But that is not true. Look it up in a good dictionary. he purpose *is* to "convince the skeptic" -- but they rarely actally od this. It is a system wide faillure apologists should be more aware of, but like flat-earthers, they strive mightily o miss it. Who else does this? Why, anh Bible scholar" whose greatest achievemt is to criticize one set of presuppositions and replace that set with another set, a set which is no better and could be much worse.
Well, Bart _didn't_ say they were irreconcilable, he said that they were irreconcilable _unless_ you make something up to reconcile them. Which is then immediately what the apologist does.
What is comical is that, if doctrine were correct, bloodline would make no difference, because Joe wasn't even involved. Of course, according to Paul, he was constructed adult-sized, like Adam, and directly from David's cached semen as required by 2 Samuel, so there would be no Mary involved either, and dropped into the Firmament just in time to be executed there by demons, so no manger, Magi, or shepherds. But the gospel authors would have been furious at their gospel bound with others in one book. Each was supposed to supplant the ones before; contradictions were the _whole point_ of writing them. Only the Marcionic threat required a coalition of four congregations using four different gospels without picking just one. (The Matthew faction must have been biggest, to have theirs put first.)
Yeah true but I lost respect for Dan once he refused to have a rational debate with inspiring philosophy and just blocked him Well to be fair on Dan’s part he was on a losing battle and inspiring philosophy is actually an apologist that works with the data that makes him unstoppable for all the people that debate him so I think Dan just didn’t want to deal with it and blocked him perhaps But Dan’s scholarship I appreciate a lot gives very good insights into the text
@@xplicitgoofy1015 He did have a rational debate with Inspiring Philosophy. Inspiring Philosophy was just dishonest and aggressive, and so wasn't worth anyone's time. The fact that you found him convincing is kinda sad. It's a pretty consistent behaviour pattern with Inspiring Philosophy whenever he engages with actual experts - he retreats into fallacies, refuses to actually acknowledge what he is doing, gets angry, and then the expert has to block him because it becomes harassment.
Mathew is trying to jump through hoops to make Jesus fulfill prophecy and Luke wants to make him the new Moses.. Edit..I have it backwards it's Mathew making Jesus look like Moses and Luke fulfilling prophecy
I think Matthew is more concerned with mirroring Moses with Egypt and the slaying of the innocents, while Luke is building a parallel with Elijah and Elisha with John the Baptist and Jesus. This is the key though to understanding the authors intent. It's not a literal history of Jesus birth it's a theological narrative. Once you see that Tim's perspective on this is just silly.
So basically, this guy is writing his own version of the birth. While he’s at it he might as well create his own genealogies since they don’t match either.
Tergiversate? It's wonderful to hear someone use an absolutely apposite word, an uncommon word, and such a lovely-sounding word with precision. Besides being a great scholar, you are a master wordsmith, and many of us enjoy that as well as your scholarship.Thank you.
It's unhelpful to use words your audience is unlikely to know. Like I was once critiqued for using the word "assent" in a sermon because not everyone in the congregation would understand it.
@@MusicalRaichu I diametrically disagree - it's great to use words that your audience is unlikely to know, as long as they are precise for the usage. I suspect that the audience for Dan's videos is more than averagely sophisticated and would use a dictionary for an unfamiliar word. And that's a great way to learn new, useful words. It's sad that people don't know what very common words - like assent - mean, and would criticize you for using it.
@@petercollins7730 I thought the criticism was unjustified, but maybe it was the way I used it, dunno. The point remains that you need to communicate in a way that your target audience understands. Even after consulting two dictionaries, it still wasn't completely clear what Dan meant, and I've got a PhD.
Nu-uh! They just "spiritually flew" to Egypt! You don't know how to read the Bible! How do you know there wasn't a town named Egypt like right next to it! 😭😭😭😭😭
It is absolutely bonkers how often apologists retreat behind, "Stop assuming author the is describing events sequentially." I get it. I get it. I get it. It's technically a "presupposition" but so is believing that all triangles have 180 degrees. Does it mean authors NEVER write out of order? No, of course not, but usually they tell you. They don't usually tell you their "presenting history" and then just start grabbing random events from different points in time and space...
Not a great example, as we can prove that the sum of any triangle's intolerance angles is 180°. Still though, you're right: We've been telling stories, true and not, for thousands of years. Herodotus began what eventually became the field of History five centuries before the gospels ostensibly were written. Recording events in order, and noting otherwise, isn't normally a problem.
@@raixiraI think it is an excellent example, because the sum of the angles ISN'T 180 degrees in non-Euclidean geometry. Now assuming Euclidean geometry like you did is entirely reasonable, that's what we deal with 99.9% of the time. That's why it would be so incredibly bad faith to tell someone that thinks a math problem about triangle with three angles that add up to 120 degrees that they are making assumptions and the problem COULD be set in a curved space. There's no reason to assume that. It doesn't seem like the place someone would be randomly using non-Euclidean geometry without any hint that is the case. But they are TECHNICALLY correct that the angles could add up to 120 degrees if we add a bunch of assumptions that are never stated and say the author must mean that because they couldn't possibly just be wrong.
Thats true. Normally its an assumption that history is wrote in order of events because to jump around can make hearing a story and understanding it quite difficult. When stories are discussed w/ varying amounts of jumping back and forth, there is normally a specific reason to do so, not just because it can be done that way. It also sets up a bad precedent if order can change w/out reason for doing it or informing the audience its happening; other events people dont question the order of could be being interpreted in an incorrect order also.
Honestly, if I had a nickel for Everytime a Christian apologist cried "argument from silence", I'd probably be able to fund my postgrad degree out of pocket. I honestly can't remember the last time I heard anyone who wasn't an apologist resort to that objection.
have you heard about the Vezuvius eruption that destroyed Pompei? and there are more exemples in history. the fact that there is no mention of a genocide, like in the Holocaust matter, does not mean it did not happened.
@@emanuel5640 The problem with that is that there are explicit documents detailing both the destruction of Pompeii and the genocide of Jews under the Third Reich. There's not only written evidence of both, in the form of written primary sources (Pliny the Younger's letters and the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, respectively), there's also substantial physical evidence and second-hand accounts of both. So, neither of those are a valid example of "argument from silence". For situations where there is no direct evidence but only secondary evidence, we use logical razors. We don't make up BS about how a lack of evidence is not evidence of nothing having happened. Yes, it is. A lack of any evidence at all is pretty strong evidence nothing happened.
@@emanuel5640neither of those are evidence of silence on a topic. Pliny the Younger wrote about the destruction of Pompeii in some letters as he was an eyewitness to the event, and there is a plethora of documented evidence (written, pictures, video, courtroom testimony, etc) on the genocide that happened during the Holocaust.
Excellent video. I'm done with apologists' games. If they want to twist their brain and the facts into a pretzel in order to justify believing, they can go right ahead. Personally, I'd rather not invest my time and my life in something that's probably not true just because I'm afraid of going to Hell if it happens to be.
A successful apologetic argument only need to be good enough to help believers keep believing. Apologetic arguments are rarely good enough to stand up to objective scrutiny. If the argument stood up to scrutiny it would be called a fact or scholarly consensus. When there is an apologetic argument on a topic it means there is a serious problem for believers on that topic.
In Bart's newest online course "The Dark Side of Christmas" he address the problem between Matthew and Luke. While it is possible that Luke left information out, it isn't really that plausible. There are some key details missing from Luke's narrative and as Dan said Luke was trying to tell the "true story as he, Luke, had researched it" Another thing that strikes me is how easily the commentator of this video just walks over the slaughter of children, which is a key point in Bart's new online course.
There is a sort of historical basis for that story, but it's not the one in the Bible. Herod the Great after taking power did kill all the male members of the Hasmonean line, but it wasn't done at one time nor were they all babies of course.
Yeah I don’t agree with Christian apologetics in regards with trying to reconcile Matthew and Luke’s contradictory accounts It goes even crazy when it talks about genealogies
Hey Christians, maybe you should work harder on the contradictions between your lives and the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats before you try to hooch up new parts of your book that you haven't even read.
I repeat my comment from yesterday's video. I continue to be baffled by amateur apologists who have only read English versions of the Bible (if that) and think they can out argue professional scholars and experts who read the texts in their original languages and do this for a living! 😂😂
They're apologists. It's their job to make up apologies for the authors not conforming to their dogmas. No, the puzzling stuff is the faithful believing this crap. But I guess that's what the survival of the fittest apologists produced ... Oh, and no, it's not just amateur apologists. Maybe the big guns don't usually make this particular mistake, but they certainly make more than enough others.
I should probably mention this here ... 1 Peter 3:15 _But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,_ Or in Greek: _κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς _*_ἀπολογίαν_*_ παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου,_
Regardless of the timeline of events, and the ability or inability to harmonize the separate accounts, I still cannot get past the fact that we are really asked to believe stories of a virgin pregnancy, visits from supernatural angels, a star that can somehow point to a specific location on Earth, and a petty god who requires sacrifice from his subjects. That's the short list.
Nazareth is an alternate spelling of Mazzaroth aka the Zodiac. The manger, of baby Jesus, is the Beehive cluster in the Cancer constellation. You will also find the Ass and her Foal in this same constellation. Cancer is one of the "churches" of Asia (Fire). The church of Philadelphia aka brotherly love is the constellation of Gemini where we find the twins who are also the "children" of Asher. Asher's standard is the Palm Tree. This is the Palm tree under which one of the Gemini twins is born.
I really appreciate the LOGIC YOU BRING TO THESE DEBATES....and that you do not take sides.... In my opinion Dr Bart DOES NOT TAKE SIDES EITHER....it is just that the Apologists try to paint him in that corner....It really gets immature on their part...just my observation... Dr Bart always goes out of his way that he DOES NOT WANT TO DE-CONVERT ANYONE.....he just wants to try and get to the best facts that is possible....and that is where I want to be...and it seems to be where you want to be...SO, I HOPE YOU KEEP UP GREAT WORK...and yes I subscribed...
As an atheist I began watching Dan's content because I was interested (and sometimes amused) by the discrepancies between the data and the dogma. Anymore, I enjoy watching Dan's content because these video's are short courses on critical thinking and rhetorical techniques (by apologists). This information can be applied many other areas in life, especially in these difficult times. Thanks, Dan!
@@daisymazie21 An adoptionist Christology is one where Jesus was a human adopted by god as his son. It's the earliest Christology and stands in contrast to the modern "Jesus is part of the Trinity" Christology that many sects use.
@@javierordonez2445 Look up adoptionism on Google. There's way too much to read about it. Also read about Arianism and Marcionism. There used to be many different forms of Christianity, but most of them died out a long, long time ago.
Mark is thought to be the earliest extant Gospel (~70 AD). It begins with Jesus' baptism and so makes NO mention of his birth or Mary's presumably immaculate conception.
"Tergiversate" Gotta love a new word! At least, it's new to me. Though it isn't really much of a claim to fame, I have a fairly large vocabulary. That's why I get a little excited to learn a new word I've never heard before. It seems to be a post-graduate level, very scholarly type of word. It probably won't be easy, but I'm going to have to look for an opportunity to use it somehow some time soon. I'm weird, I know, but a new $5 word is a kind of treat for me. I try to use 50¢ words when I can, although having a good, longish bit of vocabulary to pull out of my pocket sometimes can be very satisfying. Thanks, Dan. I admire your way with words. I can but strive to reach your level of mastery some day 😊
You need to add a verse to the end of Luke's story: Then Joseph and Mary with baby Jesus entered a time machine and traveled back about 10 years to the time when Herod the Great was still alive in order to meet the Magi.
It is the outright dishonesty of this apologist that is so terrible. He is deliberately conflating two stories, missing parts of the text and adding in his own assumptions, all the while pretending that atheists are the liars. If your religion requires you to lie, it is worthless.
I pity him. He’s struggling to hide from himself and others his true self. Dude must have all sorts of psychological problems. His performance of apologetics is his attempt to shield himself not just from criticism from his social group, but probably deep fears about his physical survival. It doesn’t make his lying better or justifiable. It just makes his dishonesty even sadder.
This is my favorite point. It doesn't matter if you can pull something out of your hiney to harmonize the narratives, you can't harmonize the dates. There's at least 10 years between the setting in Matthew and Luke. This is game over for inerrancy.
@@kitstamat9356 , I don't see completely different times, the Bible describes the birth of 'Jesus' at times when 2 different people ruled the area. Read when 'Jesus' was supposedly born in Matthew and in Luke, and then do some research on who the Bible says was ruling when 'Jesus' was born in each instance, and let the evidence guide you.
What I find more interesting, and not usually discussed, is that contradictions in the Christian scriptures and in the Hebrew bible were left as they were and not ironed out more than a millennia ago. I would like to see a video discussing that please.
Birth of the Messiah is a book by Catholic priest Raymond Brown and it has no problem positing that one or both of the infancy accounts are literary creations.
Raymond Brown gets pilloried by Radical Traditionalist Catholics, who are literally the RCC's "fundies," but I doubt most garden variety Catholics have a clue who he even is. The seminary professors do, FWIW.
Dan, could you perhaps do a vid on why exactly univocality and a mono narrative in the Bible seems SO important to so many people? What is it that is so dangerous to one's faith about the alternative?
Second this. Many religious traditions don't insist on the literal inerrancy, verbal inspiration, absolute historicity and univocality of their scriptures, even within Judaism and Christianity. Why are some traditions within those religions, the traditions that we would call the most conservative, so hung up about those things?
Why would they flee on a whim 300 miles across the Sinai Desert to Egypt instead of returning to their hometown of Nazareth, especially if Matthew truly believed Nazareth was their place of origin? Why the trip to Egypt? Perhaps the Moses-Jesus/Pharoah/Herod typology was just too convenient for Matthew not to include in his narrative
The descent into Egypt (winter) begins at the summer solstice (I must decrease) and the ascent out of Egypt begins at the winter solstice (He must increase).
I like how he flipped the tables and made it seem like his reading of the text was the default, sensible way and those like Bart are being unreasonable. No, when you see things narrated right after the other in sequence and have conjuctions like "after that" etc. the default is precisely to think that no time was left out in between. You need an explicit reason to inflate the chronology, and in the same context, not from another book. If you don't have an explicit mention of a time gap, the reasonable reader assumes none.
Both gospels neglect to mention that Jesus fell into a time portal that took him 2000 years later and spent a few years there before returning to his present.
I have asked many apologists the following. If Mary was 16 when she had Jesus, that would have made her at least 80 when Luke wrote his gospel. In otherwards, she was already dead. So how did her very intimate conversation with the angel get from Mary to a Gentile stranger 80 years later with no one repeating the story in any of the intervening decades?
The author of “Luke”, after going through all of his genealogy and nativity nonsense, acknowledges in Luke 3:23 that he didn’t even know who Jesus’ father really was.
Isn't the "argument from silence" a shoot in the foot from the apologist ? Because if we can't _"reason from what a source does not say to the conclusion that something did not happen",_ then I can arbitrarily add events to the plot as long as they don't contradict what is said. For example I can add the fact that jesus had training in prestidigitation, rendering all descriptions of miracles nothing more than magic tricks...
Not to mention how they didn't bother to write about his wife and kids who left him to run off with a wealthy Greek merchant back to Syria. ... I wrote that as a joke, but you know, someone having a mental breakdown after being dumped would explain a lot...
Yeah, like Jesus thinks it's important to tell his followers about the circumstances of his birth and how he ended up in Nazareth. The stories are completely made up and are NOT an actual account as told by Jesus himself.
Another thing he said in the midst of his "not impossible" argument was that they "returned home to Bethlehem after fulfilling their requirements in Jerusalem". If Bethlehem was their home then why would they have needed to seek lodging in an inn upon arriving in Bethlehem for the census and the birth? By trying to twist the narratives to fit, the apologist just points out further contradiction.
“Assumption of silence”… never heard this term in my life… Because if it’s not stated in the text, we shouldn’t LITERALLY ASSUME THINGS ABOUT THE TEXT… that’s assumption… the imposition of ideas based on what you think “It doesn’t say that in there but hear me out”… 😂 And let’s get this straight… the real problem is that Matthew says they went to Egypt… Luke says they never did… it says they went to Jerusalem to complete all the rituals, some couple months at the most, and then in Luke 2:39, it says after the rituals were done they returned… you would need to read into the text they stayed for another 22 months and the Bible is silent on that entire time? That’s a huge stretch You’re right… totally ignoring what’s likely… they preformed the rituals and went back… never touched Egyptian soil I mean also, Quirinius took over 10 years after Herod passed… and Matthew said the stayed in Egypt till Herod passed… so true… mounting contradiction after contradiction
But... But... But the guy dropped his Sharpie in the cup! Doesn't that mean anything to you??? He dropped it in the cup! The cup: Q.E.D. End of discussion.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if the narratives can be reconciled through the application of apologetics, no matter how possible, plausible, or probable such an explanation may prove to be because whatever ad hoc explanation one manages to construct _isn’t_ what the text explicitly states; and the text *does* explicitly prohibit adding to, subtracting from, or otherwireconciliations. Proverbs 30:6 and Deuteronomy 4:2, for example, both expressly forbid the very behavior being used to arrive as such reconcilations. Thus, if one truly holds the Bible as authoritative, one simply _can't do that._
Thank you apologists for your intellectual dishonesty. I might have stayed in bondage to Christianity if I hadn't encountered your ridiculous "answers" to innumerable Bible difficulties.
Dan, in the context of Genesis 1. Philosophically speaking, Would you consider it valid that without an understanding of good and evil, Eve could not grasp that her action - eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - was wrong, as she lacked any concept of morality and thus Moral Responsibility?
The real question is what would the writer of Luke say if they were asked if they knew about the event that happened in Bethlehem of the slaughtering of innocent's? What would the writer say if asked if they ever knew about that event?
Also, if a Bible is the inerrent word of God, why wouldn't He (in his infinite wisdom) make sure it was so clearly written that there would be NO apparent contradictions ... unless God LIKES people to be confused.
I think God must enjoy the entertainment we provide in these threads. I can picture him having made sure there were lots of contradictions for this very purpose... 😜 🤣
If the writer of Luke today was asked today if they knew about the slaughtering of innocent's in Bethlehem event would the writer of Luke say, 'Yes I knew about that event that happened I just choose not to write it was all.' Would the writer of Luke today if asked say that?
One thing that puzzles me is that if Joseph stayed away from Judea because one of Herod's sons was ruling, why would he instead go to Galilee where another of Herod's sons was ruling?
What i dont like about how those assumptions are presented by apologists is in a way thats quite condescending, like if you dont make those same assumptions and see not impossibles as mostly likely to happen, then you’re ignorant on the subject. Its also a logical standpoint to take that if something wasnt discussed, you dont assume that a certain thing happened; you normally dont get to just fill in the blanks for silence because its convenient to do so or helps your argument.
*Joseph and Mary’s town still contradiction* Even with the convoluted “harmonization,” the home town contradiction remains. Matthew indicates that the three are going to Nazareth for the first time. 1. It wasn’t their intended destination when returning from Egypt 2. They went there in order that Jesus would be called a Nazarene 3. It was “a place called Nazareth,” a way to introduce a place that is new to the reader and characters.
"That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-"
A bit frivolous I know, but i cant take anyone seriously that wears a hat indoors??? And the arrogance that THEY know the author's original intent but no one else does... also, the holy spirit intervened twice?? prove that it you can ( don;t bother.. you can't ! )
Can you do a video on things Christian stories claim about people living without God and then realising God is real and they need him? You know like when people say things like "and then I read the bible ... And THAT ONE verse opened my eyes/I witnessed something that made me realise God is real etc " something like that. I need some arguments such claims 😂 I grew up with that and really can't conter any of this
Definitiely isn't irreconcilable. The skeptic can argue that you need to pre-suppose that they are harmonious, but this does not prove that they are not from eye witness testimonies. In fact harmonious but differing perspectives are expected of eye witnesses. The skeptic should give the benefit of the doubt or they do not disprove anything, if they find truly irreconcilable differences then we have something.
Another thing that goes unmentioned is the conversation during the temptation of Jesus in the book of Mark. That conversation never gets written on in the book of Mark or John.
Omissions in the Gospels can be made to seem bigger problems than they actually are. At the conclusion of his gospel, John observes, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” As any biographer will affirm, it simply isn’t possible to record every detail of a person’s life. Inevitably editorial decisions have to be made as to what is included and what is left out, and the biographer’s job is to identify what is most important for their particular purpose and audience. If this were made up stories the gospel would have been one book, like other holy books. To make the case that not including episodes such as the flight to Egypt, the magi who came, when Joseph and Mary had already left the barn which was an additions to the inn, to stay in a house. Or the shepherds coming to the inn soon after Jesus was born. To cast doubt on the Historical reliability, the sceptic needs to demonstrate both that it is wholly unreasonable for the writers not to have known about certain aspects of the story or, if they did know, then that omitting them was not a legitimate editorial choice. More witnesses to any case, normally have different aspect they have seen.
Yeah, leave out an event that would dramatically impact every family with a young child in the area as being unimportant. That's the ticket! Would be like a historian discussing George Washington's life and leaving out that little war he fought...
@@philosophyandreligion3442 The Bible is not a History Book. I was saved by grace, what is in God's word is all I need. If all was written, and the Bible would be a serie of 20 separate complete books, and, it would still not be the complete history. It is not needed, it gives us the background for the Gospels.
Every contradiction in the bible can be reconciled if you assume that there were a bunch of sidequests not related to the main plot. Just because they were never documented doesn't mean that they didn't happen, and, because they were never documented, they can be whatever we need them to be. Good, eh?
The problem isn't reconciling the problem is believing that the Bible is written in flawless perfection as most Christians believe due to fundamentalism But if that were true then their wouldn't be nothing to reconcile now would there? The Bible is an absolute guide not a guide to being absolute..
The main contradiction that’s irreconcilable is in Mathew,Jesus was born when king Herod the great was alive. King Herod the great died 4BCE. In Luke, Jesus was born when qurinius was governor of Syria who had to do with a census after king Herod son Archoleaous lost this lands to Rome. Qurinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6CE. So Mathew says Jesus was born 4BCE and Luke says he was born 6CE. That’s a 10 year difference and both cannot be correct due to a historical contradiction.
Did he say 4 days or 40 days after Jesus' birth that they went and give a sacrifice? If he said 4, this would directly conflict with mosaic law where a woman must be "cleaned" after giving birth and having a period. During that time she's unable to enter or touch anything holy. If he says 40 days then no conflict. So at 4 days Mary couldn't have gone to the temple, at 40 days she's cleaned and is able to attend. Sorry for the long rant I'm really half def and the auto subtitles didn't help.
No Contradictions!! Although the statement at Luke 2:39 may seem to indicate that Joseph and Mary went straight to Nazareth after presenting Jesus at the temple, Luke’s account is highly condensed. Matthew’s account (2:1-23) provides additional details regarding the visit of the astrologers, Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt to escape King Herod’s murderous plan, Herod’s death, and the family’s return to Nazareth!
Great work Dan. One point, is it intrinsic that an apologist put dogma over data? That's typical for jelly and fundy apologists currently in your country, fair enough. But have apologists through the ages done the same thing? I've never heard that criticism about Paul, Justin Martyr, Origen, Aquinas or Pascal.
I have always been curious as to how the people who wrote these accounts could claim to have learned most of these details. Ostensibly, no one but Mary and Joseph could possibly be a source for these stories, and certainly they would not have spoken of this before Jesus' ministry and death. Telling their community that God fathered their son and that Mary is still a virgin seems like it might have been controversial at the time. There are a lot of supernatural elements being relayed over 30 years after the fact with no way to corroborate them whatsoever. One on hand, this means that contradictory elements are easy to explain. Someone, possibly multiple people, told this story but couldn't keep the details straight.
Mary, like Isis, is still the constellation Virgo. See depiction of Virgo holding the palm frond in her right hand (summer) and the bundle of grain in her left hand (winter). Virgo aka the palm frond/branch is found in Isaiah 9.
I guess that means the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is canon now. I mean, it doesn't reaaally contradict the other gospels, and we can fill in the gap that is Jesus' childhood.
The problem I have is that Luke is not an apostle his name is not one of the Apostles mentioned in Mathew nor is he one of the 12 foundations of precious stones of the New Jerusalem. He is therefore unqualified to be one of the writers of the the Gospel according to Luke!!!
Christianity is self defeating even after you acquire the required mental gymnastics to “reconcile” obvious contradictions. The speaker has to “prepare” us so we can see things his way. I once watched a video of someone explaining the trinity using PowerPoint slides! Never heard it explained that way and didn’t make sense either.
@@harveywabbit9541 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole” You will probably bring verses that say something else, then I’ll say there’s an obvious contradiction. In the end the Bible is a collection of contradictory accounts that are unresolvable. Why should I read some person’s perspective, the book speaks for itself and doesn’t add up. I don’t believe that God would send prophets that are grotesquely sinful like how the Old Testament portrays Lut or Abraham. Also I don’t know any Christian who follows this verse: “If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”
The idea is that somehow these two authors are showing their distinct theological emphases rather than contradictions. Matthew underscores Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy and the new Moses, necessitating the Egyptian episode. Luke highlights Jesus’ Jewish roots and portrays his upbringing in Nazareth, avoiding unnecessary details that might detract from this focus.
Luke is clearly fiction because in my personal opinion he should have totally left out the Parable of the Prodigal Son so he could fit in the flight into Egypt instead yo.
First: I love how it's "my religion is real because this book says so!" and "my religion is real even though the book doesn't say so!" at the same time. Second: there's no such thing as an argument from silence. You can step around that entire idea with logical razors. Specifically, we can invoke Hitchens' Razor: whatever is presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. No need to rely on some assumption about what may or may not have been said: show me the evidence or I reject your argument.
I’m not sure why exactly you spend this effort on creators who are happily willing to say whatever it is they and their audience are salivating to hear. I mean, by their standard, it could be argued that since the gospels are silent on the intervening years of Jesus between 12 & 30, it’s possible he traveled to and lived in Hoboken, NJ as a Fuller Brush salesman going door to door.
The objective of apologetics is not to convince the skeptic but to reassure the believer.
I may steal that line
@@ji8044 You might as well. I probably stole it but it was so long ago that I don't remember from where.
Things that are objectively true don't need apologetics.
@@ericreed4535exactly this!!!!! The very existence of apologetics removes credibility from the belief
But that is not true. Look it up in a good dictionary. he purpose *is* to "convince the skeptic" -- but they rarely actally od this. It is a system wide faillure apologists should be more aware of, but like flat-earthers, they strive mightily o miss it.
Who else does this? Why, anh Bible scholar" whose greatest achievemt is to criticize one set of presuppositions and replace that set with another set, a set which is no better and could be much worse.
Well, Bart _didn't_ say they were irreconcilable, he said that they were irreconcilable _unless_ you make something up to reconcile them. Which is then immediately what the apologist does.
What is comical is that, if doctrine were correct, bloodline would make no difference, because Joe wasn't even involved. Of course, according to Paul, he was constructed adult-sized, like Adam, and directly from David's cached semen as required by 2 Samuel, so there would be no Mary involved either, and dropped into the Firmament just in time to be executed there by demons, so no manger, Magi, or shepherds.
But the gospel authors would have been furious at their gospel bound with others in one book. Each was supposed to supplant the ones before; contradictions were the _whole point_ of writing them. Only the Marcionic threat required a coalition of four congregations using four different gospels without picking just one. (The Matthew faction must have been biggest, to have theirs put first.)
Yeah true but I lost respect for Dan once he refused to have a rational debate with inspiring philosophy and just blocked him
Well to be fair on Dan’s part he was on a losing battle and inspiring philosophy is actually an apologist that works with the data that makes him unstoppable for all the people that debate him so I think Dan just didn’t want to deal with it and blocked him perhaps
But Dan’s scholarship I appreciate a lot gives very good insights into the text
@@xplicitgoofy1015 He did have a rational debate with Inspiring Philosophy. Inspiring Philosophy was just dishonest and aggressive, and so wasn't worth anyone's time. The fact that you found him convincing is kinda sad.
It's a pretty consistent behaviour pattern with Inspiring Philosophy whenever he engages with actual experts - he retreats into fallacies, refuses to actually acknowledge what he is doing, gets angry, and then the expert has to block him because it becomes harassment.
@@xplicitgoofy1015IP is a clown 🙄
@@Zahaqiel Bingo.
"you've got to make something up"
Proceeds to make something up.
“The craziest thing in history happened off camera” is the only way to harmonize the accounts.
Mathew is trying to jump through hoops to make Jesus fulfill prophecy and Luke wants to make him the new Moses..
Edit..I have it backwards it's Mathew making Jesus look like Moses and Luke fulfilling prophecy
If Luke's goal is Moses, why not send Jesus to Egypt?
Of course, 'Matthew; did a bad job of that, since he could only read the Hebrew bible in (a bad) translation.
Not only that, the “called out of Egypt” part isn’t even from a prophesy in the OT.
I think Matthew is more concerned with mirroring Moses with Egypt and the slaying of the innocents, while Luke is building a parallel with Elijah and Elisha with John the Baptist and Jesus.
This is the key though to understanding the authors intent. It's not a literal history of Jesus birth it's a theological narrative. Once you see that Tim's perspective on this is just silly.
I think it's the other way around... Mathew wants to make Jesus the new Moses.
So basically, this guy is writing his own version of the birth. While he’s at it he might as well create his own genealogies since they don’t match either.
"But one is Mary's!" ... because it occasionally mentions mothers, too. Tiniest sliver, you found it!
I remember as a child basically being taught to make up my own genealogy
“The Bible is inerrant. But you have to interpolate or it won’t make any sense.”😂😅
@KaiHenningsen if it's Mary's then it would have mentioned it. Both Matthew and Luke says it is Joseph's genealogy
@@KaiHenningsenone is Mary’s? Which one? BOTH claim to be JOSEPH’S
Tergiversate? It's wonderful to hear someone use an absolutely apposite word, an uncommon word, and such a lovely-sounding word with precision. Besides being a great scholar, you are a master wordsmith, and many of us enjoy that as well as your scholarship.Thank you.
@@petercollins7730 It is a perfectly cromulent word.
if only apologists weren't so obstreperous
It's unhelpful to use words your audience is unlikely to know.
Like I was once critiqued for using the word "assent" in a sermon because not everyone in the congregation would understand it.
@@MusicalRaichu I diametrically disagree - it's great to use words that your audience is unlikely to know, as long as they are precise for the usage. I suspect that the audience for Dan's videos is more than averagely sophisticated and would use a dictionary for an unfamiliar word. And that's a great way to learn new, useful words.
It's sad that people don't know what very common words - like assent - mean, and would criticize you for using it.
@@petercollins7730 I thought the criticism was unjustified, but maybe it was the way I used it, dunno.
The point remains that you need to communicate in a way that your target audience understands. Even after consulting two dictionaries, it still wasn't completely clear what Dan meant, and I've got a PhD.
Imagine being all powerful and still being so poor at communication that you need teams of apologists to make your book square up.
Yeah, God is a terrible writer!
Nu-uh! They just "spiritually flew" to Egypt! You don't know how to read the Bible! How do you know there wasn't a town named Egypt like right next to it! 😭😭😭😭😭
Right
It is absolutely bonkers how often apologists retreat behind, "Stop assuming author the is describing events sequentially." I get it. I get it. I get it. It's technically a "presupposition" but so is believing that all triangles have 180 degrees. Does it mean authors NEVER write out of order? No, of course not, but usually they tell you. They don't usually tell you their "presenting history" and then just start grabbing random events from different points in time and space...
Not a great example, as we can prove that the sum of any triangle's intolerance angles is 180°.
Still though, you're right: We've been telling stories, true and not, for thousands of years. Herodotus began what eventually became the field of History five centuries before the gospels ostensibly were written. Recording events in order, and noting otherwise, isn't normally a problem.
God is post-modern. 😂
@@raixiraI think it is an excellent example, because the sum of the angles ISN'T 180 degrees in non-Euclidean geometry. Now assuming Euclidean geometry like you did is entirely reasonable, that's what we deal with 99.9% of the time.
That's why it would be so incredibly bad faith to tell someone that thinks a math problem about triangle with three angles that add up to 120 degrees that they are making assumptions and the problem COULD be set in a curved space. There's no reason to assume that. It doesn't seem like the place someone would be randomly using non-Euclidean geometry without any hint that is the case. But they are TECHNICALLY correct that the angles could add up to 120 degrees if we add a bunch of assumptions that are never stated and say the author must mean that because they couldn't possibly just be wrong.
Thats true. Normally its an assumption that history is wrote in order of events because to jump around can make hearing a story and understanding it quite difficult. When stories are discussed w/ varying amounts of jumping back and forth, there is normally a specific reason to do so, not just because it can be done that way. It also sets up a bad precedent if order can change w/out reason for doing it or informing the audience its happening; other events people dont question the order of could be being interpreted in an incorrect order also.
Honestly, if I had a nickel for Everytime a Christian apologist cried "argument from silence", I'd probably be able to fund my postgrad degree out of pocket.
I honestly can't remember the last time I heard anyone who wasn't an apologist resort to that objection.
have you heard about the Vezuvius eruption that destroyed Pompei? and there are more exemples in history. the fact that there is no mention of a genocide, like in the Holocaust matter, does not mean it did not happened.
@@emanuel5640 The problem with that is that there are explicit documents detailing both the destruction of Pompeii and the genocide of Jews under the Third Reich. There's not only written evidence of both, in the form of written primary sources (Pliny the Younger's letters and the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, respectively), there's also substantial physical evidence and second-hand accounts of both. So, neither of those are a valid example of "argument from silence". For situations where there is no direct evidence but only secondary evidence, we use logical razors. We don't make up BS about how a lack of evidence is not evidence of nothing having happened. Yes, it is. A lack of any evidence at all is pretty strong evidence nothing happened.
@@emanuel5640...what?
@@emanuel5640neither of those are evidence of silence on a topic. Pliny the Younger wrote about the destruction of Pompeii in some letters as he was an eyewitness to the event, and there is a plethora of documented evidence (written, pictures, video, courtroom testimony, etc) on the genocide that happened during the Holocaust.
"This is not scholarship.... It's trying to tergiversate the text."
Me, standing there like Pacha: 👌
Music to my ears!
"tergiversator? I barely know her!"
Odd that Luke missed Matthew's zombies and slaughter of the innocents. You'd think he would have noticed that stuff.
It just wasn't that noteworthy to talk about. Happened all the time.
@@plattbagarn "Another one? Must be another 'savior'. We didn't really need those innocents."
Excellent video. I'm done with apologists' games. If they want to twist their brain and the facts into a pretzel in order to justify believing, they can go right ahead. Personally, I'd rather not invest my time and my life in something that's probably not true just because I'm afraid of going to Hell if it happens to be.
Thanks as always! A thoughtful and thorough explanation of a glaring discrepancy between the accounts. 💪😎
A successful apologetic argument only need to be good enough to help believers keep believing. Apologetic arguments are rarely good enough to stand up to objective scrutiny. If the argument stood up to scrutiny it would be called a fact or scholarly consensus. When there is an apologetic argument on a topic it means there is a serious problem for believers on that topic.
In Bart's newest online course "The Dark Side of Christmas" he address the problem between Matthew and Luke. While it is possible that Luke left information out, it isn't really that plausible. There are some key details missing from Luke's narrative and as Dan said Luke was trying to tell the "true story as he, Luke, had researched it" Another thing that strikes me is how easily the commentator of this video just walks over the slaughter of children, which is a key point in Bart's new online course.
There is a sort of historical basis for that story, but it's not the one in the Bible. Herod the Great after taking power did kill all the male members of the Hasmonean line, but it wasn't done at one time nor were they all babies of course.
Yeah I don’t agree with Christian apologetics in regards with trying to reconcile Matthew and Luke’s contradictory accounts
It goes even crazy when it talks about genealogies
"Tergiversate"? Now that's a word! :)
Great video as usual. Thanks!
Hey Christians, maybe you should work harder on the contradictions between your lives and the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats before you try to hooch up new parts of your book that you haven't even read.
Hey dont diss the sermon on the mount. Or at least give context xD
@careottjuice They didn't. They dissed the Christians' lives.
I repeat my comment from yesterday's video. I continue to be baffled by amateur apologists who have only read English versions of the Bible (if that) and think they can out argue professional scholars and experts who read the texts in their original languages and do this for a living! 😂😂
They're apologists. It's their job to make up apologies for the authors not conforming to their dogmas. No, the puzzling stuff is the faithful believing this crap. But I guess that's what the survival of the fittest apologists produced ...
Oh, and no, it's not just amateur apologists. Maybe the big guns don't usually make this particular mistake, but they certainly make more than enough others.
I should probably mention this here ... 1 Peter 3:15 _But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,_ Or in Greek: _κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς _*_ἀπολογίαν_*_ παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου,_
Most of these apologists got their certifications online probaly. 😆
Regardless of the timeline of events, and the ability or inability to harmonize the separate accounts, I still cannot get past the fact that we are really asked to believe stories of a virgin pregnancy, visits from supernatural angels, a star that can somehow point to a specific location on Earth, and a petty god who requires sacrifice from his subjects. That's the short list.
Well, that's it. Christmas is ruined. Everybody go home. ;)
Nazareth is an alternate spelling of Mazzaroth aka the Zodiac. The manger, of baby Jesus, is the Beehive cluster in the Cancer constellation. You will also find the Ass and her Foal in this same constellation. Cancer is one of the "churches" of Asia (Fire). The church of Philadelphia aka brotherly love is the constellation of Gemini where we find the twins who are also the "children" of Asher. Asher's standard is the Palm Tree. This is the Palm tree under which one of the Gemini twins is born.
Good news for millions of turkeys! 🦃🦃🦃
@@WayWalker3 British turkeys, maybe. American turkeys are more afraid of Thanksgiving.
@@KaiHenningsen
Bad news for the hams. 🐽
Think of all of the landfills that will continue to live and stay empty now that Christmas is identified as a criminal enterprise.
I'm amazed at the amount of times he says, "could have"
I really appreciate the LOGIC YOU BRING TO THESE DEBATES....and that you do not take sides.... In my opinion Dr Bart DOES NOT TAKE SIDES EITHER....it is just that the Apologists try to paint him in that corner....It really gets immature on their part...just my observation... Dr Bart always goes out of his way that he DOES NOT WANT TO DE-CONVERT ANYONE.....he just wants to try and get to the best facts that is possible....and that is where I want to be...and it seems to be where you want to be...SO, I HOPE YOU KEEP UP GREAT WORK...and yes I subscribed...
I am always learning new vocabulary watching your videos. "Tergiversate." That's going in the memory banks for later!
As an atheist I began watching Dan's content because I was interested (and sometimes amused) by the discrepancies between the data and the dogma. Anymore, I enjoy watching Dan's content because these video's are short courses on critical thinking and rhetorical techniques (by apologists). This information can be applied many other areas in life, especially in these difficult times. Thanks, Dan!
Last time I was this early, Mark’s audience was still adoptionist.
Adoptionist????
@@daisymazie21
An adoptionist Christology is one where Jesus was a human adopted by god as his son. It's the earliest Christology and stands in contrast to the modern "Jesus is part of the Trinity" Christology that many sects use.
@@Kyeudowhere did yall read this from?!?
@@javierordonez2445 Look up adoptionism on Google. There's way too much to read about it. Also read about Arianism and Marcionism. There used to be many different forms of Christianity, but most of them died out a long, long time ago.
Mark is thought to be the earliest extant Gospel (~70 AD). It begins with Jesus' baptism and so makes NO mention of his birth or Mary's presumably immaculate conception.
"Tergiversate"
Gotta love a new word! At least, it's new to me. Though it isn't really much of a claim to fame, I have a fairly large vocabulary. That's why I get a little excited to learn a new word I've never heard before. It seems to be a post-graduate level, very scholarly type of word. It probably won't be easy, but I'm going to have to look for an opportunity to use it somehow some time soon.
I'm weird, I know, but a new $5 word is a kind of treat for me. I try to use 50¢ words when I can, although having a good, longish bit of vocabulary to pull out of my pocket sometimes can be very satisfying.
Thanks, Dan. I admire your way with words. I can but strive to reach your level of mastery some day 😊
Thanks, I was just wondering what the price of a word like that might be.
@johnnygnash2253 The market price was not set by me 😁.
It's just an old way of referring to long, complicated words.
You need to add a verse to the end of Luke's story: Then Joseph and Mary with baby Jesus entered a time machine and traveled back about 10 years to the time when Herod the Great was still alive in order to meet the Magi.
Herod, of the bible, is the Hero of the Path, aka sun's ecliptic.
I returned directly home from work (after stopping by the bar for a few hours).
I went to meet my parents and then went back home (after growing up in Egypt) so that proves it
I did not come here to be attacked. ;)
❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!!
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
-Christopher Hitchens
I was interested to see what would happen if Dan went in against Bart. Then Redden jumped in, and I was like, "oh, this makes sense now."
So the argument is: "the wise men were told not to return to Jerusalem, but they brought Jesus to the temple?"
All bible temples are the human body. The fourth month is April and the seven months/years/days = April thru October.
This reminds me of people who gin up ways to make all the Pixar movies fit together
THEY DO
It is the outright dishonesty of this apologist that is so terrible. He is deliberately conflating two stories, missing parts of the text and adding in his own assumptions, all the while pretending that atheists are the liars. If your religion requires you to lie, it is worthless.
We refer to that as talking out of his arse.
@@oltedders 😂 we do indeed.
@@theoutspokenhumanist
And nothing but shite coming out of his mouth.
@@oltedders and looking at the capped idiots face, getting the back end is probably a favorable view and a more likely source of his views and words..
I pity him. He’s struggling to hide from himself and others his true self. Dude must have all sorts of psychological problems. His performance of apologetics is his attempt to shield himself not just from criticism from his social group, but probably deep fears about his physical survival.
It doesn’t make his lying better or justifiable. It just makes his dishonesty even sadder.
If both book were divinely inspired, you would think both books wouldn't leave out stuff so people wouldn't think they weren't divinely inspired.
I wish there were fact checkers during Biblical times. Love your work, Dan. 😅
Also, based on the historical markers, 'Jesus' was born at two completely different times...
This is my favorite point. It doesn't matter if you can pull something out of your hiney to harmonize the narratives, you can't harmonize the dates. There's at least 10 years between the setting in Matthew and Luke. This is game over for inerrancy.
"You or I couldn't be born at two different times, but He is not so limited."
Why do you see two completely different times?
@@danhoff4401 100%
@@kitstamat9356 , I don't see completely different times, the Bible describes the birth of 'Jesus' at times when 2 different people ruled the area.
Read when 'Jesus' was supposedly born in Matthew and in Luke, and then do some research on who the Bible says was ruling when 'Jesus' was born in each instance, and let the evidence guide you.
What I find more interesting, and not usually discussed, is that contradictions in the Christian scriptures and in the Hebrew bible were left as they were and not ironed out more than a millennia ago. I would like to see a video discussing that please.
Birth of the Messiah is a book by Catholic priest Raymond Brown and it has no problem positing that one or both of the infancy accounts are literary creations.
Raymond Brown gets pilloried by Radical Traditionalist Catholics, who are literally the RCC's "fundies," but I doubt most garden variety Catholics have a clue who he even is. The seminary professors do, FWIW.
Dan, could you perhaps do a vid on why exactly univocality and a mono narrative in the Bible seems SO important to so many people? What is it that is so dangerous to one's faith about the alternative?
Second this. Many religious traditions don't insist on the literal inerrancy, verbal inspiration, absolute historicity and univocality of their scriptures, even within Judaism and Christianity. Why are some traditions within those religions, the traditions that we would call the most conservative, so hung up about those things?
I want to say this is a product of the Revival Period that led to the formation of fundamentalism. These two topics were a key part of that.
Thanks Dan.
Why would they flee on a whim 300 miles across the Sinai Desert to Egypt instead of returning to their hometown of Nazareth, especially if Matthew truly believed Nazareth was their place of origin?
Why the trip to Egypt? Perhaps the Moses-Jesus/Pharoah/Herod typology was just too convenient for Matthew not to include in his narrative
The descent into Egypt (winter) begins at the summer solstice (I must decrease) and the ascent out of Egypt begins at the winter solstice (He must increase).
I like how he flipped the tables and made it seem like his reading of the text was the default, sensible way and those like Bart are being unreasonable. No, when you see things narrated right after the other in sequence and have conjuctions like "after that" etc. the default is precisely to think that no time was left out in between. You need an explicit reason to inflate the chronology, and in the same context, not from another book. If you don't have an explicit mention of a time gap, the reasonable reader assumes none.
Both gospels neglect to mention that Jesus fell into a time portal that took him 2000 years later and spent a few years there before returning to his present.
He worked as a clerk in a toy store for a few years.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Is that a reference to a movie I haven't heard about?
@@jeffmacdonald9863
Was that before or after he returned to his home planet?
I have asked many apologists the following.
If Mary was 16 when she had Jesus, that would have made her at least 80 when Luke wrote his gospel. In otherwards, she was already dead. So how did her very intimate conversation with the angel get from Mary to a Gentile stranger 80 years later with no one repeating the story in any of the intervening decades?
The author of “Luke”, after going through all of his genealogy and nativity nonsense, acknowledges in Luke 3:23 that he didn’t even know who Jesus’ father really was.
Thanks Dan. ❤
He’s one of the more ridiculous, ignorant and disingenuous, apologists with a decent following.
Not talking down about him in any way, but red pen's smug expression can be distracting.
Isn't the "argument from silence" a shoot in the foot from the apologist ? Because if we can't _"reason from what a source does not say to the conclusion that something did not happen",_ then I can arbitrarily add events to the plot as long as they don't contradict what is said. For example I can add the fact that jesus had training in prestidigitation, rendering all descriptions of miracles nothing more than magic tricks...
Not to mention all the fun stuff we could add. Like how he became the Regional Champion at the Standing on Tippy Toes and Running event in Iberia
Not to mention how they didn't bother to write about his wife and kids who left him to run off with a wealthy Greek merchant back to Syria.
...
I wrote that as a joke, but you know, someone having a mental breakdown after being dumped would explain a lot...
Yeah, like Jesus thinks it's important to tell his followers about the circumstances of his birth and how he ended up in Nazareth. The stories are completely made up and are NOT an actual account as told by Jesus himself.
Yeah, like Jesus existed at all, whether to think about what's important or tell stories.
Another thing he said in the midst of his "not impossible" argument was that they "returned home to Bethlehem after fulfilling their requirements in Jerusalem". If Bethlehem was their home then why would they have needed to seek lodging in an inn upon arriving in Bethlehem for the census and the birth?
By trying to twist the narratives to fit, the apologist just points out further contradiction.
“Assumption of silence”… never heard this term in my life…
Because if it’s not stated in the text, we shouldn’t LITERALLY ASSUME THINGS ABOUT THE TEXT… that’s assumption… the imposition of ideas based on what you think
“It doesn’t say that in there but hear me out”… 😂
And let’s get this straight… the real problem is that Matthew says they went to Egypt… Luke says they never did… it says they went to Jerusalem to complete all the rituals, some couple months at the most, and then in Luke 2:39, it says after the rituals were done they returned… you would need to read into the text they stayed for another 22 months and the Bible is silent on that entire time? That’s a huge stretch
You’re right… totally ignoring what’s likely… they preformed the rituals and went back… never touched Egyptian soil
I mean also, Quirinius took over 10 years after Herod passed… and Matthew said the stayed in Egypt till Herod passed… so true… mounting contradiction after contradiction
But... But... But the guy dropped his Sharpie in the cup! Doesn't that mean anything to you??? He dropped it in the cup! The cup: Q.E.D. End of discussion.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if the narratives can be reconciled through the application of apologetics, no matter how possible, plausible, or probable such an explanation may prove to be because whatever ad hoc explanation one manages to construct _isn’t_ what the text explicitly states; and the text *does* explicitly prohibit adding to, subtracting from, or otherwireconciliations. Proverbs 30:6 and Deuteronomy 4:2, for example, both expressly forbid the very behavior being used to arrive as such reconcilations. Thus, if one truly holds the Bible as authoritative, one simply _can't do that._
What exactly constitutes "God's word" in Proverbs 30:6 is not defined. Maybe the Torah? Deuteronomy 4:2 seems to refer to the Torah.
I was under the impression that Christians believe that the entirety of the Bible is "God's Word."
Weird.
Thank you apologists for your intellectual dishonesty. I might have stayed in bondage to Christianity if I hadn't encountered your ridiculous "answers" to innumerable Bible difficulties.
I would love to see a talk between Bart and Dan. Not a debate, just like a talk about biblical stuff.
Please, guys, please do this.
Sounds like the issue with "Yadda, Yadda" in the Seinfeld episode.
I always find these "apologetics" so dishonest it HURTS!
Dan, in the context of Genesis 1. Philosophically speaking, Would you consider it valid that without an understanding of good and evil, Eve could not grasp that her action - eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - was wrong, as she lacked any concept of morality and thus Moral Responsibility?
I have pondered this as well, seems very logically troubling.
I'm so frikin tired of apologetics!!! There is no other subject areas where we would use anything close to apologetics in our lives!!!
"What Donald meant to say was ... "
"Keep Calm:
I'm A Fraud".
A much more appropriate cup.
The real question is what would the writer of Luke say if they were asked if they knew about the event that happened in Bethlehem of the slaughtering of innocent's? What would the writer say if asked if they ever knew about that event?
No, the real question is why you posted this three times on this video
Would believe in the nativity narratives have mattered very much to the historical Jesus?
Also, if a Bible is the inerrent word of God, why wouldn't He (in his infinite wisdom) make sure it was so clearly written that there would be NO apparent contradictions ... unless God LIKES people to be confused.
I think God must enjoy the entertainment we provide in these threads. I can picture him having made sure there were lots of contradictions for this very purpose... 😜 🤣
Because it’s simple the gospels and entirety of the Christian Bible is not from God lol
God is not the author of confusion. Satan, the wise ole serpent, authored the bible..
If the writer of Luke today was asked today if they knew about the slaughtering of innocent's in Bethlehem event would the writer of Luke say, 'Yes I knew about that event that happened I just choose not to write it was all.' Would the writer of Luke today if asked say that?
One thing that puzzles me is that if Joseph stayed away from Judea because one of Herod's sons was ruling, why would he instead go to Galilee where another of Herod's sons was ruling?
What i dont like about how those assumptions are presented by apologists is in a way thats quite condescending, like if you dont make those same assumptions and see not impossibles as mostly likely to happen, then you’re ignorant on the subject. Its also a logical standpoint to take that if something wasnt discussed, you dont assume that a certain thing happened; you normally dont get to just fill in the blanks for silence because its convenient to do so or helps your argument.
*Joseph and Mary’s town still contradiction*
Even with the convoluted “harmonization,” the home town contradiction remains. Matthew indicates that the three are going to Nazareth for the first time.
1. It wasn’t their intended destination when returning from Egypt
2. They went there in order that Jesus would be called a Nazarene
3. It was “a place called Nazareth,” a way to introduce a place that is new to the reader and characters.
"That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-"
A bit frivolous I know, but i cant take anyone seriously that wears a hat indoors??? And the arrogance that THEY know the author's original intent but no one else does... also, the holy spirit intervened twice?? prove that it you can ( don;t bother.. you can't ! )
Can you do a video on things Christian stories claim about people living without God and then realising God is real and they need him? You know like when people say things like "and then I read the bible ... And THAT ONE verse opened my eyes/I witnessed something that made me realise God is real etc " something like that. I need some arguments such claims 😂 I grew up with that and really can't conter any of this
I'm curious why you feel the need to counter it in the first place
Hi Dan. What about apologist saying that Luke avoided the whole Egypt trip thing in order to avoid antagonizing the Romans?
Thank you (possibly).
Definitiely isn't irreconcilable. The skeptic can argue that you need to pre-suppose that they are harmonious, but this does not prove that they are not from eye witness testimonies. In fact harmonious but differing perspectives are expected of eye witnesses. The skeptic should give the benefit of the doubt or they do not disprove anything, if they find truly irreconcilable differences then we have something.
Another thing that goes unmentioned is the conversation during the temptation of Jesus in the book of Mark. That conversation never gets written on in the book of Mark or John.
Omissions in the Gospels can be made to seem bigger problems than they actually are. At the conclusion of his gospel, John observes, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” As any biographer will affirm, it simply isn’t possible to record every detail of a person’s life. Inevitably editorial decisions have to be made as to what is included and what is left out, and the biographer’s job is to identify what is most important for their particular purpose and audience. If this were made up stories the gospel would have been one book, like other holy books.
To make the case that not including episodes such as the flight to Egypt, the magi who came, when Joseph and Mary had already left the barn which was an additions to the inn, to stay in a house. Or the shepherds coming to the inn soon after Jesus was born. To cast doubt on the Historical reliability, the sceptic needs to demonstrate both that it is wholly unreasonable for the writers not to have known about certain aspects of the story or, if they did know, then that omitting them was not a legitimate editorial choice. More witnesses to any case, normally have different aspect they have seen.
Yeah, leave out an event that would dramatically impact every family with a young child in the area as being unimportant. That's the ticket! Would be like a historian discussing George Washington's life and leaving out that little war he fought...
@@philosophyandreligion3442 The Bible is not a History Book. I was saved by grace, what is in God's word is all I need. If all was written, and the Bible would be a serie of 20 separate complete books, and, it would still not be the complete history. It is not needed, it gives us the background for the Gospels.
Every contradiction in the bible can be reconciled if you assume that there were a bunch of sidequests not related to the main plot. Just because they were never documented doesn't mean that they didn't happen, and, because they were never documented, they can be whatever we need them to be. Good, eh?
The problem isn't reconciling the problem is believing that the Bible is written in flawless perfection as most Christians believe due to fundamentalism
But if that were true then their wouldn't be nothing to reconcile now would there?
The Bible is an absolute guide not a guide to being absolute..
The main contradiction that’s irreconcilable is in Mathew,Jesus was born when king Herod the great was alive. King Herod the great died 4BCE. In Luke, Jesus was born when qurinius was governor of Syria who had to do with a census after king Herod son Archoleaous lost this lands to Rome. Qurinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6CE. So Mathew says Jesus was born 4BCE and Luke says he was born 6CE. That’s a 10 year difference and both cannot be correct due to a historical contradiction.
Did he say 4 days or 40 days after Jesus' birth that they went and give a sacrifice? If he said 4, this would directly conflict with mosaic law where a woman must be "cleaned" after giving birth and having a period. During that time she's unable to enter or touch anything holy. If he says 40 days then no conflict. So at 4 days Mary couldn't have gone to the temple, at 40 days she's cleaned and is able to attend. Sorry for the long rant I'm really half def and the auto subtitles didn't help.
So Luke was the inspiration for that Seinfeld episode: Mary and Joseph finished up in Jerusalem and yadda yadda yadda went home.
It's a conteXt issue where the X in context cancels out what they want it to, or allows a crossover to something else.
Is slight of hand an attribute Christ would display?
"Tergiversate." New word unlocked!
No Contradictions!! Although the statement at Luke 2:39 may seem to indicate that Joseph and Mary went straight to Nazareth after presenting Jesus at the temple, Luke’s account is highly condensed. Matthew’s account (2:1-23) provides additional details regarding the visit of the astrologers, Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt to escape King Herod’s murderous plan, Herod’s death, and the family’s return to Nazareth!
Great work Dan. One point, is it intrinsic that an apologist put dogma over data? That's typical for jelly and fundy apologists currently in your country, fair enough. But have apologists through the ages done the same thing? I've never heard that criticism about Paul, Justin Martyr, Origen, Aquinas or Pascal.
Is this Luke the Evangelist? I'm genetically related to him, according to 23&Me.
I have always been curious as to how the people who wrote these accounts could claim to have learned most of these details. Ostensibly, no one but Mary and Joseph could possibly be a source for these stories, and certainly they would not have spoken of this before Jesus' ministry and death. Telling their community that God fathered their son and that Mary is still a virgin seems like it might have been controversial at the time. There are a lot of supernatural elements being relayed over 30 years after the fact with no way to corroborate them whatsoever. One on hand, this means that contradictory elements are easy to explain. Someone, possibly multiple people, told this story but couldn't keep the details straight.
Mary, like Isis, is still the constellation Virgo. See depiction of Virgo holding the palm frond in her right hand (summer) and the bundle of grain in her left hand (winter). Virgo aka the palm frond/branch is found in Isaiah 9.
@@harveywabbit9541 Did that make sense to you when you wrote it?
@@RobDegraves
Isaiah 9, describes Israel (summer) as Leo, Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio.
@@harveywabbit9541 What?
I guess that means the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is canon now. I mean, it doesn't reaaally contradict the other gospels, and we can fill in the gap that is Jesus' childhood.
The problem I have is that Luke is not an apostle his name is not one of the Apostles mentioned in Mathew nor is he one of the 12 foundations of precious stones of the New Jerusalem. He is therefore unqualified to be one of the writers of the the Gospel according to Luke!!!
In other videos, Dan points out that we don't really know who wrote the Gospels, only the names that were applied to them.
None of the gospels were written by the apostles
so they had homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem?
Christianity is self defeating even after you acquire the required mental gymnastics to “reconcile” obvious contradictions. The speaker has to “prepare” us so we can see things his way. I once watched a video of someone explaining the trinity using PowerPoint slides! Never heard it explained that way and didn’t make sense either.
The trinity of the three is all over the bible. See Science of the Bible, by Milton Woolley.
@@harveywabbit9541 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone"
“Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole”
You will probably bring verses that say something else, then I’ll say there’s an obvious contradiction. In the end the Bible is a collection of contradictory accounts that are unresolvable. Why should I read some person’s perspective, the book speaks for itself and doesn’t add up. I don’t believe that God would send prophets that are grotesquely sinful like how the Old Testament portrays Lut or Abraham.
Also I don’t know any Christian who follows this verse:
“If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”
Dan has done a miraculous job of making his beard disappear without me noticing…
The idea is that somehow these two authors are showing their distinct theological emphases rather than contradictions. Matthew underscores Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy and the new Moses, necessitating the Egyptian episode. Luke highlights Jesus’ Jewish roots and portrays his upbringing in Nazareth, avoiding unnecessary details that might detract from this focus.
You obviously ignored everything Dan said...
Jesus lives for 12 months in Nazareth aka the zodiac of 12 signs.
"Hey Google, define : tergiversate"
Luke is clearly fiction because in my personal opinion he should have totally left out the Parable of the Prodigal Son so he could fit in the flight into Egypt instead yo.
Notice his coffee cup-“keep calm, I’m an apologist.”
Wow. Ending 2024 with the most fucked up comment of the year.
What a clown. 🙄
… yada, yada, ya…
Then we retuned home.
First: I love how it's "my religion is real because this book says so!" and "my religion is real even though the book doesn't say so!" at the same time. Second: there's no such thing as an argument from silence. You can step around that entire idea with logical razors. Specifically, we can invoke Hitchens' Razor: whatever is presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. No need to rely on some assumption about what may or may not have been said: show me the evidence or I reject your argument.
I’m not sure why exactly you spend this effort on creators who are happily willing to say whatever it is they and their audience are salivating to hear. I mean, by their standard, it could be argued that since the gospels are silent on the intervening years of Jesus between 12 & 30, it’s possible he traveled to and lived in Hoboken, NJ as a Fuller Brush salesman going door to door.
🤣Good one!