Trying to write an apologetic for this in bible college was my first step in abandoning a belief in biblical inerrancy. It was remarkable to me how far some people went to argue its historicity. Great video, thanks Dan!
@@bigpig5998 In an ideal world people would interrogate any text prior to reaching a conclusion as to its veracity or value. In this far-from-ideal world people use texts, religious texts in particular, as ammunition to attack others and as support for pre-existing, often unsound, pre-suppositions. Of all of these pre-suppositions, the idea that faith deserves respect, as a state of mind or as a methodology, has the least basis in reality. People can have faith in anything. People can assert or defend any proposition, even self-contradictory ones, based on faith. I agree with you that faith seeks reason and understanding to deepen faith. I disagree with you that this provides the individual or society with any value that could not be achieved better by abandoning faith and embracing a more sound relationship with reality.
@@bigpig5998 I think the problem is that most people don’t realize that biblical inerrancy is a theological layer on top of the Bible, and not something that the Bible itself claims. And even if it did claim that, it would be circular reasoning. But it has been so deep rooted into our understanding by our fundamentalist upbringing that it is so hard to get rid of. So the moment we find an error in the Bible we give up on the whole thing. That said, even if I understand this, I just see the Bible as an interesting archive of ancient thoughts, and nothing to do with how to live my life currently.
Why is 70 AD important. Why not reset our calendar at Jesus birth. Do you know when the Gentile Times Ended. How did the Magi know Jesus was born as King. But the Roman Empire of King Herod and the Jews did not. They were following the Trinity of Sun, Moon, and Star Worship. Look at the Sumerian solar system picture. Jesus is the true light ,The Bright Morning Star! The same star a person puts over a Christmas Tree! Our calendar was reset and counted backwards to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70AD. Jesus shows up at 12 and 30 years old. Why did the Jews think Jesus was almost 50. There is a difference of 20 years. So when did the Gentile Times End. Using bible chronology for 1914 or according to history 1934.
Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah Mark 16:8 In the Gospel of Mark. If the women tell no one then, Who is ! What each Gospel story is about. The four living creatures! Matthew Who was! Mark Who is! Luke Who is Coming! John The Lamb of YHVH! The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
The Canon Ezra 7:6 This Ezʹra came up from Babylon. He was a copyist* who was well-versed in* the Law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given. The king granted everything he requested, for the hand of Jehovah his God was upon him. The expression “Bible canon” came to denote the collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine inspired Scripture. The term “canon” is derived from the Hebrew word qa·nehʹ (reed). Reeds were used as a rule or measuring device. (Eze 41:8) Fittingly, the Bible canon, or catalog of inspired books, enables the reader to “measure” faith, doctrine, and conduct. The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was established by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. According to Jewish tradition, the skilled scribe and inspired Bible writer Ezra began the work, and it was completed by Nehemiah. (Ezr 7:6, ftn.) The writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the gifts of the spirit were operative on Christ’s followers. (Joh 14:26; Re 1:1) Some Christians had the gift of “discernment of inspired expressions.” (1Co 12:10) Thus, they could, without referring the matter to a supposed church council, determine which of the letters the congregation received were inspired of God. With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end. Therefore, with the book of Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his three letters, the Bible canon was closed. The testimony of later, noninspired writers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had guided and authorized.
The point of a census in ancient times was to work out how much stuff everyone had so they could work out how much tax everyone needed to pay. And by stuff I mean things like land and livestock. So the task of the census would be made impossibly difficult if everyone is forced to travel a great distance away and leave all of their stuff behind.
Agreed - the way Luke had Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test. The crazy part is that people (at least eventually) believed it.
It also has very little value if everyone goes to their hometown. If you want to know what people have and produce, when they travel they can only take what they can carry, and they won't be doing their usual work in their home towns.
@@bigpig5998 you say "hile the logistics of the census as described in Luke's Gospel may seem impractical by modern standards, this does not definitively debunk its historical plausibility." Well I'm sorry but the story is highly implausible, period. As Dan has shown in many videos, the Bible is riddled with so much implausibility and an apparent contradiction that it makes no sense to take it more seriously than the scripture of countless other religions. The honest truth is that most people are sheep who believe the religion that pertains to their time/place in history.
@@bigpig5998 you’re not saying anything . You are basically claiming that, even if it appears highly improbable, the mere fact that it could be even remotely possibly means that we should believe it. If you took that logic throughout the rest of your life, you would be making a lot of very poor decisions.
The thing that always got me about the census as a kid was how did they determine how far back to go? Joseph goes to Bethlehem because of David, but that was 1000 years prior and you couldn't expect everybody to know that kind of detailed family history because of the exile. Even with modern records, if you asked me to go back to my families town of 1000 years ago, I would not have the foggiest.
Also, which family village. Think about how many ancestors you have at 1000 years ago and how spread out they are. You’ll have ancestors in far off countries. Which ancestor and village do you pick.
@@aidenmartin6674Well, presumably only the male line counted. But that doesn't really help that much. And it's nonsense, anyway - what exactly is the Roman interest here? Rome was mostly all about the money (they were as close to capitalism as it was possible to be before the Industrial Revolution - incidentally, they had some decent water-powered industry already - and the state was pretty much designed to be corrupt, with very few checks and balances), and after that, somewhat about the Roman polytheistic religions. Which the Jews did not follow. So it makes no sense from the money angle, and it makes no sense from the religion angle. (For example, when you got a job as governor of a province, it was expected that you'd leave that job significantly richer than you got it.)
There's also the reverse problem. It's been shown that everyone alive today who has some Western European ancestry somewhere in their family is descended from everyone in the 9th Century Europe who still has descendants, which includes Charlemagne. So, if some alien empire conquered Earth and demanded that everyone descended from Charlemagne had to travel to Vaires-sur-Marne to register, you'd end up with several billion people having to go there. Same with David. Assuming such a person existed and had living descendant, after 1000 years literally everyone in the province of Syria, let alone just the area of Israel, who had some Jewish ancestry somewhere in their bloodline would have been descended from him. Busy place, Bethlehem. (Incidentally, this is also the problem with the whole Da Vinci Code nonsense: either Jesus has no living descendants or almost everyone on Earth is one.)
Yeah, on the one hand, if king David existed, every single person in Judaea would have been his descendant. And on the other, the idea that such detailed genealogical records existed in the 1st century CE despite centuries of conquest and exile, but conveniently disappeared without a trace afterward, does not seem plausible.
Bruh, your Christmas videos are bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "troll the ancient yuletide carol." I'm gonna run out of popcorn if you keep doing this.
Mica 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 1 Samuel 16:1 Jehovah eventually said to Samuel: “How long will you mourn for Saul now that I have rejected him from ruling as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go. I will send you to Jesʹse the Bethʹle·hem·ite, because I have selected from among his sons a king for myself.” John 7:42 Does the scripture not say that the Christ is coming from the offspring of David and from Bethʹle·hem, the village where David was?” Genesis 35:19 So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephʹrath, that is, Bethʹle·hem. Luke 2:4 Of course, Joseph also went up from Galʹi·lee, from the city of Nazʹa·reth, into Ju·deʹa, to David’s city, which is called Bethʹle·hem, because of his being a member of the house and family of David. Matthew 2:6 ‘And you, O Bethʹle·hem of the land of Judah, are by no means the most insignificant city among the governors of Judah, for out of you will come a governing one, who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
Man, remember when Jesus fed a crowd of thousands with a handful of fish and bread and the apostles were amazed? Then a couple weeks later, he feeds fewer people with even more fish and bread and the apostles are still amazed! "We knew you had it in you Rabbi, we just never knew you had it in you twice."
You will be amazed when you understand what the 12 and 7 means. Mark 8:17 Noting this, he said to them: “Why do you argue over your having no bread? Do you not yet perceive and understand? Are your hearts still dull in understanding? 18 ‘Though having eyes, do you not see; and though having ears, do you not hear?’ Do you not remember 19 when I broke the five loaves for the 5,000 men, how many baskets full of fragments you collected?” They said to him: “Twelve.” 20 “When I broke the seven loaves for the 4,000 men, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?” And they said to him: “Seven.” 21 With that he said to them: “Do you not yet understand?”
Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah Mark 16:8 In the Gospel of Mark. If the women tell no one then, Who is ! What each Gospel story is about. The four living creatures! Matthew Who was! Mark Who is! Luke Who is Coming! John The Lamb of YHVH! The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
Why is 70 AD important. Why not reset our calendar at Jesus birth. Do you know when the Gentile Times Ended. How did the Magi know Jesus was born as King. But the Roman Empire of King Herod and the Jews did not. They were following the Trinity of Sun, Moon, and Star Worship. Look at the Sumerian solar system picture. Jesus is the true light ,The Bright Morning Star! The same star a person puts over a Christmas Tree! Our calendar was reset and counted backwards to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70AD. Jesus shows up at 12 and 30 years old. Why did the Jews think Jesus was almost 50. There is a difference of 20 years. So when did the Gentile Times End. Using bible chronology for 1914 or according to history 1934.
There's also the problem that Galilee was a separate self-ruling kingdom (tetrarchy), so if Joseph lived in Nazareth, the census of Judaea would never have applied to him.
TheTetrachy was after Herods death ,they belonged to his children . His kingdom was divided by the Romans . The Romans changed the boundaries of palestine continuously . Also Syria seemed to be the governing body for the entire region . Jews were expected to attend the various religious festivals held in Jerusalem and travelled from far and wide .
I was wondering if youve done a video on the Resurrection accounts of The Gospels, I heard one scholar say he found 17 contradictions among the four accounts, was wondering what your thoughts were about that ? They do seem to have some varying details also in the ascension accounts of luke and acts
" Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus"
The problem with this timeline is that before Quirinius was made Legate of Syria he was magistrate in Antioch, and before that during the reign of Herod he was leading a military campaign in Galatia, so he was based in a geographically distant part of the empire and somewhat preoccupied.
This is a clever apologetic slight-of-hand, but it still assumes that the text of Luke is incorrect, because the author uses the word apographo, to enroll, or register. Joseph and Mary specifically went to Bethlehem to register there.
But, but Dan.... Christmas is coming. Please don't be a Grinch. Save the Nativity geeky stuff for the summer pls. I will enjoy your comments as always but there may be a better time and place for this. Tip: Don't you dare mention Santa!😟
@00:45 > _"Here's the first big problem: Rome conducted a lot of censuses; they absolutely never _*_required people [to] travel to their _**_-ancestral home-_**_ town to register;_*_ they registered in the towns that they lived and worked [in]."_ *{1}* _Luke 2:3_ does not state or even imply that Rome _"required people [to] travel to their ancestral home town to register;"_ rather, _Luke 2:3_ simply states in just two words, ἑαυτοῦ/heautou • πόλιν/polin *(i.e. his/her/their • city),* and πόλιν/polin *(per Greek Strong's Concordance G4172)* is never translated as home; it simply means city-not home. ἑαυτοῦ/heautou • πόλιν/polin can be interpreted as city of birth, or past residence, or maybe even current residence, but it does not mean _"ancestral home;"_ nowhere does Luke state the phrase _"ancestral home,"_ because _"ἑαυτοῦ/heautou"_ does not mean _"ancestral,"_ and _"πόλιν/polin"_ does not mean _"home."_ Luke did not state _"ancestral home;"_ that is a lie. *{2}* _Luke 2:2_ states that the census was _"taken"_ or _"came to pass"_ per Greek Strong's Concordance G1096 *(ἐγένετο/egeneto)* when Quirinius was governor-not that it was _"completed"_ then. This is made clear by the following phrase in _Luke 2:2,_ πρώτη/prōtē • ἐγένετο/egeneto *(i.e. first • taken || began • to-happen).* Your two _"critical"_ problems; *{1},* that _Luke 2:3_ states or implies that Rome has _"required people [to] travel to their ancestral home town to register;"_ and *{2},* that _Luke 2:2_ states or implies that the census being discussed was completed in 6 CE; are not supported by the data in Luke's account alone and is absolutely false. > _"...introduces an entirely irreconcilable historical datum."_ No, it doesn't. > _"The two chapters are irreconcilable, and the story of Jesus' birth is not historical in the Gospel of Luke."_ False.
I've never been asked to return to my city of birth for any census, and I was born in the days of steamships, and trains, and stagecoaches. Certainly, travel 2,000 or so years ago, would be a bit more difficult.
@@What_If_We_Tried to make it even worse, it wasn't even the city of his birth. It was the "city of his 'dad's' ancestral lineage." Hence, house of David and Bethlehem. If someone showed up today asking you to go back to the town of your ancestral lineage town would you even know where to begin? How far back do you stop? Shouldn't we all be heading to the gates of Eden?
Do I have this right? • 4 B.C. - Herod dies. • 6 A.D. - Quirinius becomes governor of Syria. • 9 A.D. - The ethnarch (?) is deposed; a census is ordered to correct for his ineptitude. (?) - I got this spelling from the subtitles, but I don't trust it.
I'm not sure I entirely buy Herod's death being in 4 BCE. There is another prevailing date accepted by some scholars of 1 BCE. Source: Finegan "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" pp. 298-301. You might be able to find it online. In my own research, I also have the date of 6/7 CE for Quirinius becoming governor (same source, page 303). I show the ethnarch, Herod Archelaus, being banished in 6 CE, however.
Luke 1 doesn't strictly say that Jesus was born under the reign of Herod or immediately after. John the Baptist definitely was, but Mary was only told that she will be pregnant, it didn't state that she got pregnant in that chapter. So if there is a 6 year gap between the two first chapters, it all squares out. (Ignoring the "travelling home for census" part). I'm not saying that that is the most obvious reading of those two chapters, but every time I bring up what I think of as contradictions in the bible, I'm told that the flaw is in my assumption that two events follow immediately after each other, not in the text itself. How to argue against that?
Hey, neither is Matthew's. The birth narrative is a literary echo of the death narrative. It's fiction meant to amplify themes from Mark and probably to meet demands for more Jesus fanfiction and possibly a kind of apologetic. In modern comic book and gaming parlance, it's power creep. As new people take hold of the story, the main character grows in power and importance because the old symbols are familiar so new audiences want new symbols which try to out do the older, more mundane ones. Superman used to be impressive just leaping over buildings. Nowadays he can toss an entire planet at a dude. Likewise, it used to be impressive that Jesus burst onto the scene fighting demons. Now he needs a special origin story and his previous deeds need to be amplified or outdone in some way. It's all literature. Any history present is just there for verisimilitude.
They're also trying to link jesus to the messiah prophecies, including the virgin birth, which was a mistranslation, and the multiple different locations (hence ehy he moves around so much, jesus has to be from four different places).
@@user-cw3ox2nn5t "from a Christian theological standpoint, the birth and death narratives of Jesus are viewed as historical events that hold deep spiritual significance." Yeah, but like, who cares? Theology is just head canon. It's the thing people want the text to say. It's arbitrary and only tells you about the person doing the interpreting. I don't care about what random people want the text to say, I care about what the authors wanted to say, the way they crafted their stories and the way the texts were informed by the broader history and culture. "The death of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, is also not an attempt to amplify or outdo previous deeds." It is. Paul doesn't really describe the death scene in much detail. Mark's author comes along and fleshes it out a bit with the 3x foreshadowing, setting it in Jerusalem and other literary flourishes. Matthew's author builds on that and adds a whole post death sequence. Eventually we get to the zombie apocalypse and walking, talking cross thing. It's the exact phenomenon I mentioned. The story gets more elaborate and Jesus gets shinier and shinier as each successive author builds on the previous works. Oh, and funny thing about that passage from Corinthians, there were no gospels at the time. A small ascetic cult couldn't have afforded to produce such things. Elsewhere Paul confirms that he knows of Jesus from scriptures and visions. So, what scripture was Paul referring to when he wrote that? What would a first century jew, as Paul was, have considered scripture? Something to think about when considering the literariness of it all.
@@user-cw3ox2nn5t "Theology is not arbitrary. It is a systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths." So... it's arbitrary. You have no access to your god. You have no capacity to measure it or even ask it things. You have a book which you interpret the meaning of, a book whose meaning you acknowledge that people do not agree on. So "religious truths" are just head canon, as I already said.
@@user-cw3ox2nn5t I agree. Paul was most likely using some version of texts from the torah. You claim that that the author of Isaiah was predicting Jesus. The question though, is that really the case? Do you think there might be any problems with that assertion? Do you think there might be some problems with the common arguments for this? I can tell you right now that if you poke around on this channel's backlog for a bit, you will find answers to all of these questions.
I wonder why the author of Luke would make a claim that his contemporary audience, which i presume were virtually entirely residents within the Roman Empire, would know was untrue. Surely they’d all experienced a census, and had seen that they were not required to travel to the lands of their births.
I’ve known this argument for a while and I fully agree that these accounts aren’t historical, but one question always comes to mind: in the time the gospels were being circulated, wouldnt people have known that there was never a census conducted as described in Luke?
I doubt it. The gospels came after Paul's letters, somewhere around 60 years after the birth. Before the internet, modern accounting practices, and the scientific method, I'm surprised the error in the time-line isn't an order of magnitude greater.
There WAS a census, just not one that required that you travelled to your ancestral home and the (potential) cencus under Quirinius could not have been called while Herod was king (Herod died ten years before Quirinius became Governor)
It would have been two or three generations prior. How many government policies from 70+ years ago do you remember? And that's in a society with standard public education and daily information from the news media.
@@ronjones1414 Yes, agreed. In 2023, even with all of those advantages, people can't agree on what is happening _in real time,_ so absolutely believable that what some people might have "known" at the time has little relevance.
Counterpoint to the other answers to this question: Luke was written around 75CE. There were certainly people alive that could remember something that happened 70 years prior. My parents and parents in law can remember things that happened in 1953 quite well. But those people may or may not have been exposed to Luke, and if it was ahistorical at the time, what mechanism would allow them to make that known to later historians?
Well done. What do you think of the Nativity story in Matthew? Carrier says "no reasonable historian should regard [the Matthew Nativity story] as anything but fiction" but does not address it further. I myself am not a reasonable historian and do not claim to be. So your reaction would be interesting. Setting aside the unverifiable religious events, the most obvious issue with the Matthew Nativity story is that if Herod had exterminated all the children under 2 in some large area, we would know of it by other means.
It seems that Matthew is setting Jesus up as the new and better Moses - Herod echoes Pharaoh, they go to Egypt, there’s a wandering in the wilderness, he quotes Deuteronomy and then reinterprets the law in the Sermon on the Mount… the list goes on. So it’s a theological account more than a historical one
Much like the weird census. There's also the fact that neither account mentions the weird things that happen in the other one. It seems unlikely that if both were recording real historical events known to them about Jesus's birth and youth, that Luke wouldn't know or bother mentioning the murders of children or that Jesus had fled to Egypt.
@@Cornelius135 Christians always seem to want the Resurrection to be a historical event, so I feel confused when they say that only parts of the story are historical. The true parts need to be consistent with each other and with other sources of information we have about historical events. Offering a mixture of true and false events as evidence without any indication which parts are supposed to be true discredits the whole process. Is there some other book that indicates which parts of the Bible are supposed to be historical? Various Christian sects have various catechisms, but I rage quit when the Catholic catechism said the books of Timothy were written by Paul. They weren't even trying. I also rage quit when a similar Mormon book said the same thing, and then I forgot the name of the book and now I can't find it. Can anyone here point to a book with a name somewhat like "What I Believe" written about Mormonism by a Mormon in 1920 or so? If you aren't Christian, none of this is your problem.
@@Cornelius135 But did Jesus reinterpret the law on the Sermon on the Mount? Mt 5:18 seems to say He incorporated all the old law into His teachings, so I assume he was adding a bunch of additional laws instead of reinterpreting existing ones. And then I can't grasp how Christians justify not doing the crazy things listed in the Old Testament. They don't seem to take their own doctrine seriously. I agree with Dan that everything is constantly renegotiated. So why keep these books around?
An attempt to harmonize the error by translating prote in verse 2 as “before” and not “first”. Two problems: prote is a feminine nominative singular adjective--translating prote as “before” only applies to the genitive case. Secondly, the phrase in Luke is a cliche in Greek historiography where “prote” is translated as “first” (see Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 1.55; Xenophon too but I am too lazy to look up the citation).
Is it likely or unlikely that Luke was writing a story he assumed people would know to be false? Did he expect folks to see it theologically, or was he hoping to convince people (who presumably knew Rome didn't do censuses that way) that the census happened?
He was trying to convince people that Jesus was somehow both from Nazareth and Bethlehem. I don't think the details of the story really mattered that much, only that he somehow "fulfilled prophesy". Besides, nobody alive when the gospel of Luke was written would have remembered that this census didn't take place.
There's no point in trying to psychoanalyze ancient writers and their motivations. Robyn Faith Walsh's book is probably your best source for that. Regarding the census of Quirinius, "Luke" was probably using Josephus's War of the Jews and adapting it to his own narrative needs. Acts does the same thing, with some tell-tale mistakes that give away its reliance on Josephus.
I think it just goes to show that the stories were written way later to people from a completely different context, and will not really expected to be scrutinized that deeply because the copies of it were limited, and only right among us certain group of religious elite.
I try to prove the writers from the Scriptures! For Luke and The Acts of the Apostles which describes the founding of the Christian congregation as a result of the operation of the holy spirit. Luke picks up the account where his Gospel left off. In Acts, Luke records important events of the period covering approximately 28 years. The greater part of the material in the first 12 chapters reports the activities of Peter, and the remaining 16 chapters, the activities of Paul. In three instances, the apostle Paul mentions Luke by name. For some years he was the constant companion of Paul, who called him “the beloved physician.”-Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 24. The references to Luke in the Epistles of Paul give some valuable information about Luke. Colossians 4:11 and 14 seem to indicate that Luke was a Gentile and a physician. The latter is supported, but not proved, by the interest shown by Luke in medical matters, as in Luke 4:38; 5:12; and 8:43. It is also interesting that early tradition adds that Luke was a physician of Antioch who wrote his Gospel in Achaia.
The Canon Ezra 7:6 This Ezʹra came up from Babylon. He was a copyist* who was well-versed in* the Law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given. The king granted everything he requested, for the hand of Jehovah his God was upon him. The expression “Bible canon” came to denote the collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine inspired Scripture. The term “canon” is derived from the Hebrew word qa·nehʹ (reed). Reeds were used as a rule or measuring device. (Eze 41:8) Fittingly, the Bible canon, or catalog of inspired books, enables the reader to “measure” faith, doctrine, and conduct. The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was established by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. According to Jewish tradition, the skilled scribe and inspired Bible writer Ezra began the work, and it was completed by Nehemiah. (Ezr 7:6, ftn.) The writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the gifts of the spirit were operative on Christ’s followers. (Joh 14:26; Re 1:1) Some Christians had the gift of “discernment of inspired expressions.” (1Co 12:10) Thus, they could, without referring the matter to a supposed church council, determine which of the letters the congregation received were inspired of God. With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end. Therefore, with the book of Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his three letters, the Bible canon was closed. The testimony of later, noninspired writers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had guided and authorized.
That doesn't change the fact that Jesus was born but it does make you wonder why include facts that weren't facts. Luke wrote this for a certain person probably. Maybe this person would believe the claim more because it included certain names.
The standard theory is that both Luke and Matthew needed Jesus to be born in Bethlehem for Davidic prophecy reasons, but it was commonly known that he was from Nazareth, so they had to make up something to explain it. And they both took different approaches.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 As with all prophecy...maybe they read the prophecy wrong. Just like in the story of anakin. Also no one talked to his mama? his mama needed a book. It's a surprise we have as much information as we do. They legit lived through this and wrote down nothing.
@@gennie4779 Dr. McClellan has videos explaining problems with "prophecies" in Isaiah 7, and the first thing to know is that Isaiah 7 is not a prophecy (-according to Dr. McClellan). Rather, it is a description of signs / evidence that the prophet says that king Ahaz will witness, and to understand that his southern kingdom will not be destroyed by their enemies. Verse 11 says to "ask for a sign...". In verse 14, again it is repeated that king Ahaz will receive a "sign", in other words when you see this happening, you will know. a) verses 1-9 provide the backdrop / context, b) verses 10-13 describe the initial interaction with the prophet c) verses 14-16 are the signs to look for d) verses 17-25, are God's assurances to king Ahaz, via the prophet, revealing that the southern kingdom will not only be saved from the enemy, but flourish. e) chapter 8 continues on with the narrative. The rest of Isaiah, ending in chapter 66, basically describes what God expects from the Nation of Israel, how they're screwing up, and what they have to do, if they want to continue to receive his protection, and blessings, and describing the eventual permanent restoration of the Kingdom of Israel, and the destruction of all evil doers within and without the kingdom, and that in those days of the new heavens and the new earth, the "survivors" of all mankind will come to Jerusalem to worship God. Note: Nothing about playing harps in heaven, while sitting on clouds. Add Zechariah 14 into the mix for a much clearer idea of what "salvation" looks like, and is promised to the Nation of Israel in the future. FYI: I used to believe all this stuff, but always had nagging suspicions or doubts that I repressed, as I needed to believe in order to be in the eternal good graces of God. But several years ago, I started investigating all these biblical claims, with every bible I had, even bought Hebrew / English versions, dusted of my lexicons / dictionaries, and bought a Brown-Driver-Briggs to add to the collection, then tried to disprove all the naysayers. The end result, is that I am no longer religious, but think that there is a Creator out there that probably initiated the Big Bang, but beyond that, it's just the guesses of humanity.
@@tesladrew2608 If they are farmers with livestock / sheep herders they have those things to tend to, e.g., someone has to feed the animals and protect the granaries. Also, there are people that repair things, physicians, the elderly, the infirm, and those who are disabled. But ignoring all that, where are the verifiable historical records of this census? I'd really like to know.
What does the bible say Luke 2:4-7 TPT So Joseph and his wife, Mary, left Nazareth, a village in Galilee, and journeyed to their hometown in Judea, to the village of Bethlehem, King David's ancient home. They were required to register there, since they were both direct descendants of David. *The OT says the Davidic line ended in 586BCE with the death of Josiah's grandson at the hands of the Chaldean Babylonians*
@@What_If_We_Tried Since you asked politely, Jehoiakim, in the Old Testament (II Kings 23:34-24:17; Jer. 22:13-19; II Chron. 36:4-8), son of King Josiah and king of Judah (c. 609-598 bc). When Josiah died at Megiddo, his younger son, Jehoahaz (or Shallum), was chosen king by the Judahites, but the Egyptian conqueror Necho took Jehoahaz to Egypt and made Jehoiakim king. Jehoiakim reigned under the protection of Necho for some time and paid heavy tribute. When the new Chaldean Empire under Nebuchadrezzar II defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish (605), however, Jehoiakim changed his allegiance from the Egyptian king to Nebuchadrezzar. He remained loyal for three years and then revolted against Nebuchadrezzar. After several battles and invasions, Nebuchadrezzar led the decisive invasion against Judah and besieged Jerusalem (598). Jehoiakim died at this time, but the circumstances of his death remain uncertain. Zedekiah, (flourished 6th century bc), king of Judah (597-587/586 bc) whose reign ended in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of most of the Jews to Babylon Zedekiah was King Josiah's grandson. It ended the Davidic line of kings. Other bible verses indicate that there were other family members who survived, but none of them became king.
@@What_If_We_Tried Dam, I posted the 2nd Kings verses and YT deleted them. Zedekiah, (flourished 6th century bc), king of Judah (597-587/586 bc) whose reign ended in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of most of the Jews to Babylon. Mattaniah was the son of Josiah and the uncle of Jehoiachin, the reigning king of Judah.Nov 17, 2 Zedekiah was King Josiah's grandson
Wouldn’t it be more accurate (if less sweepingly dramatic) to say that Luke’s nativity account is “not historically accurate” or “not historically reliable”? “Not historical” strikes me as synonymous with “100% fictional.” Don’t most scholars agree that Jesus’s birth was a historical event? Precision > clickbait.
If this were a single data point then, yeah, maybe you have a point. But that isn't the case. It's one of a number of such data points, which collectively introduce a lot of uncertainty, (And, no, it's probably not accurate to say that "most scholars agree that Jesus's birth was a historical event." To adhere to your interest in "precision," one could reasonably say "many scholars," or perhaps "most scholars in the specific field of (x), but a minority of scholars in this other field (y) and almost no scholars in this third field (z)." Something of that sort.)
The entire premise of he story makes no sense. 1:Rome never had a census that required you to return to your forefathers home. 2: the line of David ended in 586 BCE 3: Making the entire story "not historical"
@@fordprefect5304Excellent points. Evangelicals believe that the entire body of text is divinely revealed scripture thus inherent without mistakes and contradictions. I like your analysis much better though. Peace.
Doesn't the Old testament end the line of David in 586 BCE with the death of Josiah's grandson by the Chaldean Babylonians. And with the assassination of Josiah and his 3 sons around 609 BCE by the Egyptians. So again why were they going to Bethlehem?
This will convince no one, unfortunately. The default assumption of Christian apologetics when the Bible contains a blatant historical contradiction is that the historical record, no matter how well attested, must be wrong- they will not entertain the idea even that the Bible writer may have made an error (not even if you give them the out that humans are imperfect and may have made a mistake recording something conveyed to them by God).
To be fair, there are sections of Christianity that do NOT believe the bible is inerrant. However, evangelicals tend to take all the oxygen in the room with their nonsense so that's what we mainly hear.
@@StradigosExcellent point. Evangelicals believe that the entire body of text is divinely revealed scripture thus inherent without mistakes and contradictions. Ironically, Muslims do the same thing with the Quran!
Who cares. They've been feeding us milk in Sunday School for decades if not centuries. Thank god for scholars who can actually dig deep and give us something to go off of instead of giving us another theological take.
Is Luke an attempt at historical narrative that fails or is it not even trying to be historical? In other words, is the author trying to portray history? Or is it their some other intent by including the census and taxes etc?
The Gospel of Mark is the earliest to have been written, and begins with Jesus already an adult. Luke and Matthew both clearly had access to Mark as they contain many of the same events but both add to Mark in different ways, including the nativity. Both Luke and Matthew also had access to earlier writings like the Hebrew Bible and make a deliberate effort to have Jesus fulfil as many Old Testament prophecies as they could in their telling of his life. So the nativity in Luke is almost certainly a confabulation in order to fulfil as much prophecy as possible.
Rather than the exception the concept of people going to the census was the norm . Roman citizens had to go to Rome for their census . If outside of Rome they had to return for the census . As the empire grew the census was taken out of Rome into the occupied territories . Rome was regarded as ancestral for its citizens . People had to go to the census ,the census didn't wander around the countryside looking for them to tax . Ancestral towns and cities would have been ideal places for the census to be based . The Roman census should occur every 5 years , but this varied dependent on circumstance . In the empire this time period was variable . Also Augustus was the Emperor who revived the census on a regular basis .
So you're saying Dr. McClellan got it wrong? If so, do you have any links to a scholarly paper, or book that refutes Dr. McClellan's statements? Thanks...
@@andydixon4085 thanks for the reference. I just took a quick look at it, and it only covers 225 - 28 BCE. And on page 337, it seems that all persons were only compelled to travel, if, they wanted to be "enrolled". Moreover in this Wikipedia page, [edit: there is a quote of biblical scholar Raymond Brown], about the Census of Quirinius - under the heading, Gospel of Luke, and the last paragraph, "Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judaea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judaea was new at the time.[15] Catholic priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown postulates that Judas's place of origin may have led the author of Luke to think that Galilee was subject to the census.[16][d] Brown also points out that in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke the Evangelist (the traditional author of both books) dates Judas's census-incited revolt as following the rebellion of Theudas, which took place four decades later." And the quote of Raymond E. Brown is noteworthy, as he was a renowned biblical scholar. Thanks again for the response, and reference.
As you say they would compelled to travel only if they wanted to but fail to say where they travelled to . Also it stops at 28bc but that is a historical record that would be known to exist as the census moved away from Rome . They were a lot of advantages to be enrolled in the census for the Romans as the numbers enrolled infer . Also can you please explain who was in charge of Galilee and Judea at that time .
@@alyssabeale1095 I don't think that's true at all. He considers himself a Christian and actively attends church. He is just sharing "the data" from the Bible and allowing people to decide what it means for them.
I think Dan addressed that briefly. The author is trying to connect "Jesus of Nazareth" to the city of David, to connect Jesus to royalty and the prophesies.
Source for Herod Archelaus being deposed in 9 CE? I show 6 CE in the tenth year of his reign. Source: Finegan "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" pp. 298-301. Page 300 section 516 to be more precise.
So luke has a censes and matthew has a slaughtering of the babies Both of which most certainly should have historical records outside the book of matthew and luke I'm not saying they're bad stories I like the stories and I'll celebrate christmas the rest of my life But obviously they're not historical. I suppose if you really really want to stretch hard Maybe the writers of the Gospels consulted with Mary, the mother of Jesus. But she was so old by that time that she got the details mixed up and didn't tell the same story to matthew and to luke. But that's quite an implausible stretch now isn't it?
It is interesting that the census is found in Luke, and not in Matthew, who was the tax man. Census taking is absolutely forbidden in the Torah, and so the birth of Jesus taking place in the context of a census shows that he entered a world that was in a state of sin. It is true that the Holy Land was not part of the Province of Syria, but the governors of that province were the closest civilian, non-military authority. Josephus reports that on several occasions they had to intervene when order broke down in the Holy Land. We are projecting back onto Ancient Rome our own American experience of the census of the whole nation every tenth year. Back then, if the Emperor decreed a census, it would have to take place in each jurisdiction according to the prudential judgment of the responsible officials. It is quite possible that a general census might cover a period of several years. Quirinius was the senate-appointed governor of Syria when the census took place there, but the Holy Land reported more directly to the Emperor through petty kings and military prefects (not actually called procurators). So, yes, the census could have happened in the Holy Land before it was conducted in Syria. Joseph had connections to Bethlehem because it was the hometown of David, but it may also have been the place where he was born and raised, and owned property. If so, he needed to be counted there instead of Bethlehem. Luke does not say that an angel ordered Joseph to take Mary to Bethlehem; he says that he complied with secular law in doing so.
I feel bad for Jesus. The guy lived a short life, had followers, family and friends, and after his death people who never met him start to make stuff up about it..... dude's ghost must be pretty mad....
Why would the census-travel-myth survive? People would know that the story wasn't true. It's not easy to coast on ignorance (like the Herod/Quirinis timeline) ... the migration to the hometown is a huge historical event. And the believers of Luke found the story plausible.
@@fordprefect5304 Ok, but just because someone is a theologian that shouldn’t mean we assume that are wrong. (E.g. Albert Schweitzer and Dale C. Allison Jr.)
@@fordprefect5304 And to add to this, Concordia University in Chicago is LCMS, which is one of the Lutheran Synods that holds "Biblical inerrancy" (which is a doctrine so stupid I don't know where to begin). Anyway, if he was going to publish on this topic, I don't think there's any way he could say "Luke was wrong and Josephus is right" and keep his job. I'm not normally one for ad-hominem attacks, but if someone believes in (or belongs to an organization that believes in) biblical inerrancy, they cannot conduct real biblical research and can only engage in lame apologetics.
@@swiftsea6225 So reconcile this Luke 9 28 Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. 30 Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. *Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient omnipresent god know Moses is a myth* So Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend? And that is what you believe. Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE* Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua. Why would I take anything in the bible at face value. Before you tell me Moses existed please provide proof. I will help you, not a shred of evidence has been found to support Exodus
@Dan McLellan, why can't you ever debunk anyone who calls you out?? Just admit you have NO IDEA of what you're talking about because you're not understanding the Bible CORRECTLY
@@81caspen Just this: ua-cam.com/video/zPrFl8GUQYg/v-deo.html&lc=UgxHD7uW-1Fk4irHUUB4AaABAg. Looking forward to be debunked, though *(I learn so much from these experiments).*
@@81caspen Within that link, search for a comment in the UA-cam comment section with the tag *[Highlighted comment].* For some odd reason, UA-cam does not anchor-scroll to linked comments and forces users to manually find them on their own. This link tags my comment which contains my argument that I'm waiting for Dan to debunk. If you can't find it, then let me know.
You REALLY shouldn't be pretending to talk about things you VERY CLEARLY do NOT understand. It's ALWAYS you atheist that think you know what the Bible is referring to but get it wrong
@alyssabeale1095 Dan has been studying the bible for many years as a scholar, so to say he doesn't understand, is pretending, gets it wrong, is rather arrogant - and the other thing *you* got wrong is he's not an atheist. If you had a clue where he is coming from as a scholar you wouldn't have made such an ill-informed comment.
@@glenwillson5073 It is clear and explicit in the Torah that it is God's commandment, remaining forever without change, addition, or diminishment, as Deuteronomy 13:1 states: "All these matters which I command to you, you shall be careful to perform. You may not add to it or diminish from it," and Deuteronomy 29:28 states: "What is revealed is for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah." This teaches that we are commanded to fulfill all the Torah's directives forever. It is also said: "It is an everlasting statute for all your generations," and Deuteronomy 30:12 states: "It is not in the heavens." This teaches that a prophet can no longer add a new precept to the Torah.
So what Jesus are you referring too??? Your Jesus or the Biblical Jesus?? If you mewn the Biblical Jesus, ypu got it COMPLETELY wrong and are NOT looking into CONTEXT
In order to claim to be a Bible scooter, you need to have ACTUALLY studied the Bible CORRECTLY and NOT what your personal religion had told you it says for thousands of years. The Bible is a CHRISTIAN book and NOT a Morman one. I highly encourage you to REALLY study the Bible
@alyssabeale1095 You are a bible scooter then ? Dan doesn't let his personal beliefs colour his scholarship Dan doesn't claim to be a bible scooter, or even a bible scholar. He IS one. (Scholar that is, altho he may be a scooter too =o) ) You're very patronising and a bad speller to boot. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that Dan is not attacking the bible. If you listened to him instead of assuming he's the enemy, you might learn something.
So the more I look into your vidoes and read the comments, I see that you're a Mormon and that explains a LOT! I hope and pray that you find the truth of God and his word
![Lord of Spirits - The Book of Jubilees [Ep. 92]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/24ff3KmsyxQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Pretty sure Luke was born on Polis Massa, and grew up on Tatooine. None of that is even in the book
Yeah, and it didn't even mention his dad had been a virgin birth.
@@keith6706 crazy that all the gospel writers were just stealing George Lucas the whole time
He kissed his sister!
And all that poor bastard wanted to do, was go to Tosche Station and pick up his goddam power converters!
@@stevenbatke2475 friggin uncle Owen
Thanks for ruinning Christmas, Dan. You made grandma cry.
LOL hahahahaha
@What_If_We_Tried
She'll forget all about Christmas when the insurance company refuses to renew her home owner's policy.
Trying to write an apologetic for this in bible college was my first step in abandoning a belief in biblical inerrancy. It was remarkable to me how far some people went to argue its historicity. Great video, thanks Dan!
@@bigpig5998 In an ideal world people would interrogate any text prior to reaching a conclusion as to its veracity or value. In this far-from-ideal world people use texts, religious texts in particular, as ammunition to attack others and as support for pre-existing, often unsound, pre-suppositions. Of all of these pre-suppositions, the idea that faith deserves respect, as a state of mind or as a methodology, has the least basis in reality. People can have faith in anything. People can assert or defend any proposition, even self-contradictory ones, based on faith. I agree with you that faith seeks reason and understanding to deepen faith. I disagree with you that this provides the individual or society with any value that could not be achieved better by abandoning faith and embracing a more sound relationship with reality.
@@bigpig5998 I think the problem is that most people don’t realize that biblical inerrancy is a theological layer on top of the Bible, and not something that the Bible itself claims. And even if it did claim that, it would be circular reasoning. But it has been so deep rooted into our understanding by our fundamentalist upbringing that it is so hard to get rid of. So the moment we find an error in the Bible we give up on the whole thing. That said, even if I understand this, I just see the Bible as an interesting archive of ancient thoughts, and nothing to do with how to live my life currently.
Why is 70 AD important. Why not reset our calendar at Jesus birth.
Do you know when the Gentile Times Ended. How did the Magi know Jesus was born as King. But the Roman Empire of King Herod and the Jews did not. They were following the Trinity of Sun, Moon, and Star Worship. Look at the Sumerian solar system picture. Jesus is the true light ,The Bright Morning Star! The same star a person puts over a Christmas Tree! Our calendar was reset and counted backwards to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70AD. Jesus shows up at 12 and 30 years old. Why did the Jews think Jesus was almost 50. There is a difference of 20 years. So when did the Gentile Times End. Using bible chronology for 1914 or according to history 1934.
Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
Mark 16:8
In the Gospel of Mark.
If the women tell no one then, Who is !
What each Gospel story is about.
The four living creatures!
Matthew Who was!
Mark Who is!
Luke Who is Coming!
John The Lamb of YHVH!
The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
The Canon
Ezra 7:6 This Ezʹra came up from Babylon. He was a copyist* who was well-versed in* the Law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given. The king granted everything he requested, for the hand of Jehovah his God was upon him.
The expression “Bible canon” came to denote the collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine inspired Scripture. The term “canon” is derived from the Hebrew word qa·nehʹ (reed). Reeds were used as a rule or measuring device. (Eze 41:8) Fittingly, the Bible canon, or catalog of inspired books, enables the reader to “measure” faith, doctrine, and conduct. The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was established by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. According to Jewish tradition, the skilled scribe and inspired Bible writer Ezra began the work, and it was completed by Nehemiah. (Ezr 7:6, ftn.) The writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the gifts of the spirit were operative on Christ’s followers. (Joh 14:26; Re 1:1) Some Christians had the gift of “discernment of inspired expressions.” (1Co 12:10) Thus, they could, without referring the matter to a supposed church council, determine which of the letters the congregation received were inspired of God. With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end. Therefore, with the book of Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his three letters, the Bible canon was closed. The testimony of later, noninspired writers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had guided and authorized.
The point of a census in ancient times was to work out how much stuff everyone had so they could work out how much tax everyone needed to pay. And by stuff I mean things like land and livestock. So the task of the census would be made impossibly difficult if everyone is forced to travel a great distance away and leave all of their stuff behind.
Agreed - the way Luke had Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test. The crazy part is that people (at least eventually) believed it.
It also has very little value if everyone goes to their hometown. If you want to know what people have and produce, when they travel they can only take what they can carry, and they won't be doing their usual work in their home towns.
@@bigpig5998 thanks ChatGPT
@@bigpig5998 you say "hile the logistics of the census as described in Luke's Gospel may seem impractical by modern standards, this does not definitively debunk its historical plausibility." Well I'm sorry but the story is highly implausible, period. As Dan has shown in many videos, the Bible is riddled with so much implausibility and an apparent contradiction that it makes no sense to take it more seriously than the scripture of countless other religions. The honest truth is that most people are sheep who believe the religion that pertains to their time/place in history.
@@bigpig5998 you’re not saying anything . You are basically claiming that, even if it appears highly improbable, the mere fact that it could be even remotely possibly means that we should believe it. If you took that logic throughout the rest of your life, you would be making a lot of very poor decisions.
The thing that always got me about the census as a kid was how did they determine how far back to go? Joseph goes to Bethlehem because of David, but that was 1000 years prior and you couldn't expect everybody to know that kind of detailed family history because of the exile. Even with modern records, if you asked me to go back to my families town of 1000 years ago, I would not have the foggiest.
Also, which family village. Think about how many ancestors you have at 1000 years ago and how spread out they are. You’ll have ancestors in far off countries. Which ancestor and village do you pick.
@@aidenmartin6674Well, presumably only the male line counted. But that doesn't really help that much. And it's nonsense, anyway - what exactly is the Roman interest here? Rome was mostly all about the money (they were as close to capitalism as it was possible to be before the Industrial Revolution - incidentally, they had some decent water-powered industry already - and the state was pretty much designed to be corrupt, with very few checks and balances), and after that, somewhat about the Roman polytheistic religions. Which the Jews did not follow. So it makes no sense from the money angle, and it makes no sense from the religion angle. (For example, when you got a job as governor of a province, it was expected that you'd leave that job significantly richer than you got it.)
There's also the problem of even if you did know what town your ancestors lived in 1000 years ago does it even exist still.
There's also the reverse problem. It's been shown that everyone alive today who has some Western European ancestry somewhere in their family is descended from everyone in the 9th Century Europe who still has descendants, which includes Charlemagne. So, if some alien empire conquered Earth and demanded that everyone descended from Charlemagne had to travel to Vaires-sur-Marne to register, you'd end up with several billion people having to go there.
Same with David. Assuming such a person existed and had living descendant, after 1000 years literally everyone in the province of Syria, let alone just the area of Israel, who had some Jewish ancestry somewhere in their bloodline would have been descended from him. Busy place, Bethlehem.
(Incidentally, this is also the problem with the whole Da Vinci Code nonsense: either Jesus has no living descendants or almost everyone on Earth is one.)
Yeah, on the one hand, if king David existed, every single person in Judaea would have been his descendant. And on the other, the idea that such detailed genealogical records existed in the 1st century CE despite centuries of conquest and exile, but conveniently disappeared without a trace afterward, does not seem plausible.
Bruh, your Christmas videos are bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase "troll the ancient yuletide carol." I'm gonna run out of popcorn if you keep doing this.
Since Yuletide is far older than Christmas, I wanna see Dan do an awesome video on that.
I find your videos absolutely captivating. Please keep them coming.
Mica 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
1 Samuel 16:1 Jehovah eventually said to Samuel: “How long will you mourn for Saul now that I have rejected him from ruling as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go. I will send you to Jesʹse the Bethʹle·hem·ite, because I have selected from among his sons a king for myself.”
John 7:42 Does the scripture not say that the Christ is coming from the offspring of David and from Bethʹle·hem, the village where David was?”
Genesis 35:19 So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephʹrath, that is, Bethʹle·hem.
Luke 2:4 Of course, Joseph also went up from Galʹi·lee, from the city of Nazʹa·reth, into Ju·deʹa, to David’s city, which is called Bethʹle·hem, because of his being a member of the house and family of David.
Matthew 2:6 ‘And you, O Bethʹle·hem of the land of Judah, are by no means the most insignificant city among the governors of Judah, for out of you will come a governing one, who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
I remember reading through all four gospels and everything might has well taken place in middle earth.
Man, remember when Jesus fed a crowd of thousands with a handful of fish and bread and the apostles were amazed? Then a couple weeks later, he feeds fewer people with even more fish and bread and the apostles are still amazed! "We knew you had it in you Rabbi, we just never knew you had it in you twice."
You will be amazed when you understand what the 12 and 7 means. Mark 8:17 Noting this, he said to them: “Why do you argue over your having no bread? Do you not yet perceive and understand? Are your hearts still dull in understanding? 18 ‘Though having eyes, do you not see; and though having ears, do you not hear?’ Do you not remember 19 when I broke the five loaves for the 5,000 men, how many baskets full of fragments you collected?” They said to him: “Twelve.” 20 “When I broke the seven loaves for the 4,000 men, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?” And they said to him: “Seven.” 21 With that he said to them: “Do you not yet understand?”
Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
Mark 16:8
In the Gospel of Mark.
If the women tell no one then, Who is !
What each Gospel story is about.
The four living creatures!
Matthew Who was!
Mark Who is!
Luke Who is Coming!
John The Lamb of YHVH!
The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
Why is 70 AD important. Why not reset our calendar at Jesus birth.
Do you know when the Gentile Times Ended. How did the Magi know Jesus was born as King. But the Roman Empire of King Herod and the Jews did not. They were following the Trinity of Sun, Moon, and Star Worship. Look at the Sumerian solar system picture. Jesus is the true light ,The Bright Morning Star! The same star a person puts over a Christmas Tree! Our calendar was reset and counted backwards to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70AD. Jesus shows up at 12 and 30 years old. Why did the Jews think Jesus was almost 50. There is a difference of 20 years. So when did the Gentile Times End. Using bible chronology for 1914 or according to history 1934.
I love how you explain things logially and simply. I am a very big fan since video #1!!!!
Damn, that truth thing hurts
Jesus was born 3 years before Christ
There's also the problem that Galilee was a separate self-ruling kingdom (tetrarchy), so if Joseph lived in Nazareth, the census of Judaea would never have applied to him.
TheTetrachy was after Herods death ,they belonged to his children . His kingdom was divided by the Romans . The Romans changed the boundaries of palestine continuously . Also Syria seemed to be the governing body for the entire region . Jews were expected to attend the various religious festivals held in Jerusalem and travelled from far and wide .
Thanks for teaching me about what's really historical in the bible!! I really appreciate it. :)
Shhhh! We cant say these things out loud D. Mac.
I was wondering if youve done a video on the Resurrection accounts of The Gospels, I heard one scholar say he found 17 contradictions among the four accounts, was wondering what your thoughts were about that ? They do seem to have some varying details also in the ascension accounts of luke and acts
Thanks Dan.
" Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus"
The problem with this timeline is that before Quirinius was made Legate of Syria he was magistrate in Antioch, and before that during the reign of Herod he was leading a military campaign in Galatia, so he was based in a geographically distant part of the empire and somewhat preoccupied.
When I brought this up, my friend told me that, Joseph was fleeing the census.
This is a clever apologetic slight-of-hand, but it still assumes that the text of Luke is incorrect, because the author uses the word apographo, to enroll, or register. Joseph and Mary specifically went to Bethlehem to register there.
The Luke Gospel lectures by Rudolf Steiner have an interesting take.
But, but Dan.... Christmas is coming. Please don't be a Grinch. Save the Nativity geeky stuff for the summer pls. I will enjoy your comments as always but there may be a better time and place for this. Tip: Don't you dare mention Santa!😟
Excellent as always❤
@00:45 > _"Here's the first big problem: Rome conducted a lot of censuses; they absolutely never _*_required people [to] travel to their _**_-ancestral home-_**_ town to register;_*_ they registered in the towns that they lived and worked [in]."_
*{1}* _Luke 2:3_ does not state or even imply that Rome _"required people [to] travel to their ancestral home town to register;"_ rather, _Luke 2:3_ simply states in just two words, ἑαυτοῦ/heautou • πόλιν/polin *(i.e. his/her/their • city),* and πόλιν/polin *(per Greek Strong's Concordance G4172)* is never translated as home; it simply means city-not home. ἑαυτοῦ/heautou • πόλιν/polin can be interpreted as city of birth, or past residence, or maybe even current residence, but it does not mean _"ancestral home;"_ nowhere does Luke state the phrase _"ancestral home,"_ because _"ἑαυτοῦ/heautou"_ does not mean _"ancestral,"_ and _"πόλιν/polin"_ does not mean _"home."_ Luke did not state _"ancestral home;"_ that is a lie.
*{2}* _Luke 2:2_ states that the census was _"taken"_ or _"came to pass"_ per Greek Strong's Concordance G1096 *(ἐγένετο/egeneto)* when Quirinius was governor-not that it was _"completed"_ then. This is made clear by the following phrase in _Luke 2:2,_ πρώτη/prōtē • ἐγένετο/egeneto *(i.e. first • taken || began • to-happen).*
Your two _"critical"_ problems; *{1},* that _Luke 2:3_ states or implies that Rome has _"required people [to] travel to their ancestral home town to register;"_ and *{2},* that _Luke 2:2_ states or implies that the census being discussed was completed in 6 CE; are not supported by the data in Luke's account alone and is absolutely false.
> _"...introduces an entirely irreconcilable historical datum."_
No, it doesn't.
> _"The two chapters are irreconcilable, and the story of Jesus' birth is not historical in the Gospel of Luke."_
False.
Why would you ever take a census of people where they didn't live? It fundamentally goes against what a census is.
Yeah the whole idea is pretty stupid. It's amazing that so many people have bought into this story without thinking about it.
At is as the state asked for your grand, grand, grand, grand parents address to send you your tax bill 😂😂😂
I've never been asked to return to my city of birth for any census, and I was born in the days of steamships, and trains, and stagecoaches. Certainly, travel 2,000 or so years ago, would be a bit more difficult.
@@What_If_We_Tried to make it even worse, it wasn't even the city of his birth. It was the "city of his 'dad's' ancestral lineage." Hence, house of David and Bethlehem.
If someone showed up today asking you to go back to the town of your ancestral lineage town would you even know where to begin? How far back do you stop? Shouldn't we all be heading to the gates of Eden?
@@Theprofessorator Back to Eden, good point, and we could change the Woodstock song to, by the time we got to Eden... LOL
Do I have this right?
• 4 B.C. - Herod dies.
• 6 A.D. - Quirinius becomes governor of Syria.
• 9 A.D. - The ethnarch (?) is deposed; a census is ordered to correct for his ineptitude.
(?) - I got this spelling from the subtitles, but I don't trust it.
I'm not sure I entirely buy Herod's death being in 4 BCE. There is another prevailing date accepted by some scholars of 1 BCE. Source: Finegan "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" pp. 298-301. You might be able to find it online. In my own research, I also have the date of 6/7 CE for Quirinius becoming governor (same source, page 303). I show the ethnarch, Herod Archelaus, being banished in 6 CE, however.
Luke 1 doesn't strictly say that Jesus was born under the reign of Herod or immediately after. John the Baptist definitely was, but Mary was only told that she will be pregnant, it didn't state that she got pregnant in that chapter. So if there is a 6 year gap between the two first chapters, it all squares out. (Ignoring the "travelling home for census" part).
I'm not saying that that is the most obvious reading of those two chapters, but every time I bring up what I think of as contradictions in the bible, I'm told that the flaw is in my assumption that two events follow immediately after each other, not in the text itself. How to argue against that?
Hey, neither is Matthew's. The birth narrative is a literary echo of the death narrative.
It's fiction meant to amplify themes from Mark and probably to meet demands for more Jesus fanfiction and possibly a kind of apologetic.
In modern comic book and gaming parlance, it's power creep. As new people take hold of the story, the main character grows in power and importance because the old symbols are familiar so new audiences want new symbols which try to out do the older, more mundane ones. Superman used to be impressive just leaping over buildings. Nowadays he can toss an entire planet at a dude. Likewise, it used to be impressive that Jesus burst onto the scene fighting demons. Now he needs a special origin story and his previous deeds need to be amplified or outdone in some way. It's all literature. Any history present is just there for verisimilitude.
And of course the two narratives also have basically nothing in common. Other than the need to have Jesus born in Bethlehem.
They're also trying to link jesus to the messiah prophecies, including the virgin birth, which was a mistranslation, and the multiple different locations (hence ehy he moves around so much, jesus has to be from four different places).
@@user-cw3ox2nn5t "from a Christian theological standpoint, the birth and death narratives of Jesus are viewed as historical events that hold deep spiritual significance."
Yeah, but like, who cares?
Theology is just head canon. It's the thing people want the text to say. It's arbitrary and only tells you about the person doing the interpreting. I don't care about what random people want the text to say, I care about what the authors wanted to say, the way they crafted their stories and the way the texts were informed by the broader history and culture.
"The death of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, is also not an attempt to amplify or outdo previous deeds."
It is.
Paul doesn't really describe the death scene in much detail. Mark's author comes along and fleshes it out a bit with the 3x foreshadowing, setting it in Jerusalem and other literary flourishes. Matthew's author builds on that and adds a whole post death sequence. Eventually we get to the zombie apocalypse and walking, talking cross thing.
It's the exact phenomenon I mentioned. The story gets more elaborate and Jesus gets shinier and shinier as each successive author builds on the previous works.
Oh, and funny thing about that passage from Corinthians, there were no gospels at the time. A small ascetic cult couldn't have afforded to produce such things. Elsewhere Paul confirms that he knows of Jesus from scriptures and visions. So, what scripture was Paul referring to when he wrote that? What would a first century jew, as Paul was, have considered scripture?
Something to think about when considering the literariness of it all.
@@user-cw3ox2nn5t "Theology is not arbitrary. It is a systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths."
So... it's arbitrary. You have no access to your god. You have no capacity to measure it or even ask it things. You have a book which you interpret the meaning of, a book whose meaning you acknowledge that people do not agree on.
So "religious truths" are just head canon, as I already said.
@@user-cw3ox2nn5t I agree. Paul was most likely using some version of texts from the torah.
You claim that that the author of Isaiah was predicting Jesus. The question though, is that really the case? Do you think there might be any problems with that assertion? Do you think there might be some problems with the common arguments for this?
I can tell you right now that if you poke around on this channel's backlog for a bit, you will find answers to all of these questions.
Perfect mic drop!!
Neither is Matthews👀👀
I wonder why the author of Luke would make a claim that his contemporary audience, which i presume were virtually entirely residents within the Roman Empire, would know was untrue. Surely they’d all experienced a census, and had seen that they were not required to travel to the lands of their births.
I’ve known this argument for a while and I fully agree that these accounts aren’t historical, but one question always comes to mind: in the time the gospels were being circulated, wouldnt people have known that there was never a census conducted as described in Luke?
I doubt it. The gospels came after Paul's letters, somewhere around 60 years after the birth. Before the internet, modern accounting practices, and the scientific method, I'm surprised the error in the time-line isn't an order of magnitude greater.
There WAS a census, just not one that required that you travelled to your ancestral home and the (potential) cencus under Quirinius could not have been called while Herod was king (Herod died ten years before Quirinius became Governor)
It would have been two or three generations prior. How many government policies from 70+ years ago do you remember? And that's in a society with standard public education and daily information from the news media.
@@ronjones1414 Yes, agreed. In 2023, even with all of those advantages, people can't agree on what is happening _in real time,_ so absolutely believable that what some people might have "known" at the time has little relevance.
Counterpoint to the other answers to this question: Luke was written around 75CE. There were certainly people alive that could remember something that happened 70 years prior. My parents and parents in law can remember things that happened in 1953 quite well. But those people may or may not have been exposed to Luke, and if it was ahistorical at the time, what mechanism would allow them to make that known to later historians?
Why not say these writers were very creative? Humans can do that, that is: make stuff up.
When they claim to be reporting truth, crediting them with creative lying is ridiculous.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 when did they claim that? Where all the other apotheosis reports truth?
Well done. What do you think of the Nativity story in Matthew? Carrier says "no reasonable historian should regard [the Matthew Nativity story] as anything but fiction" but does not address it further. I myself am not a reasonable historian and do not claim to be. So your reaction would be interesting.
Setting aside the unverifiable religious events, the most obvious issue with the Matthew Nativity story is that if Herod had exterminated all the children under 2 in some large area, we would know of it by other means.
It seems that Matthew is setting Jesus up as the new and better Moses - Herod echoes Pharaoh, they go to Egypt, there’s a wandering in the wilderness, he quotes Deuteronomy and then reinterprets the law in the Sermon on the Mount… the list goes on. So it’s a theological account more than a historical one
Much like the weird census.
There's also the fact that neither account mentions the weird things that happen in the other one. It seems unlikely that if both were recording real historical events known to them about Jesus's birth and youth, that Luke wouldn't know or bother mentioning the murders of children or that Jesus had fled to Egypt.
@@Cornelius135 Christians always seem to want the Resurrection to be a historical event, so I feel confused when they say that only parts of the story are historical. The true parts need to be consistent with each other and with other sources of information we have about historical events. Offering a mixture of true and false events as evidence without any indication which parts are supposed to be true discredits the whole process.
Is there some other book that indicates which parts of the Bible are supposed to be historical? Various Christian sects have various catechisms, but I rage quit when the Catholic catechism said the books of Timothy were written by Paul. They weren't even trying.
I also rage quit when a similar Mormon book said the same thing, and then I forgot the name of the book and now I can't find it. Can anyone here point to a book with a name somewhat like "What I Believe" written about Mormonism by a Mormon in 1920 or so?
If you aren't Christian, none of this is your problem.
@@Cornelius135 But did Jesus reinterpret the law on the Sermon on the Mount? Mt 5:18 seems to say He incorporated all the old law into His teachings, so I assume he was adding a bunch of additional laws instead of reinterpreting existing ones.
And then I can't grasp how Christians justify not doing the crazy things listed in the Old Testament. They don't seem to take their own doctrine seriously. I agree with Dan that everything is constantly renegotiated. So why keep these books around?
Merry Christmas! 😂
My bible has a footnote on verse 2 that says “or ‘this census took place before’” Quirinius…” is that a manuscript difference?
Probably the NIV trying to whitewash as it usually does
An attempt to harmonize the error by translating prote in verse 2 as “before” and not “first”. Two problems: prote is a feminine nominative singular adjective--translating prote as “before” only applies to the genitive case. Secondly, the phrase in Luke is a cliche in Greek historiography where “prote” is translated as “first” (see Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 1.55; Xenophon too but I am too lazy to look up the citation).
Love the "Emet" shirt
So the question I have is, did the author of Luke know that this was incorrect or was the purpose to, in effect, deceive the followers of Jesus?
Is it likely or unlikely that Luke was writing a story he assumed people would know to be false? Did he expect folks to see it theologically, or was he hoping to convince people (who presumably knew Rome didn't do censuses that way) that the census happened?
He was trying to convince people that Jesus was somehow both from Nazareth and Bethlehem. I don't think the details of the story really mattered that much, only that he somehow "fulfilled prophesy". Besides, nobody alive when the gospel of Luke was written would have remembered that this census didn't take place.
There's no point in trying to psychoanalyze ancient writers and their motivations. Robyn Faith Walsh's book is probably your best source for that. Regarding the census of Quirinius, "Luke" was probably using Josephus's War of the Jews and adapting it to his own narrative needs. Acts does the same thing, with some tell-tale mistakes that give away its reliance on Josephus.
I think it just goes to show that the stories were written way later to people from a completely different context, and will not really expected to be scrutinized that deeply because the copies of it were limited, and only right among us certain group of religious elite.
I try to prove the writers from the Scriptures! For Luke and The Acts of the Apostles which describes the founding of the Christian congregation as a result of the operation of the holy spirit. Luke picks up the account where his Gospel left off. In Acts, Luke records important events of the period covering approximately 28 years. The greater part of the material in the first 12 chapters reports the activities of Peter, and the remaining 16 chapters, the activities of Paul.
In three instances, the apostle Paul mentions Luke by name. For some years he was the constant companion of Paul, who called him “the beloved physician.”-Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 24. The references to Luke in the Epistles of Paul give some valuable information about Luke. Colossians 4:11 and 14 seem to indicate that Luke was a Gentile and a physician. The latter is supported, but not proved, by the interest shown by Luke in medical matters, as in Luke 4:38; 5:12; and 8:43. It is also interesting that early tradition adds that Luke was a physician of Antioch who wrote his Gospel in Achaia.
The Canon
Ezra 7:6 This Ezʹra came up from Babylon. He was a copyist* who was well-versed in* the Law of Moses, which Jehovah the God of Israel had given. The king granted everything he requested, for the hand of Jehovah his God was upon him.
The expression “Bible canon” came to denote the collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine inspired Scripture. The term “canon” is derived from the Hebrew word qa·nehʹ (reed). Reeds were used as a rule or measuring device. (Eze 41:8) Fittingly, the Bible canon, or catalog of inspired books, enables the reader to “measure” faith, doctrine, and conduct. The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was established by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. According to Jewish tradition, the skilled scribe and inspired Bible writer Ezra began the work, and it was completed by Nehemiah. (Ezr 7:6, ftn.) The writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the gifts of the spirit were operative on Christ’s followers. (Joh 14:26; Re 1:1) Some Christians had the gift of “discernment of inspired expressions.” (1Co 12:10) Thus, they could, without referring the matter to a supposed church council, determine which of the letters the congregation received were inspired of God. With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end. Therefore, with the book of Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his three letters, the Bible canon was closed. The testimony of later, noninspired writers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had guided and authorized.
That doesn't change the fact that Jesus was born but it does make you wonder why include facts that weren't facts. Luke wrote this for a certain person probably. Maybe this person would believe the claim more because it included certain names.
The standard theory is that both Luke and Matthew needed Jesus to be born in Bethlehem for Davidic prophecy reasons, but it was commonly known that he was from Nazareth, so they had to make up something to explain it. And they both took different approaches.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 As with all prophecy...maybe they read the prophecy wrong. Just like in the story of anakin. Also no one talked to his mama? his mama needed a book. It's a surprise we have as much information as we do. They legit lived through this and wrote down nothing.
@@gennie4779 Dr. McClellan has videos explaining problems with "prophecies" in Isaiah 7, and the first thing to know is that Isaiah 7 is not a prophecy (-according to Dr. McClellan).
Rather, it is a description of signs / evidence that the prophet says that king Ahaz will witness, and to understand that his southern kingdom will not be destroyed by their enemies. Verse 11 says to "ask for a sign...". In verse 14, again it is repeated that king Ahaz will receive a "sign", in other words when you see this happening, you will know.
a) verses 1-9 provide the backdrop / context,
b) verses 10-13 describe the initial interaction with the prophet
c) verses 14-16 are the signs to look for
d) verses 17-25, are God's assurances to king Ahaz, via the prophet, revealing that the southern kingdom will not only be saved from the enemy, but flourish.
e) chapter 8 continues on with the narrative.
The rest of Isaiah, ending in chapter 66, basically describes what God expects from the Nation of Israel, how they're screwing up, and what they have to do, if they want to continue to receive his protection, and blessings, and describing the eventual permanent restoration of the Kingdom of Israel, and the destruction of all evil doers within and without the kingdom, and that in those days of the new heavens and the new earth, the "survivors" of all mankind will come to Jerusalem to worship God.
Note: Nothing about playing harps in heaven, while sitting on clouds. Add Zechariah 14 into the mix for a much clearer idea of what "salvation" looks like, and is promised to the Nation of Israel in the future.
FYI: I used to believe all this stuff, but always had nagging suspicions or doubts that I repressed, as I needed to believe in order to be in the eternal good graces of God. But several years ago, I started investigating all these biblical claims, with every bible I had, even bought Hebrew / English versions, dusted of my lexicons / dictionaries, and bought a Brown-Driver-Briggs to add to the collection, then tried to disprove all the naysayers.
The end result, is that I am no longer religious, but think that there is a Creator out there that probably initiated the Big Bang, but beyond that, it's just the guesses of humanity.
Can someone explain why traveling to their ancestral home for the census would nuke the economy? I'm curious now
All those people aren't working/producing
@@tesladrew2608 can you elaborate a little?
@@atreestump the core of an economy is the production and distribution of goods. If no one is producing or distributing goods, there is no economy.
@@tesladrew2608Excellent point.
@@tesladrew2608 If they are farmers with livestock / sheep herders they have those things to tend to, e.g., someone has to feed the animals and protect the granaries. Also, there are people that repair things, physicians, the elderly, the infirm, and those who are disabled. But ignoring all that, where are the verifiable historical records of this census? I'd really like to know.
Mary had family in Jerusalem but she and Joseph had to bed down in a stable in Bethlehem.
What does the bible say
Luke 2:4-7 TPT
So Joseph and his wife, Mary, left Nazareth, a village in Galilee, and journeyed to their hometown in Judea, to the village of Bethlehem, King David's ancient home. They were required to register there, since they were both direct descendants of David.
*The OT says the Davidic line ended in 586BCE with the death of Josiah's grandson at the hands of the Chaldean Babylonians*
@@fordprefect5304 If you have the reference handy, I'd appreciate you passing along the passage about the death of the last Davidic king. Thanks...
@@What_If_We_Tried 2nd Kings, try reading it.
@@What_If_We_Tried Since you asked politely,
Jehoiakim, in the Old Testament (II Kings 23:34-24:17; Jer. 22:13-19; II Chron. 36:4-8), son of King Josiah and king of Judah (c. 609-598 bc). When Josiah died at Megiddo, his younger son, Jehoahaz (or Shallum), was chosen king by the Judahites, but the Egyptian conqueror Necho took Jehoahaz to Egypt and made Jehoiakim king. Jehoiakim reigned under the protection of Necho for some time and paid heavy tribute. When the new Chaldean Empire under Nebuchadrezzar II defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish (605), however, Jehoiakim changed his allegiance from the Egyptian king to Nebuchadrezzar. He remained loyal for three years and then revolted against Nebuchadrezzar. After several battles and invasions, Nebuchadrezzar led the decisive invasion against Judah and besieged Jerusalem (598). Jehoiakim died at this time, but the circumstances of his death remain uncertain.
Zedekiah, (flourished 6th century bc), king of Judah (597-587/586 bc) whose reign ended in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of most of the Jews to Babylon
Zedekiah was King Josiah's grandson. It ended the Davidic line of kings.
Other bible verses indicate that there were other family members who survived, but none of them became king.
@@What_If_We_Tried Dam, I posted the 2nd Kings verses and YT deleted them.
Zedekiah, (flourished 6th century bc), king of Judah (597-587/586 bc) whose reign ended in the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of most of the Jews to Babylon. Mattaniah was the son of Josiah and the uncle of Jehoiachin, the reigning king of Judah.Nov 17, 2
Zedekiah was King Josiah's grandson
Wouldn’t it be more accurate (if less sweepingly dramatic) to say that Luke’s nativity account is “not historically accurate” or “not historically reliable”? “Not historical” strikes me as synonymous with “100% fictional.” Don’t most scholars agree that Jesus’s birth was a historical event? Precision > clickbait.
If this were a single data point then, yeah, maybe you have a point. But that isn't the case. It's one of a number of such data points, which collectively introduce a lot of uncertainty, (And, no, it's probably not accurate to say that "most scholars agree that Jesus's birth was a historical event." To adhere to your interest in "precision," one could reasonably say "many scholars," or perhaps "most scholars in the specific field of (x), but a minority of scholars in this other field (y) and almost no scholars in this third field (z)." Something of that sort.)
The entire premise of he story makes no sense.
1:Rome never had a census that required you to return to your forefathers home.
2: the line of David ended in 586 BCE
3: Making the entire story "not historical"
@@fordprefect5304Excellent points.
Evangelicals believe that the entire body of text is divinely revealed scripture thus inherent without mistakes and contradictions.
I like your analysis much better though.
Peace.
Great points.
Aww Jeez, next thing you'll be telling us is that the manger was made of stone, not wood.
Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE, not 9 CE. It doesn't affect your point, but you might want to correct it in the caption.
That's not the only error that was made in this video.
That's not the only error in the Bible either.
Doesn't the Old testament end the line of David in 586 BCE with the death of Josiah's grandson by the Chaldean Babylonians.
And with the assassination of Josiah and his 3 sons around 609 BCE by the Egyptians.
So again why were they going to Bethlehem?
Boy, Dan, you keep poking that bear with a stick. Good for you!
Pretty much covered it.
This will convince no one, unfortunately. The default assumption of Christian apologetics when the Bible contains a blatant historical contradiction is that the historical record, no matter how well attested, must be wrong- they will not entertain the idea even that the Bible writer may have made an error (not even if you give them the out that humans are imperfect and may have made a mistake recording something conveyed to them by God).
I don't know, it convinced me.
To be fair, there are sections of Christianity that do NOT believe the bible is inerrant. However, evangelicals tend to take all the oxygen in the room with their nonsense so that's what we mainly hear.
@@StradigosExcellent point.
Evangelicals believe that the entire body of text is divinely revealed scripture thus inherent without mistakes and contradictions.
Ironically, Muslims do the same thing with the Quran!
What do evangelical apologists say about this?
Who cares. They've been feeding us milk in Sunday School for decades if not centuries. Thank god for scholars who can actually dig deep and give us something to go off of instead of giving us another theological take.
*hat do evangelical apologists say about this*
Waaaaaaaaah
"If the nativity begins in 9 AD and ends in 4 BC then the only reasonable explanation is that they time travelled."
In other words, I'm curious how they would try to explain it away? No doubt, they're aware of it...right? @@fordprefect5304
Fundamentalist christians are going to crucified you in the comment section.
Yeah but they have no leg to stand on...so, who cares?
Dan- have you read the Genesis 6 Theory?
Merry Christmas 😉
Is Luke an attempt at historical narrative that fails or is it not even trying to be historical?
In other words, is the author trying to portray history? Or is it their some other intent by including the census and taxes etc?
The Gospel of Mark is the earliest to have been written, and begins with Jesus already an adult. Luke and Matthew both clearly had access to Mark as they contain many of the same events but both add to Mark in different ways, including the nativity. Both Luke and Matthew also had access to earlier writings like the Hebrew Bible and make a deliberate effort to have Jesus fulfil as many Old Testament prophecies as they could in their telling of his life. So the nativity in Luke is almost certainly a confabulation in order to fulfil as much prophecy as possible.
Rather than the exception the concept of people going to the census was the norm . Roman citizens had to go to Rome for their census . If outside of Rome they had to return for the census . As the empire grew the census was taken out of Rome into the occupied territories . Rome was regarded as ancestral for its citizens . People had to go to the census ,the census didn't wander around the countryside looking for them to tax . Ancestral towns and cities would have been ideal places for the census to be based . The Roman census should occur every 5 years , but this varied dependent on circumstance . In the empire this time period was variable . Also Augustus was the Emperor who revived the census on a regular basis .
So you're saying Dr. McClellan got it wrong? If so, do you have any links to a scholarly paper, or book that refutes Dr. McClellan's statements? Thanks...
Frank Tenney's book on the Roman census is one of the sources I used . It's on jstor .
All I am saying you ha e to look at this from a Roman point of view. They wanted the census.
@@andydixon4085 thanks for the reference. I just took a quick look at it, and it only covers 225 - 28 BCE.
And on page 337, it seems that all persons were only compelled to travel, if, they wanted to be "enrolled".
Moreover in this Wikipedia page, [edit: there is a quote of biblical scholar Raymond Brown], about the Census of Quirinius - under the heading, Gospel of Luke, and the last paragraph,
"Scholars point out that there was no single census of the entire Roman Empire under Augustus and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms; further, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. A census of Judaea would not have affected Joseph and his family, who lived in Galilee under a different ruler; the revolt of Judas of Galilee suggests that Rome's direct taxation of Judaea was new at the time.[15] Catholic priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown postulates that Judas's place of origin may have led the author of Luke to think that Galilee was subject to the census.[16][d] Brown also points out that in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke the Evangelist (the traditional author of both books) dates Judas's census-incited revolt as following the rebellion of Theudas, which took place four decades later."
And the quote of Raymond E. Brown is noteworthy, as he was a renowned biblical scholar.
Thanks again for the response, and reference.
As you say they would compelled to travel only if they wanted to but fail to say where they travelled to . Also it stops at 28bc but that is a historical record that would be known to exist as the census moved away from Rome . They were a lot of advantages to be enrolled in the census for the Romans as the numbers enrolled infer . Also can you please explain who was in charge of Galilee and Judea at that time .
I find this heart wrenchingly sad
Why?
So do I, An atheist trying to rewrite the Bible because he doesn't like what it tells
@@alyssabeale1095 I don't think that's true at all. He considers himself a Christian and actively attends church. He is just sharing "the data" from the Bible and allowing people to decide what it means for them.
@@20quid Because it's different from what I grew up believing and all of the Christmas Carols that brought such tender feelings...
No need to be sad. Just because a Bible author or translator may mix up some details does not mean that Jesus didn’t die for our sins
So then why do you think the writer of Luke included all of those details?
I think Dan addressed that briefly. The author is trying to connect "Jesus of Nazareth" to the city of David, to connect Jesus to royalty and the prophesies.
Why do writers of historical fiction include details?
9 CE Dan?
Source for Herod Archelaus being deposed in 9 CE? I show 6 CE in the tenth year of his reign. Source: Finegan "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" pp. 298-301. Page 300 section 516 to be more precise.
🤘
So luke has a censes and matthew has a slaughtering of the babies
Both of which most certainly should have historical records outside the book of matthew and luke
I'm not saying they're bad stories
I like the stories and I'll celebrate christmas the rest of my life
But obviously they're not historical.
I suppose if you really really want to stretch hard
Maybe the writers of the Gospels consulted with Mary, the mother of Jesus. But she was so old by that time that she got the details mixed up and didn't tell the same story to matthew and to luke.
But that's quite an implausible stretch now isn't it?
In law enforcement I would expect the details to be in lockstep if the eyewitnesses were being deceptive.
It is interesting that the census is found in Luke, and not in Matthew, who was the tax man.
Census taking is absolutely forbidden in the Torah, and so the birth of Jesus taking place in the context of a census shows that he entered a world that was in a state of sin.
It is true that the Holy Land was not part of the Province of Syria, but the governors of that province were the closest civilian, non-military authority. Josephus reports that on several occasions they had to intervene when order broke down in the Holy Land.
We are projecting back onto Ancient Rome our own American experience of the census of the whole nation every tenth year. Back then, if the Emperor decreed a census, it would have to take place in each jurisdiction according to the prudential judgment of the responsible officials. It is quite possible that a general census might cover a period of several years.
Quirinius was the senate-appointed governor of Syria when the census took place there, but the Holy Land reported more directly to the Emperor through petty kings and military prefects (not actually called procurators). So, yes, the census could have happened in the Holy Land before it was conducted in Syria.
Joseph had connections to Bethlehem because it was the hometown of David, but it may also have been the place where he was born and raised, and owned property. If so, he needed to be counted there instead of Bethlehem. Luke does not say that an angel ordered Joseph to take Mary to Bethlehem; he says that he complied with secular law in doing so.
It just shows how the Bible stories are just that, stories! Not history, no demonstrable Evidence to back any of it up.
So, born in Nazareth?
True city that did not exist in the 1st century.
@@fordprefect5304it did exist, according to archeology, though it was probably nothing more than a hamlet.
@@chefchaudard3580 That is true, archeologists have found some 5o farmhouses scattered over an area. But no synagogue, no school, no civic buildings.
I feel bad for Jesus. The guy lived a short life, had followers, family and friends, and after his death people who never met him start to make stuff up about it..... dude's ghost must be pretty mad....
Why would the census-travel-myth survive? People would know that the story wasn't true. It's not easy to coast on ignorance (like the Herod/Quirinis timeline) ... the migration to the hometown is a huge historical event. And the believers of Luke found the story plausible.
What are your thoughts on the article, “Josephus Misdated The Census of Quirinius”
By John H. Rhoads?
John Rhoads is assistant professor of *theology* at Concordia University, Chicago
I would bet that Mr Rhoads put his beliefs before facts.
@@fordprefect5304 Ok, but just because someone is a theologian that shouldn’t mean we assume that are wrong. (E.g. Albert Schweitzer and Dale C. Allison Jr.)
@@fordprefect5304 And to add to this, Concordia University in Chicago is LCMS, which is one of the Lutheran Synods that holds "Biblical inerrancy" (which is a doctrine so stupid I don't know where to begin). Anyway, if he was going to publish on this topic, I don't think there's any way he could say "Luke was wrong and Josephus is right" and keep his job. I'm not normally one for ad-hominem attacks, but if someone believes in (or belongs to an organization that believes in) biblical inerrancy, they cannot conduct real biblical research and can only engage in lame apologetics.
@@swiftsea6225 So reconcile this
Luke 9
28 Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. 30 Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him.
*Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient omnipresent god know Moses is a myth*
So Jesus had a seance with his imaginary friend? And that is what you believe.
Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE*
Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua.
Why would I take anything in the bible at face value.
Before you tell me Moses existed please provide proof. I will help you, not a shred of evidence has been found to support Exodus
@Dan McLellan, why can't you ever debunk anyone who calls you out?? Just admit you have NO IDEA of what you're talking about because you're not understanding the Bible CORRECTLY
Cool. So, go what are the data which show that? Let’s take Dan down!! What have you got? 😃
@@81caspen Just this: ua-cam.com/video/zPrFl8GUQYg/v-deo.html&lc=UgxHD7uW-1Fk4irHUUB4AaABAg. Looking forward to be debunked, though *(I learn so much from these experiments).*
@@MichaelPagan-c9n, I don’t know what happened there. Your link is just to this video over again.
@@81caspen Within that link, search for a comment in the UA-cam comment section with the tag *[Highlighted comment].* For some odd reason, UA-cam does not anchor-scroll to linked comments and forces users to manually find them on their own.
This link tags my comment which contains my argument that I'm waiting for Dan to debunk. If you can't find it, then let me know.
No story of Jesus is historical
Wrong. You know nothing about my Nativity story.
Oh, you mean a different Luke.
No, he is not referring to you lukewarm. He's probably referring to Luke cool.
Ha! You’re both wrong, he’s referring to Luke Skywalker😉😉😉
@@swiftsea6225 No. That's not true. That's IMPOSSIBLE.😫
@@jamesarnette1394 Oh, yeah, Cool Hand Luke. That guy's so cool.
You REALLY shouldn't be pretending to talk about things you VERY CLEARLY do NOT understand. It's ALWAYS you atheist that think you know what the Bible is referring to but get it wrong
Do you know that he is an atheist? I’ve been given to understand that he’s a Mormon.
@alyssabeale1095 Dan has been studying the bible for many years as a scholar, so to say he doesn't understand, is pretending, gets it wrong, is rather arrogant - and the other thing *you* got wrong is he's not an atheist. If you had a clue where he is coming from as a scholar you wouldn't have made such an ill-informed comment.
What makes you assume that Dan is an atheist? He is an active member of his church and was on a Bible translation committee.
Accusing God of lying, Dan? Brave or stupid then?
God didn't give the NT.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 And exactly how did you come to this brilliant conclusion then?
@@glenwillson5073 It is clear and explicit in the Torah that it is God's commandment, remaining forever without change, addition, or diminishment, as Deuteronomy 13:1 states: "All these matters which I command to you, you shall be careful to perform. You may not add to it or diminish from it," and Deuteronomy 29:28 states: "What is revealed is for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah." This teaches that we are commanded to fulfill all the Torah's directives forever. It is also said: "It is an everlasting statute for all your generations," and Deuteronomy 30:12 states: "It is not in the heavens." This teaches that a prophet can no longer add a new precept to the Torah.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048There is no precept contrary to the OT in the NT.
You can start with the idolatrous trinity in Matthew 28:19. @@glenwillson5073
So what Jesus are you referring too??? Your Jesus or the Biblical Jesus?? If you mewn the Biblical Jesus, ypu got it COMPLETELY wrong and are NOT looking into CONTEXT
Being born in Bethlehem does not mean to be born in Bethlehem, because, context?
Please explain
It is all make believe and myth!
In order to claim to be a Bible scooter, you need to have ACTUALLY studied the Bible CORRECTLY and NOT what your personal religion had told you it says for thousands of years. The Bible is a CHRISTIAN book and NOT a Morman one. I highly encourage you to REALLY study the Bible
@alyssabeale1095 You are a bible scooter then ? Dan doesn't let his personal beliefs colour his scholarship Dan doesn't claim to be a bible scooter, or even a bible scholar. He IS one. (Scholar that is, altho he may be a scooter too =o) ) You're very patronising and a bad speller to boot. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that Dan is not attacking the bible. If you listened to him instead of assuming he's the enemy, you might learn something.
So the more I look into your vidoes and read the comments, I see that you're a Mormon and that explains a LOT! I hope and pray that you find the truth of God and his word
@alyssabeale1095 How patronising