Where were Joseph and Mary from? - Bible Contradiction #5
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 авг 2015
- Join us at: www.inspiringphilosophy.org
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Note* Most of this video in an answer for people who hold to inerrancy. The ending also provides an answer for Christians who do not hold to inerrancy.
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Please inspiringphilosophy. Make a video on how YOU came to Christ.
Thank God finally a philosophy account not dedicated to debunking the Bible on exaggerated claims! I try to explain to my (militant) atheist friends this (and other "contradictions"), but no matter how hard I try to explain they can't understand or try not to understand.
It's okay to be ignorant as long as they are willing to learn. But if they refuse to see it from the other side of perspective, they are just being bigots and they are not being very good friends.
Matt They aren't bad people. We like many of the same things, they are just stubborn. In the same way a democrat and a republican can be friends
Let us pray for your friends. Amen and shalom :)
It's funny the change of voice at the end ^^
He probably went out to do stuff, then he came back home, hopped in his bed and started falling asleep, but then he remembered he hadnt finished the video. Thus you have his tired voice LOL
Murri16 LOL, yep, that is actually what happened.
Wow, an revelation from angel to Joseph fits with historical account that Joseph could not knew without angel's revelation about little rebellion. Just WOW.
great vid
You are definitely from PA! (PEE-AYE) :) Awesome videos! I like them all so much!
LOL
Thank you
I don't think you should undervalue Joseph's sacrifice, he let it be known that his son was born by the holy spirit, knowing how he would be mocked
Thank you.
You should make a Christmas special detailing Jesus' birth, with all of the tradition taken out and all of the historical accuracies brought in. And maybe sometime later you can give us your life story and how you came to Christ :D
Great video! All of them have been around the Christmas story though. Are there other things you're going to do?
ὁ κατέχων Yes, I am going through them all starting at the beginning of the Gospel. I have one more with the birth narrative to do then I'll move past that.
***** Wow. Then I have a feeling this series will spand over a very long period of time.
ὁ κατέχων Yes, that seems to be what will happen.
Mark Williams yes.
So the gospel writers, and this guy from the video, know exactly what Joseph and Mary were thinking and doing. Did this info come directly from Mary and Joseph? Or how would the gospel writers know exactly what happened?
I find it hard to understand that in Matthew they say Joseph and Mary went to Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus should be called a Nazarene. If they were from Nazareth originally why did they need to go to Nazareth? And don’t you think it’s odd that in Matthew they don’t say “returned to Nazareth” or “their home town of Nazareth”?
***** the music is too loud again ! Just an advice :)
Waiting for more videos on QM and monistic idealism.
See you brother !
Hey IP quick question, is there any books that you would recommend an atheist read? And why? Basically books that, if they read with an objective mind, might cause them to really think about where they stand.
Gabriel Smock I would recommend "Dethroning Jesus" and "Fabricating Jesus." these books make a good case and they are written by scholars.
Well put and presented good job
thanx
As between Illinois and Pennsylvania, definitely go PA!
What is the movie name in 0:52?
I've watched this video and the related video about Jesus, Mary, and Joseph's travels between Nazareth and Bethlehem. One related question: Jesus is born in Bethlehem. In Matthew, Magi presumably show up about 1-2 years later in Bethlehem to see Jesus. After Jesus is presented at the temple in Luke 2: 22-40, it says that Mary and Joseph returned to *Nazareth*. Jesus' presentation at the temple would presumably be at about 41 days or so according to the law in Leviticus 12.
If the trio's location is Bethlehem at Jesus' birth and again at about 1-2 years when Magi visit, why does Luke 2 state they returned to Nazareth presumably when Jesus is about 1-2 months old?
idk if your catholic or christian but i would like to hear you take and the contridiction of the virgin mother and if she had childern after jesis or if she stay a virgin after giving birth (when the bible said she didn't) im curious :)
That would be nice
Why would Matthew and Luke end up with two completely different stories about the birth of Jesus?
good explanations, but turn down the music. Please.
giphy.com/gifs/turn-down-for-what-crown-the-empire-cte-bs21RypCiU5Fu
Am I right in saying Quirinius was the governor of Syria around the time of Jesus's birth, but the New Testament states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, is this a contradiction?
bonnie43uk See here: ruclips.net/video/luH581hVdXw/видео.html
***** Hi IP, you do make some good rebuttals to these 'supposed bible condradictions', I'm certainly no biblical scholar so I tend to take the bible as a whole with a pinch of scepticism. It seems to me, if God wanted us to be fully aware of him, there would be absolutely no doubt concerning the bible. The very fact that Christianity itself has branched into literally thousands of denominations gives me great cause to doubt his existence. Like me, you probably don't believe some of the more outrageous stories in the bible, talking snakes and donkeys, a man living inside a whale, etc. But lots of Christians do believe this. Wouldn't God want us to know precisely what was true and what wasn't. Wouldn't he want us to know exactly his thoughts on something like homosexuality. For me, I have absolutely no problem with gay people, our sexuality is our own business, so long as 2 people are happy in a relationship regardless if they are the same gender, what they get up to is none of my business. I also have issues with the whole crucifixion deal, and Jesus taking away our sins. If I do wrong in life, it's up to me to ask forgiveness to the person I've wronged, and crucially, that person does not have to forgive me if he or she doesn't want to. I do not want someone else paying for my sin. It would be good to get your thoughts on that.
bonnie43uk Well first off the thousands denominations claim is not entirely true: deeperwaters.ddns.net/?p=8501
Second, yes, He wants us to know the truth, but some people are stubborn and ignorant. Just because people choose to not research that is not God's fault. All the evidence for things like evolution is there, and people can study it or not.
Also, the choice about sin is always yours. If you don't want Jesus to pay for your sin, then you don't have to let Him. But if the Gospel is right you will never be able to do that. Jesus came because He knew there was no other way. We are so lost the only hope was to be carried by Him. But that can only be something for you to realize about yourself. Most people do not think they are that bad and are good enough. It is not a question as if one is good enough, but if one is good. St. Augustine struggled with this issue and pointed out no matter how good one thinks they are that will lead to pride and self-absorption, which takes you right back into sin. The question is can we get over that pride and accept we need a savior, which will free us, for more on that see this 6 minute video I have: ruclips.net/video/ezXufQWvIlw/видео.html
Maria kwam uit Morgenstond. Jozef uit de Transvaal.
This still doesn't address the fact that the easiest reading is that Matthew thinks Mary and Joseph started in Bethlehem, and only later moved to Nazareth. While the video is correct that the text doesn't 'necessarily' imply this (and that Matthew's silence is not contradiction), it's still true that it's the most likely reading.
For example, using this video's same logic, we could propose that the couple actually lived in, say, Sidon before moving (first to Nazareth, and then to Bethlehem, and then back to Nazareth). Sure, it's an incredibly awkward reading of the text... but silence isn't contradiction, right?
FiverBeyond Sure, it is possible Matthew was simply unaware of where they were originally, but knew they spent a significant amount of time in Bethlehem. That really doesn't create a problem.
I would argue it's not only possible, but more likely (more likely than the simultaneous coincidental silence from Matthew about starting in Nazareth, and silence from Luke about returning to Nazareth).
In other words, Matthew was mistaken.
FiverBeyond Yeah, it is possible, but it is really not a problem for Christians. Even if Matthew thought that, he doesn't say it, so scripture is not threatened.
Didnt Mary stay with her aunt until the wedding?
Please lower the music or use more peaceful music it’s distracting especially since you speak quickly otherwise great videos
Inspiringphilosophy, you've made arguments for the existence of God, but I've heard from someone that yes, there could be a god, but we don't know who that god is, it could be an alien. Can you explain or do a video on why your sure it's the God of the bible, I believe in the Lord Jesus, but it's just an argument that kinda bothers me. Thanks. Amen and Shalom :)
***** Yes, expect that series to begin this winter.
The Resurrection of Jesus makes me know the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
You can prove that there is a god......but why do you believe that Deisem is wrong?(without using your faith in the bible!)
I can't help but notice the ratios of likes to dislikes and the number of views. I have to wonder if it is the same people holding true to their own belief structure. After all, flesh and blood can not reveal this truth to men, only our Father in heaven.
One must expect the blind to behave as though they were...well...blind.
Hey can you do a video on the flat earth theory?
Matthew Pearson Why?
***** Because its argued against us that the bible dictates a flat earth thus the term "flat earthers" its stupid, but I would say do a video on it
DissonantZero yeah, I can get to that.
"Because its argued against us that the bible dictates a flat earth thus the term "flat earthers" its stupid,"
Well, it is not stupid. Everyone at the time the OT was written thought the earth was flat. Thus the writing reflects that. The bible never specifically states "the earth was flat" but there are something that only make sense in light of the fact that everyone at that time thought the earth was flat.
The real problem comes in when one tries to say that the Bible is the infallible word of God. (Like Ken Ham) If Christians would acknowledge the errors in the Bible, then there wouldn't be a problem. A Christain could say - yeah - that is what they thought back then - so what.
@@AIVSRelilgion Isaiah says that god sits on the circle of the earth. so many modern atheist thought it was saying that the earth is flat be cause a circle is flat. but in the 8 century bc Isaiah a circle meant to resemble anything spherical. the scriptures do this every time with the word fish in the story of jona and the big fish. also saying that a bat was a bird but it in the book of genesis bu bird meant every creature with wings.
Man the way he says Bethlehem..😂
Why did the 3 wish men ask Herod were is the Christ born ,so Herod killed all the babies 1-2 years old ,when an angel told them not to return to Herod ,why did not the angel tell them where to find the baby Jesus ?To create more drama to the story is not good
Mark 14:64
_They _*_all_*_ condemned him as worthy of death._
Luke 23:50-51
_Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, _*_who had not consented to their decision and action_*_; and he was looking for the kingdom of God._
So did Joseph condemn Jesus or not?
+Jackie “Pumpkins” Montgomery "all' is a simple understanding that the overwhelming majority condemned him. In 2012 america voted Obama into office, does that mean every american voted for him?
***** You'd have a point if it said _"the Sanhedrin/council condemned him"_ but it doesn't. It explicitly says "all" of them which includes Joseph. However, Luke 23:50-51 excludes Joseph. And of course, "all" of the US didn't vote for Obama so that example doesn't work.
Jackie Montgomery Again, I think you are turning mole hills into mountains. They all condemned him, because that was the decision of the council. Second, this is a general expression used in Mark, "all"
Like Mark 1:5, where is says, "all the people where going out to see Him." Clearly it wasn't every person in Jerusalem, but just a large amount of people. Mark 11:18 says "all" again, but the context shows not all the people were impressed because some where trying to condemn Him. The culture was fine with using "all" to mean a large majority.
***** But the Sanhedrin had a definite number (70). Those other instances of crowds are not measurable. How do we know Mark didn't literally mean *all* of them?
This makes sense considering the later gospels (Matthew and Luke) try to paint Joseph as a "good guy". Matthew turns him into a disciple and Luke says he didn't consent to their action. These details are conspicuous in their absence from the earliest source.
Mark invented the whole trial scene because there were no disciples there (he had no choice). Moreover, if Jesus was convicted of mere blasphemy then he would have just been stoned to death as was customary. There's plenty of evidence that the Jewish authorities reserved the right to execute people for religious crimes. There would have been no need to turn him over to the Romans. The gospels aren't giving us the full picture.
1. _Archaeologists have found two inscriptions in Greek warning non-Jews against entering the inner courts of the Temple on pain of death. Josephus (Ant. XV) also notes that intruders in this part of the Temple were executed._
2. _Talmudic texts, including the Tractate Sanhedrin, give long and detailed instructions on how a capital trial was carried out in the Second Temple Period, including what forms of execution were to be applied for what crimes and exactly how an execution was to be mandated by the Sanhedrin._
3. _Talmudic literature also mentions or details examples of executions being ordered by the Sanhedrin, with the names of the victims and of the court members involved._
4. _Philo of Alexandria matter of factly notes that anyone entering the Holy of Holies in the Temple "is subjected to inevitable death for his impiety"._
5. _Josephus mentions the execution of James the brother of Jesus and "some others" by the High Priest Hanan ben Hanan who "delivered them to be stoned" (Ant. XX. 9. 1)_
6. _Several NT passages involve or imply executions by the Jewish authorities. Stephen is depicted as executed by the Sanhedrin in Acts __7:54__-8:2 and the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix in Acts __23:25__-30 talks about Paul potentially being executed by the Sanhedrin._
www.quora.com/Why-was-Jesus-crucified
+Jackie “Pumpkins” Montgomery "How do we know Mark didn't literally mean all of them?"
- Because that is not the general theme of Mark. He is constantly using exaggerated expressions, to say things like, "They all follow Him" or " they all condemned Him" Plus, you do realize in Mark, Joseph of Arimathea is painted as a good follower of Jesus? It is right there in Mark, not just in the later Gospels: Mark 15:43-45.
"Mark invented the whole trial scene because there were no disciples there (he had no choice)"
- That is assuming there were, when John the beloved disciple claims to be there: John 18:15
"Moreover, if Jesus was convicted of mere blasphemy then he would have just been stoned to death as was customary."
- Not when the Romans did not give the Jews permission to execute criminals for crimes against the Roman State. Jesus was accused of claiming to be a king, which would be an offense to Caesar, which would be out of the Jews hands. Also note Josephus says James was only killed by the Jews because they cheated and took advantage of a short time period in between changes in roman governors. Finally, you do realize the Jesus of Jesus by crucifixion is, as Ehrman and Crossan say, one of the most assured facts of the ancient world? We even have secular sources attesting to it, even skeptical scholars do not doubt it.
Interesting how you mention Josephus talking about Jewish history with regards to the Gospels, but totally ignore the subject about the Slaughter of the Innocents as relayed by Matthew, but not mentioned by Josephus… 😄
Again you're not going to be honest about this they said that King Herod was out to kill the baby but historians have already pointed out that King Herod was dead before Jesus was even born and that Herod was not alive during the time of Jesus's birth or before Jesus was born it was actually a Roman who took over the position after he died and when Mary and her husband went into a foreign land to get away as they said from Herod it was actually controlled the place they went to buy herod's cousin, so historically speaking the Bible is wrong Herod was already dead before Jesus's birth,
I enjoy your series although I was startled by your statement that Jesus was born out of wedlock. Mary was betrothed. This did not mean engagement but was the first stage of marriage. That’s why Joseph was thinking of divorce. He did know of course that he was not the biological father of the child.
Still the same. It wasn't Joseph child so they would be rumors.
As you say yourself, there's no controversy here so I'm not sure what you are refuting. I wonder though, if you have an explanation for Matthew 28:1?
Most of the commentators agree that the synoptic authors are using the Jewish method for reckoning days and times when referring to events surrounding the crucifixion/resurrection. These same scholars say that, "after the Sabbath", in the Greek, does not mean after the Sabbath was over, but only "near the end of the Sabbath". The next clause, "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,"--which is not addressed with any detail by commentators--gives us our context, and proves that "inerrancy" is a lie.
The question is: How does this author (who is personally familiar with Jewish customs and who, we are told, is consciously using the Jewish method for time-keeping) write the words in Matthew 28:1--with or without God's help? The words are wrong, they are in error and no 1st century Jew would have written them. Sunday dawn is not near the end of the Sabbath. It is twelve hours after. Also, according to Jewish reckoning, it has never dawned "toward" any day of the week, since dawn is the halfway point of the day.
+Believer VS Beliefs The problem is that different sects of Jews debated on when the day began. The sadducees thought a new day began at nightfall, but the Jews from Galilee said the day ended at sunrise. So Matthew, just of the tradition, said the day began at day break.
+InspiringPhilosophy I have removed the last paragraph from my comment because it was too harsh and I really don't think you are a liar--just wrong. However, your explanation is plausible and, like I said, I don't really think you are a liar; BUT, can you site a source for your explanation? As far as i know, the Jewish day began at sundown, not sunrise.
Believer VS Beliefs Thanks! Yes, see the book, "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ" by Harold Hoehner
BethleHAM?
The background music is unnecessary. I love your videos but don't need the rock music to help me understand what you are saying. Inspiring Philosophy is one of the best things on you tube and I love it but please turn down the music.
Again not a real issue I’ve ever heard brought up by those proving the bible is false. No issue with the explanation either. Only thing is that it’s funny how Christian’s like to use Flavius Josephus as an “independent source” when Josephus was Jewish. To be clear, in the first century there was no real distinction between Jews and Christian’s. They were all the same religion. So to use Josephus as a source is saying one Jewish historian claimed the Jewish history was real. Well, duh, or course he did. That was his religion. There’s nothing valid about a Jew in Rome writing about Jewish history and claiming it comes from an outside source.
Contradictions? There are none that do not have an explanation. Errors? Yes. Are the critical to the proclamation and meaning of the gospel? No. There are no errors touching the major doctrines that constitute the orthodox Christian faith.
All supposition! Contrived stories with no historical basis!
Provide evidence please, don’t just say it.
@@Nameless-pt6oj it’s not for me to provide evidence. Those who assert a fact must prove it. You had better start looking.