What is the archeological evidence Bethlehem did not exist when Jesus was born. I always thought Bethlehem had a pretty well established lineage going back to 1300 BC. I mean I understand the moving of Jesus birth to Bethlehem was to fulfil a prophecy - But what is the evidence that it did not exist at the time of Christ.
If you don't believe, you shouldn't be a pastor. Your argument about a record of the census is an argument from silence, not a historically valid nor logical argument. AND, there does seem to be historical records for this kind of a census including in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. You just made a claim about Bethlehem not being occupied in the 1st century and presented no evidence or citations but I've seen digs at Bethlehem producing artifacts from the 1st century.
16 дней назад
I learned recently that the Jewish holy book was officialized in the second century. When they say "Scripture", what were they talking about?
What do mean that Jesus not being born in Bethlehem doesn't mean the Bible isn't reliable? If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the writers of those gospels lied to make him fit the prophecy. This is like what Muhammad did, saying he was foretold in the Old Testament. I think you should relook at your evidence though since there is plenty to support a census did happen and why would Luke, who has a ton of detail and was written around maybe 10 or 20 years after Christ (while Mary was potentially still alive) make up a census that happened not 50 or 60 years before? Historical records were not so rare that a census that big would be hidden. You call it amateurish writing but it’s weird for luke to do that thing if he really wanted Jesus to fit the messianic prophecy. On a side note: it wasn't that Matthew or John didn't care but that they had different perspectives as you mentioned in the end. The book of Matthew begins with the genealogy to pick up straight from the Old Testament and John writes to the gentiles with a proclamation that Jesus was there at the beginning of creation. So all cover the same message that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God but start it from a different angle.
>>"you should relook at your evidence though since there is plenty to support a census did happen" Plenty? Can you supply some, please? Evidence, I mean.
@@Sparhafoc The general agreement is that a census was called for in 6AD - the year after Herrod died, which Mathew did get wrong. And equally we know people were not expected to return to their birth place for such census. There seems to be reasonable evidence a similar census took place in 1 BC
@@glenchapman3899 "It was generally understood that Roman law instructed property owners to register for taxation in the district where they owned land. However, “…a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In the first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.”"
@@Sparhafoc You can look up Roman census records and see that the Romans were conducting censuses in their empire. This may have been the first decree to include all the provinces.
"I know I promised archeology" and that promise wasn't kept. No "archeology" was ever mentioned, only a single "archeologist" was noted: Aviram Oshri, and the claim not of ANY proof, but the absence of proof that the "biblical" Bethlehem exists (misrepresenting through omission Oshri's own claim not that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, but in Bethlehem in Galilee rather than Bethlehem of Judea). Oshri is a legitimate source and the actual "evidence" Steele lied about providing is a May 2012 discovery by the Israel Antiquities Authority of a bulla (a clay seal impression) bearing the name of Bethlehem that dates to the 7th or 8th century BC. It is a “fiscal bulla,” and an administrative bulla that was used to seal a tax shipment from Bethlehem to Jerusalem. This is the earliest reference to the town of Bethlehem outside of the Bible. The idea here is that the lack of other mentions means it didn't exist back then. Never mind that this would be kind of silly for the bible to reference a place that would have been completely abandoned to a people known for taking pilgrimages annually to important sites, basically inviting people to find out this supposed secret. But let's entertain this idea. IS there any evidence of Bethlehem being populated in that period? An archaeological survey of Bethlehem in 1969 produced pottery from various time periods, including the Iron Age II (1000-586 BC), Roman Period (63 BC - AD 324), and Byzantine Period (AD 324-638). Further, in n 2015, Dr. Shimon Gibson and Dr. Joan Taylor excavated near the Church of the Nativity. Their team unearthed an abundance of potter and artifacts dating to the first century AD. To quote Gibson: “This is the Southwest corner of the Church of the Nativity…We’re sinking a trench down to the early levels, and we have, without doubt, pottery dating to the time of Jesus. What we’ve been able to prove up until now is the existence of a village from the time of Jesus. This is very important.” Citation: S. Gutman and A. Berman, “Chronique Archéologique,” Review Biblique 77 (1970), 583. Quoted by Joel P. Kramer in Where God Came Down: The Archaeological Evidence. (Brigham City: Expedition Bible, 2020), 92
No one mentioned a Bethlehem birth "except for Mathew and Luke..." John 7:42: “Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” Why not Mark? Mark’s account starts at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, which is about thirty years after his birth. And so it says that “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee” (1:9) because that was his hometown where he grew up. In all appearances of “Nazareth” in conjunction with Jesus, never once does it say that he was born there. He “dwelt” there (Matt. 2:23) He was “from” there (Matt. 21:11; Mark 1:9) He was “of” Nazareth (Matt. 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 16:6; Luke 4:34, 18:37, 24:19; John 1:45, 18:5, 18:7, 19:19; Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 10:38, 22:8, 26:9) He was “out of” Nazareth (John 1:46) He was “brought up” there (Luke 4:16) He called Nazareth “his own country” (Luke 4:23-24) Both his parents lived in Nazareth before he was born and after (Luke 1:26 ff [the Annunciation], 2:4, 39, 51).
A lot of Christians really hardline the position that there are no factual errors in the Bible, and therefore can be no contradictions. As an agno-atheist I've always found this the hardest pill to swallow. Would you say that the places and dates can have errors, but the underlying message is always legitimate? Because that sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
"There was a really clear prophecy about where the Messiah was going to be born...so Matthew and Luke...find a way to get Jesus to Bethlehem...it just doesn't make sense..." "we have records from the reign of Caesar Augustus and this kind of a census would be noted in those records..." Ignoring how many fires and other loss of clerical records make that statement, well, "like the stories that kids come up with" he makes a great point. This census would have been a big inconvenience and a major, noteworthy event. Let's remember that Luke was written between 63 and 95ad (most likely before 70ad) and we know people were living into their 90s back then. So, Steele's claim, taken charitably but without his song and dance, is as follows: A book with a vital agenda to convince people that Jesus was born in Bethlehem wasted the incredible resources needed to publish back then to not tell a little lie placing them there but a huge one that involves a national event, at a time when the audience would be a generation removed from said event with every reason to question why they'd never heard of it, and surely some elders around who could personally confirm or deny. And not a SINGLE one of them challenge this stated historical event that is less than a century old. This is why we need to teach actual logic and skepticism in school.
A lot of roman records which was stored in alexandria was destroyed, not only roman but greeks, Phoenician etc so u cant say things with absolute certainty, but no one can doubt the historicity of Jesus atleast not a serious historian.
What I conclude is that Jesus has nothing to do with the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, this was done deliberately by some who wanted to create Judeo-Christianity. obviously the mistakes in the scriptures are not caused by the apostles, since none of them wrote the gospels, but those who wanted to shape the Christian religion with the aim of integrating it with Judaism
And how did He get back there? Luke says He was openly proclaimed in the Temple in Jerusalem 40 days after He was born, and then his parents returned to Nazareth, from which they returned to Jerusalem for Passover every year. Matthew has them fleeing to Egypt from Bethlehem up to two years later (they were still living in Bethlehem when the Wise Men popped in). Then, because they were afraid of Herod Archelaus- Herod the Great's son, but, strangely, not Herod Antipas, Herod's other son, who ruled Galilee- they decided to settle in Nazareth for the first time, which. Matthew assures, is the reason Jesus was raised in Nazareth.
John 7:40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.” Still others asked, “How can the Messiah *come from Galilee?* 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” John 7:28 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and *you know where I am from* ...."
You're just wrong: The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed. Augustus took 3 Census see "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus" Archaeological confirmation of Bethlehem as a city in the Kingdom of Judah was uncovered in 2012 at the archaeological dig at the City of David in the form of a bulla (seal impression in dried clay) in ancient Hebrew script that reads "From the town of Bethlehem to the King." According to the excavators, it was used to seal the string closing a shipment of grain, wine, or other goods sent as a tax payment in the 8th or 7th century BCE.
Actually, that never happened. Rome never commanded for any family to return to their homeland for any census, except for the one in Egypt regarding land owners. You were allowed to come back home, for whatever reason. But that's very different from a command. What you describe, would require Rome to grind it's economy to a halt. It's simply irrational. They really didn't care about such things either. The fact is, this idea has been debunked by historians for decades at this point. Dan McClellan, an actual biblical academic goes deeper into this on his channel. When a provincial census occurs, it will occur for a specific province. So you will see a census in Bethlehem, that is separate from the one in Nazareth that Joseph and his family would have been apart of. Another issue is that the date given in the Bible is wrong, Herod was already dead for a full ten years by then, which is another fact supported by the academic consensus. Could Joseph and his family had travelled to Bethlehem of their own volition? Sure. But the fact that the date given was off by 10 years, is one of the reason that the academic consensus doesn't support the idea of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Again, Dan McClellan, and I think Bart Ehrman, go in depth with this.
@@user-vx4jb6jx9r rome did command their subjects in roman provinces to go back to their homeland for taking census, even if they had autonomy as in the case of israel which was the Roman province of Judea but ruled by a roman approved vassal king herod.
The academic consensus is clear, what was claimed by the Bible never happened. I already went over the instance in which Egypt commanded the return of landowners, for economic reasons. I have yet to find any sources that are supported by the academic consensus that back the Bibles specific claim. The fact that the date the Bible claims, happened 10 years after the death of the historical Herod, hammers in the point it never happened.
But Joseph was not commanded to go to Bethlehem because he was born there, but because his his far-off ancestors lived there hundreds of years before. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Joseph was born in Bethlehem
The Messiah was predicted to come out of Bethlehem. Bethlehem did not exist in the first century. How can a prediction be made about a specific place when it does not exist? Bethlehem means House of Bread. How many of those existed in ancient times? Your discussion has more holes than a seive in my opinion.
Hi Jeremy. I am really sorry, but this is unbelievably silly. Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth because He grew up in Nazareth and began His ministry from there. Obviously, people would say, "This is Jesus of Nazareth". To say that no one lived in Bethlehem at the time is just daft! If it was true, people would have discredited the story from its beginning. Do you think that Matthew and Luke would not have known it undermined their credibility? Do you think every Christian scholar has failed to realise this amazing fact until you reveal it? Besides which, there is archaeological evidence of life in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago. I guess you are hoping that people will accept what you say without investigating any further, but even the slightest scrutiny shows that you cannot be taken seriously.
Who’s the archeologist that you’re referring to? I don’t think that you say a name. Otherwise you’re just appealing to authority… that’s a fallacy… I mean if it stands on merit that’s one thing. But you’re just saying “scholars” without citing anything. How do we know what you are saying about “records” is accurate. Who are the “historians”? I mean if this was a paper for undergrad I wouldn’t pass you.
@@skeptic.pastor No, Jeremy, you said that no one lived there (claiming unnamed archaeological support). You said it in support of your theory that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. Go back and listen to your own video. If you are going to make these claims, you need some sort of factual basis.
You say that there is no historical record of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth, nor any of a census; yet the Bible is a historical record. You should not call yourself pastor if you do not understand that the Bible is a more complete and trustworthy record than any other of its time. Man will lie and fabricate, yet God is not a liar. I will trust His Word over any that man puts forth.
No real pastor would call Bible a historical record. You are not a Christian if you consider the Bible (especially the translated version) a guide, instead of "historical record". The Bible is here to teach you about God and how to live, not teach you about history.
You didn't talk about archaeology, just mythology. I'm afraid you can't be a "deep skeptic" then go on to quote the bible as fact. Thanks for the video though, I did enjoy the laugh.
Much to appreciate there, but also much still left to criticize. Not least the post-truthism that I believe Western Christianity (specifically, US evangelical Christianity) has had an outsized role in inflicting onto the modern world. Additionally, the notion that Jesus being some portion of God born temporarily into a mortal body means he 'understands' us (despite omniscience and having created us with an intentional plan seemingly undermining this necessity) - is just a nonsensical notion. What humans have to go through involves an actual fear of hunger, an actual fear of dying, an actual fear of experiencing extended pain, an actual ignorance of their futures etc. - the god born into human body does not truly need fear any of these, or experience them even in a shallow way. Even Jesus' "death" on our behalf isn't even really the kind of death we'd recognize as such considering he's supposedly not 'dead' but the 'living god'. Sorry, it's your belief system, but it's such a mess of internal contradiction and conflict, it would take being a dumb literalist to believe it.
Hi Jeremy! I have an Agnostic criticism for you. All of this sounds incredibly silly because the human writers of the (many different bibles) are not trustworthy sources. I'm curious what archeological evidence you're going to mention, but I'm willing to bet five bucks it neither proves nor disproves anything specifically related to Jesus, the myth, the legend, the sexy saxophone player.😂😂😂
Hi there. This isn't agnostic. "Agnostic" means you don't know, but you claim to know. You make clear belief claims, with no evidence. Can you prove that the gospel writers are not trustworthy? Can you give compelling evidence for Jesus being no more than a myth?
@petercheyne actually, I tend to lean as an atheistic Agnostic. Because no, I can't prove the gospels are wrong. I can't prove the gospels are wrong in the same way you are incapable of proving aliens exist through a negative except to prove all other instances result in there being no aliens. It is. By far. The worst kind of logic to try and prove a bunch of words are false. I can likewise use many examples, such as, prove to me that Huckleberry Finn wasn't real. In short, it's not the same to expect good evidence to prove a thing already in doubt. It's bad logic to start from a place that is BIG QUESTIONS already true. Thanks for trying though? I guess...
@petercheyne sorrynotsorry 😃 😊 😀 😄 😁 😆 Edit: I think youtube deleted my first response. So I'll TLDR it for you. I'm an atheistic Agnostic. This is the most logical and emotional decision for me because it's illogical to adopt something in great doubt as true without REAL evidence. Anecdotes do not count. Human stories of miracles do not count. If you can't give me the same kind of certainty a scientist can with machines then I'm not going to go out of my way to act as if the big questions thing is true. You will have as much luck in 2000 years proving beyond every, pardon me, idiots opinion that Huckleberry Finn wasn't a real person. I hope you have a blessed day!
@@petercheyne I'm going to go on a bit longer if you care to read it. Note, please, that I'm not trying to destroy or persuade anyone that God isn't real or that Jesus isn't real, but the context of the 'evidence' and any and all limitations MUST be taken into account or there is no true accounting. I wouldn't parent without all of the information. I wouldn't cook without all of the information. I'm not going to make big philosophical decisions without all of the information. That said, the idea of Jesus being the savior IS THE CLAIM. Not believing the claim is not an unhealthy thing to do; in fact, such skepticism is mightily useful for the natural sciences and creating reproducible and mutually observable facts. Can you prove Jesus was the Son of God WITHOUT the Gospels? Any good evidence has supporting evidence. Can anyone here prove that Purgatory or Hell or Heaven or God's thumbs exist? I'm going to ask any theological person to re-read my original comment because, HERE's A QUOTE: *"...NEITHER PROVES NOR DISPROVES ANYTHING..."* endquote. Edit: Yes, I am of the atheistic variety of agnostic, but I also sometimes still talk (angrily) at the idea of God. I don't disrespect people that DO believe in the idea, but I DO NOT respect people who DO NOT understand what they claim to believe in. The many, MANY, different versions and compilations of the books in "The Bible" (I prefer to call them the bibles because there is no singular version) can be used to justify one thing and then justify its opposite. A holy text may be useful for the spiritual teachings of its followers, but you cannot expect others to always drink your kool-aid. I'm not even remotely done. I've got several others. *(coughcough)* I'm going to finish with my favorite: the crisis of Faith. You, literally, could not have a crisis of Faith if you could have the same kind of Certainty that a Scientist does. To pretend otherwise is to swallow too many illogical fallacies; and at that point, logic isnt going to convince you the sky is blue if you believe something different for EMOTIONAL reasons. :) Anyway, I still hope yall have a blessed day! If you cant wish me one back-- maybe it isnt hate in MY heart.
Hi again, Quintusentell. Thank you for your reply and your thoughtfulness about this issue. I respect your position. I understand the desire to have evidence before believing. I guess there's a couple of things I'd like to say - only from the point of view of thinking these things through. I understand that (for you, at least) there is insufficient reason to believe. My question would be: Is there sufficient reason for not believing? When millions conclude that there is a god (and many because they think the evidence is sufficient) and millions believe there is not, it would seem that there is no clear proof. It is a case of weighing up the evidence and deciding what you think it shows. Secondly, I think every parent parents without all of the information - in fact, with very little information e.g. about what will happen to their child tomorrow. Nobody has all of the information when they cook e.g. the precise chemical composition of each ingredient or even if an ingredient has been tampered with. But we parent and cook anyway, on the basis of the information we have and, beyond that, by faith e.g. trusting that the ingredient is OK. I know a purely evidence-based approach sounds very logical and rational, but every area of life requires some faith/trust. I think the evidence points overwhelmingly to there being a God and to the reliability of the Bible. You look at a different sampling of the available evidence and come to a different conclusion. Those are the choices we make. And some of it might be because of the evidence we choose to consider. May you also be blessed.
That's just not true. Look up the "historicity of Jesus" on Wikipedia for a summary. It's commonly accepted that there was a historical figure named Jesus (well, Joshua if you translate directly from Aramaic instead of going through Greek first) that was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the order of Pilate. Specific details about his life are more contested.
@@linuxsbc Oh dear. More BLIND FAITH. Have you heard of "Yeshua"? Come on child, the the whole FAIRY TALE is just "THE BIBLE SAYS SO". There are NO contemporary non-biblical sources for ANY OF IT. It's ALL MADE UP NONSENSE.
What is the archeological evidence Bethlehem did not exist when Jesus was born. I always thought Bethlehem had a pretty well established lineage going back to 1300 BC. I mean I understand the moving of Jesus birth to Bethlehem was to fulfil a prophecy - But what is the evidence that it did not exist at the time of Christ.
If you don't believe, you shouldn't be a pastor.
Your argument about a record of the census is an argument from silence, not a historically valid nor logical argument. AND, there does seem to be historical records for this kind of a census including in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.
You just made a claim about Bethlehem not being occupied in the 1st century and presented no evidence or citations but I've seen digs at Bethlehem producing artifacts from the 1st century.
I learned recently that the Jewish holy book was officialized in the second century. When they say "Scripture", what were they talking about?
What do mean that Jesus not being born in Bethlehem doesn't mean the Bible isn't reliable? If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the writers of those gospels lied to make him fit the prophecy. This is like what Muhammad did, saying he was foretold in the Old Testament. I think you should relook at your evidence though since there is plenty to support a census did happen and why would Luke, who has a ton of detail and was written around maybe 10 or 20 years after Christ (while Mary was potentially still alive) make up a census that happened not 50 or 60 years before? Historical records were not so rare that a census that big would be hidden. You call it amateurish writing but it’s weird for luke to do that thing if he really wanted Jesus to fit the messianic prophecy.
On a side note: it wasn't that Matthew or John didn't care but that they had different perspectives as you mentioned in the end. The book of Matthew begins with the genealogy to pick up straight from the Old Testament and John writes to the gentiles with a proclamation that Jesus was there at the beginning of creation. So all cover the same message that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God but start it from a different angle.
>>"you should relook at your evidence though since there is plenty to support a census did happen"
Plenty? Can you supply some, please? Evidence, I mean.
@@Sparhafoc The general agreement is that a census was called for in 6AD - the year after Herrod died, which Mathew did get wrong. And equally we know people were not expected to return to their birth place for such census. There seems to be reasonable evidence a similar census took place in 1 BC
@@glenchapman3899 "It was generally understood that Roman law instructed property owners to register for taxation in the district where they owned land. However, “…a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In the first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.”"
@@morefiction3264 I completely agree with you - But you must admit there is a difference between required and having an option to do it
@@Sparhafoc You can look up Roman census records and see that the Romans were conducting censuses in their empire. This may have been the first decree to include all the provinces.
I recommend finding a millstone.
"I know I promised archeology" and that promise wasn't kept.
No "archeology" was ever mentioned, only a single "archeologist" was noted: Aviram Oshri, and the claim not of ANY proof, but the absence of proof that the "biblical" Bethlehem exists (misrepresenting through omission Oshri's own claim not that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, but in Bethlehem in Galilee rather than Bethlehem of Judea).
Oshri is a legitimate source and the actual "evidence" Steele lied about providing is a May 2012 discovery by the Israel Antiquities Authority of a bulla (a clay seal impression) bearing the name of Bethlehem that dates to the 7th or 8th century BC. It is a “fiscal bulla,” and an administrative bulla that was used to seal a tax shipment from Bethlehem to Jerusalem. This is the earliest reference to the town of Bethlehem outside of the Bible. The idea here is that the lack of other mentions means it didn't exist back then. Never mind that this would be kind of silly for the bible to reference a place that would have been completely abandoned to a people known for taking pilgrimages annually to important sites, basically inviting people to find out this supposed secret.
But let's entertain this idea. IS there any evidence of Bethlehem being populated in that period? An archaeological survey of Bethlehem in 1969 produced pottery from various time periods, including the Iron Age II (1000-586 BC), Roman Period (63 BC - AD 324), and Byzantine Period (AD 324-638). Further, in n 2015, Dr. Shimon Gibson and Dr. Joan Taylor excavated near the Church of the Nativity. Their team unearthed an abundance of potter and artifacts dating to the first century AD. To quote Gibson: “This is the Southwest corner of the Church of the Nativity…We’re sinking a trench down to the early levels, and we have, without doubt, pottery dating to the time of Jesus. What we’ve been able to prove up until now is the existence of a village from the time of Jesus. This is very important.”
Citation: S. Gutman and A. Berman, “Chronique Archéologique,” Review Biblique 77 (1970), 583. Quoted by Joel P. Kramer in Where God Came Down: The Archaeological Evidence. (Brigham City: Expedition Bible, 2020), 92
No one mentioned a Bethlehem birth "except for Mathew and Luke..."
John 7:42: “Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”
Why not Mark? Mark’s account starts at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, which is about thirty years after his birth. And so it says that “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee” (1:9) because that was his hometown where he grew up.
In all appearances of “Nazareth” in conjunction with Jesus, never once does it say that he was born there.
He “dwelt” there (Matt. 2:23)
He was “from” there (Matt. 21:11; Mark 1:9)
He was “of” Nazareth (Matt. 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 16:6; Luke 4:34, 18:37, 24:19; John 1:45, 18:5, 18:7, 19:19; Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 10:38, 22:8, 26:9)
He was “out of” Nazareth (John 1:46)
He was “brought up” there (Luke 4:16)
He called Nazareth “his own country” (Luke 4:23-24)
Both his parents lived in Nazareth before he was born and after (Luke 1:26 ff [the Annunciation], 2:4, 39, 51).
A lot of Christians really hardline the position that there are no factual errors in the Bible, and therefore can be no contradictions. As an agno-atheist I've always found this the hardest pill to swallow. Would you say that the places and dates can have errors, but the underlying message is always legitimate? Because that sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
Okay but consider this.......your mother
"There was a really clear prophecy about where the Messiah was going to be born...so Matthew and Luke...find a way to get Jesus to Bethlehem...it just doesn't make sense..."
"we have records from the reign of Caesar Augustus and this kind of a census would be noted in those records..."
Ignoring how many fires and other loss of clerical records make that statement, well, "like the stories that kids come up with" he makes a great point. This census would have been a big inconvenience and a major, noteworthy event.
Let's remember that Luke was written between 63 and 95ad (most likely before 70ad) and we know people were living into their 90s back then.
So, Steele's claim, taken charitably but without his song and dance, is as follows: A book with a vital agenda to convince people that Jesus was born in Bethlehem wasted the incredible resources needed to publish back then to not tell a little lie placing them there but a huge one that involves a national event, at a time when the audience would be a generation removed from said event with every reason to question why they'd never heard of it, and surely some elders around who could personally confirm or deny. And not a SINGLE one of them challenge this stated historical event that is less than a century old.
This is why we need to teach actual logic and skepticism in school.
Wasn't Bethlehem a cemetery back in those days? And thus 'unclean'?
A lot of roman records which was stored in alexandria was destroyed, not only roman but greeks, Phoenician etc so u cant say things with absolute certainty, but no one can doubt the historicity of Jesus atleast not a serious historian.
I don’t think he knows there were two towns named Bethlehem then
What I conclude is that Jesus has nothing to do with the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, this was done deliberately by some who wanted to create Judeo-Christianity. obviously the mistakes in the scriptures are not caused by the apostles, since none of them wrote the gospels, but those who wanted to shape the Christian religion with the aim of integrating it with Judaism
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but remember Mary lived in Nazareth so that was where he grew up
And how did He get back there? Luke says He was openly proclaimed in the Temple in Jerusalem 40 days after He was born, and then his parents returned to Nazareth, from which they returned to Jerusalem for Passover every year. Matthew has them fleeing to Egypt from Bethlehem up to two years later (they were still living in Bethlehem when the Wise Men popped in). Then, because they were afraid of Herod Archelaus- Herod the Great's son, but, strangely, not Herod Antipas, Herod's other son, who ruled Galilee- they decided to settle in Nazareth for the first time, which. Matthew assures, is the reason Jesus was raised in Nazareth.
John 7:40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.” Still others asked, “How can the Messiah *come from Galilee?* 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”
John 7:28 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and *you know where I am from* ...."
You're just wrong:
The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.
Augustus took 3 Census see "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus"
Archaeological confirmation of Bethlehem as a city in the Kingdom of Judah was uncovered in 2012 at the archaeological dig at the City of David in the form of a bulla (seal impression in dried clay) in ancient Hebrew script that reads "From the town of Bethlehem to the King." According to the excavators, it was used to seal the string closing a shipment of grain, wine, or other goods sent as a tax payment in the 8th or 7th century BCE.
Actually, that never happened. Rome never commanded for any family to return to their homeland for any census, except for the one in Egypt regarding land owners. You were allowed to come back home, for whatever reason. But that's very different from a command. What you describe, would require Rome to grind it's economy to a halt. It's simply irrational. They really didn't care about such things either. The fact is, this idea has been debunked by historians for decades at this point. Dan McClellan, an actual biblical academic goes deeper into this on his channel. When a provincial census occurs, it will occur for a specific province. So you will see a census in Bethlehem, that is separate from the one in Nazareth that Joseph and his family would have been apart of. Another issue is that the date given in the Bible is wrong, Herod was already dead for a full ten years by then, which is another fact supported by the academic consensus.
Could Joseph and his family had travelled to Bethlehem of their own volition? Sure. But the fact that the date given was off by 10 years, is one of the reason that the academic consensus doesn't support the idea of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Again, Dan McClellan, and I think Bart Ehrman, go in depth with this.
@@user-vx4jb6jx9r rome did command their subjects in roman provinces to go back to their homeland for taking census, even if they had autonomy as in the case of israel which was the Roman province of Judea but ruled by a roman approved vassal king herod.
The academic consensus is clear, what was claimed by the Bible never happened. I already went over the instance in which Egypt commanded the return of landowners, for economic reasons. I have yet to find any sources that are supported by the academic consensus that back the Bibles specific claim. The fact that the date the Bible claims, happened 10 years after the death of the historical Herod, hammers in the point it never happened.
But Joseph was not commanded to go to Bethlehem because he was born there, but because his his far-off ancestors lived there hundreds of years before. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Joseph was born in Bethlehem
No one was commanded to do anything, it's quite clear that this event probably never happened.
Apart from being a deep sceptic...and a pastor. Did You ever visit a therapist?????
I think he needs Jesus. Sounds like he's from one of those progressive churches that worships sin, if you ask me.
The Messiah was predicted to come out of Bethlehem.
Bethlehem did not exist in the first century.
How can a prediction be made about a specific place when it does not exist?
Bethlehem means House of Bread. How many of those existed in ancient times?
Your discussion has more holes than a seive in my opinion.
Hi Jeremy. I am really sorry, but this is unbelievably silly. Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth because He grew up in Nazareth and began His ministry from there. Obviously, people would say, "This is Jesus of Nazareth".
To say that no one lived in Bethlehem at the time is just daft! If it was true, people would have discredited the story from its beginning. Do you think that Matthew and Luke would not have known it undermined their credibility? Do you think every Christian scholar has failed to realise this amazing fact until you reveal it? Besides which, there is archaeological evidence of life in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.
I guess you are hoping that people will accept what you say without investigating any further, but even the slightest scrutiny shows that you cannot be taken seriously.
I’m not saying that Bethlehem in Judea wasn’t occupied during that era the archaeologist I reference did.
Who’s the archeologist that you’re referring to? I don’t think that you say a name. Otherwise you’re just appealing to authority… that’s a fallacy… I mean if it stands on merit that’s one thing. But you’re just saying “scholars” without citing anything. How do we know what you are saying about “records” is accurate. Who are the “historians”? I mean if this was a paper for undergrad I wouldn’t pass you.
@@turnerkorotzer41it’s in the video.
@@skeptic.pastor No, Jeremy, you said that no one lived there (claiming unnamed archaeological support). You said it in support of your theory that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. Go back and listen to your own video. If you are going to make these claims, you need some sort of factual basis.
@@skeptic.pastor Where? What scholars did you name?
You say that there is no historical record of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth, nor any of a census; yet the Bible is a historical record. You should not call yourself pastor if you do not understand that the Bible is a more complete and trustworthy record than any other of its time. Man will lie and fabricate, yet God is not a liar. I will trust His Word over any that man puts forth.
No real pastor would call Bible a historical record. You are not a Christian if you consider the Bible (especially the translated version) a guide, instead of "historical record". The Bible is here to teach you about God and how to live, not teach you about history.
ruclips.net/video/LTRFJBvB_sw/видео.html
You didn't talk about archaeology, just mythology. I'm afraid you can't be a "deep skeptic" then go on to quote the bible as fact. Thanks for the video though, I did enjoy the laugh.
Much to appreciate there, but also much still left to criticize. Not least the post-truthism that I believe Western Christianity (specifically, US evangelical Christianity) has had an outsized role in inflicting onto the modern world. Additionally, the notion that Jesus being some portion of God born temporarily into a mortal body means he 'understands' us (despite omniscience and having created us with an intentional plan seemingly undermining this necessity) - is just a nonsensical notion. What humans have to go through involves an actual fear of hunger, an actual fear of dying, an actual fear of experiencing extended pain, an actual ignorance of their futures etc. - the god born into human body does not truly need fear any of these, or experience them even in a shallow way. Even Jesus' "death" on our behalf isn't even really the kind of death we'd recognize as such considering he's supposedly not 'dead' but the 'living god'. Sorry, it's your belief system, but it's such a mess of internal contradiction and conflict, it would take being a dumb literalist to believe it.
Hi Jeremy! I have an Agnostic criticism for you. All of this sounds incredibly silly because the human writers of the (many different bibles) are not trustworthy sources. I'm curious what archeological evidence you're going to mention, but I'm willing to bet five bucks it neither proves nor disproves anything specifically related to Jesus, the myth, the legend, the sexy saxophone player.😂😂😂
Hi there. This isn't agnostic. "Agnostic" means you don't know, but you claim to know. You make clear belief claims, with no evidence. Can you prove that the gospel writers are not trustworthy? Can you give compelling evidence for Jesus being no more than a myth?
@petercheyne actually, I tend to lean as an atheistic Agnostic. Because no, I can't prove the gospels are wrong. I can't prove the gospels are wrong in the same way you are incapable of proving aliens exist through a negative except to prove all other instances result in there being no aliens. It is. By far. The worst kind of logic to try and prove a bunch of words are false. I can likewise use many examples, such as, prove to me that Huckleberry Finn wasn't real. In short, it's not the same to expect good evidence to prove a thing already in doubt. It's bad logic to start from a place that is BIG QUESTIONS already true. Thanks for trying though? I guess...
@petercheyne sorrynotsorry 😃 😊 😀 😄 😁 😆
Edit: I think youtube deleted my first response. So I'll TLDR it for you. I'm an atheistic Agnostic. This is the most logical and emotional decision for me because it's illogical to adopt something in great doubt as true without REAL evidence. Anecdotes do not count. Human stories of miracles do not count. If you can't give me the same kind of certainty a scientist can with machines then I'm not going to go out of my way to act as if the big questions thing is true. You will have as much luck in 2000 years proving beyond every, pardon me, idiots opinion that Huckleberry Finn wasn't a real person. I hope you have a blessed day!
@@petercheyne I'm going to go on a bit longer if you care to read it. Note, please, that I'm not trying to destroy or persuade anyone that God isn't real or that Jesus isn't real, but the context of the 'evidence' and any and all limitations MUST be taken into account or there is no true accounting. I wouldn't parent without all of the information. I wouldn't cook without all of the information. I'm not going to make big philosophical decisions without all of the information. That said, the idea of Jesus being the savior IS THE CLAIM. Not believing the claim is not an unhealthy thing to do; in fact, such skepticism is mightily useful for the natural sciences and creating reproducible and mutually observable facts.
Can you prove Jesus was the Son of God WITHOUT the Gospels? Any good evidence has supporting evidence. Can anyone here prove that Purgatory or Hell or Heaven or God's thumbs exist? I'm going to ask any theological person to re-read my original comment because, HERE's A QUOTE: *"...NEITHER PROVES NOR DISPROVES ANYTHING..."* endquote.
Edit: Yes, I am of the atheistic variety of agnostic, but I also sometimes still talk (angrily) at the idea of God. I don't disrespect people that DO believe in the idea, but I DO NOT respect people who DO NOT understand what they claim to believe in. The many, MANY, different versions and compilations of the books in "The Bible" (I prefer to call them the bibles because there is no singular version) can be used to justify one thing and then justify its opposite. A holy text may be useful for the spiritual teachings of its followers, but you cannot expect others to always drink your kool-aid. I'm not even remotely done. I've got several others. *(coughcough)*
I'm going to finish with my favorite: the crisis of Faith. You, literally, could not have a crisis of Faith if you could have the same kind of Certainty that a Scientist does. To pretend otherwise is to swallow too many illogical fallacies; and at that point, logic isnt going to convince you the sky is blue if you believe something different for EMOTIONAL reasons. :)
Anyway, I still hope yall have a blessed day! If you cant wish me one back-- maybe it isnt hate in MY heart.
Hi again, Quintusentell. Thank you for your reply and your thoughtfulness about this issue. I respect your position. I understand the desire to have evidence before believing. I guess there's a couple of things I'd like to say - only from the point of view of thinking these things through. I understand that (for you, at least) there is insufficient reason to believe. My question would be: Is there sufficient reason for not believing? When millions conclude that there is a god (and many because they think the evidence is sufficient) and millions believe there is not, it would seem that there is no clear proof. It is a case of weighing up the evidence and deciding what you think it shows.
Secondly, I think every parent parents without all of the information - in fact, with very little information e.g. about what will happen to their child tomorrow. Nobody has all of the information when they cook e.g. the precise chemical composition of each ingredient or even if an ingredient has been tampered with. But we parent and cook anyway, on the basis of the information we have and, beyond that, by faith e.g. trusting that the ingredient is OK. I know a purely evidence-based approach sounds very logical and rational, but every area of life requires some faith/trust.
I think the evidence points overwhelmingly to there being a God and to the reliability of the Bible. You look at a different sampling of the available evidence and come to a different conclusion. Those are the choices we make. And some of it might be because of the evidence we choose to consider.
May you also be blessed.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Jesus was born AT ALL.
ONLY in the HOLY BOOK OF FAIRY TALES.
That's just not true. Look up the "historicity of Jesus" on Wikipedia for a summary. It's commonly accepted that there was a historical figure named Jesus (well, Joshua if you translate directly from Aramaic instead of going through Greek first) that was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the order of Pilate. Specific details about his life are more contested.
@@linuxsbc COMMONLY Accepted by Christians and FOOLS.
It's all INVENTED TRASH.
FOOD FOR SHEEP.
GROW UP.
@@linuxsbc Oh dear. More BLIND FAITH. Have you heard of "Yeshua"? Come on child, the the whole FAIRY TALE is just "THE BIBLE SAYS SO". There are NO contemporary non-biblical sources for ANY OF IT. It's ALL MADE UP NONSENSE.
There's no evidence you were born at all John Murphy. You are just made up.