Another conclusion is that these stories were entirely contrived based on various literary tropes without reference to an actual historical Jesus. The symbolism and usage of common themes from Greek culture makes the biographical nature of the story rather unlikely. If we begin from the hypothesis that these stories were written out of whole cloth, then the differences between them are hardly surprising.
@daniele.3361 What I said is the case; many of the tropes in the Gospels were indeed literally and verifiably borrowed from Greek, not Jewish, culture. This is not in contention by anyone in Biblical studies. It is ignored by apologists who want to want to think that the Gospels are history rather than what they actually are: literature.
@@AshBowieThere’s just one problem with your theory: the Jewish people. The life and times of Jesus were documented by Jews and presented to Jews. The Jewish people were the eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. If they were not, then the Gospels would have been soundly rejected by the Jews because this was supposed to have happened right in front of them. For example: Say you and I spend an entire day together. Ten years later I come back to you and say “Remember that day when I healed a blind guy and turned water into wine?” You would rightly look at me like I’m crazy because that never happened. So when the disciples say this about Jesus, they have no reason to accept what the disciples say unless it really happened because they were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life. Ergo it must have happened because they did in fact accept the Gospel. Also, a virgin birth and messianic figure were very foreign to Greek culture and bear no similarity to any tropes presented in Greek literature
@@closetevangelism Except there is no such record of Jesus anywhere. At all. Paul didn't record a single thing about Jesus as an historical person and even went to pains to say his own teachings were only from revelation and scriptural interpretations. The Gospels are obviously constructed as myth several decades later and certainly cannot count as recorded history. So while I appreciate your enthusiasm for recorded history, there simply isn't any in the case of Jesus.
@@closetevangelism What nonsense you babble. The vast majority of Jew DID NOT accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the gospels were rejected by them! Also, none of the gospels were written by disciples of Jesus! They were written more than thirty years later by people who were only relation stories that they had heard . . . at best!
The birth story of Jesus and the other stories about young Jesus are very much recontextualised variations of the stories about Krishna's birth and childhood. Once you know about both, you can't unsee it. Similarly, the relationship between Jesus and his Church parallels the relationship between Rama and Sita. It's all just so very obvious.
So, how do Jewish fishermen living in 30 AD Jerusalem, under Roman occupation hear about India, let alone Krishna, and the intimate details of the religion?
@@garrettmorano3038 Trade. People from far away cultures interacted with each other quite a bit back then. Even going back to the 3rd and 4th millenia there was extensive trade between Egypt and other Mediterranean cultures and India. Lapis from present day Afghanistan went through Harrapan (Indus Valley Civilization) ports to Mesopotamia long before Abraham is believed to have left Ur.
@@garrettmorano3038the authors of the gospels were educated, Greek-speaking people. That being said, I doubt the stories were modeled after an Indian god. There are similarities, but there are also similarities with many other myths from Greek and Roman culture also.
@@DubbzRHandle Correct, but they were all educated most after their encounter with Christ. My comment was presupposing the argument that the apostles just made up Jesus. And looking at the Indo-Roman trade routes, none of them go through Jerusalem nor the Galilean region. Its like arguing the Saxons made up Odin from the Gods of Taoism, those cultures didn't mix at all during that time. All the people that claim Christ is a derivative or knock off, don't know anything about Jewish culture to begin with, nor that the Sanhedrin and Pharasess still had massive political and social influence during Roman occupation. The Irony is in the historical fact of India never influenced the Jews but that Christianity influenced India. The Apostle Thomas himself, started churches in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
IIRC, the Messiah had to be from the House of David, which means he had to be BIOLOGICALLY related to David through Joseph. But if He was born of a virgin, He wasn't of the House of David, or any other house for that matter.
Yup. Early Christians had their hands full trying to figure out how to make their messiah be both born of a virgin AND also be a bloodline descendant of David. Seems to me they tried to sneak in the bloodline of David part with Joseph supposed lineage hoping people wouldn't notice that the virgin part makes Joseph's bloodline completely irrelevant when it comes to Jesus. This didn't escape the notice of some of my classmates in Catholic School to which the response was "well Mary was a descendant of David". Even at a young age that answer struck me as obviously made up to try to fix a hole in the story.
Comment above is correct. It was sufficient at that period to be adopted to become as a full member of someone’s household. This is actually what “adopted” kind of means in that context. The real issue with the genealogies imo is the contradiction and the fact that much of them are just plain made up.
@@veritasdeutsch6608That's one I haven't heard before - Jesus met the prophesied messiah criterion of being a descendant of David, but ONLY because of a loophole afforded by contemporaneous social conventions. I would speculate the devout Jewish community wouldn't be very receptive of the argument that when their prophets were talking about their Messiah being descended from David, they didn't mean an actual blood relative of David. But rather just anyone associated with a descendant of David, so long as it's in line with whatever the current social norms happen to be.
It is often agreed that the word used for where Jesus was born "there was no room for them in the inn" is καταλύματι, which many scholars say is more like a guest-room (or lodge room) with relatives (Luke 2:7). When the Magi visited Jesus in Matthew 2:11 it says they found the child in the "house" (οἰκίαν). This, many argue, is an indication that some time had passed when Jesus was born from when the Magi came, -possibly as long as two years, which is why Harod wanted to kill all the baby boys "two years old and under" (Matthew 2:16). The word Matthew 2:11 uses to describe Jesus is παιδίον, which could be anywhere from an infant to seven years old. This word (παιδίον) is different from when Luke describes Jesus as a "baby" (βρέφος), which would be a newborn. παιδίον is also the same word Luke 2:39-40 uses when it describes Jesus' family moving to Nazareth. Luke 2:39-40 does not say that they left for Nazareth "immediately after the purification ritual." It says, "When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee." So, Jesus is born amongst animals because there was no room for them in the "inn", or "lodgeroom", -καταλύματι (Luke 2:7). Jesus is described as a "baby" -βρέφος (Luke 2:12) Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21). Mary did her purification around the the 32nd day (Luke 2:22-38). Magi visit Bethlehem and find Jesus' family in a "house", -οἰκίαν (Matthew 2:11). Jesus is now a "child", -παιδίον, which is probably under 2-years old because that's the age Harod wants to kill the boys (Matthew 2:11-16). Jesus' family flees to Egypt with Jesus as a "child", -παιδίον (Matthew 2:14) They come back with Jesus still a "child", -παιδίον (Matthew 2:19-21). They go to Nazareth of Galilee while Jesus is still a "child", -παιδίον (Matthew 2:22-23, Luke 2:39-40). The narratives are messy, but not irreconcilable. I could find similar complications in my own journals I've kept throughout my life. Sometimes apparent contradictions arise merely from the lack of clarified details. This is how stories unfold in real life, -minor details resolve seemingly contradictions. Is this the "correct" interpretation of the data? Perhaps not, but the linguistics do keep such harmonization processes open. Moreover, we can assert with high certainty that Jesus' mother was of a particular situation when she gave birth to him, as well as reason with clear certainty that he went down to Egypt. For these are both attested for in the enemies of Jesus as they accuse her of adultery and say his "sorcery" came from his time in Egypt (Against Celsus: 1:28, Sanhedrin 67a:14-15, Sanhedrin 107b:8,12-14, Sotah 47a:12-14, Shabbat 104:b:5.)
@5BBassist4Christ Did you actually read the story or make here copy and paste? If so why are you a ventriloquism dummy? Is the fear of seeing the obvious fan fiction stories? In one story they live in the city and in the other they go there because of a taxation of the Romans. Herod died 4 BC so the birth had to happen between 30-6 BCE in Luke there is a Roman tax evaluation and this could have happened earliest 6 CE as the Romans took control over this piece of land. It gets worse as people get tax evaluated where they lived and they did not have to move to where some family once lived.
@@joshconner79 *Herod's killing of the babies is historical fact* It is? References please. I will help you there are none. It was made up just like all the bible stories. Besides have you read the entire Gospels? Probably not Luke chapter 2, including verse 6 (see Joseph and Mary), Jesus was born while “Quirinius was governing Syria” (Luke 2:2), which the best known Roman records indicate to have been from 6 AD to 12 AD. Matthew 2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men1 from the east came to Jerusalem, There is a ten year gap.
"Floating around more broadly". I like that. By the way, I don't have deep problems with the differences between the various Gospels. But I'm not a theological scholar. Peace...
I do. This was supposed to be a divinely inspired book, to pass the test of time. There should not be any contradictions or discrepancies. This is excellent evidence against the divinity of the bible
@@loveableheathen7441 I respect how you feel and I understand your doubts. I'm a Christian believer and even I experience doubts at times. Regarding the different stories in the various Gospels, i think each author wrote from their own perspective. Matthew and John were apostles of Jesus so I think they wrote from their personal knowledge regarding Jesus. So I do appreciate your honesty. No problem. Peace to you...
What year was Jesus born? According to Matthew, it had to be during the life of Herod who died in 4 BCE. According to Luke it had to be during the census of Quirinius, which took place in 6 CE. Another unreconcilable detail between the two.
@daniele.3361 Herod the 1st, King of Judea and client to Rome died in 4 CE. At that time the kingdom of Judea was split into smaller territories and divided among his three sons (Herod Archelaus, Herod Philip, Herod Antipas). In 6 CE Herod Archelaus was such a shit ruler of his part of the split kingdom the people of the area appealed to Rome to bring it under direct control. So Emperor Augustus converted it into a Roman prefecture and called the prefecture Judea (after the old kingdom). He assigned Quirinius, who at the time was governor of the province of Syria (which was just to the north) to administer a census, so the new prefecture could be taxed properly. This is all well documented, so you're gonna have to do better than "nuh-uh" if you want to overturn historical scholarly consensus.
There is a channel called 'Cold Case Christianity' ran by an actual cold case detective. He was an atheist, but changed his mind by using the exact techniques used to solve actual cases. He would say everything Bart is saying is actually good evidence the gospels are true, because when stories line up exactly, it generally means collaboration of witnesses. Bart is still operating from his fundamentalist mindset that every word is inspired, rather than the main theme, which all of the gospels are able to present. There is also a good argument from undesigned coincidences that I have only recently began to look into, but offers some decent pushback as to why some differences actually support authenticity.
I wonder when humans are going to stop talking about these bloody useless old books? Whats the point, where does it get us? I can't wait until every church becomes a museum
I think History ( "these bloody useless old books" ) is very important for a better understanding of the cultures of the Ancient Near East. If we consider those historical manuscripts as "bloody useless", then such a view points to the reality that "history repeats itself" ( in the sense that we never learn from history ). Our human nature doesn't seem to change for the better. Now that is "BLOODY USELESS" !! Respectfully...
@johnbrzykcy3076 You believe every author wrote from their own perspective of their desciplehood with Jesus, when the autorhs of the gospels, per the most robust literary and historical analysis we can make about them _were not written by Jesus's desciples and people who actually even supposedly knew him personally?_ You _do_ realize that the names of the gospels aren't indicative of their actual authorship, do you?
Read the story: Jesus himself thought he'd be coming back during that generation's lifetime. He didn't. And he won't be back, because it's all nonsense.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 The birth narratives in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke) share common elements, like the virgin birth and Bethlehem, but have vastly different details, suggesting they didn't know each other's work. 03:13 🤔 There are irreconcilable differences between Matthew and Luke's accounts of Jesus' birth, such as the timing of returning to Nazareth or going to Egypt, challenging the idea that the authors were inventing the story. 06:09 📖 Gospel authors likely inherited and shared stories within their Christian communities, shaping their accounts of Jesus' life and events, rather than fabricating them.
“I don’t have a problem that God revealed Himself in a book. It’s just that He didn’t ‘write’ a very good book!”-One of the hosts of ‘The Atheist Experience,’ years ago. (Quoting from memory.)
The Magi visiting Christ in Matthew 2 are coming approximately 2 years after his birth (see verse 16), which leaves plenty of time for Mary and Joseph to travel to Jerusalem, then Nazareth, then return to Bethlehem where they lived in a house, not a stable, (verse 11) before fleeing to Egypt.
No, as many read that section and say that is simply Herod murdering anyone under the age of 2 to ensure any male child would not be a threat to him. Now, can you see how you can manipulate these verses to suit your own narrative? "God's word" has now become your word.
When one does not read the bible one is surprised by all the contradictions and here comes usually an apologetic along that fools them. So they do not get a pen and paper and do not as Ehrman tells his student lines up the story elements of Mathew and then the ones of Luke and so they never see for themselves the differences. May be they want a simple belief where they do not have to think at all. What do you think?
Don’t think you two are fooling anyone. You’re the ones who need to gain wisdom and accept the truth. Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. The truth is the Lord Jesus Christ. You say you already know the truth? You don’t need myths? Are you sure? You fools! You have deceived yourself and nobody else. Learn to think wisely and break free from your bondage to sin and blindness therein, do it before it is too late and it’s all over but the crying. I assure you both that if you do not listen to these words you will remember them, and you will regret it with every fiber of your being, but by then it will be too late. So sad. Let your pride go before your destruction.
@@Gatitakatzen Can you read the bible? Obviously few people do or fail to remember. one is either born under Herod and fleed from hunting or one is born under Roman rule and just went home. We have various gospels as several people had other stories to tell about Jesus.
Intelligent christians know the bible is mythology. The only reason they believe in a god is because of some intense emotional feelings and mental well being that this belief provides.
The gospels can be historically accurate without being literally true. Abraham Lincoln existed. I doubt he was a vampire hunter. Although, I continue to be struck by the profound absence of vampires...
We live this life everyday and know how complicated it can sometimes be; we also have heard multiple people tell a story and each person may leave out different details. This feels like much ado about nothing.
People also get stories wrong. I’ve heard people tell tales about things that happened when I was there and get them wrong … and the longer you get away from the event the bigger the differences get. The gospels were written a generation, maybe two, after the event sooooo, I would assume the stories would accumulate some crap over that time.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16. Our understanding is that God puts the ideas to be written, and the writer expresses it.
We know the gospel writers, copy from each other in other areas, so why not here? It really doesn’t matter. It was made up by somebody. Perhaps earlier and then copied and repeated. But in any event, it’s still a myth.
It's myth mixed with history not "just" myth. There is a difference. The mythicism theory raises more questions than it answers. The classical approach still wins. Meaning there were sources about Jesus who was an actual person and people considered him special and a religion emerged. How much of that religion is relevant for anyone is a matter of faith. Unfortunately Ehrman is a bad faith actor and I wish people would invite another scholar - an actual historian maybe and not an ex-evangelical who still thinks like an evangelical.
@@MrSeedi76 The actual source of Spiderman shows is there were men, spiders and radioactivity. So there could be a real Spiderman bitten by a radioactive spider is possibly the source of the Spiderman fan fiction stories.
I am confused. Ehrman seems to be denying what Alex says about the discrepancies proving that the authors did not really know anything about Jesus' birth. Then he goes on and proves that they contradict each other so much that it cannot be reconciled. What?
I could easily be wrong here, but I understood it as Ehrman denying Alex’s claim that the authors knew of each other’s works while writing. Alex’s claim: 0:31 Bart’s denial: 1:54
Here's the problem. The New Testament was not able to be edited and redacted as the Old Testament was. The OT stories were edited so as to reconcile the stories from those of Israel, with those of Judah, as much as possible, as well as to fix some historical mistakes. There was never a successful attempt of doing this with the gospels and other material of the NT . . . probably because of the wide dispersal and knowledge of the materials. As a result, there are a lot of contradictions, some very serious, to be found in close study of the NT. That was never a big problem for the religion until the materials became much more available to the laypersons in the faith. "Ignorance is bliss." The religion still relies on this to a great extent even today.
Never edited at all. The Jews were very scrupulous, same version back than is there today. No problem at all. They didn’t have laptops back then, all written down. stop comparing our technology to back then and start comparing your hard heart to what scripture says about it. Christ Jesus is LORD.
The fact the Gospels differ in detail adds to their veracity. Apparently no attempt was made to duplicate the details of the other. The details are not relevant to salvation; all Gospels talk about the existence of Jesus, his death, and resurrection, the essential parts of Christian belief.
So basically you are saying that lies forms the gospels, as by looking at the two versions, one must be true, and the other a lie. So either Matthew or Luke lied. You don't get a pass with this bull crap that it is not necessary for salvation. The story is in the gospels which you believers believe to be the inerrant word of your god. So no, you don't get away with that bull crap logic.
@@JohnMark61355 Why is it in there then if it was not relevant? All of the Christian churches teaches that the bible is the word of god. Each line is there because god wanted it to be there. Yet you throw away the comment that some scenes are just there for what? To fill up the pages?
@@johnking5174 The majority of Christians don’t believe in the word-for-word accuracy of the the details in question. Many Christians like me are followers of Jesus and the details like Judas’ method of death or the date of a census are not relevant to salvation.
@@johnking5174 For further information, please read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” the most recent version by Josh and Sean McDowell. Also, please read books or watch videos by James Tour: Genetic biologist; John Lennox: Physicist; Francis Collins: biologist; Bill Phillips: Nobel Prize for physics, all renowned scientists and believers in God. The “Reasonable Faith” and “ Truth Unites” websites and RUclips videos also provide a different perspective. Both sides of this issue requires faith of some sort, the question is what is the most reasonable basis for faith.
Yes, and scholar say it would have been around September time he would have been born, especially reading Luke's version, shepherds watching their flocks at night didn't happen in winter months, as their flock and themselves would freeze to death
If these gospels were "inspired by God", why write them in such vagueness and confusing logic and narrative? The authors should gave gotten the story accurately the first time.
And there you have the whole point. Reading the nativity stories is when I lost my faith. Reading properly, I mean not with alibis, or "bible study" as it's called, I saw the stories were bull crap.
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I’m nothing” AGAPE
You mean people making claims abiut fabmn fuction stotmry fighting over the true Harry Potter and the pure Spiderman. We gave a thousand contradicting storues of Jesus made up be the various cults
In the book (Matthew 2:16) it mentions babies 2 years and younger were being killed so we know Jesus was 2 years or under 2 years old when he was sent to Egypt.. which fulfiled old testament - Hosea 11 1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. It does not go into detail when Herod died but according to what we read in sequence it seems he died rather quickly.. and right after Herod died, Luke 2:39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law/commandments of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40 "And the child grew" and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.
Does no one read the book? In one story your family lives in Nazareth under Roman rule (Herod is 10 years dead ) and travels to Bethlehem for your birth and in the other story the family lives in Bethlehem and flees from Herod to Egypt. Luke and Mathew tells obviously contradicting stories. Matthew goes on to tell that they return from Egypt but not to Bethlehem were they lived but move to the unknown town Nazareth as they fear the son of Herod. In Luke's stories at Jesu's birth, neither Herod nor the son of Herod ruled, but the Romans ruled over that land.
When you get too cocky and arrogant and think you know it all, you lose focus and understanding, being all caught up in your own pride and self knowledge. Profesing to be wise but becoming a fool being exposed cause truth exists.
They got that story from Moses and Jews being in slaved in Egypt, and the baby Zeus with Cronus. Cronus ate all his children apon birth because it was predicted they would over throw him. Zeus mom tricked Cronus and feed Cronus a rock and Zeus went away to a cave and drank milk from a calf. Long story short Zeus beats up Cronus and frees his siblings.
@@jampar-s1m How does it feel to be a ventriloquism dummy? To imagine some mixed up story that includes Poseidon (god of water) (walk over water), Asklepios (god of healing) (healing miracles), Dionysos (god of wine) (turning water into wine). This sounds like some third rate fan fiction story that is a mix of older stories.
Is it possible to get more philosophy and less religious discussion on this channel? Of course I don't speak for everyone, but personally I find Christianity to be mostly uninteresting as a discussion topic. Now if you wanted to talk about Buddhism or Hinduism that would be a nice change and I could get behind that.
So Ehrman’s “contradiction” of Nazareth and where Jesus grew up falls apart pretty quickly. Let’s say two people summarizing a boxing match. One says “Boxer A won the fight.” The other says “Boxer A came out swinging, the match went four rounds and Boxer B only did better in the third, but ultimately Boxer A won the fight by knockout.” Is the first man wrong because he included less detail? Of course not, he just cut to the point. Likewise, Matthew includes detail that Luke did not, but they are not mutually exclusive detail. Luke was a Greek and unfamiliar with the Jewish scriptures, so Jesus’ time in Egypt would have meant nothing to him. But Matthew was a Jew and knew that this was a prophecy and as such included it. It doesn’t make Luke wrong or the story not make sense, Jesus ultimately grew up in Nazareth in either narrative. It was a preference of the writers, something I’m sure Ehrman knows, but is conveniently leaving out
Why is an inerrant work so fond of having conflicting details? Lol. Even the location of Jesus’ birth isn’t consistent. It’s a much easier assumption that these are independent texts drawing from a common source but adding their own. The traditional stories of their language of composition doesn’t match with any of the obvious signs of translation.
The reason this kind of scholarship is useful, is because it’s based on examining the evidence. Not on fixing inconsistencies and ignoring mistakes to maintain a belief. The census story doesn’t make any sense if you know anything about Roman censuses
@@GodlessCommie Freely submit to Christ and be one with all powerful God who needs nothing or be forced to submit to Godless commies who crave power and use any means to acquire it. What a legacy. In the 20th century the Godless devils including the commies caused the violent deaths of more than a 100 million and enslaved over a billion, more than all the other centuries combined.
The great thing about Bart is he confirms a lot of the story of Jesus. Details will always vary. He doesn’t believe in Jesus. So what does he believe in?
He doesn't have to believe in mythical sky gods or deities. People can live a happy life, without believing in a god. They go to work. Have a family. Enjoy life, enjoy the world, and have respect for other human beings and animals. You don't need a god dictator to force you to be good.
God Did (I don’t believe in god but don’t want to deconstruct luck and good happenings so I say god did because it gets the message across way quicker)
So where exactly is the contradiction? Both perfectly fit together Luke's Account: 1- Mary & Joe go to Bethlehem for the Census. 2-Jesus born in the Manger 3-Angels announce the news to sheperds 4- Few days later Jesus is circumcised in the temple. 5-Then they "returned to Galilee". (Unlike what Bart said, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that Jospeh "immediately" left for Galilee. Lukes phrasing of the account is exactly what you'd expect from someone who didn't want to mention the flight to Egypt ) Mathew's Account: 1- Jesus is born in Bethlehem 2- The mages come to visit, then leave another way 3-Joseph flees to Egypt 4-Herod kills the babies under 2 years old in Bethlehem 5-Joe returns to Galilee Luke's account perfectly fits between point 4 and 5 under Mathews when you get rid of Bart's faulty assumption. The only way to find a contradiction in those accounts is faultily assuming that Luke's silence on the flight is positive evidence against its factuality.
Another way to put it: Absence of "evidence" is not evidence of an absence. So Luke's silence should not be considered as a contradiction. God bless...
Why wouldn't you mention becoming a refugee in another country, fulfilling a prophecy (according to Matthew), and a whole genocide? That's not what you would expect from divinely inspired text or even a well-researched history.
You phrased it slightly incorrectly. This is how it supposed to be said: the sooner Satan makes the majority of the people to believe the Gospel is fiction, the faster his kingdom will come to rule this world. Corrected it. You're welcome.
@@an.d.m.a God gave this world to him. Until the end times. This is why when Jesus came to this world, Satan said to Him that he will give all the kingdoms and its splendor to Him if Jesus bows down before him.
When it comes to Jesus all scholars in the middle East accept that Jesus existed .The atheists would dismiss him as another human being the Jews the same .The Muslims consider him a prophet and Christians call him god .My point is simply that you cannot make a single statement to dismiss everything in the Bible .
Was that his best example? He presents it as something irreconcilable, even laughing at the idea of someone trying to reconcile it. Than proceed to reconcile it easily...
He was not expecting Alex to ask him to reconcile it, im guessing he was hoping to get a cheap laugh but ultimatly Alex pressed him and it backfired on Bart
Did you both miss the sentence where he clearly stated you'd have to make something up to reconcile it? The lack of comprehension on words in this thread appalls me.
@@mattstewart2750 He didn't say why though. He said that what Matthew said could've happen before and what Luke said could've haplen after. And than alluded to the need for some complicated explanation. But there's nothing complicated in two things happening one after the other...
Common claim is that Jesus was born 6BCE as Herold died 4BCE.(Matthew) In Luke there is no Herod at all but the land is under Roman rule and this happened 6CE. (Luke) They lived in Nazareth, and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census. Luke 2:1-7 They lived in a house in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Matthew 2:1-11 Does no one read the bible?
@@bbllrd1917 This is simply wrong as you cant be born under Herod and flee from Herod and nor return because of his son who ruled while in the other story the romans ruled at burth over that place.
Notice how Bart claims that Matthew and Luke’s accounts are “irreconcilable” then proceeds actually show how they can be reconciled he just doesn’t understand it. 🤦🏻♂️. Just because Luke does not include the trip to Egypt, that doesn’t in any way negate Matthew’s account. The more I listen to Bart grasp at these terrible arguments against the Bible, the more convinced I am that he has absolutely nothing. He has to lean on these silly instances of perceived contradictions because he can’t actually find any valid examples of contradictions. Certainly he has something better than two different accounts of events happening at two different times that can easily be reconciled. Perhaps he’ll write some more books and keep conning atheists into believing his nonsense.
Those stories are complete fiction, even if both of those stories matched (which they don't) it would still be a lie because we know for a fact king Harold did not kill all the first born males under 2 years of age (secular sources would record a riot causing event like that).
qscottdammit2087 - May i ask if you ever read this part in the bible? If so why do you not recall that in Matthew the family in Jesus lived in Bethlehem and Herod ruled. In Luke the family lived in Nazareth and travelled to Bethlehem under roman rule. Herod's rule ended 4BCE (Lukes birth time) in the meanwhile a son of Herod ruled, Roman rule started (6CE Mathews birth time)
Nazareth was the hometown of Mary and Joseph. Between 6 and 5 BC just before the birth of Christ, the Romans require them to travel to their ancestral home of Bethlehem for the census of Caesar Augustus. The couple traveled roughly 80 miles (about 129 kilometers) to the city where Christ was born in a stable and laid in a manger (Luke 2:1-20). On the the eighth day Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem so that the Lord could be circumcised according to the law of God (Luke 2:21). Forty days after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph travelled to Jerusalem's temple to present him before God which fulfilled the purification requirement of Leviticus 12 and remained in Bethlehem living in a home and not a stable (Matthew 2:11). The trip is only 6 miles (9.6 kilometers) long. Mary made an offering to the temple of two young birds. (Luke 2:22 - 35). The wise men, also known as the Magi, from the East were instructed by an angel and guided by a star to leave and and to bring gifts to the new born Savior, but King Herod called them to himself and told the Magi to inform Him when they found the child, so that he could honor Jesus as well. However; Herod was jealous that this new savior, the King of kings would rival his own kingship and he really sought to kill Jesus. The wise men arrived and worshiped Jesus who was with with Mary and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matt 2-11), but they were warned in a dream to flee by a different route to a different region and not to return to Herod. When Herod found out that the wise men had tricked him he became furious, and sent to kill all the male children in Bethlehem and all of that region who were two years old and under. This clearly shows that Jesus is now a toddler. After the wise men leave, Joseph is told in a dream to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:16). Herod's cruel actions fulfill a prophecy regarding the slaughter of innocent children (Jeremiah 31:15). Their journey from Bethlehem to what is Egyptian-controlled territory which was outside the jurisdiction of Herod was at least 40 miles (65 Kilometers) After Herod died in early 4 B.C., Joseph had a dream where an angel told him it was safe to return to Israel. Joseph and Mary’s trip to and from Egypt is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy (Hosea 11:1). They soon begin their travel back to Judea and Bethlehem. The travels of Mary and Joseph from Egyptian territory all the way north to Nazareth is a journey of approximately 100 miles (170 kilometers). (Luke 2:39-40). Jesus spent his childhood and young adult years living in Nazareth (In fulfillment of the prophecy in Matthew 2:23). So, what’s the problem again? These are two different accounts of the same story. The details on a closer examination are very reconcilable. Bart Ehrman must know this. Why does he insist on misleading people and trying to deceive people? All you have to do is check the gospels out for yourself. I should go take his class just to make it known that he is a manipulator. I wonder what sin he is hiding that he persists in running from the Lord. Alex must be under the same spell. Two very smart people who can’t seem to think their way out of a wet paper bag. 😂
Your first statement is wrong and you downhill from there LOL and you last statement *Nazareth was the hometown* Nazareth did not exist in the first century as either a city, a town or a village. The writers flunked archeology It was a sparsely populated area with a few farm houses. No temple or school or any buildings. The writers flunked geography. *Romans require them to travel to their ancestral home* It never happened in Roman history it is totally asinine The writers flunked history also *Bethlehem for the census of Caesar Augustus* But in one gospel it says he was born when King Herold was in power. Herod died in 4BCE The time of the Census was 6CE that is a ten year gap. *Forty days after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph travelled to Jerusalem's temple* No, they fled to Egypt? Egypt or Jerusalem which is it? *When Herod found out that the wise men had tricked him* Herod died over 10 years ago, and Herod did not rise from the dead So, what’s the problem again? YOU are dumb as a brick. You are incapable of accepting reality or maybe yo should take reading 101
😂😂😂😂 There is literally *_ZERO_* extra-biblical evidence supporting this bizarre “census” claim involving people supposedly needing to return to the home of their ancestors for some idiotic reason. The Roman Empire was _massive_ at the time that this event supposedly would have happened, stretching across the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and northern Africa. This supposed “census” event would have involved literally tens of millions of people, many of whom would have to potentially travel great distances that would have required large amounts of time and resources to accomplish, and there isn’t a single solitary extra-biblical account speaking to _any_ of it. None. Zero. Nada. So, which of these options makes more sense? A) The census story was fabricated for theological purposes by the gospel authors in order to place Jesus of Nazareth’s parents in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’s birth, because the authors of this story _wanted_ Jesus to be born there so they could portray him as fulfilling a messianic prophecy, or B) A massive census that would have involved millions of people traveling across a gigantic geographical area wasn’t mentioned by literally anyone at the time, other than whoever wrote the gospel of Luke. Hmm, that’s a tough one! 🤔 😂
@@TestMeatDollSteakGo to school you uneducated wakadoo. Here’s some evidence written in Caesar Augustus’ autobiography, “As consul for the fifth time [29 BC] note by order of the people and the Senate I increased the number of the patricians. Three times I revised the roll of the Senate. In my sixth consulship [28 BC], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, [8 BCE.] I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague,[14 AD] I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll.” It seems to me that you don’t know anything about the history of the Roman Empire. Zero, zip, zilch, Nada. Are you so embarrassed by you original rebuttal that you had to delete it? I can understand why. You lose. Check-mate.
@@fordprefect5304You are the one who can not write a grammatically correct sentence. Do I sense some inferiority due to a lack of formal education? I’m going to set you straight my handicapped friend. You better get your big boy pants on before I make haste playing slam dunk with your brain and you go home crying to your mommy. First, Nazareth existed during the birth of Christ. Even your hero Bart Ehrman recognizes how stupid of a statement this is to make. Do yourself a favor and read his book and maybe you will learn something. Quit with your idiotic mythological mumbo jumbo. Secondly, there’s plenty of evidence of censuses during the time of Christ’s birth. When we step back and analyze the historical evidence, we can see that the biblical description fits with what is known about the types of censuses that were ordered by Caesar Augustus. While our knowledge of the political situation in the Roman empire around the time of Christ’s birth is incomplete, and we may not be able to pinpoint the exact registration that Luke is referring to with certainty, the account in Scripture is consistent with the accounts of Caesar Augustus ordering censuses, as recorded in other historical sources. Who’s the dumb brick now? No need to answer blockhead. The fact that you deleted your original rebuttal proves I won. You are now crying to your mommy. 😂
@Gatitakatzen - The problem ist people not reading the bible and not taking notes. Yes in one story your family lives in Nazareth under Roman rule (Herod is 10 years dead ) and travels to Bethlehem for your birth and in the other story the family lives in Bethlehem and flees from Herod to Egypt. Luke and Mathew tells obviously contradicting stories. Matthew goes on to tell that they return from Egypt but not to Bethlehem were they lived but move to the unknown town Nazareth as they fear the son of Herod. In Luke's stories at Jesu's birth, neither Herod nor the son of Herod ruled, but the Romans ruled over that land.
But the reconciliation is absurd. How can you not see that? Anything that is not logically impossible can be reconciled with sufficient contrivance. He could also have said that aliens took Joseph, Mary and the baby Yeshua to Egypt in their space ship, before going forward in time to erase knowledge of this event from the mind of whoever the author of "Luke" was. There! I've reconciled it. Would anyone who believed me be anything other than a gullible fool for doing so? No. The point is you can't come up with a reconciliation that anyone who was not desperately doing mental gymnastics to try to avoid acknowledging this contraction would believe.
My rebuttal would be 1, it never says "immediately" they returned to Nazareth after Jesus was born in Lukes Gospel, Bart added "immediately" on his own accord, you can read it for yourself it does not say immediately, so that was a lie on Barts part. Number 2 would be when they fled to Egypt, Herrod decides to kill all the male children in the area aged 2 year old and under. Why would Herrod put the age-cap at 2 years old if everything was so sudden as Bart makes it seem? It would make more sense to kill children 6 months and younger. But he makes it 2 years. So i dont see how this is as irreconcilable as Bart makes it, if we are being honest @@JonS
If Jesus(supposedly only human) was only a idea, how are people casting out spirits in his name? There’s TONS of people speaking a language nobody knows which is known as, speaking in tongues. I know for a fact this isn’t a made up language as well because I can hear the patterns from people in DIFFERENT church’s as well. So now that we know Jesus has some spiritual power, he can’t just be some “idea”
just because you know some mumbling zealots doesn't give any credence whatsoever to the existence of a higher power. Lots of tribes practice spiritual mumbling in their rites and ceremonies. Does this mean their gods are real?
@@EhtaZUGGE why is there always cringe answers from theist and also some cringe answers from atheist in every comment section, it starts to annoys me. Your answer is correct by the way
There is absolutely no good evidence beyond poorly sourced biased anecdotes that spiritual or demonic possession is real. IN an age of ubiquitous smartphones the fact that we aren't drowning in videos of levitating demonically possessed people shooting fire out of their mouths is very telling. As is the fact that no demonic spirit or angel ever told anyone anything useful about the world-amazing the flawless conspiracy of silence to avoid letting us know about the germ theory of disease, the cause and treatment of even minor illnesses or the existence of the wider universe. The grand and all seeing cosmic forces imagined by our forebears seem strikingly to have exactly the kinds of blindspots in their knowledge that we had at the time. Your comments on glossolia are unsubstantiated. There's no indication that glossolia is anything other than a manifestation of intense religious feeling devoid of consistent meaning, behavior very similar to it occurs in other faith traditions. I just generated a random 15 digit number. I challenge you to call on your god to tell it to you.
Really digging these clips coming out! The full videos are great, but also nice to be able to find a particular section to watch.
Another conclusion is that these stories were entirely contrived based on various literary tropes without reference to an actual historical Jesus. The symbolism and usage of common themes from Greek culture makes the biographical nature of the story rather unlikely. If we begin from the hypothesis that these stories were written out of whole cloth, then the differences between them are hardly surprising.
@daniele.3361 What I said is the case; many of the tropes in the Gospels were indeed literally and verifiably borrowed from Greek, not Jewish, culture. This is not in contention by anyone in Biblical studies. It is ignored by apologists who want to want to think that the Gospels are history rather than what they actually are: literature.
@@AshBowieThere’s just one problem with your theory: the Jewish people. The life and times of Jesus were documented by Jews and presented to Jews. The Jewish people were the eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. If they were not, then the Gospels would have been soundly rejected by the Jews because this was supposed to have happened right in front of them. For example: Say you and I spend an entire day together. Ten years later I come back to you and say “Remember that day when I healed a blind guy and turned water into wine?” You would rightly look at me like I’m crazy because that never happened. So when the disciples say this about Jesus, they have no reason to accept what the disciples say unless it really happened because they were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life. Ergo it must have happened because they did in fact accept the Gospel. Also, a virgin birth and messianic figure were very foreign to Greek culture and bear no similarity to any tropes presented in Greek literature
@@closetevangelism Except there is no such record of Jesus anywhere. At all. Paul didn't record a single thing about Jesus as an historical person and even went to pains to say his own teachings were only from revelation and scriptural interpretations. The Gospels are obviously constructed as myth several decades later and certainly cannot count as recorded history. So while I appreciate your enthusiasm for recorded history, there simply isn't any in the case of Jesus.
@@closetevangelism What nonsense you babble. The vast majority of Jew DID NOT accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the gospels were rejected by them! Also, none of the gospels were written by disciples of Jesus! They were written more than thirty years later by people who were only relation stories that they had heard . . . at best!
@lashram32 On the contrary, even more convincing....
The virgin birth is true. Everyone is born a virgin.
Okay I have to admit as a Christian I laughed at that one 😂.
virgins dont exist ofc
ha
Not Jesus, he is his own father.
Got me in the first half. x'D
The birth story of Jesus and the other stories about young Jesus are very much recontextualised variations of the stories about Krishna's birth and childhood.
Once you know about both, you can't unsee it. Similarly, the relationship between Jesus and his Church parallels the relationship between Rama and Sita.
It's all just so very obvious.
So, how do Jewish fishermen living in 30 AD Jerusalem, under Roman occupation hear about India, let alone Krishna, and the intimate details of the religion?
@@garrettmorano3038 Trade. People from far away cultures interacted with each other quite a bit back then. Even going back to the 3rd and 4th millenia there was extensive trade between Egypt and other Mediterranean cultures and India. Lapis from present day Afghanistan went through Harrapan (Indus Valley Civilization) ports to Mesopotamia long before Abraham is believed to have left Ur.
@@garrettmorano3038 thought you might find this interesting
ruclips.net/video/UZ-P-lcvCO8/видео.htmlsi=eVzU_SP1nOVfOVcF
@@garrettmorano3038the authors of the gospels were educated, Greek-speaking people. That being said, I doubt the stories were modeled after an Indian god. There are similarities, but there are also similarities with many other myths from Greek and Roman culture also.
@@DubbzRHandle Correct, but they were all educated most after their encounter with Christ. My comment was presupposing the argument that the apostles just made up Jesus. And looking at the Indo-Roman trade routes, none of them go through Jerusalem nor the Galilean region. Its like arguing the Saxons made up Odin from the Gods of Taoism, those cultures didn't mix at all during that time. All the people that claim Christ is a derivative or knock off, don't know anything about Jewish culture to begin with, nor that the Sanhedrin and Pharasess still had massive political and social influence during Roman occupation.
The Irony is in the historical fact of India never influenced the Jews but that Christianity influenced India. The Apostle Thomas himself, started churches in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Loved this conversation :)
IIRC, the Messiah had to be from the House of David, which means he had to be BIOLOGICALLY related to David through Joseph. But if He was born of a virgin, He wasn't of the House of David, or any other house for that matter.
Yup. Early Christians had their hands full trying to figure out how to make their messiah be both born of a virgin AND also be a bloodline descendant of David. Seems to me they tried to sneak in the bloodline of David part with Joseph supposed lineage hoping people wouldn't notice that the virgin part makes Joseph's bloodline completely irrelevant when it comes to Jesus.
This didn't escape the notice of some of my classmates in Catholic School to which the response was "well Mary was a descendant of David". Even at a young age that answer struck me as obviously made up to try to fix a hole in the story.
back in the day, adopted people were also seen as being in a line with their adoptive father
Comment above is correct. It was sufficient at that period to be adopted to become as a full member of someone’s household. This is actually what “adopted” kind of means in that context. The real issue with the genealogies imo is the contradiction and the fact that much of them are just plain made up.
@@dougt7580Adopted Hebrews counted as part of the lineage
@@veritasdeutsch6608That's one I haven't heard before - Jesus met the prophesied messiah criterion of being a descendant of David, but ONLY because of a loophole afforded by contemporaneous social conventions. I would speculate the devout Jewish community wouldn't be very receptive of the argument that when their prophets were talking about their Messiah being descended from David, they didn't mean an actual blood relative of David. But rather just anyone associated with a descendant of David, so long as it's in line with whatever the current social norms happen to be.
It is often agreed that the word used for where Jesus was born "there was no room for them in the inn" is καταλύματι, which many scholars say is more like a guest-room (or lodge room) with relatives (Luke 2:7). When the Magi visited Jesus in Matthew 2:11 it says they found the child in the "house" (οἰκίαν). This, many argue, is an indication that some time had passed when Jesus was born from when the Magi came, -possibly as long as two years, which is why Harod wanted to kill all the baby boys "two years old and under" (Matthew 2:16). The word Matthew 2:11 uses to describe Jesus is παιδίον, which could be anywhere from an infant to seven years old. This word (παιδίον) is different from when Luke describes Jesus as a "baby" (βρέφος), which would be a newborn. παιδίον is also the same word Luke 2:39-40 uses when it describes Jesus' family moving to Nazareth.
Luke 2:39-40 does not say that they left for Nazareth "immediately after the purification ritual." It says, "When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee."
So, Jesus is born amongst animals because there was no room for them in the "inn", or "lodgeroom", -καταλύματι (Luke 2:7).
Jesus is described as a "baby" -βρέφος (Luke 2:12)
Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21).
Mary did her purification around the the 32nd day (Luke 2:22-38).
Magi visit Bethlehem and find Jesus' family in a "house", -οἰκίαν (Matthew 2:11).
Jesus is now a "child", -παιδίον, which is probably under 2-years old because that's the age Harod wants to kill the boys (Matthew 2:11-16).
Jesus' family flees to Egypt with Jesus as a "child", -παιδίον (Matthew 2:14)
They come back with Jesus still a "child", -παιδίον (Matthew 2:19-21).
They go to Nazareth of Galilee while Jesus is still a "child", -παιδίον (Matthew 2:22-23, Luke 2:39-40).
The narratives are messy, but not irreconcilable. I could find similar complications in my own journals I've kept throughout my life. Sometimes apparent contradictions arise merely from the lack of clarified details. This is how stories unfold in real life, -minor details resolve seemingly contradictions. Is this the "correct" interpretation of the data? Perhaps not, but the linguistics do keep such harmonization processes open.
Moreover, we can assert with high certainty that Jesus' mother was of a particular situation when she gave birth to him, as well as reason with clear certainty that he went down to Egypt. For these are both attested for in the enemies of Jesus as they accuse her of adultery and say his "sorcery" came from his time in Egypt (Against Celsus: 1:28, Sanhedrin 67a:14-15, Sanhedrin 107b:8,12-14, Sotah 47a:12-14, Shabbat 104:b:5.)
@5BBassist4Christ Did you actually read the story or make here copy and paste? If so why are you a ventriloquism dummy? Is the fear of seeing the obvious fan fiction stories? In one story they live in the city and in the other they go there because of a taxation of the Romans. Herod died 4 BC so the birth had to happen between 30-6 BCE in Luke there is a Roman tax evaluation and this could have happened earliest 6 CE as the Romans took control over this piece of land. It gets worse as people get tax evaluated where they lived and they did not have to move to where some family once lived.
Of course, we know that Herod's killing of the babies didn't happen, so the story is false right there.
@@jursamaj how do you know it didn't happen
Herods killing of the babies is historical fact
@@joshconner79 *Herod's killing of the babies is historical fact*
It is? References please. I will help you there are none. It was made up just like all the bible stories.
Besides have you read the entire Gospels? Probably not
Luke chapter 2, including verse 6 (see Joseph and Mary), Jesus was born while “Quirinius was governing Syria” (Luke 2:2), which the best known Roman records indicate to have been from 6 AD to 12 AD.
Matthew 2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men1 from the east came to Jerusalem,
There is a ten year gap.
And not one mention of Brian!!!
no-no......Bwian!!!!!!
"Floating around more broadly". I like that.
By the way, I don't have deep problems with the differences between the various Gospels. But I'm not a theological scholar.
Peace...
I do. This was supposed to be a divinely inspired book, to pass the test of time. There should not be any contradictions or discrepancies. This is excellent evidence against the divinity of the bible
@@loveableheathen7441 I respect how you feel and I understand your doubts. I'm a Christian believer and even I experience doubts at times.
Regarding the different stories in the various Gospels, i think each author wrote from their own perspective. Matthew and John were apostles of Jesus so I think they wrote from their personal knowledge regarding Jesus.
So I do appreciate your honesty. No problem. Peace to you...
What year was Jesus born?
According to Matthew, it had to be during the life of Herod who died in 4 BCE.
According to Luke it had to be during the census of Quirinius, which took place in 6 CE.
Another unreconcilable detail between the two.
@daniele.3361 Herod the 1st, King of Judea and client to Rome died in 4 CE. At that time the kingdom of Judea was split into smaller territories and divided among his three sons (Herod Archelaus, Herod Philip, Herod Antipas). In 6 CE Herod Archelaus was such a shit ruler of his part of the split kingdom the people of the area appealed to Rome to bring it under direct control. So Emperor Augustus converted it into a Roman prefecture and called the prefecture Judea (after the old kingdom). He assigned Quirinius, who at the time was governor of the province of Syria (which was just to the north) to administer a census, so the new prefecture could be taxed properly. This is all well documented, so you're gonna have to do better than "nuh-uh" if you want to overturn historical scholarly consensus.
Well maybe like the British monarch, Jesus gets to have two birthdays
There's a good Frontline series called "From Jesus to Christ - The First Christians"
You should get Richard Carrier on the show
Surely it would have taken them 40 years to get to Egypt?
There is a channel called 'Cold Case Christianity' ran by an actual cold case detective. He was an atheist, but changed his mind by using the exact techniques used to solve actual cases. He would say everything Bart is saying is actually good evidence the gospels are true, because when stories line up exactly, it generally means collaboration of witnesses.
Bart is still operating from his fundamentalist mindset that every word is inspired, rather than the main theme, which all of the gospels are able to present.
There is also a good argument from undesigned coincidences that I have only recently began to look into, but offers some decent pushback as to why some differences actually support authenticity.
I wonder when humans are going to stop talking about these bloody useless old books?
Whats the point, where does it get us?
I can't wait until every church becomes a museum
It won't happen. Christianity is absolutely the biggest thing going right now world wide. It's growing faster than any other movement...
I think History ( "these bloody useless old books" ) is very important for a better understanding of the cultures of the Ancient Near East. If we consider those historical manuscripts as "bloody useless", then such a view points to the reality that "history repeats itself" ( in the sense that we never learn from history ). Our human nature doesn't seem to change for the better. Now that is "BLOODY USELESS" !!
Respectfully...
@johnbrzykcy3076 You believe every author wrote from their own perspective of their desciplehood with Jesus, when the autorhs of the gospels, per the most robust literary and historical analysis we can make about them _were not written by Jesus's desciples and people who actually even supposedly knew him personally?_ You _do_ realize that the names of the gospels aren't indicative of their actual authorship, do you?
Keep waiting, religion will always exist. Maybe you should stick to Reddit.
Maybe when Jesus comes back, he'll let us know.
I agree. I don't think we should seek to completely understand everything, especially the differences between the Gospels.
Peace...
And maybe he won't (come back)
Maybe, but probably not. He’s made a 2000 year long career out of being ambiguous and difficult to understand, doubt the twat would change tact now.
Read the story: Jesus himself thought he'd be coming back during that generation's lifetime. He didn't. And he won't be back, because it's all nonsense.
@@jursamajMaybe Jesus has to come back to correct all the "nonsense". !!
Respectfully...
Blew my mind 😮
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📜 The birth narratives in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke) share common elements, like the virgin birth and Bethlehem, but have vastly different details, suggesting they didn't know each other's work.
03:13 🤔 There are irreconcilable differences between Matthew and Luke's accounts of Jesus' birth, such as the timing of returning to Nazareth or going to Egypt, challenging the idea that the authors were inventing the story.
06:09 📖 Gospel authors likely inherited and shared stories within their Christian communities, shaping their accounts of Jesus' life and events, rather than fabricating them.
This title is so sensationalist , he didnt deconstruct anything
He left out that Jesus was born approximately in two different years, approximately 12 years apart (~6 BCE in one narrative and ~6 CE in the other)
“I don’t have a problem that God revealed Himself in a book. It’s just that He didn’t ‘write’ a very good book!”-One of the hosts of ‘The Atheist Experience,’ years ago. (Quoting from memory.)
The Magi visiting Christ in Matthew 2 are coming approximately 2 years after his birth (see verse 16), which leaves plenty of time for Mary and Joseph to travel to Jerusalem, then Nazareth, then return to Bethlehem where they lived in a house, not a stable, (verse 11) before fleeing to Egypt.
No, as many read that section and say that is simply Herod murdering anyone under the age of 2 to ensure any male child would not be a threat to him. Now, can you see how you can manipulate these verses to suit your own narrative? "God's word" has now become your word.
When one does not read the bible one is surprised by all the contradictions and here comes usually an apologetic along that fools them. So they do not get a pen and paper and do not as Ehrman tells his student lines up the story elements of Mathew and then the ones of Luke and so they never see for themselves the differences. May be they want a simple belief where they do not have to think at all. What do you think?
Don’t think you two are fooling anyone. You’re the ones who need to gain wisdom and accept the truth. Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. The truth is the Lord Jesus Christ. You say you already know the truth? You don’t need myths? Are you sure? You fools! You have deceived yourself and nobody else. Learn to think wisely and break free from your bondage to sin and blindness therein, do it before it is too late and it’s all over but the crying. I assure you both that if you do not listen to these words you will remember them, and you will regret it with every fiber of your being, but by then it will be too late. So sad. Let your pride go before your destruction.
@@Gatitakatzen Can you read the bible? Obviously few people do or fail to remember. one is either born under Herod and fleed from hunting or one is born under Roman rule and just went home. We have various gospels as several people had other stories to tell about Jesus.
@@Gatitakatzen Sound and fury signifying nothing. Begone, empty vessel.
@@digitaljanusAre you talking to your head? 😂
Intelligent christians know the bible is mythology. The only reason they believe in a god is because of some intense emotional feelings and mental well being that this belief provides.
I thought that was Sam Seder with an old man filter on.
The gospels can be historically accurate without being literally true. Abraham Lincoln existed. I doubt he was a vampire hunter. Although, I continue to be struck by the profound absence of vampires...
But I think we can all agree that Jesus wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
We live this life everyday and know how complicated it can sometimes be; we also have heard multiple people tell a story and each person may leave out different details. This feels like much ado about nothing.
I tend to agree with you. I don't personally have a big problem with the differences between the various Gospels.
Peace...
But it's supposed to be authored by god isn't it?
Meaning you're a believer already so you're willing to overlook whatever inconsistencies there are in the book.
People also get stories wrong. I’ve heard people tell tales about things that happened when I was there and get them wrong … and the longer you get away from the event the bigger the differences get. The gospels were written a generation, maybe two, after the event sooooo, I would assume the stories would accumulate some crap over that time.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16. Our understanding is that God puts the ideas to be written, and the writer expresses it.
here is the story about the crazy twists and turns of an insane jewish family bloodline.... coming this christmas
We know the gospel writers, copy from each other in other areas, so why not here? It really doesn’t matter. It was made up by somebody. Perhaps earlier and then copied and repeated. But in any event, it’s still a myth.
No one knows what really happened. He's just talking about consensus around what is considered most likely given what little we know.
It's myth mixed with history not "just" myth. There is a difference. The mythicism theory raises more questions than it answers. The classical approach still wins. Meaning there were sources about Jesus who was an actual person and people considered him special and a religion emerged. How much of that religion is relevant for anyone is a matter of faith.
Unfortunately Ehrman is a bad faith actor and I wish people would invite another scholar - an actual historian maybe and not an ex-evangelical who still thinks like an evangelical.
@@MrSeedi76 most myths incorporate real people and places to make their stories seem more plausible. If myth plus works better for you, ok.
You're presupposing what is argued about.
@@MrSeedi76 The actual source of Spiderman shows is there were men, spiders and radioactivity. So there could be a real Spiderman bitten by a radioactive spider is possibly the source of the Spiderman fan fiction stories.
The fact that people still believe that "god" got a teenaged girl pregnant with "his only begotten son" without "doing it" is a little concerning.
I am confused. Ehrman seems to be denying what Alex says about the discrepancies proving that the authors did not really know anything about Jesus' birth. Then he goes on and proves that they contradict each other so much that it cannot be reconciled.
What?
I could easily be wrong here, but I understood it as Ehrman denying Alex’s claim that the authors knew of each other’s works while writing.
Alex’s claim: 0:31
Bart’s denial: 1:54
Tell us about the massacre of the Innocents.
Thanks, Jesus.
Here's the problem. The New Testament was not able to be edited and redacted as the Old Testament was. The OT stories were edited so as to reconcile the stories from those of Israel, with those of Judah, as much as possible, as well as to fix some historical mistakes. There was never a successful attempt of doing this with the gospels and other material of the NT . . . probably because of the wide dispersal and knowledge of the materials.
As a result, there are a lot of contradictions, some very serious, to be found in close study of the NT. That was never a big problem for the religion until the materials became much more available to the laypersons in the faith. "Ignorance is bliss." The religion still relies on this to a great extent even today.
Never edited at all.
The Jews were very scrupulous, same version back than is there today. No problem at all.
They didn’t have laptops back then, all written down. stop comparing our technology to back then and start comparing your hard heart to what scripture says about it. Christ Jesus is LORD.
video is too long for me. please make a short out of it if there's something important you want people to know.
It's under 7 minutes long. If the information is important then it's worth 7 minutes of time to air a discussion about it
💙
Should somebody tell Bart that Matthew never said the Magi met Jesus in Bethlehem… 🙄
Nobody ever goes back to their home town for a census, so J, M & J wouldn't have been there either.
The fact the Gospels differ in detail adds to their veracity. Apparently no attempt was made to duplicate the details of the other. The details are not relevant to salvation; all Gospels talk about the existence of Jesus, his death, and resurrection, the essential parts of Christian belief.
So basically you are saying that lies forms the gospels, as by looking at the two versions, one must be true, and the other a lie. So either Matthew or Luke lied. You don't get a pass with this bull crap that it is not necessary for salvation. The story is in the gospels which you believers believe to be the inerrant word of your god. So no, you don't get away with that bull crap logic.
@@johnking5174 How (e.g.) Judas died is not relevant to the salvation story. There are thousands of manuscripts that support this important doctrine.
@@JohnMark61355 Why is it in there then if it was not relevant? All of the Christian churches teaches that the bible is the word of god. Each line is there because god wanted it to be there. Yet you throw away the comment that some scenes are just there for what? To fill up the pages?
@@johnking5174 The majority of Christians don’t believe in the word-for-word accuracy of the the details in question. Many Christians like me are followers of Jesus and the details like Judas’ method of death or the date of a census are not relevant to salvation.
@@johnking5174 For further information, please read “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” the most recent version by Josh and Sean McDowell. Also, please read books or watch videos by James Tour: Genetic biologist; John Lennox: Physicist; Francis Collins: biologist; Bill Phillips: Nobel Prize for physics, all renowned scientists and believers in God. The “Reasonable Faith” and “ Truth Unites” websites and RUclips videos also provide a different perspective. Both sides of this issue requires faith of some sort, the question is what is the most reasonable basis for faith.
crazy how much of your audience is made up of coping Christians trying to refute whatever argument you or your guests present.
Ironically that's what atheist also do on every apologetics video they see on internet
@@jokinn4849 yeah its so difficult to repress all that irrefutable evidence they give us ... oh wait!
Jesus wasn't even born on 25th December. This was the birthdays of the pagan gods. 👺
Yes, and scholar say it would have been around September time he would have been born, especially reading Luke's version, shepherds watching their flocks at night didn't happen in winter months, as their flock and themselves would freeze to death
If these gospels were "inspired by God", why write them in such vagueness and confusing logic and narrative? The authors should gave gotten the story accurately the first time.
And there you have the whole point. Reading the nativity stories is when I lost my faith. Reading properly, I mean not with alibis, or "bible study" as it's called, I saw the stories were bull crap.
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I’m nothing”
AGAPE
Story or no story, it's still amazing what it does to the human mind. Something no serious philosopher has accounted for.
You mean people making claims abiut fabmn fuction stotmry fighting over the true Harry Potter and the pure Spiderman. We gave a thousand contradicting storues of Jesus made up be the various cults
In the book (Matthew 2:16) it mentions babies 2 years and younger were being killed so we know Jesus was 2 years or under 2 years old when he was sent to Egypt.. which fulfiled old testament - Hosea 11 1
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
It does not go into detail when Herod died but according to what we read in sequence it seems he died rather quickly.. and right after Herod died, Luke 2:39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law/commandments of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40 "And the child grew" and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.
Does no one read the book? In one story your family lives in Nazareth under Roman rule (Herod is 10 years dead ) and travels to Bethlehem for your birth and in the other story the family lives in Bethlehem and flees from Herod to Egypt. Luke and Mathew tells obviously contradicting stories. Matthew goes on to tell that they return from Egypt but not to Bethlehem were they lived but move to the unknown town Nazareth as they fear the son of Herod. In Luke's stories at Jesu's birth, neither Herod nor the son of Herod ruled, but the Romans ruled over that land.
When you get too cocky and arrogant and think you know it all, you lose focus and understanding, being all caught up in your own pride and self knowledge. Profesing to be wise but becoming a fool being exposed cause truth exists.
They got that story from Moses and Jews being in slaved in Egypt, and the baby Zeus with Cronus. Cronus ate all his children apon birth because it was predicted they would over throw him. Zeus mom tricked Cronus and feed Cronus a rock and Zeus went away to a cave and drank milk from a calf. Long story short Zeus beats up Cronus and frees his siblings.
@@jampar-s1mno
@@jampar-s1m How does it feel to be a ventriloquism dummy? To imagine some mixed up story that includes Poseidon (god of water) (walk over water), Asklepios (god of healing) (healing miracles), Dionysos (god of wine) (turning water into wine). This sounds like some third rate fan fiction story that is a mix of older stories.
Is it possible to get more philosophy and less religious discussion on this channel? Of course I don't speak for everyone, but personally I find Christianity to be mostly uninteresting as a discussion topic. Now if you wanted to talk about Buddhism or Hinduism that would be a nice change and I could get behind that.
It feels like everything has already been said about Christianity, we're just regurgitating the same crap over and over again now
They wouldn’t get the views and comments, fella. It’s about the green.
are you new here?
So Ehrman’s “contradiction” of Nazareth and where Jesus grew up falls apart pretty quickly. Let’s say two people summarizing a boxing match. One says “Boxer A won the fight.” The other says “Boxer A came out swinging, the match went four rounds and Boxer B only did better in the third, but ultimately Boxer A won the fight by knockout.” Is the first man wrong because he included less detail? Of course not, he just cut to the point. Likewise, Matthew includes detail that Luke did not, but they are not mutually exclusive detail. Luke was a Greek and unfamiliar with the Jewish scriptures, so Jesus’ time in Egypt would have meant nothing to him. But Matthew was a Jew and knew that this was a prophecy and as such included it. It doesn’t make Luke wrong or the story not make sense, Jesus ultimately grew up in Nazareth in either narrative. It was a preference of the writers, something I’m sure Ehrman knows, but is conveniently leaving out
Why is an inerrant work so fond of having conflicting details? Lol. Even the location of Jesus’ birth isn’t consistent. It’s a much easier assumption that these are independent texts drawing from a common source but adding their own. The traditional stories of their language of composition doesn’t match with any of the obvious signs of translation.
The reason this kind of scholarship is useful, is because it’s based on examining the evidence. Not on fixing inconsistencies and ignoring mistakes to maintain a belief. The census story doesn’t make any sense if you know anything about Roman censuses
It's A Tragic Paradox That Post Modern Man's Rejection Of God Will Only Imprison Him Not Set Him Free.
Nah, I'm embracing my own uniqueness and freedom.
@@feihceht656 Nah you're neither unique nor free. Delusional is what you are.
the tragedy of believing that submission is freedom
@@GodlessCommie Freely submit to Christ and be one with all powerful God who needs nothing or be forced to submit to Godless commies who crave power and use any means to acquire it. What a legacy. In the 20th century the Godless devils including the commies caused the violent deaths of more than a 100 million and enslaved over a billion, more than all the other centuries combined.
People are still using a Jewish religion🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
The great thing about Bart is he confirms a lot of the story of Jesus. Details will always vary. He doesn’t believe in Jesus. So what does he believe in?
He doesn't have to believe in mythical sky gods or deities. People can live a happy life, without believing in a god. They go to work. Have a family. Enjoy life, enjoy the world, and have respect for other human beings and animals. You don't need a god dictator to force you to be good.
God Did (I don’t believe in god but don’t want to deconstruct luck and good happenings so I say god did because it gets the message across way quicker)
So where exactly is the contradiction?
Both perfectly fit together
Luke's Account:
1- Mary & Joe go to Bethlehem for the Census.
2-Jesus born in the Manger
3-Angels announce the news to sheperds
4- Few days later Jesus is circumcised in the temple.
5-Then they "returned to Galilee".
(Unlike what Bart said, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that Jospeh "immediately" left for Galilee. Lukes phrasing of the account is exactly what you'd expect from someone who didn't want to mention the flight to Egypt )
Mathew's Account:
1- Jesus is born in Bethlehem
2- The mages come to visit, then leave another way
3-Joseph flees to Egypt
4-Herod kills the babies under 2 years old in Bethlehem
5-Joe returns to Galilee
Luke's account perfectly fits between point 4 and 5 under Mathews when you get rid of Bart's faulty assumption.
The only way to find a contradiction in those accounts is faultily assuming that Luke's silence on the flight is positive evidence against its factuality.
Another way to put it: Absence of "evidence" is not evidence of an absence. So Luke's silence should not be considered as a contradiction.
God bless...
Why wouldn't you mention becoming a refugee in another country, fulfilling a prophecy (according to Matthew), and a whole genocide? That's not what you would expect from divinely inspired text or even a well-researched history.
I thought it was a poor example. If it was his best I'm not impressed. He immediately showed how to reconcile the two stories...
*thats not what YOU'D expect@@ericpatterson2178
The fact they don’t align doesn’t bother you? That they mention sequences of events seemingly ignorant of the other story?
The sooner people realize it’s all fiction, the better
You phrased it slightly incorrectly. This is how it supposed to be said: the sooner Satan makes the majority of the people to believe the Gospel is fiction, the faster his kingdom will come to rule this world.
Corrected it. You're welcome.
That is sheer wishful thinking combined with a bold assumption
@@nikokapanen82 and your all powerful god cannot stop Satan. Cool.
@@an.d.m.a
God gave this world to him. Until the end times. This is why when Jesus came to this world, Satan said to Him that he will give all the kingdoms and its splendor to Him if Jesus bows down before him.
@@nikokapanen82 no he didn't. Sorry god is powerful enough to do whatever he wants.
Bart 👏Ehrman 👏🙌🙌🙌
Sorry, he doesn't understand the nature of myth. Something can be true and artistic.
Not exactly a mind bending inconsistency. Surely there’s something better than that.
When it comes to Jesus all scholars in the middle East accept that Jesus existed .The atheists would dismiss him as another human being the Jews the same .The Muslims consider him a prophet and Christians call him god .My point is simply that you cannot make a single statement to dismiss everything in the Bible .
An irreconcilable difference..... that he immediately reconciles with a totally plausible explanation in about 10 seconds of thinking.
How scandalous
Was that his best example? He presents it as something irreconcilable, even laughing at the idea of someone trying to reconcile it. Than proceed to reconcile it easily...
He was not expecting Alex to ask him to reconcile it, im guessing he was hoping to get a cheap laugh but ultimatly Alex pressed him and it backfired on Bart
Did you both miss the sentence where he clearly stated you'd have to make something up to reconcile it? The lack of comprehension on words in this thread appalls me.
@@mattstewart2750 He didn't say why though. He said that what Matthew said could've happen before and what Luke said could've haplen after. And than alluded to the need for some complicated explanation. But there's nothing complicated in two things happening one after the other...
Common claim is that Jesus was born 6BCE as Herold died 4BCE.(Matthew) In Luke there is no Herod at all but the land is under Roman rule and this happened 6CE. (Luke)
They lived in Nazareth, and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census. Luke 2:1-7
They lived in a house in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Matthew 2:1-11
Does no one read the bible?
@@bbllrd1917 This is simply wrong as you cant be born under Herod and flee from Herod and nor return because of his son who ruled while in the other story the romans ruled at burth over that place.
First comments!
Notice how Bart claims that Matthew and Luke’s accounts are “irreconcilable” then proceeds actually show how they can be reconciled he just doesn’t understand it. 🤦🏻♂️. Just because Luke does not include the trip to Egypt, that doesn’t in any way negate Matthew’s account. The more I listen to Bart grasp at these terrible arguments against the Bible, the more convinced I am that he has absolutely nothing. He has to lean on these silly instances of perceived contradictions because he can’t actually find any valid examples of contradictions. Certainly he has something better than two different accounts of events happening at two different times that can easily be reconciled. Perhaps he’ll write some more books and keep conning atheists into believing his nonsense.
Yeah, it’s him that doesn’t understand it 😂
What exactly are you referring to when you use the word God?
What is it?
the hypocrisy.
Those stories are complete fiction, even if both of those stories matched (which they don't) it would still be a lie because we know for a fact king Harold did not kill all the first born males under 2 years of age (secular sources would record a riot causing event like that).
qscottdammit2087 - May i ask if you ever read this part in the bible? If so why do you not recall that in Matthew the family in Jesus lived in Bethlehem and Herod ruled. In Luke the family lived in Nazareth and travelled to Bethlehem under roman rule. Herod's rule ended 4BCE (Lukes birth time) in the meanwhile a son of Herod ruled, Roman rule started (6CE Mathews birth time)
You are cluttering my feed. We have seen all of this. i will have to unsubscribe of you continue this. Make another channel for your shorts and vod.
Alex doesn't do this, blame RUclips. Alex just uploads videos and shorts, it is RUclips who does the rest
Nazareth was the hometown of Mary and Joseph. Between 6 and 5 BC just before the birth of Christ, the Romans require them to travel to their ancestral home of Bethlehem for the census of Caesar Augustus. The couple traveled roughly 80 miles (about 129 kilometers) to the city where Christ was born in a stable and laid in a manger (Luke 2:1-20).
On the the eighth day Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem so that the Lord could be circumcised according to the law of God (Luke 2:21).
Forty days after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph travelled to Jerusalem's temple to present him before God which fulfilled the purification requirement of Leviticus 12 and remained in Bethlehem living in a home and not a stable (Matthew 2:11). The trip is only 6 miles (9.6 kilometers) long. Mary made an offering to the temple of two young birds. (Luke 2:22 - 35).
The wise men, also known as the Magi, from the East were instructed by an angel and guided by a star to leave and and to bring gifts to the new born Savior, but King Herod called them to himself and told the Magi to inform Him when they found the child, so that he could honor Jesus as well. However; Herod was jealous that this new savior, the King of kings would rival his own kingship and he really sought to kill Jesus.
The wise men arrived and worshiped Jesus who was with with Mary and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matt 2-11), but they were warned in a dream to flee by a different route to a different region and not to return to Herod. When Herod found out that the wise men had tricked him he became furious, and sent to kill all the male children in Bethlehem and all of that region who were two years old and under. This clearly shows that Jesus is now a toddler.
After the wise men leave, Joseph is told in a dream to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:16). Herod's cruel actions fulfill a prophecy regarding the slaughter of innocent children (Jeremiah 31:15). Their journey from Bethlehem to what is Egyptian-controlled territory which was outside the jurisdiction of Herod was at least 40 miles (65 Kilometers) After Herod died in early 4 B.C., Joseph had a dream where an angel told him it was safe to return to Israel. Joseph and Mary’s trip to and from Egypt is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy (Hosea 11:1). They soon begin their travel back to Judea and Bethlehem.
The travels of Mary and Joseph from Egyptian territory all the way north to Nazareth is a journey of approximately 100 miles (170 kilometers). (Luke 2:39-40).
Jesus spent his childhood and young adult years living in Nazareth (In fulfillment of the prophecy in Matthew 2:23).
So, what’s the problem again? These are two different accounts of the same story. The details on a closer examination are very reconcilable. Bart Ehrman must know this. Why does he insist on misleading people and trying to deceive people? All you have to do is check the gospels out for yourself. I should go take his class just to make it known that he is a manipulator. I wonder what sin he is hiding that he persists in running from the Lord. Alex must be under the same spell. Two very smart people who can’t seem to think their way out of a wet paper bag. 😂
Your first statement is wrong and you downhill from there LOL and you last statement
*Nazareth was the hometown* Nazareth did not exist in the first century as either a city, a town or a village. The writers flunked archeology
It was a sparsely populated area with a few farm houses. No temple or school or any buildings. The writers flunked geography.
*Romans require them to travel to their ancestral home* It never happened in Roman history it is totally asinine The writers flunked history also
*Bethlehem for the census of Caesar Augustus* But in one gospel it says he was born when King Herold was in power. Herod died in 4BCE
The time of the Census was 6CE that is a ten year gap.
*Forty days after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph travelled to Jerusalem's temple* No, they fled to Egypt? Egypt or Jerusalem which is it?
*When Herod found out that the wise men had tricked him* Herod died over 10 years ago, and Herod did not rise from the dead
So, what’s the problem again? YOU are dumb as a brick. You are incapable of accepting reality or maybe yo should take reading 101
😂😂😂😂 There is literally *_ZERO_* extra-biblical evidence supporting this bizarre “census” claim involving people supposedly needing to return to the home of their ancestors for some idiotic reason. The Roman Empire was _massive_ at the time that this event supposedly would have happened, stretching across the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and northern Africa. This supposed “census” event would have involved literally tens of millions of people, many of whom would have to potentially travel great distances that would have required large amounts of time and resources to accomplish, and there isn’t a single solitary extra-biblical account speaking to _any_ of it. None. Zero. Nada.
So, which of these options makes more sense? A) The census story was fabricated for theological purposes by the gospel authors in order to place Jesus of Nazareth’s parents in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’s birth, because the authors of this story _wanted_ Jesus to be born there so they could portray him as fulfilling a messianic prophecy, or B) A massive census that would have involved millions of people traveling across a gigantic geographical area wasn’t mentioned by literally anyone at the time, other than whoever wrote the gospel of Luke. Hmm, that’s a tough one! 🤔 😂
@@TestMeatDollSteakGo to school you uneducated wakadoo. Here’s some evidence written in Caesar Augustus’ autobiography, “As consul for the fifth time [29 BC] note by order of the people and the Senate I increased the number of the patricians. Three times I revised the roll of the Senate. In my sixth consulship [28 BC], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, [8 BCE.] I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague,[14 AD] I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll.”
It seems to me that you don’t know anything about the history of the Roman Empire. Zero, zip, zilch, Nada.
Are you so embarrassed by you original rebuttal that you had to delete it? I can understand why. You lose. Check-mate.
@@fordprefect5304You are the one who can not write a grammatically correct sentence. Do I sense some inferiority due to a lack of formal education? I’m going to set you straight my handicapped friend. You better get your big boy pants on before I make haste playing slam dunk with your brain and you go home crying to your mommy.
First, Nazareth existed during the birth of Christ. Even your hero Bart Ehrman recognizes how stupid of a statement this is to make. Do yourself a favor and read his book and maybe you will learn something. Quit with your idiotic mythological mumbo jumbo.
Secondly, there’s plenty of evidence of censuses during the time of Christ’s birth. When we step back and analyze the historical evidence, we can see that the biblical description fits with what is known about the types of censuses that were ordered by Caesar Augustus. While our knowledge of the political situation in the Roman empire around the time of Christ’s birth is incomplete, and we may not be able to pinpoint the exact registration that Luke is referring to with certainty, the account in Scripture is consistent with the accounts of Caesar Augustus ordering censuses, as recorded in other historical sources.
Who’s the dumb brick now? No need to answer blockhead.
The fact that you deleted your original rebuttal proves I won. You are now crying to your mommy. 😂
@Gatitakatzen - The problem ist people not reading the bible and not taking notes. Yes in one story your family lives in Nazareth under Roman rule (Herod is 10 years dead ) and travels to Bethlehem for your birth and in the other story the family lives in Bethlehem and flees from Herod to Egypt. Luke and Mathew tells obviously contradicting stories. Matthew goes on to tell that they return from Egypt but not to Bethlehem were they lived but move to the unknown town Nazareth as they fear the son of Herod. In Luke's stories at Jesu's birth, neither Herod nor the son of Herod ruled, but the Romans ruled over that land.
First:)
Dude says its irreconcilable and then proceeds to reconcile it without much thought. Strange to be so dishonest for no reason.
If that's what ur take is then u don't understand the problem
But the reconciliation is absurd. How can you not see that?
Anything that is not logically impossible can be reconciled with sufficient contrivance. He could also have said that aliens took Joseph, Mary and the baby Yeshua to Egypt in their space ship, before going forward in time to erase knowledge of this event from the mind of whoever the author of "Luke" was. There! I've reconciled it. Would anyone who believed me be anything other than a gullible fool for doing so? No.
The point is you can't come up with a reconciliation that anyone who was not desperately doing mental gymnastics to try to avoid acknowledging this contraction would believe.
My rebuttal would be 1, it never says "immediately" they returned to Nazareth after Jesus was born in Lukes Gospel, Bart added "immediately" on his own accord, you can read it for yourself it does not say immediately, so that was a lie on Barts part.
Number 2 would be when they fled to Egypt, Herrod decides to kill all the male children in the area aged 2 year old and under. Why would Herrod put the age-cap at 2 years old if everything was so sudden as Bart makes it seem? It would make more sense to kill children 6 months and younger. But he makes it 2 years.
So i dont see how this is as irreconcilable as Bart makes it, if we are being honest @@JonS
@@YoungJustice1997 I appreciate your comments. Thanks.
If Jesus(supposedly only human) was only a idea, how are people casting out spirits in his name? There’s TONS of people speaking a language nobody knows which is known as, speaking in tongues. I know for a fact this isn’t a made up language as well because I can hear the patterns from people in DIFFERENT church’s as well. So now that we know Jesus has some spiritual power, he can’t just be some “idea”
just because you know some mumbling zealots doesn't give any credence whatsoever to the existence of a higher power. Lots of tribes practice spiritual mumbling in their rites and ceremonies. Does this mean their gods are real?
@@EhtaZUGGE why is there always cringe answers from theist and also some cringe answers from atheist in every comment section, it starts to annoys me. Your answer is correct by the way
"I can hear the patterns"
Well, that settles it 🤦♂️
There is absolutely no good evidence beyond poorly sourced biased anecdotes that spiritual or demonic possession is real. IN an age of ubiquitous smartphones the fact that we aren't drowning in videos of levitating demonically possessed people shooting fire out of their mouths is very telling. As is the fact that no demonic spirit or angel ever told anyone anything useful about the world-amazing the flawless conspiracy of silence to avoid letting us know about the germ theory of disease, the cause and treatment of even minor illnesses or the existence of the wider universe. The grand and all seeing cosmic forces imagined by our forebears seem strikingly to have exactly the kinds of blindspots in their knowledge that we had at the time.
Your comments on glossolia are unsubstantiated. There's no indication that glossolia is anything other than a manifestation of intense religious feeling devoid of consistent meaning, behavior very similar to it occurs in other faith traditions.
I just generated a random 15 digit number. I challenge you to call on your god to tell it to you.
So when these people from different churches start tonguing each other, do they fully comprehend what's going on? Or can it lead to misunderstanding?