InspiringPhiliosophy's YouTube Bible Playlists

InspiringPhilosophy is a terrific Christian apologetics YouTube channel. The following are links to playlists that deal with the Bible:


Alleged Bible Errors Refuted:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luH581hVdXw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVnj0QVWnMTMzmpvuFqCpIv


Bible Contradictions Refuted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWq3fVQuSuA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXRZs52bpnVfiPM9TD_Ukfo


The Reliability of the New Testament:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY


Was Jesus a Copycat Savior?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FR08QtvapM&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVOYpPpjYhTUHXycJrY6P2I


The Resurrection of Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ErnJF_nwBk&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

Resurrection Debate and Bible Contradictions

I just watched a debate between Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie and atheist Jim Majors. Below is a link to the video along with my solutions to some of the alleged contradictions and discrepancies that Majors brought up. I've copied my YouTube comments and pasted them below.  In some instances explanation won't be necessary. Other times I'll either write an explanatory comment, or I'll supplement my YouTube comments with words in brackets so that those who haven't watched the debate can understand the context of my original comments.

https://youtu.be/f2a2U8Bkt8Y

 Was Jesus Unanimously Condemned to Death Or Not? I created a separate blogpost on this topic:

 Was Jesus Unanimously Condemned to Death Or Not?

Majors claims that Paul likely lied and made up his claim about 500 witnesses of seeing Jesus after His resurrection.

- Paul claiming 500 witness in the 1st century would be foolish because such a large number could easily be confirmed/disconfirmed. Such a number to might be used to trick us 2000 years later if Paul were trying to start a false religion he wanted to last for millenia, but he wasn't thinking in such long terms. He was writing to contemporaries who could easily call him out on his lies by a simple investigation.

- The discrepancies of the martyrdom of Peter and James [in the historical records] does nothing to undermine [the reality of] their martyrdom. Witnesses of the Titanic disagreed as to whether it sank whole or whether it split in two before sinking. But that doesn't call into question the general fact that the Titanic sank.

-Why would it be absolutely unthinkable that Joseph (Joe) and Nicodemus (Nick) would willingly defile themselves [by taking Jesus' body off the cross] and so keep them from participating in the week long feast of Unleavened Bread? Out of piety and and love toward Jesus they could. Especially if they took to heart Jesus' teachings on showing mercy and healing on the Sabbath. Besides, Joe, being rich, may have had others do the actual physical work to keep him and Nick from becoming ritually unclean. Joe and Nick may have had Gentile servants who didn't care about ritual purity. John 19:1 says, "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him." It's understood that Pilate didn't personally do so, but had others do the flogging at his command. Likewise, why assume that Joe and Nick took Jesus down from the cross personally?

Is there a contradiction between Acts and Luke regarding the taking down of Jesus body?

-Acts 13:29ff. doesn't need to mention Joseph of Arimathea, since the same author mentions him in Luke 23:50ff. GLuke and Acts are volumes 1 & 2 by Luke.

-Why would the Gospel authors give different numbers of women? Because they may be highlighting some women whom they knew were there, while at the same time not mentioning the exact full number of women because they might not have known. Also, there was likely multiple visits to the tomb that morning. And some women might have arrived earlier and later than some others. It's difficult to coordinate such a meeting if they started out from different homes. There's no indication that they all met at a different location first before they all went to the tomb simultaneously together. There might have been multiple visits EVEN AFTER reports had come that Jesus' body was missing and rumors that men who were possibly angels claimed He rose from the dead.

-Why would the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus when Jesus was already anointed? Because Jesus was buried in haste before the rapidly approaching Sabbath and the job was likely unfinished.

-Regarding the prophecy that "he made his grave with the wicked", there are many ways that could have been fulfilled. See commentaries on Isa. 53:9. For example, Benson Commentary states:

//...[It] does not denote the sameness of place, as if he should be buried in the same grave with other malefactors, but the sameness of condition. But the words may be rendered, A grave was appointed for him with the wicked; but he was with the rich at his death. Or, as Bishop Lowth reads it, His grave was appointed with the wicked; but with the rich man was his tomb. See his notes. “As our Lord was crucified between two thieves, it was doubtless intended he should be buried with them. ‘Thus his grave was appointed with the wicked;’ but Joseph of Arimathea came and asked for his body, and Pilate, convinced that he had committed no crime, readily granted Joseph’s request. Thus ‘he was with the rich at his death,’ that is, till his resurrection: and this took place contrary to the intention of his enemies....."//

-How did Paul recognize it was Jesus who appeared to him? McLatchie rightly points out that the apparition identified himself. But also, it's not impossible that Paul might have seen Jesus during His earthly ministry. Paul was from Tarsus, but as a faithful Jew he would have come to Jerusalem for various annual Holy Days. Since Jesus' ministry likely lasted about 3 years, it's not unlikely that Paul saw Jesus preach out of curiosity during one of those visits to Jerusalem. That might even be hinted at in 2 Cor. 5:16.

-It's not absolutely unthinkable that Pilate would make an exception in the case of Jesus for allowing His body to be taken down. If he was superstitious, then he might have taken seriously his wife's words sent to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream" (Matt. 27:19). IF Jesus really is the Son of God, then He would likely have had a presence and personality that was unique such that Pilate might see in Jesus something different and special. And that He might actually be innocent. If the story of Pilate washing his hands from the situation is true (Matt. 27:24), then that would lend credence to the possibility that he did have an unusual sense about Jesus. Notice that Matt. 27:24 is very close to Matt. 27:19. Remember that Jesus was crucified not on Roman instigation, but Jewish instigation. He was more of a threat to the Jewish leaders than to Roman rule over that area.

-Jim Majors points out that Jesus' scourging was unusually elaborate and cruel and uses that as a reason to think Pilate wouldn't want to allow Jesus' body taken down and buried. But the very reason why it was unusually cruel was likely because Pilate ordered it because he was likely trying to so brutalize Jesus that he hoped the Jewish leaders would see the horror of what they were doing to that innocent man (Jesus), feel remorse, and so change their minds about having him crucified. Crucifixion would be the point of no return and lead to Jesus' certain death. I suspect in Pilate's mind he thought that if the leaders changed their minds, Jesus might have survived the scourging. He hoped the leaders would be satisfied with the "pound of flesh" [nod to Shakespeare] literally taken from Jesus' body and allowed Him to live since He learned a lesson about opposing their authority. Since they didn't change their minds, the only way to show some mercy to that innocent man was for him (Pilate) to allow Jesus to be taken down and buried. All that in addition to what Jonathan McLatchie said makes a lot of sense.

- Regarding the issue of whether those with Paul saw, heard and understood the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus, this is an old tired contradiction that has been refuted countless times in books and websites. The Greek words used in the relevant passages don't necessitate a contradiction.

//"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)."//1
1. Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press Publications, 1985.

//Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived."//2
2. Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1981.

-Is there a contradiction between Matthew and Acts regarding how Judas died? There are various ways of resolving the apparent contradiction. It turned out that the way I prefer to reconcile the two accounts has been thought of by others as well. See this video here: https://youtu.be/Ado78pyEGIs

[Link to my blogpost on this topic here: The Death of Judas Iscariot a Contradiction?]

Basically, when Matt. 27:5 states Judas "hanged himself" it's a figure of speech to refer to committing suicide (by whatever means). This is especially fitting because of the story in the Old Testament where one of King David's trusted advisor's (Ahithophel) who had betrayed him eventually killed himself by hanging once it was evident that the side he joined himself to would lose to David's side. So, in order to save himself from humiliating indignities (and possible torture?), he got his affairs in order and then committed suicide by (literally) hanging himself. In essence, Matthew is saying that Judas got what he deserved as a traitor just as the traitor Ahithophel did by suffering the same fate.

Jim Majors uses Benny Hinn and the things that go on in his meetings as an analogy as to how people could begin to believe false experiences.

-Regarding "Benny Hinn's magic jacket" there are various possibilities. Jim Majors presupposes non-supernaturalism. If the supernatural is real, then it could be demons or God (or both at different times) who are actually causing people to be "slain in the Spirit". Another possibility is that sometimes the "slayings" might be due to some psychological phenomenon that has to do with group and peer pressure. Something similar to what Majors might be claiming. However, consciously or subconsciously submitting to being "slain in the Spirit" doesn't have as much a cost as being killed for one's faith as some of the disciples and Apostles were. In the latter case, one will be more circumspect and therefore more rational in their attitudes and behavior. Moreover, speaking of the supernatural, miracles and signs & wonders are still being performed throughout the world in the context of the Jesus message. If that's been happening for 2000 years, then that gives every generation suggestive evidence that Christianity is true. God might balance out the numbers and distribution of miracles so that there's enough to convince those who want to believe, yet not enough to force people who do not want to believe in the Gospel.

As Blaise Pascal wrote: //Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.//

- Do the Synoptics contradict GJohn on the day Christ was crucified in relation to the Passover? I recommend reading Brant Pitre's book "Jesus and the Last Supper". He wrote a ~122 page chapter (4th) on the topic of the apparent discrepancy and contradiction between the Synoptics and the GJohn regarding whether the Last Supper was or wasn't a Passover, and whether Jesus died at approximately the same time the Passover lambs were or afterwards. Pitre acknowledges there are many views on the topic, but lists four of the most popular views among scholars. Two of them attempt to reconcile the apparent discrepancy and two argue for real contradiction. He describes and then goes through each options' strengths and weaknesses, and then argues for the fourth position.

1. The Essene Hypothesis attempts to reconcile the discrepancy by appealing to two liturgical calendars among Jews at the time. So, it's both true that Jesus did and didn't observe the Passover.

2. The Johannine Hypothesis argues that John is right and the Synoptics are wrong. This is the most popular view among scholars. He argues that the main basis for its popularity is that it's grounded in astronomical considerations. However, he argues that when examined more carefully, the astronomical considerations are weak because they ultimately depend on atmospheric observations from the ground (not merely where the moon was in relation to the earth) during the relevant 1st century years. If I recall correctly, a cloudy day could delay the Passover up to 48 hours. Also, (if I recall) the calendar was dependent on when the season started, and that depended on the state of the crops.

3. The Synoptic Hypothesis argues that the Synoptics are right and GJohn is wrong.

4. The Passover Hypothesis argues that the Last Supper was a Passover (as the Synoptics clearly state) and that when properly read, GJohn actually agrees with the Synoptics. Pitre argues that when one takes into account the various ways the Jews at the time used the word Passover and other phrases to refer to the Passover season, John perfectly conforms to it such that the apparent contradiction disappears. Pitre says this is the least popular of the four among scholars (because neglected and dismissed), but argues that it's actually the best of the four options.

I've also got a blogpost on this topic here: What Day Did Christ Die?

Was Jesus Unanimously Condemned to Death Or Not?

An alleged Bible contradiction argues that the Gospels disagree whether the Sanhedrin unanimously condemned Jesus as deserving of death (Mark 14:64, 15:1) or whether there was at least one dissenter Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-51). It's not clear whether Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin Council.

63    And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need?
64    You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.- Mark 14:63-64

And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole Council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate.- Mark 15:1

Versus

50    Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,
51    who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God.- Luke 23:50-51

There are various ways around this alleged contradiction. I'll enumerate a few of them.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (JFB hereafter) states regarding Mark 14:64:

they all condemned him to be guilty of death—or of a capital crime, which blasphemy against God was according to the Jewish law (Le 24:16). Yet not absolutely all; for Joseph of Arimathea, "a good man and a just," was one of that Council, and "he was not a consenting party to the counsel and deed of them," for that is the strict sense of the words of Lu 23:50, 51. Probably he absented himself, and Nicodemus also, from this meeting of the Council, the temper of which they would know too well to expect their voice to be listened to; and in that case, the words of our Evangelist are to be taken strictly, that, without one dissentient voice, "all [present] condemned him to be guilty of death."

JFB speculates that Joseph and Nicodemus (who may have also been a Council member) left before the vote was taken because they strongly suspected ("knew") that the overwhelming majority of the Council was hostile toward Jesus and had already set their mind to condemn Him. Why would they leave before the vote? Maybe out of disgust for the evidently "kangaroo court" trial of Jesus that was happening that they left the assembly to privately pray for divine intervention so that Jesus wouldn't be condemned to death. Or maybe out of cowardice Joseph (and possibly Nicodemus too) absented himself from the vote because he didn't have the courage to openly oppose the clear majority who were hell bent on condemning Jesus. That might account for his later bold request of Pilate for Jesus' body. Maybe out of guilt, SHAME and repentance he decided to compensate for his cowardice with that audacious request. It might be argued that this would be inconsistent with Luke's description of Joseph as a "good and righteous man" (Luke 23:50). But like other statements in the rest of the Bible that talk about people being righteous and "perfect", it refers to the tenor of their lives. Not that they never sinned or committed evil. King David who committed murder was forgiven by God after his repentance and was eventually called affectionately "a man after My [God's] own heart". Even assuming Luke knew that Joseph was previously cowardly, it would have been in poor taste to mention that without Joseph's approval (unlike with Peter who openly admitted his cowardice and betrayal of Jesus in his preaching). Especially in light of what Joseph eventually did in mercifully preparing Jesus' body for burial. There would be no point in marring Joseph's reputation and memory by recording his cowardice. He was an elderly man at the time of the events [being a Council member] and possibly dead by the time Luke wrote his Gospel.

Admittedly, the natural (but possibly wrong and non-necessary) inference one can draw from Luke 23:50-51 is that Joseph was aware of the trial and was there for the vote. But the verses are also consistent with Joseph not being aware of the trial and/or not being present at the vote. It's true that Mark 15:1 states the whole Council was present in the morning. But there is a time gap between Mark 14:64 (when the vote was taken) and Mark 15:1. Therefore another possibility is that the Council members may have intentionally not informed Joseph of the orchestrated arrest and trial of Jesus precisely because they knew he would object and oppose them. They would do this especially if they knew that Joseph might hold a lot of sway during the proceedings and if he was known to be an especially pious Jew. So, they may have voted before Joseph became aware of the trial and decision. But he was eventually informed of it and arrived by the time of Mark 15:1 when it was too late (practically) to oppose what was happening because of the momentum for the call of His death.

Assuming the author of Mark knew that there was at least one dissenter, the "all" of Mark 14:64 may be hyperbole referring to the overwhelming majority. So, it need not be a contradiction. It was (and still is) common linguistic practice to be general or hyperbolic in communication. For example, when Matt. 3:5-6 states, "[t]hen Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to" be baptized by John the Baptist, the reader is expected to understand that not every single person in that region literally went to hear John preach and (all the more) to be baptized. Even today, if someone was to travel 385 miles from point A to point B for a vacation, it's not normally considered a lie for the person to say he traveled 400 miles. Another logical possibility is that the author of Mark didn't know there were any dissenters and so wrote, and intended to convey, that there weren't any. But strictly (though not literally) speaking, GMark's words in the text are consistent with there being a very small minority or a single dissenter given normal human communication that speaks in generalities and with imprecision. Take for example Hebrews 3:16-19:

16    For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
17    And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18    And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19    So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Literally speaking, verse 16 states "all" (everyone) who left Egypt led by Moses rebelled against God and died in the wilderness. Yet, in this famous story it was universally known that Joshua and Caleb didn't rebel and didn't die in the wilderness. But lived long enough to enter the Promised Land. Only if one takes Heb. 3:16 in a WOODENLY literal way could one possibly insist on a Bible contradiction. In a similar way, Mark 14:64 is consistent with there being a very small dissenting party. And especially a single dissenter (assuming Nicodemus wasn't a Council member).