Jesus' Birth Stories Aren't "Irreconcilably Different" (Holy Koolaid Response)

[@TestifyApologetics]

One reason I don't do a ton of response videos is I'm always a little taken aback by the amount of vitriol from Christians in the comment sections. While I strongly disagree with Holy Koolaid's arguments, I try and not assume what his motives are unless he's given me good reason to otherwise. There have been times he's said ridiculous stuff and it's fair to call him out on that. But judging by his conversation with Inspiring Philosophy, he seems like he is a decent guy. Imagine if he came here and saw the comments here about himself. It would just push him further into his belief that many Christians are narrow and hateful people. Please behave yourselves.

[@IrishEagIe]

One of your best videos so far

[@austinlincoln3414]

This comment truly shows that Testify is pushing the true christian love

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Fair enough, brother, and point taken, but have you ever seen the comments section on these atheist websites, and what they say about _you?_ (and believers in general). Sheer unadulterated hatred. And not for our positions on the issues. For _us._ And for God in general and Christ in particular. I think it’s just a human trait, to lash out at anyone who challenges our most deeply-held beliefs. Chief among them the existence (or not) of God. What could be more basic than that? And of course, we who believe have clear instructions from the Master how we are to respond. We just need to work harder to follow the example set by people like you. I know I do. Keep up the good vids!😁👍

[@hiddenrambo328]

Yes lets instead focus on what is important, Jesus. Jesus born 4.5 BC (Herod Great death 4-1BC) - Jesus 30 at 27.5 AD - Jesus ministry start 28 AD (Tiberius 15th year is 28-29AD as 29 is the end of the 15th year) Jesus Crucifixion 30.5 AD (28.5 Passover 1, 29.5 Passover 2, 30.5 Passover 3) if it was 3.5 years of ministry it would be 4 Passovers you see two your first year one at the start and one at the end. Church conception at resurrection, birth 9 months later, 31AD "born".

[@eikon7001]

You should simply respond to help those being deceived without worry for the feelings of the serpent leading them into a pit. Jesus of Nazareth perhaps is not ‘nice’ enough for your comment section (at least from my reading of the NT). Truth always matters; feelings rarely do by comparison; so just keep telling it, keep combatting error, and don’t worry about what anyone else does in response.

[@Captainprice129]

hello I’ve recently converted to Christianity and have loved your videos and you should know your videos were one of the biggest reasons I converted from basically atheism

[@TestifyApologetics]

Wow! Praise God. Seeing this first thing this morning is a great start to my day.

[@Angle98411]

He hangs the Earth on nothing confirmed by pictures from space Psalm 8 8 All that swims paths of the seas which have been found underwater and confirmed by oceanography Job 38 16 Hast thou entered into springs of the seas? There has been hot springs found in the ocean confirmed by modern science Jonah 2 6 to the roots of the mountains i sank down. It has been proven mountains are under the ocean modern science Job 28 5 the earth below transformed by fire. It has been proven by modern science the earth has a core Jeremiah 51 15 stretched heavens Jeremiah 10 12 stretched heavens heavens means universe like in Genesis 1 1 so it is speaking of universe expansion only known 20th century It is not talking about the sky or spiritual realm it would have said "heaven" not "heavens" Scientific facts in the Bible the authors 2500-3500 years ago could not have known in any way

[@Angle98411]

@@TestifyApologetics So according to STURP final report in 1981 the Shroud is not a a painting. A article called "Failed attempt to duplicate the Shroud of Turin" addresses the work Garlaschelli to have failed. Brian Holdsworth has a 1 hour video called "Shroud or Turin-Fact or Fiction" minute 26:40 to 28:00 addresses the work of Garlaschelli to have failed so the Shroud is still authentic the 1532 fire that damaged the Shroud has altered the Carbon-14 dating, and has a 5% chance of being wrong pollen grains on the Shroud that only come from Jerusalem give evidence the Shroud originated from Jerusalem not a medieval forgery in Europe France where the Shroud supposedly was first found no evidence of a forger putting polen on the Shroud. As for the blood patterns Matthew 27 59 shows the body of Jesus was wrapped and then placed in the tomb so that explains the blood patterns and accounts for multiple positions the blood patters don't show the Shroud to be fake. Some claim the Shroud was made from a earthquake of 8.2 magnitude that produced neutron emissions that fails because how would that produce a image like in the Shroud and why isn't there good evidence of a earthquake that strong around the time Jesus died that also would have done major damage to Jerusalem yet never recorded. No natural process could have created that Shroud the image would be evidence of the resurrection since Jesus resurrection would have left his imprint on the cloth. Matthew 17 2 and his clothes became white as light ENEA reports “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.

[@michael119castro4]

Now you have to convert to Catholicism in order to be truly saved.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@michael119castro4 False, he shouldn’t covert to the Whore of Babylon.

[@davidstrelec2000]

Holy kool-aid imposes his own interpretation on the scripture by a very surface level reading and he debunks the strawman instead of what the Bible actually says

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

And he doesn’t know what to text variant is either, some of those supposed contradictions like second Chronicles second Samuel or actually textual variants.

[@diegofuentes6639]

Wow. Besides the video being a great defense of the Birth Narratives, an excellent lesson of Ancient History and Theology. God Bless you my brother in Christ. 🙏 🙏 🙏

[@CynHicks]

I forgive him for his ignorant ramblings. I have made the same or similar. Back when I thought reading the Bible made me "basically a scholar" there were so many contradictions and inconsistencies that I could only assume believers were complete idiots or deniers. I was confused at how so many brilliant people believed any of it. It's often easier to argue against something you don't understand than it is to argue for something you do. "You mean like water ; from the toilet? Hehehehe... It doesn't have what plants crave."

[@rb8954]

Don't drink the holy koolaid.

[@miroslavmatijevic6185]

And sceptics deny undesigned coincidence on the basis that Matthew read Luke or vica versa! Why then we have two "opposing " stories? You can't have it both ways!

[@Felipe-dp9lr]

Thanks for this bro, Jesus is Lord.

[@prico3358]

Is this account new? It is tooooo quality to have this little subs. Its better than many secular channels with this styles, and those channels have millions. This channel is gonna have at 1.5 mill , it feels better than most channels with this style.

[@ancientrace2141]

Listening to skeptic before hearing testifies response all I could think was this guy hasn't even read the accounts. simple things like when did the wise men visit? when the baby was way past the account in Luke. Edit: he made better points in a later segment.

[@jkm9332]

Holy Koolaid should just give up.

[@FRN2013]

Yup. He should give up lying.

[@TDPlusPT]

With kindness and gentleness. Thankyou

[@lileveyc]

Apparently it's a rule now that if an Atheist is using some kind of animation The arguments are bad

[@iranianskeptic]

Agree 😅

[@FRN2013]

"Don't let Holy Kool-Aid wreck your Christmas." Especially since he is a liar. Stuff like Anna and Simeon were supposedly "shouting to everyone who will listen" removes any trace of credibility.

[@pink_kino]

Ye Kool-Aid drinking down the Atheist Jim Jones juice and just twisting things and I saw another video from Egyptian and the Bible doing a whole reaction to his on Moses and the Exodus and he also called him out for his twisting

[@petery6432]

It's probably just an overactive imagination

[@pink_kino]

@@petery6432 lol

[@alaka5623]

This is sad

[@jamiehudson3661]

Great videos - you should be getting more views!

[@markhorton3994]

I saw a video attempting to resolve the chronology of Jesus's birth and known data such as the date of Herod's death. The result is something like. Joseph was a craftsman from Bethlehem working on a major project near Nazareth ( such a project existed. As others have said The Bible says Joseph was a craftsman not specifically a carpenter. Houses were made of stone so stonemason is more likely than carpenter) In rapid order Joseph took his pregnant new wife to Bethlehem for a census ( tax) where there was no room for a few days (probably intending to stay). Jesus was born, and the wise men (probably Persian astronomers) arrived at Jerusalem. Sometime in the process Jesus was circumcised on His eighth day and room in the house of one of Joseph's relatives became available. As soon as the wise men left Mary Joseph and Jesus fled to Egypt and Herod ordered one of his usual executions of any possible threat then died. The border of Egypt was only a few days journey and news of Herod's death came soon after their arrival and they returned to Jerusalem in time to dedicate Jesus in the Temple on the 40th day after Jesus's birth and make the sacrifice required for a first born male. Then because Herod's son and successor was even worse than his father instead of going to Bethlehem they went to Nazareth. This barely fits in the required timeline for everything in both Gospels to be correct. Mosaic Law required that every first born son MUST be dedicated to YHWH in the Temple exactly 40 days after his birth. Jesus Complied with ALL of the Law. Since God often does things for multiple purposes the gifts of the Magi probably helped with travel expenses and paid for the required sacrifice. Staying in Egypt for any length of time would have required the dedication in the Temple to be before going to Egypt but they left directly from Bethlehem.

[@theologypathfinder815]

Sounds like a helpful video. Do you happen to have a link?

[@markhorton3994]

@@theologypathfinder815 Unfortunately no. If I had a link or even the channel name I would have shared it.

[@ManoverSuperman]

The chronology still doesn’t work. The evidence from Matthew suggests Jesus was at least over a year old before the wise men came, perhaps even around two years old. He is called a “young child” when they come, not a baby. This suggests Jesus was probably taking his first steps by that time. This also explains why Herod went and killed all male infants two years old and under. So the problem still arises where in the two accounts you have the family long resident in Nazareth and Joseph being told to fee to Egypt through Judea, which would be crazy because they would be putting themselves into more danger by going nearer to the place Herod was killing the small boys in when they were already well out of the area.

[@markhorton3994]

@@ManoverSuperman The word choice is inconclusive. Neither "Small child" or "infant" is precise. You said " male infants under two years old yourself. Paranoid, murderous tyrants, which history says Herod was, tend to overkill. That suggests that it was considered most likely that Jesus was well under two years old. If that murderous madmen thought Jesus might be as old as two he would have killed three or four year olds. The magi went from Jerusalem to Bethlehem and found Jesus in a house there. Nothing suggests that they had to divert to Nazareth to find Him. God warned the Magi not to return to Herod and Joseph to flee from Herod to Egypt. The Holy Family fled to Egypt from Bethlehem ahead of Herod's infanticide. There are many possible different timelines and objections to the one I presented but yours is not valid.

[@voymasa7980]

around 3-2BC there was a census when qirinius was a legate, in order to present it to Augustus for his silver jubilee

[@voymasa7980]

@@paulfell4962 Herod died around 1BCish. As per Joesphus's writing, the total time for the events prior to his death, and those following with Antipas, it would be 1BC, which also had a slaughter at the Passover

[@orboan4686]

Josephus is the only author to give us that date as his death. So it is just Luke’s word against his. Looking at the works of Josephus, we seem him make numerous errors about times of events and such that trusting him on this date can be reasonably doubted.

[@voymasa7980]

@@orboan4686 in this case Luke's events and Josephus' don't conflict

[@gaiusoctavius5935]

Can't wait to watch the video.

[@johnwick2018]

1:35 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[e] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them *at that very moment*, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. Can you tell me what does *at that very moment* means? I don't think it means "maybe this happened afterwards"

[@AnHebrewChild]

What are you getting at here?

[@ianb483]

Also, this is not directly relevant to Koolaid's claim that Luke misdated the census in 6 AD, but Herod died in 1 BC, not 4 BC, and Jesus was born at the end of 3 BC or the beginning of 2 BC. This is another area where groupthink and inertia have continued to dominate the "scholarly consensus" despite the evidence originally cited for it having turned against it and, incidentally, now agreeing with the early Church Fathers.

[@Kingrich_777]

Elaboratw

[@juliomartel8553]

I bet Holy Kool-Aid would disregard scientific papers if there are mistakes in the APA Citation.

[@hglundahl]

9:51 Obviously Josephus getting it wrong is a clear option. I think Josephus was born in 37 AD, same year as Philo died. By the time Josephus wrote, Jews would have had time to find faults with Christian writings (Jews taken in _late_ 1st C AD sense of non-Christians, as in narrator voice in John), like he gives a timespan from Flood to Abraham's birth of 292 years, but only in sum total, since the items on the way match a LXX resembling timeline of Genesis 11 which he had learned as a child - unlike the sum total, which isn't mentioned as such in Genesis 11. Note, it was mathematically naive to add up items that go somewhere close to 942 years and state their sum is 292 year, but as education back then had less pushing of maths than now, this is plausible. Another option is, "egeneto" here has his classic sense, namely, "this became the first census under Quirinius" meaning he later reused it instead of doing a new one. Either way ... would the census not have been taking place only in Galilaea, Roman Province, while going to "his city" (he took the order in the Jewish sense) put him in a protectorate where the census was not ongoing?

[@hglundahl]

Oh, btw, as I mentioned new chronology for Genesis 11 as Jews finding fault - here we deal with Hebrews, where St. Paul (or possibly St. Barnabas) states that Melchisedec was a gentile and still a priest. The 292 years from Flood to Abraham's birth served the purpose of pretending _"ah, no, Melchisedec was Shem"_ which is impossible on the LXX timeline, even one without the Second Cainan, since according to it Shem died centuries before Abraham was born.

[@nathanaelbuchanan341]

Hi, great video!! Just an unrelated question, what book would you recommend on the Resurrection aside from "A view of the evidences of Christianity"? I got it because of ur video and it's v good, but can't see it being a book that I would lend to my atheist friends because of the language and it's kinda long Many thanks

[@hhstark8663]

Testify´s recommendations are *"The Case for Jesus"* by Brant Pitre and *"Can we trust the gospels?"* by Peter J. Williams. _________ One book on the resurrection is Mike Licona´s *"The resurrection of Jesus: A new historiogeogrpahical approach"* - however it is advanced and academical. For a popular-level book, I would say *"Cold-case christianity"* or *"A case for the resurrection of jesus"* or *"Evidence demands a verdict"* .

[@TestifyApologetics]

I would absolutely not recommend Licona's book. See my videos from the last month or so on the minimal facts. The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre is a good book that covers the deity of Christ and Jesus' resurrection. Also Can We Trust the Gospels? by Peter J. Williams has a chapter on the resurrection.

[@nathanaelbuchanan341]

@@TestifyApologetics thank you very much!!

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Thanks for these!

[@ameribeaner]

At least this isn’t the prophet of zod or rationality rules, I really can’t stand to listen to them and have no idea how anyone can listen to them. Holy Koolaid is at least listenable, even if he’s not very literate or has a good understanding of the things he questions/refutes. I’ve watched a couple of his videos and while he obviously doesn’t understand a lot he’s very watchable. Almost like he’s trying to be a less high Joe Rogan

[@nsp74]

Love you eric. May the power of the Lord most high continue to give you wisdom, boldness and truth and continue to use you to destroys satan's lies

[@hiddenrambo328]

Jesus born 4.5 BC (Herod Great death 4-1BC) - Jesus 30 at 27.5 AD - Jesus ministry start 28 AD (Tiberius 15th year is 28-29AD as 29 is the end of the 15th year) Jesus Crucifixion 30.5 AD (28.5 Passover 1, 29.5 Passover 2, 30.5 Passover 3) if it was 3.5 years of ministry it would be 4 Passovers you see two your first year one at the start and one at the end. Church conception at resurrection, birth 9 months later, 31AD "born".

[@austinapologetics2023]

Well I'm at Walmart again and you've uploaded again.

[@TestifyApologetics]

stop shopping at Walmart on Monday mornings!

[@webslinger527]

@@TestifyApologetics great video👍👍. I think u should do a video on rationality rules or Paulgia 😉

[@TestifyApologetics]

What specifically would you want me to respond to? FWIW I've done several on their videos already.

[@webslinger527]

@@TestifyApologetics his objections to the resurrection and a theory that he proposed that the apostles imagine seeing Jesus. If you decide to make a video on rationality rules any of his arguments really. 👍

[@TestifyApologetics]

@@webslinger527 I did a 3 part response to Paulogia on the resurrection this past summer

[@MatthewFearnley]

There was a video released a couple of days ago by UsefulCharts at kzbin.info/www/bejne/bn_Hgomqr8-WoaM, which I think was helpful in understanding the historically neutral reasoning about the years Jesus was probably born in, according to each account. It gives a good explanation of the years that each account points to, without trying to reconcile them, but without trying to use it to undermine Christianity either.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yeah, I saw that in my suggestions and saved it to my watch later videos. Thanks!

[@michaelkierum42]

This is NOT a troll post, I would enjoy doing a Bible study with some Christians online. My goal is NOT to attempt to disprove the bible or anything like that. I promise to be polite, respectful, and charitable as long as my other readers can agree to be the same. Any takers? We can read any book from the New Testament although I would prefer not Revelation of John. Perhaps 1 Timothy or Acts or a Gospel. I am pretty open. Any takers?

[@michaelkierum42]

small note, My personal Bible is an NIV but if you prefer a different translation I can read off Bible Gateway if that works for you.

[@TestifyApologetics]

not a troll post but not the place for this kind of a thing. I don't allow self-promotion on my channel.

[@michaelkierum42]

@@TestifyApologetics I am sorry I was not trying to cause trouble I did not consider it self-promotion I do not have a KZbin channel or any kind of social media following

[@michaelkierum42]

@@TestifyApologetics I thought it would be viewed as an opportunity for Christians to spread the word and practice Bible study

[@michaelkierum42]

@@TestifyApologetics can you recommend me a more appropriate place to ask please

[@jcorle00]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@MatthewFearnley]

Great video! Do you think that Luke knew Matthew's account when he wrote his own? (Or vice versa, although I have a vague understanding that Matthew probably preceded Luke..)

[@TestifyApologetics]

I would guess that Matthew came first and Luke wasn't aware of it.

[@markhorton3994]

@@TestifyApologetics Luke starts his Gospel saying that he thoroughly investigated, talking to all the witnesses. That would have included all the Apostles, witnesses of the Sermon on the mount, and everyone else available. Luke 1:1 says that there were already many accounts. If Mathew was indeed written before Luke he would have read it.

[@davidlamb1107]

@@markhorton3994 I've re-read both Luke 1 and Acts 1. If Luke interviewed the witnesses, he never mentioned it. He says nothing more than that he "thoroughly investigated". He never mentions what form such investigation took. While it's certainly reasonable to infer that he interviewed people, he never actually claimed to talk to any witnesses, let alone "all" the witnesses, nor the Apostles themselves. Certainly some of the apostles may have permanently left the (geographic) area by the time Luke got around to writing his account, 30-50 years after the events.

[@markhorton3994]

@David Lamb Luke did not investigate by using the internet or reading magazines and newspapers. The only way to investigate was by talking to people face to face with the occasional letter. "All" may be an exaggeration, but he would have talked to everyone available. I trust the dating of experts who believe what they are studying is honest over those who believe that the Gospels are fiction and thus jump three mental hoops to discredit them. Thus, I am of the opinion that the synoptic Gospels were written before 70 AD. Written by people who were teaching daily what they ended up putting on paper.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@TestifyApologeticswhy would you guess Luke wasn't aware of Matthew's eyewitness testimony (M's gospel)? As you know, Luke begins his diegesis with: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also..." He's aware of many (πολλοί) hand-written accounts. John hadn't been written yet. And he's not aware of Matthew. On what basis would you claim that Luke wouldn't be aware of Matthew?

[@andrewhamilton2201]

Another well-executed rebuttal! For those interested in the inconsistencies of Josephus I would recommend this video: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYe1YZ2Ora93pJI

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yep, I did include that as an option in one of the cards in the video. Very detailed stuff by IP.

[@SalemK-ty4ti]

I have to question the 33 days the Atheist gave in Luke's story and I disagree with the response the theist gave saying it was not clear in Luke's story when they went back. The gospel of Luke is very clear it was 41 days at the most after Jesus was born that Mary & Joseph took Jesus back to Nazareth(Luke 2:39). In Matthews story it is very clear the Mary & Joseph took Jesus to hide out in Egypt for 2 years before going to Nazareth. Please see read the demonstrable evidence from the gospels for you to review, please check these verse with your own bible and you will see I am not lying but I am telling you the truth. If I am wrong on what these verses actually say please show me, I am willing to change my mind when the demonstrable evidence is presented, that is what a person searching for the truth does, they follow the good & demonstrable evidence no matter where it leads them and they and don't make excuses. Luke 2:21-22 "On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses(33 days - see Leviticus 12:1-4*) had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord" Conclusion 8 days plus 33 days = 41 days according to the time line in Luke's gospels - but it would be 33 days if you go by just the laws of Moses purification. We should not lose focus here, whether it is 41 days or 33 days before they go straight back to Nazareth in Luke's story. We should instead focus on the demonstrable evidence in the gospels that these are not the same story. Focus on Matthew's story of them going from Bethlehem to Egypt for 2 years then to Nazareth & focus on Luke's story of them going from Bethlehem straight back to Nazareth after a period of 33 to 41 days after Jesus birth. These are clearly not the same story if you go by what the gospels actually say. Luke 2: 39 "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. Conclusion, the gospel of Luke says when everything required by the Law of the Lord(41 days at the most) they returned to Nazareth. So it is clear from the gospel of Luke they didn't go to Egypt for 2 years as in Matthew's gospel. Please tell me where I am wrong here? *Purification laws in the bible can be found in Leviticus 12:1-4 "The Lord said to Moses: Say to the Israelites: If a woman conceives a child and gives birth to a son, she will be unclean for seven days-just as she is during her menstrual period. On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy’s foreskin must be circumcised. For thirty-three days the mother will be in a state of blood purification. She must not touch anything holy or enter the sacred area until her time of purification is completed." Peace.

[@Kingrich_777]

Where did you get that Matthew says the holy family went straight back to Nazareth from Egypt immediately afterwards? And the dedication in the Temple of Jerusalem was BEFORE Herod’s decree to kill all babies 2 years of age and under. The audience with the Magi was after the dedication and before the slaughter of the innocents. There’s a year gap in between the Jerusalem dedication and the magi visit.

[@SalemK-ty4ti]

@@Kingrich_777 1st I never said in Matthews gospel that they went straight back to Nazareth. 2nd, I sorry, I should have said in Matthews story they went from Bethlehem(where they were from in Matthews story but from Nazareth in Lukes story) to Egypt where they spent at least 2 years before going for the 1st time to Nazareth. Sorry for the confusion. The point here is that in Matthews story they were from Bethlehem, Jesus was born in a house and after they went to hide out in Egypt where they stayed at least 2 years and before going to Nazareth for the 1st time. In Lukes story they were from Nazareth, they went to Bethlehem where Jesus was born in a manger(something like a barn, but not a house as in Matthews story) then after the purification period 33 to 41 days they went straight back to Nazareth. Please read both Nativity gospels and you will see I am not lying. Also, try and find all the contradiction to these stories and you will see they are not the same story. Especially how in Matthews story Jesus was born in or before 4 BC and in Lukes story Jesus was born in 4 AD. A ten year difference. . The gospel of Matthew contradicts the gospel of Luke's Jesus birth by 10 years. According to Matthew Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great & according to the gospel of Luke Jesus was born during the census taken by Quirinious. Here are the facts. - Herod the Great - dies in 4 BC - In Matthew story this is when Jesus was born and they fled for 2 years to Egypt because of Herod the Great. - When Herod the Great died his son Archelaus took over reign in Judea and ruled it from 4 BC to 6 AD - In Matthews story an Angel warned Mary & Joseph not to return to Bethlehem(part of Judaea) because Herod the great son Archelaus was put in charge of Judea and it was not safe to go there so they settled in Nazareth(part of Syria at the time). - When Herod the Great died his son Archelaus took over reign in Judea and ruled it from 4 BC to 6 AD - In Matthews story an Angel warned Mary & Joseph not to return to Bethlehem(part of Judaea) because Herod the great son Archelaus was put in charge of Judea and it was not safe to go there so they settled in Nazareth(part of Syria at the time). - In 6 AD Caesar Augusta removed Archelaus from rule. Also in 6 AD Caesar Augusta installed Quirinius as governor of Syria with authority over Judaea. This is when Quirinious carried out the census for Caesar Augusta. According to Luke's gospel Jesus was born during the census of Quiriniuos. Do you understand the problem here? Do you understand this is logically impossible? Do you understand these stories contradict one another? Do you understand that at least one of these stories is fake?

[@SalemK-ty4ti]

@@Kingrich_777 I am getting my information from the Bible. To be more clear from Matthews & Luke's gospels. So yes, both stories have Jesus being born in Bethlehem then later going to live in Nazareth, but that and Jesus' parents are the only part of the stories that match, everything else is a contradiction. Why do you believe a story that - 1- In Matthew Mary and Joseph were from Bethlehem, never living in Nazareth before Jesus, but in Lukes story Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem for a census. Please go read these Bible stories for yourself and you will see I am not lying. Peace.

[@Kingrich_777]

@@SalemK-ty4ti bc Mary and Joseph’s and Mary’s both ancestral hometowns were Bethlehem. It’s mentioned that Mary was a Nazarene before Jesus in other gospels. It’s just that Matthew omits where Joseph spent his days before Jesus. I’d strongly advise against assuming things that the Bible never says and filling in the gaps with best guesses when things aren’t clear. They were descendants of the line of David.

[@SalemK-ty4ti]

@@Kingrich_777 Really, were does it say that in the Bible? Also, where in Matthew's gospel does it say they were both ancestral homes were in Nazareth? Do you see the problem here? Both Matthew's and Luke's nativity stories contradict each other. You need to read the stories then get back to me. Thank you

[@Charles-tv6oi]

I dare anyone to say I contradict on following statements,! Anyone up for the challenge? IM NOT TROLLING! If is say that Pufferpeeps can't jump up on my couch due to being disabled from birth, but I also claimed the day before that Pufferpeeps jumped up on my couch, did I contradict? No! Think I'm joking? Want answer? See if you can figure it out. If not ask n I'll prove I didn't contradict! Bible is accurate n lack of info isn't contradiction.

[@Joshua_Cline]

let me guess: the "contradiction" hinges on the assumption that Pufferpeeps is disabled from the legs?

[@Charles-tv6oi]

@@Joshua_Cline the false assumed contradiction is she can't jump up on but can . That's explained why it's not conflicting

[@Charles-tv6oi]

@@Joshua_Cline she CANT jump up on the TOP but CAN jump up on SIDE with 4 paws. Both are right

[@truncated7644]

@PineCreek, I think @Testify does a good job presenting his options and there isn't an iron-clad defeater in his argument here. While I disagree with him and find alternate explanations more probable, what strikes me is how much work it takes to harmonize these and other stories. If "they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth" (Luke 2:39) actually means they first spent two years in Egypt to fulfill an OT passage that seems to clearly refer to something completely unrelated, I think that gives very reasonable grounds (along with other apparent contradiction) for doubting both the veracity of at least one of these accounts as well as the divine inspiration of the whole gospel story. What does seem unreasonable is that Yahweh would damn me to eternal conscious torment for coming to the wrong conclusion based on the evidence in the bible and disagreements with arguments on channels like this. I haven't seen @Testify discuss this here, but I would be interested to hear what his understanding of what the role of the Holy Spirit is in bringing me to a different conclusion if you have an evidentialist approach to faith.

[@truncated7644]

Seems like a seasonably good time to ask @Testify if he has an answer to this (or can refer me to one he made previously that addresses this).

[@truncated7644]

@@Firebreath56 The point is the evidence doesn't convince me. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean I am right. But I have taken an honest look at the evidence and don't believe the evidence justifies my belief. And I have plenty of evidence for what I think indicates the bible is a very human book. Point in case, Yahweh wants me to believe and worship him, but the book he gives me is written for a different people and time and as you said, " Not everything is going to be perfectly clear to our modern culture today." And for that, I will be eternally roasted like a marshmallow. It doesn't seem reasonable to me. @Testify wants us to build a cumulative, evidentialist case for the resurrection and Christianity. My question to @Testify is, what is the role of the Holy Spirit in all of this? Is it required to come to the "right" conclusion? Are people like me, who see what is presented as evidence and say it isn't enough just darkened by a carnal mind, wanting to sin and be my own God. OR, is it possible that I simply do I just not think the evidence is sufficient? AND, whether I am a resistant or non-resistant non-believer, is God going to barbeque me forever?

[@slade8863]

@@truncated7644 well, first of all, it's much more than the evidence we christians provide. after all, not all christians had access to the scriptures like we do now in the 21st century. It still gotta go do with you thinking it about it from a spiritual POV. Try praying perhaps, who knows, God may answer

[@jameskelly7606]

You removed the clip where he explains that the census was done because of Herod's death ... It is a crucial factor and excluding it puts all explanations in a different context

[@TheArkman360]

Testify removed that clip because Testify is a liar!

[@Nov_Net]

😀

[@meeatyuwhole3889]

Yoo