another point: it seems unlikely Christians would willingly invent a story that easily leads to accusations of sexual immorality against Mary and Joseph because of a premarital pregnancy, which we see in early anti-Christian polemics and the Gospels themselves.
Of course the virgin birth narrative was invented. It's an extremely popular trope in god mythologies. And if you have ever read the bible the anonymous authors of the gospels include a cover story so as to avoid accusations of sexual immorality. Dont tell me you really believe parthenogenesis occured? Because if it did it would mean Jesus was a transvestite. 😳
Thank you so much for covering the infancy narratives. As others have mentioned, we have so much content on the resurrection but there's really been a need for thoughtful, concise treatments of the birth stories and these vids have been super helpful for me, personally. Keep at it!
OR we could continue to investigate the complexities of ancient historiography instead of dismissively hand-waving it away to avoid the implications....
You are building a great framework for a goto apologetic channel. Your channel already rates better than the vast majority of all the others I have seen on RUclips. This channel is a Christmas present to all the people everywhere, but it is a lump of coal to RUclips atheists, but only the dishonest ones. Merry Christmas To all.
Thanks for the suggestion but I don't see a whole videos worth of of content in that. Who would have hypnotized him, when, and doesn't hypnotism wear off? I don't know any credible scholar who thinks this is a real option.
There is no evidence Paul was hypnotized into believing that Christianity was true, and that he had an experience with the risen Jesus. All of our sources suggest he actually saw the risen Jesus himself, and no evidence that indicates it was some kind of magical trickery. Its just an unwarranted assertion that relies on non-evidence. You shouldn’t stress about this contrived and ad hoc theory.
"Bethulah can be applied to a virgin regard- less of age, whether young or old ; na'arah to a young girl, but. ' almah to a virgin in her girlish years. In the Punic language, which is closely related to the Hebrew, a virgin is similarly." ETYMOLOGY and BIBLICAL USAGE of 'ALMAH - jstor
There was information I gathered from a few years back that points to the [Virgin] birth. They found blood that had dried on the mercy seat beneath the hill where the crucifixion took place. When tested in an Israeli blood lab they realized that this was human blood but that it only had 24 chromosomes and that when rehydrated the blood appeared to still be alive. They noted that 23 of the chromosomes were x chromosomes and that there was only one y. This is unprecedented considering that all other humans have 23 x and y of each parent if male. There has never been another account similar to this one. I can post a link to the original video regarding this later. Edit in brackets.
Unfortunately there is no verification of that story at all. There is No actual evidence that the Ark of the Covenant has been found. In my opinion Ron Wyatt was desperate for new discoveries after his previous successes. Yes the discovery of the place of the crossing of the Red Sea is all but proven. The site of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably correct and the location of Mt. Sinai is the best candidate. Wyatt's location of Noah's Ark is untestable. But the fable you told is fiction. Even the location of Golgotha is uncertain.
@@markhorton3994 the man that spoke of this event was not Ron Wyatt and I could care less about your opinion of it. I will post the video when I'm not busy.
@@pigzcanfly444 However your biology is WRONG! All mammals have one X or Y chromosome from each parent. Females have two X chromosomes and males have one X and one Y chromosome. Anything else is not normal but a few viable exceptions exist. For example the very few male calico cats have two X and one Y chromosomes. The Y makes them male, usually sterile and with health problems, one X gives then Black fur the other orange. The white comes from a different chromosome. The idea of 23 X and 23 Y chromosomes is totally ridiculous. By the way it is theoretically possible for a virgin woman to have a child but since she would be a clone she would be female. It is not known to have ever happened nor expected to ever happen. The birth of Jesus is something else entirely. The source of the idea that the Ark of the Covenant has been found under Golgotha is Ron Wyatt even if you got it through someone else.
@@markhorton3994 you have no clue what you're talking about. Human males have 23 of each from their parents. Xfrom the mother and y from the father. You rarely see more than one set of 23 which if found will cause deformation of various types in the overall physiology. We total at 46 chromosomes whereas Chimpanzees have a total of 48. This is the reason why many scientists believe believe humans have a fused chromosome set that points to us being descended from apes somewhere down the line. I don't hold to the evolutionary timeline nor the belief that we came from apes so I am just giving you what actual biologists have told me. No clue where you got the drivel that you spewed here about only having one of each. Have fun believing that if you want to. 😉
This was interesting. Videos on the historical reliability of the resurrection are quite common but I typically don't see apologists arguing for the reliability of other miracles.
It’s so easily to learn from your video styles. I feel like even younger kids could learn this type of stuff easier from you. Keep it up brother, God bless. You’ll blow
The whole claim that Isaiah is predicting about Jesus in his passage, 700 yrs before, is ridiculous. Isaiah is telling that his wife is having a baby and christian bible has transferred the passage to future tense when in Hebrew it is in present tense. THE young woman IS pregnant..
I am almost done reading the legends of Olympus,and the gods there sleep with girls then they leave them to take care of the child,this in an endless repeat
I think Luke could have gotten Mary's story from Either Paul or James because in the Book of Acts Luke did never go to Ephesus (That we know of) and when he got to Jerusalem with Paul in year 58/59 Mary must have been 70 ish years. Catholic tradition says Mary died around year 41 AD Orthodox tradition says Luke made a painting of Mary when Jesus was child It's too out there but I think that even if Paul met Mary that would still be a reliable telling of her story.
"Catholic tradition says Mary died around year 41 AD ". I think it's a claim firt made in the 4 th century by a bishop in Palestine, or even much later, it's not so reliable, even from a catholic point of view. In addition, claiming that she died for sure in 41AD would be incompatible with the catholic dogma of the assumption since the Acts seem to have been written in 62 AD but doesn't mention it (Mary would be around 80 years 'old at that time). Regardless of her fate, Luke certanly met John at least, and he may have met the mother of Jesus anywhere in the 50's, the Acts is not an authobiography of Luke, it is centered around Paul. But the story about Jesus childhood comes more likely from Mary or John.
2 года назад
Man you are good! You deserve more visits! Good luck may God help you
Some suggestions offered to me were that maybe Mary and Joseph got together and conceived Jesus but they themselves invented the Virgin Birth story as a cover up because they weren't married or that Mary cheated on Joseph, Testify thoughts on this?
Seems like an extremely odd thing to say when they bring Yahweh into it, saying that his power made mary pregnant. That would've been a horrible story to tell when the jews were notoriously devoted to him.
Just noticed the Hebrew word “Betulah” at 2:03 looks a lot like the English word “Bachelor”. (Edit: Wikipedia reckons it's from Old French, so probably just a coincidence.)
Do you think that inventing a virgin birth could be useful to Christian apologists since it explains Jesus' sinlessness and not interesting a sinful nature from Adam? Could this also be used as a counterpoint to suggest that Matthew even more was not wrong interpreting Isaiah 9 since theologically it would have been necessary for Jesus to be born in some miraculous was to avoid the curse of Adam amd became the second Adam?
This was a bit confusing from 1:50 through about 2:30. Na`ar does not mean "girl," but "boy." ("Girl" is na`arah.) Na`ar crops up in Isa 7:16, but that's nothing to do with his mother. The reason "virgin" occurs at all is that the Greek translation has parthenos ("virgin") for `almah--a possible if not common reading that fits the situation Matthew is describing. An `almah needn't be a virgin, but she certainly can be one, and in Mary's case definitely was. And, as Dr. Heiser has pointed out elsewhere, the Greek of Luke's account doesn't allow for the usual pagan script of a god having his way with a woman. So Matthew and Luke were right, and so are you, for the most part. If I recall correctly, Dr. Heiser just said that `almah doesn't rule out "virgin," so Matthew was right to follow the Septuagint.
There's a Jewish apologists on RUclips (can't remember his name) that happened to come across my feed a few months back . He made a few great points about Isa 7:10-25 . He insists that it's not a Messianic prophesy . He makes the point this way , "Look! THE virgin will conceive a child" . For Ahaz to believe the prophesy he had to know who it was about , Isaiah said THE virgin . One can conclude that she was known to them in this way , it made her distinct from the other women . So at the time of the prophesy she was a virgin but that doesn't mean she stayed that way . In the Jewish mind (at least this apologist) predicting a virgin will conceive is not a miracle since all girls are born that way . He also made the point that Ahaz was looking to God for help and asked , " Why would a prophesy fulfilled centuries later be a comfort to him"? I'm Christian and I believe the Bible but I wanted to give another view so people can what some Jews think .
Great video. A few days ago Tovia singer made a video accusing Matthew of corrupting Jewish scriptures to craft a Christmas story. The video was about 33 minutes, it would be awesome if you could check it out and maybe make a response video! Thanks
I can watch it. Give this video a watch and let me know if it covers any of Singer's objections. I suspect it might. ruclips.net/video/GF1qXXPVduI/видео.html
Hi Erik. I've listened to both Dale Martin's and David Brakke's NT lectures and they seemed to imply that Mark's gospel is an apologetic because early Christians expected Jesus to return in their lives and failed and Mark's passion narrative was made to explain away why Jesus failed to return. Do you have any videos that talk about this subject?
It's an interesting topic and one of the better objections out there, but I'm afraid Christians are too troubled by it. If the Gospels are accurate accounts of Jesus' resurrection then we're the ones misunderstanding Jesus (we've seen that before). To say that because they understood the message (of the timing, which is highly debatable) wrong thus they got the eyewitness details wrong is an incorrect leap.
@@TestifyApologetics It's definitely one of the most unique objections i've heard, and sad none of the usual NT scholars I view has talked about it. Maybe an idea for a potential future video?
Just had a debate with who I think is a Jew who really believes the NT is a lie and along with the virgin birth. I used the same information to inform him, but he is very stubborn. He threw childish insults. Calls me a liar over and over. Always had an excuse and we went in circles. All the while he claims he knew Hebrew and the OT better than anyone.
Whether it's true or not, I think it's obvious that the reason this story is included in the gospel is to convince the readers of Jesus' divinity. The criterion of embarrassment doesn't make sense here, because you're going to moments later use that claim as a reason to worship Jesus as the Son of God. The claim has clear pragmatic benefits.
I still don't see anything here which shows "evidence" of a virgin birth. But let's put that aside and deal with the colossal problem of Isaiah 7. Obviously Mathew's point in quoting this verse was to use it as a proof that Isaiah prophesized in this verse that there would be a virgin birth. According to Mathew, this should be the intention of Isaiah by mentioning this and this fact should have been clearly delineated by Isaiah when saying this. However, this is not the fact. The word almah is a general term. Can it mean virgin? Sure. But if the point of Isaiah is to say there will be this miraculous birth from a virgin, he would most definitely have used the specific word which actually means virgin which is besulah. This is clear many places that besula means virign. Just think about this. There is no question that alma does NOT mean virgin so why would Isaiah use a clearly general term to express this huge miracle? I'm not even dealing with the fact that this verse is all in the present tense, not future. I'm not even dealing with the fact that the context makes zero sense to say this is a sign going to happen 700 years later. The fact that Mathew has to make up the meaning of this word to justify a made up story is enough. Here's another thought if you think this majorly miraculous event actually happened. Why is it only mentioned by 2 gospels? Did Mark and John not feel it necessary to show how special jesus is? What about Paul? He mentions this nowhere either. You can't really tell me that Paul would not have used this as a selling point. Plus your attempt at saying that Mathew would not have said this to a jewish audience because it would not have gone over too well with them so it must be true is pretty silly. I got some news for you. None of the things Mathew said would have gone over too well with any jewish audience. None of this is evidence
"Did Mark and John not feel it necessary to show how special jesus is? What about Paul? He mentions this nowhere either. You can't really tell me that Paul would not have used this as a selling point." That's an argument from silence, which I deal with here: ruclips.net/video/xBUpyxaA1mM/видео.html
Why don't you explain the whole of Isaiah 7 verse by verse and in context. Why pick only one verse which whoever wrote Matthew used to point to virgin birth. Why don't you explain in context of Isaiah 7 the whole passage verse by verse. Why don't you explain the earlier sect of christianity the ebionites did not believe about the virgin birth. Why pick only one verse and explain it as if its relate to the context?
so good . informative . 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Great veritas
another point: it seems unlikely Christians would willingly invent a story that easily leads to accusations of sexual immorality against Mary and Joseph because of a premarital pregnancy, which we see in early anti-Christian polemics and the Gospels themselves.
Of course the virgin birth narrative was invented. It's an extremely popular trope in god mythologies. And if you have ever read the bible the anonymous authors of the gospels include a cover story so as to avoid accusations of sexual immorality.
Dont tell me you really believe parthenogenesis occured? Because if it did it would mean Jesus was a transvestite. 😳
True that is a very good point
Glad to see Dr Michael Heiser here!!
Thank you so much for covering the infancy narratives. As others have mentioned, we have so much content on the resurrection but there's really been a need for thoughtful, concise treatments of the birth stories and these vids have been super helpful for me, personally. Keep at it!
OR we could continue to investigate the complexities of ancient historiography instead of dismissively hand-waving it away to avoid the implications....
Thank you! I really needed this!
This is very informative. God bless you brother.
Your videos are easy to understand. Keep up the good work.
You are building a great framework for a goto apologetic channel. Your channel already rates better than the vast majority of all the others I have seen on RUclips. This channel is a Christmas present to all the people everywhere, but it is a lump of coal to RUclips atheists, but only the dishonest ones.
Merry Christmas To all.
Merry Christmas and blessed new year
Love it! Question though, what app ate you using for the artwork pen?
I have an idea; one criticism of Paul’s conversion is that he was hypnotized. Could you do a video on that perhaps?
Thanks for the suggestion but I don't see a whole videos worth of of content in that. Who would have hypnotized him, when, and doesn't hypnotism wear off? I don't know any credible scholar who thinks this is a real option.
There is no evidence Paul was hypnotized into believing that Christianity was true, and that he had an experience with the risen Jesus. All of our sources suggest he actually saw the risen Jesus himself, and no evidence that indicates it was some kind of magical trickery.
Its just an unwarranted assertion that relies on non-evidence. You shouldn’t stress about this contrived and ad hoc theory.
thats not really how hypnosis works..
"Bethulah can be applied to a virgin regard- less of age, whether young or old ; na'arah to a young girl, but. ' almah to a virgin in her girlish years. In the Punic language, which is closely related to the Hebrew, a virgin is similarly." ETYMOLOGY and BIBLICAL USAGE of 'ALMAH - jstor
There was information I gathered from a few years back that points to the [Virgin] birth. They found blood that had dried on the mercy seat beneath the hill where the crucifixion took place. When tested in an Israeli blood lab they realized that this was human blood but that it only had 24 chromosomes and that when rehydrated the blood appeared to still be alive. They noted that 23 of the chromosomes were x chromosomes and that there was only one y. This is unprecedented considering that all other humans have 23 x and y of each parent if male. There has never been another account similar to this one. I can post a link to the original video regarding this later. Edit in brackets.
Unfortunately there is no verification of that story at all. There is No actual evidence that the Ark of the Covenant has been found. In my opinion Ron Wyatt was desperate for new discoveries after his previous successes. Yes the discovery of the place of the crossing of the Red Sea is all but proven. The site of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably correct and the location of Mt. Sinai is the best candidate. Wyatt's location of Noah's Ark is untestable. But the fable you told is fiction. Even the location of Golgotha is uncertain.
Please do!
@@markhorton3994 the man that spoke of this event was not Ron Wyatt and I could care less about your opinion of it. I will post the video when I'm not busy.
@@pigzcanfly444 However your biology is WRONG! All mammals have one X or Y chromosome from each parent. Females have two X chromosomes and males have one X and one Y chromosome. Anything else is not normal but a few viable exceptions exist. For example the very few male calico cats have two X and one Y chromosomes. The Y makes them male, usually sterile and with health problems, one X gives then Black fur the other orange. The white comes from a different chromosome.
The idea of 23 X and 23 Y chromosomes is totally ridiculous.
By the way it is theoretically possible for a virgin woman to have a child but since she would be a clone she would be female. It is not known to have ever happened nor expected to ever happen.
The birth of Jesus is something else entirely.
The source of the idea that the Ark of the Covenant has been found under Golgotha is Ron Wyatt even if you got it through someone else.
@@markhorton3994 you have no clue what you're talking about. Human males have 23 of each from their parents. Xfrom the mother and y from the father. You rarely see more than one set of 23 which if found will cause deformation of various types in the overall physiology. We total at 46 chromosomes whereas Chimpanzees have a total of 48. This is the reason why many scientists believe believe humans have a fused chromosome set that points to us being descended from apes somewhere down the line. I don't hold to the evolutionary timeline nor the belief that we came from apes so I am just giving you what actual biologists have told me. No clue where you got the drivel that you spewed here about only having one of each. Have fun believing that if you want to. 😉
This was interesting. Videos on the historical reliability of the resurrection are quite common but I typically don't see apologists arguing for the reliability of other miracles.
You weren't at Wal-Mart!
@@TestifyApologetics miracles do exist!
After the video ended, I got an add about infertility. Not even joking, perfectly timed.
It’s so easily to learn from your video styles. I feel like even younger kids could learn this type of stuff easier from you. Keep it up brother, God bless. You’ll blow
If this come from the same guy who said Napoleon never existed...I can belive it.
Napoleon is a delusion wake up sheeple!
The only solid objection to the virgin birth would be Mary thinking Jesus was out of his mind in Mark 3:21. What do you think about this Erik?
It says "His family"
It makes no secret that His half-siblings thought He was crazy, there is only the opposite to say about His mother.
Its kinda cool to see the drawing process
The whole claim that Isaiah is predicting about Jesus in his passage, 700 yrs before, is ridiculous. Isaiah is telling that his wife is having a baby and christian bible has transferred the passage to future tense when in Hebrew it is in present tense. THE young woman IS pregnant..
I am almost done reading the legends of Olympus,and the gods there sleep with girls then they leave them to take care of the child,this in an endless repeat
I think Luke could have gotten Mary's story from Either Paul or James because in the Book of Acts Luke did never go to Ephesus (That we know of) and when he got to Jerusalem with Paul in year 58/59 Mary must have been 70 ish years.
Catholic tradition says Mary died around year 41 AD
Orthodox tradition says Luke made a painting of Mary when Jesus was child
It's too out there but I think that even if Paul met Mary that would still be a reliable telling of her story.
"Catholic tradition says Mary died around year 41 AD ".
I think it's a claim firt made in the 4 th century by a bishop in Palestine, or even much later, it's not so reliable, even from a catholic point of view. In addition, claiming that she died for sure in 41AD would be incompatible with the catholic dogma of the assumption since the Acts seem to have been written in 62 AD but doesn't mention it (Mary would be around 80 years 'old at that time). Regardless of her fate, Luke certanly met John at least, and he may have met the mother of Jesus anywhere in the 50's, the Acts is not an authobiography of Luke, it is centered around Paul. But the story about Jesus childhood comes more likely from Mary or John.
Man you are good! You deserve more visits! Good luck may God help you
Some suggestions offered to me were that maybe Mary and Joseph got together and conceived Jesus but they themselves invented the Virgin Birth story as a cover up because they weren't married or that Mary cheated on Joseph, Testify thoughts on this?
Seems like an extremely odd thing to say when they bring Yahweh into it, saying that his power made mary pregnant. That would've been a horrible story to tell when the jews were notoriously devoted to him.
Just noticed the Hebrew word “Betulah” at 2:03 looks a lot like the English word “Bachelor”.
(Edit: Wikipedia reckons it's from Old French, so probably just a coincidence.)
Do you think that inventing a virgin birth could be useful to Christian apologists since it explains Jesus' sinlessness and not interesting a sinful nature from Adam? Could this also be used as a counterpoint to suggest that Matthew even more was not wrong interpreting Isaiah 9 since theologically it would have been necessary for Jesus to be born in some miraculous was to avoid the curse of Adam amd became the second Adam?
This was a bit confusing from 1:50 through about 2:30. Na`ar does not mean "girl," but "boy." ("Girl" is na`arah.) Na`ar crops up in Isa 7:16, but that's nothing to do with his mother. The reason "virgin" occurs at all is that the Greek translation has parthenos ("virgin") for `almah--a possible if not common reading that fits the situation Matthew is describing. An `almah needn't be a virgin, but she certainly can be one, and in Mary's case definitely was. And, as Dr. Heiser has pointed out elsewhere, the Greek of Luke's account doesn't allow for the usual pagan script of a god having his way with a woman. So Matthew and Luke were right, and so are you, for the most part. If I recall correctly, Dr. Heiser just said that `almah doesn't rule out "virgin," so Matthew was right to follow the Septuagint.
There's a Jewish apologists on RUclips (can't remember his name) that happened to come across my feed a few months back . He made a few great points about Isa 7:10-25 . He insists that it's not a Messianic prophesy . He makes the point this way , "Look! THE virgin will conceive a child" . For Ahaz to believe the prophesy he had to know who it was about , Isaiah said THE virgin . One can conclude that she was known to them in this way , it made her distinct from the other women . So at the time of the prophesy she was a virgin but that doesn't mean she stayed that way . In the Jewish mind (at least this apologist) predicting a virgin will conceive is not a miracle since all girls are born that way .
He also made the point that Ahaz was looking to God for help and asked , " Why would a prophesy fulfilled centuries later be a comfort to him"?
I'm Christian and I believe the Bible but I wanted to give another view so people can what some Jews think .
So something has to happen in your lifetime to be a comfort to them?
That basically throws every single messianic prophecy out the window then.
@@InitialPC Well that was his point , he didn't think it was messianic !
@@claudep1464 You seemed to have ignored the second half of my comment.
Great video. A few days ago Tovia singer made a video accusing Matthew of corrupting Jewish scriptures to craft a Christmas story. The video was about 33 minutes, it would be awesome if you could check it out and maybe make a response video! Thanks
I can watch it. Give this video a watch and let me know if it covers any of Singer's objections. I suspect it might. ruclips.net/video/GF1qXXPVduI/видео.html
Hi Erik. I've listened to both Dale Martin's and David Brakke's NT lectures and they seemed to imply that Mark's gospel is an apologetic because early Christians expected Jesus to return in their lives and failed and Mark's passion narrative was made to explain away why Jesus failed to return. Do you have any videos that talk about this subject?
It's an interesting topic and one of the better objections out there, but I'm afraid Christians are too troubled by it. If the Gospels are accurate accounts of Jesus' resurrection then we're the ones misunderstanding Jesus (we've seen that before). To say that because they understood the message (of the timing, which is highly debatable) wrong thus they got the eyewitness details wrong is an incorrect leap.
@@TestifyApologetics It's definitely one of the most unique objections i've heard, and sad none of the usual NT scholars I view has talked about it. Maybe an idea for a potential future video?
Oh yeah. Hartke made a video on the topic, I am planning on responding.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks bro, since this is an objection that's on my mind, i'll be looking forward to it!!
every generation expects Jesus to return in their lives, and Jesus even admits that He intended for it.
Just had a debate with who I think is a Jew who really believes the NT is a lie and along with the virgin birth. I used the same information to inform him, but he is very stubborn. He threw childish insults. Calls me a liar over and over. Always had an excuse and we went in circles. All the while he claims he knew Hebrew and the OT better than anyone.
Whether it's true or not, I think it's obvious that the reason this story is included in the gospel is to convince the readers of Jesus' divinity. The criterion of embarrassment doesn't make sense here, because you're going to moments later use that claim as a reason to worship Jesus as the Son of God. The claim has clear pragmatic benefits.
There was no miracle birth given as a sign to king Ahaz. The miracle birth is the NEW BIRTH or spiritual resurrection as noted for Jesus Romans 1:3-4.
💖🙏💖🙏💖
I still don't see anything here which shows "evidence" of a virgin birth. But let's put that aside and deal with the colossal problem of Isaiah 7. Obviously Mathew's point in quoting this verse was to use it as a proof that Isaiah prophesized in this verse that there would be a virgin birth. According to Mathew, this should be the intention of Isaiah by mentioning this and this fact should have been clearly delineated by Isaiah when saying this. However, this is not the fact. The word almah is a general term. Can it mean virgin? Sure. But if the point of Isaiah is to say there will be this miraculous birth from a virgin, he would most definitely have used the specific word which actually means virgin which is besulah. This is clear many places that besula means virign. Just think about this. There is no question that alma does NOT mean virgin so why would Isaiah use a clearly general term to express this huge miracle? I'm not even dealing with the fact that this verse is all in the present tense, not future. I'm not even dealing with the fact that the context makes zero sense to say this is a sign going to happen 700 years later. The fact that Mathew has to make up the meaning of this word to justify a made up story is enough.
Here's another thought if you think this majorly miraculous event actually happened. Why is it only mentioned by 2 gospels? Did Mark and John not feel it necessary to show how special jesus is? What about Paul? He mentions this nowhere either. You can't really tell me that Paul would not have used this as a selling point.
Plus your attempt at saying that Mathew would not have said this to a jewish audience because it would not have gone over too well with them so it must be true is pretty silly. I got some news for you. None of the things Mathew said would have gone over too well with any jewish audience. None of this is evidence
"Did Mark and John not feel it necessary to show how special jesus is? What about Paul? He mentions this nowhere either. You can't really tell me that Paul would not have used this as a selling point." That's an argument from silence, which I deal with here: ruclips.net/video/xBUpyxaA1mM/видео.html
@@TestifyApologetics What's your response to Matthew using alma instead of besulah?
Why don't you explain the whole of Isaiah 7 verse by verse and in context. Why pick only one verse which whoever wrote Matthew used to point to virgin birth.
Why don't you explain in context of Isaiah 7 the whole passage verse by verse.
Why don't you explain the earlier sect of christianity the ebionites did not believe about the virgin birth.
Why pick only one verse and explain it as if its relate to the context?
I've done that in another video.
Godless Engineer tried to smear you with a response video. You ever gonna respond back?
Maybe at some point. Me and GE did a live together on this channel on Gospel reliability and undesigned coincidences
Na'ar does not mean girl
Yo
so good . informative .
1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that .
Amazing historical events are taking place there .
Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael
Jesus Huh kyung young Great veritas