@@petepayette6690 judgement day isn’t real and we all die alone 🥰and some book written 2000 years ago to distract themselves from the fact they didn’t have air conditioning isn’t going to change it
@@zNochanI’ve found the opposite to be true. Atheists know more about religions than religious people. It is probably why they are atheist. Pew research did a religious knowledge survey that showed this to be true in the US.
@@zNochan It's not a matter of hating religion, but rather hating the abuse, control and cruelty of religion. And religious people being ok with the abuse, control and cruelty of religion is disgusting. Atheism is not believing in a god. Nothing more.
Luke 2:39 says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.” Note that Luke does not say that they immediately returned to Galilee, and there is no reason to insert that word into the verse. (One could just as easily insert the word eventually.) The fact is that Luke doesn’t specify how much time elapsed. He simply says that, after their visit to the temple, Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It could have been days later. It could have been months. If we place the flight to Egypt in the middle of Luke 2:39, we have a workable chronology.
Let’s imagine you were questioned by a police officer.it. They ask you what you did from 5pm to 8pm. You respond with, “officer when I was done closing my shop I went home”. Now this is true, you did close your shop, and then go home. However, you have neglected to mention that you first went to the gun store on the complete other side of town before returning home. Now, I think any reasonable person would agree that you have lied to the officer, no?
yeah, so this is just a lie. quick read of both Mathiew and Luke gives you this timeline: Matthew - After Jesus was born wise men visits. Luke 2, 22 - After 40 days they went to Jerusalem which according to google maps is 2h and 2 minutes on foot. Matthew 2, 13 - after vise man departed they went to Egypt Matthew 2, 15 - they stayed in Egypt until death of Herod which is estimated to be 4 ad. Matthew 2, 22-23 - they went to Nazareth Luke 2, 39 - they went to Nazareth. Nice try, what is the next, so called, contradiction?
@@Scarred4life420 Yes. Yes, Luke did skip that part. There is no "timeline" contradiction between Luke and Matthew. Inventing a contradiction out of Luke's silence is a fallacious argument from silence. Based on Luke's account, it's not possible to infer the truth claim of Jesus going to Egypt. Luke does not corroborate, and he does not contradict either.
@@vincmontecristo439 How do you know Luke skipped that part? We don't even have definitive proof who wrote the gospels, let alone know what parts they skipped. You're probably just assuming that because it fits the narrative you believe. Given the fact that King Herod died in year 4 and Luke wrote that the family went to Jerusalem each year, which is at odds with Matthew where the family waited to return to Nazareth after Herods death. The bible is riddled with inconsistencies.
@@vincmontecristo439 so, if they went, and it's an important part, because of Herod and all that, it just gets dropped from the story later? I thought this was the life and times of the son of god. Guess nobody knows, so shy are we supposed to be believing in this nonsense?
it's important to acknowledge that silence does not equal denial. Luke simple doesn't mention it. Just like Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity- are we to assume because of Matthew's omission that no shepherds came? This isn't the "gotcha" they think it is.
Have you ever heard this concept called “verification”? It’s when you gather information to corroborate information that’s presented as true or factual. You have multiple people who are telling the same story but each story is told differently leaving out chunks of contextual information which results in a failure to provide proof that event happened and/or reasonable doubt that the event happened as told. The Bible is simply a historical fantasy. They use historical facts of their time and infuse fantasy and lore of their time like giants, angels, devils, gods, tragedy and hope to influence the reader.
Luke doesn´t use the word "immediately". Instead he states "when the time came". That´s the big thing you missed - maybe by accident, maybe because you want to spot a mistake -, which makes a period of exile in Egypt totally possible (according to Matthew) in between Luke 2:21 and 2:22.
Not literally, no, but it also doesn’t just say “when the time came”. “When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” Luke 2:39. The previous verses, 22-38, describe the “presentation in the temple”, which was a custom where basically every male child was brought to Jerusalem and “presented to the lord” and there’s some other sacrifices and ceremonies involved. Those are the “prescriptions of the law of the lord” it’s referring to. It’s saying that after they finished that part of the traditional birth rites, they went back home. It’s pretty cut and dry. Sorry. Even if that wasn’t the case, it would still be really weird to just leave something like that out. Don’t you guys ever think it’s weird that god would ever in any way make or endorse a holy text that was so open to interpretation in the first place? That there’s even surface level contradictions implies that it can’t be written by an all-powerful, all-loving entity. Like seriously think about it. Is that REALLY what you would do if you were god? Why would you make your singular* book of wisdom so dense, archaic, and varied in both tone and message? And like, no more updates or anything? Wtf? Why do all the religions you claim are bullshit have they exact same credibility problems yours does?
@@CRazY-zp3skit seems that you dont understand that the bible is a colection of holy text, it was writen over centuries, of course there is a difference in tone, it is considered holy because they speak about the word of god
@@rodrigovalle6466pretty every single much single major religion claims the exact same thing yet the all have major fundamental differences as well. Kinda weird, right? You seem to not understand that waving a wand around and declaring “IT IS SO” doesn’t necessarily make it so.
He doesn't know because the answer is not in the bible. You have to make an explanation up. So in the longer video he gives an example of what a christian would say, which is just basically a complicated set of events that are not explained in the bible. Just to force two different stories to coincide with each other. When they are clearly not meant to coincide with each other.
Is this the stupid era where godless alone people are theologian (yes, sure when they believe there is No God, No Soul and No afterlife, how they can be theologian if they do not believe in GOD? that why thery are all full of BS) but they are so obsessed with us, because they live by reflection of what other people believe and not really have a real identity? Ye, Obsession, and BS that what they have to offer, just like their cult called Atheims. (do not lie, that is just but an empty cult) No respect for you and your godless miserable life. (They really stands on nothing, that how their life is... Nothing , but obsession for what other people believe, because they got less sacred things in their poor life) then DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS NOT A CULT AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE GODLESS ALONE PEOPLE WHO STANDS THEIR MISERABLE ON NOTHING AND ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIIEVE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO ALONE AND JELOUS OF US; WHO HAVE SO MANY THINGS SACRED IN OUR LIFE THAT THEY DO NOT: NO RESPECT FOR THEM. Imagine to be a godless alone idiot (without God) with No God and no dignity, into an empty worthelss cult called atheism that does not lead anywhere but your own lonlyness run any time you see godless ass to kiss it, because you do not have God in your miserable alone godless life. what? Are you the godless alone idiot, you be f those instead him something done does when he stopped to believe in God? And that you removed God from your heart to put lies and shit from for this empty cult that both JG gives you, but BS and lonlyness... Let's hope this godless worthless generation will he over soon just as their stupid atheism. You are worthless to anyone, and also to you, godless alone (or Godless ass kisser without any dignity) LET'S BE CLEAR TO THOSE GODLESS PEOPLE... WE ARE JUST TIRED OF YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE;as obsessed idiots. That why they always come here "saying they were Christian", or "Saying personal stuff about themselves" or "Saying something superficial" or "Makes stupid jokes" or "Laugh as stupids" (They do that because they have less secret things in their miserable life)... As be a Christian or a believer makes you have more to have more precious things in your live, and much worst to be a godless and soulless desperate (alone) idiot. But any way... LET'S START AND SHOW HOW MUCH NONE WILL MISS THOSE PEOPLE AN THEIR EMPTY CULT WHEN IT WILL GO BACK FROM THE NOTHING IT COMES FROM... ALSO BECAUSE IT IS WORTHLESS... (And without God you are more worthless then the believers... that is simple the true). Why godless alone people are obsessed with God?? and talk about him more then a believer? Well for many reason.... 1) About that BS called atheism there is not much things to say, no value, no sacred things and and it leads to nothing. 2 And then because they know they are so many godless alone people that will run to kiss their ass... 3 they do that so this cult can be alive, otherwise is destined to vanish, exactly from the nothing it comes... because is nothing but a cult that has nothing to offer to us and neither to the godless alone people who belonged to 4 And finally this cult will be vanished without those videos and those godless alone people will be just alone. And who said the opposite is a godless alone hypocrite. This cult called atheism is so empty... And those godless alone people really have nothing to offer to themselves. They have less sacred things then us... what an idiots they are for that too. Let's hope in a better generation because this is so lost. You are into an empty cult that leads you nowhere... No respect for you, godless ass kisser.... You really left God to put BS and emptiness in your miserable Life. No Pity for you. (God is always you do not know)..... We need to move to a better generation, and Hope godless alone people like you will not exist anymore in the future (you are worthless your cult called atheism). What you realised that Atheism is just an empty cult? That Have nothing to offer to you, or to the humanity? It leads to nowhere? To the Obsession for God? For Christianity? That there is not comfort on it??? And that live and die as an alone godless person is not the best you can have? Just as have the idea that once you die you will be Nothing (and Nothing you are now, as you become what you think you will be once death) is not the best for your mental and psychological stability? Or have sacred things (as other people have) and you do not (such God) is so idiot that you are rething about everything and start to believe that Atheism is not but a BS, and a trap you are in???? They are patethic and worthless as their empty cult called atheims, which will not lead them anywhere, but a alone godless desperate life that they will never admit it. No respect for them. THAT IS JUST AN EMPTY CULT, AND WHEN IT AND THOSE GOLDESS WORTHELSS SOULESS PEOPLE WILL BE BACK TO THE NOTHING THEY COME FROM, NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. NO RESPECT FOR THEM AND THEIR NO SENSE CULT (godless ass kisser, with no dignity)... THEY BRING EMTPTYNESS as their cult called atheism... Shame on them and their desperation.... Anyway only a pathetic person can learn something from someone who explain you a thing obsessively that does not even believe... (with videos that are not helpful for their life...) WHAT AN EMPTY NONSENSE MODERN CULT YOU ARE TRAPPED IN, AND YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF........ Atheism is just empty BS, but those godless alone people are so sad to do not get... Let's hope in the new generation, this one is so lost, and none will cry when their worthelss atheism will be over. Your wortheless empty Atheism is dragging you to the nothing it give to you (and to us) but you are too pathetic (as atheism) to get it. No repesct for you godless ass kisser. No respect for you Godenier... You just worth as your atheims: 0. For real what an empty cult... when this worthelss cult will be over none will complain... Our faith is much stronger then your empty BS. Deal with it. (it is far better to be a God believer, then a godless alone person as you in an empty cult that does not give us and even to you anything)..... THIS IS A CULT, in which those godless patetich people does not deserve any respect.they life stand on nothing, and nothing they bring. Let's move on with a better generation, none will remember this one......
@@davidevans3223Is this the stupid era where godless alone people are theologian (yes, sure when they believe there is No God, No Soul and No afterlife, how they can be theologian if they do not believe in GOD? that why thery are all full of BS) but they are so obsessed with us, because they live by reflection of what other people believe and not really have a real identity? Ye, Obsession, and BS that what they have to offer, just like their cult called Atheims. (do not lie, that is just but an empty cult) No respect for you and your godless miserable life. (They really stands on nothing, that how their life is... Nothing , but obsession for what other people believe, because they got less sacred things in their poor life) then DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS NOT A CULT AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE GODLESS ALONE PEOPLE WHO STANDS THEIR MISERABLE ON NOTHING AND ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIIEVE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO ALONE AND JELOUS OF US; WHO HAVE SO MANY THINGS SACRED IN OUR LIFE THAT THEY DO NOT: NO RESPECT FOR THEM. Imagine to be a godless alone idiot (without God) with No God and no dignity, into an empty worthelss cult called atheism that does not lead anywhere but your own lonlyness run any time you see godless ass to kiss it, because you do not have God in your miserable alone godless life. what? Are you the godless alone idiot, you be f those instead him something done does when he stopped to believe in God? And that you removed God from your heart to put lies and shit from for this empty cult that both JG gives you, but BS and lonlyness... Let's hope this godless worthless generation will he over soon just as their stupid atheism. You are worthless to anyone, and also to you, godless alone (or Godless ass kisser without any dignity) LET'S BE CLEAR TO THOSE GODLESS PEOPLE... WE ARE JUST TIRED OF YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE;as obsessed idiots. That why they always come here "saying they were Christian", or "Saying personal stuff about themselves" or "Saying something superficial" or "Makes stupid jokes" or "Laugh as stupids" (They do that because they have less secret things in their miserable life)... As be a Christian or a believer makes you have more to have more precious things in your live, and much worst to be a godless and soulless desperate (alone) idiot. But any way... LET'S START AND SHOW HOW MUCH NONE WILL MISS THOSE PEOPLE AN THEIR EMPTY CULT WHEN IT WILL GO BACK FROM THE NOTHING IT COMES FROM... ALSO BECAUSE IT IS WORTHLESS... (And without God you are more worthless then the believers... that is simple the true). Why godless alone people are obsessed with God?? and talk about him more then a believer? Well for many reason.... 1) About that BS called atheism there is not much things to say, no value, no sacred things and and it leads to nothing. 2 And then because they know they are so many godless alone people that will run to kiss their ass... 3 they do that so this cult can be alive, otherwise is destined to vanish, exactly from the nothing it comes... because is nothing but a cult that has nothing to offer to us and neither to the godless alone people who belonged to 4 And finally this cult will be vanished without those videos and those godless alone people will be just alone. And who said the opposite is a godless alone hypocrite. This cult called atheism is so empty... And those godless alone people really have nothing to offer to themselves. They have less sacred things then us... what an idiots they are for that too. Let's hope in a better generation because this is so lost. You are into an empty cult that leads you nowhere... No respect for you, godless ass kisser.... You really left God to put BS and emptiness in your miserable Life. No Pity for you. (God is always you do not know)..... We need to move to a better generation, and Hope godless alone people like you will not exist anymore in the future (you are worthless your cult called atheism). What you realised that Atheism is just an empty cult? That Have nothing to offer to you, or to the humanity? It leads to nowhere? To the Obsession for God? For Christianity? That there is not comfort on it??? And that live and die as an alone godless person is not the best you can have? Just as have the idea that once you die you will be Nothing (and Nothing you are now, as you become what you think you will be once death) is not the best for your mental and psychological stability? Or have sacred things (as other people have) and you do not (such God) is so idiot that you are rething about everything and start to believe that Atheism is not but a BS, and a trap you are in???? They are patethic and worthless as their empty cult called atheims, which will not lead them anywhere, but a alone godless desperate life that they will never admit it. No respect for them. THAT IS JUST AN EMPTY CULT, AND WHEN IT AND THOSE GOLDESS WORTHELSS SOULESS PEOPLE WILL BE BACK TO THE NOTHING THEY COME FROM, NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. NO RESPECT FOR THEM AND THEIR NO SENSE CULT (godless ass kisser, with no dignity)... THEY BRING EMTPTYNESS as their cult called atheism... Shame on them and their desperation.... Anyway only a pathetic person can learn something from someone who explain you a thing obsessively that does not even believe... (with videos that are not helpful for their life...) WHAT AN EMPTY NONSENSE MODERN CULT YOU ARE TRAPPED IN, AND YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF........ Atheism is just empty BS, but those godless alone people are so sad to do not get... Let's hope in the new generation, this one is so lost, and none will cry when their worthelss atheism will be over. Your wortheless empty Atheism is dragging you to the nothing it give to you (and to us) but you are too pathetic (as atheism) to get it. No repesct for you godless ass kisser. No respect for you Godenier... You just worth as your atheims: 0. For real what an empty cult... when this worthelss cult will be over none will complain... Our faith is much stronger then your empty BS. Deal with it. (it is far better to be a God believer, then a godless alone person as you in an empty cult that does not give us and even to you anything)..... THIS IS A CULT, in which those godless patetich people does not deserve any respect.they life stand on nothing, and nothing they bring. Let's move on with a better generation, none will remember this one......
@@diegog1853Is this the stupid era where godless alone people are theologian (yes, sure when they believe there is No God, No Soul and No afterlife, how they can be theologian if they do not believe in GOD? that why thery are all full of BS) but they are so obsessed with us, because they live by reflection of what other people believe and not really have a real identity? Ye, Obsession, and BS that what they have to offer, just like their cult called Atheims. (do not lie, that is just but an empty cult) No respect for you and your godless miserable life. (They really stands on nothing, that how their life is... Nothing , but obsession for what other people believe, because they got less sacred things in their poor life) then DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS NOT A CULT AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE GODLESS ALONE PEOPLE WHO STANDS THEIR MISERABLE ON NOTHING AND ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIIEVE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO ALONE AND JELOUS OF US; WHO HAVE SO MANY THINGS SACRED IN OUR LIFE THAT THEY DO NOT: NO RESPECT FOR THEM. Imagine to be a godless alone idiot (without God) with No God and no dignity, into an empty worthelss cult called atheism that does not lead anywhere but your own lonlyness run any time you see godless ass to kiss it, because you do not have God in your miserable alone godless life. what? Are you the godless alone idiot, you be f those instead him something done does when he stopped to believe in God? And that you removed God from your heart to put lies and shit from for this empty cult that both JG gives you, but BS and lonlyness... Let's hope this godless worthless generation will he over soon just as their stupid atheism. You are worthless to anyone, and also to you, godless alone (or Godless ass kisser without any dignity) LET'S BE CLEAR TO THOSE GODLESS PEOPLE... WE ARE JUST TIRED OF YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE;as obsessed idiots. That why they always come here "saying they were Christian", or "Saying personal stuff about themselves" or "Saying something superficial" or "Makes stupid jokes" or "Laugh as stupids" (They do that because they have less secret things in their miserable life)... As be a Christian or a believer makes you have more to have more precious things in your live, and much worst to be a godless and soulless desperate (alone) idiot. But any way... LET'S START AND SHOW HOW MUCH NONE WILL MISS THOSE PEOPLE AN THEIR EMPTY CULT WHEN IT WILL GO BACK FROM THE NOTHING IT COMES FROM... ALSO BECAUSE IT IS WORTHLESS... (And without God you are more worthless then the believers... that is simple the true). Why godless alone people are obsessed with God?? and talk about him more then a believer? Well for many reason.... 1) About that BS called atheism there is not much things to say, no value, no sacred things and and it leads to nothing. 2 And then because they know they are so many godless alone people that will run to kiss their ass... 3 they do that so this cult can be alive, otherwise is destined to vanish, exactly from the nothing it comes... because is nothing but a cult that has nothing to offer to us and neither to the godless alone people who belonged to 4 And finally this cult will be vanished without those videos and those godless alone people will be just alone. And who said the opposite is a godless alone hypocrite. This cult called atheism is so empty... And those godless alone people really have nothing to offer to themselves. They have less sacred things then us... what an idiots they are for that too. Let's hope in a better generation because this is so lost. You are into an empty cult that leads you nowhere... No respect for you, godless ass kisser.... You really left God to put BS and emptiness in your miserable Life. No Pity for you. (God is always you do not know)..... We need to move to a better generation, and Hope godless alone people like you will not exist anymore in the future (you are worthless your cult called atheism). What you realised that Atheism is just an empty cult? That Have nothing to offer to you, or to the humanity? It leads to nowhere? To the Obsession for God? For Christianity? That there is not comfort on it??? And that live and die as an alone godless person is not the best you can have? Just as have the idea that once you die you will be Nothing (and Nothing you are now, as you become what you think you will be once death) is not the best for your mental and psychological stability? Or have sacred things (as other people have) and you do not (such God) is so idiot that you are rething about everything and start to believe that Atheism is not but a BS, and a trap you are in???? They are patethic and worthless as their empty cult called atheims, which will not lead them anywhere, but a alone godless desperate life that they will never admit it. No respect for them. THAT IS JUST AN EMPTY CULT, AND WHEN IT AND THOSE GOLDESS WORTHELSS SOULESS PEOPLE WILL BE BACK TO THE NOTHING THEY COME FROM, NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. NO RESPECT FOR THEM AND THEIR NO SENSE CULT (godless ass kisser, with no dignity)... THEY BRING EMTPTYNESS as their cult called atheism... Shame on them and their desperation.... Anyway only a pathetic person can learn something from someone who explain you a thing obsessively that does not even believe... (with videos that are not helpful for their life...) WHAT AN EMPTY NONSENSE MODERN CULT YOU ARE TRAPPED IN, AND YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF........ Atheism is just empty BS, but those godless alone people are so sad to do not get... Let's hope in the new generation, this one is so lost, and none will cry when their worthelss atheism will be over. Your wortheless empty Atheism is dragging you to the nothing it give to you (and to us) but you are too pathetic (as atheism) to get it. No repesct for you godless ass kisser. No respect for you Godenier... You just worth as your atheims: 0. For real what an empty cult... when this worthelss cult will be over none will complain... Our faith is much stronger then your empty BS. Deal with it. (it is far better to be a God believer, then a godless alone person as you in an empty cult that does not give us and even to you anything)..... THIS IS A CULT, in which those godless patetich people does not deserve any respect.they life stand on nothing, and nothing they bring. Let's move on with a better generation, none will remember this one.....
But if your mom said you were born and immediately went to school but your dad says you were born, went to you north korea, and then you go home and then you went to school, which person is correct?
@@kinguproductions438 read Luke 2:39-40, then read Matthew 2:13-23. Luke does not say immediately, Ehrman is lying. It doesn’t take much to refute this apparent contradiction. I wonder if Alex actually read the text himself to see if Ehrman was being honest. It’s easy to spread lies about the Bible.
@@kinguproductions438 The either guy already addressed this, but the gospels are very specific of when they use chronological terms like "immediately". It was not used in Luke. In fact, it has long been recognised that Judean writings (Matthew) vs. Gentile writings (Luke) are stylistically different. Which is why for example the Gospel of Matthew records many things OUT of chronological order just as Isaiah the prophet did and as the Book of Revelation is written. Now look, I believe that the original God-breathed Bible is perfect, so when there is a contradiction it is either a mistranslation or a manuscript error or a misunderstanding. However, in spite of this, there are many who make legit suggestions as to supposed contradictions in the Bible. I honestly believe that is one of Bart's weakest.
This is simply because historical accounts never agree completely. I am absolutely certain that if the Gospels did, everyone would claim they copied from each other.
@@Carlsbadman767According to church tradition, the 3 wise men visited Jesus in the manger in Bethlehem. According to the Bible, the number of wise men is not mentioned. It was enough to worry King Herod, who wouldn’t had been bothered by only 3 men traveling through his country. The wise men visited Jesus in Nazareth.
We witness a car accident the man crashes into a pole and flies out the window. I report he crashed into a pole. You report he flew out of the window Harmony definition: an interweaving of different accounts into a single narrative
But... If your son is the son of God, surely you aren't going to take a 200 mile round trip out of your way when you know a man is trying to kill your son right? You're going straight to Egypt where your son will be out of harm's way... These two stories don't work with each other. Although it's not quite as bad a contradiction as the multiple stories of the death of Judas.
If I report that a man went to work then came home. But you report that a man went to work, then went to Egypt before coming home. That's...a pretty big thing to leave out. It ain't just getting on a plane
If you think Dr Ehrman, one of the foremost new testament scholars on the planet, doesn't understand his subject matter but you, some random clown on the internet that can't even read Greek does... Well that's just a fantastically asinine level of arrogance, now isn't it?
Good thing theists don’t value the truth and accuracy of the biblical accounts. You share this simple point of fallibility with one and watch as they create the required apologetic.
Ehrman is again not being honest😅. www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html It’s important to acknowledge that silence does not equal denial. Luke’s omission in his narrative of the flight to Egypt cannot be construed as evidence that it never happened. Luke never says that Joseph and Mary did not go to Egypt; he simply doesn’t comment on the event. Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity-are we to assume because of Matthew’s omission that no shepherds came? Also important is the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke claim that he is penning an exhaustive account of every detail surrounding the birth of Christ. The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days-about a month. Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt after Jesus’ appearance in the temple. This assumes that Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and that they had a place to stay-the “house” of Matthew 2:11. Luke 2:39 says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.” Note that Luke does not say that they immediately returned to Galilee, and there is no reason to insert that word into the verse. (One could just as easily insert the word eventually.) The fact is that Luke doesn’t specify how much time elapsed. He simply says that, after their visit to the temple, Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It could have been days later. It could have been months. If we place the flight to Egypt in the middle of Luke 2:39, we have a workable chronology: 1) After visiting the temple, Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem. (In the month since Jesus’ birth, Joseph had probably sought temporary work there, and that work had become more permanent, perhaps. It’s also quite possible that Joseph was planning to resettle his new family in Bethlehem, thinking it would be good for the Son of David to be reared in the City of David). 2) Simeon and Anna begin spreading the news that they have seen the Messiah in Jerusalem (Luke 2:25-38). 3) Sometime later, the magi arrive at Jerusalem and confirm the news on the street that the Messiah has been born (Matthew 2:1-2). Herod sends the magi on to Bethlehem, where they find young Jesus (Matthew 2:3-11). 4) The magi return home a different way, and Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:12-13). 5) After a while, Herod figures out that the magi have disregarded his wishes, and he orders the slaughter of all males two years old and younger near Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). The “two-year” computation indicates that Jesus could have already been that old. 6) Herod dies in 4 BC. 7) Joseph brings his family back from Egypt (Matthew 2:19-21). Out of fear of Herod’s son, Joseph changes his plan to settle in Bethlehem and instead moves back to Galilee (Matthew 2:22-23). There is nothing in the above chronology that contradicts either Matthew or Luke. The only way to find a contradiction between Matthew 2:21-23 and Luke 2:39 is to make assumptions based on a preconceived bias against the veracity of Scripture.
@@James-ll3jb I don’t think there’s any doubt that these 2nd, 3rd or even 4th hand accounts can be reinterpreted or aligned as required, but this is only due to their ambiguity. Why do you need to fix these? To justify these inconsistencies that if we’re being honest must be acknowledged. You need to understand, when scholars like Ehrman, or any other(free of confirmation bias) analyse texts critically they do not seek to make excuses or make assumptions to “correct them” or fix them - they present the text as the text presents itself, along with the framing of historical context. Also, he’d actually agree that details missing doesn’t mean that thing did not happen, but it’s not his job to beg the question or assume. You say Ehrman is not being honest, no, that’s actually exactly what he’s being. He’s not faithful to your agenda, he’s faithful to the text itself. You’ve sourced some apologetics from a theistic source to argue his points, fine but when actual scholarship is challenged with a response that is defensive and fuelled by a presup position it immediately lacks any weight… to anyone considering the accuracy and critical take on the text that is… you theists clearly side with it, because you have to. You must acknowledge that Ehrman actually supports and even bolsters heaps of biblical claims that other atheist’s would seek to dismantle, again only due to his focus on presenting the text - he’s not driven by unbelief, his own wife is a believing christian🤷♂️ it’s only presentations like this that challenge the christian agenda, gets the heckles up.
@@notkamara you just baked an assumption into your proof. It's like baking a blackberry cake and then saying how can this cake exist without blackberry. My guy, look into cakes there are all kinds of them.
Nowhere in the verse does it state that "Immediately" Not mentioning an event does not necessarily falsify it when compared to another testimony which leaves room for that event
@@hunterhall1575 gotta say, this is the first time I've seen a text of any kind that doesn't say something, yet it actually says it, especially for just you to see.
@@Thess-wm8ke Never heard of synonymous language before? Honestly I've seen a ton of terrible semantic arguments, but this takes the cake. Does it take effort to be that stupid?
@@Thess-wm8ke Its literally in the fucking verse dude. It says when they left, and they didn't go to Egypt. There are other words for describing a timeline without using one specific English word.
This kinda stuff really makes my faith/trust in God stronger thank you Alex and Dr Bart. It's so wonderful to see atheists making the case against God with elementary mistakes and assumptions.
@@sigmaoctantis1892 ok and what if I don't believe in biblical inerrancy? I think he's wrong on this certain argument that it cannot be reconciled but friends since I do believe in the gospels when they're describing the events after Jesus is crucified there are some things that are written down that are confusing such as the number of women at the tomb. I don't believe any of the accounts are completely wrong on that certain subject but I do believe that they wrote their own perspective on what happened the way that car accident witnesses May give statements that are wrong in the smallest details but are right about the biggest details
@@jacksonogburn1782 If you don't believe in Biblical inerrancy, then I would expect you to shrug and say, so what, I know the Bible stories aren't perfect. However, what concerns me is that you say the Gospels are not entirely wrong and sometimes confusing and this makes your faith stronger. That sounds like a reason to avoid the use of faith rather than make it stronger.
There is actually a really really clear answer, if Bart cared to read the text he would see it. The account of Matthew, when they fled, tells of a visit from the wisemen. They stopped and told Herod why they were journeying, and it was because of their account that Herod charged his men to kill the young boys two years old and under. Now why two? Matthew gives the answer, "He sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old and younger, according to the time he has ascertained from the wisemen." A lot of people place this story immediately after Jesus was born, but according to when the wisemen started their journey, Jesus was at least two years old. Why did Herod kill the younger? It doesn't say but he was a man so thirsty for power they said it was safer to be pigs bread for his dinner table than his own family. So the fleeing to Egypt doesn't happen for at least two years after he was born, WAY more time than is needed for the accounts in Luke to be accurate. Seriously, if you can't see what is plainly written then you shouldn't critique it.
@@haggismcbaggis9485but that defeats the purpose of the gospels. They weren’t written for the purpose of being a neat, clean, and clear tale. They were written as eye-witness accounts. They are documentaries, not tales that must be combined cleanly for the sake of easy understanding by the reader. In fact, the tales not being combined cleanly shows that the authors wrote their own experiences down without consulting each other or they wrote what they heard/saw without caring what the others thought; inconsistencies actually give authenticity to the gospels. If the authors were making it all up, they would have wrote the gospels with each other in order to prevent inconsistencies. If you have two eye witnesses to an event, and they both tell the exact same story, they are both lying. If those same two witnesses have differing details in their story but the core of the story is unchanged, they are likely telling the truth.
I don't think you can say "at least" two years old. You can only say "at most". Probably the most likely thing is that Jesus was 1 years old and so Herod is giving a plus minus buffer to make sure they get him in case he looks young or old for his age.
@@samozeal9466 yeah I guess that's also a safe position. I guess I read that the wiseman started their journey when they saw the star and it had taken them two years to get to Bethlehem which is why the age limit was two years old. I would say your position does fit with the king's personality and mindset
I did the same thing in my adult I class on the accounts of Easter. And being the good believer that I was at the time, I was fully expecting to find answers to that question. Well, I didn’t, and I got ran out of the church and the rest is history.
@@reijishian2593 I’m not sure what else to call it. That experience didn’t cause me to lose my faith in any way, but I was definitely pushed out of my position as a teacher.
@@reijishian2593 I’ll attempt to answer any addition questions one would naturally have. I took a new job and was going to have to move in six months, so I would have been stepping down because of that regardless. Within a couple weeks I received an email from a member that I had only met in passing. (I grew up in this church, so I’m not understating that) they said my class was being hosted at their home and breakfast would be served. I thought it was strange that they hadn’t mentioned this to me beforehand, but I started calling my regular members to let them know about it. They had already been called and informed, so they were asking why we didn’t coordinate it better. I had no answer to that, but I apologized. Showed up at the home Sunday morning with my lesson prepared and I never got to give that lesson. They asked the members of my class what they had been studying even though I had provided my lesson plans to them ahead of time and they gave their own lesson. They went on to do an in-depth study of Roman’s, even though I told them that I had just done a month-long Bible study on that the previous month and that’s when I knew. I was being erased because they disagreed with me. That wasn’t the last time I went to church, not even that church. As I mentioned, I grew up there, my grandmother’s funeral was there. Most of the members loved me and the rest just meant that differently than if I were talking to you.
Do the various biographies of Churchill all tell the same episodes? Do the various biographies of Julius Caesar all tell the same episodes? Do all biographies of the same person tell all the same things? Of course not, it depends on what the author favors! Duh
@@dannymurray1854 Yup. Fundamentalist christians are incapable of critical thinking. They are so accustomed to BS in church and bible study. If you look at their politics-especially how they vote against their own economic interests-you see how powerful their brainwashing is. Still, the social scientists say their numbers are in irreversible decline presumably in a generation or two the Americansvwill be as secular as UK, AUS, NZ, Japan, W Europe, Canada. I would expect political extremism from the cultists who remain. Note the resurgence of vote suppression and white supremacy among the white evangelicals even now.
Lukes version was abridged, he ends abruptly not going into detail - the very next line says "and the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him"
Right in Luke the author says he was righting his gospel because the others had errors in it. So, who was right? Luke or the other books? Both can't be right. They didn't have planes or automobiles. It's not simply no possible that they traveled 100 miles on foot and hundreds more miles down into Egypt at the same time or even in a short period of time.
@@Atheistari Luke doesn't say he wrote his Gospel because others had errors in it, and eastern egypt borders the gaza strip, you could travel from the border of egypt to nazareth via camel in a couple days, 185km, depending on the camel breed, they can travel between 50km-190km in a single day.
Another contradiction. In Genesis "And God said to him, 'Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name" - Genesis 35:10 "And God spoke to Israel in a vision at night and said, “Jacob! Jacob!” “Here I am,” he replied." - Genesis 46:2&3 It is either a contradiction or Biblical god "went back on his word"
Jesus born in betlehem (mat 2:1 ,luke2:4) go to the temple in Jerusalem (only 10km) (luke 2:22) when herod chase Him,he went to egypt (mat2:14) after herod died,He went to nazareth (mat2:19 ,luke 2:39) what is the contradiction? it is like judas is he died by hang himself (mat) or his guts gushed out (act) the answer is he hang himself,then the corpse fell then his bowels gushed out it is not contradiction but different pov only this man is only a clever wannabe mediocre
And thus, Christians have been able to ignore the inconsistencies wherever they show up.......because to do otherwise would be to admit that God's book is flawed. I was in the church for ten years and had that experience many, many times.
I believe there is a possibility of error in the bible, the gospels were written by men at the end of the day But these errors are usually very non-trivial to the message being passed across, and as all other historical documents with bits and pieces of errors shouldn't be completely discredited for it However, I do believe that this particular scenario could be explained because of look's lack of specificity @ddhqj2023
I love that , "what is the answer to that ", "I don't know". And that is okay to not know, which is right , are they both wrong, could they both be right, and how? What I love about systematic theology is that it really tries to answer everything about the bible, but it cannot. That is okay. It's okay to not know everything.
What's important is not admitting we don't know everything, but admitting when there is isn't enough to claim anything. We simply don't have any reason at all to believe any of the events depicted in the Gospels ever happened.
The fact of the matter is... the stories need to coincide only if one presupposes that these stories are divinely inspired and are completely accurate accounts of an event that happened in real life. But if you don't presuppose that... then it is not hard to explain at all. The men writing the stories heard two different versions or chose to add different elements to the story, and they were not aware of the other author and the other version of the story. Of course I am not saying that they don't have elements of historic truth in them, even possibly accounting for true super natural events. But that doesn't mean that the authorship of the stories has to be supernatural as well. It is just more easy to just say that these are two men writing what they know about jesus and that at least one of them got the wrong information. Because they really don't look like they are supposed to fit with each other.
Well when the book you take as infallible and you base your whole life/beliefs/religion off of contradicts itself and makes obvious errors you have a problem.
It's historical! Except for the inaccuracies and contradictions...which in that case means why are you taking the Bible so literal?! There is an answer for everything.
The answer is Luke doesn't say "immediately". You keep saying that word to establish your premise, but it's there. You're premise is false. Take out the word immediately and there is nothing - Luke just leaves out Egypt, like Mathew left out the shepherds. No big deal. Gosh I wish I were one of your students and see the look on your face when you ate proven wrong.
I think he is getting confused, because in his mind has the classic Christmas story play of baby Jesus in the manger with the magi. But Jesus could have been 40 days old or 2 years old when the magi went to see him, then he went to Egypt. In Luke Jesus jump from 40 days old to 12 years old.
You just can’t seem to comprehend that these are gods people so teleportation is a possibility or god just opened up a portal for them, hey if someone can believe the bible they can surely believe god can create a way for them to use instant transmission like goku😂
It's very simple Sirs. In Luke's account in chapter 2 vs 38,39. Jesus was only about 8-10 days old. They had come to Joseph's hometown for taxation...and not to live their entire lives there. So immediately after, they went back to Nazareth. But remember, when Jesus was born fantastic mysteries happened as with the shepherds, thr angels singing, the prophecies by Simone and Annah. So after about 2years, Joseph and Mary went back to their hometown for a visit as every regular family will do. Infact Mary could have taken advantage to visit Elizabeth there. This time they are not lodging in an inn as hapoened 2 years ago. The wise men are led to visit Israel when Jesus is now 2years old. And this time Matthew's account says the wise men came to the House....Not the inn. Then Herod tries to murder Jesus by trial and error by en mass killing. Then the angel is sent to Joseph by dream to carry Jesus to Egypt. So Jesus is carried back to Nazareth when he was about 8days old after circumcision and also he is carried outside Israel when he was about 2 years of age.
The going into Egypt occurred some time after the birth since we are told that Herod commanded that boys up to two should be killed, not newborns. There was time for Mary to go to the Temple.
@@martinploughboy988 No that's not correct. The wise men visited Herod before they even had visited Bethlehem. So Herod knew about it even before the birth. The timeline doesn't add up.
@@Eddieshred The wise men started out after having seen the star which appeared after the birth. They had to organise & carry out their journey. Hence they first visit Herod long after the birth. That is why we are told: Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. (Matthew 2:16) "according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men"
@@martinploughboy988 Nonetheless, the wise men visited Bethlehem within the time frame of 40 days after the birth. And that's after they had visited Herod. The timeline doesn't add up.
And in the first Star wars movies (that are later accounts), they only had old TVs and equipment because of all the wars. Compared to the later star wars movies where all the ships were outfitted with complex technology and flat screen TVs, even though they supposedly happened before the first movies. You can fill any pothole you like with a sprinkle of plausibility and directed reasoning.
I think he is getting confused, because in his mind has the classic Christmas story play of baby Jesus in the manger with the magi. But Jesus could have been 40 days old or 2 years old when the magi went to see him, then he went to Egypt. In Luke Jesus jump from 40 days old to 12 years old.
Scripture does not say immediately! We are warned not to add to or take away from the bible. In doing so in this instance THIS MAN caused the contradiction! John didnt mention it because he was not so led to state so..period
One of the things I do with atheists is i ask them to be honest. Bert needs to learn from sesame street how to read what is written and not to add anything to the text. The Bible never said "immediately after birth of Jesus, the family went to Nazareth." So why does the account not mention Egypt? Because God in all his wisdom is telling the same story focusing on different messages. Its like when we teach a child anything new. We break it down in small pieces and exclude information in order to focus their attention to something we want them to learn. All humans have a difficult time comprehending, some worse than others. So if God wants to tell us something He will focus in on specific parts to make sure we don't get lost. In summary, these two books are not showing a contradiction, but showing the same story with one missing a specific piece of information for a reason, to help us understand Gods message.
Pls I'd give you assignment to read all four gospels on the resurrection and you'd seem to find contradictions but there are none. The Holy Spirit has caused the scriptures to be written in such a way as to stir much study and prayer. It shouldn't be read casually as a newspaper. The truth shall be revealed to all whose hearts are sincere to know the truth...but as the scriptures have said, He'd send the rich empty. We must conebto God with humble hearts etc not to scorn, belittle or find fault. Hear what Jesus said. " Ye do err not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God."
@@skindred1888 He claims: “How can Luke be right, if they IMMEDIATELY returned to Nazareth.” Where in the Bible in Luke can we find that “they IMMEDIATELY returned to Nazareth?”
@@المسيح-ل1ض that you quoting him, not him quoting the bible...how is this hard to understand ? Why are you pretending like leaving out travelling to Egypt and living there for perhaps years is nothing ? 😂
Really is not that hard to reconcile. Does it actually say the wise men went to Bethlehem? They inquired about Bethlehem; but if Jesus was in Bethlehem wouldn't He have been able to be found? Also have to ask yourself, is there anywhere in the Bible God leaves or details? The answer is obviously, 'yes'. Of Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth after the child was born, and if the angel led them to Nazareth rather than Bethlehem all is reconciled and the Word finds no contradiction. That is the very problem with Bible stories. Many are made up with information that isn't there. Usually the story is told with 3 wise men. Not there. Usually in pictures there is one very dark skinned person... they were from the east. We don't know if it was India, Mongolia, China, or even Russia; nevertheless the story is depicted and told with information that isn't there. The wise men come right after Jesus was born, in stories. But the information we have is Harrod killed the children from 2 years of age. Jesus could have been as old as 2. Telling stories with false information. Conclusion: when you read the words for exactly what they say, there are details left out. We life by faith. Faith that the God is who He says He is, the Word of God is true and accurate, and He loves us. (Not a conclusive list) He has given us all we need to know about everything written. Rather than trying to treat down the Word of as believers, our time would be better spent, as this video shows, trying to figure out exactly what it is saying. Christians spend too much time trying to make the Bible say what they believe. Let's just start believing what it says. Peace, may the Lord shine upon you and bless you and keep you this day and every day to come until His return, in Christ I pray.
So ... any God will do? How about Azura Mazda, the "Wise Lord" of Zoroastrianism? Or Shiva, the Hindu Goddess of Destruction? What about Ra, the Sun God of ancient Egyptian paganism? Oh, & don't forget Zeus, Greek God of Thunder & King of the Olympians! No, wait -- I know! The Supreme Being must be the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Blessed are those who are touched by His noodley appendage!! R'amen!!! 😂
The word which got translated as fool actually means villain/scoundrel/j*rk. This verse is meant for Jews in Babylonian exile, not you or me or anyone else. "ain elohim" is also not an expression of unbelief but an idiomatic expression for the fear, that God won't come and rescue you from your oppressors, when read in content. It has nothing to do with atheists. So who is the real fool here?
They say that Joseph and Mary went to Egypt and then eventually back to Nazareth. They would say Luke doesn’t contradict as he doesn’t say they didn’t go to Egypt. In both accounts they make it back to Nazareth.
But Luke quite explicitly says that they went back to Nazareth as soon as all their afterbirth rites with the baby were completed. "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him." In whatever place you try to sneak a whole trip to Egypt I think would be quite a dishonest interpretation of the text. Luke is clearly trying to give a comprehensive backstory for jesus' birth, that ends with jesus growing up into a wise child. It really doesn't leave gaps for a dramatic flight to egypt. Really the easiest explanation is that they are two separate stories about the birth of jesus with some common elements. It is only when one presupposes that they both have to be 100% historically accurate is when one has to bend over backwards to accommodate for both.
@@lieslceleste3395 Not sure if you are joking or if you are actually suggesting that Luke, to save papyrus, he edited out the dramatic part of the story where Joseph and Mary had to flight to egypt to save the life of jesus and to fulfill scripture.
I think I've heard people explain that away by saying that it is due to human error in transcribing God's word. If that is the case, then shouldn't believers be concerned about what else might be incorrect? If the Bible is the inspired word of God, and God is perfect, then shouldn't it be completely flawless? As Hari kondabolu once said, "I think the talking snake throws the whole account to question". ;-)
Simple answer to this - Christians get to decide what is accurate and not accurate in the bible, depending on how it serves their current argument. If you try to use logic, or general common sense, then that’s blasphemy and you’re a hateful person who will go to hell, courtesy of their all loving God.
@@sigmaoctantis1892 not really sure what you mean. My original point was that if you use logic or fact to disprove a religious claim, they call blasphemy rather than acknowledging what you’re saying. Maybe you meant your comment in sarcastic agreement idk 😅
@@MartyJackson Although Christians may call it blasphemy (speaking sacrilegiously), using logic and reason to produce a different opinion is technically heresy. As I pointed out, I was just being pedantic.
I think he is getting confused, because in his mind has the classic Christmas story play of baby Jesus in the manger with the magi. But Jesus could have been 40 days old or 2 years old when the magi went to see him, then he went to Egypt. In Luke Jesus jump from 40 days old to 12 years old. Also the Magi told Herod that the boy was two years old and under. I cannot believe that someone like Bart could get stuck in something so easy?
When the book you take as infallible and you base your whole life/beliefs/religion off of contradicts itself and makes obvious errors you have a problem.
It’s not necessarily a contradiction. It’s two authors writing what they think is an important detail to two different audiences. You have to understand the Bible as literature just as much as it is religious. The two gospels have moment of harmony and moments that appear to contradict because they’re writing two different books to two different audiences.
@@c2s2942genuinely asking does Bible contradict itself? I have seen many preachers saying it does and its not a problem. My question is why isn't it a problem? you base your entire belief system on a book and it isn't even accurate. Isn't that a problem?
Matthew knew things about Jesus's childhood that Luke did not, and vice versa. And while the stories can not be harmonized as written, the truth of the stories is not discredited. These are not exact histories. Ehrman is good at making mountains out of mole hills.
You do a little sleight of hand there by adding a word that is not in the text: "Immediately". That word is carrying a whole lot of weight in this supposed contradiction. In a more charitable reading each account is focusing on different parts of the story and filling in the gaps of the other.
This is not a contradiction necause after they leave and flight into egypt they stay until Herod has passed away and then go to Nazareth in Galilee. This would be the time in which Christ goes to the temple for the passover when he was 12. This is what happens when you take things out of their proper context and don't actually look at the entire stories or contexts
The persecution did not happen directly after Christ was born, but had been 2 years before Herod kills the men children. We k ow this because Herod orders all boys 2 years and under be killed, if it happened directly afterwards then it doesn't make sense to target anyone older than a year old. This is time for the presentation at the Temple and flight into Egypt maybe do a bit more research that doesn't just give you confirmation bias
It depends how you view the topic of inerrancy. The Bible - as far as I'm aware - doesn't claim to have no factual errors. It was written by human authors, divinely inspired. This still means they remember events differently, maybe interviewed different people, and heard different stories. The Bible does claim of itself to be "able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:15-17) Many Christians spend crazy efforts attempting to reconcile every little detail, when I don't see the Bible's truthfulness compromised noteworthily by narrative accounts clashing. If anything, if these were fabricated accounts trying to create an exaggerated narrative about this God-man, wouldn't they make concerted efforts to make basic facts line up? People weren’t that stupid back then either...
This would make the bible a poor means of communicating something apparently vitally important. Worse, if not inerrant then cannot be relied upon or quoted as to what we should or shouldn't do.
Like those verses in 2. Timothy I quoted, I do believe the Bible is fully dependable in relaying truth of how God is and how we should conduct ourselves in relation to Him and others. So as far as shoulds and should nots, I'd say it gives many specifics, but even more it provides a path/an approach to approaching the truth even on contemporary matters which it obviously doesn't touch on. For example, Romans 14 and 1. Cor 8 gives incredibly relevant perspectives on how to handle topics of conscience where the Bible doesn't provide a decisive, dogmatic "this is right".
For christians both versions are simultaneously correct. Even though the accounts contradict each other both are perfectly right. It's mental contortions like this that I despise about religion.
In the books they removed from the bible, Egypt is where Jesus learned to use his powers from magicians. Notice that the other gospels never discuss what happened to Jesus between childhood and 30 years old. The books they removed from the Bible do discuss this period
Two non-bible scholars and non-Christians poking holes in Scripture are amusing. I'm afraid even if they witnessed the resurrection, they would still be cosmic skeptics…😅 a heart problem, not an intellectual one.
@@oliverobama3279 a few things. Firstly, it’s not mentioned in Mark. Second, the whole thing seems quite a fanciful story. The whole census idea seems totally preposterous. For these and other reasons I strongly suspect Jesus was just a regular Joe from Nazareth before he became a charismatic preacher.
@@oliverobama3279that’s the way I think of all supernatural or divine claims. Until the supernatural is demonstrated using the methods that we have concluded get us the closest to representing our reality, I’ll continue thinking that ghosts, unicorns, and fairies are all tall tales as well.
Shame there is no historical account of Nazareth existing at the time, Roman maps show it as a necropolis, the first time mentioned in real history is post 150. Ad.
@@derekardito2032 there is evidence of settlements in the area for thousands of years. Seems likely it would’ve just been a “one horse town” in the first century.
Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem to present the new born infant in the temple. From there, they went back to their home in Nazareth. A short time later, the holy family decided to return to Joseph's ancestral hometown and Jesus' birthplace, namely Bethlehem in Judea. This is where Matthew picks up. When the Magi found the child Jesus, he was already up to two years old. Being told in a dream about Herod's desire to kill the child, Joseph left his home and took his family to Egypt until the death of Herod. Fearing that Herod's son Archelaus would search them out if they returned to Bethlehem, the holy family once again returned to Nazareth and settled there.
Luke 2:41, two sentences after saying they returned to Nazareth, says that the family returned to Jerusalem annually. It would make sense for them to stay ~5 miles away in Bethlehem with family for this.
Yes, with a little bit of imagination, that timeline seems to agree with the story of the Magi, likely early students of the starry nights. It's common sense to think that they took their time charting the course of the star, consulting the Hebrew scriptures, then meeting each other and getting all hyped about it, then starting to talk about plans to travel west, then preparing for the long trip, then the trip itself.... Two years from the birth seems very plausible. The Magi paying homage to the child King laying in a manger looks nice in Nativity sets, but Matthew clearly states that, after meeting Herod in Jerusalem (they probably lingered there for a while too, for the star had disappeared, and they waited for an audience with the king...) they saw the star again and followed it up to Bethlehem "till it came to rest over the place where the child was.... and going into the *house* they saw the child with Mary his mother." Not a stable: a"house." In a recent debate, Jimmy Akin stumped Bart Ehrman with the hypothesis that maybe, after the birth in the stable, Joseph decided to buy a second house in Bethlehem. It could also be an inherited house, since Joseph's family was from there... What I find dishonest about Bart Ehrman is that I've seen him in debates with Jimmy Akin, and other Christian apologists that know what he's talking about, hear counter arguments to his bizarre theories; but when talks to an audience of people who are sorely lacking in the requisite knowledge of historical facts and scholarship, he takes advantage of their ignorance and relapses into his tired outlandish claims that made him so much bestsellers money, completely ignoring the arguments that pretty much undress the nonsense of his fanciful theories.
What I find dishonest about apologists is that they begin by saying, let us assume that this set of narratives from the ancient world is true, and then invent additional bits to “save” the theory.An honest person would say, it is like a lot of pre-scientific “historical” narrative: these people repeated and recorded both facts and legends indiscriminately, and now we can’t say which is which. There is a lovely story about the playwright Aeschylus that he died when a bird, mistaking his bald head for a rock, dropped a tortoise on it, to crack open the carapace. Is it true? We will never know. Doesn’t matter. The plays are good. The 17th century antiquarian, John Aubry, collected and published stories about famous English people of his times. Are they true? Surely many are pure fiction Does it matter? Not so long as you understand these are not strictly history. So to the gospel stories. If these are inerrant god narratives, then why self-inconsistent? If human productions, then pre-modern “histories”, surely, collections of facts, myths, legends, inextricably mixed. To whom does it matter? To those who already assume that they are, in some sense, both “true” and “important”. But that is begging the question, not addressing it. Me, I choose to believe, without real evidence, that Aeschylus died because a tortoise fell on his head. I also choose to believe that there was a swine herd in ancient Judea whose employer was furious because the pigs drowned, and the friends of the sorcerer didn’t offer any compensation.@@xaviervelascosuarez
The fact that he was asked “what’s the answer from a Christian Perspective” and says “I don’t know” shows he either did not try and hear an argument that attempts to explain his claim of contradiction, or he didn’t like it and just didn’t want to present it. Either way does not reflect well, we should always try and hear out possible explanations people have for problems with their belief systems before you go around speaking of it as a huge gotcha; you do not have to be convinced but you should at least be aware. Just by looking at the text from Luke that flashed on screen it technically does not say they returned immediately tho obviously it is heavily implied. It may be that the author of Luke wanted to spend more time discussing the traditional jewish rituals Jesus went through as a child instead of exactly where he went to as a child. The fact that Luke was almost certainly written after Matthew (and likely by a good few years) it is unlikely the author of Luke would have not read Matthew’s gospel. So if there is a difference in accounts it is at least somewhat likely a deliberate one.
I don’t think he says “from a Christian perspective”, which completely changes the question. It’s kind of hard to hear but I certainly don’t think Bart hears him say “from a Christian perspective” even if that’s what is said.
@@shankz8854 It’s in the captions, he repeats and Ehrman says I don’t know again, tho it is very possible he didn’t hear. But even if he didn’t I feel that can be assumed. If he said “there have been attempts, but not any good ones” that would more so Imply that he has at least heard the answers and rejects them
@@princegobi5992 one can have been a christian and not be familiar with every single minute christian argument. Him saying he doesn’t know what the counter argument to a fairly well known point of contention doesn’t really make sense knowing him to be a biblical scholar but it’s not impossible. If he does know but claims not to here that doesn’t bode well either. I’ve seen some responses to and videos of Ehrman that I haven’t liked all that much but am not judging him overall as I’m not personally familiar with his work. I just think that in this (very brief) video he doesn’t come across very well
Read this...: A Harmonized Birth Narrative Based on the accounts in Matthew and Luke, here's a possible harmonized version of the birth of Jesus: Mary and Joseph were betrothed. Before they could marry, Mary discovered she was pregnant. An angel appeared to her and explained that she would conceive a son by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, initially confused, was reassured by an angel in a dream. The time came for Mary to give birth. They traveled to Bethlehem, the city of David, for the census. There, in a stable or manger, Mary gave birth to her son, Jesus. Shepherds nearby were visited by angels who announced the birth of the Savior. They went to Bethlehem and found Jesus. The Magi, wise men from the East, also followed a star to Bethlehem. They presented gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus. King Herod, hearing about the birth of a new king, became jealous and ordered the killing of all male children under two years old in Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary, warned by an angel, fled to Egypt. They stayed there until Herod died, then returned to Nazareth.
You have to read more carefully also may help you to read original greek transl. Holy spirit makes this totally understandable, while the non-elect surrender to calling it contradiction...by Divine design. The Holy Bible is absolutely without contradiction
Ah, yes, the usual Ehrman nonsense. Who cares what he says? He's lied so often about the gospels and the Bible that at this point it reflects badly on the channels inviting him.
The amazing thing is that out of the many centuries of thousands of people studying these passages, this brilliant man has found something that nobody else saw. He is a god in his own mind.
No. Theologians have seen these things for centuries. The problem is that modern western readers, both Christian and atheist, read the bible as though it's supposed to be an infallible perfect history. No one read the bible like that before modern times.
Gandalf meets Frodo He finds the ring Gandalf researches the ring Frodo moves to a different city I can make a science fiction list of anything, doesn't mean it's true.
Who used that of proof of it being true? Rather the argument he makes is that scripture internally contradicts (which it doesn’t) rather than a historical argument.
@@ElvisI97 Haven't you realized that what you believe in, is entirely determined by the environment where you were born and your peers and parents who indoctrinated you? If you had been born in India or Saudi Arabia, which religion would you have had? This worship and entity has a lot of power over you.. food for thought haven't you noticed?
@@PeterMasalski93 your argument isn’t logical. In fact it is a fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is the act of rejecting or accepting an argument on the basis of its origin rather than its content. It’s irrelevant where someone learned something when it comes to the truthfulness/correctness of a belief. If I learned 2+2=4 from a mass murderer, that doesn’t by itself falsify that 2+2=4. Same way, it doesn’t falsify Christianity if I was exposed to a place in the world where Christianity is held. In fact, there are many who come to Christ from places where Christianity is the minority view. Either way it says nothing about whether Christianity is true or false.
@@ElvisI97it doesn’t falsify the claims of Christianity, but it should give you pause when considering the truth claims of the Bible. Also, the example you gave was awful when we have objective standards in the laws of math, religion doesn’t have anything resembling that.
@@princegobi5992 it was a simple example to reveal how such argumentation is fallacious. I never once argued that Christianity restrained to a strict empirical paradigm like math. It doesn’t matter what I or you think about Christianity. If Christianity is true, Jesus is Lord and He demands our submission. That’s it.
okay but genuinely this is horrible theology. First go back to the most original forms of hebrew text. pull that up LIVE so u aren’t bsing. Then get the best translations and explanations from the top pastors or theologians. At least try atheists this is just annoying
Matthew's account said the family's hometown is Bethlehem, they escaped to Egypt because Herod will kill the babies under 2 years. When they heard Herod's death they back to the land of Israel. But they can't go back to Bethlehem so they lived in Nazareth. Luke's account said they went from Nazareth, their hometown, to Bethlehem for a cencus held by Quirinius (that's in 6 CE - ten years after the death of Herod). Then they back to their hometown Nazareth. * Clear contradiction. It's not someone had skipped the story, because you'll never be able to reconcile between the two stories.
The wisemen would have gotten there closer to Jesus second birthday than the day of his birth and that is when Harrod became aware of him so please get your facts straight
Goodness gracious, I adore Dr. Bart Ehrman so much. A brilliant scholar who really helped me step away from the severity of churches and value what truly matters - truth, love, and uplifting one another.
This guy is not brilliant at all. He's either deceptive or ignorant... the way he asks the question limits the details. The wise men didn't show up on the scene until about 2 years later, which is why Herod orders all baby boys aged 2 or younger to be killed. Otherwise, he would have ordered all newborn babies killed. You can probably also figure this out with Google maps by finding out how long it would take to walk from the far East to Jerusalem and add some time to it since the wise men wouldn't have had the modern conveniences that make travel easier, like paved roads.
You really encouraged me with this video, I was feeling agitated with the confusion before watching this video because I’m going through deconstruction and I gotta say, I’m complete atheist after watching this video and my minds at rest, I have no reason to struggle anymore after what you just discussed so thank you Kristi.
Or what? Then I’ll be doomed to hell? Not a justification for hell if you are deceived by a misunderstanding. There is no misinterpretation by realizing the differences and by reading it literally, a misinterpretation, that’s stupid, otherwise it wouldn’t be causing conflict or saying what it actually says, oh but no, that means something else.
"Hey, Dad, you've been to California?" "Yeah, absolutely! When I was in college, I drove out there one summer!" "Awesome!" Four years later... "Yo, Dad, what was California like in '67?" "Huh? I went to Alaska in '67." Sister: "Yeah, it was Alaska." "What? No, you said California!" Interjection from mom to dad: "No, honey, we drove to Alaska first, then down to Cali. Remember?" "Oh, yeah. It was amazing!" And old photos prove the road trip in its entirety took place. No late iron age photography, but wouldn't you know it, all my aunts, uncles, and grandparents, say the roadtrip happened too. That is, I have tons of consistent enough oral confirmation of the road trip that I'd be crazy to pretend it wasn't so. A tradition. So, even if I didn't have the photos, I'd 'know' that a big roadtrip occurred with all the main beats, even if it came in pieces from different sources, as much as the word 'know' can mean anything at all, as we survive in this human condition. So, you seriously want me to feel somehow challenged that an apparent "contradiction" occurs in an ancient gospel story, whose authors had diverse experience, knowledge, and purposes, and where textual lacuna clearly =/= a contradiction, and where it's super easy to create a consistent timeline between them? Come on. You'll have to do better than this to argue against the (even partial) historicity of the traditional story of the life of Christ. I mean, to seriously get real, humans aren't stupid enough to have sat around for the last 2,000 years oblivious of the differences in gospel accounts. Entire ancient, medieval, and early modern universities were literally invented to pour over these texts. For Bart's sake, the Church itself bloody well picked the gospels out of hundreds of late iron age reddit posts, essentially. They could have picked any of them, edited them at any time during feudalism, so obviously the absence of magi and Egypt in Luke, and the exact timing of the return to Nazareth via Jerusalem, didn't bother them in the slightest, nor did it bother their co-religionists for centuries, during which time people were hyper concerned with the boring details of Scripture. And it doesn't bother any reasonable person today either, for the exact reason given in the example above. We all have the experience of how oral traditions function and how only bits and pieces come through texts on a daily basis. We can't even watch 5 minutes of the news without becoming students of Rashomon, yet we all have enough sense to figure out the main facts.
No problem! Unless you insist that the Bible is inerrant. Which they do. And when it is inconsistent, they have to make it consistent, bu saying both things are true. They want it to be read as literal truth, not as metaphors. Until it has to be read metaphorically, then each has a different meaning for the metaphor. It is not an easy book to read. You need a PhD. And then you need to point out that the other phds are wrong. Pastafarians have it easy by comparison. Follow the directions on the box, but shorten the time by one minute. Drain, toss with sauce, serve. R-Amen!
@@oldpossum57 Sure, but there's no such thing as unicontextual text. Not even a supermarket romance novel. Inerrant in what respect exactly? Grammatically, historically, scientifically, poetically, ethically? It's infinite. That's always going to be a relevant question. Are there typos? Why would that matter, if it's a story making an ontological point? Tradition treats the Bible as one of many tools for living and learning, not a blueprint for the universe or an oracle. If I buy a desk that I have to assemble that's made in China, I promise you the instructions are absolutely "inerrant" ONCE I translate the Engrish, appreciate the directions are absurdly vague anyway, accept that none of the holes are going to be drilled in the right places, and I'm missing screws. Nobody but the most uneducated illiterate brutes ever thought the Bible was "inerrant" in every possible context, as if it were a magical object, until the printing press put the Bible into millions of hitherto illiterate and superstitious hands overnight. Well, duh, obviously that's where fundamentalism came from! No offense. All people have dignity, even in idiocy. But to be clear, I reiterate: being an inspired text only requires at least ONE context to be inerrant, and determining that requires reason and scholarship and tradition that tells you the purpose of the text. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing what you're reading, and every way you interpret it amounts to reading into the text your own prejudices. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm adding to your point.
Let us suppose you are right. I was a boy at the time of Vatican II. I am told that the RC church claims the exclusive right to speak authoritatively on matters of doctrine, which must mean, ultimately, the right to interpret Scripture for all. Luther, Knox, the Protestants , and all Levellers be damned. The texts of Scripture hold the key to eternal salvation. But the original texts can’t be established because of 2000 years of transmission. The texts themselves are contradictory. Then the problem of translation. So various sects condemn others. Another version of the Problem of Evil: we must suppose a God who takes satisfaction in this endless scramble to establish the meaning of the correct version of the texts. @@johannpopper1493
@@oldpossum57 @oldpossum57 Indeed. You have described well the ultimate consequence of the incoherent belief in text alone idolatry. God takes pleasure in his friends working together democratically to build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth in accordance with the golden rule and humility, exactly as Christ prayed should happen. Did he say he would send Christians the Holy Spirit as our guide? Or did he say he would send us the greatest book editors of all time in order to assemble exactly one edition of a mysteriously salvific reference book (except some protestants are allowed to edit even that unilaterally)? Yet, some are predetermined not to be saved by it? The contradictions are infinite. The difference in religious expectations couldn't be more stark. The difference of opinion is simply this: the RCs believe the church in total is the body of Christ, possessed by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit himself interprets the world and its texts and contexts, for and with us, through the church structure. The Son's sacrifice binds the Church together, the Spirit guides it. Truth is living, not dead text itself. The real and living God who is right now creating everything and you, reading this sentence, alone holds the key to eternal salvation, not ink on pages or mere abstract information being processed in our little brains. Words will not and can not save you from death. The Word will. Scripture is one tool of many, not a finished temple. Most traditional protestants tend to look upon Scripture as a magic idol that either interprets itself, or that each pastor outside of the continuous structure established by Jesus, separated from the opinions and consensus of believers thereof, somehow has the authority to interpret it as he sees fit, for one small group, a subjective island with neither a bridge to that living body, nor that Body's consent. The Catholics, on the other hand, regard the entire baptized church as one. Every Christian can and must participate as one Body. That doesn't mean all opinions are right contradictorily at the same time, but rather that the Holy Spirit works in a process of revelation with us through the ceaseless debate and democratic-representative hierarchy of bishops spiritually descended from the Apostles, and the hard won education of lay scholars, to discover the truth together through dialogue over time, finally in councils of Bishops that settle matters, and the Pope, as elected executive of bishops, enforces moral and theological conclusions, via the inerrant guidance of the Holy Spirit in the chair of Peter, exactly as Peter functioned as leader of the Apostles, and yet was an equal among them before Christ, as a living body has organs and unity, a brain and limbs, leadership and autonomic functions. Do you believe in this living body? Could you believe in such a thing? Or do you believe in lines scribbled in dust? This is, for Catholics, the difference between true religion and superstitious idolatry, respectively. They believe the essence of the original Christian faith is that believers are born again into the living body of Christ in the world, and this is the main ontological reason why it split from Rabbinical Judaism in the first place. No longer a faith in text alone, but a faith in the living Spirit through the Messiah's established structure of born again people, brought to life by living water, animated by his body and blood, led by the Spirit, for the gradual enlightenment, evolution, and salvation, of persons and society, till this ongoing revolution brings about the next era -- i.e. The Church and the coming Rule of God. No more nations, no more weapons, no more sin, no more sickness, poverty, injustice, tyranny. Only true peace. Christians were inspired to create the Bible as a tool for specific purposes to help build that future and prepare the way for God. The Bible is not direct dictation from God that has any power in and of itself. The various texts within aren't pagan spells that mechanically bring about your salvation. The physical blood of Christ, the water of baptism, and the Spirit, are the Father's means of bringing about your resurrection from death and possible glorification as a member of the body of Christ, if and only if you choose to accept that grace, choose that faith, and use it to help other people in every way people need help, medically, politically, financially, religiously (to join the body of Christ and remain a living cell), etc, otherwise, you will die and others will die with you, because of your failure, needlessly. And your corpse will be cast into the pit as unneeded and obstructive cruft at the end of this era. For Catholics, as for Plato, everything that exists and is thinkable, is a question of form, and figuring out how to interpret forms best. The problem of evil for a block of marble confronted with a chisel is the story of creation for a beautiful statue. There is no torture through which a greater good can't be created out of what seems like nothingness and hopelessness. The living Body responds to change in that way, or it begins to die. That is the Church according to the oldest roots of the Judaic-Christian cultural tree. The 16th century European text idolatry, an inevitable result of the printing press combined with the rising independent middle class and population explosion at the end of the Middle Ages, is an alien concept for Europe, but quite similar to Islamic theology, where the Koran is literally defined as the Word of God, of Allah's essence or substance. That is, for Muslims, the Koranic text is, by definition, literally identical to what Catholics consider to be the divine nature of Jesus. Every copy of the Koran would be something akin to the Catholic eucharist, or bread of life, or transubstantiated Christ. In Islam, salvation comes directly through one abstract thought Allah puts in your head as you read that text, and who knows why various Islams interpret the book differently from there. This is why destroying the Koran in protest is so offensive to Muslims. For the Catholics, God is alive in Christian persons. For Muslims, Allah's essence is a physical book. This is why I contrast these points of view as between living divinity in the world versus dead text in the world, the former being describable as a Judaic religious revolution, the latter being easily categorizable as a form of idolatry, or worship of a dead thing. Now, if Muslims ritually ate the Koran, that would be different. ;-)
Sorry, you wrote a big long essay. I think the gist is, RCs good, Protestants and Muslims mistaken. What put me off was the claim that “God takes pleasure in his friends working out democratically…”. People like Peter Popov and Paula White know God’s thoughts and wishes too well for my liking. @@johannpopper1493
I love Alex so much. "What is that answer from the perspective of a Christian?" He never stops his search for truth. I will always have a great deal of respect for a man like him.
@@christianfritz2102 I don't think my position matters much when it comes to determining contradictions. I don't care if the Bible is true and Christianity is real and all that, I care about properly analyzing a text. The problem is that Christians will automatically rationalize anything that they believe, and skeptics will automatically accuse anything of being false, a contrivance, etc. Two sides of the same coin, secular and christian debaters.
@@briggy4359 Fair point. It's very unfortunate watching both sides clash when neither is willing to be incorrect. Contextual awareness is at an all time low from what I've seen.
Or maybe Luke, writing to a Gentile audience, did not consider it important enough to mention the infanticide and the flight to Egypt, because the Gentiles likely weren't that familiar with Bible prophecy. Or maybe they returned to Galilee and some time after they had returned, Joseph fled to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. After all, Herod commanded every male child up to 2 years to be killed, so it's likely that some time had already passed.
Do history books get discounted if they skip over any amount of time or any single event? These do not contradict because neither says “without doing anything else, they immediately went here”. It just says “they went here”. I bet you also think the wise men arrived when Jesus was a baby and in the manger still
@@OctagonalSquare they contradict because Matthew and Luke set their birth narratives 8-10 years apart. King Herod died between 4-2 BCE. The Census of Quirinius took place in 6 CE.
The bible: after jesus birth his family went to egypt... They also went to nazarath Skeptics: thats impossible! No its not a contradiction. Both can happen and it doesnt make the other not true.
Christians get to decide what is accurate and not accurate in the bible, depending on how it serves their current argument. If you try to use logic, or general common sense, then that’s blasphemy and you’re a hateful person who will go to hell, courtesy of their all loving God.
“If we read it *this way* it doesn’t make sense” is not the same as “there is no way to read it that makes sense”. Choosing to read it in a way that makes sense is not the same as “making something up”.
“Two different people told the story differently” is not a contradiction. Neither says anything about “immediately” or “after he was born”. It just says it happened. You added those words because “you have to make something up.” Most of the time when retelling the events of the life of someone which you did not directly witness, you only talk about the important details for what you’re trying to convey. Both of these authors have very different writing styles. Luke is known for being more “big picture”. He leaves out the time in Egypt as he doesn’t see it as important to the story of Jesus’s life. Again, you are the one who made things up by claiming it says they immediately went to Nazareth. This has been a known fact in Christianity for centuries now. You won’t stumble anyone with any shred of biblical understanding
Simple. Luke wasn’t there. Never met Jesus. Made up the Bethlehem story to place the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem to fulfill the requirement of their religion.
