There are no timeline problems here. First the census. Augustus ordered a census in 8 BC, Herod died in 4 BC Jesus is born approx 6-5 BC. The greek in Luke allows this, 'protus' is properly translated 'before' not first, as it is elsewhere like John 1:15, "John testified..."This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me." also, John 15:18. So Luke was referring to the census before the 6AD Quirinius census and thus no problem at all.
God did a lot of things to trip up the wise or clever man. God doesn't need or want to prove anything to anyone. The Bible is to teach to people who want to learn. He wants your love but it must be true love, so just accept it and don't worry so much.
there is as much 'reliable' evidence for Hercules as there is for the myth of Jesus. I personally worship Hercules as my God because he's just a kick are kin of guy. :-)
@DeistPaladin yes, actually I did. I knew an idiot like yourself would respond to a grammatical error. Also, if you plan on fixing others gramatical errors at least try to to make them yourself. You know: "you're IN idiot"? is proper for all the english speaking countries in the world.
@ncheels015 You need to use an apostrophe if you're going to use contractions. "Let's" is the proper spelling for the contraction for "let us". "Lets" is the word you would use if your sentence were "I will see if he lets you get away with that."
@ncheels015 Ah, touche, I did make that typo, just like you did when you typed, "...to to make them...". Then again, I'm not the one going around and calling people an idiot.
As the tea party sign said, "get a brain, morans".
@ncheels015 2 timothy 2:14 keep reminding gods people of these things. warn them before god against quarreling about words; its of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
@jakekrohn1992 And don't forget. Exodus 2:12: "And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand."
The proper Christian way to settle an argument. As set by example by Moses.
Don't ask questions & when you discover a serious discrepancy within scripture, just ignore it bcuz god said so. Besides, he doesn't like his Xians to think about the obvious problems in scripture. Yes, if god's people start considering the very serious errors & contradictions found in the bible books (for which we have not 1 original text), they must stop immediately, else the light of truth will ruin them!!
We must submit & obey, just like 1 of Saddam's soldiers!
Also, John's criticism of Herod's adultery implied that Philip was still alive- because widows are fair game. So he had to criticize before 34 AD, probably several years before.
Josephus has Herod's son Philip beginning his reign in 1 AD. We can't automatically assume that Herod didn't lay down his official rulership in 4 BC but stayed alive a little bit after that, doing his own 'side projects' with his sons in charge. The dates associated with Herod and Quirinius aren't tremendously 'hard' but involve a lot of ambiguity. And Philip's death in 34 does NOT imply that John the Baptist criticized Herodias in 36!
You might want to read Mommsen or Ramsey. Maybe a little bit of Strabo. Throw in some Josephus. Plenty of evidence to show Quirinius governing Syria in 6-4 BCE range. As for the census began under Saturninus in 8 BCE, the situation with Herod easily explains why the census did not reach Judea for a couple of years. Governing the same province was RARE, but not unheard of.
@DeistPaladin This is just a brief statement...if you REMOVE all the words in ITALICS from the ENGLISH translation of the New Testament..you get a MUCH MORE COHESIVE reading. The ORIGINAL GREEK produces no inaccuracies...it is completely HARMONIOUS..same with the HEBREW...the error comes in TRYING to reconcile the ENGLISH translation inaccuracies with HISTORICAL inaccuracies....it is a LOSE - LOSE scenario...a powerful thing for proving it WRONG - as Satan likes to do - NO GOD NO SIN
Quirinius was Governor of Syria twice. The 6 AD governorship was the second time. Quirinius was leading a war against the Homonadensians in Galatia. Galatia had no standing army, so Cilicia-Syria came to their aid. Varus, who was gov. Syria 7-4 BC was a terrible commander, so Quirinius was sent, as duumvir. Herod died 4 BC. That date is fixed by a lunar eclipse.
@BibleDude777 OK, let's ignore that there is no evidence for this assertion. Let's also ignore that he was governor of another province at the time and having a single governor managing two provinces ran completely against Roman policy. Let's further ignore the date for the census at that time was 9 BCE. This date would have made Jesus too old by the time JtB was executed. FAIL!
Thanks for posting. All this information should give religious people a pause, but does it? Hell no.
Superstitious brainwashing is damn effective, most delusional fools just stick fingers on their ears and go laa-laa-laa until rational people give up and go away.
We must protect the children, make sure religious brainwashing is stopped. Religion should have +18 label like hard porn and violent movies. Useless superstiton has dragged us down for too long, high time we end it.
So the Death of Herod the Great is the turning point from 1 BC to 1 AD? so that means Herod died on December 31, 1 BC and Quirinius took over January 1, 1 AD?
Possibly the idea that the Anno Domina calendar wasn't created until 525 years after the events of Jesus took place, that might be where Matthew and Luke get mixed up.
@ECWnWWF OK, accepting all of your suppositions...
Herod the Great tried to kill the baby Jesus after he'd been born but didn't catch Jesus because his family fled to Egypt. Luke's Jesus described how the pregnant Mary made the journey home during the reign of Quirinius. So, according to your account, Mary was pregnant with Jesus AFTER giving birth and fleeing to Egypt?
Well at least the video creator did a few quick lookups in wikipedia.
He is right in the approximate dates he has quoted.
But he jumps to the conclusion equating these dates with the account in Luke.
In A. D. 1764 a stone was found in Tivoli (near Rome) which was written in honour of a Roman official who it states was TWICE governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus. Although the name of the official is missing from the stone it does list his accomplishments which match
From what I've been able to deduce from comparing the Gospels, John is a false Gospel, Luke is a ripoff or plagiarism of Matthew and Mark, Mark may or may not be genuine, and Matthew is the only one that seems to be truly authentic. If you try to make them FIT, you must conclude that one is a true Gospel - Matthew or John.
By the way, I'm a Berean Christian and I have no problem with realizing that some books of the Bible are false or "tares".
@xander7ful Mark's Gospel is very suspect because in his Gospel, Jesus' family thought he was going crazy. Strange, if they knew he was born of a virgin[Mark doesn't mention a virgin birth btw] and was the son of God, why would they think he was going crazy? Doesn't make sense because the other 3 Gospels do not mention that senario. Just thought I add that X).
Here's one proposed reconciliation of Matthew and Luke:
The events of Matthew happened as recorded. Ten years later, Archelaus (Herod's son) ticks off the merchants who appeal to Cæsar Augustus, who has his right-hand man Quirinius, Governor of Syria, take over the province and sends Archelaus into exile.
Quirinius throws up his hands over the shoddy state of Archelaus's record-keeping, and decides to start over from scratch with a taxation census to find out who owes what to whom.
This leads to the events of Luke. The Holy Family have to go back to Bethlehem, since that's Joseph's ancestral city (yeah, yeah, I know, I know — bear with me).
Jesus was about 10-11 years old at the time. But, some time before departure, He miraculously de-ages Himself back into a fœtus, and cralls back up into Mary's womb, to be born a second time!
It's the ONLY way to reconcile the two accounts!
Hey, it puts His later words to Nicodemus in a whole new light! "Why not? *I* did!"
Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
@lizazoon, yes, that's called the Levirate Responsibility (and a major Biblical thorn in the side of all those Christians demanding that "traditional Bible marriage" is only between a man and a woman who love each other — that type of "traditional Bible marriage" is never actually shown in the Bible, but thirteen other types are, including the Levirate Responsibility, as well as polygyny, forced marriage of virgins [usually young girls] captured in war, etc. etc. etc.).
Jesus is and has never been the problem. It's the way the Catholic Church built itself around the myth of Jesus. Jesus never said he was the (or a) Messiah. Also, Jesus was a warrior. He said to his disciples, "I bring a sword." There was a big fight in the Garden of Gethesmane. The Romans sent a cohort (600 soldiers) to arrest him. 600 soldiers to arrest one peaceful guy? It was a fight. If Jesus were alive today, his enemies would call him a terrorist.
Because of Mr.Glorthac made some youtube video to attack your ideas, i think you need to tell us what you response, to make another youtube video is a better way to do that.
@ckhtsi I've been doing some research into his claims regarding the "proper" translation of Luke in his effort to push Luke's Jesus back to the time of Matthew's Jesus.
To make a long story really short, he's full of crap.
The proper translation is the same as how EVERY Bible edition translates it. It turns out that there is a reason not one professional translation agrees with him.
@DeistPaladin thank you for your response, sorry i delete my comment, and this is my mistake because of i am new in youtube, and there is a computer problem.
by the way, i have googled what he posted in his youtube,
"this census occurred as the first, before quirinius was govern", and i cannot find any bibles which has this sentence.
@sthnwatch The Herod "Junior" you're referring to is Herod Antipas who died in 39 ACE (AD). Are you seriously suggesting Jesus was born a few years before 39 ACE?
My best guess (emphasis on the fact that this is a guess), Jesus was a real person and a great teacher, but his followers turned him into the messiah. Unfortunately, the Jews could point out where Jesus didn't fulfill the role of the messiah, so Christians had to INVENT details of Jesus to make it all work (Jesus was never born in Bethlehem, Elijah never came back from the dead to prepare the way for him, ect). So, when you take real events with fictional events, you get conflicting information.
Could you explain to me how Jesus was born in the years deemed "BC" or "Before Christ"? (I'm seriously asking for an answer, not just being a facetious prick.)
Could you go into a little more detail? I know the terms were created later, but what did they base the dates on? And are you using another calendar (one more appropriate for Jesus' time) to judge how long before or after BC the events took place? I don't mean to be a bother, I'm just legitimately confused (and curious). I have no idea what process you went through to get the dates you did.
@SgtSanchez The dates I have are based on the death of Herod the Great and when Quirinius took his office. These aren't disputed by Christian apologists. Instead, they try to claim an "earlier administration" by Quirinius. My own Oxford Bible confirms these dates in the footnotes.
@DeistPaladin I can give you a link to a Catholic website failing to address the issue of Christ's birth if you want. Funny read. I need your Oxford Bible, my mother's New World Translation doesn't have crap lol.
@SgtSanchez Cause the people who made up when Jesus was born failed to do the same work as in this video. It was a general guess, what was off by at least a few years if you follow the historical reference in the bible stories. The year count did not start until 525AD, start by the Monk Dionysius Exiguus. On a side note AD does not really mean "after death" but Anno Domini or Year of our Lord. So, the year 1 AD was meant to be the year Jesus was born.
your christmas nativity set is all wrong. The wise men(or magi) did not visit jesus at the manger on the night he was born. He was almost a toddler when they visited him at his home several months(or years) later. mt. 2:ll
jesus christ can sUCK MY FUCKING COCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCK YOU JESEs CHRSIT YOUR A GAY GAYG AYGAYGAYGAYGYAGYAGYAYGAYGAYGAYGYAGYAGYAGYAGYAYG
jeosephus is a briliant guy ddddddddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i beileve everything imtold sheeple american sheepleeeeeeeeeee
Luke says Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry. Since Jesus had to have been born no earlier than 6 CE, that roughly means about 36 CE when he started his ministry, which didn't happen until JtB was executed.
Josephus tells us, as does Luke, that JtB was upset over Herod's marriage to his brother's wife. Since his brother died in 34 CE, the approximate date of 36 CE fits.
Deist, I thought that the scandal over Antipas' marriage to his brother was because his bro was still living not dead which puts John's ministry earlier.
Also how did you come to think that Jesus' ministry starts only after John is dead? Matt. 11 (& Luke 7 so it is probably from Q) puts Jesus' ministry and John's imprisonment as happening simultaneously.
Deist, I am reresearching this and I can't see anywhere in the gospels or Josephus where it is said that Jesus' ministry begins after the death of the Baptist.
Are you confusing John's death with his imprisonment or am I missing something? Where does it say that Jesus' ministry begins after John's death?
@DeistPaladin FUCK YOU! How dare you question my faith?! We Christians have ancient anecdotal evidence of the magician of Nazareth. We have tattered 4th century manuscripts of unknown origin to back it up too. SO HA!
justin martyrs underling, tatian, wrote a book called diatessaron that tried to reconcile the gospels to no avail because, as this video states, it's impossible. god's word is conflicted at best.
And my CONCLUSION IS -- Atheists are simply mor skeptical about the supernatural and refuse to believe it unless they see it firsthand. Christians are those who accept as taught from childhood about the Bible, etc. and seeing not universal contradiction believe in the God of the Bible. God, having created the mind understands that atheism is only as temporary as his supernatural works, so when Armageddon comes the atheists will believe. I don't think he blames them not believing until then
When you have to deal with revisionism, as in the case with Herod, then unless you actually correct the timeline you will see lots of contradictions. So I'll just say Herod's rule was revised by 3 years and Quirininus was ruling as "legate" in 2 BC, the year Jesus was born and when there was a census, apparently a 7-year census, with a second occurring in 6 AD when again Quirinius was legate.
Take it or leave it. The Bible reflects these historical options.
Sorry, the timeline was revised. Herod actually died on Shebat 2, 1 AD. Because of this, the governorships of Quirinius were altered. As suspected, he was governor twice, once during the period of about 3-1 BC at which time the census in 2 BC was carried out. When Herod's history was altered and his death moved back from 1 AD to 3 BC per Josephus, the 3-year governorship of Quirinius during the actual original timeline was suppressed even though we have epigraphical evidence of a 2nd rule.
!Reading all the comments proving that Jesus existed here I think I will go and build a church to Sherlock Holmes, he seems to be so real because there is so much historical facts in the books about him so he has got be real, it is blasphemy to say otherwise!
This is a totally different matter and you know it. We can show who the governors of Syria from c6 BCE to 6 CE and that Quirinius was too occupied c5 BCE to 3 BCE and 1 BCE to 3 CE to take on governing a province. Other have pointed out temporal errors in Luke's other time marker: Annas and Caiaphas were NEVER co-priests and Lysanias was killed c36 BC by Mark Anthony.
There is debate about Lysanias. However, more light is given by a inscription found on a temple from the time of Tiberius (the Roman emperor from 14 - 37 AD), which named Lysanias as the Tetrach of Abila near Damascus, just as Luke has written.
Caiaphas was the civil High Priest of Israel 18-36 AD. But he gained the position by bribery and was only nominally high priest. He was high priest by virtue of his marriage to the daughter of a high priest. Caiaphas became high priest and worked hand in hand with his father-in-law Annas who had already held the position and Rome had deposed fifteen years earlier. Annas, however, remained extremely influential.
No I was not there, obviously. Were YOU? That's all "believers" of the supernatural have ever had. Not 1 shred of real evidence If you think even for a second that a MAN was; born of a virgin mother, performed miracles, walked on water, crucified then returned from the dead ever existed, then sorry but you are deluded! Keep your faith and continue fooling yourself that there is another life in "heaven" after this "test" life! Pure faith, obviously NOTHING more.
You got frustrated and got onto the usual atheistic evasive rampage about other things (re: the supernatural: miracles, virgin birth, resurrection and what not.)
You can't even see that you're off topic.
And you expect a sensible discussion about timelines?
I'm off the bed. Maybe you should do the same and clear your head.
If you believed that Jesus never even existed, then it's no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on ANY topic since it is obvious that you prefer to turn a blind eye to evidence that does not rock your boat.
To say that the person of Jesus never existed is an embarrassing demonstration of lack of historical research.
I just can't get over the irony of a Christian accusing others of ignoring evidence that conflicts with deeply cherished beliefs. Ever heard of "projection"?
Got any evidence that Christian mythology is even based on a real story?
Your point was already addressed in my second video in this series. I'm not fond of rehashing old arguments.
Argumentum Ad Neuseum is an especially annoying logical fallacy, commonly used among those who try to defend the mythology regarding the Christians icon.
I've been reviewing your videos and so far have come up with quite a few holes. It's hard to know where to start actually!!
You have errors in (1) many of your dates and (2) many of your assumptions.
Want some examples? John the Baptists ministry for one -
Date error. You say that John 'started his ministry' in AD 29. That is false. It was IN THE 15TH YEAR of Tiberius, meaning it was AD 28-29. You're off a year there.
Assumption Errors: To say John BEGAN his ministry at that time is not supported. (1) The 15th year of Tiberias was when the WORD OF THE LORD CAME TO JOHN in the wilderness. Matthew 3:1 states that John had been preaching IN THE WILDERNESS. Mark 1:4 said that John did baptize IN THE WILDERNESS. At some time after He "came into all the country about Jordan" and baptized there. That is, you are categorically assuming that verse 3 happens on the heels of verse 2. That is speculation.
(2) Also, John had preached long enough BEFORE the baptism of Jesus to have MANY converts. In fact, one DAY after Jesus baptism, John points Him out to HIS own disciples. (You might not know this but you dont make disciples overnight.), (3) Jesus and Johns ministry ran CONCURRENTLY for a while. (See John 3:22, 23)
John and the Synoptic Gospels contradict each other on that point. All of them suggest JtB had a successful ministry prior to his baptism of Jesus. The Synoptics all "off" JtB to make room for Jesus. John doesn't consider JtB to be so important. This is part of the progression of the Jesus mythology where John hunkers down more and more as time went on. See Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and then John.
You are not making any points here, nor are you addressing my comments directly.
You don't understand the gospels. It's not that John doesn't consider JB to be so important! John's gospel is written with the perspective of Jesus being the Son of God. Of course, John must decrease with this in view. The others have a different emphasis.
You place Johns death at around 36 AD. This is unfounded. Why? See assumption error. :)
Assumption error: (1) Somehow you correlate it with the death of Philip in 34 AD, so thats when his widow married Herod. Duh! Since when does marrying a widower go against the Mosaic law?
JtB's death is calculated based on the dates Luke offers, that Jesus was "about 30" when he began his ministry at JtB's death. It dovetails with history since Philip's death is calculated at 34 CE.
And it's "widow" since the person in question is female. Next?
Philip was very much alive. Were talking adultery here. Im surprised you didnt even bother to check out Josephus on this score. I quote (Antiquities, Chapter 5): .......
" But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husbands brother by the fathers side, he was tetrarch of Galilee.
Date error: Jesus began His ministry AFTER John was put into prison. Unsubstantiated. See assumption errors. :)
Assumption errors: (1) That Matthew, when he says in 4:12 When Jesus heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee SOMEHOW MEANS, When Jesus heard that John was cast into prison, He began His public ministry.
No assumptions. That's what it says in Matt and Mark and also implied in Luke.
At the time they were written, the followers of JtB were a stronger rival group. By the time of the Gospel of John, they'd apparently minimized JtB's importance.
(2) That Mark, when he says in 1:14, Now after that John was put into prison, Jesus came into Galilee SOMEHOW MEANS Now after that John was put into prison, Jesus began His public ministry. You need to read your Bible more carefully (and might I say with an open mind?).
(3) What about the so-called discrepant verse youre talking about in John 3:24? Well, where was Jesus BEFORE He went into Galilee to preach the kingdom? John ALONE tells us this detail in 3:22 - After these things (His first teachings and miracle) came Jesus and His disciples into the land of JUDEA; and THERE He tarried with them and baptized. John, meanwhile was baptizing in Aenon. Christ had gone to Judea (before John's imprisonment).
So.... Jesus BEGAN His ministry in Galilee (e.g. first healing in Cana), then went to Judea and continued His work there. Following Johns imprisonment (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the fact that the Pharisees were on the warpath because He baptized more disciples than John (John), He left JUDEA and departed again into Galilee. (John 4:3)
For argument's sake, I'll give you Herod's death to be 4 BC. Everything works out from there (I've already explained about Quirinius on other posts.) That makes Christ to be 30 in 27 AD (at the time of the temple cleansing).
It WOULD be an odd thing to say to someone pushing 50!!
I can't believe that you would take that statement by the Pharisees to mean that Jesus was close to 50!!
It's too ludicrous for words. And certainly meaningless in establishing any timeline. Pure conjecture.
If you were not so bent on making things fit, you would see that the gist of the statement is that He is "not EVEN 50 yet", so how can He claim to have seen Abraham? It makes a lot more sense.
Yes, I would say "You're not yet 50" to some who's 28. - if my meaning was to exaggerate and be sarcastic.
This was typical of the Pharisees.
On the other hand, I would certainly not say to someone who was close to 50 - "You are not yet 50". How in the world would I know? (unless I was invited to his upcoming 50th birthday party).
You're also WRONG on the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar.
You seem to have a short memory for corrections, so I will remind you.
The 15th year is 28 AD.
However, this is NOT the time of the start of JB's ministry. He preached, baptized and made disciples BEFORE he came into the regions about Jordan. I.e before 28 AD
Firstly, there is no real proof jesus existed. Next, your argument is based on several assumptions in which you defend your religion. Therefore, seeing your lack of any real proof, I must ask you something you people ask all the time; how do you know? Were you there?
John the Baptist did not die in 36 AD. You have NOTHING to substantiate this other than the death of Philip at 34 AD.
About which you made the ridiculous claim that JB was executed because Herod was married to a WIDOW!!! (despite even what Josephus wrote about the adulterous relationship when Philip was very much alive)
Face it. You cant handle correction. You can't admit that you're WRONG. You don't have the integrity to admit your mistakes and remove your deceptive videos.
What gets me is that there are so many gullible atheists out there who love being spoon fed this garbage.
Fifty was the year of completion of manhood for the Jews. They were basically saying, "You haven't even attained the completion of manhood. How can you make the claim of knowing Abraham?"
They were being sarcastic.
I can't get over how you are seriously putting this out as 'evidence'!!
There are no timeline problems here. First the census. Augustus ordered a census in 8 BC, Herod died in 4 BC Jesus is born approx 6-5 BC. The greek in Luke allows this, 'protus' is properly translated 'before' not first, as it is elsewhere like John 1:15, "John testified..."This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me." also, John 15:18. So Luke was referring to the census before the 6AD Quirinius census and thus no problem at all.
restoredrob 1 week ago
God did a lot of things to trip up the wise or clever man. God doesn't need or want to prove anything to anyone. The Bible is to teach to people who want to learn. He wants your love but it must be true love, so just accept it and don't worry so much.
picturedean 1 week ago
ok i asked him. my exact words were "hello god, I respectfully request proof of your existence" and nothing happened
sidfuckcheese4 1 month ago
There really is no need to be skeptical. If you want proof of God, just ask Him (respectfully) to prove Himself to you.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
Your videos are still the most awesome for the detail contained therein.
CHAS1422 2 months ago
It is thought by some that the purpose of the gospels is NOT to teach history, but something else entirely.
To lump 30,000 various groups, sects, bodies together and call them Christians is mis-leading.
GrayUncle1 5 months ago
there is as much 'reliable' evidence for Hercules as there is for the myth of Jesus. I personally worship Hercules as my God because he's just a kick are kin of guy. :-)
psycho3968 6 months ago
It is very easy for a fictioanl character to have a faulty timeline.
TheSultan03 6 months ago 3
@TheSultan03
Especially when there are multiple authors at work.
DeistPaladin 6 months ago
Very nicely done.
Unfortunately your web link doesn't work.
DarMcWheeler 7 months ago
your an idiot!
ncheels015 8 months ago
@ncheels015 Did you mean to write "you're in idiot"? If you're going to call someone an "idiot", make sure to use proper grammar.
DeistPaladin 8 months ago 6
@DeistPaladin yes, actually I did. I knew an idiot like yourself would respond to a grammatical error. Also, if you plan on fixing others gramatical errors at least try to to make them yourself. You know: "you're IN idiot"? is proper for all the english speaking countries in the world.
ncheels015 8 months ago
@ncheels015 lets see if you can catch this one! dumbass
ncheels015 8 months ago
@ncheels015 You need to use an apostrophe if you're going to use contractions. "Let's" is the proper spelling for the contraction for "let us". "Lets" is the word you would use if your sentence were "I will see if he lets you get away with that."
DeistPaladin 8 months ago
@ncheels015 Ah, touche, I did make that typo, just like you did when you typed, "...to to make them...". Then again, I'm not the one going around and calling people an idiot.
As the tea party sign said, "get a brain, morans".
DeistPaladin 8 months ago 6
@DeistPaladin epik thred
Atheeizm 8 months ago
@DeistPaladin pwned
ffxme 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeistPaladin lol get a room you two
zasabiibasaz 7 months ago
@ncheels015 2 timothy 2:14 keep reminding gods people of these things. warn them before god against quarreling about words; its of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
jakekrohn1992 8 months ago
@jakekrohn1992 And don't forget. Exodus 2:12: "And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand."
The proper Christian way to settle an argument. As set by example by Moses.
pumpstations 8 months ago
jakekrohn1992
Don't ask questions & when you discover a serious discrepancy within scripture, just ignore it bcuz god said so. Besides, he doesn't like his Xians to think about the obvious problems in scripture. Yes, if god's people start considering the very serious errors & contradictions found in the bible books (for which we have not 1 original text), they must stop immediately, else the light of truth will ruin them!!
We must submit & obey, just like 1 of Saddam's soldiers!
Yeah, I hear ya.
Cootabux 8 months ago
@jakekrohn1992
the bible is inconsistent about where jesus was born, who was there when he died
sidfuckcheese4 1 month ago
Whatt??!
lukeyboy123able 9 months ago
Also, John's criticism of Herod's adultery implied that Philip was still alive- because widows are fair game. So he had to criticize before 34 AD, probably several years before.
shatterknee 10 months ago
Josephus has Herod's son Philip beginning his reign in 1 AD. We can't automatically assume that Herod didn't lay down his official rulership in 4 BC but stayed alive a little bit after that, doing his own 'side projects' with his sons in charge. The dates associated with Herod and Quirinius aren't tremendously 'hard' but involve a lot of ambiguity. And Philip's death in 34 does NOT imply that John the Baptist criticized Herodias in 36!
shatterknee 10 months ago
You might want to read Mommsen or Ramsey. Maybe a little bit of Strabo. Throw in some Josephus. Plenty of evidence to show Quirinius governing Syria in 6-4 BCE range. As for the census began under Saturninus in 8 BCE, the situation with Herod easily explains why the census did not reach Judea for a couple of years. Governing the same province was RARE, but not unheard of.
BibleDude777 10 months ago
@BibleDude777 You didn't answer my objection.
DeistPaladin 10 months ago
@DeistPaladin This is just a brief statement...if you REMOVE all the words in ITALICS from the ENGLISH translation of the New Testament..you get a MUCH MORE COHESIVE reading. The ORIGINAL GREEK produces no inaccuracies...it is completely HARMONIOUS..same with the HEBREW...the error comes in TRYING to reconcile the ENGLISH translation inaccuracies with HISTORICAL inaccuracies....it is a LOSE - LOSE scenario...a powerful thing for proving it WRONG - as Satan likes to do - NO GOD NO SIN
cclarry122700 10 months ago
Quirinius was Governor of Syria twice. The 6 AD governorship was the second time. Quirinius was leading a war against the Homonadensians in Galatia. Galatia had no standing army, so Cilicia-Syria came to their aid. Varus, who was gov. Syria 7-4 BC was a terrible commander, so Quirinius was sent, as duumvir. Herod died 4 BC. That date is fixed by a lunar eclipse.
BibleDude777 10 months ago
@BibleDude777 OK, let's ignore that there is no evidence for this assertion. Let's also ignore that he was governor of another province at the time and having a single governor managing two provinces ran completely against Roman policy. Let's further ignore the date for the census at that time was 9 BCE. This date would have made Jesus too old by the time JtB was executed. FAIL!
DeistPaladin 10 months ago
So to sum it all up the new testament is a load of contradicting bullshit?? I think it is
jackskellington765 10 months ago
Thanks for posting. All this information should give religious people a pause, but does it? Hell no.
Superstitious brainwashing is damn effective, most delusional fools just stick fingers on their ears and go laa-laa-laa until rational people give up and go away.
We must protect the children, make sure religious brainwashing is stopped. Religion should have +18 label like hard porn and violent movies. Useless superstiton has dragged us down for too long, high time we end it.
bary1234 11 months ago
So the Death of Herod the Great is the turning point from 1 BC to 1 AD? so that means Herod died on December 31, 1 BC and Quirinius took over January 1, 1 AD?
Possibly the idea that the Anno Domina calendar wasn't created until 525 years after the events of Jesus took place, that might be where Matthew and Luke get mixed up.
ECWnWWF 1 year ago
@ECWnWWF OK, accepting all of your suppositions...
Herod the Great tried to kill the baby Jesus after he'd been born but didn't catch Jesus because his family fled to Egypt. Luke's Jesus described how the pregnant Mary made the journey home during the reign of Quirinius. So, according to your account, Mary was pregnant with Jesus AFTER giving birth and fleeing to Egypt?
Maybe another miracle.
DeistPaladin 1 year ago 2
Well at least the video creator did a few quick lookups in wikipedia.
He is right in the approximate dates he has quoted.
But he jumps to the conclusion equating these dates with the account in Luke.
In A. D. 1764 a stone was found in Tivoli (near Rome) which was written in honour of a Roman official who it states was TWICE governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus. Although the name of the official is missing from the stone it does list his accomplishments which match
iandstanley 1 year ago
@iandstanley Robert Price already dispensed with that claptrap. The stone says no such thing and we know where Quirinius was and it wasn't Syria!
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
jesus was and is a joke.. so forget the twerp
DifferingOpinion 1 year ago
@DifferingOpinion Jesus is no joke my friend
Watchthephotosmove 10 months ago
From what I've been able to deduce from comparing the Gospels, John is a false Gospel, Luke is a ripoff or plagiarism of Matthew and Mark, Mark may or may not be genuine, and Matthew is the only one that seems to be truly authentic. If you try to make them FIT, you must conclude that one is a true Gospel - Matthew or John.
By the way, I'm a Berean Christian and I have no problem with realizing that some books of the Bible are false or "tares".
xander7ful 1 year ago
@xander7ful Mark's Gospel is very suspect because in his Gospel, Jesus' family thought he was going crazy. Strange, if they knew he was born of a virgin[Mark doesn't mention a virgin birth btw] and was the son of God, why would they think he was going crazy? Doesn't make sense because the other 3 Gospels do not mention that senario. Just thought I add that X).
HybridD91 1 year ago
Here's one proposed reconciliation of Matthew and Luke:
The events of Matthew happened as recorded. Ten years later, Archelaus (Herod's son) ticks off the merchants who appeal to Cæsar Augustus, who has his right-hand man Quirinius, Governor of Syria, take over the province and sends Archelaus into exile.
Quirinius throws up his hands over the shoddy state of Archelaus's record-keeping, and decides to start over from scratch with a taxation census to find out who owes what to whom.
COMALiteJ 1 year ago
(cont).
This leads to the events of Luke. The Holy Family have to go back to Bethlehem, since that's Joseph's ancestral city (yeah, yeah, I know, I know — bear with me).
Jesus was about 10-11 years old at the time. But, some time before departure, He miraculously de-ages Himself back into a fœtus, and cralls back up into Mary's womb, to be born a second time!
It's the ONLY way to reconcile the two accounts!
Hey, it puts His later words to Nicodemus in a whole new light! "Why not? *I* did!"
COMALiteJ 1 year ago
@COMALiteJ Genesis 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon, yes, that's called the Levirate Responsibility (and a major Biblical thorn in the side of all those Christians demanding that "traditional Bible marriage" is only between a man and a woman who love each other — that type of "traditional Bible marriage" is never actually shown in the Bible, but thirteen other types are, including the Levirate Responsibility, as well as polygyny, forced marriage of virgins [usually young girls] captured in war, etc. etc. etc.).
COMALiteJ 1 year ago
Jesus is and has never been the problem. It's the way the Catholic Church built itself around the myth of Jesus. Jesus never said he was the (or a) Messiah. Also, Jesus was a warrior. He said to his disciples, "I bring a sword." There was a big fight in the Garden of Gethesmane. The Romans sent a cohort (600 soldiers) to arrest him. 600 soldiers to arrest one peaceful guy? It was a fight. If Jesus were alive today, his enemies would call him a terrorist.
Gorilla196094 1 year ago
Very well done. Also "temple tantrum"! XD I am so swiping that!
Azurerosa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because of Mr.Glorthac made some youtube video to attack your ideas, i think you need to tell us what you response, to make another youtube video is a better way to do that.
ckhtsi 1 year ago
Comment removed
ckhtsi 1 year ago
@ckhtsi I've been doing some research into his claims regarding the "proper" translation of Luke in his effort to push Luke's Jesus back to the time of Matthew's Jesus.
To make a long story really short, he's full of crap.
The proper translation is the same as how EVERY Bible edition translates it. It turns out that there is a reason not one professional translation agrees with him.
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
@DeistPaladin thank you for your response, sorry i delete my comment, and this is my mistake because of i am new in youtube, and there is a computer problem.
by the way, i have googled what he posted in his youtube,
"this census occurred as the first, before quirinius was govern", and i cannot find any bibles which has this sentence.
ckhtsi 1 year ago
The king Herod you talk of who died BC is king Herod senior. King Herod the 2nd (junior) is the one who wanted Jesus dead. Aaahh, such trivia!!!
sthnwatch 1 year ago
@sthnwatch The Herod "Junior" you're referring to is Herod Antipas who died in 39 ACE (AD). Are you seriously suggesting Jesus was born a few years before 39 ACE?
EruditeScythian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everybody watch my video refutation:
/watch?v=Dd1CZUscBQg
Glorthac 1 year ago
Celebrations of the Roman Church on Dec 25.......
The Roman Church-->Festivals of natalis solis invicti ("birth of unconquered sun)
The Roman Church--> birthday of Mithras
The Roman Church-->crowning Charlemagne on Dec 25 in Rome in 800 AD
Horus, of Egypt, born on December 25. His mother, Isis, gave birth to him
afzpuppet 1 year ago
dude your an idiot
bosancerozz 1 year ago
Matthew, Mark and Puke should have a zombie fight to the death and whoever wins gets to write whatever the fuck they want. The end.
matchu4444 1 year ago
My best guess (emphasis on the fact that this is a guess), Jesus was a real person and a great teacher, but his followers turned him into the messiah. Unfortunately, the Jews could point out where Jesus didn't fulfill the role of the messiah, so Christians had to INVENT details of Jesus to make it all work (Jesus was never born in Bethlehem, Elijah never came back from the dead to prepare the way for him, ect). So, when you take real events with fictional events, you get conflicting information.
TheMrDeist 1 year ago
Could you explain to me how Jesus was born in the years deemed "BC" or "Before Christ"? (I'm seriously asking for an answer, not just being a facetious prick.)
SgtSanchez 1 year ago
@SgtSanchez The terms BC and AD were invented in the 6th century
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
Could you go into a little more detail? I know the terms were created later, but what did they base the dates on? And are you using another calendar (one more appropriate for Jesus' time) to judge how long before or after BC the events took place? I don't mean to be a bother, I'm just legitimately confused (and curious). I have no idea what process you went through to get the dates you did.
SgtSanchez 1 year ago
@SgtSanchez The dates I have are based on the death of Herod the Great and when Quirinius took his office. These aren't disputed by Christian apologists. Instead, they try to claim an "earlier administration" by Quirinius. My own Oxford Bible confirms these dates in the footnotes.
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
@DeistPaladin I can give you a link to a Catholic website failing to address the issue of Christ's birth if you want. Funny read. I need your Oxford Bible, my mother's New World Translation doesn't have crap lol.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@SgtSanchez Cause the people who made up when Jesus was born failed to do the same work as in this video. It was a general guess, what was off by at least a few years if you follow the historical reference in the bible stories. The year count did not start until 525AD, start by the Monk Dionysius Exiguus. On a side note AD does not really mean "after death" but Anno Domini or Year of our Lord. So, the year 1 AD was meant to be the year Jesus was born.
Loathomar 1 year ago
Comment removed
Loathomar 1 year ago
Comment removed
Loathomar 1 year ago
Comment removed
Loathomar 1 year ago
Lots of holes in the Roman Catholic origin New Testament.
GanEdenAustralia 1 year ago
your christmas nativity set is all wrong. The wise men(or magi) did not visit jesus at the manger on the night he was born. He was almost a toddler when they visited him at his home several months(or years) later. mt. 2:ll
DJ044 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
jesus christ can sUCK MY FUCKING COCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCK YOU JESEs CHRSIT YOUR A GAY GAYG AYGAYGAYGAYGYAGYAGYAYGAYGAYGAYGYAGYAGYAGYAGYAYG
jeosephus is a briliant guy ddddddddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i beileve everything imtold sheeple american sheepleeeeeeeeeee
yourallstoopid 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
skeptic faggit you sound just as stoopid as the jesus freaks.... gay gay gay gay gay your gaaaaaaaaaaaaay
yourallstoopid 1 year ago
judas betrayed jesus what? why where? they couldnt of found him themselves
funkster22657 1 year ago
what a dumbass.They just don't know.
20lbsledge 2 years ago
How do you date the beheading of John at 36 ad? Tell me how you can pin point that from Josephus.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Luke says Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry. Since Jesus had to have been born no earlier than 6 CE, that roughly means about 36 CE when he started his ministry, which didn't happen until JtB was executed.
Josephus tells us, as does Luke, that JtB was upset over Herod's marriage to his brother's wife. Since his brother died in 34 CE, the approximate date of 36 CE fits.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Deist, I thought that the scandal over Antipas' marriage to his brother was because his bro was still living not dead which puts John's ministry earlier.
Also how did you come to think that Jesus' ministry starts only after John is dead? Matt. 11 (& Luke 7 so it is probably from Q) puts Jesus' ministry and John's imprisonment as happening simultaneously.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
Matt, Mark and Luke all place his ministry after the death of JtB, though Luke is vague on the matter.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Deist, I am reresearching this and I can't see anywhere in the gospels or Josephus where it is said that Jesus' ministry begins after the death of the Baptist.
Are you confusing John's death with his imprisonment or am I missing something? Where does it say that Jesus' ministry begins after John's death?
agnostaxian 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin FUCK YOU! How dare you question my faith?! We Christians have ancient anecdotal evidence of the magician of Nazareth. We have tattered 4th century manuscripts of unknown origin to back it up too. SO HA!
RomansPwnedJesus 1 year ago
justin martyrs underling, tatian, wrote a book called diatessaron that tried to reconcile the gospels to no avail because, as this video states, it's impossible. god's word is conflicted at best.
mhgolgothica 2 years ago
"Temple tantrum"!!
Classic. Did you come up with that?
jimbrown257 2 years ago
Credit where credit is due:
The "Rev." Brendan Powell Smith
The Brick Testament.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
The conclusion is, most of the stuff in the gospels is made up to fit some political aim. The gospels are, at best, unreliable as history.
crabbygaz 2 years ago
Jebus is crying right now.
Gyllir 2 years ago
And my CONCLUSION IS -- Atheists are simply mor skeptical about the supernatural and refuse to believe it unless they see it firsthand. Christians are those who accept as taught from childhood about the Bible, etc. and seeing not universal contradiction believe in the God of the Bible. God, having created the mind understands that atheism is only as temporary as his supernatural works, so when Armageddon comes the atheists will believe. I don't think he blames them not believing until then
Larsinger58 2 years ago
When you have to deal with revisionism, as in the case with Herod, then unless you actually correct the timeline you will see lots of contradictions. So I'll just say Herod's rule was revised by 3 years and Quirininus was ruling as "legate" in 2 BC, the year Jesus was born and when there was a census, apparently a 7-year census, with a second occurring in 6 AD when again Quirinius was legate.
Take it or leave it. The Bible reflects these historical options.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
Sorry, the timeline was revised. Herod actually died on Shebat 2, 1 AD. Because of this, the governorships of Quirinius were altered. As suspected, he was governor twice, once during the period of about 3-1 BC at which time the census in 2 BC was carried out. When Herod's history was altered and his death moved back from 1 AD to 3 BC per Josephus, the 3-year governorship of Quirinius during the actual original timeline was suppressed even though we have epigraphical evidence of a 2nd rule.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
!Reading all the comments proving that Jesus existed here I think I will go and build a church to Sherlock Holmes, he seems to be so real because there is so much historical facts in the books about him so he has got be real, it is blasphemy to say otherwise!
Qongrat 2 years ago
I believe Jesus existed, but his story was exaggerated.. DeistPaladin great video.
NWOSupporter2012 2 years ago
Deist -
There are a lot of posts here (and more to come). This should be enough for now.
Answer them first.
Please remember to read them in the order in which they were written.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Obviously the jesus that is worshiped never existed!
sirjambo 2 years ago 3
sifjambo -
Sorry. Idiotic statement, especially being prefaced by 'obviously'. Read the extra-biblical historical evidence.
You obviously haven't.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
It's funny that you are so sure of the dates for Pilate. Prior to 1961 you'd be saying that he NEVER EVEN EXISTED!!
Why don't you guys ever learn?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
This is a totally different matter and you know it. We can show who the governors of Syria from c6 BCE to 6 CE and that Quirinius was too occupied c5 BCE to 3 BCE and 1 BCE to 3 CE to take on governing a province. Other have pointed out temporal errors in Luke's other time marker: Annas and Caiaphas were NEVER co-priests and Lysanias was killed c36 BC by Mark Anthony.
Why don't YOU guys ever learn?!.
Maximara 2 years ago
There is debate about Lysanias. However, more light is given by a inscription found on a temple from the time of Tiberius (the Roman emperor from 14 - 37 AD), which named Lysanias as the Tetrach of Abila near Damascus, just as Luke has written.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Caiaphas was the civil High Priest of Israel 18-36 AD. But he gained the position by bribery and was only nominally high priest. He was high priest by virtue of his marriage to the daughter of a high priest. Caiaphas became high priest and worked hand in hand with his father-in-law Annas who had already held the position and Rome had deposed fifteen years earlier. Annas, however, remained extremely influential.
There is no major problem with this.
The Bible is correct.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Re: Quninirius being 'too busy' to oversee the affaris of a province.
How do YOU know? Were you there?
Pure speculation.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
sirjambo 2 years ago
Ah, now you've gone on the typical atheistic rampage when all else fails.
You guys are SOOO predictable. :)
We are not talking about ANY of these things, remember?
Stick to the topic.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
We atheists never go on a rampage. That is left to all those christian and muslim "believers" of the world.
I thought the topic was jesus.
So what did I say that was off topic?
Is there another jesus your talking about?
sirjambo 2 years ago
The topic is the Jesus timeline, not your blathering on about miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.
Off topic? Obviously.
A typical evasion tactic for those of the atheistic faith.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
You don't believe in "blathering on about miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, etc."?
I didn't know you were talking about another jesus.
So who was this other jesus, and why should I care?
sirjambo 2 years ago
Do you have a learning disabaility or something?
The discussion is on the timeline of Jesus.
You got frustrated and got onto the usual atheistic evasive rampage about other things (re: the supernatural: miracles, virgin birth, resurrection and what not.)
You can't even see that you're off topic.
And you expect a sensible discussion about timelines?
I'm off the bed. Maybe you should do the same and clear your head.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
My first comment here was that jesus never existed.
I am not trying to be evasive, but if you believe that the jesus that did what he did existed then that's your illusion, or delusion.
No I don't care to have a sensible discussion about timelines of a person/god/son who never existed. That would be senseless obviously!
sirjambo 2 years ago
If you believed that Jesus never even existed, then it's no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on ANY topic since it is obvious that you prefer to turn a blind eye to evidence that does not rock your boat.
To say that the person of Jesus never existed is an embarrassing demonstration of lack of historical research.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
I just can't get over the irony of a Christian accusing others of ignoring evidence that conflicts with deeply cherished beliefs. Ever heard of "projection"?
Got any evidence that Christian mythology is even based on a real story?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Deist -
I see you've avoided my comments on the temple cleansings and the word 'governor'.
I think you ignore everything that doesn't agree with your atheistic faith.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Your point was already addressed in my second video in this series. I'm not fond of rehashing old arguments.
Argumentum Ad Neuseum is an especially annoying logical fallacy, commonly used among those who try to defend the mythology regarding the Christians icon.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I've been reviewing your videos and so far have come up with quite a few holes. It's hard to know where to start actually!!
You have errors in (1) many of your dates and (2) many of your assumptions.
Want some examples? John the Baptists ministry for one -
Date error. You say that John 'started his ministry' in AD 29. That is false. It was IN THE 15TH YEAR of Tiberius, meaning it was AD 28-29. You're off a year there.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Already answer that one in the following video. Next.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Assumption Errors: To say John BEGAN his ministry at that time is not supported. (1) The 15th year of Tiberias was when the WORD OF THE LORD CAME TO JOHN in the wilderness. Matthew 3:1 states that John had been preaching IN THE WILDERNESS. Mark 1:4 said that John did baptize IN THE WILDERNESS. At some time after He "came into all the country about Jordan" and baptized there. That is, you are categorically assuming that verse 3 happens on the heels of verse 2. That is speculation.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Common sense. Next.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
(2) Also, John had preached long enough BEFORE the baptism of Jesus to have MANY converts. In fact, one DAY after Jesus baptism, John points Him out to HIS own disciples. (You might not know this but you dont make disciples overnight.), (3) Jesus and Johns ministry ran CONCURRENTLY for a while. (See John 3:22, 23)
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
John and the Synoptic Gospels contradict each other on that point. All of them suggest JtB had a successful ministry prior to his baptism of Jesus. The Synoptics all "off" JtB to make room for Jesus. John doesn't consider JtB to be so important. This is part of the progression of the Jesus mythology where John hunkers down more and more as time went on. See Mark, then Matthew, then Luke and then John.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Deist -
You are not making any points here, nor are you addressing my comments directly.
You don't understand the gospels. It's not that John doesn't consider JB to be so important! John's gospel is written with the perspective of Jesus being the Son of God. Of course, John must decrease with this in view. The others have a different emphasis.
The contradiction exists in your own mind.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Cop out. Your second video CONTAINS the problem; it doesn't answer it.
I've given you a correction.
Guess who doesn't want to talk about it any more?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
It's been addressed in that video. Next?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Date Error: John the Baptists death
You place Johns death at around 36 AD. This is unfounded. Why? See assumption error. :)
Assumption error: (1) Somehow you correlate it with the death of Philip in 34 AD, so thats when his widow married Herod. Duh! Since when does marrying a widower go against the Mosaic law?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
JtB's death is calculated based on the dates Luke offers, that Jesus was "about 30" when he began his ministry at JtB's death. It dovetails with history since Philip's death is calculated at 34 CE.
And it's "widow" since the person in question is female. Next?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Widow means the wife of a dead man.
Herodias was NOT a widow. Got you with egg on your face there, didn't I?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Philip was very much alive. Were talking adultery here. Im surprised you didnt even bother to check out Josephus on this score. I quote (Antiquities, Chapter 5): .......
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
" But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husbands brother by the fathers side, he was tetrarch of Galilee.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Want another booboo? How about this one?
Date error: Jesus began His ministry AFTER John was put into prison. Unsubstantiated. See assumption errors. :)
Assumption errors: (1) That Matthew, when he says in 4:12 When Jesus heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee SOMEHOW MEANS, When Jesus heard that John was cast into prison, He began His public ministry.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
No assumptions. That's what it says in Matt and Mark and also implied in Luke.
At the time they were written, the followers of JtB were a stronger rival group. By the time of the Gospel of John, they'd apparently minimized JtB's importance.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
What you're saying has NOTHING to do with my points. It's a deflection.
I've explained to you that there is NO contradication.
But you can't handle that (I know from experience).
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
(2) That Mark, when he says in 1:14, Now after that John was put into prison, Jesus came into Galilee SOMEHOW MEANS Now after that John was put into prison, Jesus began His public ministry. You need to read your Bible more carefully (and might I say with an open mind?).
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
(3) What about the so-called discrepant verse youre talking about in John 3:24? Well, where was Jesus BEFORE He went into Galilee to preach the kingdom? John ALONE tells us this detail in 3:22 - After these things (His first teachings and miracle) came Jesus and His disciples into the land of JUDEA; and THERE He tarried with them and baptized. John, meanwhile was baptizing in Aenon. Christ had gone to Judea (before John's imprisonment).
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
So.... Jesus BEGAN His ministry in Galilee (e.g. first healing in Cana), then went to Judea and continued His work there. Following Johns imprisonment (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the fact that the Pharisees were on the warpath because He baptized more disciples than John (John), He left JUDEA and departed again into Galilee. (John 4:3)
Whats the prob, Bob?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
The Gospel of John is a different story and should be treated as such.
This is where we get the term "synoptic" or "similar" for the other three.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Weak, sad, pathetic 'arguments'.
You either mess up and/or misapply dates as I have indicated.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Of course, John is a different story - but John says what John says. What? YOU can quote John but I can't?
You desperately need video 4 to clear up all the errors you made in the other three.
But, I guess you have no trouble sleeping at night knowing that you are deceiving other poor, gullible atheists.
You're pathetic.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
For argument's sake, I'll give you Herod's death to be 4 BC. Everything works out from there (I've already explained about Quirinius on other posts.) That makes Christ to be 30 in 27 AD (at the time of the temple cleansing).
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
BUT this creates a problem with John who put Jesus at at least 45 years old. Keep it going haven't seen this much tap dancing since Fred Astair
Maximara 2 years ago
Comment removed
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
How does John put Jesus at least 45 years old, pray tell? And when?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
John 8:57
Jesus is "not yet 50 years old".
That would seem an odd thing to say to someone not pushing 50.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
It WOULD be an odd thing to say to someone pushing 50!!
I can't believe that you would take that statement by the Pharisees to mean that Jesus was close to 50!!
It's too ludicrous for words. And certainly meaningless in establishing any timeline. Pure conjecture.
If you were not so bent on making things fit, you would see that the gist of the statement is that He is "not EVEN 50 yet", so how can He claim to have seen Abraham? It makes a lot more sense.
You're grasping at straws.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Would you say, "You're not yet 50" to someone who's 28?
Just curious.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Yes, I would say "You're not yet 50" to some who's 28. - if my meaning was to exaggerate and be sarcastic.
This was typical of the Pharisees.
On the other hand, I would certainly not say to someone who was close to 50 - "You are not yet 50". How in the world would I know? (unless I was invited to his upcoming 50th birthday party).
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
BTW: Thirty was the age in which men typically entered the priesthood.
More evidence for Jesus being about 30 when He started His ministry.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
You're also WRONG on the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar.
You seem to have a short memory for corrections, so I will remind you.
The 15th year is 28 AD.
However, this is NOT the time of the start of JB's ministry. He preached, baptized and made disciples BEFORE he came into the regions about Jordan. I.e before 28 AD
Your argument crumbles on these points alone.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Firstly, there is no real proof jesus existed. Next, your argument is based on several assumptions in which you defend your religion. Therefore, seeing your lack of any real proof, I must ask you something you people ask all the time; how do you know? Were you there?
TheFearmonger 2 years ago
Luke seems to say otherwise (Luke 3:1-3). Can you offer any evidence to back your assertion that his ministry began before 28 CE?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I already gave you quotes about John's ministry before 28 AD.
You have selective memory problems.
Go back and read my posts.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
I've read your posts. Can you provide any evidence for them or do you expect that just your say-so should be enough for me?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I've provided the evidence within the scriptures themselves. There was no 'say-so".
It was presented very clearly. What do you not understand?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
chapter and verse?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
More errors that you have conveniently forgotten.
John the Baptist did not die in 36 AD. You have NOTHING to substantiate this other than the death of Philip at 34 AD.
About which you made the ridiculous claim that JB was executed because Herod was married to a WIDOW!!! (despite even what Josephus wrote about the adulterous relationship when Philip was very much alive)
Your timeline crumbles here as well.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Nothing to substantiate this other than scripture and basic math.
6 CE or later birthdate + "about 30" = about 36 CE.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Christ (and John the Baptist0 were born approx. 4 BC, remember?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Do you need more reminders?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Give up, Deist.
You've met your match.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Yeah, where is he?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Where is who?
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
My match. You said I'd met him.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Chapter and verse for what?
You won't read the ones I've given you!!
Or your selective memory kicks in.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Well, since you've already provided it to me, I'm sure it won't be hard to provide it again. Here's the formula: Book, chapter:verse.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Read my posts!! I've wasted enough of my time in the first place, without doing it all again when all you have to do is scroll down.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Face it. You cant handle correction. You can't admit that you're WRONG. You don't have the integrity to admit your mistakes and remove your deceptive videos.
What gets me is that there are so many gullible atheists out there who love being spoon fed this garbage.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
I've thrown enough monkey wrenches into your timeline to blow it to smithereens.
If you had ANY integrity, you would remove them from Youtube.
But if deceiving the gullible is your aim, I know that you won't.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
*snap*
My irony meter just overloaded again.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Fifty was the year of completion of manhood for the Jews. They were basically saying, "You haven't even attained the completion of manhood. How can you make the claim of knowing Abraham?"
They were being sarcastic.
I can't get over how you are seriously putting this out as 'evidence'!!
It's laughable.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
QUOTE: "Fifty was the year of completion of manhood for the Jews."
Considering how the life expectancy was somewhere below 50, I find that unlikely.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Re: life expectancy of 50
So, now you are saying "You are not yet DEAD and yet you have see Abraham"?
You're nuts.
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
What, do you think "life expectancy" means "everyone lives to be exactly this age"?
Or perhaps you're convinced that in ancient times people could reasonably expect to live until what we in the modern age consider "old age"?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
There were quite a few old folks in the gospels. Zacharias, Elizabeth, Zacharias in the temple, Anna, John the apostle, Annas, etc. etc.
You're trying to wriggle your way out again. :)
greatgulffixed 2 years ago
Oh yes, many of the elder prophets of the Bible were hundreds of years old. (whatever)
But regardless, some people did live to old age even in ancient times. "Life expectancy" is just an estimation.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago