There are remains of babies inside the holes of walls the Israelites built in Egypt. The archeological evidence was announced. Being slaves and having to work every day, did not afford them time to bury the infants Pharaoh ordered murdered. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Herod's murderous paranoia to keep his throne made him unalive his children. And that is a documented fact. So unaliving more children fits his character.
It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but whenever someone quotes this dictum, he's moving in the direction of 'absence of evidence is evidence of presence.' I've never heard someone quoting said dictum without trying to spin it so that it actually proves his case. Matthew openly misapplied Old Testament passages to support his case. In this case, Jeremiah 31:15. 'Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.”' Ramah is north of Jerusalem and Bethlehem is south. The two towns are roughly 11 miles (ca. 18 km) apart. Cries from the one won't be heard in the other. Ramah is in the tribal area of Benjamin, one of the children of Rachel, whom Jeremiah 31:15 mentions. Bethlehem is in the tribal area of Judah, one of the children of Leah. This passage in Jeremiah has to do with when the captives from Jerusalem were taken to Babylon. They went north and passed through Ramah where Jeremiah was discovered among the captives and the Babylonians set him free--Jeremiah advocated submitting to the Babylonians, and they knew that. Matthew fiddled the genealogy of Jesus to get three sets of 14. 14 is the number for the name of David. Matthew wanted the Jews to accept Jesus, and David was of major importance to the Jews. So, showing the connection between David and Jesus… Also, showing things in the Torah pointing to Jesus would promote Matthew's aim. The Jesus going to Egypt saga is only in Matthew, so that Matthew could apply 'out of Egypt I called my son,' which in the original clearly applies to the nation of Israel. In my black and white world, Matthew was a shyster. Yes, Herod was a cruel, mad bastard. But that doesn't mean you can hold him accountable for everything bad, especially if the only evidence for the incident comes from a shyster. That is terrible logic, and it harms Christianity when someone who has a reasonable grip on logic and knowledge of the history of the time hears such a bad argument. Yes, about 90% of people are truly stupid, but that leaves the other 10%, and a 1/10 chance is a significant chance that such a person will hear your extremely stupid argument. Take some time and learn the principles of logic. Many of them are not intuitive.
Firstly, you assume that because I use a general dictum that I apply it to everything and anything, which is what you are implying in your statement. That statement is unfounded and is an exaggeration. Secondly, as far as Matthew being deceptive, I will point you (and anyone else who might be reading this) to the brief article link below which gives a good response to most of the claims that you make that Matthew is dishonestly using OT passages: creation.com/did-matthew-misuse-the-old-testament As far the shortened family tree in Matthew 1 goes, John Gill commentary on the chapter gives a good defence and several potential answers in regards to why this was done when he, for instance in one portion he writes 'He was not the immediate son of Joram; there were three kings between them, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which are here omitted; either because of the curse denounced on Ahab's family, into which Joram married, whose idolatry was punished to the third or fourth generation; or because these were princes of no good character; or because their names were not in the Jewish registers. Nor does this omission at all affect the design of the Evangelist, which is to show that Jesus, the true Messiah, is of the house of David; nor ought the Jews to complain of it, as they do. Since such omissions are to be met with in the Old Testament, particularly in Ezra 7:2 where six generations are omitted at once; and which is taken notice of by one of their own genealogical writers, whose words are these "we see in the genealogy of Ezra that he hath skipped over seven generations (perhaps it should be ו "six" and not ז "seven", since six are only omitted) from Ahitub to Ahitub'. Nor is it any objection that Joram is said to beget Ozias, which he may be said to do in the like sense, as has been before observed of Hezekiah.' So there are potential answers and solutions to this apparent problem. Thirdly, Yes, Matthew is the only known record of the massacre, however other historical accounts show that Herod was indeed prone to murderous deeds and even willing to massacre innocent people as seen at the end of his life which is found in Josephus' books and Macrobius' statement in Saturnalia 2.11. These clearly demonstrate Herod's willingness to murder, even his own family members, especially so when he feared his power was being threatened, which is why Matthew records that he tried to murder Jesus. Matthew's account does not in any way contradict what we know historically of Herod's character and actions. It actually complements it. So, it is hardly an 'extremely stupid argument' to make and it is far from being illogical. This is all I will post in response to your statements. I do not intend to respond any further as I simply don't have the time to do so.
@@GospelandSpade You just don't understand. First, I didn't say you apply that dictum to everything. I said every time I heard it quoted, whoever quoted it tried to use it to prove something for which there is no evidence. There is a difference. Second, theologians can't reason straight--they don't have to, their being wrong doesn't lead to disasters which nobody can miss and which can be traced back to whoever was responsible, like in engineering and medicine. They can twist anything to mean anything, and they do. Theological obfuscation baffles most simpletons. When all is said and done, Matthew was a shyster. Third, as I said, being a cruel bastard doesn't make one guilty of everything heinous in one's time and vicinity. That's terrible logic. First, people blamed the Nazis (horrible bastards who committed unspeakable atrocities at the relevant time) for the murder of 22,000 Poles in Katyn forest. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre. Later, it became clear it had been the Russians, and, this time, the Nazis were blameless. According to you, it would have been fine to blame the Nazis based on their general record of being murderous, cruel turds. In the baby-massacre case, there's zero reliable evidence it ever happened and a good reason for Matthew to have fabricated it--it fitted his narrative. You're out of your depth.
@@signposts6189 As I fully explained in my first post, it's Jeremiah 31:15: 'This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”' I also fully explained in that post why it has nothing to do with the 'baby massacre.' This is well-known. Do a few searches on the subject. Read that first post. Look at the reason for the 14, 14, 14 generations. At that time, truth and falsehood were not regarded as polar opposites. They had more a politician's concept of the two--interchangeable, use whichever fits your case best. Muslims have a similar concept in taqiyya--a lie told to advance Islam's case is not a lie. Emotions don't change facts.
Interesting, but the wise mem did not visit Joseph, Mary, and Jesus in Bethlehem. According to Luke, after complying with the Law od Moses for the male first born, they returned to Nazareth. The wise men entered into a house to honor Jesus. I like your segments. Very interesting.
Thanks for the comment and I am glad you find them interesting. 2:8 and 2:16-18 both state that Herod both sent the wise men to Bethlehem to find the young Jesus, (which they did) and that the massacre took place in and around Bethlehem, which is also connected to the much earlier death of Rachel in Genesis which took place near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19). So the events of Matthew 2 took place I believe at Bethlehem in Judah. Regarding Luke's statement that after Joseph and family visited the temple that they went to Nazareth I believe that they only visited Nazareth briefly (most likely to inform their friends and family there about the birth of Jesus) but returned to Bethlehem and were living in a house (as you correctly point out) at some point before the events of Matthew 2 took place. This scenario fits both Matthew's and Luke's accounts.
There are many kooks in this world. On the flip side, many black channels claim Adam and Eve were black, blacks invented the radio and about everything else you can think of. In this case, you have the anti-black and pro-black lunatics. What they share is that both groups are lunatics.
Indications are NOT "evidence". The Judish priest-historian Josephus SURELY WOULD have mentioned such an act had Herod ordered it. He ALSO would have likely mentioned the RARE event of the Magi visiting Jerusalem, ESPECIALLY IF they were seeking a new-born king. ANOTHER question nobody asks is, IF Herod's troops DIDN'T KNOW where to find the 👶 Jesus, then HOW DID the Magi KNOW which 🏚 he was in?? 🌟 DOESN'T EXTEND down to Earth like a ☀beam.
Bethlehem was tiny. It would have been like 20 kids. Out of all the horrible things Herod did this would have been an afterthought. The execution of his own children to preserve his power took bigger impact in history keepers at the time.
Its incredible the evil inside these kings, when feel their thrones in danger its cleary paranoid
Thank you for sharing
Thank you 👍👍👍
There should be more likes and comments on your great work
There are remains of babies inside the holes of walls the Israelites built in Egypt. The archeological evidence was announced. Being slaves and having to work every day, did not afford them time to bury the infants Pharaoh ordered murdered.
Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Herod's murderous paranoia to keep his throne made him unalive his children. And that is a documented fact. So unaliving more children fits his character.
It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but whenever someone quotes this dictum, he's moving in the direction of 'absence of evidence is evidence of presence.' I've never heard someone quoting said dictum without trying to spin it so that it actually proves his case.
Matthew openly misapplied Old Testament passages to support his case. In this case, Jeremiah 31:15. 'Thus says the LORD: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.”'
Ramah is north of Jerusalem and Bethlehem is south. The two towns are roughly 11 miles (ca. 18 km) apart. Cries from the one won't be heard in the other. Ramah is in the tribal area of Benjamin, one of the children of Rachel, whom Jeremiah 31:15 mentions. Bethlehem is in the tribal area of Judah, one of the children of Leah.
This passage in Jeremiah has to do with when the captives from Jerusalem were taken to Babylon. They went north and passed through Ramah where Jeremiah was discovered among the captives and the Babylonians set him free--Jeremiah advocated submitting to the Babylonians, and they knew that.
Matthew fiddled the genealogy of Jesus to get three sets of 14. 14 is the number for the name of David. Matthew wanted the Jews to accept Jesus, and David was of major importance to the Jews. So, showing the connection between David and Jesus… Also, showing things in the Torah pointing to Jesus would promote Matthew's aim. The Jesus going to Egypt saga is only in Matthew, so that Matthew could apply 'out of Egypt I called my son,' which in the original clearly applies to the nation of Israel. In my black and white world, Matthew was a shyster.
Yes, Herod was a cruel, mad bastard. But that doesn't mean you can hold him accountable for everything bad, especially if the only evidence for the incident comes from a shyster. That is terrible logic, and it harms Christianity when someone who has a reasonable grip on logic and knowledge of the history of the time hears such a bad argument. Yes, about 90% of people are truly stupid, but that leaves the other 10%, and a 1/10 chance is a significant chance that such a person will hear your extremely stupid argument.
Take some time and learn the principles of logic. Many of them are not intuitive.
Firstly, you assume that because I use a general dictum that I apply it to everything and anything, which is what you are implying in your statement. That statement is unfounded and is an exaggeration.
Secondly, as far as Matthew being deceptive, I will point you (and anyone else who might be reading this) to the brief article link below which gives a good response to most of the claims that you make that Matthew is dishonestly using OT passages:
creation.com/did-matthew-misuse-the-old-testament
As far the shortened family tree in Matthew 1 goes, John Gill commentary on the chapter gives a good defence and several potential answers in regards to why this was done when he, for instance in one portion he writes 'He was not the immediate son of Joram; there were three kings between them, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which are here omitted; either because of the curse denounced on Ahab's family, into which Joram married, whose idolatry was punished to the third or fourth generation; or because these were princes of no good character; or because their names were not in the Jewish registers. Nor does this omission at all affect the design of the Evangelist, which is to show that Jesus, the true Messiah, is of the house of David; nor ought the Jews to complain of it, as they do. Since such omissions are to be met with in the Old Testament, particularly in Ezra 7:2 where six generations are omitted at once; and which is taken notice of by one of their own genealogical writers, whose words are these "we see in the genealogy of Ezra that he hath skipped over seven generations (perhaps it should be ו "six" and not ז "seven", since six are only omitted) from Ahitub to Ahitub'. Nor is it any objection that Joram is said to beget Ozias, which he may be said to do in the like sense, as has been before observed of Hezekiah.' So there are potential answers and solutions to this apparent problem.
Thirdly, Yes, Matthew is the only known record of the massacre, however other historical accounts show that Herod was indeed prone to murderous deeds and even willing to massacre innocent people as seen at the end of his life which is found in Josephus' books and Macrobius' statement in Saturnalia 2.11. These clearly demonstrate Herod's willingness to murder, even his own family members, especially so when he feared his power was being threatened, which is why Matthew records that he tried to murder Jesus. Matthew's account does not in any way contradict what we know historically of Herod's character and actions. It actually complements it. So, it is hardly an 'extremely stupid argument' to make and it is far from being illogical.
This is all I will post in response to your statements. I do not intend to respond any further as I simply don't have the time to do so.
@@GospelandSpade You just don't understand. First, I didn't say you apply that dictum to everything. I said every time I heard it quoted, whoever quoted it tried to use it to prove something for which there is no evidence. There is a difference.
Second, theologians can't reason straight--they don't have to, their being wrong doesn't lead to disasters which nobody can miss and which can be traced back to whoever was responsible, like in engineering and medicine. They can twist anything to mean anything, and they do. Theological obfuscation baffles most simpletons. When all is said and done, Matthew was a shyster.
Third, as I said, being a cruel bastard doesn't make one guilty of everything heinous in one's time and vicinity. That's terrible logic. First, people blamed the Nazis (horrible bastards who committed unspeakable atrocities at the relevant time) for the murder of 22,000 Poles in Katyn forest. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre. Later, it became clear it had been the Russians, and, this time, the Nazis were blameless. According to you, it would have been fine to blame the Nazis based on their general record of being murderous, cruel turds.
In the baby-massacre case, there's zero reliable evidence it ever happened and a good reason for Matthew to have fabricated it--it fitted his narrative.
You're out of your depth.
@grasonicus What "narrative" did the baby massacre fit, and how does that show that Matthew made it up?
@@signposts6189 As I fully explained in my first post, it's Jeremiah 31:15: 'This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”'
I also fully explained in that post why it has nothing to do with the 'baby massacre.' This is well-known. Do a few searches on the subject.
Read that first post. Look at the reason for the 14, 14, 14 generations.
At that time, truth and falsehood were not regarded as polar opposites. They had more a politician's concept of the two--interchangeable, use whichever fits your case best. Muslims have a similar concept in taqiyya--a lie told to advance Islam's case is not a lie.
Emotions don't change facts.
Interesting, but the wise mem did not visit Joseph, Mary, and Jesus in Bethlehem. According to Luke, after complying with the Law od Moses for the male first born, they returned to Nazareth. The wise men entered into a house to honor Jesus. I like your segments. Very interesting.
Thanks for the comment and I am glad you find them interesting.
2:8 and 2:16-18 both state that Herod both sent the wise men to Bethlehem to find the young Jesus, (which they did) and that the massacre took place in and around Bethlehem, which is also connected to the much earlier death of Rachel in Genesis which took place near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19). So the events of Matthew 2 took place I believe at Bethlehem in Judah.
Regarding Luke's statement that after Joseph and family visited the temple that they went to Nazareth I believe that they only visited Nazareth briefly (most likely to inform their friends and family there about the birth of Jesus) but returned to Bethlehem and were living in a house (as you correctly point out) at some point before the events of Matthew 2 took place. This scenario fits both Matthew's and Luke's accounts.
I found out from Israelite Truth Channel that King 👑 Herod and the Herodian Dynasty ARE BLACK 🖤 Blessings and Hugs 💖💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕!
There are many kooks in this world. On the flip side, many black channels claim Adam and Eve were black, blacks invented the radio and about everything else you can think of. In this case, you have the anti-black and pro-black lunatics. What they share is that both groups are lunatics.
Indications are NOT "evidence". The Judish priest-historian Josephus SURELY WOULD have mentioned such an act had Herod ordered it. He ALSO would have likely mentioned the RARE event of the Magi visiting Jerusalem, ESPECIALLY IF they were seeking a new-born king. ANOTHER question nobody asks is, IF Herod's troops DIDN'T KNOW where to find the 👶 Jesus, then HOW DID the Magi KNOW which 🏚 he was in?? 🌟 DOESN'T EXTEND down to Earth like a ☀beam.
Bethlehem was tiny. It would have been like 20 kids. Out of all the horrible things Herod did this would have been an afterthought. The execution of his own children to preserve his power took bigger impact in history keepers at the time.