There are no contradictions, your just not bothering to persue its understanding, your goal is only to find loop holes to support your refusal to believe, The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture.
You are taking scripture out of context one must read the other passages before other than that just one scripture in Mark 6 a event was being told becasue Jesus was performing miracles many were still scooffing at him and because of there disbelief Jesus was not able to perform many of the miracles becasue of there lack of faith it says nothing about him not being all powerful..
ndyt you just don't understand the Bible deeply...
God (Jehova) and Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit are the same. 3 in 1 As water can be ice, liquid or gas. Jehovah, Jesus and second coming Christ are one God.
lolz that reaaally not what people mean when they talk about contradictions at all! Its never been about the tiny little words that are slightly different here and there. Its the fact that in the old testament God does some pretty sick things to people whom apparently he loves and allows to this apparently the devil to live and torture and influence us and realisticaly give us no freewill, because if we really did the option other than everlasting life would at least be endurable.
1&2 Kenosis! The key scripture for kenosis is Philippians 2:6,7. Jesus emptied (Greek: kenoo) Himself of some divine privileges. At the incarnation, Christ gave up not only the environment of the Godhead and his position as Ruler, but also some use of his divine attributes. Jesus temporarily demonstrated non-use of his own omniscience (Mt. 24:36), omnipotence (Mk. 6:5), omnipresence (Jn. 4:4), righteousness (Heb. 4:15; 9:14), justice (Jn. 5:30), and immortality (1 Cor. 15:3).
3 -- This is a misrepresentation of the Law of God vs. the Covenant (or agreement) of God with His people concerning how we must keep the Law. The Law has not changed, but the way that the Law is kept and fulfilled has changed. God required a lamb sacrifice on Passover in the Old Covenant. In the New Covent we have the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It is the same law, but a different fulfillment. The former covenant pointed to the New and greater Covenant.
jcr4runner, the covenant is not fulfilled until the messiah builds god's kingdom on earth. If the covenant was already fulfilled then there would be no need for a second coming. The old law is still in effect. Jesus said this TWICE in the bible. You dont believe Jesus?
Nowhere does Jesus say that the kingdom of God is earthly. He repeatedly says it is heavenly. The kingdom of god advances through CONVERSION of souls, not earthly kingdoms.
Yes, the moral law of God is still in effect, and we must obey it.
Jesus fulfilled the penalty of the law in our place. But that does not negate the Second Coming. Christ's return is for consummation of all things when both the righteous and the wicked will be judged for their works.
@jcr4runner "This is a misrepresentation of the Law of God vs. the Covenant (or agreement) of God with His people concerning how we must keep the Law. The Law has not changed, but the way that the Law is kept and fulfilled has changed."
That is, by definition, a change of the law then.
Don't forget the hebrew god forbid human sacrifice. Jesus being presented as a sacrifice would be an abomination to him. Christianity is nearly the polar opposite of what the hebrew scriptures teach.
Interesting to note that Joseph was a descendant of David according to them. If Jesus was a descendant of David?... Doesnt that mean that Mary and Joseph were related?
They were second cousins through a common great-grandfather named Levi. Marrying a second cousin was common and perfectly legal according to Mosaic law.
Matthew's account is Joseph's genealogy.
Luke's account is also Joseph's genealogy tracing the line through Mary's ancestors.
This involved a second marriage of Mary's paternal grandfather to Joseph's deceased grandfather's wife.
There is a Wikipedia article: "Genealogy of Jesus" that explains the whole thing with a chart.
I read John and it says: It was almost sixth hour,Then they take him to the place called golgota. so for me was not a contradiction, cause was possible to take him to that place on 20 to 30 minutes. Luke will not write was sixth with 20 minutes, he just said whas sixth hour thats all. I don't see a contradiction here. This could be possible.
So we get to research the contradictions in the Bible based on evidence given, not by independant sources, but from advocates for the Christian faith... the word "biased" comes to mind.
There isn't a single "contradiction" int he Bible that can't be explained by a difference of perspective or the addition or omission of additional information.
yea you can say that but it doesn't make it true. Scholars, people who are well educated, will profess there is contradictions in the bible. Besides even if there were no contradictions, theres the repression of women and fact that no historian of Jesus' time who witness him.
The "no contemporary historian" argument is stupid.
There are no known historians who wrote ANYTHING extant during the time of Jesus ministry (from 26 to 30 AD). Period.
There are only three Roman historians who wrote anything extant about the first century at all: Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius. They wrote in the 2nd century.
There is ONE Jewish historian who wrote anything extant about the history of the 1st century Jews.
Philo of Alexandar...? 3 mention Jesus decades after he died. None actually witnessed him. All that means simply that they heard of him. Also as a Christian, it's for you to prove he existed, not for me to prove he didn't. I like how you try to use lack of evidence as evidence
Philo of Alexandria wrote during the lifetime of Jesus, but he didn't write contemporary history. He was not a historian. He wrote allegorical teachings on the five books of Moses.
Every 1st century historian that ought to have mentioned Jesus actually did so, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus.
Plutarch mentions only one Jew by name -- Herod.
There is no academic debate on the existence of Jesus as a historical person. The burden of proof lies with the crackpot Jesus-as-myth popularizers.
Philo of Alexandria wrote about Pontius Pilate and social issues and government in Judea. So If he heard of him why didn't write about him? Secondly, you name 4 historians, there was around 20 predominant, in the region, in the time frame you allow. Lastly, there is no academic debate on the existence of Jesus!?! You can not be serious! I go to college and there's debate on campus and among professors all the time.
Philo is not a historian writing about the first century. He mentions Pontius Pilate in one sentence in a very short record describing the embassy the Alexandrian Jews sent to the emperor Gaius Caligula at Rome. This was 40 AD and Jesus would be off topic.
There are only four historians that wrote comprehensive histories of the first century. There are dozens of authors, but none of these are writing histories. They would have had no reason to mention a religious figure they did not believe in.
oh wait that's an allegory. So maybe Noah's ark? No, your branch of christianity may or may not believe in that as a literal interpretation. Why don't you just tell me what parts of the bible are literal and which parts are allegorical?
Is your question: "How can a loving God send people to hell?"
That's not a contradiction. If people deserve hell, a loving and just God would need to punish them. God is all-loving, but he is also a just and holy God.
A righteous judge does not forgive an unrepentant criminal who glories in his wrongdoing. Would you worship a God who would reward a Hitler in the same manner as a Mother Theresa?
yeah, answer his question, don't transform it into something the chatechism gives you a cookie cutter answer for. think for yourself: if one or two parts of the bible are allegorical, what reason is there to believe that many other parts are not allegorical?
The parts that the authors intended to be allegorical are allegorical; the parts they intended to be literal are literal.
There isn't a cookie cutter answer. You have to look at how other parts of the Bible interpret what was written prior to that.
In Genesis Satan appears as a serpent; in Revelation he is a dragon. From this we know there is a literal devil, but the walkin', talkin' snake (that Richard Dawkins like to attack in his straw man argument) is almost surely symbolic.
well theres no way for you to interview the authors, so there's no way to know what parts they intended to be allegorical. For all you know, and i know, and the rest of the world knows, 99% of it was allegory, and each book is an elaborate work of art and literature.
You throw around that word, "know". We dont know theres a literal devil. In fact the devil is probably the most allegorical thing in the bible. represents temptation, bad things/people, ill effects of doing bad things
just because it was legal for barbarians to rape war victims doesnt make it any less evil. illegal is not the same thing as evil.
there would have to be an authority to determine right from wrong when a punishment or reward is involved (prison, heaven, hell). But to determine whether something is evil or not is in the eye of the beholder.
it is so wrong and annoying when people equate atheism with specific people who wronged people; there are equivalent religious evil people.
and as far as "stealing" the christian's morality, well that is just false. The 10 commandments were around long before Christ, and the concepts (aside from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd commandments) were around even before "God handed them down" (probably allegorically)
and at this point in time, the last 7 commandments have become so much a part of the world's culture and general morality that they are no longer tied to Christianity at all; they are collectively "morality," and you don't need to believe that a giant man with a beard spelled it out to us to know that morality is important and deserving of respect. The rules are intrinsic to human nature and even w/o the bible we would still have them.
Romans 1 calls this natural revelation. The Apostles Paul said that it is the knowledge of the law that justifies the condemnation of the pagans who have nt been given the law of Moses and those who have not heard the Gospel.
Christians can believe that God put a sense of morality in everybody; i'll go ahead and believe that it is a natural psychological part of our evolution. of course, if one were to consider the creation story to be an allegory, these two understandings would not conflict at all. They mean the same thing!
my guilt for what? hopefully you are not implying that I should be guilty for not believing in your god. After all, there are plenty of gods that you don't believe in.
i make amends with the person i have harmed. I've been to confession before, but i'd say that personally making amends is much more satisfying than apologizing to a god(even back when i was a christian). you can not only get confirmation that the person acknowledges your regret, but that can also help develop your relationship with them.
Another thing, i can apply the same technique even if my guilt is not related to breaking a commandment.
right, some things cannot be undone. but this in no way proves that there must be some magical way to make up for them.
and btw, jesus "coming" does not make a person's reputation healed and it does not bring a murdered person back to life. apologizing doing the best you can to make things right will have a much better effect on the world than just giving up and hoping someone else will make them right.
also, have any of your guys studied actual historical records surrounding Jesus? the most famous Roman, Jewish and Pagan historians of the time all wrote historical accounts of Jesus, almost all said he performed MIRACLES, others said he did rise from the dead, one even reported of sky going dark at the death of Jesus as the gospel reports.
Don't sell your soul out based on a stupid video on youtube, do some real hand research and hopefully u guys will see the truth.
ooo here we go, another video from false teachers trying to debate on little contradictions surrounding the gospel.
ok, lets get this straight, MATTHEW and JOHN are the gospels written by disciples of Jesus, LUKE and MARK are written by disciples of disciples and a nephew of a disciple.
If they really did make up Jesus and his life, explain this then:
WHY WHERE THE 12 DISCIPLES WILLING TO GIVE THEIR LIFE AND SUFFER HORRENDOUS DEATH TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH?
Eusevious means someone who respects Jesus Christ. He was a saint of the early Christians, which cntinue today as Christian Orthodox old Calendar, with respect to 7 ecumenical synods and the holy canons.
The problem with some unbeleivers is not the things they say about the Bible, because they say some truth mixt with lies to deseive. The actual problem is that God say they are seners, and the consecuences for that it's eternal separation from God in hell, and they somehow, denied the word of God so they can then justify temself and their sins, like: Pried, lust, lied, cheiting, selfishness and so on. Look, repent from your sins, acept the free gift from Jesus, and follow Jesus before it's late.
I'm sorry, but that comment is very stupid and arrogant and cocky. You assume that atheists are people who believe in the bible as well and just want to sin. The purposeful sinners are called Satanists. Atheists are people who lack belief in any god or religion typically because faith/a holy book isn't enough evidence for them, moron. I'm not atheist because I want to get drunk and kill and lie, I'm atheist because I'm not yet convinced.
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
Not only is the Bible inaccurate, but the New Testament has more edits, revisions and re-writes to it than actual words in the text! Written over a century after Jesus's death by people who never knew Jesus personally, I take the New Testament as serious as the common workplace gossip. Some truth may have survived, but most of it has been misinterpreted from what Jesus actually said and contains less than 10 percent of what he said. Little to nothing is disclosed about Jesus in his teens.
Don't put your faith in someone else telling you what the bible says. This video claims that Luke is giving Marys geneology. That is a lie to cover up a contradiction. If you would read Luke 3:23 it states that "Jesus was the son of Joseph." In Matthew 1:16It states "Jacob became father to Joseph." From these two verses you have to ask who was the father of Joseph. I am not trying to sway anyones beliefs, I just think if you want to believe in the bible read it for yourself.
please dont believe these people, Jesus Christ is the true son of the Almighty God!!!Dont regret seeing Jesus in hell while he leads humans down there to show that hell is real!!when u see him in hell u'll beg for his forgiveness and he'll ignore u!!! theres no true evidence that states that Jesus is not real!! Please ask for Him to visit u in your dreams!! Trust He will visit u!!Better now than ever people dont let these people convince u that He's false!! God Bless!!
the creators of this response video just give these rote answers that they are taught-- but common sense if you analyze the two gospels on the geneaology of Jesus don't work out .. it's very troubling..it's just better to turn a blind eye or be ignorant-but to hold to a belief that's it's innerrant, is willingly fooling yourself
Hey man you can say what you want but u couldnt change a REAL christian...So you know what say what you want ill ask JESUS who his father is and know what he will say? No i bet you dont cause u obviously dont know your FATHER either which is GOD..."Father forgive them for they dont know what they do"
after read Bible indetail,i found that Jesus wasnot christian neither god no son of god but a prophet who received word from god(John14:24).Read bible indetail,u ll find out.Other people made christianity & TRINITY(1+1+1=1)?,thats why in the 66books NO where JESUS said ''IM GOD WORSHIP ME'.chrtns defend for JOHN(10:30)+(14:28)+BOOK OF REVELATION:not JESUS its JOHN'S DREAM,,but think about it.JOB(25:4-6),LUKE(2:21),JOHN(10:29)+(5:30),MATHEW(12:28),etc.U ll never understand,if u not intelligent
Chichibest you being a Muslim was taught Jesus didn't die on the cross and that Jesus was only a prophet when no prophet was to come after Jesus because Jesus is to return as God:Revelations 21:3-4
Jesus went to the cross for claiming he was God and he rose from the dead proving he is God and that event itself gave rise to Christianity.
Whereas God said no prophets were to come through Ishmael's lineage to which only Muhammad laid claim Genesis 17:18-21 which means you were deceived
Chichibest U will never understand,if you are not intelligent.
You parrot the beliefs of your religion when no prophet was to come after Jesus.
So what you reject the trinity when you were taught Jesus didn't die on the cross when Jesus is the Father,Son and Holy Spirit or Creator who came into humanform to re-teach he is with all people on earth to guide them.
Haha, don't be silly. In the first century no one would use a geneology from the mother's side. Not to mention, prophesy indicates that the saviour was to be a direct descendant of David, Joseph was not related to Jesus.
In the Law of Moses, inheritance would go through the oldest daughter if the father had no son, so that's not 100 percent correct. Mary's sisters are mentioned in the NT but no brothers. If her father had no son, then the inheritance would pass through her directly to Jesus.
The Law of Moses also provided for adoption. When Joseph married Mary, then Jesus became a legal son of Joseph, with a full birth right, even though he was not a natural descendant.
Matthew, a tax collector writing to the Jews, referred to Joseph's genealogy because he was most interested in Law.
Luke, a physician writing to mainly to the Greeks, referred to Mary's genealogy because he knew Joseph's genealogy was already recorded, and he was most interested in natural descent.
If we did not have the genealogy of both Mary and Joseph, critics would complain that Jesus was not a legitimate descendant. We have both, and they say that they are contradictory. What we get from the two accounts is undeniable proof that no matter how you look at it, Jesus WAS the descendant of David. It may be uncommon in that time to record the mother's line, but a virgin birth is uncommon as well. If such a birth happened, then you would expect it to be recorded like this.
weak come back...but the standard response...Matthew (the shorter of the two therefore the one "missing" generations") makes a big deal out of the 3 x 14 break down..if it was arbitrary due to ommisions then what is so surprising?
I have SOMETIMES thought 14 generations from the time of the captivity in Babylon to the time of Christ was an intentional time indicator to dovetail with the 490 years prophecy in Daniel.
490 + 70 (years of captivity) = 560 years
14 * 40 = 560 years
Of course, people don't have children every 40 years. But that may be the reason why Matthew skips generations.
I am the only one I know of though who has noticed this. I think it's an interesting idea, but I admit it's pure conjecture.
There is something suspicious about this made up savior jesus, and especially when it comes to white people projecting these suppose to be gospels when they have suppressed most of the worst otrocities upon the globe in the name of jesus, and the 1st slave ship was named jesus,why does this have to be and why have most indigneouss peoples of the globe been suppressed in his name and slaughtered too
YEs they are trying to tell u that jesus is a decendant of david but my question is how this is crucial beacause if they do not proof this jesus cannot be the messiah, Did the passage say this is the geneology of mary mother of jesus no,is it even metioned no,did anyone in the bible say she was a decendant no,u have no case.
The Old Testament says the messiah would be from the house of David in several places in the Hebrew scriptures. It also says the Messiah is David's LORD and God (Psalm 110).
How can He be both?
Simple.
Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit and Mary, his natural mother, and Joseph, his legal father were both descended from David.
So no matter which way you look a it -- legally or naturally -- He is the son of David and the Son of God.
my friend are u going to make church fathers tell u rubbish,both geneologys used joseph as the decendant of david,in luke mary is not metioned,when does a adopted son become a decendant.Luke 3,23.and jesus himself began about thirty years of age being(AS WAS SUPPOSED)the son of joseph,which was the son of heli,Even that is contradictory in mathew joseph's father is jacob.
yup, in fact, it is obvious that they are talking about the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary in Luke because in the first chapter of Luke it says that Joseph was a son of David. Besides, it doesn't really matter because in Judaism it is the materlinear line of genealogy that is important.
It's not explicitly stated that this is the genealogy of Mary in Luke. It just says that Jesus "WAS SUPPOSED the son of Joseph" and then the line picks up with Matthat and so on.
It's always been widely accepted that Luke's genealogy is Mary's line and Matthew's is Joseph's. This is a church tradition. I don't think the church fathers were infallible, but I give this some weight since they lived closer to the events.
If this is the case why doesn't the book of Luke mention that Mary is a daughter of David in the first chapter at the same time it is mentioned that Joseph is? Look, I'm not an Atheist trying to say there is no God or that the Bible is all worthless nonsense but it seems to me that clinging to threads of a worn out interpretation does a disservice to Christianity as a whole. There are more reasonable interpretations than this one.
I just did some digging and every translation of the bible I've checked... arround 12 of them... have the genealogy of Luke as proceeding through Joseph specifically. I even found one translation which has a heading "The Family Of Jesus Through Mary"(New Life Version) but then continues:
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when He began His work. People thought Jesus was the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. 24 Heli was the son of Matthat... and so on. So what's the deal?
Joseph is called a son of David in Matthew 1:16 and 1:20. In this time, the Israelites still married within their own tribe.
Mary also goes with Joseph to be registered in the census in Luke 2. This is unusual since usually only the men registered.
However, if Mary was the oldest daughter of a father with no sons, then the inheritance line would come through her. Further, if she was a descendant of Kings, she would have had to register.
We also know that Zechariah was a Levite and that Elizabeth (Mary's cousin) was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5).
However since Levites were the only tribe allowed to intermarry, Elizabeth's mother was of the house of David and was the sister to either Mary's father or mother.
if jesus is a decendant of david that means joseph is his biological father because he is a decendant,the bible contradicts it self,jesus cannot be the son of god and a decendant of david,think about it.
and also, the Apostle Paul who wrote a good portion of the New Testament, never once mentions Marry, Joseph, the disciples, the last supper, the pharisees, Judas, or Pontious Pilate. What do you have to say about that? and fyi, I'm not trying to be facetious, I used to have a lot of faith in the bible, and I've been trying to find someone who has some answers.
hehe I tried to elaborate more, but youtube cut me off at 500 characters. In previous videos in this series, they were trying to make a case for the existence of Jesus and making up for the 40 year gap between the death of Christ and the Gospels. They were making it sound like these scholars were writing about Jesus right after he died, when in fact they were born around 40 years after he died.
There were several church fathers who knew the Apostles John, Peter and Paul (Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp) of whom we have extant writings from the first century that quote the New Testament as scripture.
This gives great credence to the idea that the Apostles who died in Nero's persecution c.67 A.D. wrote the books attributed to them.
And only John is possible to date after 70 A.D. -- although I favor an early date for John too.
So in short there is actually good evidence that the Gospels were composed orally from 30 to 40 A.D. and then began to be written from 40 to 67 A.D. And then all the Epistles quoted by the church fathers were composed from 50 to 67 A.D.
So it's nothing like 40 years, but more like most were composed from 10 to 37 years later -- at the outside.
"now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all" Hebrews 8:4. The Apostle Paul never mentioned Marry, Joseph, The disciples, The pharisees, Pilate. He believed that his resurrection occurred in a spiritual realm. That was the view of the early gnostics. These videos are interesting, but all of the scholars that quoted jesus in the 1st century, where probably writing in their 20's or 30's, which puts the date that they were writing at around 100 B.C.
I've responded before to this scripture twisting of Hebrews 8:4. The Greek grammatical form is the indicative, not the past tense. It doesn't mean that Jesus was never on earth.
If He were on earth NOW, He would not be a priest according to the Levitical priesthood. It goes on to say Jesus' ministry was according the the priesthood of Melchizedek.
Also, I don't follow your comment about dating "scholars who quoted Jesus" to 100 B.C. That makes no sense whatsoever.
For a good going over of major contradictions within the bible there is all kinds of contradictions. It also reveals a THIRD Genealogy for Jesus in 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. Since Jesus had only two parents I love to here the explanation for THIS one.
The genealogies in the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus came from the house of David through both of his parents -- as the Messiah was prophesied to come -- not that he was the direct heir to the throne.
The other genealogy in 1 Chron 3:10-16 is the direct line of kings. It has to do with inheritance. In the Old Covenant, if man died with no son, the inheritancee could go to his oldest daughter or a male relative.
Actually Mark 2:25 reads "And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and THEY that were with him?"
You are missing the entire point here. David went into the Holy Place when only priests were allowed to do that. The question posed to him is essentially asking him why he came alone by himself into the Temple. It didn't matter if he had priests with him, he was not allowed to do that under the law, but he appeased God in his righteous intention.
No! You are avoiding the FACT that either the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus or the author of 1 Samuel is wrong. Are you saying that "those that were with him" that also ate the bread were the priest? Answer this; Was David with any of his men when he went on the "business that the King" sent him on? Please don't change the subject by discussing what you feel THE POINT really is.
Jesus is concerned with the fact that no others went into the Holy Place with David -- the others would have been the priests who were allowed to go in. Under the Law, David was not allowed to go in. According to Lev 24:9 the high priest was able to eat the shewbread and then serve it to the otherr priests. Jesus did this INSTEAD of the Abiathar -- thus the other men WITH HIM who ate the bread were the priests not David's men.
I am not a Greek scholar but I understand the difference between BEING (present participle) and WERE (past tense).
The present participle that the men BEING with him at that moment did the deed with him. The past tense would indicate that the men that WERE with him.
So does it make sense that David entered the Temple with men he BROUGHT with him? -- Or that he entered the Temple and the MEN BEING WITH HIM, that is, the priests who allowed him to do this?
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto HIM, WHY ART THOU ALONE, AND NO MAN WITH THEE? And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, LET NO MAN KNOW OF THE BUSINESS WHEREABOUT I SEND THEE, and what I have commanded thee: AND I HAVE APPOINTED MY SEVERVANTS TO SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE. 1 Sm 21:1-2
And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's business required haste. 1 Sm 21:8
So he had time to gather men to go on this secret mission but didn't have time to pick up a sword before he left?
You just need to read the scriptures more carefully.
Jesus is in full agreement with 1 Samuel 21-22. Mark 2:25-26 says: "How HE went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest". 1 Samuel 21-22 states that David only went in, not anyone who may or may not have been with him. Jesus verifies this. Only David went in.
Of course this sidesteps the KEY contradiction in Matthew and Luke which have Jesus being born in two different periods 10 years apart. Luke compounds things by having two priest co-rulers when they weren't and a leader killed 60 years before at the hand of Mark Anthony still ruling his kingdom. As God who wasn't there says it looks like someone took a figure originally mythical and took various stabs to get him in a historical framework.
Quirinius was a ruler in the eastern Roman Empire from the time of 14 B.C. to 12 A.D. Hisotry records that he was governor of Syria in 6 A.D. to 12 A.D. Outside of Luke, we do not have a record who was the governor of Syria at the time of Jesus birth. Quirinius is the best candidate.
Except Matthew has Jesus being born during the time of Herod the Great when Syria was part of a pro-Roman kingdom that was split among his three sons when he died. Herod Archelaus was the son who ruled at Syria and proved himself so inept and cruel that Rome had Quirinius replaced him in 6 CE.
I will admit that Hayyim ben Yehoshua sometimes is off on planet Mars buried int he nonsense there are good points. As for history being 'silent' about the RULER of Syria from 3 B.C. to 1 B.C it isn't true-the kingdom was split up among Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip I with Herod Archelaus being replaced by Quirinius in 6 CE.
Quirinius at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31) with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Justin of Rome records that he was a "procurator" of the province at this time (Apology 1:34). In Greek, the word is the same: Hegemonoi.
Please explain you statements about the two priests and Mark Antony so that I may refute that.
The fact of the matter is that Luke was a historian of the first rate. He has never been proven wrong in any historical or geographical detail. Whenever historians have differed with Luke on soemthing, Luke has later been proven to be right numerous times.
The explanation for my statement can be found in "Refuting Missionaries" by Hayyim ben Yehoshua. As for Luke being A 'historian of the first rate' and 'has never been proven wrong' that is disproved on the web page "Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity" where the author cites about 12 historical inaccuracies in Luke and Acts.
I find it amusing that he has Luke relying on Josephus when Josephus wrote 30 years AFTER Luke. The theory that Luke is a second century document has been thoroughly refuted. This is not even an argument worth having at this time.
Further, Josephus is notoriously reliable in some places and sloppy in other places. It is illogical to assume that since Luke disagrees with Josephus (if he actually does disagree can also be debated) that Josephus is always right.
I also find is VERY amusing that he uses THE PASSOVER PLOT -- a work of fiction -- as a citation! I am wondering now, where are the citations from the Da Vinci Code?
I am the first to admit that there are Bile DIFFICULTIES, things that are difficult to explain in the Bible, but you REALLY have to do better than this silly website.
I notice you did not address the priest issue or when Lysanias I ruled Abilene (40-36 BCE) or even try to refute it. The support for a younger Lysanias is at best shaky. Never mind Hayyim ben Yehoshua says c100 CE which is right at the boarder between 1st and 2nd centuries (101 CE is the first year of the second century)
For myself, I am guessing that a freedman of Lysanius living in the first century could not have been so old that he had been a freedman of the Lysanius who lived 100 years prior?
jesus spoke i will send a spirit a holy spirit,i tell you it is true i with my own eyes have seen the holy spirit doing the work of the promise in front of my eyes .
It's simply a matter of how you count. You can count it as fourteen generations first by extending from Abraham to David; secondly, by extending from David to the deportation; and thirdly, by extending from Jechonias to Christ. Matthew was aware that he was being inclusive in each case.
There is no question that Mat. manipulated the number of generations to get multiples of "SEVEN" -- a number of perfection. Matthew is also concerned with the idea that there were ROUGHLY the same time periods divided into three eras. The coming of the Messiah was an expected event after the end of the last period - according to Daniel 9.
Matthew's concern is the number of years rather than the exact number of literal generations (a generation is 40 years).
Matthew is trying to show that the prophecy of Daniel 9 is fulfilled in Jesus because the captivity lasted 70 years. 560-70=490. If we subtract the 70 year captivity, then we get the "seventy sevens" of the Daniel 9 prophecy.
In the book of Matthew the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee, where they had been sent by divine decree.
According to Luke and Acts, however, the risen Jesus appeared in and around Jerusalem, while according to Acts the disciples were forbidden to leave Jerusalem.
Luke places the ascension of Jesus on the day of the resurrection, while Acts 1:3 -- 40 days after.
I find these extremely trite and easily explained. The key error here on your part are that Luke has Jesus ascension on the same day as the resurrrection. It says this nowhere. The disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem for the ten days prior to Pentecost.
I don't know where you got these, but I get the feeling that skeptics just make these things up to discourage people who don't own or won't read a Bible.
One account gives more information than the other, but to understand how he could have fell and had his intestines gush out, you have to know first that he hanged himself on the side of a small mountain.
See my webpage, "Answering Bible Contradictions" for a longer discussion of this passage.
That is actually a good question -- not trite like the others.
The key is understanding that Judas hanged himself in a place that had a hilly terrain with shallow soil. He was hanged on a tree for a number of days. Then after a few days, his body fell and his bowels gushed out as he tumbled down the hill.
In the Gospels Jesus goes to his death by crucifixion -- yet according to Paul and Peter he was "hanged on a tree" (Acts 5:30, 10:39; Galatians 3:13).
In John's Gospel there is only one woman visiting Jesus' tomb, in Matthew there are two of them, in Mark three, while Luke writes of numerous women who had followed Jesus from Galilee.
There are even glaring contradictions concerning the all-important crucifixion.
For example, Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was BOTH tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests, Luke says that Jesus was tried by the priests but NOT sentenced by them, while according to John, Jesus did NOT appear before the Sanhedrin AT ALL.
There are so many contradictions in the Gospel accounts that you obviously failed to notice.
Matthew says that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, while Luke says that they lived in Nazareth.
Matthew says they fled to Egypt immediately after Jesus' birth and then went to Nazareth when Herod died, while Luke says that they remained in Bethlehem following Jesus' birth so that he could be presented in the temple of Jerusalem eight days later.
I'm wondering how you interpret the story of Noah(I interpret it as fairy tale) and how you interpret the various occurrences where Jesus says his followers can perform telikenisis and other paranormal acts if they have the tiniest bit of faith in him, and if you admit to not being able to do these yourself.
I interpret Noah as the most accurate version of a history of which almost every culture on earth has a version.
As far as miracles go. I believe that my body will be physically resurrected in the final judgment -- and so will yours. Let's compare notes when that happens.
As you have faith that Creation and Noah can somehow be harmonized into reality, I have faith that the story of Jesus can be harmonized out of reality. They are both compelling, although mine takes the lesser suspension of belief, and they are mutually exclusive, since Jesus seems to have believed the story of Noah.
Let's see Christians believe God created the universe out of nothing. Atheists believe that everything that exists came out of nothing by itself.
Christians believe that every species of animal and ethnicity of man evolved in just 5000 years from the survivors of the flood. Atheists believe that every species of living thing evolved over billions of years from inorganic matter.
I am not an atheist, I am a theistic evolutionist and anti-Hovindian, but it is far more rational to believe that all species evolved over billions of years. 5000 years for diversification of 10,000 kinds to over 3 million species requires a mutation rate that is known to be fatal. And you appealed to ridicule. The Bible and evolution are in harmony.
Do you think Adam and Eve were actual people who lived at the time described through the genealogies of scripture? If not, how do you explain sin entering the world?
We have to ask, "What are men?" I interpret man to mean a creature with a soul. Therefore, Adam and Eve were the first primates with souls. When was this? We don't know. Only creatures with souls are capable of sinning.
I won't presume that you don't understand how problematic this is and how many other questions this raises.
When you say, "we don't know what that was," you are assuming that the genealogies of the Bible, which I am assuming you think are accurate, don't point to any specific years concerning births of sons.
If we read for instance, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth" what does that mean?
Does it mean that Adam lived 130 years and had a son? If so, then there is an incredibly specific chronology that can be derived from these chronological accounts.
Man i just cant beleve that people debate such a book even today this book needs to be destroyed its causing way to many problems on people.
wachnathan 1 year ago
There are no contradictions, your just not bothering to persue its understanding, your goal is only to find loop holes to support your refusal to believe, The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture.
Law19157 1 year ago 2
You are taking scripture out of context one must read the other passages before other than that just one scripture in Mark 6 a event was being told becasue Jesus was performing miracles many were still scooffing at him and because of there disbelief Jesus was not able to perform many of the miracles becasue of there lack of faith it says nothing about him not being all powerful..
1turner22 1 year ago
Praise God. Jesus is truth.
pablocoon 1 year ago
ndyt you just don't understand the Bible deeply...
God (Jehova) and Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit are the same. 3 in 1 As water can be ice, liquid or gas. Jehovah, Jesus and second coming Christ are one God.
Cranebird 2 years ago
lolz that reaaally not what people mean when they talk about contradictions at all! Its never been about the tiny little words that are slightly different here and there. Its the fact that in the old testament God does some pretty sick things to people whom apparently he loves and allows to this apparently the devil to live and torture and influence us and realisticaly give us no freewill, because if we really did the option other than everlasting life would at least be endurable.
Joshglenncooper 2 years ago 2
Christ is equal with God John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
Christ is not equal with God John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
Jesus was all-powerful Matt 28:18/ John 3:35
Jesus was not all-powerful Mark 6:5
The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6
The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation Matt 5:17-19
ndyt 2 years ago 4
1&2 Kenosis! The key scripture for kenosis is Philippians 2:6,7. Jesus emptied (Greek: kenoo) Himself of some divine privileges. At the incarnation, Christ gave up not only the environment of the Godhead and his position as Ruler, but also some use of his divine attributes. Jesus temporarily demonstrated non-use of his own omniscience (Mt. 24:36), omnipotence (Mk. 6:5), omnipresence (Jn. 4:4), righteousness (Heb. 4:15; 9:14), justice (Jn. 5:30), and immortality (1 Cor. 15:3).
jcr4runner 2 years ago
3 -- This is a misrepresentation of the Law of God vs. the Covenant (or agreement) of God with His people concerning how we must keep the Law. The Law has not changed, but the way that the Law is kept and fulfilled has changed. God required a lamb sacrifice on Passover in the Old Covenant. In the New Covent we have the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It is the same law, but a different fulfillment. The former covenant pointed to the New and greater Covenant.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
jcr4runner, the covenant is not fulfilled until the messiah builds god's kingdom on earth. If the covenant was already fulfilled then there would be no need for a second coming. The old law is still in effect. Jesus said this TWICE in the bible. You dont believe Jesus?
ndyt 2 years ago
Nowhere does Jesus say that the kingdom of God is earthly. He repeatedly says it is heavenly. The kingdom of god advances through CONVERSION of souls, not earthly kingdoms.
Yes, the moral law of God is still in effect, and we must obey it.
Jesus fulfilled the penalty of the law in our place. But that does not negate the Second Coming. Christ's return is for consummation of all things when both the righteous and the wicked will be judged for their works.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner "This is a misrepresentation of the Law of God vs. the Covenant (or agreement) of God with His people concerning how we must keep the Law. The Law has not changed, but the way that the Law is kept and fulfilled has changed."
That is, by definition, a change of the law then.
Don't forget the hebrew god forbid human sacrifice. Jesus being presented as a sacrifice would be an abomination to him. Christianity is nearly the polar opposite of what the hebrew scriptures teach.
humanistheart 1 year ago
i like the blonde girl..shes gorgeous..xD
johnlukoluko 2 years ago
Interesting to note that Joseph was a descendant of David according to them. If Jesus was a descendant of David?... Doesnt that mean that Mary and Joseph were related?
8Thirst 2 years ago
They were second cousins through a common great-grandfather named Levi. Marrying a second cousin was common and perfectly legal according to Mosaic law.
Matthew's account is Joseph's genealogy.
Luke's account is also Joseph's genealogy tracing the line through Mary's ancestors.
This involved a second marriage of Mary's paternal grandfather to Joseph's deceased grandfather's wife.
There is a Wikipedia article: "Genealogy of Jesus" that explains the whole thing with a chart.
Just Google it.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Yes, but not closely. Actually, according to Genesis, we're all related.
bonajab 2 years ago
4th possibility : the passages clearly contradict each others, end of story.
Take John chapter 19 and Luke chapter 23 : one says that at the sixth hour Jesus was with Pilate, the other says Jesus was on the cross.
Karakta 2 years ago
Greek system vs, Hebrew system of numbering hours.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I read John and it says: It was almost sixth hour,Then they take him to the place called golgota. so for me was not a contradiction, cause was possible to take him to that place on 20 to 30 minutes. Luke will not write was sixth with 20 minutes, he just said whas sixth hour thats all. I don't see a contradiction here. This could be possible.
LALUCEDELMONDO 2 years ago
if jesus real or not Istell believe on him like blind man, and Iwill keep believe on him, for rest of my life, amen.
admoonhermiz 2 years ago
So we get to research the contradictions in the Bible based on evidence given, not by independant sources, but from advocates for the Christian faith... the word "biased" comes to mind.
rsavvas 2 years ago
listen the bible is full of contradictions. Anyone who comes from a open minded nonbias point of view can tell this. Why are we still debating this?
therealallpro 2 years ago
Because ...
There isn't a single "contradiction" int he Bible that can't be explained by a difference of perspective or the addition or omission of additional information.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
yea you can say that but it doesn't make it true. Scholars, people who are well educated, will profess there is contradictions in the bible. Besides even if there were no contradictions, theres the repression of women and fact that no historian of Jesus' time who witness him.
therealallpro 2 years ago
The "no contemporary historian" argument is stupid.
There are no known historians who wrote ANYTHING extant during the time of Jesus ministry (from 26 to 30 AD). Period.
There are only three Roman historians who wrote anything extant about the first century at all: Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius. They wrote in the 2nd century.
There is ONE Jewish historian who wrote anything extant about the history of the 1st century Jews.
Of the four, three mention Jesus.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Philo of Alexandar...? 3 mention Jesus decades after he died. None actually witnessed him. All that means simply that they heard of him. Also as a Christian, it's for you to prove he existed, not for me to prove he didn't. I like how you try to use lack of evidence as evidence
therealallpro 2 years ago
Philo of Alexandria wrote during the lifetime of Jesus, but he didn't write contemporary history. He was not a historian. He wrote allegorical teachings on the five books of Moses.
Every 1st century historian that ought to have mentioned Jesus actually did so, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus.
Plutarch mentions only one Jew by name -- Herod.
There is no academic debate on the existence of Jesus as a historical person. The burden of proof lies with the crackpot Jesus-as-myth popularizers.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Philo of Alexandria wrote about Pontius Pilate and social issues and government in Judea. So If he heard of him why didn't write about him? Secondly, you name 4 historians, there was around 20 predominant, in the region, in the time frame you allow. Lastly, there is no academic debate on the existence of Jesus!?! You can not be serious! I go to college and there's debate on campus and among professors all the time.
therealallpro 2 years ago
Really? Can you name one professor teaching history at a major university that claims Jesus never existed?
I don't think there are five in the whole world, but just name one you know please.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Philo is not a historian writing about the first century. He mentions Pontius Pilate in one sentence in a very short record describing the embassy the Alexandrian Jews sent to the emperor Gaius Caligula at Rome. This was 40 AD and Jesus would be off topic.
There are only four historians that wrote comprehensive histories of the first century. There are dozens of authors, but none of these are writing histories. They would have had no reason to mention a religious figure they did not believe in.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Can you name the most obvious contradiction you can think of that has no answer?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
yea the world was created in 6 days!
oh wait that's an allegory. So maybe Noah's ark? No, your branch of christianity may or may not believe in that as a literal interpretation. Why don't you just tell me what parts of the bible are literal and which parts are allegorical?
therealallpro 2 years ago
Some people don't believe in the Creation or the Flood, but these are not "contradictions."
You said the Bible was full of contradictions.
Name the best one you can think of.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
thank you for not answering my question. (why don't you just tell me what parts...)
How about, Jesus is suppose to be the most altrustic person ever, but he brought along the concept of everlasting torture to the jewish people?
therealallpro 2 years ago
Is your question: "How can a loving God send people to hell?"
That's not a contradiction. If people deserve hell, a loving and just God would need to punish them. God is all-loving, but he is also a just and holy God.
A righteous judge does not forgive an unrepentant criminal who glories in his wrongdoing. Would you worship a God who would reward a Hitler in the same manner as a Mother Theresa?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
yeah, answer his question, don't transform it into something the chatechism gives you a cookie cutter answer for. think for yourself: if one or two parts of the bible are allegorical, what reason is there to believe that many other parts are not allegorical?
notme98 2 years ago
The parts that the authors intended to be allegorical are allegorical; the parts they intended to be literal are literal.
There isn't a cookie cutter answer. You have to look at how other parts of the Bible interpret what was written prior to that.
In Genesis Satan appears as a serpent; in Revelation he is a dragon. From this we know there is a literal devil, but the walkin', talkin' snake (that Richard Dawkins like to attack in his straw man argument) is almost surely symbolic.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
well theres no way for you to interview the authors, so there's no way to know what parts they intended to be allegorical. For all you know, and i know, and the rest of the world knows, 99% of it was allegory, and each book is an elaborate work of art and literature.
You throw around that word, "know". We dont know theres a literal devil. In fact the devil is probably the most allegorical thing in the bible. represents temptation, bad things/people, ill effects of doing bad things
notme98 2 years ago
I agree we don't "know" everything a writer was thinking.
We can't know everything God is thinking by reading scripture.
The Bible itself says about spiritual insight: "We see as through a glass darkly."
That being said, we can know something.
How?
Scripture interprets scripture.
If you say there is no God, how do you know evil exists?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
"scripture interprets scripture" what does that even MEAN?
there doesnt have to be a god for there to be evil
notme98 2 years ago
There needs to be an absolute authority to determine the absolute values for right and wrong in every case.
Even something that may seem obvious -- such as rape being evil -- barbarian pagan societies legally committed rape as a war atrocity.
Morality wasn't an absolute to atheistic regimes such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who committed atrocities against their own people.
In order to have absolute morality and truth, the atheist must import capital he stole from Christian philosophy.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
just because it was legal for barbarians to rape war victims doesnt make it any less evil. illegal is not the same thing as evil.
there would have to be an authority to determine right from wrong when a punishment or reward is involved (prison, heaven, hell). But to determine whether something is evil or not is in the eye of the beholder.
it is so wrong and annoying when people equate atheism with specific people who wronged people; there are equivalent religious evil people.
notme98 2 years ago
and as far as "stealing" the christian's morality, well that is just false. The 10 commandments were around long before Christ, and the concepts (aside from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd commandments) were around even before "God handed them down" (probably allegorically)
notme98 2 years ago
[oops i accidentally hit "post comment"]
and at this point in time, the last 7 commandments have become so much a part of the world's culture and general morality that they are no longer tied to Christianity at all; they are collectively "morality," and you don't need to believe that a giant man with a beard spelled it out to us to know that morality is important and deserving of respect. The rules are intrinsic to human nature and even w/o the bible we would still have them.
notme98 2 years ago
Romans 1 calls this natural revelation. The Apostles Paul said that it is the knowledge of the law that justifies the condemnation of the pagans who have nt been given the law of Moses and those who have not heard the Gospel.
You have moral rules. That is good!
So what are you going to do about your guilt?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Christians can believe that God put a sense of morality in everybody; i'll go ahead and believe that it is a natural psychological part of our evolution. of course, if one were to consider the creation story to be an allegory, these two understandings would not conflict at all. They mean the same thing!
my guilt for what? hopefully you are not implying that I should be guilty for not believing in your god. After all, there are plenty of gods that you don't believe in.
notme98 2 years ago
Your guilt.
Have you ever felt guilty about anything?
And what do you do about it?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
i make amends with the person i have harmed. I've been to confession before, but i'd say that personally making amends is much more satisfying than apologizing to a god(even back when i was a christian). you can not only get confirmation that the person acknowledges your regret, but that can also help develop your relationship with them.
Another thing, i can apply the same technique even if my guilt is not related to breaking a commandment.
notme98 2 years ago
I agree that we should make amends.
But what about a sin which can never be paid for such as a lie that destroys a person's reputation or a murder that takes someone's life?
The Gospel is based on the truth that we can never in fact totally PAY for our sins. This is why Jesus came.
Our sins are transferred to His account and His righteous life is transferred to our account.
NOTHING can be more satisfying than that.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
right, some things cannot be undone. but this in no way proves that there must be some magical way to make up for them.
and btw, jesus "coming" does not make a person's reputation healed and it does not bring a murdered person back to life. apologizing doing the best you can to make things right will have a much better effect on the world than just giving up and hoping someone else will make them right.
notme98 2 years ago
if someone dies for our sins what does that do to personal responsibility? Why were the people of the middle east always looking for a scape goat?
what an immoral concept.
devchelle2 2 years ago
Great point! You ARE A THINKING PERSON!
SylviaNightingale 1 year ago
also, have any of your guys studied actual historical records surrounding Jesus? the most famous Roman, Jewish and Pagan historians of the time all wrote historical accounts of Jesus, almost all said he performed MIRACLES, others said he did rise from the dead, one even reported of sky going dark at the death of Jesus as the gospel reports.
Don't sell your soul out based on a stupid video on youtube, do some real hand research and hopefully u guys will see the truth.
Can't believe this
silverwolfalpha 2 years ago
ooo here we go, another video from false teachers trying to debate on little contradictions surrounding the gospel.
ok, lets get this straight, MATTHEW and JOHN are the gospels written by disciples of Jesus, LUKE and MARK are written by disciples of disciples and a nephew of a disciple.
If they really did make up Jesus and his life, explain this then:
WHY WHERE THE 12 DISCIPLES WILLING TO GIVE THEIR LIFE AND SUFFER HORRENDOUS DEATH TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH?
surely if it was all a fable, why sufer
silverwolfalpha 2 years ago
Eusevious means someone who respects Jesus Christ. He was a saint of the early Christians, which cntinue today as Christian Orthodox old Calendar, with respect to 7 ecumenical synods and the holy canons.
Metania01 2 years ago
The problem with some unbeleivers is not the things they say about the Bible, because they say some truth mixt with lies to deseive. The actual problem is that God say they are seners, and the consecuences for that it's eternal separation from God in hell, and they somehow, denied the word of God so they can then justify temself and their sins, like: Pried, lust, lied, cheiting, selfishness and so on. Look, repent from your sins, acept the free gift from Jesus, and follow Jesus before it's late.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
elegenten-
I'm sorry, but that comment is very stupid and arrogant and cocky. You assume that atheists are people who believe in the bible as well and just want to sin. The purposeful sinners are called Satanists. Atheists are people who lack belief in any god or religion typically because faith/a holy book isn't enough evidence for them, moron. I'm not atheist because I want to get drunk and kill and lie, I'm atheist because I'm not yet convinced.
DbzmasterdbzNecross 2 years ago
I really liked your video and your channel. If you need any help getting this video or channel exposed I use a site called tubeviews.(net) It has really helped like 20 of my main videos get to the top in position. God Bless!
Your Video was compiled very nice!
sfsdses 2 years ago
You don't seem to understand what a contradiction is.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
Not only is the Bible inaccurate, but the New Testament has more edits, revisions and re-writes to it than actual words in the text! Written over a century after Jesus's death by people who never knew Jesus personally, I take the New Testament as serious as the common workplace gossip. Some truth may have survived, but most of it has been misinterpreted from what Jesus actually said and contains less than 10 percent of what he said. Little to nothing is disclosed about Jesus in his teens.
sc0tchlvr 3 years ago
uuuhhhmmmm MAYBE you didn't actually LISTEN to the PROOF?
BadWolfMom 3 years ago
Don't put your faith in someone else telling you what the bible says. This video claims that Luke is giving Marys geneology. That is a lie to cover up a contradiction. If you would read Luke 3:23 it states that "Jesus was the son of Joseph." In Matthew 1:16It states "Jacob became father to Joseph." From these two verses you have to ask who was the father of Joseph. I am not trying to sway anyones beliefs, I just think if you want to believe in the bible read it for yourself.
jazzybussman 3 years ago
please dont believe these people, Jesus Christ is the true son of the Almighty God!!!Dont regret seeing Jesus in hell while he leads humans down there to show that hell is real!!when u see him in hell u'll beg for his forgiveness and he'll ignore u!!! theres no true evidence that states that Jesus is not real!! Please ask for Him to visit u in your dreams!! Trust He will visit u!!Better now than ever people dont let these people convince u that He's false!! God Bless!!
DAQUEEN718 3 years ago
the creators of this response video just give these rote answers that they are taught-- but common sense if you analyze the two gospels on the geneaology of Jesus don't work out .. it's very troubling..it's just better to turn a blind eye or be ignorant-but to hold to a belief that's it's innerrant, is willingly fooling yourself
jeffbrown8 3 years ago
Jesus is Lord.
Friends, get two most brilliant books:
-Introduction to Christianity, by Joseph Ratzinger
-Jesus of Nazareth, by Benedict XVI
Jitpring 3 years ago
But make sure your reading the Bible first. Take care.
thetakinetic 3 years ago
Hey man you can say what you want but u couldnt change a REAL christian...So you know what say what you want ill ask JESUS who his father is and know what he will say? No i bet you dont cause u obviously dont know your FATHER either which is GOD..."Father forgive them for they dont know what they do"
harmstef 3 years ago
Ariel is soooo gorgeous
korzensucks 3 years ago
I am glad you addressed the so called contradictions and you explained that so well that there are no contradictions at all.
When people don't believe then they project their own lack of knowledge,rather than produce any reliable source of information as in Peter Jennings.
All Jennings is saying is he and the producers of that documentary do not believe.
GodistheHolySpirit 3 years ago
after read Bible indetail,i found that Jesus wasnot christian neither god no son of god but a prophet who received word from god(John14:24).Read bible indetail,u ll find out.Other people made christianity & TRINITY(1+1+1=1)?,thats why in the 66books NO where JESUS said ''IM GOD WORSHIP ME'.chrtns defend for JOHN(10:30)+(14:28)+BOOK OF REVELATION:not JESUS its JOHN'S DREAM,,but think about it.JOB(25:4-6),LUKE(2:21),JOHN(10:29)+(5:30),MATHEW(12:28),etc.U ll never understand,if u not intelligent
chichibest 3 years ago
Chichibest you being a Muslim was taught Jesus didn't die on the cross and that Jesus was only a prophet when no prophet was to come after Jesus because Jesus is to return as God:Revelations 21:3-4
Jesus went to the cross for claiming he was God and he rose from the dead proving he is God and that event itself gave rise to Christianity.
Whereas God said no prophets were to come through Ishmael's lineage to which only Muhammad laid claim Genesis 17:18-21 which means you were deceived
GodistheHolySpirit 3 years ago
Chichibest U will never understand,if you are not intelligent.
You parrot the beliefs of your religion when no prophet was to come after Jesus.
So what you reject the trinity when you were taught Jesus didn't die on the cross when Jesus is the Father,Son and Holy Spirit or Creator who came into humanform to re-teach he is with all people on earth to guide them.
GodistheHolySpirit 3 years ago
Haha, don't be silly. In the first century no one would use a geneology from the mother's side. Not to mention, prophesy indicates that the saviour was to be a direct descendant of David, Joseph was not related to Jesus.
ZombieJesus3000 4 years ago
In the Law of Moses, inheritance would go through the oldest daughter if the father had no son, so that's not 100 percent correct. Mary's sisters are mentioned in the NT but no brothers. If her father had no son, then the inheritance would pass through her directly to Jesus.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
The Law of Moses also provided for adoption. When Joseph married Mary, then Jesus became a legal son of Joseph, with a full birth right, even though he was not a natural descendant.
Matthew, a tax collector writing to the Jews, referred to Joseph's genealogy because he was most interested in Law.
Luke, a physician writing to mainly to the Greeks, referred to Mary's genealogy because he knew Joseph's genealogy was already recorded, and he was most interested in natural descent.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
If we did not have the genealogy of both Mary and Joseph, critics would complain that Jesus was not a legitimate descendant. We have both, and they say that they are contradictory. What we get from the two accounts is undeniable proof that no matter how you look at it, Jesus WAS the descendant of David. It may be uncommon in that time to record the mother's line, but a virgin birth is uncommon as well. If such a birth happened, then you would expect it to be recorded like this.
jcbruce2900 3 years ago
The mary geneology claim is bogus....in any event the difference in length between Abraham and Jesus differs by 10 generations
statnerd52 4 years ago
Your proof that it is bogus?
Genealogies in the Bible often skip generations. EXAMPLE: Jesus was the Son of David, the son of Abraham.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
weak come back...but the standard response...Matthew (the shorter of the two therefore the one "missing" generations") makes a big deal out of the 3 x 14 break down..if it was arbitrary due to ommisions then what is so surprising?
statnerd52 4 years ago
I have SOMETIMES thought 14 generations from the time of the captivity in Babylon to the time of Christ was an intentional time indicator to dovetail with the 490 years prophecy in Daniel.
490 + 70 (years of captivity) = 560 years
14 * 40 = 560 years
Of course, people don't have children every 40 years. But that may be the reason why Matthew skips generations.
I am the only one I know of though who has noticed this. I think it's an interesting idea, but I admit it's pure conjecture.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
There is something suspicious about this made up savior jesus, and especially when it comes to white people projecting these suppose to be gospels when they have suppressed most of the worst otrocities upon the globe in the name of jesus, and the 1st slave ship was named jesus,why does this have to be and why have most indigneouss peoples of the globe been suppressed in his name and slaughtered too
2slikkrikk 4 years ago
You agree that Christian ethics are true and that hypocritical Christians have violated these ethics left and right.
Your insight is not a refutation of Jesus' teaching but an affirmation of it.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
YEs they are trying to tell u that jesus is a decendant of david but my question is how this is crucial beacause if they do not proof this jesus cannot be the messiah, Did the passage say this is the geneology of mary mother of jesus no,is it even metioned no,did anyone in the bible say she was a decendant no,u have no case.
juglord 4 years ago
It's a simple case.
The Old Testament says the messiah would be from the house of David in several places in the Hebrew scriptures. It also says the Messiah is David's LORD and God (Psalm 110).
How can He be both?
Simple.
Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit and Mary, his natural mother, and Joseph, his legal father were both descended from David.
So no matter which way you look a it -- legally or naturally -- He is the son of David and the Son of God.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
my friend are u going to make church fathers tell u rubbish,both geneologys used joseph as the decendant of david,in luke mary is not metioned,when does a adopted son become a decendant.Luke 3,23.and jesus himself began about thirty years of age being(AS WAS SUPPOSED)the son of joseph,which was the son of heli,Even that is contradictory in mathew joseph's father is jacob.
juglord 4 years ago
Luke actually says:
"Jesus was the son (as it was being thought of Joseph) of Heli, of Matthat ... of David.
Jesus is the Son of David. That is the meaning here. If a man were adopted, then the lineage would be lawfully valid.
But Luke's meaning is that this is the line of Mary.
Matthew has Joseph's genealogy.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
jcr4runner it clear there is no geneology for mary plus the bible does not use her has the link between david,they use joseph.
juglord 4 years ago
The church fathers said Matthew's genealogy is by the Law through Joseph. Luke's genealogy is by nature through Mary. Do you know better?
This made sense when I was looking at Luke's in the original Greek.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Matthew 1:16 in Greek literally says:
"And Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, the one being called Christ."
Matthew makes clear the lawful relationship of Jesus to Joseph through Mary. This is Joseph's genealogy.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Luke 3:1 in Greek literally says:
"And himself was Jesus beginning about thirty years being son as it was being thought of Joseph, the of Hei, the of Matthat ..." etc.
Luke says "as it was thought." He makes clear the natural relationship of Jesus to Joseph. This is Mary's genealogy.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
yup, in fact, it is obvious that they are talking about the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary in Luke because in the first chapter of Luke it says that Joseph was a son of David. Besides, it doesn't really matter because in Judaism it is the materlinear line of genealogy that is important.
quixoteknight 4 years ago
Mary AND Joseph were of the house of David.
Israelite tribes were not allowed to intermarry unless they were Levites.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Where in the Bible does it say anything of the genealogy of Mary? And I'm not speaking of conjecture.
quixoteknight 4 years ago
It's not explicitly stated that this is the genealogy of Mary in Luke. It just says that Jesus "WAS SUPPOSED the son of Joseph" and then the line picks up with Matthat and so on.
It's always been widely accepted that Luke's genealogy is Mary's line and Matthew's is Joseph's. This is a church tradition. I don't think the church fathers were infallible, but I give this some weight since they lived closer to the events.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
If this is the case why doesn't the book of Luke mention that Mary is a daughter of David in the first chapter at the same time it is mentioned that Joseph is? Look, I'm not an Atheist trying to say there is no God or that the Bible is all worthless nonsense but it seems to me that clinging to threads of a worn out interpretation does a disservice to Christianity as a whole. There are more reasonable interpretations than this one.
quixoteknight 4 years ago
I just did some digging and every translation of the bible I've checked... arround 12 of them... have the genealogy of Luke as proceeding through Joseph specifically. I even found one translation which has a heading "The Family Of Jesus Through Mary"(New Life Version) but then continues:
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when He began His work. People thought Jesus was the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. 24 Heli was the son of Matthat... and so on. So what's the deal?
quixoteknight 4 years ago
You are not reading the clause in Greek correctly.
"Jesus was the son (as it was being thought of Joseph) of Heli, of Matthat ... of David."
The passage doesn't say that Joseph was the son of Heli. He was not.
It says that "Jesus was the son ... of Heli, of Matthat ..." and all the way back to "... of David."
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Joseph is called a son of David in Matthew 1:16 and 1:20. In this time, the Israelites still married within their own tribe.
Mary also goes with Joseph to be registered in the census in Luke 2. This is unusual since usually only the men registered.
However, if Mary was the oldest daughter of a father with no sons, then the inheritance line would come through her. Further, if she was a descendant of Kings, she would have had to register.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
We also know that Zechariah was a Levite and that Elizabeth (Mary's cousin) was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5).
However since Levites were the only tribe allowed to intermarry, Elizabeth's mother was of the house of David and was the sister to either Mary's father or mother.
It's a simple, elegant solution.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
if jesus is a decendant of david that means joseph is his biological father because he is a decendant,the bible contradicts it self,jesus cannot be the son of god and a decendant of david,think about it.
juglord 4 years ago
Unless Mary was a descendant of David.
Think about that.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Jesus is real
the Bible is real
Evolution never happend.
The big Bang never happend
Jesus is real
huntaj94 4 years ago
and also, the Apostle Paul who wrote a good portion of the New Testament, never once mentions Marry, Joseph, the disciples, the last supper, the pharisees, Judas, or Pontious Pilate. What do you have to say about that? and fyi, I'm not trying to be facetious, I used to have a lot of faith in the bible, and I've been trying to find someone who has some answers.
orestes1324 4 years ago
Don't believe the hype of the Jesus mythists. claims are demonstrably false and I've cited this elsewhere, but here it is again.
The most vital elements of the Gospel story appear in Paul's Epistles.
1. Jesus was a real human person (Paul, Hebrews)*
2. Jesus was a Jew (Paul, Hebrews)*
3. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews)
4. Jesus was a descendant of David (Paul)
5. Jesus mission' was to the Jews (Paul)*
6. Jesus was a teacher (Paul, James)*
7. Jesus was tested (Hebrews)
jcr4runner 4 years ago
8. Jesus prayed using the word ABBA (Paul)
9. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death (Hebrews)
10. Jesus Suffered (Paul, Hebrews, Peter)
11. Jesus interpreted his last meal with reference to his death (Paul)*
12. Jesus underwent a trial (Paul)*
13. Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (Paul)*
14. Jesus death involved the Jews (Paul)*
15. Jesus was crucified (Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter)*
16. Jesus was buried (Paul)
17. Jesus appeared to witnesses after death (Paul)
jcr4runner 4 years ago
hehe I tried to elaborate more, but youtube cut me off at 500 characters. In previous videos in this series, they were trying to make a case for the existence of Jesus and making up for the 40 year gap between the death of Christ and the Gospels. They were making it sound like these scholars were writing about Jesus right after he died, when in fact they were born around 40 years after he died.
orestes1324 4 years ago
There were several church fathers who knew the Apostles John, Peter and Paul (Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp) of whom we have extant writings from the first century that quote the New Testament as scripture.
This gives great credence to the idea that the Apostles who died in Nero's persecution c.67 A.D. wrote the books attributed to them.
And only John is possible to date after 70 A.D. -- although I favor an early date for John too.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
So in short there is actually good evidence that the Gospels were composed orally from 30 to 40 A.D. and then began to be written from 40 to 67 A.D. And then all the Epistles quoted by the church fathers were composed from 50 to 67 A.D.
So it's nothing like 40 years, but more like most were composed from 10 to 37 years later -- at the outside.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
"now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all" Hebrews 8:4. The Apostle Paul never mentioned Marry, Joseph, The disciples, The pharisees, Pilate. He believed that his resurrection occurred in a spiritual realm. That was the view of the early gnostics. These videos are interesting, but all of the scholars that quoted jesus in the 1st century, where probably writing in their 20's or 30's, which puts the date that they were writing at around 100 B.C.
orestes1324 4 years ago
I've responded before to this scripture twisting of Hebrews 8:4. The Greek grammatical form is the indicative, not the past tense. It doesn't mean that Jesus was never on earth.
If He were on earth NOW, He would not be a priest according to the Levitical priesthood. It goes on to say Jesus' ministry was according the the priesthood of Melchizedek.
Also, I don't follow your comment about dating "scholars who quoted Jesus" to 100 B.C. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Did you mean 100 A.D?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Excellent video. I haven't seen this from Peter Jennings but your response was *right on*. Thanks I'll be checking out your website.
DiamondInfoMan 4 years ago
For a good going over of major contradictions within the bible there is all kinds of contradictions. It also reveals a THIRD Genealogy for Jesus in 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. Since Jesus had only two parents I love to here the explanation for THIS one.
Maximara 4 years ago
The genealogies in the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus came from the house of David through both of his parents -- as the Messiah was prophesied to come -- not that he was the direct heir to the throne.
The other genealogy in 1 Chron 3:10-16 is the direct line of kings. It has to do with inheritance. In the Old Covenant, if man died with no son, the inheritancee could go to his oldest daughter or a male relative.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Actually Mark 2:25 reads "And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and THEY that were with him?"
The other two accounts also say THEY.
(cont)
GodIsGreat4Ever 4 years ago
You are missing the entire point here. David went into the Holy Place when only priests were allowed to do that. The question posed to him is essentially asking him why he came alone by himself into the Temple. It didn't matter if he had priests with him, he was not allowed to do that under the law, but he appeased God in his righteous intention.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
No! You are avoiding the FACT that either the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus or the author of 1 Samuel is wrong. Are you saying that "those that were with him" that also ate the bread were the priest? Answer this; Was David with any of his men when he went on the "business that the King" sent him on? Please don't change the subject by discussing what you feel THE POINT really is.
GodIsGreat4Ever 4 years ago
Jesus is concerned with the fact that no others went into the Holy Place with David -- the others would have been the priests who were allowed to go in. Under the Law, David was not allowed to go in. According to Lev 24:9 the high priest was able to eat the shewbread and then serve it to the otherr priests. Jesus did this INSTEAD of the Abiathar -- thus the other men WITH HIM who ate the bread were the priests not David's men.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
It appears to you that Jesus is saying that David had his men with him and they were hungry so they ALL entered the Temple and ate the shewbread.
However, I took some time to look at the Greek.
Mark 2:25 - HE HAD NEED AND WAS HUNGRY, HE AND THE ONES WITH HIM
2:26 - HE GAVE ALSO TO THE ONES BEING WITH HIM.
HE AND THE ONES WITH HIM is a dependant clause and it depends on what David and the men with him did.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
I am not a Greek scholar but I understand the difference between BEING (present participle) and WERE (past tense).
The present participle that the men BEING with him at that moment did the deed with him. The past tense would indicate that the men that WERE with him.
So does it make sense that David entered the Temple with men he BROUGHT with him? -- Or that he entered the Temple and the MEN BEING WITH HIM, that is, the priests who allowed him to do this?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto HIM, WHY ART THOU ALONE, AND NO MAN WITH THEE? And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, LET NO MAN KNOW OF THE BUSINESS WHEREABOUT I SEND THEE, and what I have commanded thee: AND I HAVE APPOINTED MY SEVERVANTS TO SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE. 1 Sm 21:1-2
(cont)
GodIsGreat4Ever 4 years ago
And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's business required haste. 1 Sm 21:8
So he had time to gather men to go on this secret mission but didn't have time to pick up a sword before he left?
GodIsGreat4Ever 4 years ago
You just need to read the scriptures more carefully.
Jesus is in full agreement with 1 Samuel 21-22. Mark 2:25-26 says: "How HE went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest". 1 Samuel 21-22 states that David only went in, not anyone who may or may not have been with him. Jesus verifies this. Only David went in.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
I don't see this contradiction explained on your website:
1 Samuel 21: 1-6
David was clearly and obviously ALONE when he took the bread from the temple that was meant for the priest.
"Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?"
Matthew 12: 3-4, Mark 2: 24-26, Luke 6: 3-4
Jesus says that David was "with others" when "they" took the bread.
"..and gave also to them which were with him?"
NO CONTRADICTION THERE?
GodIsGreat4Ever 4 years ago
Of course this sidesteps the KEY contradiction in Matthew and Luke which have Jesus being born in two different periods 10 years apart. Luke compounds things by having two priest co-rulers when they weren't and a leader killed 60 years before at the hand of Mark Anthony still ruling his kingdom. As God who wasn't there says it looks like someone took a figure originally mythical and took various stabs to get him in a historical framework.
Maximara 4 years ago
Quirinius was a ruler in the eastern Roman Empire from the time of 14 B.C. to 12 A.D. Hisotry records that he was governor of Syria in 6 A.D. to 12 A.D. Outside of Luke, we do not have a record who was the governor of Syria at the time of Jesus birth. Quirinius is the best candidate.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Except Matthew has Jesus being born during the time of Herod the Great when Syria was part of a pro-Roman kingdom that was split among his three sons when he died. Herod Archelaus was the son who ruled at Syria and proved himself so inept and cruel that Rome had Quirinius replaced him in 6 CE.
His son Herod Antipas would control Galliee
Maximara 4 years ago
Answer these three questions:
1. Was Quirinius not one of the most powerful people in the world at that time holding a rank just under the Emperor himself?
2. Was he not a ruler in this region during the time of Herod's death (c. 4 to 1 B.C)?
3. Did he not conduct the Homonadensian war from Syria, and did this war not take place between 3 and 2 B.C.?
4. Is not history silent on who was the official "governor" of Syria from 3 B.C. to 1 B.C.?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
I will admit that Hayyim ben Yehoshua sometimes is off on planet Mars buried int he nonsense there are good points. As for history being 'silent' about the RULER of Syria from 3 B.C. to 1 B.C it isn't true-the kingdom was split up among Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip I with Herod Archelaus being replaced by Quirinius in 6 CE.
Maximara 4 years ago
Quirinius at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31) with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Justin of Rome records that he was a "procurator" of the province at this time (Apology 1:34). In Greek, the word is the same: Hegemonoi.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Please explain you statements about the two priests and Mark Antony so that I may refute that.
The fact of the matter is that Luke was a historian of the first rate. He has never been proven wrong in any historical or geographical detail. Whenever historians have differed with Luke on soemthing, Luke has later been proven to be right numerous times.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
The explanation for my statement can be found in "Refuting Missionaries" by Hayyim ben Yehoshua. As for Luke being A 'historian of the first rate' and 'has never been proven wrong' that is disproved on the web page "Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity" where the author cites about 12 historical inaccuracies in Luke and Acts.
Maximara 4 years ago
I find it amusing that he has Luke relying on Josephus when Josephus wrote 30 years AFTER Luke. The theory that Luke is a second century document has been thoroughly refuted. This is not even an argument worth having at this time.
Further, Josephus is notoriously reliable in some places and sloppy in other places. It is illogical to assume that since Luke disagrees with Josephus (if he actually does disagree can also be debated) that Josephus is always right.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
I also find is VERY amusing that he uses THE PASSOVER PLOT -- a work of fiction -- as a citation! I am wondering now, where are the citations from the Da Vinci Code?
I am the first to admit that there are Bile DIFFICULTIES, things that are difficult to explain in the Bible, but you REALLY have to do better than this silly website.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
I notice you did not address the priest issue or when Lysanias I ruled Abilene (40-36 BCE) or even try to refute it. The support for a younger Lysanias is at best shaky. Never mind Hayyim ben Yehoshua says c100 CE which is right at the boarder between 1st and 2nd centuries (101 CE is the first year of the second century)
Maximara 4 years ago
Your question about Lysanius is an excellent. An inscription has been found dating from A.D. 15-30 that says:
"For the salvation of the Lords Imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch."
Is that proof enough? Judge for yourself.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
For myself, I am guessing that a freedman of Lysanius living in the first century could not have been so old that he had been a freedman of the Lysanius who lived 100 years prior?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
jesus spoke i will send a spirit a holy spirit,i tell you it is true i with my own eyes have seen the holy spirit doing the work of the promise in front of my eyes .
koduckman 4 years ago
How many generations were there between Abraham and David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
SpiritWalker101 4 years ago
It's simply a matter of how you count. You can count it as fourteen generations first by extending from Abraham to David; secondly, by extending from David to the deportation; and thirdly, by extending from Jechonias to Christ. Matthew was aware that he was being inclusive in each case.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
There is no question that Mat. manipulated the number of generations to get multiples of "SEVEN" -- a number of perfection. Matthew is also concerned with the idea that there were ROUGHLY the same time periods divided into three eras. The coming of the Messiah was an expected event after the end of the last period - according to Daniel 9.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
14 generations (14*40) = 560 years.
Matthew's concern is the number of years rather than the exact number of literal generations (a generation is 40 years).
Matthew is trying to show that the prophecy of Daniel 9 is fulfilled in Jesus because the captivity lasted 70 years. 560-70=490. If we subtract the 70 year captivity, then we get the "seventy sevens" of the Daniel 9 prophecy.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
In the book of Matthew the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee, where they had been sent by divine decree.
According to Luke and Acts, however, the risen Jesus appeared in and around Jerusalem, while according to Acts the disciples were forbidden to leave Jerusalem.
Luke places the ascension of Jesus on the day of the resurrection, while Acts 1:3 -- 40 days after.
killinut 4 years ago
F.C. Examples 1&2
I find these extremely trite and easily explained. The key error here on your part are that Luke has Jesus ascension on the same day as the resurrrection. It says this nowhere. The disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem for the ten days prior to Pentecost.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
I don't know where you got these, but I get the feeling that skeptics just make these things up to discourage people who don't own or won't read a Bible.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Ok, but what about Jesus being hanged on a tree?
Could you address this contradiction please?
killinut 4 years ago
One account gives more information than the other, but to understand how he could have fell and had his intestines gush out, you have to know first that he hanged himself on the side of a small mountain.
See my webpage, "Answering Bible Contradictions" for a longer discussion of this passage.
That is actually a good question -- not trite like the others.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
The key is understanding that Judas hanged himself in a place that had a hilly terrain with shallow soil. He was hanged on a tree for a number of days. Then after a few days, his body fell and his bowels gushed out as he tumbled down the hill.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Jcr4runner,
I was talking about Jesus, NOT Judas.
Try again.
killinut 4 years ago
The apostles were quoting the Old Testament verse that says:
"Cursed is the man who is hanged on a tree" -- to show that the cross was a scandal to the Jews.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
You know that someone is really grasping a straws when Luke supposedly contradicts his OWN account.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
In the Gospels Jesus goes to his death by crucifixion -- yet according to Paul and Peter he was "hanged on a tree" (Acts 5:30, 10:39; Galatians 3:13).
In John's Gospel there is only one woman visiting Jesus' tomb, in Matthew there are two of them, in Mark three, while Luke writes of numerous women who had followed Jesus from Galilee.
killinut 4 years ago
F.C. Example 1. Paul and Peter did not say Jesus was not crucified.
F.C. Example 2.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
There are even glaring contradictions concerning the all-important crucifixion.
For example, Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was BOTH tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests, Luke says that Jesus was tried by the priests but NOT sentenced by them, while according to John, Jesus did NOT appear before the Sanhedrin AT ALL.
killinut 4 years ago
Nope. Just an example of one Gospel giving different parts of the whole. See fake contradiction example 2.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
There are so many contradictions in the Gospel accounts that you obviously failed to notice.
Matthew says that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, while Luke says that they lived in Nazareth.
Matthew says they fled to Egypt immediately after Jesus' birth and then went to Nazareth when Herod died, while Luke says that they remained in Bethlehem following Jesus' birth so that he could be presented in the temple of Jerusalem eight days later.
killinut 4 years ago
All supposed "contradictions" in the Bible can be answered in one of three ways.
1. The skeptic reads a contradiction into the text that is not there.
2. One passage of scripture contains more information than another passsge.
3. One passage of scripture contains the same information but from a different persective or context.
None of these examples you give are "contradictions." None are original ideas. These have all been posed and answered thousands of times.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Example 2 applies here
jcr4runner 4 years ago
This video series is awesome! God bless you all!
996290398 4 years ago
I'm wondering how you interpret the story of Noah(I interpret it as fairy tale) and how you interpret the various occurrences where Jesus says his followers can perform telikenisis and other paranormal acts if they have the tiniest bit of faith in him, and if you admit to not being able to do these yourself.
delusionclass 4 years ago
I interpret Noah as the most accurate version of a history of which almost every culture on earth has a version.
As far as miracles go. I believe that my body will be physically resurrected in the final judgment -- and so will yours. Let's compare notes when that happens.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
As you have faith that Creation and Noah can somehow be harmonized into reality, I have faith that the story of Jesus can be harmonized out of reality. They are both compelling, although mine takes the lesser suspension of belief, and they are mutually exclusive, since Jesus seems to have believed the story of Noah.
delusionclass 4 years ago
As God the Son, He seems to have believed everything in His Word.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Let's see Christians believe God created the universe out of nothing. Atheists believe that everything that exists came out of nothing by itself.
Christians believe that every species of animal and ethnicity of man evolved in just 5000 years from the survivors of the flood. Atheists believe that every species of living thing evolved over billions of years from inorganic matter.
Which takes more effort to believe?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
I am not an atheist, I am a theistic evolutionist and anti-Hovindian, but it is far more rational to believe that all species evolved over billions of years. 5000 years for diversification of 10,000 kinds to over 3 million species requires a mutation rate that is known to be fatal. And you appealed to ridicule. The Bible and evolution are in harmony.
Kabane52 4 years ago
Do you think Adam and Eve were actual people who lived at the time described through the genealogies of scripture? If not, how do you explain sin entering the world?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Adam and Eve were real people. The genealogies in scripture have gaps.
Kabane52 4 years ago 2
A common view among Christians.
Question: If Adam and Eve evolved from lower primates, then what specifically makes them the first men?
How do you interpret original sin? Were they the first people capable of sinning or were they simply the first to rebel?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
We have to ask, "What are men?" I interpret man to mean a creature with a soul. Therefore, Adam and Eve were the first primates with souls. When was this? We don't know. Only creatures with souls are capable of sinning.
Kabane52 4 years ago 3
I won't presume that you don't understand how problematic this is and how many other questions this raises.
When you say, "we don't know what that was," you are assuming that the genealogies of the Bible, which I am assuming you think are accurate, don't point to any specific years concerning births of sons.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
If we read for instance, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth" what does that mean?
Does it mean that Adam lived 130 years and had a son? If so, then there is an incredibly specific chronology that can be derived from these chronological accounts.
jcr4runner 4 years ago