@mojo449
Жыл бұрын
❤
@PUAlum
Жыл бұрын
Yes. they are contradictory. But they are in the way multiple witnesses to a crime or an auto accident may contradict each other. These "differences" actually enhance witness credibility. Imagine 3 witnesses in a murder trial giving identical answers to questions. Years after the event!
@billsherman1565
Жыл бұрын
Did you watch the video?
@chrisgross5925
Жыл бұрын
Which is why eyewitness testimony is some of the worst evidence there is
@Peter-wl3tm
2 жыл бұрын
Omitting details is not contradictory, whether The gospels report every appearance of Jesus or not doesn’t mean they’re contradicting each other and it doesn’t make it less credible just because some details are omitted
@mytwocents7481
2 жыл бұрын
Matthew 28 describes a single appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples and he never suggests that there were any others. John describes three appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples and none of them even come close to matching the one in Matthew. Those are not just problems with details. Those are major discrepancies.
@tomellis4750
2 жыл бұрын
No problem, 2 plus 2 equals 47.3
@johnobrien7990
2 жыл бұрын
You sound ready for a visit to Dr Carrier.
@RussellHernandez73
2 жыл бұрын
You start by simply listing things that are unparalleled, but don't actually contradict. At 5:00 I think it's pretty obvious that it means that they kept to themselves while they fled, yet did tell the disciples. At 5:44 I don't know why you chose to highlight that they both mention Galilee. That's just a difference not a contradiction. Jesus does talk about himself as the Son of Man being killed and risen on the third day more than once in Luke. I have no problem thinking he did this in Galilee. Though I think it is perhaps noteworthy, if one hadn't already noticed elsewhere, to see that there is paraphrasing going on because clearly they don't recalling things word for word, or mention every exact detail. At 6:03 you again assume absence of information is information of absence. Luke finishes with Jesus telling them to stay in the city to wait for something, then afterward he ascends. In Acts same thing, don't leave yet, wait for what was promised, then afterward he ascends. There's nothing in Luke about immediately leaving; there is simply omitted information. It's highly likely Luke-Acts was written by the same person. Do you really think he finished up last page of Luke and then went on to totally contradict himself first page of Acts? You call out Ehrman for the weak example of the number of women at the tomb, then provide the same kind of weak example. There are better examples. Disappointing video after giving that criticism.
@DanDan-eh7ul
2 жыл бұрын
"Ran away in fear and told no one" vs "Ran with joy and told the apostles". No, it isn't an easy obvious fix like you say. You can't just easily reconcile it with something like "told no one but the apostles". That means they told someone, making Mark wrong.
@RussellHernandez73
2 жыл бұрын
@@DanDan-eh7ul This is just not how people talk. When Mark reads "they said nothing to anyone", does that mean they were utterly silent and never spoke to anyone ever again? That doesn't make any sense. Don't you think that the author of Mark knows that they did tell someone? They have to tell. They are commanded in verse 7 to do so. How could anyone even know they were there and saw such things if they didn't tell?
@DanDan-eh7ul
2 жыл бұрын
@@RussellHernandez73 Of course that's ridiculous, but that's also not at all even close to what I was saying. One account says they kept it to themselves and told no one because of fear. This doesn't exclude possibly recounting it to individuals later in life. It does for the immediate future though, which runs entirely contrary to the account where they are so happy, they rush to share it as soon as possible to the apostles. No fear and immediate recounting.
@RussellHernandez73
2 жыл бұрын
@@DanDan-eh7ul Luke doesn't say as soon as possible, and even if it did, "as soon as possible" could be any length of time, like say, the amount of time it takes to get to the apostles, which does not contradict Mark.
@DanDan-eh7ul
2 жыл бұрын
@@RussellHernandez73 Luke 24:9 "When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others." It doesn't say they took their sweet time to travel around Judea first, or wait a few days before sharing. It says "When they got back from the tomb". Other translations say it a little more neutrally as "they went back and reported all of these things". One translation says they "rushed back to tell". It's fairly clear from this passage alone. Also, look down to verse 13 which says "Now that same day" implying that all the preceding stuff took place in the same day. And then to verse 34, where the two along the path, the same day, come to say "It's true" or "The lord has indeed risen" such phrasing indicates that this is to confirm a prior account. I.E. The telling by the women. Like the exact period of time is irrelevant to the point at hand, but the book _clearly_ says that this all supposedly happened on the same day.
@jamessheffield4173
2 жыл бұрын
But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers. Homily 1 on Matthew Chrysostom
@andrewmeyer8783
2 жыл бұрын
The video directly addresses this point at 8:06
@jamessheffield4173
2 жыл бұрын
@@andrewmeyer8783 I think I shall stick with Chrysostom. Blessings. Watch my elder son Johnathan Sheffield's video on why the Romans couldn't refute the resurrection.
@andrewmeyer8783
2 жыл бұрын
@@jamessheffield4173 The way this is supposed to work is that you watch the video and develop a specific response. If you just come and spew pro-Christian propaganda and ignore the conversation the video creator is trying to have, it's considered spam.
@jamessheffield4173
2 жыл бұрын
@@andrewmeyer8783 Thanks, for your kind response. Blessings.
Пікірлер: 301