became an ex-muslim in april this year, after listening to this, feeling more deluded than ever. what are we? why are we here? where is God? is He there? what is the point of life? why do we even exist? found this chanel back in march this year and today im losing my mind after this video. your point is clear, and to me you are right. what is going on?
Don't be confused by a biased video from a guy who is not searching for the truth but has somehow made up his mind to shut God out. If you are sincere in knowing the truth, Jesus will reveal Himself to you. One encounter with Him and all these nonsense debates will have no effect on your faith in Him. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know therm, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Cor 2:14
It takes time to find your balance. It took me a few years. Just keep reading, watching vids like this and learning. It also helps to get in touch with other ex-muslims, listen to their experiences. Do you know Apostate Alladin's channel?
Paul doesn't mention the Virgin birth but he does say Christ was born of a woman. If he was talking merely about normal birth, and the fact that Christ was merely born of a woman, it would seem like a silly thing to mention. But if he was alluding to Jesus's miraculous virgin birth, it would make a lot of sense. Gal 4:4 KJV But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Exactly.. and the virgin birth of Jesus was mentioned 700 Years by Isaiah and other prophets way before Jesus was born.. refuting it just because it also appears in other versions of mythology then it’s baseless on top Paul the apostle mentions about the original sin and exempts Jesus.. so keen reading of Paul’s writings would clearly depicts Jesus virgin birth
Good video, historically valid, with the addition that the original gospel of Luke Luke did not contain the first two chapters. We know this from the collections of the first New Testament books by Marcion of Snope in the year 140 AD . Marcion books were 10 epistles of Paul and the gospel of Luke only.
Im confused about the matthew point. So the chapters were in matthew. But a small sect of Christians didn’t like it so they removed it? And that means it can’t be used for us? Idk how that makes sense?
Its hard to tell if the ebionites removed the first two chapters or they had a different gospel all together that church fathers confused for a hebrew version of Matthew, like Papias. Scholars are in agreement that there is no hebrew version of Matthew. Its also interesting what the ebionites say about Paul.
I agree with what was said before, but there's no reason 2 assume a hebrew matthew with no chapters 1 and 2 is needed. Hebrew israelites that affirm jesus as messiah have and use almost exclusively the 1611 kjv. It has matthew 1-2. They deny virgin birth and affirm a non miraculous birth of jesus via normal sexual unions with mary and Joseph. The gospel of the Ebionites is a missing manuscript to history.
I think the biggest question is not whether Greek gods and Roman heroes were virgin-born or sons of gods. The biggest question is who initiated/introduced the Virgin Birth. Before there was a Greek, a Roman, a Mexican, or a Palestinian, the Bible writers (prophets) were hinting/talking/writing about “Sons of God” and a particular “Virgin Birth”. Thus, the idea of a “Virgin Birth” or “Son of God” is not original to civilizations of latter dates, but to the biblical writers. * The burden of proof is on the naysayers to produce ancient documents to attest to the claim: “The Greeks influenced the biblical prophets on the matter of ‘Sons of God’ or ‘Virgin Birth’.
@@Kkaffeine Moses, the Egyptian Prince, hinted the “Virgin Birth” (Son of God) to Eve, the first woman in human existence. Genesis 3:15 is a passage about the “Seed of the Woman” - not the seed of a man (or the seed of both a man and a woman). It is doubtful we can find another Egyptian who can beat Moses’ assertion about the Virgin Birth. * Again, the question is whose idea about the “Son of God” was it - the Egyptians or the Hebrews?
@@Kkaffeine Where in any Egyptian mythology there is a virgin birth and dont give me that false claim about ISIS who actually revived Osiris in order to make Horus .
@@blackmamba6253 Ra the sun god was said to be born of a virgin mother. Other mesopotamian myths also contain virgin births in them. It isn't unique to the bible.
The Ebionites whom Bart Erhman referenced in his book were also mentioned by Eusebius of Ceasaria in the 4th century in his "Ecclesiastical history." Eusebius mentioned two groups of Ebionites one group associated with the VIRGIN birth while the other rejected it.
I like this video, thank u for it, yet many comms in the section r disappointing and only show that we still struggle with the prejudice of thinking that we protect our belief by making hateful comms on another. We r so sad.
When you agree with an evil teaching of an evil man, you become corrupted by their thoughts! Stay away from such video who will create doubt by their fancy stories in which there is NO proof that any of them were ever born from virgin birth! Some foolish people believed and wrote that they were born from virgin mother and had NO earthly father, is foolish things. Miracle means that cannot be explain by our human brain! And if Adam Elmasri is free thinker then, he has no idea of his own but he will read about others and create his own conclusion!
@@childofgod4862 we all have human brains and, to me, its a huge responsibility to decide whose mind is more corrupted than whose. I don't believe in virgin birth myself, but, when i decide to go on someone's video and watch it, its because a (big) part of me always wanted to just see what other people think of this or that, i can entirely disagree or agree with many of their points, thats how u develop ur own thinking, and i don't think that going on them and call them foolish and evil would make me less corrupted. I still don't get why people insult each other with such an ease, i think this bad sort of primitivism taking place in OUR modern century is the actual miracle (aka: hard to impossible to understand with my human brain) to me. We r going backwards not by our beliefs, but by our behaviour and feelings of hatred.
@@yafayafa9601 "our behaviour and feeling of hatred" but Quran says, it is Allah who is the spreading hate and enmity with other. So I guess your Allah is curse is working very good in our comment sections Correct?
@@childofgod4862 i am an agnostic atheist and i wasn't even born in a Muslim family. Ur last reply for me is showing me that, when u read comments, u read them based on ur personal view IN THE FIRST PLACE, without giving a chance to one who wrote it (since all u care about is that he didn't go according to UR belief).
All the "historical figures" he mentioned, either did not exist or their alleged Virgin mother did not exist. Where is the evidence that Zeus, Persophone, Romulus etc ever existed. In the case of Mithra, he is not even born of a woman at all. The earliest evidence of Mithraism actually begins after the death of Jesus in the first century bce. In any case there alleged miraculous births are clearly metaphorical. We can say fairly confidently that both Jesus and Mary existed and that Jesus was known to be a person containing knowledge or behaving in ways which were clearly miraculous or divinely inspired. Also for the earliest Christians it was not the birth of Jesus which was important but his death and resurrection. This is why it is not mentioned.
8:18-8:24 69 CE at the earliest. Dalmanutha is an aramaic word that means something akin to widowhood (place of widowhood i think). Meaning: “Mark” knows about the siege of jotapata that josephus survived in 67 CE. Also, “Mark” 5:1-20 seems to be alluding to events that occurred in 68 CE.
The reason monotheistic religions are monotheistic is because they believe in only one- one God, one prophet, one book, one miraculous birth and one way to salvation. In the Hindu tradition, there are countless gods and goddesses, rishis, gurus, philosophies and several ways to self-realization and liberation - so many ways that some even look contradictory. If you are academically inclined or spiritually seeking, you should not miss Hinduism.
So if somebody removed chapters from the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, then we should think that Matthew wrote that? how can that even begin to make sense. It would be interesting to know how you know what the early Christians did not believe... The reason why I don't believe in Plato's virgin birth is of course due to the fact that that story was written in the so-called Neo-Platonic religion (Gnosticism) competed with Christianity for adherents. And if we believe other authors of Plato's biography, we believe that Plato was his mother's fourth child.... I don't know that Speusippus wrote anywhere that his uncle was born of a virgin or that he was the son of Apollo... so here too a source reference would be necessary. And if I remember Greek mythology correctly, Dionysus was not born from a woman but from the thigh of Zeus... and certainly not on December 25. Although Christians don't claim that Jesus was born on December 25, it is the day when the commemoration of the birth of Jesus is celebrated... and that day is determined from the classical belief that great men died the same day they were conceived. And since the day of Jesus' birth was not known, but the date of his death was known, the birthday was calculated. So even though it was known to be the wrong day... but customs dictated the day. As for Attis, his mother Nana, the daughter of the river Sangarius, and almond tree grown from the amputated sexual Male organ of the hermaphrodite. According to the story, Nana put an almond in her bosom and Attis was born from it... the story does not say whether the birth was an vaginal delivery and whether Nana was a virgin. But according to the same story, Attis castrated himself and died of bleeding and violets grew from his blood... so in a way you can metaphorically say that Attis "rose from the dead". Although not in the same way as Jesus... Well, your argument has been weighed and found to be very light. In the same way as you, I do not intend to mock your faith, because what you claim in this video is really a matter of faith. Your faith.
Prof. Masri, to make an argument against someone belief, you have to bring the evidence from their own books, and you made the following wrong assumptions about Jesus and Issa ( son of Mariam ) , they are not the same person. Jesus is born, not created. Issa is created. Issa was not born from a union between a female and God . The Quran is explicit about this matter which you have deliberately over looked. Quran says ( the creation of Issa is the same of adam) . Again , you have to defeat the other belief from within, not by using your own interpretation. It's a big nono.
@@AdamElmasriEnglish That's what the Christians believe, they say Jesus is born into this world not created because he is god. Not the case with Issa, the Quran condems such a belief , which is god's union with human female , and describes Issa as being created as Adam was. Whether or not a virgin can give birth is possible or not, that is another subject and it is possible. So, you have to follow up with your audience and explain that according to Quran union between god and human is condenmened and frowned upon!
@@thecoin5394 According to Quran, Issa is the son of Mary. He is not divine god or son of God. He's a human being created by God. So there's no relevance between Issa and the point prof. Masri is trying to make!
The plot thickens ??? Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel" Also read Isaiah 53.Both of these prophecies written by Isaiah 700 years BC
The problem is not believing in fairy tales, sometimes it gives hope and condolences, the problem is when you believe these fairytales are historical facts then try to shove them down people throat and use force and sword to enforce them.
8:42-8:50 That’s probably not true. “Matthew” was just reappropriating the material in isaiah 7 pertaining to hezekiah. “Matthew’s” birth account, though certainly interpreted as supernatural later, was most likely intended to be a royal natural birth.
Virgin birth or not for me is not that important what is important is the teachings and example Jesus delivered to us. Jesus said of his true followers "By their fruit they will be known" not by their beliefs.
The buddha Gautama Siddharta was supposedly a virgin birth, too. That was also 500 years before Jesus. In tantric buddhism there is the myth that the tantika-saint Padmasambhava who brought tantric buddhism to Tibet was born not from human parents but from a lotus flower on a lake and then adopted by the king. So the Jesus being e virgin birth is really not inventive or original.
You should study and do some research on the anunnaki it’s really interesting honestly I’d like you to cover this topic to your viewers Billy Carson is one the best to cover this type of stuff
Oh yeah, the renound ancient manuscript scholar who isn't even aware that the "gospel of the Holy 12" is a forged text? He's a great person to take advice from!
Just because Paul did not mention Mary as Virgin in Galatians 4:5, it doesn't mean that he refused Jesus' virgin birth. We do not consider Quran but whether you believe it or not Jesus was born in a supernatural way only. He had to, because He is God incarnated.
The Quran already claimed to be the last and final revelation that confirmed previous books. So, there is no issue if the Quran also tells stories of what the previous books already mentioned. I don't see any issue here. Science even supports that this event might have happened through parthenogenesis. So I don't see any problems here.
@@AdamElmasriEnglish ofc I did watch the whole video and as always your logic is flawed. You claim the Quran copied mythical stories. Can you prove that? Please don't hide behind the "shifting of burden of proof" thing. Just don't, since you make a claim here. You do claim the Quran copied mythical stories while clearly the updated Science gives a clue that Parthenogenesis might be the answer to the virgin birth. Get your logic straight, Adam. Try harder next time.
Jesus Christ follower here, Christians Adam, just like your side! Truth doesn’t care about our feelings or emotions, or thinking and we can’t set our standards to it, or it will teach you! Or expose! Truth is an entity who honor only itself and nobody else! You align with it or it brake your illusion of truth! Truth doesn’t care about our feelings our emotion it only care about how make itself be felt and assert itself! be felt and abide by it! … Many are enemies to the truth, they hate him!/ it! They hate it, that’s is what it is!
Great video. I've been educated on this almost 20 years ago. There are many other figures that predate jesus that share the story. One of them Horas the Egyptian god. Krishna, also maybe. It's related to the pegan sun worship. Its movement in the sky. Like the 12 apostles being the 12 horoscopes. Dying on the cross for three days symbolizes the sun at the end of December, being at its lowest point with daylight being the shortest. Staying at that point over the cross constellation for 3 days (winter solstice) then starting to rise again signiling its rebirth. And you can educate me on this. Isn't Jesus called the sun and the light?
@@pankaja7974Here’s my guess, Verily I say unto you, that every prophet when he is come hath borne to one nation only the mark of the mercy of God. And so their words were not extended save to that people to which they were sent. But the messenger of God, when he shall come, God shall give to him as it were the seal of his hand, insomuch that he shall carry salvation and mercy to all the nations of the world that shall receive his doctrine. He shall come with power upon the ungodly, and shall destroy idolatry, insomuch that he shall make Satan confounded; for so promised God to Abraham, saying: "Behold, in thy seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as thou hast broken in pieces the idols, O Abraham, even so shall thy seed do."' James answered: 'O master, tell us in whom this promise as made; for the Jews say "in Isaac," and the Ishmaelites say 'in Ishmael." ' Jesus answered: 'David, whose son was he, and of what lineage?' James answered: 'Of Isaac; for Isaac was father of Jacob, and Jacob was father of Judah, of whose lineage is David.' Then said Jesus: 'And the messenger of God when he shall come, of what lineage will he be?' The disciples answered: 'Of David.' Whereupon Jesus said: 'Ye deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calleth him lord, saying thus: "God said to my lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. God shall send forth thy rod which shall have lordship in the midst of thine enemies." If the messenger of God whom ye call Messiah were son of David, how should David call him lord? Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac.'
I believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus because: - The most unbelievable story, which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is true. If the most unbelievable thing is true, why wouldn’t something half as unbelievable be true as well? - The writings of Luke and Matthew were written contemporaneously with Jesus, not 600 years later. These writings go against the Roman concept of children of gods. If it were a lie, why would the authors risk writing it, knowing they could be tortured and killed?
This is a load of nonsense. Neither Luke nor Matthew were contemporary of Jesus. They lived decades later and hadn't met him. As the resurrection story goes, there are tons of resurrection stories about other people at that time. There are also stories about buddhist masters appearing to their students after their deaths. Both types of story, resurrection/appearing to students after death as well as virgin birth stories are told about other people. So either Jesus is not unique in that respect and all these individuals had virgin births and resurrections after death, or none of them are true.
@@petrairene History has a way of weeding out the inauthentic (imitation and falsehood) while preserving the authentic - the true and the reliable. What did you say are the names of those Buddhist teachers or masters who, in your imaginations, actually lived, died, and were resurrected?
@@123dsj123 Nah, history preserves a ton of bullshit, the misleading as well as lies too. History does not discern when stuff is propagated through the generations. It could be noble and true, it could be destructive rubbish and a lie. I personally met a buddhist master who is dead for 200 years in a dream where he taught me something. Is he dead? Hell no. He came to transcend mental constructs like "life" and "death". There is not even a resurrection necessary as the only thing that perishes is the flesh alone. Resurrecting a body is pointless, it wouldn't particularly impress people in a spiritual sense. Those who have transcended the flesh will forever be available for any believer who longs to listen to their teaching. Buddhists destroy the body after death, in general by burning, but for example in Tibet by feeding it to the vultures as there isn't enough fuel for funeral pyres. The best meditators in the Tibetan tradition will not leave a corpse, it will dissolve within a few days after death. Nothing to resurrect there left anyway.
As a muslim, the virgin birth of Jesus was not the only thing that made him special and what made us follow him, it is his teachings, miracles and the legacy that he left on earth before he ascended to heaven and we all can’t wait to meet him once he comes back. “Why don’t you believe in other virgin births aside from Jesus?” Well because we were told not to. Our faith has already been perfected with the arrival of our last prophet Mohammad S.A.W. and the Qur-an and none of those other virgin births were mentioned. In my own opinion, those other virgin births could be true but regardless it happened or not, it really doesn’t matter because it will not help humanity with their salvation or to live a meaningful life. The thing is you can poke on every holes you find but faith is a banishment of all doubts so you can never shake a person who truly believes.
@@OsakaceniNindzaThis is what he said concerning God When Jesus had said this, Philip answered: 'We are content to serve God, but we desire, however, to know God, for Isaiah the prophet said: "Verily thou art a hidden God," and God said to Moses his servant: "I am that which I am." Jesus answered: 'Philip, God is a good without which there is naught good; God is a being without which there is naught that is; God is a life without which there is naught that liveth; so great that he filleth all and is everywhere. He alone hath no equal. He hath had no beginning, nor will he ever have an end, but to everything hath he given a beginning, and to everything shall he give an end. He hath no father nor mother; he hath no sons. nor brethren. nor companions. And because God hath no body, therefore he eateth not, sleepeth not, dieth not, walketh not, moveth not, but abideth eternally without human similitude, for that he is incorporeal, uncompounded, immaterial, of the most simple substance. He is so good that he loveth goodness only; he is so just that when he punisheth or pardoneth it cannot be gainsaid. In short, I say unto thee, Philip, that here on earth thou canst not see him nor know him perfectly; but in his kingdom thou shalt see him for ever: wherein consisteth all our happiness and glory.' Philip answered: 'Master, what sayest thou? It is surely written in Isaiah that God is our father; how, then, hath he no sons?' Jesus answered: 'There are written in the prophets many parables, wherefore thou oughtest not to attend to the letter, but to the sense. For all the prophets, that are one hundred and forty-four thousand, whom God hath sent into the world, have spoken darkly. But after me shall come the Splendour of all the prophets and holy ones, and shall shed light upon the darkness of all that the prophets have said, because he is the messenger of God' And having said this, Jesus sighed and said: 'Have mercy on Israel, O Lord God; and look with pity upon Abraham and upon his seed, in order that they may serve thee with truth of heart. His disciples answered: 'So be it, O Lord our God!' Jesus said: 'Verily I say unto you, the scribes and doctors have made void the law of God with their false prophecies, contrary to the prophecies of the true prophets of God: wherefore God is wrath with the house of Israel and with this faithless generation.' His disciples wept at these words, and said: 'Have mercy, O God, have mercy upon the temple and upon the holy city, and give it not into contempt of the nations that they despise not thy holy covenant.' Jesus answered: 'So be it, Lord God of our fathers.'
@@jewbanqora5159 Do you exist? You reminded me of the dialogue between a Bedouin and a Greek philosopher. The philosopher asked the Bedouin to prove that God exists. Without saying a word, the Bedouin pointed to a piece of camel dung and continued walking." This is for you 🙈🙈🙈😂
@@jewbanqora5159 So Mr smatie, prove to me that you exist!!! I notice the gathering place for the assholes who support each can be found right here. What I console myself with is the fact you do believe in something , so can you share that with me?
Of course the natural person will not comprehend these abnormal phenomena, that’s why they are called miracles. It all starts by knowing and believing that God exists.
Это одна из тех вещей, которые заставили меня покинуть Ислам. Коран очень рациональная книга. Она действительно очень умно написана и не содержит внутренних противоречий, но есть ВНЕШНИЕ проблемы. И "чудесное рождение" - одна из них. 😢
First, the point of the video seems to have gone completely over your head. Zecond, if you mean Adam (the narrator), he was never a Muslim. He was a Christian.
why would Paul talk about the birth of Jesus ? The sacrifice is what holds the meaning. While we rejoice in the Lord's arrival, we are in awe of His merciful sacrifice. The ransom paid for all, not some. Even you.
@@AdamElmasriEnglishIf you don't like Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible, then why you are talking about them and confusing everyone? You are speaking in such a way that you have so much hatred against the Bible and are attempting to falsify the history of Christianity. If you are really an Atheist, what is making you say to the people that God is a liar? If you believe that you are all evolved from monkeys, then what is stopping you from behaving like monkeys? Did you really know what really happened during the 1st century or are you making things up like other monkeys?
Mr El Masri, What gave you the impression that Jesus’ conception was between God union with a woman ? All your comparisons with ancient Graeco-Roman examples are flawed simply because that notion of God somehow fertilising Mary is not at all what Christians believe. You dismissed the whole idea of the “incarnation” and Jesus’ pre-existence as part of the Godhead. I think trying to blend the Quran into this has added to the confusion. What next ? The crucifixion never happened ? Can’t wait to hear your take on the myth of the resurrection.
Actually, my examples are still pretty accurate because the gospels never talked about the doctrine of “incarnation”. This what the gospel of Luke says when Mary exclaimed: 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. As God’s power overshadows over Mary, and the Holy Spirit come on her, she falls pregnant with The Son of God! The incarnation doctrine is a later development based on the doctrine of the trinity!
@@jma7600 if you watched the video properly (without bias), you wouldn’t use the gospel of John. I stopped my argument at year 85A.D - John was written later
@@AdamElmasriEnglish Are you saying that John is not part of the gospels ? Are you denying that he was not an intimate disciple of Christ? The fact that he was the last standing disciple doesn’t diminish his full knowledge of who Christ is. Speaking of bias, you introduced a truncated version of the gospel according to Matthew: the Ebionite gospel to make your point. I get the point you are trying to make in your presentation, however the incarnation is definitely not an innovation concocted later as a new doctrine as you imply. The trinity and the incarnation go back to the very beginning (in Genesis) and throughout the Old Testament. It is called God’s progressive revelation. The Jews are well aware and will never deny the many incarnations of the Messiah in their scriptures (prior to his birth from Mary) until his eminent glorious coming. Any true theologian will admit to that.
@@jma7600 you’re doing a straw-man fallacy here. I didn’t say anything about John being a loyal disciple or not not being part of the gospels. I’m saying that John was written after year 90 (according to almost all scholars) and you cannot use him to refute an argument before the year 85. As simple as that! Secondly, the doctrine of the trinity is based on interpretations of the Bible (both new and old testament). In academia, there is a clear distinction between exegesis and later interpretations of the same passages. You’re still arguing based on your faith and biases, not based on logic or reason!
Did anyone from those legends born in Bethlehem? If yes means you have a point but if your answer is no, then only Jesus was born in Bethlehem as prophecised in the old testament book of Micah 700+ years before Jesus. Micah 5:2, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
But Micah never mentioned a virgin birth!! That’s not even a prophecy for the immaculate birth!! Micah says that a saviour will forth from Bethlehem (which could be by natural birth), which is exactly what the Ebionites believed. Not sure you have a point here!
@@AdamElmasriEnglish This is regarding your question about why not other legends, why only Jesus, so I do have a point here. Secondly for virgin birth, different OT passages are there, for eg. Genesis 3:15 says, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." I know you got a video coming about this prophecy and I look forward to your pov.
Месяц назад
In order to create a Parental Deity you first have to create a Miraculous Birth. For it is the Miraculous Birth which defines the incarnation as divine. One of the most popular Miraculous Births for a few millennia was the Virgin Birth. Which simply symbolizes a non-sexual conception or a spiritual conception. Everyone had a Virgin Birth. From Hercules to the Buddha to Alexander The Great to even the first Kryst/Christ in human History the early Egyptian Parental Deity named Horus. Just an example as to why there is nothing original in the so-called New Testament.💙
Simply you smart bald man ,, Adam was was created without a father or mother ??? Happened or even if you don’t believe in Adam your ancestors were made from nothing ?? which is more difficult than Jesus Rethink about your topic it is really easy to answer you
Месяц назад
According to Mythologist Joseph Campbell the delineation point between Western and Eastern spirituality was Zoroaster. Who understood the most fundamental pair of opposites, that of the light and the dark. To be a relationship of antagonism by the light against the dark. And it was preordained before creation that the light would eventually destroy the dark. And then paradise would begin. Zoroaster also moralized the light as good and the dark as bad. In Eastern spirituality the ideal relationship between the light and the dark was one of balance and harmony. As symbolized by the Yin and the Yang. Doesn't it seem like Western melanin-positive racism is simply an inheritance by way of Judaism and Christianity and Islam of the earlier Persian Zoroaster? And his historically problematic ideas about the ideal relationship between the light and the dark? As this Zoroastrian theology of the light and the dark is now simply a part of our Western white psychological DNA. Which is why our Cops tend to shoot first and think later when it comes to Black folks. As their instincts are simply Zoroastrian.💙
Hello. I love your videos and im going to respond to your inquiry the best i can. Fyi Im a Christian. 1 I believe jesus was born via miraculous birth not an immaculate birth. The reason is because it comports with my theological epistemology. I am free to reject other claims of virgin birth or divine origin as their mode of conception is of a different nature than God willed. These others are touched by a god but mary and even others in the bible are not conceived as these other characters. 2 Immaculate means sinless and no im not a Roman Catholic so the doctrine of marys immaculate conception is not that of say quran and surah 19:19 jesus is kept pure/holy by not being touched n the womb. Christological deductions imply jesus was sinless by virtue of being the Son/Word of God that was with the Father before the world was. So biblically the rejecting of jesus as born immaculately in my view is a misnomer and a slight caricature in light of traditional Christological views as it relates to jesus sinlessnes. Christ in our was sinless indeed but became sin for the sake of redemption of many. 3 I think the arguments in bible and Qur'an are motivated differently for the virgin birth. The quran has an understanding that the virgin birth is strictly related to mary beings ultimately exhonorated by jesus in the cradel for her promiscuity. Jesus n the bible hadarguablt human lines of origin via the geneologies and the geneologies are structered diffrently probably due to intended audiance. Also theres no evidence one doesnt need as eheman claimes the first 2 chapters of matthew to deny virgin birth. Many hebrew israelites that affiem jesus as mwssiah use thr 1611 kjv and yet deny virgin birth of jesus with chapters 1 and 2 in the kjv. Also i asked ehrman if he thinks matther ever circulated without chapters 1 or 2 befor in a superchat on garfield Reids Dagger Squad youtube channel and he said no. I tried to be breif but inlive your content. Peace
@@dragonmartijn no the New Testament is heavily tampered with like the video stated the earliest Christian’s didn’t believe in the immaculate conception
The best thing is that you are giving us your "views"... Your personal views doesn't make Jesus not to have been born of a virgin Mary. You can't talk about Isaiah because it is just difficult for you to disapprove him. You said he was talking about "another woman." why then can you tell us who the qoman was and prove us from the Bible that he actually wasn't talking about Jesus but another "woman" 😂😂😂😂
I choose to disbelieve in the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary as nowhere it is mentioned in the bible. However, if you believe that some part of Matthew (chapter 1 & 2) were inserted later, why not question all the contents of the bible (old & new testament). The flood in Genesis 6 - 9, according to some people are taken from the Gilgamesh. So, just throw them away as garbage. For me, 2 Timothy 3 : 16 (ESV) : All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness I guess you still heavily influenced by the moslem rubbish concept of the divinity of the direct revelation from god to mohammed . Maybe you should colab with Bart Ehrman and challenging him in criticizing islam.
Adam should stick with demonizing Islam , I guess he ran out of topic to do so. Christian’s now have trouble on their hands , can you imagine 45000 denominations along with 3142 bibles. I’m glad ChatGPT has replace these fools. Own you mind.
0:05-0:13 (edit) Most scholars will say 50-70 years, but you could easily push that to around 115-120 years assuming: 1. “Matthew” has no miraculous birth. 2. “luke”-acts is a counter-Marcionite text.
Jesus made deads alive, gave sight to blinds.... And did many other things impossible for a man. Do you have any reason for that? Has anybody else, whom you say had miraculous birth, done anything like that?
As a matter of fact, you don’t know for sure if Jesus made dead alive or gave sight to the blinds… what you know for sure is that, people - years later - people believed that Jesus made the dead alive and gave sight to the blind. You are choosing to believe the people who believed (years later) that he did all such things. And now you’re asking me; if anyone else did such things? Just because you believe the people who told you he did??! What a logic!
@@AdamElmasriEnglish No, you gave examples that many people had miraculous birth.Ok. So, I asked whether they had done miracles also like (you may say), they say about Jesus?
@@AdamElmasriEnglish you did not say what kind of miracles they did who had miraculous birth according to your video. ******************* Why no one knows them in the world? Why is only and only Jesus known all over the world ? *****************
The myth of Dionysus, Romelius and so on were the shadow of things to come, the goalposts; the reality is now here in Christ(HaMashiach), we are no longer bound to those myths...Paul. By the way, for Paul Jesus HaMashiach(Christ) is the Son Of God and not just Jesus.
If the rest of the miracles in the Bible are true, this one also is. See Isa 44:28 & 45:1. This prophecy of Cyrus was written before he was born and it was fulfilled to the letter.
One is consistent with the Ten Commandments and the others are not, they are idolatry. With Jesus you are in Monotheism. By the way Paul talked more about the Messiah(HaMashiach), that is to Christ of the Hebraic Scriptures than he did about the historical Jesus. How does one know? He said Jesus-Christ was the Son of God but when addressing the Jews in the diaspora, Paul would say this Jesus I preach is the Messiah(Christ). The point being, nowhere Paul said Jesus was the Son Of God but instead Jesus-Christ was the Son of God, NOT ONLY that but Paul sees Jesus as the Godhead. Would you imagine God creator decides to come into the world through human agency? There lies the difference. YOU MISUNDERSTOOD !
Correction " _"The biggest myth in THE MISTRANSLATION & MISINTERPRETATION of the Quran... : The Virgin Birth of Jesus."_ You can speak the modern-day Arabic language, right? and one of the verses you quoted verse 19:20. Okay... let us start with that very last word found in that verse... and we know how the modern-day Arabic defines that very last word in that verse, right? _"baghiyyan"_ which it says mean "unchaste." This root word appears 96 times in the Quran but only in 2 instances, in 19:20 & 19:28, the meaning morphed into "unchaste!" How convenient for the Sunni, Shiite & Sectarian religious scholars, right? Anyway... armed with the absolute certainty that _"baghiyyan"_ is NOT "unchaste" you are forced to scrutinize other words that appear in that particular verse. _"ghulamun"_ is most definitely NOT "son." Hey... come on... how many Arabic words mean "son?" You get the picture, right? My question to Adam Al-Masry... when you are convinced that the Sunni, Shiite & Sectarian scholars have re-engineered selected Qur'anic-Arabic words to fit their narrative, why would you go put the blame on the Quran? _peace_ *The Quran is its own dictionary. It explains everything in detail.*
Oh. Why are you appealing to Paul suddenly? You believe in his writings all of a sudden? You believe he's truthful? Or are you picking and choosing what you like and throw away what you don't like?
It's quite amusing to observe that Christians often take pleasure in seeing Islam and Muslims criticized, and vice versa. They revel in the denouncement of each other's religions while upholding certain absurd narratives, such as the virgin birth, without question. However, the moment these fantastical claims from both religions are challenged, they quickly become defensive. It's fascinating to witness how religious individuals react when the very foundation of their beliefs is questioned-they become defensive and uneasy, revealing how fragile their convictions may be.
The guy is comedian. Our God created the whole universe and all in things in it, all visible and invisible. However for the reason that we have not seen someone born by the virgin, birth from the virgin is impossible. We have not seen someone to create a sun. But sun is there and rise every day. The guy is comedian.
@@pankaja7974 Quran says Allah created all things.( 39:62 ) this means in my understanding including all immaterial things also, like Angels ,Shaitan,Souls ,Logic, Language and Religion , or do you disagree ?
angels souls are spirit beings, logic etc are abstract. yes God has created a universe with rules of logic and such beings. however religion is not something God has created. It is free will that gives rise to possibility for us to create religions similarly we can "create" mythical beings like centaur and fairies and stuff. we can also imagine many things but those do not exist. I dont believe in olla btw but no, God does not create each and every thing you and I can imagine or make up
@@pankaja7974 If Allah did not create Religion and Islam is a Religion ,then he did not create Islam , this means I think that Islam is a manmade Religion.
Mr Al Masri theres enough convincing evudence fro Jesus'Virgin Birth' which goes back all the way to the Old Testament. Prophet Isiah then throughout history in christian revelations. These are not imagined stories. Of course Islam plagiarised hugely from the Holy Bible . You better read christian apologetics down the centuries todate you will see. You have a gross misunderstanding or are deliberately distortion of the truth about Jesus without whom human civilization would have been in a shambles centuries before..
You labelled me in your comment with "having a gross misunderstanding or are deliberately distortion of the truth about Jesus"... Yet, you didn't pay attention that I mentioned the Isaiah "prophecy" in the old testament at the end of the video (you probably didn't watch it full and just chose to label me instead!). Also, you chose to label me as ignorant with gross understanding, regardless of having a university degree in Biblical studies and textual criticism. But of course, if I say anything against your faith then I am in the wrong with "gross misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of the truth"... Unfortunately, Faith and Bias does that to one's mind.. and they are quick to judge and refuse to listen! Stay well Bro and I hope you have all the peace in your faith.
The beauty of being a 'nonliteral Christian' - you can appreciate a video like this one, consider Adam a mate and a cool dude, still believe that Christianity is a beautiful, complex (could always be better understood) and very ethical religion, and know that Islam is evil nonsense. Learnt some new stuff, thanks man, keep up the good work.
Dude, why does the story have to be unique to Jesus to be believed? If Paul had written about the virgin birth would you believe it? Evidently not. That a group of Jewish Christians ignored the first 2 chapters of the gospel of Matthew is your evidence against the virgin birth? Your hero didn't say the first 2 chapters were not authentic, he said the Hebeonites appeared to have "eliminated" the first 2 chapter. You make absolutely no sense
You don't believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus peace be upon him but you believe the entire universe and everything in it, miraculously created itself. So which is harder to believe?
Miraculous birth is harder to swallow because we know from history that people told tales of such births (and ascensions to "heaven") to make certain characters sound more important. Jesus was a 1st century Jew, we know nothing about him before his ministry (no one went around saying that he was born of a virgin), and in the earliest Christian sources - Mark - there is no mention of virgin birth. Only as the theology developed do you start to hear about it, and other miracles (which Mark again does not mention). The Quran was written 600 years later and depends on many developed traditions so of course it is not a historically reliable source for the live of Jesus (it in fact depends on later apocryphal gospels and contains legends of Jesus). Scientists don't "believe" in things, like the universe creating itself. We try to understand the cause and effect and how things work, which does not require a "belief". A 100 years ago we had no idea what the universe looked liked and now we know so much about it. Just because we don't have all the answers does not mean that we need to do what humans have done for thousands of years - plug in god to solve the problem. This is why very religious people make so little progress in the sciences, they think they have or don't need the answers. Remember that the Islamic world contributes less than 1% to scientific research in the world today, while they make up 25% of the world's population. They have not contributed to any modern scientific theories or advances, sadly.
All the evidence points to our universe expanding from an initial singularity. Exactly what caused the expansion to start is unknown. On the other hand, all the evidence regarding the virgin birth points to it being made up to match a misunderstood prophecy, and as as far as we know, an unfertilized human egg cell cannot develop into a normal, healthy human. Hence it's much harder to believe the virgin birth of Jesus than the Big Bang.
Why Christians believe in the immaculate conception is simple: No virgin birth, No redemption. The virgin birth of Christ was first revealed by God in Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Notice, 'a' seed of the woman, 'her seed' alone, not Adam's, is promised as the One to defeat satan. He couldn't have been born of Joseph's seed because He'd have been under the curse of sin and death and therefore not be a lamb without blemish, and also He wouldn't fulfil the promise of God. Attached to that is He had to be a man because "as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." (Romans 5:18) It should be already clear that saying Paul never mentioned the virgin birth is patently false. Paul's case for Christ as the Messiah hinges on the divinity of Christ, the Son of God, distinct from the Adamic race. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. There's none righteous, not one! But this second Adam is the "Lord from heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:47). Appealing to an explicit statement is just disingenuous considering Paul was writing to Christians who already believed in the virgin birth. Matthew and Luke's account brilliantly trace and establish Jesus' genealogy to Abraham and Adam respectively to accentuate God's divine wisdom and the fulfilment of the promise in Genesis 3. No surprise that a heretical sect skipped the first 2 chapters of Matthew. After all, it only contains the uncomfortable truth of the fulfilment of the prophecies in Isaiah 7:14(virgin birth) and Deuteronomy 18:15 (Moses spared from the King's decree to kill all the male Hebrew children), including Joseph and Mary's testimonies of their separate encounters with an angel of the Lord confirming that very fulfilment. Romans 5:14 reads: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, WHO IS THE FIGURE OF HIM THAT WAS TO COME. That is to say, as sin and death persist through the offspring of Adam, made of God, so righteousness is attributed to the 'offspring' of Christ, begotten of God. Better said as "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE: OLD things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (1 Corinthians 5:17). Even time, as it were, was reset to zero (0) to mark the age/beginning of the new man; those who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). In Romans 7, there's also a subtle contrast of 2 husbands used to differentiate between the headship of Adam versus the headship of Christ. And tons of other Biblical scripture expound on the depth of God's wisdom in Christ Jesus. He was born, lived, died and raised to life, ALL according to scriptures! The virgin birth serves no purpose whatsoever in islam.
There is a consensus among historians and theologians that 1 Corinthians written c. AD 53-54 The oldest surviving manuscript is P46 c.175-225 1Corinthians 15 45So also it is written: “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING PERSON.” The last Adam was a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. ok it not word for word a virgin birth, both Adam and Jesus dont have biological father, the consequence of that Jesus must be born from a virgin birth. and without a biological father, the consequence is Jesus' Y chromosome is unique. also if without a biological father that means without Y chromosome, Jesus should be a women (xx cromosome)
@@sarakunb621 "My existence is a miracle. Additionally, my dad, a Muslim, has a childhood friend who was blind for years but regained sight after TB Joshua laid hands on him. This experience, among others, challenges the claim that miracles don't happen. The fact that my dad remains a Muslim .
Turtilian regarding the other gods who miraculously born, stated that Satan and his demons knew what God was going to do so they did it first, but Jesus is a real deal. Read the book of Mark and there's no mention of a virgin birth or an angel visitation, and there's no Mark at the baptism of everyone hearing a clap of thunder and the voice; therefore I believe Mark the original source to be closer to truth than the embellished Matthew Luke and John. People believe in Jesus because they want the transference of their evil character on to some scapegoat that way they can slide into Heaven, but I don't think it works that way and none of the Bible verses that can quote to me will convince me😊 imo: Paul is a hypocritical liar who would do anything to have a following and to spread his version that he received the revelations of dreams and visions, even though he disparaged Mary's son James the brother of Jesus and the favorite disciple Peter by insisting Paul who never walked with Jesus knew more than the disciples... Manipulation🤔
So according to you all people just go to hell, since Adam was kicked out of the Garden and Jesus is an illusion to sweeten the pain. That is hardcore, man. But fortunately there are enough miracles which signal the opposite, yet we need to walk Jesus’ walk to the cross. So you will get your hardcore anyway.
@@dragonmartijn WTH are you talking about?!? Have you read the Old Testament at all do you understand the implications of the Old Testament versus what Paul taught you? You know Paul lied to you when you understand he twisted so very words of the Old Testament God in order to validate and gain him followers; sadly the twist is that you no longer have to follow the laws of God as in the ten commandments, and you do not have to honor father at your Bible services either, because technically father God isn't who you worship. Father God said NO Human sacrifice. Ask forgiveness with sincerity and God will forgive ~ NO sacrifice needed, other than for you to change and become a better Human being! Am I to believe Paul over The Father?!? NO! Jesus a teacher of Father, because his teachings and parables that he taught through signed light and understanding on to the ten commandments, and if we follow these teachings we will be acceptable unto God; that doesn't denote a human virgin sacrifice like the demons did... Back to Tutillian😊
Im confused about the matthew point. So the chapters were in matthew. But a small sect of Christians didn’t like it so they removed it? And that means it can’t be used for us? Idk how that makes sense?
@@AdamElmasriEnglish but that’s one sect out of many that believed it. I don’t think that’s a good argument. Because we can say the same thing about Mormons today. Who are a small subsect who believe something completely different
