Great. I addressed an elderly woman this morning who went back to her pew at Christmas mass with the holy host in her hand. I didn't like the idea of reproaching an elderly lady, but it is the Body of Christ.
They always point out the similarities between the gospel and pagan myths. But they dare not to pay equal attention to the differences and what makes the story of Jesus unique. And the differences are what make the difference. Thanks Trent!
@@mattm7798It would be silly except that there is overwhelming evidence for Alexander and Gengis whereas there is ZERO evidence for the Virgin birth. Do you see the difference now or will it take you a few more years, if ever?
This would work the other way. Dionysus is unique. When he created wine, via miracle, it was unique (and pre-dated Jesus). Also the maenads, they strike rocks with the thyrsus and the ground. The rock produces water....now where do we hear this before? The ground produces milk, honey, and wine....haha, where did we hear this before? Why do you dare not pay equal attention to the differences that make the story of Dionysus, a son of a god, that is unique?
@@michaelsbeverly Because I have no reason to pay equal attention to an inferior mythical invention which has no meaningful comparison to the person of Jesus Christ in all of his totality. There may be shadows of similarity but the real fulfillment of these is only found in Jesus Christ.
@@gkman6953 So why is it inferior? Because you say so? You're a bigot? A racist? Why? What's wrong with other religions? Why are the "shadows of similarity" of Jesus and not that Jesus is the shadow of similarity of Dionysus? Frankly, I think Dionysus is a much better demigod than Jesus, but, I'll admit it's just personal taste. You have a presupposition and you simply interpret everything the way you want because you want, it's not how real knowledge is obtained, btw, it's how you confirm your bias. You totally ignore the real questions I ask and just assert like a child, "My daddy can beat up your daddy! Nah, nah, a boo-boo!" If Jesus was better than Dionysus or many other gods and demigods, why didn't he do something unique and awesome? Why is everything he did and taught just mundane and copies?
I'm teaching a catechism class for Confirmation and I dismantled another pagan conspiracy (the idea that Christmas is a rip off of the Solictice festival) using points Trent and others have made. Its important we know how to defend against this garbage.
Yeah, another funny one is because Dec 25th(or more specifically Dec 21-22) was/is the winter solstice, some how the Christmas story is false and Christians' just co-opted a pagan holiday and mixed it with the Bible...anyone who would say that has done about 5 minutes of research from a heavily biases source.
We don't know for 100% sure when Dec 25th for Christ's Birth Celebration was started. Could be as early as the 2nd century up through the 4th with Constantine. Even tho it's likely not a coincidence it coincided with a winter solstice celebration for even political reasons, to say some how Jesus' birth is in question because of a somewhat arbitrary date of celebrating it is fallacious. We celebrate those who died in service to America on an arbitrary date...does that make their sacrifice or existence any less real?@@Danko_Sekulic
Do you know what happens at winter solstice? The sun appears to not move for 3 days then rises on the third day. The gospels are full of Greek culture. John and James seem just like Pollux and castors. Both are called sons of the thunderer and both sit or want to sit at the right and left side of their respective deity.
Hello Trent, could you please speak of controversial and historical Christian events like the crusades, Spanish Inquisition and “la reconquista”?. I think this would be a very interesting topic to talk about, given the many misconceptions and narratives pushed by those who want to demonize God and Christianity overall. Maybe also tell us where we can learn/read more about it. Thank you and God bless.
Oh my gosh that was embarrassing for Erhman. "I don't believe the birth narrative because one mentioned a trip to Egypt and the other doesn't" Erhman has 0 clue as to WHY there where 4 narratives in the first place and even less of a clue what the word contradiction is. And I'm not saying he's stupid. He's a textual critic, so he's very good and finding out what the OG copies likely said, but he's a very poor historian!
@@mattm7798 yeah the Jimmy Akin debate with Bart Erhman underlines his lack of understanding of what a contradiction is too. Mentioning different parts of the same story isn't a contradiction. It would have to directly say one of those parts didn't happen or if both parts were impossible together for it to actually be a contradiction. He also implied that basically all 4 gospels should have told the exact same details. Why would they have written anything if everything was already told? Just to copy? That's silly.
Ah I see you're using Erhman arguments from a man who has no clue what the word contradiction means, nor is a historian, but a textual critic. I agree 100% that each of the 4 author is of the gospels emphasize different parts of Jesus, to say that Luke removes all instances in Mark of Jesus dying for our sin is just wrong. Being the Messiah itself is being the suffering servant, along with chapter like Acts 20(really Luke part 2). Luke emphasized Jesus' humanity(in contrast to John's focus on His divinity).@@tomasrocha6139
Some of these really do show that people are more interested in trying to take pot shots at Christianity then they are the “truth” they profess to care about. “This god was born of a virgin!” “No, that god emerged fully grown out of a rock…” “Well this mythological figure born of a virgin!” “You do realize that figure has several older brothers and sisters right? By the same mother and father.”
He makes a lot of great points. I actually looked much of this up shortly after I became a believer in the 2000s. I had heard a lot of anti-Christian conspiracy claims (either the pagan roots or the mythicists), and I found the work of good apologists easily showed how poor those claims are. In fact, they showed how little credibility the people making those claims have. On a minor note though, the Hebrew woman's name Miriam could easily have derived from the Egyptian root of Mary, since Jews spent many years in Egypt, and the words are similar. The Egyptian root is also of more positive in meaning than the Hebrew, which means bitter. The Egyptian root means love, or beloved. I would prefer that meaning as a name for my daughters.
Isn’t the claim that it was copied from another virgin birth, but really the woman copulated with a swan, or a goose? And atheists are like, “yeah, same thing.”
No what atheists do is they read books that talk about the alleged virgin births of other religions being similar to the virgin birth of Christ and they don't go straight to the source of those claims to check if it's true.
Yeah, and they like to push the idea of Isis and Osiris like Horus birth was of a virgin... but they forget the part of the story about how the dead Osiris's member was eating by a fish and so Isis had to make a member for him... that she then used to copulate with his corps.
This has nothing to do with the actual topic, but I remember when I worked at a hotel a guest from Florida asked about the weather and I said, “Not bad,” and when he came back he said it was “chilly.” It was in the upper 60s 😂 the beginning just reminded me of that.
It always makes me laugh when anyone trots out this objection because it is so so easily refutted, on multiple levels. First, there is no evidence it was copied. Second, similar stories in no way suggests copying or collusion without further evidence. Third, you judge the Bible on the Bible's reliability and content, not on some vaguely similar story.
It's not that Christians exactly copied paganism. It's that they took existing motifs present in the ancient pagan world to craft a new story. In their case combining motifs from Judaism and classical Hellenism. In this case the Jewish messiah figure and a pagan demi-god. Christianity is myth literalised and historicised. Virgins don't have children and there is no way to test such a claim if you believe it was a literal historical event.
This was a good defense of the Biblical narrative of the virgin birth. No doubt, it was the ancient occult that copied or counterfeited the Messianic birth of Jesus. This conception of the Savior was given in the very beginning in Genesis 3:15 and carried down the ages through patriarchs and prophets. Therefore, the information was available to the Devil and his inspired followers to counterfeit in order to mislead souls from their salvation.
Hey Trent 👋 Wanted to ask you, if you could explain me, how the council of florent taught, that nobody can be saved outside the church, even if he gave his blood for christ. That confuses me a lot… Is that true and if yes, how can we understand that?
Midnight Mass gets out: 2:00 AM Get home w/tired and screaming kiddos: 2:30 AM Get kids to bed: 3:00 AM Kids sleep in to 11:00 to catch up on sleep: NOPE Thanks for the upload Trent to keep me awake while my 2 year old is wide awake playing with hot wheels
They assume too much. The stories of the Greco Romans appeared after the Renaissance. Even that "Buddha" character appears after Christ. Hinduism didn't exist until after Christ. As I continue to work through the extant evidence, I expect the remainder will fall.
All kinds of themes occur in stories and fables and folklore. It doesn't mean anything EVEN IF there is some pagan myth that somehow is similar to the Christ story. The Christ story is what it is, take it or leave it. I'll take it.
Right, it reminds me of a history teacher I had who said the Noah flood was less credible because the epic of Gilgamesh also has a flood story. I was like "um, i don't think that's how we determine credibility". The comparison also completely falls apart when you directly compare the two, with the biblical version being a great seaworthy barge and the gilgamesh being a box. Whether you take the flood as literal or figurative, global or local, the idea that gilgamesh somehow makes noah's tale less is laughable.
Even if these pagan virgin birth myths were true, it wouldn’t disprove the virgin birth of Jesus. It’s possible that God allowed those pagan myths to exist simply as a way of helping/preparing people to understand the Christ story.
Its wild they can’t realize that isis and osiris are the earlier, egyptian iterations of lilith and samaEL, they can’t realize they were their own people that lived thousands of years before Christ (the historic incarnate son of God and savior)
The funny thing in archeology is how after Alexander the great the Assyrian /chaldean magi who once would be soulless and grant the cosmic pagan sky god of measurement physical prescriptions of a radicalized environment is god becomes more influenced under the rise zorastrianism. Its almost the opposite what happened in 1st temple kadokite then Hezekiah reforms burning down. Moses built structures to combat Assyrian pagan influences. But it would be no doubt the answer where written in the celestial skys above physically for real. The magi would likely not see it the same way in 35 bc as they wouldve in 750 bc. Just as the 1st temple Judaism may have been more hostile to this pagan physical prescriptions but become more fond of it in 2nd temple period and on into rabbinic Jewish reforms
Trent should debate Rabbi Tovia (dont know if I spelled it right). He is an absolute hater and constantly trolling on Christians. My husband was swayed by his videos last year..unfortunately
The point is not to retell the same story that’s boring that’s not fun, not entertainment just like marvel movies now. People want the same concepts in new stories and configurations so they “get it” so as time goes on and cultures adapt they change the story to fit within their culture nothing new there. Thats been happening from one culture to the next throughout all history.
Aron Ra (formerly L. Aron Nelson, born October 15, 1962) is an atheist activist. Ra is the host of the Ra-Men Podcast. How much do you want to bet that he got "Ra" from the name of the Egyptian god of the sun. So, his podcast is named after a Japanese noodle dish.
Why in Mark 3:21 did Jesus family think he was crazy then? If they were visited by Angels and wise magi bowed to him etc. why would his own family think he had lost his mind as it says in Mark 3:21
At this point, Jesus' ministry and teachings were ramping up in intensity regarding His role as savior. There was already a plot by the saddusees and pharisees to "remove" Jesus and stop His growing influence. Also in Mark, the pharisees said Jesus was possessed by Satan. It could be interpreted that Jesus' family attempted to say he was insane and pull Jesus away to avoid the punishment of blasphemy, which is death. Jesus's fame and notoriety among the elders was rising and it would make sense His family wanted to take Jesus to another town to escape capital punishment for His teachings. Jesus' brother James was an early witness to the resurrection and an early church elder, so clearly at least one of his brothers believed in what Jesus was doing. An attempt to protect Jesus from capital punishment, which the pharisees wanted, is the most likely explanation of Mark. We see it all the time in court in an attempt to secure more lenient sentencing, "he had a rough upbringing","he has a mental disability", etc.
Something just dawned on me during Christmas mass last night. Jesus is supposed to descend from the lineage of kings of the house of David, but technically he isn't. The Christmas gospel at mass took great pains to document his lineage, and yes, Joseph is indeed of the house of David, but us Catholics believe Jesus to be conceived by the Holy Spirit within Mary. So with this observation, does Jesus really fulfill the messianic prophecy?
@@renjithjoseph7135 there is no proof that the author of Luke is listing Mary’s lineage. He explicitly states that it is Joseph’s bloodline. Which is odd since Jesus is supposed to be Joseph’s biological child.
We're 9 children in our family. My birthday is one day after my sister's date. Sometimes our anniversaries happen during the week. But if we decide to celebrate it during rhe weekend. Do you get where I go?! My sister and I, are we pegan?! Jesus had to come. If it's been decided on the 25th, there's no problem there Now, there's too much written stories from even the enemies of Jesus, of Jesus contemporain, those who don't believe have deep problems, on the level of "they don't want Jesus to exist". It is as 2000 years of wwak minds, none one intelligent, but just them todays.......?!?
This apologetic has never made sense to me: yes the jesus story has lots of features similar to pagan stories before and at the time, but it’s not an EXACT carbon copy and has Jewish elements so it’s totally not influenced by the culture or story tropes of similar gods. This does not follow. Something does not have to have the exact elements for it to be clearly an influence. Obviously, a story about the Jewish man will have a fusion of Jewish elements , it would be weird if it didn’t. I prefer the older apologetics of the church fathers that Satan was using fake versions of the true story to throw everyone off. It’s ridiculous, but it’s better than this.
Not to mention NO two stories about gods from different religions, are the same. The Egyptian stories differ from the Greek and Zoroastrian stories and the Jewish stories. But there are clearly tropes and archetypes that show an awareness of how dirty stories were told.
If Jesus was a man, a necessary requirement within the Christian interpretation of reality, and only has a human part inherited from his (human) mother, the contradiction of a semi-human being equal to a true man arises. A real man has half of the genes of him necessarily provided, according to the laws of genetics, by a male of our species. If Jesus only has genetic material from his mother, he would be a clone of his mother. A woman. A fantastic case would be that Jesus had half of his genes coming from God. Does God have certain genes? Did God create a special set of genes, to procreate Jesus, and miraculously inserted them into Mary?
We most certainly DO say that Our Lord was born on the 25th of December. Look at any of the prayers of the masses of Christmas. This is very poor scholarship.
The stories don't need to be exactly 1 for 1 copies for it to be either inspired or copied from old Pagan folklore. The miracles being necessary to show God is now Jesus in the flesh is silly, if you don't accept any other miracles throughout almost all cultures occurring alongside Christianity and Judaism as being true or proof of a God. The miraculous conception as well is pretty uncreative and pretty stupid if it would just be interpreted that Mary was unfaithful. Their had to be another intervention to convince Joseph he wasn't being cheated on. I don't know how if you are so knowledgeable about the histories and stories of these cultures you should understand the overlap of miracles and founding of the religions. There is obvious parallels. It is just odd that the one true God couldn't have been more creative even by your own books account.
The evidence for any miracle that would confirm a differnt religion is orders of magnitude weaker than the evidence for many christian miracles. This is not a controversial idea, even skeptics agree. There are no parallels.
The closest thing to virgin birth in actual greek mythology is Zeus turning into a golden shower and the closest in egyptian mythology is Isis kind of doing necrophilia.
Yeah, the only “theory” i give credence to is the fact that there was no official “judaism” or “zoroastrianism”. There were monotheistic jews and persians who had the same faith in the one creator, but spoke different languages and held slightly different cultural traditions. First example is that even under king Cyrus it was understood that the God of the heavens that spoke to him and ordered him to build the jews a home, is the very same God of the jewish peoples. Ahura+Mazda is the persian name of what the semitics were calling ELah+Ashera. Mithra and Ahriman are michaEL and samaEL. But Jesus fulfilled the prophecy given to both zoroaster himself as well as to the abrahamic peoples- to worship the Creator as God, and that a savior would be born of a virgin in a cave. Of course every translation of both takes vary. One theory that isn’t solid in stone is that Zarathustra is the persian iteration of Avraham, though the two are from the same babylonian/sumerian city, from the same time, and their parents all bare similar names even in difference of tongue. Though this being true would just be the nail in the coffin that Jesus is the fulfillment of the savior of the world, the only incarnate son of the only Creator/God!!!
35:40 totally post hoc btw, the "immediate" is indication of it's mythic nature. Actual history was written differently back then, as we know from history actually written in that period. Post hoc, lol, "Yeah, Mark had no reason to say blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....." NO....if Mark was inspired by the Holy Ghost and his purpose was to spread the Gospel and help sinners, leaving stuff out is an indictment. It's like it's designed to create unbelief. Almost as if God doesn't really love us. 38:20 If he wanted to do this, he could have done it in a million unique ways, that he copied tons of other myths, legends, fables, etc., is pretty strong evidence that it didn't happen.
21:10 Dionysus is a parallel I’ve heard more than any of the others deities mentioned here. So far I haven’t come across any commentators who noted this during the recent Olympic controversy. Under different circumstances it might have passed as a savvy nod to art history, but he went too far.
If Horus and Jesus had any similarities, then why isn't Jesus depicted with a falcons head or alligators body? I guess one just has to research the many tales and find which one they like.
So because everything isn't exactly the same then there is no comparison!? I often wonder if these people even understand the argument. Nobody argues that they are EXACTLY the same but that there was a pattern with in stories in the area at the time and many predate Jesus. The argument is that it is common in the antient world. Which is a FACT and something you can't argue against.
So what? The rest of the arguments against mythicism in general still stand. What reason did they have to invent/copy any of it? Where did the fishermen of Israel encounter these older myths? Most importantly, why did they all suffer torture and die as martyrs for a lie?
That Trent finds that a variation in the narration of a story very similar to others created previously, has aspects that he finds beautiful, does not count as a reason to suppose that this is a narration without any relation to the previous ones. The similarities between narratives chronologically prior to the Christian ones generate questions that cannot be answered efficiently. This includes the type of responses where it is claimed that there is no reason to find them causally related. There is no way to rationally prove that the previous narratives had no influence on the Christian narratives. But using the criteria that we commonly use in our reality, these similarities tip the balance towards considering that the greater probability is that these narratives have influenced the Christian narratives. Considering that Christian narratives are an exception is just wishful thinking.
There is no new idea under the sun. Christ all over scripture uses concepts we understood already to communicate to us and give us sacraments. The idea of a virgin birth and what it signified obviously existed forever before he came, but he actually did it. He brought the idea of the myths before him into reality. Same with the Eucharist. There was already a long history of various worship forms involving drinking human blood and eating their flesh. The idea was already to absorb the essence of the person consumed. Warrior eating other great warrios they defeated, or eating ancetors or wise men. This was a thing. Christ took this man made practice and gave us a divine one, where that essence is actually absorbed by consumimg the body and blood. It is a deliberate actualization of the rituals of man. Myths and ideas we held with no reality in them, he gave them the supernatural reality, he actualized them. He didn't come to create entirely new rituals, he came to communicate to us through means we deeply understood.
What do you think of the 'Revelation of the Magi'? I read a summary the 'hidden book in the vatican'. It gave me a whole new respect for the christmas scene and made it real in my mind. An excellent book that explains the trinity. I recently made a video n this and would appreciate a real bible scholar discussing the this. this is huge if a JW or exJW can look into this as it will change their view on this subject...by Brent Landau
How about turning things around and saying that the Virginal Conception & Birth of Christ are - in God's purpose - the Original & True & Exemplary Conception & Birth, of which (1) pagan stories of that kind are distorted echoes, even though they are earlier in historical time than it is; (2) all other conceptions & births are approximations. IOW, all the Mysteries of Christ, and all their meaning, is a template for all creation, from the beginning of the created universe to its consummation in Him. As He is Lord of All, His creatures are "caught up into" this movement of creation in, for, and through Him; and His mother is one of those creatures. Basically, the Incarnate Word is why there is any creation, or anything else that is not-God. His Incarnation, is why there are myths of the birth of God. He is the original - Horus is a copy. And maybe one can also say: Isis, the mother of the god Horus, is a copy of the real mother of God. The real mother of God is far more recent in historical time than Isis; but far "older" in God's purpose, since the Divine purpose to bring about the Incarnate was, so to speak, "hidden in God", "before the foundation of the world". One could also argue that devotion to Isis (which was very great, and spread to cover a great area of the Mediterranean world) was "winked at" by God, so as to prepare for the worldwide devotion to the true mother of God, of whom Isis was but a copy.
I would kind of agree with you. Blessed A.C Emmerich describe seeing the incarnation of Our Lord inspired to different pagans tribes that distorted it through time. Ex : an ancient tribe who would sacrifice and eat babies thinking this was benefiting them. The blessed sees a terrible parody of what would later be the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus (and the Eucharist).
The mythological parallels were well known to the early church Fathers, such as Justin. It was bizarrely claimed that the devil mimicked the "actual" events of Jesus life beforehand. The ancient pagan Celsus wrote in his "On the true doctrine" about the rip off that was Christianity. The Emperor Julian the Philosopher (who was brought up Christian and reverted to Hellenism) claimed that the literalist Christians took from Judaism and Hellenism and created something worse than either of them. When you look at the lengths early Christians took to suppress heresies, terrorise opponents, make bonfires of opponents writings and ban writings of pagans and gnostics, then it looks like their critics were too near the mark.
no, they weren't. Christians had absolutely no way to "terrorise" any pagan for 250 years straight, and yet they grew in numbers. The things claimed by Celsus and the others were so blatantly false that the roman empire converted.
@@jacoblee5796 Definition of evidence is "anything that makes a claim more likely to be true". The epistemology atheists need to use to maintain their provably incoherent worldview commits the fallacy of special pleading, you outright dismiss hypotheses and then make up irrational reasons to reject them, no matter what evidence is presented. Yes, the evidence is in the deposit of Faith, which includes the Bible. Can you tell me how you know what the capital of Indonesia is? What is the evidence that leads you to believe it's Jakarta?
@@tafazzi-on-discord It's hilarious and telling that you use a mundane claim like the capital of Indonesia to try and make your point. And not an extraordinary claim like you were abducted by aliens. I wonder why that is?
Aphrodite was not a human. Yes, out of the tens of miracles recorded in the Bible, one happens to match up with a pagan god's. big deal. Yes, it's a coincidence, no quotation marks needed.
@@mashah1085 It's not proof, but the Bible is a historical document, and the existance of historical document is always evidence that what they claim is true. That's the basis for tye study of all of history. How do you know who won the war between Rome and Carthage? It's historical documents by guys like Virgil and Pliny the Younger. Many of the books of the Bible can be shown to be written by careful, accurate authors, that wrote close to the events recorded in space and time. That's a nail in the coffin for the idea that it's made up. It's a hypothesis that crumbles before the evidence.
@@bigfootapologetics but the Bible itself makes no reference to it. So it’s just strictly none biblical sources that even mention it, all of them later Christian’s, odd don’t you think
@@Thomas-bq4ed Eh - not really, to be honest. The Bible was never intended to be some sort of encyclopedia. 2 Thess. 2:15 tells us to hold fast to the traditions that were written down and passed down orally, and all Christians, up to (and including!) the Protestant Reformers taught that Mary was ever-virgin. John 20:21 notes there's a lot of things that were left out of that particular gospel, and given what we know about things like the Trinity or the early Church, it's good to remember that the Bible never even existed as a singular compilation until the fourth century.
@@bigfootapologetics Nobody claimed it to be an encyclopedia, Christians are the only people to take it as literal historical text, you should have a much higher standard of its content then me. If you are to claim in many cases it is conveying literal history, especially a virgin birth, and a resurrections. They go to great lengths to illustrate Joseph not understanding how Mary conceived, enough to have an angel explain it, so literally 2 interventions of a kind. But they make no mention of Mary beyond her being a virgin. She is merely a plot device. Look at how many times she's even mentioned. Many people claim she was a source for the gospels, and she is hardly a topic of discussion. Quoting John in the new testament to give credibility to the same book when we know the authors borrowed from each other, and their sources overlapped, not to mention any bias Christian authors have towards Christian text, is rather silly. Speaking of Christianity's teachings, trinity came well after the gospels were written, mentioned by Tertullian 150 years after the fact. Mathew describing the father son and the holy spirit and their function didn't immediately lead to the teaching of trinity you agree with today. The discussion surrounding the idea that the trinity had some very specific greater significance like in Catholicism is even later. Many Christian denomination don't agree with the interpretation to this day. Also the fact the bible is a curated accumulation of stories and articles brought together by men with agendas all their own does not bode well for any credibility you wish to establish. Whether it being true or even cohesive in messaging and narrative.
@@Thomas-bq4ed The question that Mary asks to the angel, "How will that be, since I know not man?" is nonsense in all cases except if she was a consacrated virgin. The angel in the previous chapter punished Zachariah for asking a nonsense question. The angel does not punish Mary. That suggests that's not a nonsense question. >Look at how many times she's even mentioned. Many people claim she was a source for the gospels, and she is hardly a topic of discussion. The gospels are biographies about Jesus, not about Mary. She's the source, not the focus.
Can you do the genelogies of Matthew and Luke? a) Why are they different b) Is Luke about Mary (with Eli being her father, with the "Jesus, son of Joseph (as was supposed), son of Eli" meaning Eli was the 1st after Jesus with Jospeh merely being a "people think it's him, but it's not, so onto Eli" c) Is Eli Joseph's adopted father through Jewish marriage law (with Jacob his biological, but Eli, being Jacob's brother, dying childless, meant Joseph, his nephew, became his legal son to carry his heritage) d) Is Matthew proving Jesus's legal claim, and Luke proving Jesus's biological claim to Davidian heritage? Or if they're both about Jospeh, why does Jesus inherit Davidian kinship when his only biological parent is Mary? Why aren't they going through her (especially as Matthew states 4 women in his genelogy)?
Joseph Atwill is considered a joke among atheist and skeptical mythicists. So STRAWMAN much? If I showed proofs to disprove Mormonism, does that disprove Catholicism? No, obviously, nor would I say something that stupid. Same with y'all talking about Atwill and the whole discounted documentary he did. IF you cannot STEELMAN, you're wasting oxygen.
31:00 Exactly. If Paul had information about a virgin birth, why not say that? If he had information about sayings and teachings, why not mention it? He goes out of his way to try and give proof that Jesus is the savior and so forth, it's silly to think he believed in a virgin birth, a bodily resurrections, and that he did an earthly ministry of healings, but didn't mention any of this at all. Why? Evidence of absence here is evidence, it's not proof, but it's highly suspect to think Paul thought Jesus was born of a woman who was a virgin and didn't say anything about it.
It's unfortunate that something only two New Treatment writers even recorded intending to add credibility to their accounts has become one of the greatest detractors of credibility for the other 25 NT books.
@@georgepierson4920 Some people used to think that a divine human should be born of a virgin, so Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was. None of the other 25 books of the NT back up that claim. Paul, who wrote the earliest books of the NT, said Jesus was born of a woman. You think he might have mentioned that the woman was a virgin, but he didn't. Now modern people are expected to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin because 2 out of 27 NT books say so. For me that makes Christianity harder to swallow than if the virgin bit had been left out, but Matthew and Luke thought it made their story more credible to an ancient audience.
_to discuss the unique elements of the Incarnation_ So we know right off the bat, this is a strawman. NOBODY (of merit and intelligence) says it's an exact copy, nor would we expect it to be an exact copy. The virgin birth (or sexless birth) is a long known and very common trope. A God having a son (on occasion a daughter) with a mortal woman is common. It's common. It's common. Does God (Yahweh) not have any originality? He can't make up a story that's totally unique instead of "radically" unique? lol You're admitting the story isn't unique, you have to keep using qualifiers, "radically" or "unique." This is like saying The Jets and the Sharks are exact copies of Romeo and Juliet so that, since it has "radically unique" elements, it's not taken from Shakespeare. Seriously, Trent.....parallelamania is a STRAWMAN. Not grasping at straws at all, but showing that the stories are common in theme, conventions, tropes, and scenes. It happens over and over, the NT copies Euripides, Homer, the Septuagint, and other fables, legends, myths....it's obvious. To deny it is to stare at an elephant and tell me it's a goat.
"this is a strawman. NOBODY (of merit and intelligence) says it's an exact copy" It isn't a strawman, they are reacting to a video that tens of millions of people watched. Every example cited as a parallel is false
@@briandiehl9257 Yes, understood, but anyone that understands the issue and is intelligent about it knows that research is bunk. It's rantings of a crazy person. My point is that if you want to challenge a position, attacking a weak source, that isn't believed by anyone that is intelligent, isn't a good way to do it. The way to argue a position, if you're really wanting to do it honestly, is to attack the STEELMAN, not the strawman. It is a strawman because it's a weak case that even atheists laugh at. What's the point of "proving" false something that nobody of intelligence believes? I guess if you think some Christians are "being fooled' by bad scholarship and dumb assertions, okay, but then you're just admitting those Christians are idiots. Not sure if you can save them, but fact is, they're not paying attention anyway. You don't need to secure the cows who are afraid of leaving the barn, all this kind of stuff is just preaching to the choir. It's like Lee Strobel's work, it's so dumb, so stupid, so childish, it doesn't help anyone find truth, it's design is to milk the flock of gullible Christians (similar to these dumb Christian movies like God's Not Dead). The real battle, with real intelligent people on both sides, is unfortunately a rare thing to witness, sadly.
@@briandiehl9257 Fair enough, but, to me, it's a waste of time to refute it. I mean, would you be interested in hearing why the earth isn't flat? lol I guess some people do, I roll my eyes at those videos. I think arguing about a flat earth is pointless. I think refuting Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah or the Horus and Jesus were born on December 25th claims to be worthless time wasters. If someone wants to really get into the weeds, they have to talk to Richard Carrier, Richard Miller, Dennis McDonald, and a host of others, and talk real history and real facts. when you do that, Christianity starts to unravel, so I can see why people who are Christians don't want to do it.
Virgin birth was a later addition, the earliest christian writings (Pauls letters & Marks gospel) do not have a virgin birth. It was added as an attempt to attrract non-jewish converts. The original Jewish christians believed that jesus was descended from david and born naturally by his mother Mary and his father Joseph. Any other position is simply dishonest and not in line with modern scholarship.
Even the Gospel of John says emphatically that the father of Jesus is Joseph. Funny, Christians would do themselves a solid if they dropped the stuff that's obviously false and mythical. Why can't Jesus have been born normally like John says and Mark implies, and get baptised as a human to be adopted by God at the baptism of John (the baptism of sinners)? Doesn't make sense except that they've got some weird position about finding some texts so important that they can't drop them, ironically, this works the other way when Protestants point out that Jesus had brothers (like Mark 3) where they flop from taking things literally to taking things figuratively. funny, this...
The virgin “birth” is not in the Bible. It is a second century addition from the proto gospel of James. As a Catholic, Trent is very precise in his wording. Every one of the birth stories centered on divine conception, including Jesus’ is not exactly the same. They have similar details, but in Jesus’ case the God that impregnates Mary is now de anthropomorphized (the Old Testament God is quite human-like), and the human woman is a “actual” virgin. I think (and I’m not alone), that this looks like the author of Matthew’s gospel is trying to “one up” the birth narratives of these other demigods, in order to make Jesus seem more miraculous and more powerful.
"Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." -Martin Luther "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned." -John Calvin "Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity." -John Calvin "I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity." -Huldreich Zwingli "I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." -John Wesley “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26-27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” -Hilary of Poitiers (310-367) “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary." -Athanasius (296-373) “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband." -Augustine of Hippo
@@billcynic1815 It doesn't say or indicate that her virginity was perpetual. The fact that she had a husband and Jesus had brothers and sisters is evidence to the contrary
@@paradisecityX0 The men who wete the strongest defenders of _sola scriptura_ believed the Scriptures indicated the Perpetual Virginity, and defended it. I gave quotes from them showing why they believed the Scriptures show it. The Perpetual Virginity was believed and held since at the very latest the 3rd century. It was believed by the people who faithfully copied, passed down, and translated the Scripture, including Jerome, Cyril, and Methodius. It would behoove you to at the very least investigate why they believed the Scriptures taught that rather than just asserting otherwise.
@@jacoblee57963 distinct persons that are each independently the one true God. The Father is the Creator of Everything, the Son is the Creator of Everything, and the Holy Spirit is the Creator of Everything, but the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, neither is the Son is the Holy Spirit.
@@JonOchoa I'm a father, a son, an uncle and a brother. I guess that makes me 4 in 1, i must be even more powerful than your god! All jokes aside, what you just said is completely asinine and doesn't make any sense. If what you are saying is true, god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qbHbshrA1f0/mqdefault.jpg)
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
This is my first Christmas as a Catholic and loved Christmas Mass. God bless everyone
Great.
I addressed an elderly woman this morning who went back to her pew at Christmas mass with the holy host in her hand.
I didn't like the idea of reproaching an elderly lady, but it is the Body of Christ.
You did not reproach or reprimand her, you helped her respect the Lord more.
Plus, being old doesn't mean you are holier.
Me too! Welcome home!!
Same here!
same for me 😊
Can't believe I'm watching this on christmas lol. A year ago I wasn't even into thology, polemics, apoligsts and debates.
They always point out the similarities between the gospel and pagan myths. But they dare not to pay equal attention to the differences and what makes the story of Jesus unique. And the differences are what make the difference. Thanks Trent!
Agreed. There's a ton of similarities between Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan's carrer, so one must be copied right lol
Just silly.
@@mattm7798It would be silly except that there is overwhelming evidence for Alexander and Gengis whereas there is ZERO evidence for the Virgin birth. Do you see the difference now or will it take you a few more years, if ever?
This would work the other way.
Dionysus is unique. When he created wine, via miracle, it was unique (and pre-dated Jesus).
Also the maenads, they strike rocks with the thyrsus and the ground.
The rock produces water....now where do we hear this before?
The ground produces milk, honey, and wine....haha, where did we hear this before?
Why do you dare not pay equal attention to the differences that make the story of Dionysus, a son of a god, that is unique?
@@michaelsbeverly Because I have no reason to pay equal attention to an inferior mythical invention which has no meaningful comparison to the person of Jesus Christ in all of his totality. There may be shadows of similarity but the real fulfillment of these is only found in Jesus Christ.
@@gkman6953 So why is it inferior?
Because you say so?
You're a bigot? A racist? Why?
What's wrong with other religions?
Why are the "shadows of similarity" of Jesus and not that Jesus is the shadow of similarity of Dionysus?
Frankly, I think Dionysus is a much better demigod than Jesus, but, I'll admit it's just personal taste.
You have a presupposition and you simply interpret everything the way you want because you want, it's not how real knowledge is obtained, btw, it's how you confirm your bias.
You totally ignore the real questions I ask and just assert like a child, "My daddy can beat up your daddy! Nah, nah, a boo-boo!"
If Jesus was better than Dionysus or many other gods and demigods, why didn't he do something unique and awesome?
Why is everything he did and taught just mundane and copies?
I'm teaching a catechism class for Confirmation and I dismantled another pagan conspiracy (the idea that Christmas is a rip off of the Solictice festival) using points Trent and others have made. Its important we know how to defend against this garbage.
Please check out, message from heaven by Rachel lubbe and A lamp in the dark by chist pinto and Before the wrath by ingenuity films.
Merry Christmas, Trent! And Merry Christmas to all who read this comment, God bless!
I appreciate you guys go from serious to jokes so seamlessly. Fun.
Merry Christmas !!
This idea that everything was "ripped off" goes way back. Waaay before yt or social media!
Yeah, another funny one is because Dec 25th(or more specifically Dec 21-22) was/is the winter solstice, some how the Christmas story is false and Christians' just co-opted a pagan holiday and mixed it with the Bible...anyone who would say that has done about 5 minutes of research from a heavily biases source.
@@mattm7798
That "theory" always made me wonder why they didn't choose the winter solstice itself, then ??
We don't know for 100% sure when Dec 25th for Christ's Birth Celebration was started. Could be as early as the 2nd century up through the 4th with Constantine.
Even tho it's likely not a coincidence it coincided with a winter solstice celebration for even political reasons, to say some how Jesus' birth is in question because of a somewhat arbitrary date of celebrating it is fallacious.
We celebrate those who died in service to America on an arbitrary date...does that make their sacrifice or existence any less real?@@Danko_Sekulic
Do you know what happens at winter solstice? The sun appears to not move for 3 days then rises on the third day. The gospels are full of Greek culture. John and James seem just like Pollux and castors. Both are called sons of the thunderer and both sit or want to sit at the right and left side of their respective deity.
Trent Horn video on Christmas is the best present
Could listen to these two talk all day long 😂
Hello Trent, could you please speak of controversial and historical Christian events like the crusades, Spanish Inquisition and “la reconquista”?.
I think this would be a very interesting topic to talk about, given the many misconceptions and narratives pushed by those who want to demonize God and Christianity overall.
Maybe also tell us where we can learn/read more about it.
Thank you and God bless.
I second this. I also would like a video on "forced conversions," and there scope and importance in the history of the Church.
Deep informative talk from very knowledgeable people.
Happy Christmas to you Trent, and your family.
Would love to see a video response to Alex Oconners interview with Bart Ehrman about the contradictions between the birth narratives in the gospels.
What sort of contradictions?
Jesus lives rent free in Alex o'cuckolds head doesn't he?
Oh my gosh that was embarrassing for Erhman. "I don't believe the birth narrative because one mentioned a trip to Egypt and the other doesn't"
Erhman has 0 clue as to WHY there where 4 narratives in the first place and even less of a clue what the word contradiction is.
And I'm not saying he's stupid. He's a textual critic, so he's very good and finding out what the OG copies likely said, but he's a very poor historian!
@@mattm7798 yeah the Jimmy Akin debate with Bart Erhman underlines his lack of understanding of what a contradiction is too. Mentioning different parts of the same story isn't a contradiction. It would have to directly say one of those parts didn't happen or if both parts were impossible together for it to actually be a contradiction. He also implied that basically all 4 gospels should have told the exact same details. Why would they have written anything if everything was already told? Just to copy? That's silly.
Ah I see you're using Erhman arguments from a man who has no clue what the word contradiction means, nor is a historian, but a textual critic.
I agree 100% that each of the 4 author is of the gospels emphasize different parts of Jesus, to say that Luke removes all instances in Mark of Jesus dying for our sin is just wrong. Being the Messiah itself is being the suffering servant, along with chapter like Acts 20(really Luke part 2).
Luke emphasized Jesus' humanity(in contrast to John's focus on His divinity).@@tomasrocha6139
Merry Christmas to you and your family Trent! God bless you ❤
Great insight Trent!
Bros a timetraveller 💀
@@bazisolt.237 😂😂🤣 I did it on purpose
What a great gift 🎁 this morning. Merry Christmas! 🎄
Some of these really do show that people are more interested in trying to take pot shots at Christianity then they are the “truth” they profess to care about.
“This god was born of a virgin!” “No, that god emerged fully grown out of a rock…”
“Well this mythological figure born of a virgin!”
“You do realize that figure has several older brothers and sisters right? By the same mother and father.”
Merry Christmas...Thanks much for another inspiring n insightful reasoning...
He makes a lot of great points. I actually looked much of this up shortly after I became a believer in the 2000s. I had heard a lot of anti-Christian conspiracy claims (either the pagan roots or the mythicists), and I found the work of good apologists easily showed how poor those claims are. In fact, they showed how little credibility the people making those claims have.
On a minor note though, the Hebrew woman's name Miriam could easily have derived from the Egyptian root of Mary, since Jews spent many years in Egypt, and the words are similar. The Egyptian root is also of more positive in meaning than the Hebrew, which means bitter. The Egyptian root means love, or beloved. I would prefer that meaning as a name for my daughters.
Isn’t the claim that it was copied from another virgin birth, but really the woman copulated with a swan, or a goose?
And atheists are like, “yeah, same thing.”
Haha right. Just shows how far they are willing to stretch reason to discount the Bible and God.
Yes
No what atheists do is they read books that talk about the alleged virgin births of other religions being similar to the virgin birth of Christ and they don't go straight to the source of those claims to check if it's true.
Yeah, and they like to push the idea of Isis and Osiris like Horus birth was of a virgin... but they forget the part of the story about how the dead Osiris's member was eating by a fish and so Isis had to make a member for him... that she then used to copulate with his corps.
Merry Christmas, Trent!
This has nothing to do with the actual topic, but I remember when I worked at a hotel a guest from Florida asked about the weather and I said, “Not bad,” and when he came back he said it was “chilly.” It was in the upper 60s 😂 the beginning just reminded me of that.
Mr Trent and Mr Cy are %100 correct regarding Mr James Wood's noteworthy performance as Hades.
I'm glad you address this. This is one of my pet peeves.
So this is what Trent was working on while the Fradds were torturing Laura 😆
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Merry Christmas everyone :)
It always makes me laugh when anyone trots out this objection because it is so so easily refutted, on multiple levels. First, there is no evidence it was copied. Second, similar stories in no way suggests copying or collusion without further evidence. Third, you judge the Bible on the Bible's reliability and content, not on some vaguely similar story.
It's not that Christians exactly copied paganism. It's that they took existing motifs present in the ancient pagan world to craft a new story. In their case combining motifs from Judaism and classical Hellenism. In this case the Jewish messiah figure and a pagan demi-god. Christianity is myth literalised and historicised. Virgins don't have children and there is no way to test such a claim if you believe it was a literal historical event.
another great episode !
This was a good defense of the Biblical narrative of the virgin birth. No doubt, it was the ancient occult that copied or counterfeited the Messianic birth of Jesus. This conception of the Savior was given in the very beginning in Genesis 3:15 and carried down the ages through patriarchs and prophets. Therefore, the information was available to the Devil and his inspired followers to counterfeit in order to mislead souls from their salvation.
2nd Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians XIX
Early Christian view on paganism and magic being destroyed upon Christ’s birth.
Merry Christmas!!!
Merry Christmas!
Hey Trent 👋
Wanted to ask you, if you could explain me, how the council of florent taught, that nobody can be saved outside the church, even if he gave his blood for christ. That confuses me a lot… Is that true and if yes, how can we understand that?
Thanks.. this video was really informative..
I would love to see a conversation between you and Andrew Wilson.
The Rest is History podcast did a great episode on this recently
Midnight Mass gets out: 2:00 AM
Get home w/tired and screaming kiddos: 2:30 AM
Get kids to bed: 3:00 AM
Kids sleep in to 11:00 to catch up on sleep: NOPE
Thanks for the upload Trent to keep me awake while my 2 year old is wide awake playing with hot wheels
They assume too much. The stories of the Greco Romans appeared after the Renaissance. Even that "Buddha" character appears after Christ. Hinduism didn't exist until after Christ. As I continue to work through the extant evidence, I expect the remainder will fall.
Praise God!
All kinds of themes occur in stories and fables and folklore. It doesn't mean anything EVEN IF there is some pagan myth that somehow is similar to the Christ story. The Christ story is what it is, take it or leave it. I'll take it.
Right, it reminds me of a history teacher I had who said the Noah flood was less credible because the epic of Gilgamesh also has a flood story.
I was like "um, i don't think that's how we determine credibility".
The comparison also completely falls apart when you directly compare the two, with the biblical version being a great seaworthy barge and the gilgamesh being a box.
Whether you take the flood as literal or figurative, global or local, the idea that gilgamesh somehow makes noah's tale less is laughable.
God copied ALL of mankind when He became incarnate.
no cos mankind is made in the image of God. also God didn't sin in his incarnation. Yes I'm boring and ruining your joke sorry father.
@@whitevortex8323 bah humbug hahahaha
@FrJohnBrownSJ 😂😂😂
Even if these pagan virgin birth myths were true, it wouldn’t disprove the virgin birth of Jesus. It’s possible that God allowed those pagan myths to exist simply as a way of helping/preparing people to understand the Christ story.
40 minutes is a long time to say “no lol”
Its wild they can’t realize that isis and osiris are the earlier, egyptian iterations of lilith and samaEL, they can’t realize they were their own people that lived thousands of years before Christ (the historic incarnate son of God and savior)
18:00 a lot of Bergians indeed
Technically no. Matthew just misunderstood a Greek translation of a Hebrew word.
I have a question what Trent's subscribers what do you think of Joe Schimit?? Is he irrefutable??
No. Merry Christmas.
The funny thing in archeology is how after Alexander the great the Assyrian /chaldean magi who once would be soulless and grant the cosmic pagan sky god of measurement physical prescriptions of a radicalized environment is god becomes more influenced under the rise zorastrianism.
Its almost the opposite what happened in 1st temple kadokite then Hezekiah reforms burning down. Moses built structures to combat Assyrian pagan influences.
But it would be no doubt the answer where written in the celestial skys above physically for real. The magi would likely not see it the same way in 35 bc as they wouldve in 750 bc.
Just as the 1st temple Judaism may have been more hostile to this pagan physical prescriptions but become more fond of it in 2nd temple period and on into rabbinic Jewish reforms
Merry Christmas! He is born!
Challenge: Make a nativity scene using emojis
You 1st. 😁
@@TrixRN I already did in another channel. I’ll see if I can copy and paste.
🎄🦙🐴👨👩👦🐂🐐🎄
🐪🫅🏽🐫🤴🏾🐪🫅🏽
Trent should debate Rabbi Tovia (dont know if I spelled it right). He is an absolute hater and constantly trolling on Christians. My husband was swayed by his videos last year..unfortunately
Sam Shamoun has videos schooling him
@@christeeleison9064
Shamoun believes in three gods.
@@alonzoharris326 the muslim troll that never gets tired, even of bad arguments
@@alonzoharris326you're everywhere trolling: we love you're falling down pathetic comedy : LOL 😂
@@christeeleison9064
Does god get tired?
What kind of cruises? @ 20:06
The point is not to retell the same story that’s boring that’s not fun, not entertainment just like marvel movies now.
People want the same concepts in new stories and configurations so they “get it” so as time goes on and cultures adapt they change the story to fit within their culture nothing new there. Thats been happening from one culture to the next throughout all history.
Iv watch Aron Ra used this as one of his arguments to disprove Christianity in debaters
Aron Ra (formerly L. Aron Nelson, born October 15, 1962) is an atheist activist. Ra is the host of the Ra-Men Podcast.
How much do you want to bet that he got "Ra" from the name of the Egyptian god of the sun.
So, his podcast is named after a Japanese noodle dish.
Lol did you have to cut "Eve" from the intro when you realized this episode would drop on Christmas and not Christmas Eve? 😂
Why in Mark 3:21 did Jesus family think he was crazy then?
If they were visited by Angels and wise magi bowed to him etc. why would his own family think he had lost his mind as it says in Mark 3:21
"they" refers to the crowds
At this point, Jesus' ministry and teachings were ramping up in intensity regarding His role as savior. There was already a plot by the saddusees and pharisees to "remove" Jesus and stop His growing influence. Also in Mark, the pharisees said Jesus was possessed by Satan. It could be interpreted that Jesus' family attempted to say he was insane and pull Jesus away to avoid the punishment of blasphemy, which is death. Jesus's fame and notoriety among the elders was rising and it would make sense His family wanted to take Jesus to another town to escape capital punishment for His teachings.
Jesus' brother James was an early witness to the resurrection and an early church elder, so clearly at least one of his brothers believed in what Jesus was doing. An attempt to protect Jesus from capital punishment, which the pharisees wanted, is the most likely explanation of Mark. We see it all the time in court in an attempt to secure more lenient sentencing, "he had a rough upbringing","he has a mental disability", etc.
Something just dawned on me during Christmas mass last night. Jesus is supposed to descend from the lineage of kings of the house of David, but technically he isn't. The Christmas gospel at mass took great pains to document his lineage, and yes, Joseph is indeed of the house of David, but us Catholics believe Jesus to be conceived by the Holy Spirit within Mary. So with this observation, does Jesus really fulfill the messianic prophecy?
Nope
Mary is also from the line of David. Joseph's lineage is in Matthew. Mary's is in Luke. She's a descendant of Nathan.
Joseph was considered his legal “father”
@@renjithjoseph7135 That I didn't know!
@@renjithjoseph7135 there is no proof that the author of Luke is listing Mary’s lineage. He explicitly states that it is Joseph’s bloodline. Which is odd since Jesus is supposed to be Joseph’s biological child.
We're 9 children in our family. My birthday is one day after my sister's date.
Sometimes our anniversaries happen during the week. But if we decide to celebrate it during rhe weekend.
Do you get where I go?!
My sister and I, are we pegan?!
Jesus had to come. If it's been decided on the 25th, there's no problem there
Now, there's too much written stories from even the enemies of Jesus, of Jesus contemporain, those who don't believe have deep problems, on the level of "they don't want Jesus to exist".
It is as 2000 years of wwak minds, none one intelligent, but just them todays.......?!?
This apologetic has never made sense to me: yes the jesus story has lots of features similar to pagan stories before and at the time, but it’s not an EXACT carbon copy and has Jewish elements so it’s totally not influenced by the culture or story tropes of similar gods. This does not follow. Something does not have to have the exact elements for it to be clearly an influence. Obviously, a story about the Jewish man will have a fusion of Jewish elements , it would be weird if it didn’t. I prefer the older apologetics of the church fathers that Satan was using fake versions of the true story to throw everyone off. It’s ridiculous, but it’s better than this.
Not to mention NO two stories about gods from different religions, are the same. The Egyptian stories differ from the Greek and Zoroastrian stories and the Jewish stories. But there are clearly tropes and archetypes that show an awareness of how dirty stories were told.
The point is that there isn't any real similarities at all. What they are debunking is the history equivalent of being a flat earther
Why would anyone be motivated to "object" to the virgin birth.
If Jesus was a man, a necessary requirement within the Christian interpretation of reality, and only has a human part inherited from his (human) mother, the contradiction of a semi-human being equal to a true man arises. A real man has half of the genes of him necessarily provided, according to the laws of genetics, by a male of our species.
If Jesus only has genetic material from his mother, he would be a clone of his mother. A woman.
A fantastic case would be that Jesus had half of his genes coming from God. Does God have certain genes? Did God create a special set of genes, to procreate Jesus, and miraculously inserted them into Mary?
We most certainly DO say that Our Lord was born on the 25th of December. Look at any of the prayers of the masses of Christmas. This is very poor scholarship.
The stories don't need to be exactly 1 for 1 copies for it to be either inspired or copied from old Pagan folklore. The miracles being necessary to show God is now Jesus in the flesh is silly, if you don't accept any other miracles throughout almost all cultures occurring alongside Christianity and Judaism as being true or proof of a God. The miraculous conception as well is pretty uncreative and pretty stupid if it would just be interpreted that Mary was unfaithful. Their had to be another intervention to convince Joseph he wasn't being cheated on. I don't know how if you are so knowledgeable about the histories and stories of these cultures you should understand the overlap of miracles and founding of the religions. There is obvious parallels. It is just odd that the one true God couldn't have been more creative even by your own books account.
The evidence for any miracle that would confirm a differnt religion is orders of magnitude weaker than the evidence for many christian miracles. This is not a controversial idea, even skeptics agree.
There are no parallels.
The closest thing to virgin birth in actual greek mythology is Zeus turning into a golden shower and the closest in egyptian mythology is Isis kind of doing necrophilia.
Yeah, the only “theory” i give credence to is the fact that there was no official “judaism” or “zoroastrianism”. There were monotheistic jews and persians who had the same faith in the one creator, but spoke different languages and held slightly different cultural traditions.
First example is that even under king Cyrus it was understood that the God of the heavens that spoke to him and ordered him to build the jews a home, is the very same God of the jewish peoples.
Ahura+Mazda is the persian name of what the semitics were calling ELah+Ashera. Mithra and Ahriman are michaEL and samaEL. But Jesus fulfilled the prophecy given to both zoroaster himself as well as to the abrahamic peoples- to worship the Creator as God, and that a savior would be born of a virgin in a cave. Of course every translation of both takes vary.
One theory that isn’t solid in stone is that Zarathustra is the persian iteration of Avraham, though the two are from the same babylonian/sumerian city, from the same time, and their parents all bare similar names even in difference of tongue. Though this being true would just be the nail in the coffin that Jesus is the fulfillment of the savior of the world, the only incarnate son of the only Creator/God!!!
No
That is why it's a miracle
@@philipschaffer9414 I've subscribed to your TH-cam channel.
@@philipschaffer9414prove it
35:40 totally post hoc
btw, the "immediate" is indication of it's mythic nature.
Actual history was written differently back then, as we know from history actually written in that period.
Post hoc, lol, "Yeah, Mark had no reason to say blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....."
NO....if Mark was inspired by the Holy Ghost and his purpose was to spread the Gospel and help sinners, leaving stuff out is an indictment. It's like it's designed to create unbelief.
Almost as if God doesn't really love us.
38:20 If he wanted to do this, he could have done it in a million unique ways, that he copied tons of other myths, legends, fables, etc., is pretty strong evidence that it didn't happen.
21:10 Dionysus is a parallel I’ve heard more than any of the others deities mentioned here.
So far I haven’t come across any commentators who noted this during the recent Olympic controversy. Under different circumstances it might have passed as a savvy nod to art history, but he went too far.
If Horus and Jesus had any similarities, then why isn't Jesus depicted with a falcons head or alligators body? I guess one just has to research the many tales and find which one they like.
So because everything isn't exactly the same then there is no comparison!? I often wonder if these people even understand the argument. Nobody argues that they are EXACTLY the same but that there was a pattern with in stories in the area at the time and many predate Jesus. The argument is that it is common in the antient world. Which is a FACT and something you can't argue against.
So what? The rest of the arguments against mythicism in general still stand. What reason did they have to invent/copy any of it? Where did the fishermen of Israel encounter these older myths? Most importantly, why did they all suffer torture and die as martyrs for a lie?
That Trent finds that a variation in the narration of a story very similar to others created previously, has aspects that he finds beautiful, does not count as a reason to suppose that this is a narration without any relation to the previous ones.
The similarities between narratives chronologically prior to the Christian ones generate questions that cannot be answered efficiently. This includes the type of responses where it is claimed that there is no reason to find them causally related.
There is no way to rationally prove that the previous narratives had no influence on the Christian narratives.
But using the criteria that we commonly use in our reality, these similarities tip the balance towards considering that the greater probability is that these narratives have influenced the Christian narratives.
Considering that Christian narratives are an exception is just wishful thinking.
You're logic is wishful thinking!
There is no new idea under the sun. Christ all over scripture uses concepts we understood already to communicate to us and give us sacraments. The idea of a virgin birth and what it signified obviously existed forever before he came, but he actually did it. He brought the idea of the myths before him into reality. Same with the Eucharist. There was already a long history of various worship forms involving drinking human blood and eating their flesh. The idea was already to absorb the essence of the person consumed. Warrior eating other great warrios they defeated, or eating ancetors or wise men. This was a thing. Christ took this man made practice and gave us a divine one, where that essence is actually absorbed by consumimg the body and blood.
It is a deliberate actualization of the rituals of man. Myths and ideas we held with no reality in them, he gave them the supernatural reality, he actualized them. He didn't come to create entirely new rituals, he came to communicate to us through means we deeply understood.
It is strange to see someone consider myths, choose one of them, and then consider that his preferred myth is not a myth.
Without lies, Islam dies.
What do you think of the 'Revelation of the Magi'? I read a summary the 'hidden book in the vatican'. It gave me a whole new respect for the christmas scene and made it real in my mind. An excellent book that explains the trinity. I recently made a video n this and would appreciate a real bible scholar discussing the this. this is huge if a JW or exJW can look into this as it will change their view on this subject...by Brent Landau
❤❤
How about turning things around and saying that the Virginal Conception & Birth of Christ are - in God's purpose - the Original & True & Exemplary Conception & Birth, of which
(1) pagan stories of that kind are distorted echoes, even though they are earlier in historical time than it is;
(2) all other conceptions & births are approximations.
IOW, all the Mysteries of Christ, and all their meaning, is a template for all creation, from the beginning of the created universe to its consummation in Him. As He is Lord of All, His creatures are "caught up into" this movement of creation in, for, and through Him; and His mother is one of those creatures. Basically, the Incarnate Word is why there is any creation, or anything else that is not-God. His Incarnation, is why there are myths of the birth of God. He is the original - Horus is a copy.
And maybe one can also say: Isis, the mother of the god Horus, is a copy of the real mother of God. The real mother of God is far more recent in historical time than Isis; but far "older" in God's purpose, since the Divine purpose to bring about the Incarnate was, so to speak, "hidden in God", "before the foundation of the world".
One could also argue that devotion to Isis (which was very great, and spread to cover a great area of the Mediterranean world) was "winked at" by God, so as to prepare for the worldwide devotion to the true mother of God, of whom Isis was but a copy.
I would kind of agree with you.
Blessed A.C Emmerich describe seeing the incarnation of Our Lord inspired to different pagans tribes that distorted it through time.
Ex : an ancient tribe who would sacrifice and eat babies thinking this was benefiting them.
The blessed sees a terrible parody of what would later be the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus (and the Eucharist).
@@skylinestudiosrc Good thinking 😀
good sir could you do videos on mohammed hijab please
The mythological parallels were well known to the early church Fathers, such as Justin. It was bizarrely claimed that the devil mimicked the "actual" events of Jesus life beforehand. The ancient pagan Celsus wrote in his "On the true doctrine" about the rip off that was Christianity. The Emperor Julian the Philosopher (who was brought up Christian and reverted to Hellenism) claimed that the literalist Christians took from Judaism and Hellenism and created something worse than either of them. When you look at the lengths early Christians took to suppress heresies, terrorise opponents, make bonfires of opponents writings and ban writings of pagans and gnostics, then it looks like their critics were too near the mark.
no, they weren't. Christians had absolutely no way to "terrorise" any pagan for 250 years straight, and yet they grew in numbers. The things claimed by Celsus and the others were so blatantly false that the roman empire converted.
Doesn't matter if it was copied or made up, it's not true.
it is true. We have evidence.
@@tafazzi-on-discord What evidence? PLEASE say the bible, i need a good laugh.
@@jacoblee5796 Definition of evidence is "anything that makes a claim more likely to be true".
The epistemology atheists need to use to maintain their provably incoherent worldview commits the fallacy of special pleading, you outright dismiss hypotheses and then make up irrational reasons to reject them, no matter what evidence is presented.
Yes, the evidence is in the deposit of Faith, which includes the Bible. Can you tell me how you know what the capital of Indonesia is? What is the evidence that leads you to believe it's Jakarta?
@@tafazzi-on-discord It's hilarious and telling that you use a mundane claim like the capital of Indonesia to try and make your point. And not an extraordinary claim like you were abducted by aliens.
I wonder why that is?
@@tafazzi-on-discord Truth is what corresponds to reality and since your claim violates reality, then your evidence is imaginary.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Eros was born virginally from Aphrodite. Dionysus, the god who could turn water into wine pre-dates Jesus by many centuries. Just a "coincidence".
Aphrodite was not a human. Yes, out of the tens of miracles recorded in the Bible, one happens to match up with a pagan god's. big deal. Yes, it's a coincidence, no quotation marks needed.
@@tafazzi-on-discord So "The Bible proves that the Bible is true"?
@@mashah1085 It's not proof, but the Bible is a historical document, and the existance of historical document is always evidence that what they claim is true. That's the basis for tye study of all of history. How do you know who won the war between Rome and Carthage? It's historical documents by guys like Virgil and Pliny the Younger.
Many of the books of the Bible can be shown to be written by careful, accurate authors, that wrote close to the events recorded in space and time. That's a nail in the coffin for the idea that it's made up. It's a hypothesis that crumbles before the evidence.
Was Mary an actual virgin? Joseph and her are married but are waiting? They just haven’t gotten around to it
A common theory is that Mary was a temple virgin, a fairly common phenomena in those days, married to Joseph for her protection.
@@bigfootapologetics but the Bible itself makes no reference to it. So it’s just strictly none biblical sources that even mention it, all of them later Christian’s, odd don’t you think
@@Thomas-bq4ed Eh - not really, to be honest. The Bible was never intended to be some sort of encyclopedia. 2 Thess. 2:15 tells us to hold fast to the traditions that were written down and passed down orally, and all Christians, up to (and including!) the Protestant Reformers taught that Mary was ever-virgin. John 20:21 notes there's a lot of things that were left out of that particular gospel, and given what we know about things like the Trinity or the early Church, it's good to remember that the Bible never even existed as a singular compilation until the fourth century.
@@bigfootapologetics Nobody claimed it to be an encyclopedia, Christians are the only people to take it as literal historical text, you should have a much higher standard of its content then me. If you are to claim in many cases it is conveying literal history, especially a virgin birth, and a resurrections. They go to great lengths to illustrate Joseph not understanding how Mary conceived, enough to have an angel explain it, so literally 2 interventions of a kind. But they make no mention of Mary beyond her being a virgin. She is merely a plot device. Look at how many times she's even mentioned. Many people claim she was a source for the gospels, and she is hardly a topic of discussion. Quoting John in the new testament to give credibility to the same book when we know the authors borrowed from each other, and their sources overlapped, not to mention any bias Christian authors have towards Christian text, is rather silly. Speaking of Christianity's teachings, trinity came well after the gospels were written, mentioned by Tertullian 150 years after the fact. Mathew describing the father son and the holy spirit and their function didn't immediately lead to the teaching of trinity you agree with today. The discussion surrounding the idea that the trinity had some very specific greater significance like in Catholicism is even later. Many Christian denomination don't agree with the interpretation to this day. Also the fact the bible is a curated accumulation of stories and articles brought together by men with agendas all their own does not bode well for any credibility you wish to establish. Whether it being true or even cohesive in messaging and narrative.
@@Thomas-bq4ed The question that Mary asks to the angel, "How will that be, since I know not man?" is nonsense in all cases except if she was a consacrated virgin. The angel in the previous chapter punished Zachariah for asking a nonsense question. The angel does not punish Mary. That suggests that's not a nonsense question.
>Look at how many times she's even mentioned. Many people claim she was a source for the gospels, and she is hardly a topic of discussion.
The gospels are biographies about Jesus, not about Mary. She's the source, not the focus.
Can you do the genelogies of Matthew and Luke?
a) Why are they different
b) Is Luke about Mary (with Eli being her father, with the "Jesus, son of Joseph (as was supposed), son of Eli" meaning Eli was the 1st after Jesus with Jospeh merely being a "people think it's him, but it's not, so onto Eli"
c) Is Eli Joseph's adopted father through Jewish marriage law (with Jacob his biological, but Eli, being Jacob's brother, dying childless, meant Joseph, his nephew, became his legal son to carry his heritage)
d) Is Matthew proving Jesus's legal claim, and Luke proving Jesus's biological claim to Davidian heritage? Or if they're both about Jospeh, why does Jesus inherit Davidian kinship when his only biological parent is Mary? Why aren't they going through her (especially as Matthew states 4 women in his genelogy)?
You mean Heli? Well, the genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam if you notice and tradition says Mary’s father was named Joachim
You should watch the debate between Ehrman and Akin on the two genealogies.
Joseph Atwill is considered a joke among atheist and skeptical mythicists.
So STRAWMAN much?
If I showed proofs to disprove Mormonism, does that disprove Catholicism?
No, obviously, nor would I say something that stupid.
Same with y'all talking about Atwill and the whole discounted documentary he did.
IF you cannot STEELMAN, you're wasting oxygen.
31:00 Exactly. If Paul had information about a virgin birth, why not say that? If he had information about sayings and teachings, why not mention it?
He goes out of his way to try and give proof that Jesus is the savior and so forth, it's silly to think he believed in a virgin birth, a bodily resurrections, and that he did an earthly ministry of healings, but didn't mention any of this at all. Why?
Evidence of absence here is evidence, it's not proof, but it's highly suspect to think Paul thought Jesus was born of a woman who was a virgin and didn't say anything about it.
Personal Notes:
37:55 Why is the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin important?
3:35 “Shekinah” isn’t used anywhere in the Bible , it’s actually used for the heretical feminine form of God in Kabbalah.
Can you do a video on the intersection of the consent issue and the divine male gaze (patriarchy) as it relates to the virgin birth?
This comment is wild but I think your problems were addressed in his video on Marian dogma
It's unfortunate that something only two New Treatment writers even recorded intending to add credibility to their accounts has become one of the greatest detractors of credibility for the other 25 NT books.
You are not making any sense.
@@georgepierson4920 Some people used to think that a divine human should be born of a virgin, so Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was. None of the other 25 books of the NT back up that claim. Paul, who wrote the earliest books of the NT, said Jesus was born of a woman. You think he might have mentioned that the woman was a virgin, but he didn't. Now modern people are expected to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin because 2 out of 27 NT books say so. For me that makes Christianity harder to swallow than if the virgin bit had been left out, but Matthew and Luke thought it made their story more credible to an ancient audience.
Wouldn’t be the first time my religion has stolen something from another.
Meri, Miriam, Mary same name.
Just like Guillermo means William or Jaime means James etc.
Nice try though.
No, Meri and Miriam did not mean the same thing. They were both egyptian names, which sounded different and meant different things.
Why did you bother typing this
I have never seen them, answer the film, message from heaven by Rachel lubbe.
And why you Catholic run from that film.
You are only here today because you KNOW the virgin birth is nonsense but youre looking for confirmation because youre afraid to not believe lol
_to discuss the unique elements of the Incarnation_
So we know right off the bat, this is a strawman.
NOBODY (of merit and intelligence) says it's an exact copy, nor would we expect it to be an exact copy.
The virgin birth (or sexless birth) is a long known and very common trope. A God having a son (on occasion a daughter) with a mortal woman is common. It's common. It's common.
Does God (Yahweh) not have any originality? He can't make up a story that's totally unique instead of "radically" unique? lol
You're admitting the story isn't unique, you have to keep using qualifiers, "radically" or "unique."
This is like saying The Jets and the Sharks are exact copies of Romeo and Juliet so that, since it has "radically unique" elements, it's not taken from Shakespeare.
Seriously, Trent.....parallelamania is a STRAWMAN.
Not grasping at straws at all, but showing that the stories are common in theme, conventions, tropes, and scenes. It happens over and over, the NT copies Euripides, Homer, the Septuagint, and other fables, legends, myths....it's obvious. To deny it is to stare at an elephant and tell me it's a goat.
"this is a strawman.
NOBODY (of merit and intelligence) says it's an exact copy" It isn't a strawman, they are reacting to a video that tens of millions of people watched. Every example cited as a parallel is false
@@briandiehl9257 Yes, understood, but anyone that understands the issue and is intelligent about it knows that research is bunk.
It's rantings of a crazy person.
My point is that if you want to challenge a position, attacking a weak source, that isn't believed by anyone that is intelligent, isn't a good way to do it.
The way to argue a position, if you're really wanting to do it honestly, is to attack the STEELMAN, not the strawman.
It is a strawman because it's a weak case that even atheists laugh at.
What's the point of "proving" false something that nobody of intelligence believes?
I guess if you think some Christians are "being fooled' by bad scholarship and dumb assertions, okay, but then you're just admitting those Christians are idiots.
Not sure if you can save them, but fact is, they're not paying attention anyway.
You don't need to secure the cows who are afraid of leaving the barn, all this kind of stuff is just preaching to the choir.
It's like Lee Strobel's work, it's so dumb, so stupid, so childish, it doesn't help anyone find truth, it's design is to milk the flock of gullible Christians (similar to these dumb Christian movies like God's Not Dead).
The real battle, with real intelligent people on both sides, is unfortunately a rare thing to witness, sadly.
@@michaelsbeverly Yeah, but this is the biggest representative of its side, even if it is by far not the best
@@briandiehl9257 Fair enough, but, to me, it's a waste of time to refute it.
I mean, would you be interested in hearing why the earth isn't flat?
lol
I guess some people do, I roll my eyes at those videos.
I think arguing about a flat earth is pointless.
I think refuting Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah or the Horus and Jesus were born on December 25th claims to be worthless time wasters.
If someone wants to really get into the weeds, they have to talk to Richard Carrier, Richard Miller, Dennis McDonald, and a host of others, and talk real history and real facts.
when you do that, Christianity starts to unravel, so I can see why people who are Christians don't want to do it.
Virgin birth was a later addition, the earliest christian writings (Pauls letters & Marks gospel) do not have a virgin birth. It was added as an attempt to attrract non-jewish converts. The original Jewish christians believed that jesus was descended from david and born naturally by his mother Mary and his father Joseph. Any other position is simply dishonest and not in line with modern scholarship.
Even the Gospel of John says emphatically that the father of Jesus is Joseph.
Funny, Christians would do themselves a solid if they dropped the stuff that's obviously false and mythical.
Why can't Jesus have been born normally like John says and Mark implies, and get baptised as a human to be adopted by God at the baptism of John (the baptism of sinners)?
Doesn't make sense except that they've got some weird position about finding some texts so important that they can't drop them, ironically, this works the other way when Protestants point out that Jesus had brothers (like Mark 3) where they flop from taking things literally to taking things figuratively. funny, this...
I hate
The virgin “birth” is not in the Bible. It is a second century addition from the proto gospel of James. As a Catholic, Trent is very precise in his wording.
Every one of the birth stories centered on divine conception, including Jesus’ is not exactly the same. They have similar details, but in Jesus’ case the God that impregnates Mary is now de anthropomorphized (the Old Testament God is quite human-like), and the human woman is a “actual” virgin.
I think (and I’m not alone), that this looks like the author of Matthew’s gospel is trying to “one up” the birth narratives of these other demigods, in order to make Jesus seem more miraculous and more powerful.
Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. But she did have a husband. And Jesus did have brothers and sisters. There's no way around it
May I point you to Shameless Popery (Joe H.)? His new video on Mary may be useful to you.
Also, please read Dr. Brant Pitre's book on The Jewish Roots of Mary. It's phenomenal.
"Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom."
-Martin Luther
"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned."
-John Calvin
"Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity."
-John Calvin
"I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity."
-Huldreich Zwingli
"I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."
-John Wesley
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26-27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate”
-Hilary of Poitiers (310-367)
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary."
-Athanasius (296-373)
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband."
-Augustine of Hippo
@@billcynic1815 It doesn't say or indicate that her virginity was perpetual. The fact that she had a husband and Jesus had brothers and sisters is evidence to the contrary
@@paradisecityX0 The men who wete the strongest defenders of _sola scriptura_ believed the Scriptures indicated the Perpetual Virginity, and defended it. I gave quotes from them showing why they believed the Scriptures show it. The Perpetual Virginity was believed and held since at the very latest the 3rd century. It was believed by the people who faithfully copied, passed down, and translated the Scripture, including Jerome, Cyril, and Methodius. It would behoove you to at the very least investigate why they believed the Scriptures taught that rather than just asserting otherwise.
Paul never heard of Mary.
Paul doesn’t even know who Mary is.
Lol
It’s possible, he may have met her because she would have lived with John.
@@femaleKCRoyalsFan
Paul doesn’t even believe that Jesus was on earth.
He calls Jesus an angel in the present tense.
The trinity is three gods.
Tirinty is one God
@@nicenice3509Is the definition of trinity one or three?
@@jacoblee5796 they are three but in the same time so they are one 1×1×1=1
@@jacoblee57963 distinct persons that are each independently the one true God. The Father is the Creator of Everything, the Son is the Creator of Everything, and the Holy Spirit is the Creator of Everything, but the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, neither is the Son is the Holy Spirit.
@@JonOchoa I'm a father, a son, an uncle and a brother. I guess that makes me 4 in 1, i must be even more powerful than your god!
All jokes aside, what you just said is completely asinine and doesn't make any sense. If what you are saying is true, god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.