Did Matthew Botch Christmas? (feat. Bart Ehrman)

[@MythVisionPodcast]

99% of people have no clue how much you put into your work Paul. I watched you record this session with Bart and damn, you really are an artist. Great video!

[@nathanjasper512]

I just think it was hilarious that it started with "Critics of the virgin birth theory have a point but it's only because we make it so easy to pick holes in." Really? You think the problem with the theory that a person was impregnated by God is really only an issue because you're just going about arguing for it in the wrong way?😆

[@bigboi1803]

Paul is underrated

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

If Alma doesn't mean παρθένος why did the Jews translated as such and being a Greek native speaker myself I never knew this word can be used as anything different than a woman who did not have sex. And how did he know that Mathew did not know hebrew. He knew about a lot of Jewish stuff in his gospels. And the fact that the virgin birth is not mentioned in the other gospels is simply an argument from silence because they don't say who is the father. Erham should know better. Can you call Haiser again if he wants to respond.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@jaskitstepkit7153 Apparently Mathew often uses terms in as a native speaker of Greek and not as a native speaker of Aramaic. Hebrew was only used by the priest class. Jesus and his disciples would have spoken Aramaic.

[@mouthpiece200]

Welcome to the channel. You new in the community? You should try this other guy Derek too. But I forgot his account name.

[@ericvulgate]

I will never understand why Joseph's lineage is important to this story if the jebus figure wasn't fathered by him.

[@DeludedOne]

Yup, I've always wondered that too. The conflicting genealogies are an even greater problem for inerrantists because of this, not to mention that at least one or both are explicitly mentioned to be JOSEPH'S genealogy , not Mary's

[@cygnustsp]

We should get Maury Povich on the case

[@biogopher]

For a long time I assumed the King David line lead to Mary because it just didnt make sense the other way, then I learned almost none of it makes sense 😅

[@rachelfey]

I think it's a remnant from adoptionist Christianity, wherein Joseph's parentage was legit and functioned to establish Jesus's relation to figures important to Judaism at the time. But yea, if they don't think he was fathered by Joseph at all, then why with all the names?

[@timhallas4275]

He was the father. Therefore Jesus can assume the throne of Israel if he choose to,, but alas, Roman law forbids a king from assuming that throne. This may be the true story of Jesus.....the rest is mythology gone wild.

[@msdaphne]

I saw something recently that completely ruined "Silent Night" for me. I'll share - "holy infant so tender and mild implies the existence of a cursed infant so chewy and spicy"

[@dave3657]

My pastor, from when I was in grade school, mentioned once that his daughter was a virgin when she was married. 😊 ❤ But me and her knew differently. So we didn’t totally believe that Mary was a virgin.

[@dasbus9834]

@@irishguyjg_2ndchancerecovery Then you're doing it wrong.

[@zeendaniels5809]

Aah... This brings back memories 🤣

[@loudtim265]

Nothing like a preacher calling out his own kids from the pulpit. Didn’t screw me up AT ALL!

[@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2]

@@dasbus9834 what do we have here, a post and delete proselytiser?

[@dasbus9834]

@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 Seems like it; his loving message about the need to repent is gone again, and I don't think that's due to a miracle.

[@CortxVortx]

"You find meanings in texts that are beyond what the author literally meant." Ah. So Matthew was doing a paper for English Lit.

[@kenobi1985]

Or writing fan fiction.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

Joseph: Mary... how could you be pregnant? Mary: Uh... the Holy Ghost came in through the window and filled me with his ... blessing. Joseph: The Holy Ghost looks like Ephraim the tavern keeper?

[@BigFatWedge]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@edwardmiessner6502]

😆😂🤣🤣🤣 I can imagine Peter and Lois (Yes, from Family Guy) playing the parts 😝

[@edwardmiessner6502]

And Quagmire would be Ephraim the tavern keeper! 😜

[@brunozeigerts6379]

@@edwardmiessner6502 I'm surprised they haven't done that.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

@@edwardmiessner6502 Giggity giggity!

[@grumpylibrarian]

I've seen Ehrman stump for this lecture on other channels, but I appreciate that the Paulogia version wraps it within a valid and related discussion that's otherwise suitable as an episode for this channel. Kudos to both of you.

[@BigFatWedge]

I am using this comment to ask Paul if he could make a response to Eric Mannings response to Prophet of Zods response to WLC’s argument that gets from the Kalam to God

[@lucideandre]

I’m now imagining Jesus having all his boyfriends over for lunch, and Mary decides to tell them all about when Jesus was born, show them all his baby pictures. Jesus getting all embarrassed

[@Bill_Garthright]

And, of course, Mary talking about her sex life, how she was a virgin before the Holy Ghost seduced her. :)

[@lucideandre]

@@Bill_Garthright yeah, Mary shares WAAAY too much information

[@KurtisHord]

Mom stop scaring the hos

[@lucideandre]

@@KurtisHord Matthew apparently finding it all very funny, taking notes.

[@derinderruheliegt]

John: Dude, this toasted matzah looks just like your mom! (also, first ever “your mom” joke)

[@jeremysmetana8583]

What you have to understand is that Steve Rogers got his powers through injection of the Super Soldier formula. Peter Parker got his by being bitten by a radioactive spider. Some people are saying that Steve Rogers got his powers by being bitten by a radioactive soldier. But there is no evidence in the ancient writings for that... only Peter got his powers by being bitten by something radioactive. Thus, Spider-Man is real. Captain America is not.

[@vaiyt]

"Bitten by radioactive (something)" is the best superhero origin.

[@misterbxiv]

This whole presentation boils down to “Guys, my fairy tale is totally true for realseys”

[@petrilling]

Never understood why people think it's more likely that Mary was a virgin vs having had an affair/rape, which she would have been punished for, so invent a cause that would satisfy the superstitious people of the time.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Of course, it probably wasn't either, but something invented long after the fact to make Jesus fit the prophecies. As Ehrmahn says here, there's no suggestion of it in the earliest Christian writings - Paul or Mark, so it likely wasn't a common thing known about Jesus that needed to be explained.

[@starshinedragonsong3045]

Yay! Another Paulogia - Bart Erhman video for the playlist.

[@Witchoftheriver]

Aww, that kinda made me sad. Heiser told enough of the truth to break the illusion for me, and learning his version of ancient isralite Judaism got me and my daughter out of the high control religious abuse we had been dealing with. I can even thank him for my husband, because we connected over a mutual desire to learn everything he had to teach and when he passed away from cancer this year we found Dr. Bart Ehrman next and have been deconstructing together ever since. If it hadn't been for Dr. Heiser we never would have gotten to deconstruction, even though I know he would have hated to know it he got me and then my husband started on our journey to deconversion and healing religious child abuse.

[@heathermorrison1674]

When I was a child, I thought that the Christmas carol line referred to Mary as a "round young virgin" because she was pregnant.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

To be clear, this "not botched" mode of interpretation amounts to "selectively read hidden meanings into the text, while ignoring context". It's a mode of interpretation that can be used to support practically any new doctrine you want. It's the type of thing I expect from writers of the time, but not what I expect from words inspired by God. It annoys me when apologists hand-wave this away as "not a problem", just because it's "a different mode of interpretation".

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Actually, "botched interpretation" is how a huge number of preachers make a living, using "biblical prophecy" to show how a lot of "stuff" in "god's words" points to events that are "happening TODAY!". Jack van Impe and John Hagee are just tow fraudsters er, "scholars" who come to mind that make millions selling books this way.

[@Petticca]

@Incredulous You hit the nail on the head. Regardless of how much faith someone holds that the Bible is either the word of god, or inspired by god- the presented to the great unwashed via suspect translating and interesting and contradictory interpretations smacks of nothing but fallible man, no matter how hard one squints at it.

[@pauligrossinoz]

What's especially stupid about Heiser's thesis is that it relies on the meaning of a completely foreign word - from the *_Urguritic_* language - to make his whole argument work. You would have to be _extremely_ desperate for confirmation to be convinced by Heiser's silly claim here. 🙄

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

OK so no argument?

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@pleaseenteraname1103😂

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

I've seen a lot of Bart in recent days but this was a fresh approach to the subject matter of his upcoming course. Well done Paul!

[@Paulogia]

Thank you. Appreciate.

[@pabloandres6179]

@@Paulogia kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqbTZqh7ibeebc0 ??

[@rickmartin7596]

How would it be possible to prove a miracle using ancient writings? I've never heard an apologist give a good answer.

[@ethanhocking8229]

An embarrassing miracle would probably be based on some sort of historical event that people thought was miraculous. That wouldn’t prove anything supernatural, necessarily. But it would mean something happened. I think the story of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant in Matthew has to be based on something as the servant was most likely the centurion’s gay lover, which would be embarrassing for a Jewish author writing for a Jewish audience. And in Luke’s Gospel, a number of “explanations” are given, possibly to justify it. While in John, it simply says that Jesus healed the “son” of a “nobleman”.

[@rickmartin7596]

@@ethanhocking8229 Ancient writers had a tradition of adding to their teachers' legacies by attributing their own writings to the teacher. Their reasoning was, "Well, this is something my teacher WOULD HAVE said!" It's easy to imagine believers thinking, "Well, this sounds like something my messiah WOULD HAVE done!" As for the exact origin of a specific claim, we may never know.

[@joshuaa7266]

@@ethanhocking8229 1. Why would a Jew find a story about a Roman embarassing, whatever it was? 2. Where did you get the part about them being gay? Never seen anything to suggest that. 3. Saying they wouldn't write something down because it would be embarassing doesn't check out. Their goal was to make Jesus look good, so they didn't shy away from making the disciples look bad. They would have had no issue doing the same with a no-name.

[@alexgustavsson5955]

@@rickmartin7596 That constitutes forgery, and it was frowned upon in ancient times.

[@johnnehrich9601]

Miracles in general don't seem to make sense if you claim an all-powerful all-knowing god who is okay with staying hidden almost all of the time. Such a god would be able to anticipate problems long before (supposedly even before creation itself if the "all" is true). A miracle represents a quickie patch-job after the fact, and at the same time, exposes this god to public scrutiny, yet not in a celebratory manner one might expect. Getting slaves out of Egypt? Send in Moses to do "magic" to impress the pharaoh OR steer the Israelites from winding up in bondage in the first place centuries earlier. Herod going to kill all the male babies in Bethlehem in order to make sure the new king of the Jews is disposed of AND send an angel to warn Joseph to flee? OR give the magi better directions so they don't have to stop in Jerusalem to ask for directions. Cure little Suzie of a terminal disease? Don't let her get sick in the first place or give medical science knowledge of a cure.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

That is some World Class mental gymnastics right there. If that were an Olympic event christian apologists would win the gold every time

[@onedaya_martian1238]

These apologists get enough "gold" from the suckers, er followers who so easily hand over their money to these fraudsters.

[@BigFatWedge]

Honestly, at this point, yeah.

[@nasonguy]

Even if they didn't win, that doesn't matter, because they would believe in their heart of hearts and God spoke to them that they actually won. Even though there is externally verifiable evidence that they didn't win, they still have their core emotional belief that they won. Checkmate losers.

[@kdietz65]

Matthew 1:23 - He shall be called Immanuel. Matthew 1:25 - They named him Jesus. That always cracks me up. Face palm.

[@josephturner7569]

Nah. His name was Joshua.

[@vaiyt]

@@josephturner7569 oily josh

[@ronm3245]

They should have gone with Brian that is called Brian.

[@badatheist9948]

when i mention this to christians, they try yo say its the same name. when i show then in hebrew its not the same name. the conversation ends

[@Tom-nw7px]

@LuthAMF would you be willing to reference any?

[@georgesparks7833]

When I was a kid singing in the church choir, I thought the words Round Yon Virgin was about a pleasingly plump Oriental woman , who attended with the three wise men.

[@stevendaddario8803]

Thanks!

[@Paulogia]

thank YOU

[@tal_the_great]

I'm wondering something else: the wise men travel from a far away land, find the Messiah, drop off some presents, and then just go home. No starting a church. No protecting him. No telling the rest of the world. Just, tag, you're it.

[@michaelsommers2356]

In Mark, which is obviously inerrant and infallible, Mary clearly has forgotten all about the virgin birth

[@robertring4252]

Very true. Her and Jesus brothers thought he had gone crazy. Mary was concerned he'd been hanging around the wrong crowd. That John "the Baptist" had filled his head full of that Essene propaganda.

[@puglover8171]

Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it's not true, or that it's forgotten. Mark didn't mention the birth at all

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@puglover8171 What is mentioned in Mark makes a virgin birth extremely improbably, if not impossible. Why would Mary have thought Jesus was crazy, when she knew he was the literal son of god? Did she forget all about that? Why did his brothers and sisters not know? If they didn't know, how did the authors of Matthew and Luke know? Just because something is not mentioned does not mean it _is_ true.

[@randolphphillips3104]

Had lots of friends thar met my mother, and I cannot recall a time where she described the night Dad came home on leave to them.

[@Ataraxia_Atom]

Let's goo!! Good morning Paulogia

[@Forest_Fifer]

The bloke seemed to be going so well, until he got to the bit about Matthew being the actual author of Matthew, and having spoken to Mary. Then he just turned into any other apologist. I mean, really?

[@derinderruheliegt]

That cartoon Joseph in the thumbnail is severely underrated comedy.

[@dahitmann]

It's just amazing to see this. You have a "more distinguished" scholar just reaching... _reaching_ like Dhalsim in Street Fighter, to make this work.

[@scienceexplains302]

Dr Kipp Davis reviews *Almah vs Betulah* starting @18:33 in “Old Testament does not foretell Jesus’ birth” on this (Paulogia) KZbin channel.

[@runenorderhaug7646]

I mean Bart Ehrmahn is right about Mithras, but there are other more obvious ones with interconnections that even Ehrmahn has refrenced. I really respect Ehrmahn and I am not a full on mythcyst, but it does somewhat annoy me at times just as a student as anthropology myself that he only mentions the extremes peoole bring up and acts like we should expect them all to come from one source too when there are consistentily even things he mentions that connect with this aspect and were potentiol influences. As well, of course culturally many tradiations partly change when they are spread. We would expect some ammount of jewish and cultural influence of the time as well. Even of different groups. This can be why it can even be difficukt to say who a first jesus would be. Would it just be the first influencer?

[@Camilo199]

Amazing job.

[@philipmalaby8172]

Can anyone tell me who plays the opening song to the video? I’d love a full version.

[@utubepunk]

Paul mentioned it was from some hymnal in the past. I always thought it was river dance.

[@bradenfears3232]

Wow clicked on the video right when you posted it😂

[@cygnustsp]

For some reason which I have forgotten JWs say Matthew was written in 44ce, by Matthew, and Mark came later. I should check their Bible encyclopedia to know exactly why.

[@Greyz174]

they also think that Jesus said "take up your torture stake and follow me"

[@mrjoe5661]

WOW! I was baptised, brought up and educated as a Roman Catholic. I long ago realised that the Catholic "dogma" was extremely flawed. But at the centre of the Catholic faith, apart from the Resurrection, which is central to most Christian sects, is the virgin birth. If this item of dogma has no basis in fact, does this negate entirely the complete Roman Catholic faith??

[@trabob4438]

To say that this is about jesus 700 years into the future is crazy, I guess you can say you can pick and choose to say what you want.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

Not sure where Heiser got that Mary was in the line of David. None of the genealogies say that?

[@Marniwheeler]

Great video. As always. Thanks.

[@hillside21]

Yeah, this critique of Professor Heiser is quite right. But in his defense, he has also done positive work debunking the kind of ancient-aliens-&-nephilim conspiracy-theories percolating in some conservative circles.

[@Ponera-Sama]

You don't need to get tangled up with all this cultural and linguistic context to see why this "prophecy" was unequivocally not about Jesus. In fact, you don't even need to leave the exact verse that's being quoted, because the full verse is "Therefore Yahweh will give you [Ahaz] a sign himself: The maiden will conceive and give birth to a son, *and she will name him Emmanuel."* You can't argue semantics or dual meaning here: This verse is very clear and very specific about the person it describes being named Emmanuel by his mother when he was born. In context this was definitely not a prophecy about the messiah, but even if it was, Jesus absolutely could not be the one who fulfilled it.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

This is the quickest and most reasonable answer. But it doesn't allow the controversy and subsequent money making opportunities that churches, apologetics and counter apologetics does. You probably do something that benefits humanity rather than convince people of something just to make a sale. That slows down capitalism !! /s

[@lissam8988]

And the rest of the contexts Also shows it was for that time not for the future. Remember about the two kings that he was worried about... Why would King Ahaz be worried about the two living kings when he would be long and dead and those two kings would be long and dead 700 or more years later? But I know what you were trying to do baby steps. Because some people just can't handle more information. LOL 😂

[@vaiyt]

It's so crazy. That prophecy is made for a specific king, about specific kingdoms of his place and time, and even gives a specific timeframe. There is no way you can interpret that passage as meaning anything other than what it says, unless you're heavily invested in reading "secret meanings" in EVERY bible passage.

[@Yopleteviv]

Christians will say, and be correct in this case, that Emanuel means god is with us, so the name functions as a clue god is coming in this baby. That's nowhere near the biggest problem

[@Ponera-Sama]

It's not the biggest problem, but it's definitely a big problem because this verse is unequivocally literal when it says that the child will be named Emanuel by his mother when he's born.

[@adrianinha19]

Miracle birth and miracle translation??? The question is not if the authors meant to use alma or betula, it's why god allowed them to use a word that would cause so much confusion down the road, decades to centuries later. Just say what you want to say! and don't say the kid will be named Emanual and then call him Jesus and claim that's not an issue because both names mean roughtly the same thing, that's cheating!

[@mattm8870]

Errm Emanual means God is with us and Jesus/Joshua means God is salvation that not anywhere near the same thing.

[@Greyz174]

I mean according to the theology, God was literally with us in the incarnation

[@Uryvichk]

There's some reason to believe Isaiah might have been the child's father anyway, so God could have just told him to name the kid Jesus. Then someone could at least argue that it was meant to prophesize two distinct Jesuses or something. Regardless, if you look at most of the rest of "prophecies of Jesus" in their context, like the "shoot of Jesse" one, they're obviously not predicting anything about Jesus at all. If it plausibly referred to something in Ahaz's time and plausibly was fulfilled in Ahaz's time, it would be reasonable to infer that's all the prophecy was meant to refer to. Had God wanted Isaiah 7 to unambiguously refer to both the present AND a future event, Isaiah could've said something like "And lo! Just as the Lord shall deliver Israel from her enemies in the time of Emmanuel, again shall He deliver Israel, for what has been shown by the Lord will occur once more, except the guy will be named Jesus or something."

[@brianmonks8657]

It doesn't matter if other demigod claims of a male god fathering a child with a human woman said the woman was a virgin. The simple fact is that claiming she was a virgin is an obvious way of backing up that claim. It's not at all odd that someone came up with that idea for Mary, instead of requiring that they can only parrot what was said about other demigods.

[@tod1way]

It is fascinating to hear from former Christians. I never was one. I have the rare distinction of being a third generation non-believer. No matter how long I've been around, it just seems so odd that people continue to cling to this last mythology so fervently. Maybe if I had been around a couple of millenia ago, I would have noticed the same thing about those who worshipped Zeus/Jupiter, Apollo/Phoebus and the like. But, given that we now know those were merely fables, why is THIS one so stubborn to be rid of?

[@sonnyfleming904]

Well done

[@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear]

Thanks for the video :)

[@NovaSaber]

So Matthew's whole "what the prophecy really meant was..." shtick was like all those stories where there's a twist on the prophecy, like "no man of woman born" not including someone born by C-section, or "the world will turn to ash" meaning everyone relies on someone named Ash?

[@timhallas4275]

Those who wanted the Hebrew prophecies to be fulfilled, did what they had to do to fulfill them... even if it meant making up a fictional account of a "Messiah" being born and doing some of the stuff that appears in the Hebrew bible. Jesus of Nazareth could have been real, or entirely fictional..... it doesn't matter either way, because the story itself is fictional. The followers of the Christ are still worshiping the same god as did the Jews of Palestine. They just added a layer of mythology that suggests that Yahweh has forgiven them for their blasphemy, therefore the prophecies have been fulfilled..... Ta Daaaaa!

[@Uryvichk]

Also, the Gospels themselves tell us that Jesus knew of the scriptures and prophecies, so if we go ahead and assume he existed and that this knowledge he had was true, Jesus himself could've tried to fulfill things he believed to be prophecies in order to strengthen his claim to being a Messiah. And that doesn't have to be cynical manipulation: If Jesus legitimately believed he was the Messiah, then he might try to fulfill anything he thought was a messianic prophecy, and his followers would be primed to look to his actions as fulfilling such prophecies. This can be true regardless of whether any of it is right or wrong. It's also distinctly possible that by the 1st century AD some people (Hellenic Jews perhaps?) actually did think Isaiah 7 was a prophecy. They didn't have the Bible in its current form, so it's possible they only vaguely knew of the whole story of Ahaz and, lacking that context, thought it was some kind of prophecy. The author of Matthew could've just been wrong about Isaiah 7 being a prophecy, entirely in good faith, based on gaps in his own education, and then proceeded to draw bad conclusions from there.

[@timhallas4275]

@@Uryvichk one: we'd have to then assume that the so called, prophecies would not have come true unless Jesus read about them, then acted upon the words, which then implies that if Jesus had not read the prophecies, they would certainly fail to come true. I am suggesting that someone (NOT JESUS) read the prophecies then wrote a story that made it look like the prophecies came true. This more closely matches the Gospels.

[@jasons8479]

Did I miss something, or did the prophecy "they shall call his name Emmanuel" (or Immanuel) not get fulfilled? I thought they called his name Jesus. I see no examples of them calling actually him Emmanuel in the New Testament. Getting his name wrong is more than a slight red flag.

[@pointlesspos8440]

The revelation of Annakin Skywalker: pre sup George Lucas discusses how it was revealed to him of the virgin birth of the one that would bring balance to the force. Can one deny such revelation?

[@darthvirgin7157]

so if Matthew couldn’t even be BOTHERED to actually use the ACTUAL HEBREW word for VIRGIN in his gospel, that’s a HUGE PROBLEM already if i were an honest, reasonable, and logical christian. but then if i were that type of christian, i wouldn’t be a believer anymore.

[@thejudgmentalcat]

"Bartvirgin" 🤣❤️

[@julietfischer5056]

Bishop Spong wrote a book called _Why Christianity Must Change or Die._ No wonder True Believers don't like him.

[@scienceexplains302]

The apologist gave good reasons why Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus - then accepted terrible reasons for thinking it is.

[@jcarterjoseph9066]

Mark wrote the first gospel in Greek, around the year 70 CE. The rest were written down fifty years or so after. Most of the legends that we know were made up to fit the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ in the early church.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

@14:10 Heiser seems to come from Christian that is not entirely inline with fundamentalism. As I learned, the answer to who wrote the Bible is "Holy men inspired by God wrote the Bible." There would never be a casino jackpot moment as the Holy Spirit would have moved "Matthews" hand like an ancient John Smith.

[@PC-vg8vn]

As for Heiser basically laughing at the idea that Isaiah's words may also be referring to an event hundreds of years in the future, well Daniel was also told about the future in hundreds of years time, that the Messiah would appear during the (what we now know to be) Roman era.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Except that's not what the author of Daniel thought he was writing about either.

[@isaiahreno]

Paul! You're going to *ruin* Christmas passionate Christians! You bastard! 😂

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Actually, its being pointed out that Josh ben Joseph was the bastard.

[@GalapagosPete]

13:56 Lights go “ding”?

[@ethanhocking8229]

From a purely historical perspective, the virgin birth narrative is at least an attempt by Matthew to explain why Jesus was rumoured to be born illegitimately, as it is unlikely that the early Christians would invent a rumour that would tarnish the reputation of their own Messiah. This rumour is alluded to in Mark, when Jesus is referred to as the son of Mary and not the son of Joseph. And therefore we can ascertain that there was an historical background to why Matthew composed the narrative in the first place.

[@Mr_Stav]

Born of a god-father was a trope for great people even without any legitimacy issues in the Roman Empire and prior.

[@ethanhocking8229]

@@Mr_Stav It wasn't a trope among Jews, though.

[@Mr_Stav]

@@ethanhocking8229 Jews, especially helenized ones, were not separate from the rest of the culture Just like ChristNuka today :), they were involved Just look at Philo and everyone else who read the Septugiant and lived all over the empire

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Yes ! The simplest explaination is the easiest to hypothesize. Yeshua was a bastard and using the "born of a virgin" trope to not just squelch that rumor, but put him as adopted by a god.

[@XarXXon]

​@@ethanhocking8229 Nothing of what we call modern Judaism was "a trope" among Jews until they got conquered by the Persians. The entire superstition was copied from Zoroastrianism.

[@chaosphoenix89]

Speaking of the "escape to Egypt" Matthew is the only Synoptic that mentions it, it's not in Mark, Luke or John

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Yup. Luke has an entirely different explanation for Jesus being born in Bethlehem despite everyone knowing he was from Nazareth.

[@chaosphoenix89]

@@jeffmacdonald9863 something about a census, if I recall correctly

[@GlorifiedTruth]

When Paulogia and Dr. Ehrman blink at the same time--that's when the magic begins.

[@hmnhntr]

No joke, as I read this comment I looked up and they blinked at the same time

[@phileas007]

fun fact: in German the word for virgin is literally translated as "young woman"

[@cunjoz]

yeah. jungfrau

[@lnsflare1]

Heck, in English the word "maiden" can mean both "young woman" or "virgin."

[@kalords5967]

Yeah. I mean, when God ordered the Israelites to kill everyone in the city but save only the virgin girls for themselves, how did they know that they were virgins? Did they have doctors checked them to see if they were still virgins? Well, I guess, they just saw that they were young women and they took them as virgins.

[@TorianTammas]

No it isn't. The nomen Jungfrau is a virgin, but the word junge Frau means young woman. So both exists.

[@cunjoz]

@@TorianTammas I guess he means when you translate the etymological roots of Jungfrau literally, you get "young woman" which is correct.

[@vega7865]

The new intro song slaps

[@Uldihaa]

To me, "Why would Christians claim it was a virgin birth if other religions of the time didn't have that idea" answers itself. Because other beliefs of the time didn't have that idea and it let them stand out a little bit more in a veritable sea of religions. I suspect that modern scholars subconsciously project back our modern religious landscape of just a few really big religions, three of which share a common basis, onto the religious landscape of the time. I think they also underestimate how long almost 300 years of cultural occupation is.

[@vaiyt]

Somebody had to come up with an idea first. Besides, we really don't know, there were so many apocalyptic and mystery cults in the area and we only know about a fraction of the ideas being circulated in them.

[@KarlMarcus8468]

do you know what the dunning kruger effect is?

[@Uldihaa]

@@KarlMarcus8468 Yes, and I'm curious as to how it applies here? Unless you can site a religion of the time that states a virgin birth, of course.

[@KarlMarcus8468]

@@Uldihaa lol no, i can't, but I meant it more in the sense that when some dude in a youtube comment says something like, I suspect that modern scholars subconsciously project out modern understand into the past, or something like, I think they underestimate how long 300 years of cultural occupation is. I think its a bit silly when people seem think that leading experts in a particular field haven't thought of something that makes sense to them, a person who i assume is not an expert of history or religion. Which is how i think of the dunning Kruger effect where someone who's maybe watched some videos about a topic now thinks they've come up with a unique framing of something very smart people think about for a living. I'm not even saying I disagree with your rationale in the premise of your comment, although I find is unlikely that other religions from that era did not have virgin births in their creation stories in the first place. Im pretty sure thats kinda been a staple in a bunch of creation stories sense before jebuses time. Anyone can have a theory or opinion on whatever but I think its naive to think that you have a better contextual lens in which to understand history then like, historians.

[@Uldihaa]

@@KarlMarcus8468 So you either don't know what speculation is or don't know what Dunning-Kruger is. Got it. And here's the thing about subconscious bias: people are rarely aware of it themselves. And most historians openly acknowledge that they've caught themselves projecting modern view points onto ancient history and needing to correct themselves.

[@happymaskedguy1943]

Mary in the video thumbnail is stacked.

[@vadim666er]

Tithings are down! We need a scapegoat! Dr. Bart Ehrman!

[@fepeerreview3150]

Dr. Ehrman's seminar will probably be interesting. He has certainly been on all the channels in the last few days, announcing it. He should get quite a turnout. He seems to have figured out a good path for maintaining a career without the constraints of a tenured professorship arrangement. Kudos! Are there other virgin birth stories? Interesting question. Another related question is to what extent the idea of Mary being a virgin was part of the theology of the very earliest Christians. I'm talking about 1st and 2nd generation, before even Mark was written.

[@puglover8171]

Genesis three is the first prophecy of a virgin birth.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Ehrman hints at that here, saying that neither Paul nor Mark mention it. That both Matthew and Luke use it suggest the idea was circulating by their time, unless one copied it from the other, which seems unlikely given they tell quite different stories.

[@atheistchristianbookclub2386]

15:00 Dr. Ehrman often performs these arguments from silence. Mark and John don’t mention Mary so therefore Mary’s virginity wasn’t widely known? That is a rather glaring non-sequitur. It can be argued that because it was widely known when Mark and John wrote that they simply chose not to mention it. But their not mentioning it doesn’t “explode” the idea her virginity in relation to Christ’s birth was well-known by early Christians.

[@susansteinkraus2821]

I'm trying to figure out how to find the tiny url to click on. I'm using an Amazon Fire tablet. I'm sure this is a user problem...

[@kdietz65]

15:14 - Is it just me, or does that Sermon on the Mount painting make it look like Jesus is taking a poop.

[@AnexoRialto]

"Hey Joseph! That kid don't look nothin' like you!"

[@kennethd.9436]

Thank you for your video! My parents didn’t like the movie Hercules, so I didn’t see it until later. Maybe the didn’t like how the “Jesus hero”; half god but still human, gives up eternal life in heaven in the name of love.

[@gupdoo3]

"Bart virgin" is objectively the funniest possible affiliate code

[@FerrariKing]

Jesus should show up in the MCU and battle Thor and Hulk.

[@moonshoes11]

Thor has a hammer, and Jesus will be nailed to a cross.

[@moonshoes11]

Imagine Hulk performing a Loki puny god move on Jesus. Lol 👍

[@pansepot1490]

I read that they were planning a film version of Paradise Lost with Bradley Cooper in the role of Lucifer. The story would be perfect for a mega action movie but it got binned. I guess too controversial: Christians wouldn’t like Lucifer fighting for freedom against the tyranny of god. Pity.

[@BFDT-4]

How old was Mary when she replicated? How old was she 33 to 44 to 55 years later, when writings started. C'mon, she told Matthew she was a virgin? Or she told someone late that then told Matthew? Think.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

That whole "Josh was lost for 3 days in the temple impressing the rabbis" seems hokey if Mary and Joseph were convinced that angel story wasn't really a holey angle (puns intended) to explain the messiah wasn't really a bastard.

[@janerkenbrack3373]

I am no expert, and I don't intend this comment to be a dissertation or doctoral thesis. But after coming to understand the chronological timeline of the gospels, it seems plausible to me that Mark was written as a narrative to tie together the various stories about Jesus since the rise in popularity in the wake of Paul's evangelizing. And Mathew and Luke were later written to answer questions and objections raised by skeptics, and to add a deeper backstory to add credibility. Considered this way, it isn't surprising to see information about Jesus' birth and early life that explains how his life fulfilled early prophesies, and adds details to support the divine claims. The timeline coincides with the rise of the early church, and is consistent with someone seeking to increase awareness and enrollment. This is also the timeframe when Acts were written, which again sounds like writers creating stories to bolster the claims. I speculate that all if it could have been post hoc creations to rationalize belief and explain away reasonable doubts.

[@omegaarts8317]

So... In 9:10-20, dr. Bart Ehrman informs us that a young woman could be meaning ''virgin'', in an ancient culture, in the same sense it could mean the same in today' s context. Really now?

[@Maurus200]

Seems like Bart and Richard Carrier have something new in common. A poor internet connection. 🤔

[@deewesthill1213]

Isn't December 25th in the northern hemisphere the first day after the winter solstice (usually Dec. 21st, sometimes the 22nd) that the sun is observed to begin to move northward from its southernmost position? Apparently the 25th was celebrated as the day of either the birth or rebirth of the sun or sun god.

[@RolanRoyce]

It's very obvious that both the Mithras story and the Jesus story were based on a tale in the Mahabharata about Kunti and the virgin birth of her son with the sun god Surya. The son is usually referred to as Karna but he had a couple other names that were also used at various times in various places. In short, she summoned the sun god using mantras given to her by a Brahmana, which gave her the power to summon gods. She tested it by summoning the god of the sun. He conceived a son with her and after birth he restored her virginity, mystery of the virgin birth solved. Just look up Karna in wiki to get the general details. I've read the full tale in the actual Mahabharata, it's a lot more detailed.

[@johnnehrich9601]

The parallel between the Jesus legend and those of the surrounding pagan myths is that they all represent a semi-divine person (until for Jesus, John's gospel mucks up the concept to make Jesus and god the same). In popular legends of the time, a god has sex or otherwise impregnates a human female to create a god-human hybrid. Technically, in one sense, Mary being a virgin would make Jesus a Mary. Instead such a hybrid comes about literally god being the "father," even if done without touching. Would a virgin today getting in vitro fertilization be considered having a divine birth needing some shepherds and a special star? In the pagan myths, in fact, the woman CAN'T be having a virgin birth as the god has had relations with her for the hybridization to happen. Jews at the time seemed to find sex too icky for this parallel to be any closer.

[@rtj6874]

Did Bishop Spong pass? As an atheist he was one of only a handful of people I could stand to listen too.

[@cynicaloldgit7177]

Whatever God someone believes in then surely presenting proof of their god would make all of these apologetics redundant. Funny how that never happens.

[@francesottewill2538]

Where do they get to the 25th I think it’s an over used date their or close to!

[@Kastled5]

Joseph is hardly mentioned... Makes you wonder if he distanced himself from Jesus due to his illegitimate birth but keeping silent for his family/Mary's sake.

[@mikealexander1935]

Luke has Mary and Joseph as living in Nazareth before Jesus was born. He says they went to Bethlehem, had the kid, and went back to Nazareth. Only Mathew has the story about Egypt. The point of that story is to explain how it is that Mary and Joseph, who were living in Bethlehem and had Jesus there, ended up in Nazareth. That Jesus was a Galiean from Nazareth is reported by Mark and John as well as Mathew and Luke.

[@nullpointerworks4036]

Oh, look. It's Micheal Heiser. He appeared in "Ancient Aliens Debunked" from VerseByVerseBT.

[@Sunshine19946]

The greatest stumbling blocks to Christianity are all the hypocrites who drive people away. There are human errors in scripture and a lot of it seems inaccurate. Say what you will but showing love to one another would beautify our existence. I would strive for that.

[@temperances320]

I like that he said the thing about how the Jewish guy down the street can’t speak Hebrew There’ve been so many times that I’ve told people I have Jewish heritage, and they’ve started trying to speak to me in Hebrew I’m not sure why they believe random Jewish Americans can speak fluent Hebrew because it’s not true

[@MrBears25]

So nobody knows if the Ancient Gods were virgins there is another instance outside of the Bible that points too someone that might be Jesus in the Vedas Video: Jesus Prophesied in the holy Vedas.

[@moknbyrd]

No wonder God wanted Mary. She is STACKED, in that thumbnail ! :P JK.

[@andrewisjesus]

5:52 my comments have not all been in vain. För: as time goes on Bart's ideology drastically shifts; and I'm very proud to hear him say "we don't even know he is Jewish" Christians timeline historically doesn't differentiate between 1st or second temple. He'll the Templars called the most with the golden dome; or dome of the rock : "Solomon's Temple". The rock by the way is the "rock of the Ark of the covenant or "holy of holies". Of course because the. Islamic conquests were the original Abraham accords because Iews were pivotal and at the forefront. As well as the concept of the 1st temple meaning of ierusalem; and the temple itself as the "house of prayer for all nations"" aka; the place of peace for all religions All nations had a patron diety Solomon wasn't blaspheming putting up idols; it was the entire purpose of the international construction effort Second temple Iews; Babylonian immigrants came up with the concept of exclusivity. Of course Matthew and Luke changed 2 pivotal verses that they otherwise copied word for word from Mark. One is krävs in the temple saying "isn't it written this would be a house of prayer for ALL Nations? And you have turned it into a den of robbers" Matthew and Luke deliberately omit "all nations" In the temple when the scribe tests Jesus on the most important commandment : Iesvs said "Hear O Israel: God is ONE" and yes mark does say that and yes the Quran takes those exact prophet ques from Mark. Also particularly iesvs calling himself a prophet i the "a prophet is never recognized in his hometown around his own people" So NO ; THE OLDEST GOSPEL; THE GOSPEL OF MARK Is seeking to remove and reinstate the internationality of 1st temple iudeab Imo Luke is the most iewish gospel Prophecy citations are used to make that claim about MATtHEW ; but the content is all but iewish

[@tetsujin_144]

13:54 - "Then the lights are going on... ding ding ding ding ding..." He's hungry! He's found us! AND HE'S COMING! (Now I need to go watch that video by Auralnauts again... "MARTHA!")

[@ramadadiver59]

I would love for Bart Erhman to comment on any video about mark slightly changing old testament passages in his very first chapter . That originally applied to yhwh in the old testament and the author of mark applies them to Jesus . Seems like mark our earliest gospel is placing Jesus as yhwh . Which really undermines the Christological theory of Jesus developing into a deity throughout the gospels..in fact if you use the premise of Jesus being a deity as evidence of Christological development . Mark should not be placed as the first gospel based on that premise because he does portray Jesus as yhwh himself..not just any divine being

[@PC-vg8vn]

In Jewish culture it was assumed a young unmarried woman was a virgin. So the Hebrew of Isaiah strongly implies a virgin. Then the Jewish (not Christian) translators of the Hebrew OT to Greek chose a Greek word that means virgin, not simply young woman, thus showing what they believed about that young woman. Matthew then uses the Jewish Septuagint Greek version of Isaiah, which would have been commonly used then, as an indicator of Jesus' birth. This is not difficult. Ehrman asks why other writers such as Mark or Paul do not mention the virgin birth of Jesus. But Mark's Gospel STARTS with Jesus' public ministry AS AN ADULT, with nothing about his early life so why on earth WOULD he mention his birth?! And as for Paul, he wrote his various letters to various churches for specific reasons, and was not retelling the life of Jesus, quite obviously. That does NOT mean Paul was unaware of it. Indeed Ehrman himself made a similar point elsewhere about Paul's letters not including everything others might have wanted him to include about Jesus' life precisely because that was NOT THE PURPOSE of his letters. Ehrman rightly uses this argument against mythicists, yet he doesnt seem to see why it also applies here!

[@VeridicusMaximus]

You don't think something as grand and miraculous as a virgin giving birth to the Messiah, Son of God, should be mentioned by Mark or Paul - our earliest sources? - LMAO! Now the context is what determines the meaning since the word as Heiser said does not necessitate a virgin. When it was first translated into Greek parthenos did not have the more strict meaning that it came to represent. Matthew as noted plays fast and loose with these so-called prophecies as is evidence by his fumbling the LXX of Zech.9:9, clearly missing intentionally or otherwise Hebrew parallelism and then completely miss-applies the' going down into Egypt' passage. The guy could draw prophetic water from the most mundane of stone verses. The context of Is. is clearly not something that others saw as referring to Jesus becuase it so obviously is not about the Messiah or a guy named Jesus 800 years later. And is partly why they don't mention it. It also very clear that they probably had not clue of his family origins coming from a poor small town and preaching from the wilderness as Mark tells us. All this other nonsense about Joseph, genealogies, and virgins giving birth don't even match in the two sources we have. It is a complete mess.

[@josephturner7569]

Was JC, Heracles half sibling?

[@bananaslug.1951]

I agree with MythVision Great video

[@BruceCarroll]

I think the "virgin birth" has been misinterpreted over the centuries. It is common in stories about a hero who is really the son of the king to be born of a commoner. But wait, how do we know the hero is the son of the king? Because his mother was a virgin (until that night the king knocked her up). I think Matthew (or whoever) is trying to convince the reader Jesus was the son of god. How can you know he was the son of god? Because Mary was a virgin (until that whole holy spirit thing).

[@thetexasliberal283]

I love John Shelby sprong. He was a huge influence in my life

[@Uryvichk]

After reading a lot of apologist texts, I've grown intensely suspicious of the term "prefigures" in an interpretive context. As they actually use it, it appears to mean "These two things only vaguely connect, but that's enough to claim that one clearly reflects or predicts the other." And it's often absurd: Catholics will argue, for instance, that Noah's flood "prefigures baptism," apparently because... both things involve water? Even claiming that both involved a cleansing with water, Noah's not the one going into the water and not the one being cleansed, he's the one who DIDN'T need cleansing and was saved FROM having to go into the water, and everything that DID go into the water didn't come back up. It's a terrible analogy for baptism if so, because Noah was not a sinner gratuitously saved by God's mercy, he was judged righteous by God BEFORE he was chosen to be saved; indeed, that appears to be WHY God chose to spare Noah and his family instead of killing absolutely everyone: "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God." Genesis 6:9. So to argue the one story is prefiguration is to shoot in the foot the entire theological justification for the other. This seems to me to be a similar problem to the idea of "fulfillment of scripture" that Dr. Ehrman mentioned: If you declare that a subsequent event retroactively adds new meaning to an older one, you'd better be real sure that the meaning intended in the telling of that earlier event doesn't contradict the new meaning you're trying to give to it.

[@vaiyt]

Noah's flood might as well have inspired baptism... because the people who invented baptism already heard the stories about Noah's flood! That's like saying Part 1 of Don Quixote is a prophecy about Part 2.

[@matthewnitz8367]

Yeah, they called this "double fulfillment" in my branch of Christianity, and it sounded so sensible when you're being indoctrinated into it. God made a prophecy that applies to two different times? If anything that's twice as hard! Looking back it is strange to see how I just totally ignored how well this also fits with the hypothesis that people just looked back at the old testament and picked out parts that kind of fit their narrative if you didn't worry too much about the surrounding context.