Did Matthew Invent the Virgin Birth Based On a Mistranslation?

You know it’s Christmas when you get your annual lump of coal with the whole ‘Matthew invented the virgin birth’ schtick. This time, it’s from TikTok’s favorite cynical biblical scholar, Dan McClellan.
Dan's original video: • The virgin birth is a ...
Goodacre NT Pod 64. Is the Virgin Birth Based on a Mistranslation? podacre.blogsp...
Heiser video: • Video
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com

[@busfeet2080]

Mark also has the people call Jesus the son of Mary. It’s very uncommon to call a man the son of his mother rather than his father.

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's possible that he did because it seems like Joseph dies.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

​@@TestifyApologeticsA fair point. Wouldn't the reference remain after the death though?

[@PA-1000]

​@@TestifyApologeticsthat is true, since later on in mark its shown that mary is with a new man.

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@PA-1000There is nothing in Mark's account or any of the other gospels that even hints that Mary was with a new man.

[@thesweuteen]

Well, he is also called the son of Joseph in many other passages.

[@legodavid9260]

Quite frankly, the idea that Paul never heard or knew about the Virgin Birth is kind of ridiculous. Luke, who also wrote Acts (which is mostly about Paul) was likely Paul's travelling companion, and it's very likely Paul knew about his Gospel, or even contributed to it in some way (It's interesting to note that when talking about the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul directly quotes Jesus' words as recorded in Luke's Gospel as opposed to the others). If Paul knew about Luke's Gospel, than he most certainly also knew about the Virgin Birth.

[@Kevigen]

What makes you think that Paul knew Luke's gospel? As far as I can tell, Paul doesn't seem to indicate that he knows any of the Gospels in his writings.

[@legron121]

Dan would likely dispute that the author of Acts travelled with Paul.

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@legron121What, from your knowledge, are the arguments against the “we” passages representing actual eyewitness narration in Acts?

[@legron121]

@@ManoverSuperman Well, the main argument from what I know is that the contradictions between Acts and Paul's letters (e.g., on whether Paul met any believers in Judea before his conversion, whether Paul met all the apostles on his first visit to Jerusalem, and so on) strongly indicate that the author was not Paul's companion. The "we-passages" are the author pretending to have been there, in order to enhance the credibility of their narrative (no different from the "we-passages" in, say, 1 John or 2 Peter or many other forgeries).

[@ManoverSuperman]

⁠@@legron121That’s interesting. But are there any contradictions between the content of the we passages and Paul’s letters? Is it possible some of the contradictions are exaggerated a bit? Some scholars say that Galatians contradicts Acts because Paul says he did not immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion, while Acts suggests a shorter space of time. To be frank, Acts does not suggest Paul immediately went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Instead, it says “many days” had passed (Acts 9:23) since he was in Damascus preaching. Are there any other substantive contradictions between Paul and the author of Luke-Acts regarding timelines and specific events?

[@lonelibertarian]

The earliest attestations of the church fathers is that Matthew wrote first. If that is the case than virgin birth would also predate Mark. I hate this idea of an evolved christology it's based on faulty bad presuppositions

[@truncated7644]

What makes you think you are right? Why do you call their beliefs presuppositions instead of conclusions based on historical probabilities of what most likely occurred?

[@faithnreason446]

​@@truncated7644He did not call his beliefs presuppositions.

[@truncated7644]

@@faithnreason446 He said evolved christology is based on bad presuppositions. That is what I am referring to

[@faithnreason446]

@@truncated7644 True, but he never called his own beliefs "presuppositions." Regardless, everyone and every side of any argument has them.

[@truncated7644]

@@faithnreason446 Granted. Do you also think that evolved Christology is based on faulty bad presuppositions?

[@A.Joshua_]

Saying Paul was unaware of virgin birth is kinda bad one, "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,..." Galatians 4:4

[@BurnBird1]

You say, quoting a verse which doesn't support your argument.

[@eclipsesonic]

I think Isaiah 7:14 has a double fulfilment aspect to it. The first fulfilment was in Isaiah's son, Mahershalalhashbaz (Isaiah 7:15-16, Isaiah 8:3-4) and the second fulfilment was in Christ (Matthew 1:23). The clever thing about Isaiah using the word "almah" for young woman or maiden instead of "bethulah" for virgin, is that it covers both aspects, not just the one.

[@TheBibleCode]

There's much more evidence that Alma is a Young Girl precisely to be "Virgin" Gen 24:43, here "almah" refers to Rebekah, a virgin. Exodus 2:8, here almah is used to describe Moses' s young sister, a young girl who is likely a virgin. Song of Solomon 6:8, classifies Solomon's women into three categories: wives, concubines and virgins. If they were not virgins, they would be concubines, suggesting almah means virgin.(4)

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@TheBibleCodeBut wouldn’t the example of Proverbs 30:18-19 be an instance of “Almah” not meaning a virgin? Also, Rebekah being an “Almah” isn’t very impressive evidence since all it does is really say she wasn’t as old as Isaac’s momma, Sarah. Sarah, to be sure, was not an “almah” when she conceived Isaac. Scholars have pretty much shown linguistically that the only significance “Almah” and its masculine form (as well as their cognates in Aramaic and Ugaritic) have is to denote age and sexual ripeness, not virginity. To press the point also shows a lack of proper understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah to Ahaz. The sign is not the circumstance of the birth, but only what the child’s name signifies, namely, that God is with the house of Judah. Remember that Isaiah’s predecessor and contemporary Hosea had had the same significances with his children as well, and in secular terms it is more than probable that the latter had an influence on the former.

[@raygiordano1045]

There's also a HUGE cultural context to be considered too. Jewish cultural norms are almost always ignored* and Jewish culture is very different from every culture I can think of, and ancient Jewish Culture is really different. Nowadays an unmarried young woman might be a virgin, but given that information today, it doesn't imply she's a virgin. Back then, her virginity would be assumed if given no further information. Then there's the prophecy itself, it's not noteworthy if the young woman conceived the usual way. Between strong marriage customs and large families being desired, a young woman conceiving is not exactly an unexpected outcome. Even Isaiah narrowing the prophecy to a son isn't unlikely either. * Not saying you ignored Jewish prophecy contextually. Multiple fulfillments of a prophecy is something I read about and it sure was something of a surprise to me. My thinking was more like a check-list. I heard that prophecies often unfold in two phases: a "dress rehearsal" near fulfillment, and the actual fulfillment follows later.

[@clouds-rb9xt]

Yes, double meaning in the Bible

[@OrthosAlexandros]

​​@@ManoverSupermanthe Virgin in Proverbs 30:18-19 has nothing to do with the woman of Proberbs 30:20. The word is different and the theme is different. The subject is not that all of these things which are listed do not leave a trace, but they are "too wonderful". How is it that an eagle flies? How is it that a serpent walks on rock without legs and how is it that a ship does not sink this far away when a man would? And the fourth mystery is the most majestic one as it is at this time that the most glorious of all wonderful things is enacted in the marriage and perfection of that marriage by the two becoming "one flesh" (Genesis 3). The theme in Proverbs is also of Lady Wisdom and of Lady folly and the contrast of them so this makes sense.

[@lydiematumona6235]

I think almah is used for Rebecca in the OT meaning a young woman and a virgin at the same time. Matthew is not a fool... How disrespectful!

[@jamescummings6703]

That makes no sense. An Almah is a young woman. An Almah can be a virgin or she could be a married woman with children, she's still a young woman. A Betula on the other hand can only be a woman that is sexually pure. So If Isaiah intended to say a virgin, he would have used betula.

[@TheBibleCode]

Gen 24:43, here "almah" refers to Rebekah, a virgin. Exodus 2:8, here almah is used to describe Moses' s young sister, a young girl who is likely a virgin. Song of Solomon 6:8, classifies Solomon's women into three categories: wives, concubines and virgins. If they were not virgins, they would be concubines, suggesting almah means virgin.(4)

[@TestifyApologetics]

I was going to go thru these verses but cut it for the sake of time

[@Contagious93812]

Torah does have a specific word for a virgin - betulah - which it consistently uses in reference to a woman’s virginity (e.g., Genesis 24:16, Exodus 22:15, Leviticus 21:14, and especially Deuteronomy 22:13-21) - and that is not the word used by Isaiah. The verse in Isaiah is not about a virgin, but about a young woman that already got pregnant. Isaiah is talking to the King of Israel, Jerusalem has been besieged by two armies, and he calls the prophet.The prophet says this woman is pregnant, and she's going to have a son. When the child is old enough to know good from evil, these two armies will disperse. Isaiah had just informed King Ahaz of Judah that the king of Aram and the king of Israel (i.e., the Northern Kingdom, Samaria) were poised to attack Judah but that their campaign would be unsuccessful. He is not talking about something that will happen hundreds of years later, but something that will happen in a few years.

[@DgDo-tt6uf]

​@@Contagious93812"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

[@Contagious93812]

@t6uf So you just ignored the rest of the post to get the context? The Hebrew text says "the woman is with child". Perfect tense. Not "will conceive". It's a completed action. And if you read the whole chapter you can clearly see it's talking about something that was supposed to happen in a few years and not hundrends of years later.

[@DgDo-tt6uf]

@@Contagious93812 you are treating Biblical Hebrew like if it were latin or greek.

[@DaddyBooneDon]

Hi Erik, Just a funny note: double-check your illustrations. Some of the people have hands with 6 fingers. I had a little chuckle when I saw this. But it's a great commentary. It never fails to amaze me when skeptics trot out the "almah" argument

[@BornAgainChris]

Those illustrations are made by AI

[@mccalltrader]

I’ll take Mathew’s interpretation of the OT over any modern scholar. Anyone who says different and thinks Mathew unrighteously misread things..are wrong, and the early church agreed, so, kick rocks.

[@ManoverSuperman]

Now you just have to be careful not to misunderstand Matthew’s purpose for quoting what he does. Don’t go around arguing Psalm 78:2 is a prophecy that the Messiah would speak parables, for example. You will do the truth a Biblical-sized disservice. Also be careful not to be an anti-intellectual careless for truth. If we were being honest the usage of Scripture made by some writers of the Qumram Community and the early church ought to make any seminary student cringe. There is such a thing as an inappropriate usage of Scripture, even if done from good intentions.

[@truncated7644]

Why do you think what you wrote is true?

[@theflaggedyoutuberii4311]

2:20 "Say it a little louder for the parallel Maniacs in the Jesus Mythos in the back," ❤ Hey, that rhymes.

[@legron121]

To be clear, "almah" never _means_ "virgin", even though it can be used to _refer to_ a virgin (the same is true of the English phrase "young woman"). There's a difference between sense and reference.

[@kilervgmmm]

Why does Rashi understand it as virgin in the song of Salomon 1:3? Is he also inaware of the Hebrew ?

[@TestifyApologetics]

given the cultural patriarchal context, young women were almost always virgins.

[@kilervgmmm]

Another nail in the coffin for the claim that in biblical Hebrew almah means young woman and betulah virgin is Joel 1:8. You can never understand the verse with that "standard". What is Joel saying ?

[@truncated7644]

@@TestifyApologeticsBut wouldn't you also agree that the cultural patriarchal context would acknowledge that when an "almah" becomes pregnant, it is because she has had sexual relations?

[@logicianbones]

​@@truncated7644 Not if it's a virgin birth. Seed of the woman also would "normally" not imply virginity, except it's weird that it's focused on in Genesis rather than just child or seed of both of them or something. Likewise "Behold, a woman will have a kid, it's a sign, be impressed" would be pretty weird. But yes, Testify made the point in the vid that they didn't even think this was Messianic and this is a point in our favor, so what you're saying here would only help that... so... The hint is there, but evidently it flew over their heads. Not surprising an omniscient God can do that.

[@ZeroCal150]

Dude I just wanna say, I love your work. Discovered you today. Good timing too, in the past month I have becoming of faith and you are a sound for once-deaf ears being so pleasant. When you break down what the secular argument is and myself seeing how so much of what I was disregarding came from people spouting the same words had really showed me that One, I was very ignorant in what I considered and I roll my eyes at who I was and listened to not just a sort while ago. Who is so infallible that they can deny the scripture based on modern day reasoning. I could write a biography of myself, and I know for a fact I will probably misremember when a certain president was in office. If I even mention it; and say 2000 years later, suddenly a study on my biography of my life was conducted, it would be a lie and false if their reasoning stands. You are a blessing.

[@GuitarTunings33]

Thanks, Testify. Is this the guy that narrated Zeitgeist? As soon as he started speaking I got a strong cringestalia

[@henryschmit3340]

Isaiah 7:14.. "The context of this verse is that an alliance was threatening the idolatrous king Ahaz. Not only was he in danger, but the house of David was threatened with extinction. Therefore, Isaiah, addressing the house of David (as shown by the plural form of “you” in the original Hebrew of v.13), stated that a sign to them would be a virgin conceiving. To comfort Ahaz, Isaiah prophesied that before a boy (Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub who was present, v. 3) would reach the age of knowing right from wrong, the alliance would be destroyed (vv. 15-17). It is important to recognize that the passage contains a double reference, so there is a difference between the prophecies to Ahaz alone (indicated by the singular form of ‘you’ in the Hebrew-atah אתה) and the house of David as a whole (indicated by the plural form-lachem לכם). Some anti-Christians, starting with the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimhi, have failed to understand this and misinterpreted the child Immanuel as a sign to Ahaz, possibly Ahaz’s godly son Hezekiah. The word for virgin here is עלמה (‘almāh). Some liberals26 and Orthodox Jews claim that the word really means ‘young woman’, and this is reflected in Bible translations such as the NEB, RSV, NRSV, and GNB. Such people fail to explain why a young woman’s bearing a son should be a sign-it happens all the time. The Septuagint translates ‘almāh as παρθένος (parthenos), the normal word for virgin. Later Jews, such as Trypho, Justin Martyr’s (c. 160) dialog opponent, and Rashi (11th cent.) have claimed that the Septuagint was wrong. Trypho claimed that ‘almah should have been translated neanis (young girl) rather than parthenos. However, even Rashi admitted that ‘almāh could mean ‘virgin’ in Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8. In the KJV, the word is translated ‘virgin’ in Gen. 24:43 (Rebekah before her marriage), ‘maid’ in Ex. 2:8 (Miriam as a girl) and Prov. 30:19, and ‘damsels’ in Ps. 68:25. These verses contain all the occurrences of ‘almāh in the OT, and in none can it be shown that a non-virgin is meant. In English, ‘maid’ and ‘maiden’ are often treated as synonyms for virgin (e.g. maiden voyage). Vine et al. note that the other word for virgin, בתולה (betûlāh), “emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too).” betûlāh is qualified by a statement “neither had any man known her” in Gen. 24:16, and is used of a widow in Joel 1:8. Further evidence comes from clay tablets found in 1929 in Ugarit in Syria. Here, in Aramaic, a word similar to `almah is used of an unmarried woman, while on certain Aramaic incantation bowls, the Aramaic counterpart of betûlah is used of a married woman. The Encyclopedia Judaica, while criticising the translation of ‘almah in Is. 7:14 as ‘virgin’, also points out that btlt was used of the goddess Anath who had frenzied sex with Baal."

[@editsofawesomeness]

Great video Erik! I'd like to add some things here which are very important. In saying the following, I mean no personal offense, but in viewing a good amount of video's from Dan lately, I consistently see him performing this horrible spin doctor act where he confidently proclaims the truth of stories he provides absolutely no evidence for - and which are actually completely untrue most the time as well. As Christians, we should be reminded to always let the burden of proof lie with the person making the claim, and not feel pushed into a corner and defend when the opponent hasn't even proven their claim yet. Here's him doing it in this video over and over again: "The earliest writings we have about Jesus - the writings of Paul and the Gospel of Mark - say absolutely nothing at all about any virgin birth. Paul's really only concerned with the resurrected Jesus and Mark's story starts with the beginning of His ministry and His baptism." So what Dan? Please, do tell us what follows from this argument from silence. "It's not until after that that people are starting to ask questions about where Jesus came from that we then get the development of the traditions we find in Matthew and Luke which talk about Jesus' ancestry and then attribute miraculous events to his birth to suggest that His mission was a sign and He was set apart for it at His very birth..." How do you know these are later developments and attributions, Dan? How do you know they're not real facts? Who are these later people asking questions about where Jesus came from? Please Dan, give us some examples! "The most likely source of this tradition is Matthew's appropriation of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14." How do you know Matthew "appropriated" this from the Septuagint, Dan? How do you know he didn't use or at least know the Hebrew, and decided that the word properly meant "virgin"? And how do you know the Septuagint translated it wrong? "Now in Isaiah 7:14 we have not a prophecy, but a sign..." Can a sign not be in the future, Dan? And is the sign not to the house of David? So how do you know it's not a prophecy? "...where Isaiah says that a "young woman", "almah", has conceived and will bring forth a son, and the idea is that this son will deliver Israel; this is probably king Hezekiah." How do you know that "young woman" is a completely accurate translation of "almah", Dan? How do you know that, when the word only appears 7 times in the Old Testament, and in no instance every demonstrably refers to a woman who is not a virgin? "But when that is translated in the Greek many centuries later, it's no longer relevant if it's talking about a woman who got pregnant way back when Isaiah was alive, and so the tense of the verb is changed, it's no longer "a young woman has conceived", it's now "a parthenos", a virgin, "will conceive" in the future, "and will bring forth a son"." How do you know the passage was changed simply because it was no longer considered relevant, Dan? How do you know that "parthenos" is not a perfectly proper translation of "almah"? And why is the verb tense relevant? Can a prophecy not be in past tense? (Obviously, it can be, and this is called the 'prophetic perfect tense', but Dan seems not to be aware of this). "Suddenly, it's a prophecy, and this is what Matthew picks up on, and this is where the tradition likely develops that Jesus' mother was a virgin, something that developed decades after Jesus' death, after Paul had already written his epistles and lived and died, and after even the Gospel of Mark had been written." How do you know this is a later tradition Dan, and how do you know that it developed after Paul died and Mark was written? This, it seems to me, is the primary way we should respond to these sorts of arguments. Let's not accept as obvious or likely true what is not obvious or likely true to us, _especially_ when it concerns attacks against the Holy Scriptures. May God be with us in discerning truth from falsehood, and let's all pray for people like Dan, that their heart may soften and that they accept their saviour! God bless you all!

[@Binary10100]

Dan is the king of just-so stories. He thinks that because he can state a hypothetical chain of events to explain some phenomenon, it means the chain of events really happened. He doesn't seem to realize that this is all he does and that simply imagining a hypothetical story does not count as a historically plausible explanation.

[@cloudhme]

This is exactly the problem with many skeptics thinking including Bart. They confuse possibility with probability.

[@logicianbones]

I'm pretty sure they realize it (Romans 1 suppression). Keep in mind they have no moral grounding against lying. (To themselves or others.) There's a reason they never do self-critical research on these assumptions.

[@editsofawesomeness]

Exactly! That's been my impression as well.

[@tolkienfan9291]

To supplement the point on עלמה vs. בתולה and παρθένος: A “young maiden” (עלמה), when the term bears that sense, was a girl who had not yet borne children, but was of marriageable age, which would mean, according to norms of the day, she would be presumed to be a virgin if she is not married. Of course, even the Greek term was not always used strictly for referring to a virgin, as it could also refer to a young woman who was not yet a mother (e.g., Gen 34:3 LXX [2x]). In neither Hebrew nor Greek is there a term reserved strictly for virgins per se (עלמה only occurs seven times in the MT anyway, including Isa 7:14, and it is translated with παρθένος in Gen 24:43, as well as Isa 7:14; in fact, the LXX uses two other terms for the five other uses). This point heads off the objection that Isaiah would have used בתולה if he meant “virgin,” since there are cases where it does not clearly refer to virgins as such (Isa 23:4; 47:1 [cf. v. 9]; Jer 31:13; 51:22; Lam 1:15 [cf. v. 19]; Ezek 9:6; Joel 1:8) and cases where the qualifier “who had not known a man” is attached (Gen 24:16; Judg 21:12), which would be unnecessary if the term only meant “virgin” and thus conveyed the point well enough on its own. In fact, it and its Greek translation are often used as parallels for “young men,” where, by the arguments of some, one might expect the word for “young maiden” (Deut 32:25; 2 Chr 36:17; Pss 78:63; 148:12; Isa 23:4; Jer 51:22; Lam 1:19; 2:21; Ezek 9:6; Amos 8:13; Zech 9:17). And none of this takes account of the other times בתולה is not corresponded with παρθένος (Esth 2:2-3, 19; Isa 23:12; Jer 14:17; Joel 1:8) or when the latter corresponds to a word other than בתולה (Gen 24:14, 16 [in the first case], 43, 55; 34:3 [as noted]; Lev 21:13).

[@Lurkingdolphin]

I’d love for Dan to debate someone like Sam Shamoum .

[@CynHicks]

Sam's strength is memorization of scripture. It's crazy to watch. He doesn't do as well with atheists and agnostics. Where he shines is in theology debates with other theists.

[@Lurkingdolphin]

⁠@@CynHickshis ability to catch people of guard when they are sloppy with their words or haven’t done their research is exceptional

[@logicianbones]

For the record his last name is Shamoun. (Ends with N, not M.)

[@Lurkingdolphin]

@@logicianbones had a typo

[@kovla4684]

It's possible that the text used the word "almah" because by doing so, it not only refers to virginity but also signifies the youthfulness of the woman in question. Many argue that the term "young woman" doesn't necessarily imply virginity, but when using the explicit term "virgin,"(betullah) it doesn't convey the person's age - they could be older, for example, around 30 years old (an age considered elderly at that time, as they might have already been in marriage). However, when using the word "almah," it clearly evokes the image of a teenage girl who has just entered the age of fertility and is about to get married. This is significant because most prominent figures in the Old Testament were born to older women. With this word, the text captures both virginity and youthfulness simultaneously, much like the portrayal of Mary according to the tradition.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

2:14 yeah you that Atheologica is going to make a response video this just for this one part. Would you ever consider doing response videos to him not that he’s really worth your time. He’s so so smug it’s unbelievable.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I have sort of responded in indirect ways if you're paying attention, but no, he's not worth my time, based on his behavior.

[@davidgadbois6839]

1. I'm surprised you didn't mention the recent "The Mother of the Infant King, Isaiah 7:14: alma and parthenos in the World of the Bible: a Linguistic Perspective". If Gentry and Rico's thesis is correct, that's a debate-ender. This was recommended to me by Messianic Jews. 2. There are various reasons why a given author may be aware of something like the virgin birth but not mention it in their writings. People usually point out things like "it wasn't pertinent to X's intent, scope, or area of concern in this work", which is a good point. What isn't often mentioned is that a writer may know about something like the virgin birth through the stories, preaching, and collective memories of the apostolic church, but decided it wouldn't be prudent to include elements they hadn't witnessed, or couldn't interview an eyewitness on in order to secure the pertinent details of the virgin birth, and ensure the story wasn't garbled secondhand. 3. From all I've read, scholars highly, HIGHLY debate the meaning of biblical/classical Hebrew verb tenses. While modern Hebrew has basically"normal" tenses, they describe biblical Hebrew as more conveying aspect rather than tense. This debate continues to rage today.

[@Ninevehh]

Father Raymond Brown notes that while a literal reading of the birth narratives is untenable, they do preserve historical traditions. Scholars note that the question of history is secondary, since they were more concerned with the theology, and that Matthew's whole use of Isaiah wasn't even to do with the virgin birth, but to interpret Jesus as "Immanuel" (God with us). The skeptical arguments, therefore, are blissfully ignorant.

[@danielboone8256]

The argument from silence is so commonly used but seemingly so weak that I don’t understand why skeptics still use it. Maybe an in-depth video on the argument from silence is warranted to see why skeptics still use it so frequently and if it can ever be used persuasively/rationally.

[@DanielApologetics]

Nice one, Erik!

[@dagoth77]

Dan: Paul and Mark… Me: Matthean priority. 🗿

[@billowspillow]

We're the proud, the few . . .

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@billowspillow…..and the incorrect, I’m afraid.

[@billowspillow]

@@ManoverSuperman Good point. Well supported.

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@billowspillowWell it’s no less supported than the claim it sought to counter, so I guess we have a bit of a Mexican standoff situation here….

[@billowspillow]

@@ManoverSuperman One of us made a statement about a position we hold. The other made a truth claim. These are not the same.

[@logicianbones]

About the tense, IIRC the other details in this prophecy rule out that this part is a present-fulfillment, so the LXX translators may have just been doing a thought-for-thought translation making the future meaning clearer for readers who were less familiar with the history. I forget the details of that but I went through it a while ago and it looked solid to me. I think something about one or two nations where something had to happen, that didn't for Hezekiah. (I don't think that aspect comments on whether almah meant virgin, but it virtually always did. See JP Holding for more on both of those points.)

[@quentandil]

I notice a fact quite overlooked in general: in the times in which the Gospels were written, the Septuaginta was generally seen as a continuation of written Revelation. If you told Matthew or any Jew writing in Greek that the prophecy of Isaiah was a mistranslation, they would tell you they are well aware that the Septuaginta is not contradicting the Hebrew text, just making it more precise.

[@macwade2755]

Merry Christmas, Testify!

[@Bildad1976]

Come now, let's not be coy about it. The extrapolation and, thus, the ultimate conclusion of the principle which "Dan" is asserting in the intro is that Paul disbelieves EVERYTHING in the Gospels which he did not repeat in his Epistles! (In fact, the reverse could be said, as well!) This, of course, is absurd, but one must often extrapolate "to the absurd", the principles behind liberalism's theistic claims in order to reveal their absurdity.

[@davidthurman8220]

….as it is written, New Testament writers in similar manner to the Rabbis use this phrase NOT necessarily to mean something was predicted but instead in a way that shows that they see a similar idea expressed in the prior Scriptural wording. Scholars have recognized that Matthew especially uses what is called an ecbatic use of Old Testament passages. ECBATIC VS TELIC PROPHECY - The ecbatic use, "relating to an event that has happened; denoting a mere result or consequence, as distinguished from telic, which implies purpose or intention or a final end. ' Events were arranged in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled', is telic. In other words, the Biblical writers often used the words 'that it might be fulfilled' in two very different ways. The 'telic' sense means that the OT passage was specifically designed to predict the event verses the ecbatic is to use the phrase merely because the situation was very similar and therefore acts as an example of a parallel type of event or saying. When a scripture is in the telic sense it refers to a specific prophecy, but when it is used in the ecbatic sense it refers to events that fulfill passages through parallelism or similarity. L. D. McCabe explained the difference. He said, “The telic use implies purpose, determination, prediction,... while the ecbatic use implies only consequence, parallelism, application, or mere illustration. Moses Stuart says that "the New Testament writers often use Old Testament phraseology, which originally was applied in a very different connection. And they do this because such phraseology expresses, in an apt and forcible manner, the thought which they desired then to convey.””, For more on this see Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies A Necessity & The Foreknowledge of God, and Cognate Themes in Theology and Philosophy Both In One Volume, PDF. pp. 268-277. “Might be fulfilled - It is more difficult to know in what sense this could be said to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. To understand this, it may be remarked that the word “fulfilled” is used in the Scriptures and in other writings in many senses, of which the following are some: 1. When a thing is clearly predicted, and comes to pass, as the destruction of Babylon, foretold in Isa_13:19-22; and of Jerusalem, in Matt. 24. 2. When one thing is typified or shadowed forth by another, and when the event occurs, the type is said to be fulfilled. This was the case in regard to the types and sacrifices in the Old Testament, which were fulfilled by the coming of Christ. See Heb. 9. 3. When prophecies of future events are expressed in language more elevated and full than the particular thing, at first denoted, demands. Or, in other words, when the language, though it may express one event, is also so full and rich as appropriately to express other events in similar circumstances and of similar import, they may be said to be fulfilled. Thus, for example, the last chapters of Isaiah, from Isa. 40 onward, foretell the return of the Jews into Babylon, and every circumstance mentioned occurred in their return. But the language is more expanded and sublime than was necessary to express their return. It will also express appropriately a much more important and magnificent deliverance that of the redeemed under the Messiah; and the return of the people of God to him, and the universal spread of the gospel: and therefore it may be said to be fulfilled in the coming of Jesus and the spread of the gospel. So, if there were any other magnificent and glorious events, still, in similar circumstances, and of like character, it might be said also that these prophecies were fulfilled in all of them. The language is so full and rich, and the promises are so grand, that they may appropriately express all these deliverances. This may be the sense in which the prophecy now under consideration may be said to have been fulfilled. 4. Language is said to be fulfilled when, though it was used to express one event, it may be used also to express another. Thus, a fable may be said to be fulfilled when an event occurs similar to the one concerning which it was first spoken. A parable has its fulfillment in all the cases to which it is applicable; and the same remark applies to a proverb, or to a declaration respecting human nature. The statement that “there is none that doeth good” Psa_14:3 was at first spoken of a particular race of wicked men.” Yet it is applicable to others, and in this sense may be said to have been fulfilled. See Rom_3:10. In this use of the word fulfilled, it means, not that the passage was at first intended to apply to this particular thing, but that the words aptly or appropriately express the thing spoken of, and way be applied to it. We may say the same of this which was said of another thing, and thus the words express both, or are fulfilled. The writers of the New Testament seem occasionally to have used the word in this sense.”, Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, On Matt. 1:22. FOUR CATEGORIES OF PROPHECIES: All prophecies fit into one of these four categories. 1. ABSOLUTE PROPHECIES These are prophecies of events that will inevitably come to pass because of the direct action of God. This relates to the omnipotence of God to bring about events predetermined by Himself because of their importance to His overall plan for saving the world. The matter is completely settled and certain. This type would be “telic” because they were specified. 2. CONDITIONAL PROPHECIES These are prophecies of contingent, (may or may not) events. They relate to the freewill of men. The matter is completely open (depends on what else happens) and contingent, it may or may not happen. Two examples of this would be: - The repentance of the nation of Judah: "Perhaps they will hear and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I purposed to do unto them because of the evil of their doings." Jer. 26:3. The repentance of Nineveh in Jonah. 3. EXTRAPOLATIVE PROPHECIES These are prophecies that are predicted, based upon God's exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present. Looking at the pattern of the past and the circumstances of the present, our Infinite God is able to make accurate and detailed predictions of the future beyond our own finite comprehension. Extrapolation is also done in science and economics where past data is extended on a graph to try to predict the future. But God is able to do this with far greater precision. The best example is Peter's denial. Seeing that he lacked stability, Jesus was able to predict that if tested those three times he would not resist the temptation. 4. PARALLEL OR ANALOGOUS (analogy, something is like something else) SCRIPTURE FULFILLMENTS These are events found in the New Testament, which correlate, or are seen as having a likeness with events found in the Old Testament. The scriptures used had an original meaning in the Old yet are applicable to a situation in the New. This is very common and relates to the way the Jewish culture at that time looked at things. When referenced in the New Testament these are examples of “ecbatic” quoting or the recognition by the author of a parallelism that supports what he is saying about the current event. This discussion is adapted from Dean H. Harvey from his book Pastor, What About Judas? “Often these bring great problems to readers, because King James, Geneva Bible and other translators often cover up the original languages and make these similar situations sound like direct telic fulfillment of prophecy (Absalom and Judas is a good example; see Acts 1:16, 20, Ps. 41:9, 69:25 [notice the plural there, but in Acts it is singular], Ps. 109:8, more will be said later). These type of situations are called ecbatic prophecies., Howard Elseth, Did God Know?: A Study of the Nature of God.

[@thesweuteen]

Here's another way to look at this. Would it be incorrect to suggest that a virgin in this time period is an almah? Of course not. It's possible that there could be older women that are virgins, but the word almah, in a Jewish context, would apply to a girl who is also a virgin. It may not be explicit, but it's not improbable. It's not a "mistranslation," especially considering the Greek word "parthenos," which is what the Septuagint translates almah as, could also simply mean a young woman. And even if Isaiah 7:14 just means a young woman, so what? A young Jewish woman at the time was, in most circumstances, a virgin, so yes, the passage can be applied to the Virgin birth.

[@chrishaynes599]

Interesting video. Coming from a skeptic I wish skeptics didn’t use some bad arguments and heavily rely on scholarly consensus. Have you read Michael Fishbane work on ancient Jewish interpretations? It’s a pretty interesting book

[@SantaFe19484]

I am proud of you for telling the truth.

[@cosmologium]

I also find it interesting, in light of the Two Powers In Heaven controversy, 1st Century Jews sometimes gave the Angel of YHWH the name "Israel", taking Gen 32:27-28 to imply that the Angel gave His name to Jacob.

[@CRoadwarrior]

Nice video. Dan is clearly not objective and somewhat dishonest in his claims. I don't wonder why he doesn't respond to comments on his KZbin page.

[@ryanrockstarsessom768]

Thank you

[@dandeliontea7]

Great work. See also "The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21-31". Apparently there is evidence of the idea of a "non-sexual" conception of Isaac in Philo and midrashic traditions.

[@charlesiragui2473]

Mark is traditionally considered the transcribed eyewitness of Peter. Peter was obviously not present for Jesus's birth and seems to have initially had unfriendly relations with Jesus's family (Mark reports negative interactions, though he also reports specific names of Jesus's brothers). True, Peter presumably would not have been present for Jesus's baptism (the calling of the disciples is after the baptism) but the baptism was an event proximate in time and of the same movement. John the Baptist was apparently working not far from the Sea of Galilee and Jesus himself endorsed John, so Peter would have had deep familiarity with this episode that had occurred just prior to his joining Jesus. Matthew and Luke involve not only first person eyewitness/personal recollections but also the gathering of material from various sources. Tradition tells us that Luke worked with the daughters of Philip to assemble material. The family of Jesus is indicated in Acts 1 to have joined the Jesus movement after the resurrection (Paul also tells us that the risen Jesus appeared to James the Brother of the Lord). This means that Luke (and presumably Matthew) had the family of Jesus available as sources.

[@garrettvantiem4637]

Some of these ai Jesus's are ridiculous xD - wiki commons has hundreds of fair use depictions - great video regardless, appreciated!

[@MerBlack]

Luke 24 documents how Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures about Jesus…this (the virgin birth prophecies) most likely is one of those. Thankful for your videos, Brother!

[@jperez7893]

i wish you guys read the canonical hebrew gospels that is not derived from the greek but directly from the hebrew. john says, "in the beginning was the Son of Eloah. the Son of El was both with El, and the Son of El was Eloah" it is through john that you can deduce the astronomical arrangements of the planets and constellations to give you the date of christ's birth on 11 september 3 bc between 6:15 pm to 7:30 pm jerusalem time, this was 1 tishri, feast of trumpets. i find it improbable that such a specific astrological observation fits perfectly with the other historical narratives of the other gospels, such as it was the 750th anniversary of rome, and the mandatory registration of the empire for an oath of allegiance to augustus as pater patria on 5 february 2 bc, which happened to be the silver jubilee of augustus (in the res gestae divi augusti), the epiphany of the magi on 22 december 2 bc coinciding with the end of retrograde of jupiter which coincided with hannukah, the the massacre of the innocents on the blood moon of 10 january 1bc which coincided with the death of the 2 matthias, the death of herod on 2 shevat 1 bc, and the departure of jesus from egypt on passover 1 bc. the reconstruction of events must be taken in toto.

[@editsofawesomeness]

Also, it should be noted; just because one word clearly means something - "betulah" meaning "virgin" - it doesn't mean that that's _the only word_ that can mean that something. (Near) synonyms are real things. This means that "almah" can easily necessarily mean "virgin", especially when we consider that there is no Old Testament verse where "almah" provably refers to non-virgins. It's unbelievable that self-proclaimed "critics" are so uncritical of their own arguments 😂.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

There is a glaring issue with the "Matthew made up the virgin birth" conspiracy. Both Celsus and the Jewish Talmud talk about Jesus being an illegitimate child. "“[Jesus] invented his birth from a virgin. … Born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery" (Against Celsus 1:28). If the earliest critics of Christianity said Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, he probably was (rather miraculously or scandalously). They were after all much closer to the event and the historical context than we are today, and a culture that highly shamed bastardized children would have taken note of this. This is realistic. Rather Jesus was actually conceived by a virgin or conceived through infidelity, the side that loved Jesus would appeal to the virgin birth narrative, while the side that denied Jesus would view the virgin birth as a desperate ploy to cover his shame. Matthew didn't make this up to fulfill Isaiah, he applied Isaiah to answer a controversial detail about Jesus' life.

[@protochris]

Listing to Dan is cringeworthy. Paul wouldnt have spoke about Jesus' birth, because he wasn't a direct witness to it. Paul does mention in 2 Philippians about Jesus "although existing in the form of God...he took the form of a slave, made in the likeness of man". If Jesus had a pre-existence according to Paul, Mary's birth would have to be virgin, otherwise, his existence began at the stage of conception.

[@kearlanventures]

Just yet one more reason we need to stop letting scholars get away with the sloppy argument that Mark was first. Once we go with the far better argument -- far better attested and with much better evidence -- that Matthew was first, silly arguments like these go away. But as long we we keep allowing scholars to lazily claim Mark was first, we'll have to debate these ridiculous arguments.

[@MrSeedi76]

Hi, scholar here - I studied theology and I can tell you that it wasn't laziness that led to this. It's funny how scholars are regularly bashed on this channel when they don't agree with the fundamentalist approach. Almost as if there was a war going on between scholars and "true Christians" who need to defend the "biblical view". And at the same time relying on scholars who analyzed theses texts. Not every scholar is an atheist who tries to destroy people's faith like a certain KZbin celebrity scholar famous in the US. But utterly unknown anywhere else.

[@Canaanitebabyeater]

@@MrSeedi76 Do you have any recommendations for scholarly works on this topic? And if your field is in ANE cultures, could you also give me some recommendations for that?

[@pepepena1937]

He forgets to mention that John in Revelation includes probably the best proof of *THE SIGN* by GOD in the Stars. Same Star promised in Torah and which apparently Daniel taught the Magi in Babylonia.

[@lyongreene8241]

You said you covered Dan's objection to the verb tense in isaiah 7:14 earlier in the video but I think you omitted that part unless Im missing something. Can you post the time stamp?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm saying Matthew wouldn't have referenced the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 if it wasn't based on some kind of actual event he believed happened.

[@logicianbones]

@@TestifyApologetics Glad you clarified that; I was pretty sure that was what you meant, but can see how it might fly over others' heads.

[@ЛаисЛ]

I mean, people like this ignore that the Septuagint was written by native Hebrew speakers who were also theologians and scholars of the Bible AND Greek language. If they choose to translate almah as parthenos, maybe, just maybe, there was a reason to do so?

[@jamilbiotech91]

The seventh chapter of Isaiah describes, in great detail, a contemporaneous, traumatic civil war which occurred 2,700 years ago, not the birth of a messiah many centuries later. Simply put, the Book of Matthew ripped Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context. Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the Hebrew word almah can only mean a “virgin,” and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive during Ahaz’s lifetime? Were there two virgin births?

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Are...are skeptics watching Snatch (2000) or something? I did not realise Guy Stuart Ritchie was popular among such people.

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

I'm one of those that thinks that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Matthew 1:23 is one of the first things that was brought to my attention that gave me pause in that belief. Obviously, that I'm saying I still believe Matthew wrote in Hebrew, I've come to terms with it. Giulia Sissa did a survey of the Greek word παρθενος, and it's not nearly as straightforward that it meant "virgin" even into the first century. It kind of had that connotation, but even Jacob's daughter Dinah was still called a παρθενος in the LXX after the incident with Shechem. Like you said, even from the other side עלמה doesn't exclude the understanding of a virgin. An ancient Israelite would know that calling a girl an עלמה doesn't mean she's a virgin, but just like a hundred-ish years ago it would be disrespectful to start with the assumption that a young woman was not a virgin would be insulting, starting with the assumption that an עלמה is not a virgin would be insulting. The biggest thing to me was how Matthew uses the Old Testament, though. It's generally to connect Jesus to God. I think the emphasis of this verse is on Jesus being God with us, not on Mary being a virgin. Matthew did believe in a virgin birth, but I think that he didn't account for the titillation of thinking about a virgin birth when he put this together and in his mind the focus should be on Jesus being God, not on Mary being a virgin. That's why the verse right before going into the quote is about Jesus getting his name and Jesus saving his people, but you have to go back four verses to get that Mary hadn't been with Joseph and the mention that they didn't "know each other" until after Jesus was born doesn't show up until two verses after the quote.

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

@@tomasrocha6139 I know. What you're doing is what's called begging the question. If the one that translated Hebrew Matthew to Greek was aware of Mark and Luke, he would translate similar sections to match. Would you be interested in a more formal debate on this?

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

@@tomasrocha6139 What was the point of translating the LXX? What was the point of making the Latin translation? What was the point of making the King James translation? What's the point of any translation in all of history? In all these cases, the answer is the same: so people can read it that only know the target language. There may be something in your question that I'm not getting, so feel free to clarify. I just want you to see what I mean so that we aren't talking past each other. I respect that. I do. I spent 2021 pulling together my notes on why I think Matthew was written in Hebrew. If you want a quick overview, I did an interview on the KZbin channel Brave New History a few weeks back and it is a quick and easy way to get an overview of what I think.

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

@@tomasrocha6139 I'm still missing something. If you spoke only Greek and the Gospel of Matthew existed only in Hebrew, how would you read the Sermon on the Mount?

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

@@tomasrocha6139 I reject the premise that translating matching parallel sections to match reduces the value of having overall different Gospels. If that premise were true, the Synoptic Problem would reduce the value of the Synoptic Gospels overall. There's always flexibility in translation. Word order importance and synonyms give the translator lots of ways to translate a wide range of texts. Translators often translate familiar sections to match what people are used to hearing. I can give a very practical example. The ending of the second line of the Lord's Prayer in all the professional translations I'm aware of have "on Earth as it is in Heaven" or something very similar. (There might be one or two that I just haven't seen, but the vast majority if not all read this way.) The Greek, Latin, Syriac, basically anything that could be considered a source for any of the translations in English all have the order reversed: "as in Heaven, so on Earth." Tyndale thought it sounded better with Earth first, and it became the way people pray it in English. So that's the way translators continue to translate it, over and over. And it doesn't change anything. It's a perfectly fine translation, but it's something a bunch of people trip over the first time they learn The Lord's Prayer in another language. So if the translator who translated Matthew from Hebrew to Greek came to Matthew 7:1, and he saw אַל־תִּשְׁפְּטוּ וְלֹא תִשָּׁפְטוּ אַל־תְּחַיְיְבוּ, and he already knows Καὶ μὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε from Luke 6:37, it's perfectly natural for him to pick that up and put down something similar. And so on for other parallels. So, for example, if I'm right and the translator that went from Hebrew Matthew to Greek Matthew changed the order of Apostles in Matthew 10:2-3 to match the order he remembered from Luke or copied the first four Beatitudes from Luke, I don't see how that diminishs the value of the fuller version of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew or the two Beatitudes that are not found in Luke.

[@ManoverSuperman]

⁠@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor I doubt Hebrew Matthew primarily on the grounds that, if traditional scholars are right that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Greek in a Greek-speaking Judea, there likely would have been a redundancy in composing a gospel for broad circulation in a minority tongue. Add to that the fact that the Scripture citations are clearly taken from the Greek, and not the Hebrew, and it is very easy to infer that the author originally wrote his text in that language. Additionally, supposing Mark’s gospel (a Greek composition without controversy) served as the general schematic for the “plot” of Matthew’s text, it is difficult to see him virtually translating Mark’s text from Greek into Hebrew, only to retranslate it back to Greek again. The only way I see this as plausible is if Matthew essentially rewrote his gospel into Greek. But even then, Matthew’s gospel was originally just logia, which could of course include discourses and miracle accounts, but there’s no reason from Papias to suppose the text would have encompasses everything from an opening genealogy to a concluding address after a crucifixion narrative. I just suppose Matthew and Luke represent two separate but still mostly cogent strands of tradition related to the overall life of Jesus. The reason variants appear in the logia of Jesus between Matthew and Luke likely boils down to slight oral errors and variances occurring due to a certain liberality in the way Jesus’ teachings were transmitted. I have been preparing a whole project on the historical transmission of Jesus’ words, both orally and in written form. My hypothesis is there was originally much greater freedom for a preacher of the gospel to recite Jesus’ words by memory and in an order they thought was useful. Hence the early “sayings gospels” were likely for the sake of evangelical purposes, to give hearers a taste of the Lord’s preaching to evaluate for themselves. This freedom allowed the speaker to deliver Jesus’ sayings with certain flourishes and additions if they thought it useful, or even to possibly fuse different sayings together in order to make the message show through clearer.

[@BluStarGalaxy]

I sure love to see people defend mythology.

[@MrSeedi76]

If you knew what mythology is and what purposes it serves, you'd defend it too.

[@theflaggedyoutuberii4311]

4:30 Imagine you being a king and you're expecting god to present a miracle and he pops up with a woman age eighteen to twenty five will have a baby. And that's it, that's the miracle. This is what Dan wants us to think. That's some body getting knocked up is the miracle from God to the king.😂

[@ManoverSuperman]

The miracle isn’t the nature of the birth, but the time table in which God is going to remove Samaria and Aram-Damascus off the board. What you are doing with Isaiah 7:14-17 is akin to arguing that the real significance of the “sign” of Isaiah 20 is not that Egypt and Ethiopia will fall under the Assyrians under Sargon and Sennacherib, but that he didn’t catch an infection while walking around slipshod for three years. Context helps to establish that Emmanuel and ‘Hashbaz were not “signs” because of the sexual status of the woman who birthed them (or him), but that they would assure the swiftness of the defeat of Judah’s enemies in both cases. Isaiah even calls his own children (born, for aught we know, in perfectly natural circumstances) “signs” (Isaiah 8:18).

[@captainobvious2435]

Mary was 12 to 14. You're using modern humans' thinking to say 18 to 25.

[@grantgooch5834]

@@captainobvious2435 Source: you made it up.

[@captainobvious2435]

@@grantgooch5834 google it yourself and read the articles: "how old was Mary when she had Jesus"? I think most say 12 to 14 and some extend her age to 16.

[@captainobvious2435]

@@grantgooch5834 so as you have seen, it's true that Mary was 12 to 14, maybe 16 when giving birth to Jesus. Should God be on Catch a Predator with Chris Hansen? Did God violate U.S. statutory rape laws? Is God subject to humans laws? Should our laws go against what God did with impregnating a 12 to 16 year old Mary? What is morality? Do laws abide by morality? Is morality reflected in the laws?

[@cardcounter21]

If the bible is God inspired then why would he have allowed potential confusion by using 'almah' to mean virgin instead of the more reliable 'betulah'? And of course Mark never documented the virgin birth simply because he didn't consider such a miraculous thing to be worth mentioning! Makes sense!

[@MrSeedi76]

Only fundamentalists interpret inspiration this way. Everyone else knows that the Bible is a collection of many books assembled over thousands of years. Inspiration doesn't mean inerrant. And even if a certain word was understood in one sense a couple thousand years ago doesn't mean it's understood that way later on. Obviously the translators of the LXX thought "parthenos" was the correct translation. If you think a text can be 100 percent precise and understood the same way for eternity, I'd suggest reading a book about communication theory.

[@cardcounter21]

@@MrSeedi76 _"Only fundamentalists interpret inspiration this way......If you think a text can be 100 percent precise and understood the same way for eternity, I'd suggest reading a book about communication theory"_ Christians _have_ to accept the bible as God inspired in order to believe in it theologically! If so, then it should indeed be both 100 percent precise and understood the same way for eternity! Unless God himself brings out a new 'revised' edition! If the bible is imprecise and open to interpretation then it simply can't be trusted, period! I doubt Christians will see it that way though!

[@logicianbones]

​@@cardcounter21 What does "imprecise" and "open to interpretation" mean? Ironically that very word choice is confusingly imprecise (like math rounding is imprecise but we don't see it as an error) and open to interpretion (what isn't?). Why didn't you say "ACCURATE"?? Seems like trying to insinuate accurate = as precise as YOU demand and that if you can imagine it means something foreign to what the rules of the source language and culture say that it must not be accurate. Awfully convenient!

[@logicianbones]

​@@cardcounter21 (The relevance here being that what we know about the source culture was that the unmarried were constantly supervised and it was seen as wrong for them to lose their virginity before marriage, and almah refers to them -- it means virgin in this context, or at least vastly most likely does, so that it's specious to act like it simply carries no such implication. It wouldn't seem weird if you deny the miraculous, of course, but this is clearly phrased as a prophecy -- a miraculous revelation. So at worst, it's just ambiguous, and thus wrong to claim that almah "doesn't mean virgin." But more likely it does imply it.) BTW the "God wouldn't do confusing things" is a modern bad argument. The old "author of confusion" error. The author of confusion is the one reading it and not following the rules of the text and its source culture and language, not God. Ancients actually saw it as generally better to require the reader to do some thought as that encouraged practice in good thinking, which was more often needed for survival pre-modern-tech that makes it easier for us so we can have some today who are mentally lazy yet able to broadcast their ignorant opinions all around the world. Using that argument is not only anachronistic but ruins the credibility of the one making the argument.

[@cardcounter21]

@@logicianbones _"Ancients actually saw it as generally better to require the reader to do some thought as that encouraged practice in good thinking"_ Maybe, but the bible is supposed to be a 'direct clear message' from God giving plain instructions on life to determine our ETERNAL fates, not an intellectual quest dependent on correctly resolving it to save us from hell! Or at least, it should be! Unless God really despises dumb and lazy thinkers!

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

Thanks for this. I was wondering if you have ever done any reading on some of the Jewish assertions on Church interpretation of messianic prophecies. They claim that Jesus never fulfilled them and the church has twisted and contorted their original meaning. There is a KZbin channel called Seeking to Serve that asserts just that. Thank you for your time!

[@MrSeedi76]

The usage of OT verses as done in the NT was common Jewish practice for the time. But granted, I find the argument from prophecy very weak. It doesn't reduce my faith in Jesus but I'm also not convinced that many of the passages used were 'prophecy' in the first place.

[@saycheese6773]

Satan tries sooo hard to discredit the Bible

[@BluStarGalaxy]

The Bible discredits itself. No need for a imaginary demon to do it.

[@jasongonzales2574]

More would if they read it.

[@giorgosst4649]

at least he always speak calm

[@porteal8986]

the argument doesn't rest on the passages being seen as traditionally messianic, in fact, this fact causes more problems for the christian view because it is a less coherent view. On the view that the gospels are true, we would not expect random verses with completely unrelated original meanings to actually be prophesies of Jesus, especially with absolutely no textual inducation of this in the original books. The facts fit together much better when the uses of these verses are understood as the kind of reinterpretations that were already common at the time in Jewish communities.

[@lucienlagarde8093]

Many random atheists keep making argument against the gospels or Christianity in general but if the same measurement was being done in ancients History i would Say that WE can't even know anything about the antiquity which they will not tend to do because they have a double standard

[@killerkoala1918]

This is one of those times where Dans bias via his Mormon upbringing peeks through his exegesis

[@jimproctor5941]

It's true that Almah can either mean "young woman" or "virgin". But how do we know what Isaiah meant? A few things to keep in mind... 1 - Unlike our modern culture, if you were a Jew, a young woman living in Bible times, you would most certainly be a virgin. 2 - It was a "sign" that the young woman (or virgin) would get pregnant and give birth to a son. And what is a sign? It's a miracle! John refers to Jesus first miracle (turning water into wine) as the first "sign", and later says that He (Jesus) performed many other "signs". Why is this relevant? Because it would not be a miracle for a young woman to get pregnant, but it most certainly would be a miracle (a sign) for a virgin to get pregnant. So yes...Isaiah most certainly meant "virgin".

[@ProselyteofYah]

Here's another gem, a Jewish commentary from the famous rabbi Rashi, who states this concerning the OT passage, saying some Jewish teachers have understood it to mean a virgin: “Immanuel [lit. God is with us]. That is to say that our Rock shall be with us, and this is the sign, for she is a young girl, and she never prophesied, yet in this instance, Divine inspiration shall rest upon her. This is what is stated below (8:3): “And I was intimate with the prophetess, etc.,” and we do not find a prophet’s wife called a prophetess unless she prophesied. Some interpret this as being said about Hezekiah, but it is impossible, because, when you count his years, you find that Hezekiah was born nine years before his father’s reign. *And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth* ” - Rashi

[@avibenavraham]

Absolutely bizarre to quote RASHI when he roundly rejected christianity

[@ProselyteofYah]

@@avibenavraham That's the point. If an opponent of Christianity also affirms the validity of the interpretation of the Messiah coming from a virgin, then opponents within Judaism have no leg to stand on when arguing against Christians.

[@avibenavraham]

@@ProselyteofYah uh yes there's a leg to stand on, they can say RASHI is incorrect here. There's no infallible pope in Judaism, rishonim can be wrong

[@jasongonzales2574]

Paul and his followers mark and Luke preach their own story.

[@nonewmsgs]

around 5-7 minute you correctly identify my perspective. not a strawman, so honestly, thank you. Jesus fulfilling the messianic prophecies would be indisputable partly because of worldwide knowledge of Gd. If jesus brought a wold peace where all weapons were turned to farm equipment and we will learn of war no more, i think we'd have noticed that too. Zechariah 9:9 jesus can ride a donkey bur certainly not 9:10 the peace again. and the third temple being rebuilt which was half of Ezekiel also where is youe Rabbi Singer video you promised? i keep checking.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

Great, godless theologians accussing Matthew of not grasping the context when he really did grasp the prophecy in its integrity with the whole Book of Isaiah. And he didn't do this to prove the virgin birth (although it happened), but to present Jesus as the Personal presence of God of Israel - Emmanuel (God-with-us). Matthew's Gospel ends just like this - while being on top of the Mountain (a meeting place for Heaven and Earth) according to the literay structure of the gospel, that Jesus is with us even until the end of the World. Now, into Isaiah 7: 1. First, one has to decide whether the text is messianic in character- does this speak of a future Davidic king? I think the evidence is very strong that it does. Three times in Isaiah 7, the "house of David" is mentioned by name, and when Ahaz is given the prophesied sign, he is addressed thus: "Hear now, O house of David." Moreover, the problem addressed by the text is that the Northern Kingdom and Syria want to come into Judah and set up a non-Davidide on the throne: (Isaiah 7:6) "Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it," In other words, the son of Tabeel and not the son of David. Their non-Davidic thrones are again mentioned in the leadup to 7:14: (Isaiah 7:8-9) For the head of Syria is Damascus, and **the head of Damascus is Rezin**.(Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.) "'And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is **the son of Remaliah**. If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.'" Finally, concerning Immanuel himself, he is described in terms of kingly wisdom: (Isaiah 7:15) He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. As you all know very well, language of choosing or discerning between good and evil is royal language, used by Solomon in 1 Kings 3 when praying for wisdom to rule (In 2 Samuel, Joab likens David to the Angel of Yahweh to know good and evil which is a reference back to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus, the tree of kingship). The evidence, then, is very strong that Isaiah 7:14 is about some kind of Davidic king. This is likewise supported by the broader context- Isaiah 6 is about the whittling down of the elect seed, and Isaiah 9-11 are all about the coming of the Davidic redeemer. 2. Second, one has to figure out the timeframe of the prophecy. This is generally understood to be the most difficult issue, because the context is apparently one relating to Ahaz' own day. The key here, I believe, is to understand that the sign is given to confirm everything the prophet has just said- it not only confirms that Damascus and Syria will be undone, but also that "if [Ahaz] will not be firm in faith, he will not be firm at all." In the literary structure of 7:8-9, "Within 65 years Ephraim will be broken to pieces" corresponds with "if you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all." This is the critical point- with Ahaz' failure of faith, the destruction of Syria and the Northern Kingdom is not a sign that Judah has been saved- rather, it becomes a sign that the same power which has just wiped them out is going to flow into Judah as well. Also crucial to understanding the timeframe is understanding what it means to say that the boy will eat curds and honey. Before he is old enough to become king (to choose good from evil), and therefore before he is old enough to deliver his people from their enemies, he will eat curds and honey. This phrase is used once more in Isaiah 7: (Isaiah 7:20-22) In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River--with the king of Assyria--the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also. In that day a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep, and because of the abundance of milk that they give, he will eat curds, for everyone who is left in the land will eat curds and honey.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

People will be eating curds and honey after the land has been shaved and judged- they will be eating curds and honey after the land has become "briers and thorns" (7:23) (which is a recap of Genesis 3). And Isaiah 55 says that the briers and thorns will be replaced by myrtles and cypresses only after the work of the Servant. Isaiah 8 further grounds the reading of the timeframe. First, we have the narrative of the birth of "Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" or "Speed, Spoil, Haste, Booty." There is clearly a literary reference to Isaiah 7:14, but it is a mistake to see this as the fulfillment. Whereas Immanuel is a sign of Judah's deliverance from the exile, the child here is a sign of Judah's judgment- the exile - Assyria will come with speed and haste to take spoil and booty. This is the manifestation of the delay of the prophecy due to the Davidic king's lack of faith. The fourfold name of this child links to the fourfold name of the messianic child of Isaiah 9:6- Wonderful Counselor (an allusion to the name of the Angel of Yahweh in Judges 13), Mighty God (El-gibbowr - This only makes sense if the child is God, as Isaiah 10 is the only place where this name is used in the whole book of Isaiah while describing the redemption of the remnant), Father Forever, Prince of Peace (another allusion to Judges 6:24 where Gideon builds an altar for the Angel of Yahweh - "the Lord of Peace". This makes sense since Isaiah 9 makes allusion to a series of Judges and alludes to Gideon as well who is one of the analogs of the Messianic King. The defeat of Midian at Oreb is also alluded to in Isaiah 10). The literary similarities between 8:3-4, 7:14, and 9:6 are intended to draw out the sharp contrast between the two children. Isaiah elaborates: (Isaiah 8:6-8) "Because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel." The flood of Assyria which will accomplish the promised destruction of Israel and Syria is a sign that Judah will be judged too: the flood sweeps into Judah. The land belongs to Immanuel because he is the Davidic heir of the inheritance. Then, in Isaiah 8:9-10, we have the promise of deliverance: (Isaiah 8:9-10) Be broken, you peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you far countries; strap on your armor and be shattered; strap on your armor and be shattered. Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us. Clearly, the "God is with us" is a reference to Immanuel, and this describes the redemption of His people- but it comes after the flood sweeps into Judah and turns it into briers and thorns. That this child remains in the distant future is confirmed by two important points:

[@OrthosAlexandros]

a. The language here is directly and clearly echoed in Isaiah 40 and 46: (Isaiah 40:8-9) The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!". The words of the wicked which will not stand in Isaiah 7 are contrasted here with the word of God which will stand- and note how this allusion to the Immanuel prophecy is directly connected to "Behold your God"- God-with-us brings the visible revelation of the Glory of God. 46:10 does for "counsel" what 40:8 did for "word": (Isaiah 46:10) declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' And as the prophecy goes on, we see exactly when the word will accomplish God's purpose- it's in Isaiah 55: (Isaiah 55:11) so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. In other words, the promised deliverance of Isaiah 8:9-10 is threaded through Isaiah 40:8-9 and 46:10 to 55:11 so as to place its timeframe after the work of the Suffering Servant. The figure of Immanuel, therefore, is linked to the figure of the Suffering Servant.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

b. Isaiah 8:11-17 places the fulfillment of the promised deliverance in the distant future: (Isaiah 8:11-17) For the Lord spoke thus to me with his strong hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying: "Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the Lord of hosts, him you shall regard as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken." Bind up the testimony; seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. (And this directly echoes Isaiah 2 when it is in the latter days when Zion is placed above all mountains and every nation goes up to it and invites the house of Jacob to walk in the light of God. Thus, because Isaiah 2 is in force and that the Salvation is dependent upon the promise of Emmanuel, the prophet is given a guarantee that in the latter days every nation shall get to know his life). The wickedness and blindness of the people here refers back to Isaiah 6- the prophet is called to increase their blindness, and the opening of their eyes won't take place for a long time. Most clearly, in my view, is the reference to "binding up the testimony" and "sealing the teaching." This is language used in Scripture for sealing a prophecy whose deliverance is not near- Daniel 12 being one example. The Lord is presently "hiding his face", but Isaiah in faith will do what Ahaz did not "I will wait for the Lord." All of this, to my mind, provides a close reading of the text which accounts for its details and which, on its own terms, places the fulfillment of Isaiah 7 after the exile which was the immdiate context of Isaiah 6 - Israel will be reduced to a tiny remnant (only which will return to the Mighty God, Isaiah 10) and its root will be a holy seed. Thus, it is not surprising that we should find the prophecy of birth of the seed in Isaiah 7, the seed of the woman which crushes the Head of the serpent (Genesis 3), just as Samson, who was born miracluously from the barren mother (and the quotation of which narrative is present in Isaiah 7) crushed the Head of the philistines.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

One might object that only Assyria is referred to here rather than Babylon. I would respond in two ways: first, the same is true for Isaiah 10-11. The dawn of the messianic age in Isaiah 11 comes on the heels of the description of Assyria's judgment in Isaiah 10. In terms of the narrative theology of the book, the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments flow into one another. That is the meaning of the sign given to Hezekiah- he is given a fifteen year extension on life, but death is still coming. The sun is turned back ten degrees, but the clock is still ticking. Evening is still coming. While I don't want to make this my central point here, I have concluded that Isaiah 41-43 actually refers to the Assyrian invasion of Judah, God's deliverance of Judah, and Judah's failure to be faithful in that light- so that Isaiah 43 ends with a prophecy of judgment on the temple and exile. Isaiah 44-48 then describes the deliverance from Babylon, but Isaiah 48 says that now Judah confesses the Lord's name "but not in truth or right"- the same sins called out in the Gospels. Israel is condemned for not taking God's light to the nations, as He says "Will you not declare it?" Cp. Isaiah 66 where the survivors are sent out to "declare my glory to the nations." Then the singular Servant of Isaiah 49-53 succeeds where Judah and Israel failed. In other words, in Isaiah, the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments are in some senses collapsed into one, which is the only way to understand Isaiah 11 and its context. And Isaiah 14 actually describes the judgement upok Babylon as well as the Judgement upon Assyria simultaneosly, as one underlying unity (this reminds us of Genesis 10-11 where it is Nimrod who is the head if the Babylonian and Assyrian civilization and is a mighty slaughterer before the Lord, a Fallen one (Nephilim) who initiates to build Babel, the city which sums up all evil in itsefl as it is a godless unity against God's divine plan).

[@OrthosAlexandros]

Just to do a quick recap: (Isaiah 8:10) Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us. This is spoken with reference to the prophecy of Immanuel- God-with-us. The fact that it has a future reference is established by the way it is used in Isaiah 40-55, which is a prophecy about the ultimate restoration of Israel through the work of the Servant. Consider this again: (Isaiah 40:8-9) The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!". (Isaiah 46:8-10) "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' In Isaiah 8:10, the word and the counsel of wicked men cannot overcome Zion because God-is-with-us. In Isaiah 40 and 46, the same words are used of God- the counsel and word of God WILL stand. The allusion to Isaiah 7-8 is even more powerful, because Isaiah 40 says in the same context "Behold your God!" In other words, Immanuel does carry the meaning St. Matthew attributes to it- God is visibly revealed because of the fulfillment of the prophetic word given in 7:13-14. What is the time of this fulfillment? One sees through the use of Isaiah 40:9 in Isaiah 52: (Isaiah 52:7-10) How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, "Your God reigns." The voice of your watchmen--they lift up their voice; together they sing for joy; for eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion. Break forth together into singing, you waste places of Jerusalem, for the Lord has comforted his people; he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. As Isaiah 40 referred to the heralds of good news, so also here the heralds announce "good news of happiness." And as Isaiah 40 referred to the visible revelation of God's presence, so also we see here that "from eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion." It is a mistake to take Isaiah 8:1-4 as the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:13-14. Isaiah 8:1-4 is a sign of judgment, not salvation, and the name itself is a fourfold play on Isaiah 9:6. Similar phrasing is used to emphasize that this child signifies the opposite of what Immanuel signifies. Isaiah told Ahaz that "if you are not in faith you shall not be firm at all" and Ahaz' lack of faith is that which produces the judgment the prophet goes onto describe. Moreover, it is this very judgment (which we see in Isaiah 41-48 spiraling into the Babylonian exile) that produces curds and honey for eating in the land, and Isaiah 7 says that the child Immanuel will be eating curds and honey before he can discern between good and evil (as in 1 Kings 3, this is language referring to enthronement). Thus, the prophecy of Isaiah 7 is concluded with this injunction: (Isaiah 8:16-17) Bind up the testimony; seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Speed, Spoil, Haste, Booty) comes first- but Isaiah seals up the teaching so that the faithful in Israel might wait for the promise of Isaiah 7:13-14 to come to pass. As you know, Isaiah 52 (and thus Isaiah 7 and 40 through intertextual reference) flows directly into the prophecy of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53- and it is strongly implied that the visible revelation of God and His return to Zion take place precisely in the person of the Suffering Servant. Consider that the return of Yahweh to the Zion-temple is prophesied. We are then told that the Servant shall be "high and lifted up, and shall be exalted." The last time that language was used in Isaiah, we saw it here: (Isaiah 6:1) In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. This is important. Not only does the language "high and lifted up" describe the Lord, it describes the Lord filling the Temple with glory- the implication is that the Suffering Servant is the one in whom the Lord returns to the Temple (the return from the exile of babylon is the pre-exodus and patriarchal wandering period similar to the time of patriarchs, just as Abraham had been called out from the Babelic Ur of [Northern] Mesopotamia. After the return, the holiness of the temple spread to the people (hence holy seed in ezra), but Jews used this holiness as an excuse to turn into themselves and not declare the God of Heaven to the gentiles. At the return from the exile, orchestra was present, but the glory of God didn't return, as there was no ark of the covenant, hence Israel still was not restored). Finally, note that the Suffering Servant "shall be exalted." In Isaiah 2, we are told that the Lord stands up above all of the "exalted" (same word as in Isaiah 52) idols so that the "Lord alone shall be exalted" (different word, but it is that which overcomes the exaltation of the idols, although the word for "lifted up" is the same word (we-nis-sa) as well as in Isaiah 2 "The Lord alone shall be exalted (we-nis-gab)") on that Day. The sole exaltation of the Lord comes when all of the idols are cast away by the revelation of His presence. And here in Isaiah 52, when the same language is used, the Servant "sprinkles many nations." (The day of atonement. As we see, Sacral terminology and concepts are involved in here). And Isaiah 53 contains many allusions to Isaiah 14. Isaiah 14 is about the king of Babylon, who struck the nations with unceasing blows. He exalts himself above the stars, but is brought down to Sheol. In Sheol, the nations are astonished at how low he has descended. By contrast, the Servant is himself "struck." Instead of exalting himself above the stars, he humbles himself and is "cut off from the land of the living." But after this, he "prolongs his days" and is exalted: "Behold my servant shall act wisely, shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted." Instead of astonishing the nations by His lowliness, "He shall astonish many nations" by his exaltation. The Servant reverses the pattern of the false king, so that we should see Him as the king of Zion, the Messiah, miniature Israel who in himself recapitulates the whole nation and bears the holy vocation of Isaiah 42 in Isaiah 49 to join in with the exiled remnant in its exile of death and bring back the remnant of Jacob from the exile. (And the original exile is the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the original Edenic state of Creation. The Book of Leviticus buttstresses the idea that Israel is a National Adam. And Adam's exile was even enacted towards east. The whole body is damaged in Isaiah 1, whereas Isaiah 53 describes the work of the Suffering Servant, one-man-Israel (as was even the High Priest), who cures us with his sufferings and strickeness. "He shall see his offspring" and that offspring is the Servants of the Lord (the sons of the singular Servant, the Lord God himself, and cured Zion) in Isaiah 54 in multiple as they join into his inheritance which massively enlagres to encompass new nations and is "The New Heavens and the New Earth" (Isaiah 65-66). One cannot escape from the fact that Isaiah 55 describes the eternal fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and the sole context is the work of the suffering Servant. Isaiah 1 speaks of how Israel's New moons and Sabbaths are an abomination for the Lord, whereas the New Moons and the Sabbaths of the restored Israel (in whom the Levites and Priests are brought up even from the nations that "have not heard my fame nor have seen my glory" (the reason why it cannot refer to Jews living among gentiles, but gentiles themselves who are now constituted as Abraham's family in the work of the suffering servant) is majestic at the end of the whole Book.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

Perhaps he interpreted the sign instead of inventing it. He's giving an account of something bizarre that, when it happens, it brings about change. Introducing a self breeding woman, no matter what the reason, is a Natural Sign or Alarm, in the natural order.

[@justanotherbaptistjew5659]

Markan Prioritists are plainly wrong

[@ManoverSuperman]

If I may ask: Why do you suppose this?

[@Brickeh]

"Heiser was..." oof. Still stings.

[@michaelmacias8]

Jesus is not Yahweh None of the Gospels say that he was born of a virgin. If you believe that’s what it says you’re in your own head canon. You are reading that into the text.

[@TestifyApologetics]

higher mammal, can you read? Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

[@michaelmacias8]

@@TestifyApologetics 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (( Now think about it. Why would she asking how is she going to get pregnant? She already knows how a woman gets pregnant. The reason why she’s asking how shall this be, seeing I know not a man. (Yet) is because the angel just told her all these great things that her son that hasn’t been born yet will do and be.)) 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (( In other words when Mary and Joseph laid together and she conceived the power of the most high was there at that moment. And God the Father sent the Spirit of Christ into Mary’s womb. The Spirit came from God but the body came from the seed of Joseph. ))

[@TestifyApologetics]

Matthew 1:24 "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son" What kind of cult are you in?

[@michaelmacias8]

@@TestifyApologetics 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (( Now think about it. Why would she asking how is she going to get pregnant? She already knows how a woman gets pregnant. The reason why she’s asking how shall this be, seeing I know not a man. (Yet) is because the angel just told her all these great things that her son that hasn’t been born yet will do and be.)) 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (( In other words when Mary and Joseph laid together and she conceived the power of the most high was there at that moment. And God the Father sent the Spirit of Christ into Mary’s womb. The Spirit came from God but the body came from the seed of Joseph. ))

[@michaelmacias8]

@@TestifyApologeticsthe knew her not refers to them getting married. I’m a Christian sir

[@rayzas4885]

Wow AI art is getting decent with eyes and faces now

[@joker18524]

Very common Dan L

[@carloswater7]

Great video. Skeptics always love to create a problem when it comes to the Bible. That's why we can't take them seriously

[@TheLionFarm]

Born of a woman Not of a man

[@gioarevadze2703]

Like

[@for_logic_and_reason-mark_3]

matthew's author, who of course isn't matthew because the historical matthew couldn't write, DID make up the virgin birth story. Early christians made up the story because they think that since jebus is their messiah, then he had to have been born according to how isaiah said. There's no objective evidence affirming that the virgin birth is real. And the story itself is incredibly implausible. Its scientifically incoherent how a star, all of which are many many light years away, could shine down on some specific spot on earth. Its also implausible that herod would even take a supposed jewish newborn king seriously, because those romans had no real respect for other people's religions. There's no valid good reason to take the virgin birth NOR the rest of the bible seriously. Its all just fictional nonsense. Contradictory nonsense.

[@logicianbones]

Nice spoof of fundy atheists. Tax collector who couldn't write, wow!

[@legron121]

@@logicianbones "Tax collector" could just mean the guy who was hired to bang on your door demanding money. The idea that being a tax collector at that time required education in Koine Greek is bogus.

[@حامدالمهتدي]

Of course the Greek Gospel of Matthew is just a non-reliable pseudo-biographical work of the 2nd-century CE! Indeed the Apostle Matthew authored an Aramaic work containing the Holy Sayings of Jesus Christ our Lord! And we should believe that Jesus of Nazareth was and is truly the Davidic Messiah! May God bless us my friend.

[@darkwolf7740]

(1) "Matthew's author, who, of course, isn't Matthew because the historical Matthew couldn't write, DID make up the virgin birth story..." Matthew was a tax collector. In Ancient Judea, people with that job were required to read and write in order to maintain records through writing and record-keeping. As for 'making up the virgin birth story', this theory, even if correct, wouldn't refute Matthew's Gospel. The genre of the Gospel of Matthew is "Greco-Roman Biography," implying an intention to teach theological truths rather than strict historical truths. Miraculous events were common place in ancient biographies, even if they were fictional. Do you, therefore, reject all ancient biographies? (2) "...early christians made up the story because they thought that since Jesus is their messiah, then he had to have been born according to how Isaiah said..." Jewish expectations of the Messiah didn't fit this description. They saw the Messiah as someone who would be a powerful leader and would deliver them from oppression, restoring the Kingdom of Israel, by fulfilling Prophecy on the way. Interpretations of passages like Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 were not universally seen as prophetic of a specific type of birth (virgin birth) at the time. (3) "...there's no objective evidence affirming that the virgin birth is real. And the story itself is incredibly implausible..." So what? (4) "...it's scientifically incoherent how a star, all of which are many, many light years away, could shine down on some specific spot on earth..." Have you ever heard of the phenomenon of starlight twinkling? Look it up. Debunks this claim very quickly. (5) "...it's also implausible that herod would even take a supposed jewish newborn king seriously because those romans had no real respect for other people's religions." Not quite. The Romans respected other religions to a certain extent. In the 1st century, the Jews were given an exception to the rule through religio lacita, which allowed the Jews to freely practice Judaism. Herod also ruled a Jewish majority population in Judea. To maintain stability and avoid unrest, he was sensitive to religious settlements (involving the Jews). He was, therefore, expected to take seriously any claim that may threaten this stability, especially if it was religious in nature. The Wise Men coming from the East would've been seen as a political opportunity for Herod, as they were believed to be astrollers or foreign King's.

[@logicianbones]

​@@legron121 Oh, since you baldly asserted that, I'll just forget all the research I did that says it isn't bogus and blindly trust your word on it. Thanks for clearing that up! (Also I didn't say that he had to know Greek. I've seen some arguments that it was generally spoken, but I go with JP Holding on Matthean priority in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Nice of you to show your hand with that assumption though!)

[@jamescummings6703]

Wow, just wow. Sure lets let a scholar tell a person who's family has been reading, writing and speaking Hebrew for generations what their language meant to say. What sense does a virgin birth make when God is giving King Ahaz a sign? Yeah Ahaz, in 700 years a virgin shall concieve and that is your sign. What good is a sign going to do Ahaz in 700 years? That's like me telling you don't worry, in 700 years a virgin will conceive a child. When that happens all of your enemies will be destroyed. The actual sign is in Isaiah 7:15-16, the exact same child is spoken of in Isaiah 8 and guess what it says? It says that Isaiah and the prophetess had relations and had a son. So there was no virgin birth.

[@James-dq6yp]

99.9% of Christians make inadequate excuses for this

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

So explain why the Israelites who translated the Tanakh into the Greek Septuagint chose παρθένος (parthenos) as the most suitable equivalent for עַלְמָה (almah) in Isaiah 7:14? Can you show a single instance from the Tanakh of עַלְמָה (almah) referring to a woman who was _not_a virgin? Anti-Christian apologists try to argue that, if Isaiah 7:14 meant a virgin, then בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) would have been used. But that kite doesn't fly. If you know anything of Hebrew, you will know there are plenty of instances of בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) being applied to women who were not virgins and of בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) needing the qualification of "whom no man had known" (Genesis 24:16), "who had not known a man by lying with him" (Judges 21:12), and so on, a qualification that is never applied to עַלְמָה (almah). As for your application of Isaiah 7:14 to Isaiah 8:3, do you really suppose Ahaz was going to be any more convinced by Isaiah going off and getting his wife pregnant? An entirely unremarkable, self-fulfilling, prophecy if ever there was one, in that case.

[@jamescummings6703]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh Good question. However the original Greek Septuagint translated by Israelites ONLY contained the Torah (5 books of Moses). The translators of the Prophets and the writing were not Hebrews. I can show you several instances where Alma isn't meant to mean virgin and in every place that it's used it says young woman. It's amazing that people that don't speak Hebrew sit comfortably and tell Hebrew speakers what their words mean. It's like someone from Spain trying to tell me the meanings of words in English. What is the point of Genesis 24:16, it says the maiden was very beautiful, a virgin that no man touched. You're not making any sense, it calls them young women and lets you know they were virgins by telling you they were virgins. The actual word in Isaiah 7:14 is alma, you're doing all of this explaining about bethulah but it doesn't appear in Isaiah 7:14. The word is alma meaning young woman. As for your application of Isaiah 7:14, what good does a child born of a virgin 700 years later of a virgin do to ease Ahaz mind? The sign was for Ahaz, not Isaiah, not the world, not for future prophecy. God gave Ahaz a sign and the sign isn't the woman getting pregnant, being pregnant or being a virgin. The sign is By the time the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey. When he knows to reject the bad and choose the good Pekah and Rezin will be destroyed (the 2 kings that sought to attach Jerusalem). You should probably read all of Isaiah 7, and stop taking talking points off of one verse. Isaiah 7 explains in detail what's going on. Isaiah 8 has the same language by the time the child knows to say father and mother the wealth and spoils of Rezin will be carried off before the king of assyria. Where does it say that a sign has to be remarkable? Is a stop sign remarkable? How about a yield sign? Maybe leaves turning colors in the fall? A sign is something that can be seen, what is there to see of a virgin getting pregnant? A virgin today can conceive a child, does that make the birth miraculous? In fact in those days all virgins conceived children.