The ancient Romans didn't recognize B.C. or A.D. The dates we deduce 2,000 years later are not as accurate as Luke's firsthand account from Mary.

I realized i forgot to subscribe to bro

Skeptics aka jews.

I don’t quite understand how you could argue that he “agrees,” with Jesus’ teachings if we are to believe he was the first to write on Jesus’ teachings. We have no earlier account of the teachings. Don’t know why you would phrase the video this way, when the main argument is that Paul took Jesus’ teachings and made them his own, the gospels borrowed from him, but made certain changes. Many scholars for example don’t think Paul references a bodily resurrection, where several gospel accounts go to great lengths to demonstrate Jesus was in the flesh resurrected. There would be no way to prove Paul did or did not hijack any ideas, or manufacture them, or where exactly he learned everything about Jesus, the gospels seem to agree in certain places and seem to not in others. Some gospels seem to distance themselves from paul. Ask yourself was Paul a trinitarian? Did he teach a bodily resurrection? Did he think Jesus was literally God? I think it’s far more interesting and useful to look at the differences in gospel accounts and in Paul’s accounts of events or teachings.

Love the Roblox noises and the great lol placements. Amazing humor

This video was amazing. I'm blown away with how great your information is and how well you deliver it

I love it when religious people go all Uber philosophical just to end up tied in knots😂

Love it. keep up the good work brother

I do have a niggling question which no-one seems to have any answer. There seems to be a real paradox on the account of what Joseph did after the birth of Christ. Did they go north directly after Jesus’ circumcision, or did they hang around for a couple of years, waiting for the ‘wise men’ to arrive before he had a dream telling them to go to Egypt and then stay there until Herod’s death. These obviously seem to create some sort of conflict between, Matthew and Luke, which I just cannot reconcile enough to be able let it rest in my mind. Any suggestions?

6/7 games decided by just 1 goal, and no back-to-back wins until game 7, what a slugfest.

This is sort of a lame attempt to strawman a strawman. The context of which the 19th century scholar is not completely clear although you say he's trying to be slick. Was he wrong? No, he wasn't wrong that's why the story tells of two high priests. The elder was the high priest and the other was in name only per Roman dictate. Which is obvious when they talk about him being the father in law. I've never even understood this in any other way. Good production though.

Great video as always

That o brother where art thou reference was well played sir 👌

This is a really cool video. I had never heard of either the objection nor the response before. I'm glad to see it! I've also seen folks saying that Luke got Herod wrong in Acts, specifically because Agrippa, the grandson of one of the Herods, was reigning at the time. This has struck me as an odd objection and one that I think would be reasonable to address. The book I remember it from was Miller's (I think) text on Second Temple Judaism.

The one thing I notice similar to Matthew and John is the long discourses. I have heard that Matthew, as a tax collector, would have been required to learn shorthand, the Bible term being a ready writer. An interesting, unprovable theory would be that John received Matthew's library when he died, explaining John's late date, his long discourses, and the comment on the volumes it would take to record everything being a comment on the large amount of material he received, even though it was probably a small fraction of what Jesus said.

crazy eyes if ive ever seen em oh wow

The babylon bee has a good video on after the death of Jesus "Okay.. so we steal the body and make it look like he raised from the dead!" "Do we get riches, or women?" "No! We all get horribly murdered!" "Where is the win?" "It's the joke, Tomas.." "That does not sound like a good joke!"

While Ehrman may get some things wrong, he seems spot on with his understanding that the original Christians, the ones of the generation that wrote the New Testament, had no inkling of an idea that Jesus was literally Yhwh. "Biblical Unitarians" also have been trying to show this to the Christian and non-Christian public. He is portrayed as Yhwh's son (King) who Yhwh empowers and authorizes to even do his own prerogatives like give life (John 5:26) and forgive sins (see Matthew 9:8). It was supposed to be shocking to see and witness, but note the crowds conclusion in Matthew 9:8 that Matthew intends for us to faithfully adopt as well. Please ponder on how the idea of circumcision and the law of Moses being done away with was *so* difficult for the Jewish mind (even James and Peter!) that entire books of the New Testament (Galatians and Hebrews), and sections of other books (Mark, Acts, Corinthians, Colossians) are dedicated to adressing and slowly and carefully explaining this topic....but nobody was baffled by the idea that the almighty, completely holy and other, , immortal, exalted and royal GOD, somehow, became a little peasant no-nothing baby that is born in blood and out of a womans genitals, naked, with no control over soiling itself for years before its potty trained, that is now mortal is tortured and then actually dies??? We don't think those Jews would have had questions about that, desperately seeking understanding? We dont think they would have had their minds explode from such a concept that is foreign to everything they've ever known? Not even one book was needed to address this and explain this? They just kinda believed it and took it on the chin? Not circumcision though, thats where they drew the line? I plead with your common sense, as someone once pleaded with mine. PS - The Jewish enemies of Christ, post resurrection, also never bring this up as one of their accusations. Their main accusation is that Christians break the law of Moses, or teach against it, or wrongfully are calling Jesus the Christ and a prophet.

So why do some doubt the authenticity?

I agree. There would never be more than one high priest, just like there has never been more than one pope at a time… oh wait.

Thanks!

The problem with loats of historical scholars, including those who stull work today, is that so many of them make massive leaps based on the tinieat of fi dings in order to make sweeping declarations of fact. You find a pot with suggestive image on it and suddenly the entire culture was hedonistic pagans. You find a single aword and the entire culture were warriors. You find a human remain with an apparent weapon wound, and suddenly, it was murder and crime was rampant in that region. Its great to see people going back and doing their own work on theae subjects.

LOL don't ya love those experts who criticize 2000 year old eye-witnesses? God will always have the last laugh. Ive spoke to archeologists who had the motto of 'carry a Shovel and a Bible'

This is no different than how from 2013 to 2022 there were 2 Popes. Yes, after the abduction of Benedict XVI, Francis was the Pope and had all papal authority. However, it was still proper to refer to Benedict XVI by his papal name and as "Holy Father" until his death

Since the Torah indicated the role was High Priest for life, it's highly likely the dismissed High Priests were still considered to have the title. Pope Benedict XVI retained title as 'pope emeritus', so there were two popes. I'm interested to know if there is ANY apparent contradiction that is unsolved or troublesome. I've never found one.

What was Jesus' name before he was exalted and received his NEW name of "Jesus" as noted in Phillipians 2:9-10.

Good video! Americans still call Barack Obama, "President Obama," even though he is no longer the current presiding US President. Same goes for other past presidents. For those who wish to do further digging into the question, John Gill's commentary on Luk3:2 is a great read. Gill includes other possibilities such as include Talmudic citations, for example, GILL: It seems most likely therefore, that [Annas] was the "Sagan" of the priests, of which office mention is frequently made, in the Jewish writings; *_f._* yea, we often read of Chanina, or Chananiah, or Ananias, perhaps the same with this Annas, who is called,סגן כהנים, "the Sagan of the priests." *_g._* This officer was not a deputy high priest, or one that was substituted to officiate occasionally, in the room of the high priest, when any thing hindered him, or rendered him unfit for his office; as on the day of atonement, if the high priest contracted some pollution, they substituted another to minister. *_h._* This was not the "Sagan", but another priest; and even such an one was called an 'high priest,' as appears from the following story: *_i._* "It happened to Simeon ben Camhith (a predecessor of Caiaphas), that he went out to speak with the king, on the evening of the day of atonement, and the spittle was scattered from his mouth, upon his garments, and he was unclean; and his brother Judah went in, and ministered in his stead in the high priesthood... (etc, etc)" -- *f.* Targum in 2 Kings xxiii. 4. & xxv. 18. & in Jer. xx. 1. 3. & xxix. 26, & lii. 24. *g.* Mishnah. Shekalim, c. 6. sect. 1. T. Babylonian T. Yoma, fol. 8. 1. Juchasin, fol. 57. 1 *h.* Mishnah. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1. *i.* Talmud. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 4. Megilla, fol. 72. 1. Horayot, fol. 47. 4. Talmud. Bab. Yoma, fol. 47. 1. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 180. 3.

If they're going to point out errors, they should at least make sure that they themselves are factually correct. Oh wait, "skeptics" aren't interested in the truth. That's why they take the first thing that looks like an error and run with it, and keep running even when their own error is exposed.

The content of your videos are so well-researched, and I appreciate being able to watch them and being filled in on historical debates that I didn't even know about before! They help me to become a more informed and better Christian. Thank you!

The elder priest his father was corrupt and against God, they younger priest the son, is whom Jesus refers to because they are faithful to the lord.

It’s like how sometimes there is a retired monarch along side the actual monarch. The retired monarch is still treated with the same respect as the reigning monarch. Except, in this case, the other high priest is a deposed former high priest. In a similar situation to what happened after Nebuchadnezzar deposed the king of Judah and replaced him with what Neb thought would be a loyal vassal king. You got the vassal king and the exilarch.

There has been a bunch of lies promoted as historical truth. It's all by design to distract people by surface level information.

It would be even more suspicious if everything in the gospels were the same than if they had minor differences

Ad Hocness. One of the favorite weapons of the evolutionists.

Historically informative. The Bible is accurate in everything we can check so far.

Thanks! Without the benefit of research, my guess was going to be that there had been a high priest, and then an equally qualified man at the ready in case of sudden uncleanness, so the work could cary on. I'm glad I know now it was just the Romans setting up "high priests" of their own choosing, like that one OT king of Israel, whose name I forget off hand but who was definitely not like his father David.

One of the "contradictions" is that Acts says Paul was dazzled by the light on the road to Damascus, but Paul says he was blinded. Of course, they don't bother to look up the word "dazzle", which means blinded by lights...

Genuine question: Why did Jesus claim John the Baptist was the second coming of Elijah when John himself denied this? Does this not mean that Jesus failed the prophecy in Malachi that Elijah must bodily return before the messiah will appear?

Was Matthew left handed?

This is a keeper

I know you touched on it but... _"The hebrew word was young woman, not virgin"_ as if it wasn't very much a cultural given that a young woman would be expected to be a virgin??

Most of this is redacted , but no 5000 fishes , walking on water ..etc etc , so it doesnt matter if he this new joshua existed , he certainly did nt do any magic tricks and is certainly dead