Well, Patrons get videos released early in advance ;) In all seriousness though I have two videos already done. One on the gospels not being anonymous (again) and one referencing some of the works of Richard Bauckham about names mentioned in the gospels and how they indicate someone is the source for the account. I'm also planning on responding to Paulogia's "How Christianity began" video.
No, I think that YOU should do some videos on Matt Dillahunty. When should we expect the series? jk IDK. Dillahunty and his hyper-skepticism aren't interesting to me. He just says he's not convinced and that claims aren't evidence and it's just ... meh.
@@TestifyApologetics I finished watching your videos weeks ago lol I just came back to link this playlist to my curious Muslim friend and found this vid at the end
Okay, but at 4:26, you mention that at 12 years old, Luke said this was the first time Jesus went to passover. Luke doesn't say that it was the first time for Jesus to go with his parents, who is mentioned they went every year.. It is assumed from silence.
I would think that early Christians would want to include a childhood attack on Jesus life to strengthen the case of him being the Messiah Further, the Jeremiah passage of Rachel seems tacked on and interrupts the flow of the rest of the chapter which seems to talk about restoration to Israel. I don't think this video is a convincing case for the event to have occurred
I'm serious. You guys should all get Wikipedia accounts and start making some noise until the word "myth" is changed to "story." *DO SO POLITELY, AND USE PROPER REFERENCES* for anything else you'd like to change. Otherwise, they'll probably just lock the page. I can't do this on my own. Good luck and God bless!
MACROBIUS- "On hearing that the son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, Augustus said, ‘It’s better to be Herod’s pig than his son.'”. MENTION THIS😊
Also, the projection of the accusation the author of Matthew lied, is hyperbole. Matthew used at least two existing sources and the existing myths of the audience he was writing for.
No but it shows that the objection against it to be likely false and provides one solid reason to think Matthew knew what he was talking about elsewhere in ch. 2
you can't prove a negative. Jer 35 not "messianic" yet all Christians do with the old testament is find messianic meaning. And so on in continual logical failure.
Why would there be? Why would the Romans bother let alone even hear of this event? Bethlehem was an insignificant, backwater, shallow, practically none existent, silent dark cornered village in an equally insignificant region, Galilee. Who the hell would hear let alone feel the need at all to record and mention this event? Same standards also apply to the Jewish historian Josephus. But aside from all that, I would in fact agree that there is no direct evidence for this event taking place in history.
@@trabob4438 Did you not read any part of my comment? “Same standers apply to Josephus” is what I said after the argument of made. Same also applies to Philo.
@@MrMortal_Ra Makes no difference if Bethlehem is a small insignificant town the facts are that no one recorded this story so it's just the bible tells me so.
@@trabob4438 “Makes no difference” it makes a difference to your remark that “this and that writer should of recorded it”. “The bible tells me so” agreed.
Your arguments are problematic and not reasonable. Herod’s known tyrannical behaviour does not lead to magi existing and having access to Herod to feed him a myth about a messiah in Bethlehem.
You have misunderstood the argument at that point in the video. The argument was that given what we know about here is character as described in Josephus, that raises the antecedent probability, that the slaughter of the Bethlehem babies took place. That on top of the fact that we can explain why only Matthew accounts for it. Jerusalem was a very small village, and it wasn’t like it would circulate all around the Roman the world so that you’d expect to find it in multiple different sources. Erik Manning used the example of the emperor Claudius expelling the Jews of Rome, as an example of a very significant event that didn’t get picked up by very many people. If it weren’t for Luke, including in Acts, we wouldn’t have anyone except Suetonius talking about it. Then, to top it all off, you have a casual and design coincidence between Matthew in the context of Jesus’s birth story with information about Archelaus that Josephus reports. The reference to Joseph being afraid to go back to Bethlehem, and choosing to settle in Nazareth, is best explained by the fact that Archelaus had no jurisdiction in Nazareth, and therefore wouldn’t have been able to carry out any violence there. And the reason why Joseph is afraid of Archelaus is because of what he did to those Jews in the temple. And yet, Matthew doesn’t mention any of this. And just a single verse, just a single sentence, he just mentions that Joseph chose to settle in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, because he was afraid when he heard that Archelaus was on the throne. It’s so casual and incidental to Matthews narrative, that it doesn’t look made up. Mythology does not intersect with secular history in such subtle ways as this. If you think it does, then you have not read a lot of mythology.
@@cerebralfaithvideo Its still not an argument. First of all Jerusalem was a city of at least 20,000. Comparing Suetonius to the unknown author of Matthew who invented the story of the patriarchs rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem after the crucifixion is no comparison. The nativity narrative was a set piece contained in only one source if you remember Luke states his report is a compilation. Also. There is no reason to believe Joseph wanted to live in Bethlehem. The story states the family travelled to Bethlehem, it never states Joseph lived there only that his ancestors did. You make way too many assumptions to prop up your arguments. My point stands. There is no reason in your argument.
@@donjaundemichael The slaughter took place in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. And the point of comparing Suetonius to Matthew (who isn’t an unknown author as Testify has persuasively shown in other videos) is to point out that just because an author doesn’t mention something we think he ought to have mentioned, it does not follow that it did not occur. By this logic, because Ulysses S Grant doesn’t make mention of the Emancipation Proclamation, we’d have to infer that the Emancipation Proclamation is not a real event of history. That is clearly fallacious. I would go so far as to call it silly. "Also. There is no reason to believe Joseph wanted to live in Bethlehem.” - Matthew 2:22 tells us that he did, but he changed his mind when he learned Archelous was on the throne. Matthew doesn’t tell us why Joseph was afraid. But Josephus provides the information (as Erik Manning has shown in this video) and it interlocks in a very casual, subtle way that could not plausibly be considered to be contrived. This is an undesigned coincidence between a gospel author and a secular author. Also, I’m not assuming Joseph wanted to live in Bethlehem. The text says he intended to stay in Galilee. Now, you could theoretically say that maybe Joseph wanted to say somewhere ELSE in Galilee besides Bethlehem, but given that this is just where they had come from, it seems like a more reasonable inference (an inference is not an assumption) that Joseph wanted to say in Bethlehem. After all, they probably made a few acquaintances their during their previous stay. But then when he heard of what Herod Archelaus had done, he was like “Nope!” But regardless, you still have this undesigned coincidence between Matthew and Josephus. And as I said before, mythology doesn’t behave in this way. Finally, there's no reason to think Matthew and Luke are completely dependent on each other at this juncture. Matthew clearly has material that Luke doesn't and vice versa. Luke may have been partially dependent on Matthew for the birth narrative. Why not? But Matthew's additions need not be seen as fabrications. That begs the question against their historicity. And if you want to use the "Well, what he mentioned isn't picked up by any other author", then you're just committing the logical fallacy known as the argument from silence again.
@@cerebralfaithvideoI don't agree about your point about the massacre of the innocents not being an event that would be circulated across the Roman world. The reason I say this is because this incident is not of concern to the Roman world in the first place. The primary interest would be to followers of the ancient Christian movement, The Way. This is of interest to them because it shows how miraculously the son of God escaped death and it fulfills Jeremiah 31:15. Furthermore, the prophecy says "A voice is heard in Ramah...". This prophecy indicates the direct opposite of the massacre being something barely anyone in the surrounding area knew about. Because people will _hear_ the voice coming from Ramah, they will _hear_ the weeping and they will _hear_ the lamentation. Also, even if Bethlehem was a small village, why wouldn't people in the surrounding areas know about what happened? In Luke 13, Jesus expected his audience to know about the tower that killed 18 people in Siloam which is a neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Why would the massacres of the innocents be something that followers of The Way would be ignorant about?
@@blake4590 To infer that everyone in the Ancient world would have known about the massacre on the basis of the Jeremiah prophecy seems like a huge leap. If even one village heard of the horrible thing that Herod did, I don’t see why that wouldn’t be enough to fulfill the prophecy. Jeremiah doesn’t say how many people hear. Just that it would be heard. As for the Pilate incident, that some incidents become known is not evidence that some incidents didn’t. I might be wrong on this, but I think Siloam is a much bigger place than Bethlehem. I might be misremembering. I’d have to check. But that could be a factor. At the end of the day, it’s a fallacious argument from silence. And the counter examples Manning provides shows why this argument should be dismissed.
A big thank you to all my Patreon supports who help make these videos possible. www.patreon.com/isjesusalive
Matthew: “My allegiance is to Jesus Christ, to history!”
Sceptics: “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy.”
The Bible wins again
Dear TH-cam, why wasn't I notified of this video?! I have the bell on!!!
me to TH-cam: Bruuuuhhh
Love how it all fits together. Thank you for these vids. They are always reassuring.
this channel needs some promo - it is plausible and has a pleasant tone
What a great comment man! Good one!🤝
This channel is criminally underrated, such a great resource for learning and you always leas us to further readings !
God Bless
You should have a million subscribers.
10 millions *
@@tomasveras2175 Very true 😊
@@tomasveras2175 How about 7 billion
Let's make him popular
These thumbnails are literal gold
Damn This is wonderful channel. You are producing some Classic works.
Isn’t it, some brilliant stuff coming out.
Great Video. I'm glad you addressed this passage.
Another great episode Erik. You tone really works on these videos, the choice of backing always compliments your voice. Good lad!💪
Would you consider making a video compiling all the evidence we have that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic?
Great video 👍. I wonder what u have coming up next🤔
Well, Patrons get videos released early in advance ;)
In all seriousness though I have two videos already done. One on the gospels not being anonymous (again) and one referencing some of the works of Richard Bauckham about names mentioned in the gospels and how they indicate someone is the source for the account.
I'm also planning on responding to Paulogia's "How Christianity began" video.
@@TestifyApologetics all right great to hear, I think you should do some videos on Matt Dillahunty.
No, I think that YOU should do some videos on Matt Dillahunty. When should we expect the series? jk
IDK. Dillahunty and his hyper-skepticism aren't interesting to me. He just says he's not convinced and that claims aren't evidence and it's just ... meh.
@@TestifyApologetics 🤣 true but thanks for responding
Awesome as always!
Happy Monday everyone. God bless all of you
Revelation 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Thank you for your work. Commenting for the algo.
Glad I was recommended this.
Because it’s about Jesus, that’s why they must claim it’s falsehood. satan hates nothing more than the Son.
Well processed video. I give a thumbs up! 👍
why does this only have 10 views after 2 days??
great video btw
Because it is unlisted. Congrats for watching to the end of the playlist, you earned it lol.
@@TestifyApologetics I finished watching your videos weeks ago lol I just came back to link this playlist to my curious Muslim friend and found this vid at the end
@@maxfwhxh oh. Hah. My mistake for adding it to a playlist before it is scheduled. It will be out tomorrow so oh well.
I love how you have 12 videos under the gospel play list at this time.
Lets see what objections their going to bring
Hi! Great video, I suggest you to do a video debunking Richard Carrier. Greetings from Mexico.
Love your videos friend! Carry on Brother!
Really convenient for skeptics to say there were historical massacres, except in that specific place and time
Keep up the good work!
That was very interesting, thank you.
You probably answer this in another video. Do you do all your own illustrations as well?
I use a program called VideoScribe
@@TestifyApologetics you do a good job with them. Keep fighting the good fight!
5:48 the puzzle pieces don't go together.
This comment has made me uncomfortable. 😂
Okay, but at 4:26, you mention that at 12 years old, Luke said this was the first time Jesus went to passover. Luke doesn't say that it was the first time for Jesus to go with his parents, who is mentioned they went every year.. It is assumed from silence.
I would think that early Christians would want to include a childhood attack on Jesus life to strengthen the case of him being the Messiah
Further, the Jeremiah passage of Rachel seems tacked on and interrupts the flow of the rest of the chapter which seems to talk about restoration to Israel.
I don't think this video is a convincing case for the event to have occurred
The same passage where the women's cry of her children's deaths?
I don't think making good claim
THere are no dislikes for now so that good
I'm serious. You guys should all get Wikipedia accounts and start making some noise until the word "myth" is changed to "story." *DO SO POLITELY, AND USE PROPER REFERENCES* for anything else you'd like to change. Otherwise, they'll probably just lock the page. I can't do this on my own. Good luck and God bless!
What about the parallels with the Moses story?
Who are Moses's parents
MACROBIUS- "On hearing that the son of Herod, king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that all boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, Augustus said, ‘It’s better to be Herod’s pig than his son.'”. MENTION THIS😊
I see Anakin I click
But Luke says they stayed to allow Mary to cleanse and Jesus was taken to temple then they went to Nazareth. Slaughter of innocent is false.
With Elizabeth who was the one that was pregnant... Re read it
the massacre of the innocents occurred on jan. 10 1 bc which coincided with the execution of matthias who started the riot in the temple
Do you know where to find the reference to that?
Masterful
Great vid.. I think you've caught the attention of the armchair psychologist PineCreek!
Oh that is where the trolls are coming from! Link?
@@TestifyApologetics th-cam.com/video/CS7qrBeCgKk/w-d-xo.html
@@Ryan-zh2or Thanks for the head's up.
I'm just curious, why aren't there more used accounts for Jesus' existence.
I address that here isjesusalive.com/why-wasnt-jesus-mentioned-by-more-contemporary-historians/
Paper was millions of dollars, and many people were highly motivated to burn you and your books
Good video
Pray you come too Christ and turn from sin in Jesus name.Amen.
Also, the projection of the accusation the author of Matthew lied, is hyperbole. Matthew used at least two existing sources and the existing myths of the audience he was writing for.
new subcriber here
Thanks for subbing!
This video gives no evidence for the massacre of the innocent
No but it shows that the objection against it to be likely false and provides one solid reason to think Matthew knew what he was talking about elsewhere in ch. 2
you can't prove a negative. Jer 35 not "messianic" yet all Christians do with the old testament is find messianic meaning. And so on in continual logical failure.
Such such failure much dumb I will apologize to my mother for being born, thank you kind internet person
@@TestifyApologetics you're welcome
If your talking about the old testament saying Jesus will come, you are a clown, then again most of you are children
There is no record in Roman history that speaks of this story. Mathew made many scriptures fit the into the life of jesus.
Why would there be? Why would the Romans bother let alone even hear of this event? Bethlehem was an insignificant, backwater, shallow, practically none existent, silent dark cornered village in an equally insignificant region, Galilee. Who the hell would hear let alone feel the need at all to record and mention this event? Same standards also apply to the Jewish historian Josephus. But aside from all that, I would in fact agree that there is no direct evidence for this event taking place in history.
@@MrMortal_Ra Josephus and Philo both write in the first century and not a peep about it and Josephus did not like Herad.
@@trabob4438 Did you not read any part of my comment? “Same standers apply to Josephus” is what I said after the argument of made. Same also applies to Philo.
@@MrMortal_Ra Makes no difference if Bethlehem is a small insignificant town the facts are that no one recorded this story so it's just the bible tells me so.
@@trabob4438 “Makes no difference” it makes a difference to your remark that “this and that writer should of recorded it”. “The bible tells me so” agreed.
Then historians would have to believe that everything in the Quran also happened. lol
Your arguments are problematic and not reasonable. Herod’s known tyrannical behaviour does not lead to magi existing and having access to Herod to feed him a myth about a messiah in Bethlehem.
You have misunderstood the argument at that point in the video. The argument was that given what we know about here is character as described in Josephus, that raises the antecedent probability, that the slaughter of the Bethlehem babies took place. That on top of the fact that we can explain why only Matthew accounts for it. Jerusalem was a very small village, and it wasn’t like it would circulate all around the Roman the world so that you’d expect to find it in multiple different sources. Erik Manning used the example of the emperor Claudius expelling the Jews of Rome, as an example of a very significant event that didn’t get picked up by very many people. If it weren’t for Luke, including in Acts, we wouldn’t have anyone except Suetonius talking about it.
Then, to top it all off, you have a casual and design coincidence between Matthew in the context of Jesus’s birth story with information about Archelaus that Josephus reports. The reference to Joseph being afraid to go back to Bethlehem, and choosing to settle in Nazareth, is best explained by the fact that Archelaus had no jurisdiction in Nazareth, and therefore wouldn’t have been able to carry out any violence there. And the reason why Joseph is afraid of Archelaus is because of what he did to those Jews in the temple. And yet, Matthew doesn’t mention any of this. And just a single verse, just a single sentence, he just mentions that Joseph chose to settle in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, because he was afraid when he heard that Archelaus was on the throne. It’s so casual and incidental to Matthews narrative, that it doesn’t look made up. Mythology does not intersect with secular history in such subtle ways as this. If you think it does, then you have not read a lot of mythology.
@@cerebralfaithvideo
Its still not an argument. First of all Jerusalem was a city of at least 20,000. Comparing Suetonius to the unknown author of Matthew who invented the story of the patriarchs rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem after the crucifixion is no comparison. The nativity narrative was a set piece contained in only one source if you remember Luke states his report is a compilation. Also. There is no reason to believe Joseph wanted to live in Bethlehem. The story states the family travelled to Bethlehem, it never states Joseph lived there only that his ancestors did. You make way too many assumptions to prop up your arguments.
My point stands. There is no reason in your argument.
@@donjaundemichael The slaughter took place in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. And the point of comparing Suetonius to Matthew (who isn’t an unknown author as Testify has persuasively shown in other videos) is to point out that just because an author doesn’t mention something we think he ought to have mentioned, it does not follow that it did not occur. By this logic, because Ulysses S Grant doesn’t make mention of the Emancipation Proclamation, we’d have to infer that the Emancipation Proclamation is not a real event of history. That is clearly fallacious. I would go so far as to call it silly.
"Also. There is no reason to believe Joseph wanted to live in Bethlehem.” - Matthew 2:22 tells us that he did, but he changed his mind when he learned Archelous was on the throne. Matthew doesn’t tell us why Joseph was afraid. But Josephus provides the information (as Erik Manning has shown in this video) and it interlocks in a very casual, subtle way that could not plausibly be considered to be contrived. This is an undesigned coincidence between a gospel author and a secular author.
Also, I’m not assuming Joseph wanted to live in Bethlehem. The text says he intended to stay in Galilee. Now, you could theoretically say that maybe Joseph wanted to say somewhere ELSE in Galilee besides Bethlehem, but given that this is just where they had come from, it seems like a more reasonable inference (an inference is not an assumption) that Joseph wanted to say in Bethlehem. After all, they probably made a few acquaintances their during their previous stay. But then when he heard of what Herod Archelaus had done, he was like “Nope!” But regardless, you still have this undesigned coincidence between Matthew and Josephus. And as I said before, mythology doesn’t behave in this way.
Finally, there's no reason to think Matthew and Luke are completely dependent on each other at this juncture. Matthew clearly has material that Luke doesn't and vice versa. Luke may have been partially dependent on Matthew for the birth narrative. Why not? But Matthew's additions need not be seen as fabrications. That begs the question against their historicity. And if you want to use the "Well, what he mentioned isn't picked up by any other author", then you're just committing the logical fallacy known as the argument from silence again.
@@cerebralfaithvideoI don't agree about your point about the massacre of the innocents not being an event that would be circulated across the Roman world. The reason I say this is because this incident is not of concern to the Roman world in the first place. The primary interest would be to followers of the ancient Christian movement, The Way. This is of interest to them because it shows how miraculously the son of God escaped death and it fulfills Jeremiah 31:15. Furthermore, the prophecy says "A voice is heard in Ramah...". This prophecy indicates the direct opposite of the massacre being something barely anyone in the surrounding area knew about. Because people will _hear_ the voice coming from Ramah, they will _hear_ the weeping and they will _hear_ the lamentation.
Also, even if Bethlehem was a small village, why wouldn't people in the surrounding areas know about what happened? In Luke 13, Jesus expected his audience to know about the tower that killed 18 people in Siloam which is a neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Why would the massacres of the innocents be something that followers of The Way would be ignorant about?
@@blake4590 To infer that everyone in the Ancient world would have known about the massacre on the basis of the Jeremiah prophecy seems like a huge leap. If even one village heard of the horrible thing that Herod did, I don’t see why that wouldn’t be enough to fulfill the prophecy. Jeremiah doesn’t say how many people hear. Just that it would be heard.
As for the Pilate incident, that some incidents become known is not evidence that some incidents didn’t. I might be wrong on this, but I think Siloam is a much bigger place than Bethlehem. I might be misremembering. I’d have to check. But that could be a factor.
At the end of the day, it’s a fallacious argument from silence. And the counter examples Manning provides shows why this argument should be dismissed.
Yeah?...it didn't happen...end of story...thank you
You think people getting massacred didn't happen... Crazy
Now cover Ezra 1