The virgin birth is a late tradition

[@terjenilsen8412]

I am looking forward to exploring more of this topic in Bart Ehrman's new online course.

[@Platypus4321]

Don’t trust Bart Ehrman too much, he makes wild claims. He also glosses over that Jesus is supposed to have heard what was in someone’s heart, Bart describes it as it just being “said” instead of “said in their hearts”.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

- Hey Matthew, or whatever your name is - That Gospel you're copying, sorry, I mean writing. It needs a back story. - A Backstory? Like what? - You know, a family tree, Jesus the early years, stuff like that . . . to make Jesus a bit more . . . relatable. - Oh, Ok. Do you have any material? - Nah, just makes something up.

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

It's also important to note that the Septuagint translates naarah, the synonym of almah, as parthenos (virgin) in a couple instances even though it's an uncontested fact that naarah doesn't denote virginity. It could be that it is the Greek word parthenos that could mean a virgin or an adolescent woman of marriageable age-same as maiden is in English-rather than the Hebrew word almah, which just means a young woman. This ambiguity in Koine Greek-not Hebrew-could be what the author of Matthew was playing at with his rabbinic interpretation which was figurative, and not literal (Remez), as is the theme of his fulfillment citations. Therefore, it is plausible that the virgin birth tradition predates Matthew, and the author was just looking for scriptural passages to correlate it with as he's done for other elements of the tradition.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Reminds me of the fact that the German word for virgin, "Jungfrau", is literally "young woman". I guess that shows you how people thought when those words with those meanings came about.

[@wingedlion17]

The silence on this tradition from Paul and mark weighs against the plausibility. Those are the earliest writing we have about Jesus and they don’t say a single thing about it.

[@germanboy14]

The author was for sure no Jew. So please stop the "rabbinic" nonsense. We also know that the author copied and used Mark but corrected the stuff he didn't like or he also added other stuff.

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

@wingedlion17 while that could likely be the case, the proponent of the virgin birth could argue that that's an argument from silence fallacy. However, I do think the virgin birth narrative evolved after the writings of Paul.

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

@germanboy14 please note that I haven't made any claim on the ethnicity of the author of Matthew. I was merely pointing out the rabbinic methods of interpretation (Pardes) common in that time and place, as also seen in the Dead Sea scrolls that were clearly used in Matthew.

[@ljre3397]

The only miracle is that so many people believe the Bible.

[@Satans_lil_helper]

I love this channel! As a lifelong skeptic, I still find this stuff absolutely fascinating. 🖖🏾🤘🏾✊🏾

[@waitstill7091]

What, No Santa?

[@Satans_lil_helper]

​@@waitstill7091Nah! James Randi was _way_ cooler.

[@RalphNoogle]

Hahahaha very good

[@lance7607]

I really like these short videos. They're perfect for people who don't have time to sit through longer content (and people who just have short attention spans like me).

[@blktarockstar818]

Ya it's called TikTok

[@lance7607]

@@blktarockstar818 Are you sure? I just double-checked and it's KZbin.

[@wingedlion17]

One of the reasons I cannot take Catholicism seriously is that there are too many dogmas around the virgin birth and Mary, when the stories have been shown for a while now to be legendary

[@rainbowkrampus]

That's at least part of their mythology. It's relatively understandable. I had a guy get mad at me for pointing out that Eusebius was a lying liar who lied. Imagine not only defending Eusebius but getting mad over demonstrable things about the guy. In 2023. That is some silly nonsense.

[@emptyhand777]

The same goes for all Christian denominations. Data > Dogma

[@Jd-808]

Seems pretty arbitrary

[@Skye_7_7]

@@emptyhand777 All dogmas, really. Whether it’s any religion or not 1, dogmas are not good.

[@AnaBrigidaGomez]

The Catholic Church put the canon of the bible together they didn't put everything because that would make the bible the never ending book so they left some things out, those are our traditions it doesn't mean they are not true just urgently, The sole scripture interpretation came centuries after with Luther's reformation.

[@KaiHenningsen]

I could see an ancient variant of a KJV-only believer arguing for the Septuagint over the Hebrew versions of the scriptures 😂

[@diansc7322]

St Augustine was actually exactly like this. He kept arguing that the Septuagint was inspired, while St Jerome kept translating the bible from Hebrew. We have some back and forth letters between the two and somehow a riot was involved lol

[@travis1240]

This is what happens when you attribute divinity to some words on a page written by people. It becomes an endless source of arguments.

[@fariesz6786]

the very concept of human language being in any shape or form divine is rather blasphemic to me tbh

[@AriqMattiYahu]

Is you a Hebrew boi!?

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@AriqMattiYahu How about indicating who you are talking to? It's certainly not clear from what you wrote.

[@jackcimino8822]

1:08 David M. Litwa, however, has talked about how the virgin birth was analogous to the post-Platonic idea of non-sexual conception. He pointed out that gLuke uses the same language for the virgin birth of Jesus that Plutarch used for Plato's virgin birth.

[@Jd-808]

I agree it’s carrying on in that tradition but I think Dan is talking about a direct link. But agreed that’s an important point

[@jackcimino8822]

@@Jd-808 I am aware of the infertile births in the Old Testament as well.

[@InquisitiveBible]

Indeed, there are plenty of miraculous conceptions in the Old Testament, and Luke's nativity is directly modeled after them.

[@2023-better-research]

David Litwa's work is importantly correct, but he mostly shares generic relationships instead of genetic relationships. What Dan is sharing here is a direct genetic relationship.

[@davidbrachetto1420]

The Apostles didn’t indicate that they have any idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. In fact, they think he was born of man, hence they say “born of the seed of David, according to the flesh” That phrase only means 1 thing to Jews/Israelites. It means you’re born of a man from David’s lineage.

[@ufpride83]

Considering the New Testament is written by Greek speakers from outside of Judah, it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that they got basic Jewish texts wrong. It also shows that whoever wrote these gospels and letters in the New Testament were people who had zero access to the Hebrew Scriptures and were relying solely on the very flawed Septuagint. Its honestly crazy to me that there’s way more archeological and textual evidence that christianity was started by Greek speaking gentiles in Rome and Asia Minor who had little to no actual knowledge of the Jewish religion and beliefs yet we still pretend that they’re all Jewish people for no other reason than they claim to be

[@travis1240]

I like where you are going with this. I completely agree that Christianity circa 200 AD or so is a Hellenistic "gentile" religion, only loosely based on Judaism. However, If we assume that "Jewish Christianity" was never a thing, how do we explain Paul's letters? Are they all forged (including the 7 "undisputed" letters) to create a richer backstory? Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure Jesus even existed and I'm pretty sure most of the disciples didn't. Just looking for how Paul's letters fit into this.

[@ufpride83]

@@travis1240 Paul is a Greek speaking person who also relied completely on the Septuagint whenever he quoted scripture getting them wrong because the Septuagint really is a bad translation. Now he claims to have been a really smart Pharisee who was more knowledgeable and had more zeal for God than any other Pharisee around yet he doesn’t ever quote Hebrew scripture when he’s supposedly writing these letters before the Romans destroyed the temple and every Hebrew text with it. The only proof of Paul being Jewish or a Jewish leader is his word and whoever wrote Acts which could just be relying on nothing more than what Paul proclaimed to be. There’s not a single Jewish contemporary of Paul’s that I’m aware of that attested to his existence let alone him being a highly respected Pharisee And where are all of Paul’s churches? Are they in Judah? Nope, they’re all in Asia Minor and Rome. In fact it’s almost crazy how there’s virtually no letters from anyone to churches in Judah

[@travis1240]

@@ufpride83 Interesting. Thanks.

[@ufpride83]

@@travis1240 I don’t have doubts there was a Greek speaking guy named Paul that wrote those letters and went around Asia Minor and Rome spreading his beliefs but I doubt his claims that he was not only Jewish, but a highly respected and educated Pharisee from Judah

[@ufpride83]

@@user-cw3ox2nn5t here is a great video by a Jewish rabbi that details far better than I ever could about how there’s no way Paul was an actual Pharisee. Literally anyone can say “I’m a Pharisee and I was circumcised on the 8th day.” Lying is seriously one of the easiest sins to commit and get away with. Especially in ancient times. And nope, I’m a Zoroastrian. 🙂 kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWGtY42Aid-oqNEsi=gQT5bIqwjWSbCFvW

[@Joqub]

Notice how Matthew adds “translated is, God with us.” his audience did not read Isaiah, like Christians today.

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

Good point.

[@germanboy14]

Exactly.😂

[@Debunked421]

Michael Heiser would beg to differ. You do realize young Jewish boys read Torah and memorized it. The disciples would know torah

[@Joqub]

@@Debunked421 Jewish boys know Isaiah 7-8 is not a prophecy for 700 years after Ahaz

[@matOpera]

@@Joqub 2nd Temple Jews did not read the Bible as historical documents, and many of them read messianically / symbolically / analogically. So your claim is unsubstantiated.

[@johnrichardson7629]

Next you are going to claim that Jello Land and Christmas Town are late accretions. Oh, ye of little faith!

[@travis1240]

Jello Land is late but the candy cane forest is ancient. I know because those candy canes are NOT fresh.

[@fariesz6786]

_Let he who is of wobble eat the first spoon_

[@Noneya5555]

So the authors of Matthew and Luke were among the first Christian apologists (if not the first), in that they cherry-picked and misinterpreted/misrepresented Old Testament writings to "prove" a "prophesy" of the divinity of Jesus. Amazing what results when people see only what they want to see. 😕

[@germanboy14]

Paul was the first.

[@Noneya5555]

@@germanboy14 Good catch, thanks. I forgot the chronology. 😁

[@sketchygetchey8299]

I’ve also kept wondering why Mary is still called the Virgin Mary when the Gospels (as it’s seen through non-scholarly eyes) make it clear that Mary and Joseph had children outside of Jesus.

[@Vishanti]

Because the Catholics and Orthodox think those are half-siblings through Joseph. Their theology requires Mary to have been a virgin for life.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Nowhere the Bible says they had other children

[@jackcimino8822]

​@@thejerichoconnection3473Jesus' "brothers and sisters" are mentioned in Mark

[@Vishanti]

@@thejerichoconnection3473 Mark 6:3 uses the word 'adelphoi' and names siblings.

[@donsample1002]

@@jackcimino8822And James “the brother of Jesus” becomes leader of the cult after Jesus died. Mentioned a lot in Acts, and the Pauline epistles.

[@boboak9168]

Anyone wanting to learn about or profess Christianity should be aware that it is chock-a-block full of ‘authoritative’ tradition based on people making stuff up, with only a threadbare link to verifiable history. I understand belief isn’t a choice but I sincerely hope believers will be less dogmatic and less judgmental of non-believers when they learn the lesson of this video.

[@boboak9168]

@SmallFridgeMinority we disagree on this. Try believing there is a live African elephant sitting on your lap. It’s purple with green spots, but only when it chooses to be visible. Only six foot tall at the shoulder, it weighs 120,000 kilograms but doesn’t crush you. In fact you can’t feel it. Don’t just imagine this. Believe it! Belief is not a choice. There is only that you have been convinced of, and that you have not been convinced of.

[@boboak9168]

@SmallFridgeMinority cool username, by the way.

[@RalphNoogle]

Quick question if you don't mind...why do you think belief is not a choice?

[@boboak9168]

@@RalphNoogle Read comments above. You cannot choose to believe in the invisible elephant. You can pretend, but you can't believe.

[@braddersfam1754]

Interesting ideas thank you

[@fordprefect5304]

The Romans were enamored by virgins, like the vestal virgins.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

In fact the Bible was written by the Romans 🤦🏻

[@toniacollinske2518]

Meh. The books were written before Romans turned Christian. Also, Vestal priestesses weren't required to be virgins, just celibate

[@fordprefect5304]

@@toniacollinske2518 Meh *The books were written before Romans turned Christian* Romans wrote the gospels, even Saul/Paul was a Roman. *just celibate* Are you really that dumb?

[@gilgamesh7652]

​@@toniacollinske2518 No the Vestal virgins not allowed to broke their chastity vow but were free to marry after serving for 30 years

[@fariesz6786]

when the aorist stem is identical to the future stem:

[@davidloveday8473]

The earliest extant sources - Paul and Mark - would obviously have mentioned Jesus miraculously being born to a virgin if they thought there was the slightest truth in such a wild claim (as they did with the equally impossible claim that Jesus came back to life several days after dying). Their silence on Mary being a virgin ought to provide an insurmountsble objection to the virgin birth story, even for people unprepared to accept the scienttific point that the x and y chromosomes needed to make a cisgender male would have required both a human mother and a human father

[@KasperKatje]

Mark didn't even clearly mention the resurrection. And he didn't mention an earthly reappearance, no apostels as eyewitnesses and no ascension. 😮

[@infestchristopher1457]

OMG were did you find info?

[@DoulosTis]

In his toilet I guess

[@5BBassist4Christ]

I would propose a different theory, which I think is more reliable. The Virgin Birth Narrative did not originate from Isaiah, but from a historical event. The earliest critics of Christianity said Jesus' mother conceived him out of wedlock. Now, let's consider this rationally, either way you look at it, you could understand this position: a.) If the Virgin Birth Narrative is true, then it would be reasonable that those who disbelieve in Jesus would also be skeptical of this claim, and accuse her of premarital sex. b.) If Mary did conceive Jesus out of premarital sex, then it would be understandable that they (Mary, Jesus, and/or his followers) would invent the Virgin Birth Narrative to cover her shame (as it was highly shameful in those times). Both of these theories explain each other's position. It would then be likely that the Early Church found Isaiah to support their argument, rather than that they made up a claim from a vague passage in Isaiah.

[@JB-et7zs]

And the absolute rage that some express at the very thought of Mary ever having normal relations with her husband and being anything other than a virgin until death. It's pathological.

[@damianwhite504]

It is pathological. Catholics will deny it but they are fanatical about their VIRGIN Mary beliefs. I used to be Catholic

[@AnaBrigidaGomez]

Is more complex than that. Is about Mary as the new Arc of covenant and new Eve.

[@curious011]

Im sooo sure Mary stayed a virgin forever, which mean Joseph never got to have sex. sure, it happened. the pope said so.

[@robyn874]

There’s too many ‘changes’ to suit the narrative of each religion. Hard to know what’s real, what added & what’s made up

[@rainbowkrampus]

It's all made up. The changes are the interesting bits though. They show what kind of socio-political and cultural forces were at play across time.

[@robyn874]

@@rainbowkrampus 😂

[@oneandtruth]

The Quran mentions the birth of Jesus through Mary without any male intervention. Now, it is up to the reader to consider the Quran as a word of Allah or not.

[@adriannelea1]

Signs from God are miraculous. A young woman giving birth would have been so common that it wouldn’t be a sign unless that young woman was a virgin, hence the translation specifying the understanding of this passage as the woman being a virgin.

[@Samael-ou7yo]

That's false, not every sign has to be miraculous. Read Isaiah 18: "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel" Does that mean that every child of Isaiah was born of his "virgin" wife despite he told you that he slept with her?

[@Ex_christian]

Songs from a god are miraculous? Really? When and where? Otherwise, the gods are all made up! You are just in a religious cult!

[@oceanside13]

I'm sitting here, mind blown, saying, "D@@@mn...!!!" After growing up with an evangelical dad and Roman Catholic mom, going to both churches. After studying Biblical scholarship enough to free myself from that programming. And never seeing this coming. I'll be tripping on this one for a few months.

[@jwalker6168]

This is the straw that broke the camel's back for my Christianity. It was proof that the Bible wasn't inerrant, which was the final piece that fit with all the history I had learned to end my belief in God and Christianity

[@travis1240]

Welcome to the real world! For me it was Genesis 1 and 2. Looking back on it I can't believe I ever thought talking snakes were real.

[@jwalker6168]

@@travis1240I believed it until I was 26 😝 15 years later, it's hard to understand how it was believable. Probably the childhood brainwashing 😝

[@thenexus1789]

whoever taught you the Bible was inerrant was clearly in error, however, not even close enough to make me leave Christianity.

[@jwalker6168]

@@thenexus1789Belief in inerrancy is pretty common among evangelicals. But even with that one lie broken, the more I learn about the rest of the Bible the more obvious it is that it's complete fiction

[@ancientfiction5244]

​@@thenexus1789 If the Israelites were getting some of their ideas and myths from *older* cultures, would this make a difference? --------------------------------------------------------- *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*

[@JesusIsGodAlmighty-dyad2285]

Oh man, I hope InspiringPhilosophy or VOR refutes this one lol.

[@emptyhand777]

You gonna make-adda Pope cry!

[@talkofchrist]

Matthew was originally written decades after Paul died?

[@KarlRadekBonk]

Yes?

[@jesseterpstra5472]

Circa 80 CE

[@snl4742]

Sir I have a question for you. Why do you study the Bible?

[@bohem5568]

This is why it makes more sense to assume Jesus did exist but was merely an enlightened rabbi/teacher whose philosophy was ahead of his time rather than a figure boosted to mythological stature later. A great man who had a truer understanding of achieving the divine in our humanity. Someone who understood the simple notion of understanding in love and the willing self-sacrifices it takes to achieve and live such a state of grace in consciousness.

[@JoseKJV]

This guy is the definition of wolf in sheep clothing. Enjoy the Lava!.

[@AustinHelmer-yy3wk]

Enjoy the lava? 😂

[@JoeSiegfried]

IMO if Paul did not mention the virgin birth of Jesus in his letter to the Roman church then he must not have included it in his gospel message since in this letter he outlines all of his theology, at great length and skipping no details.

[@derekalineal]

So did Joseph "mistranslate" Alma 7:10 due to his own biblical bias? You are assuming (like in many of your videos) that a lack of evidence makes something fundamentally false. Heb 11:1.

[@TheTruthHurts.-bc8fx]

”Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.“ ‭‭Luke‬ ‭1‬:‭34‬-‭35‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ Mary was already engaged to Joseph and was asking the angel about how am i supposed to have a baby when ain’t married yet in other words virgin still,notice the angel didn’t say you future husband will father your son (the bible is clear about who the parents are of whoever but not on this one) on here it shows its the holy spirit that came with gods power and that is why the angel said he will be called the son of god!

[@mickeydecurious]

It wasn't a prophecy to be "fulfilled" hundreds of years into the future 🤔

[@matthewmurdoch6932]

Isn't the Greek version the earliest script we have access to? 🤔

[@omarjohnjoyce2979]

I want to see the Muslim response to this

[@eddie9965]

The gospel writer heard the idea of a virgin birth, and went fishing for prophecies in the Septuagint in support of it. That’s the best I got tbh

[@True_Media_Global]

Please, check Quran and hadith for information. Generally I can say that we, muslims, belive almost the same way. On top, for us she is the best woman of all times. We love her, but we don't pray to her. And we stand for her grace

[@JoeSiegfried]

2 Timothy 4:4 talks about people after Paul's time embracing myths as truth, is this what the writer is referring to? Once the Gentiles got hold of these texts without instructed Hebrew scholars to educate them, i bet a lot of things were misconstrued.

[@waitstill7091]

What, No Santa?

[@craigfairweather3401]

‘Matthew’’s use of Hebrew Scriptures follows the same technique as Essene interpretation: of looking for patterns of God’s distant past action as explaining patterns of more recent events, as all is determined by God. Their joint idea of fulfillment is more like fill-fuller-ment. The shape of the past event predicts the course of the more recent event or a future event, like a vase shape repeatedly filled with water. Hence in the Essene Habakkuk Commentary the writer knows events happened to Habakkuk as described BUT ALSO think the pattern explains what happened to their own Teacher of Righteousness. Same with Matthew, that writer knows ‘Icalled my son out of Egypt’ refers to the Exodus, but he ALSO thinks he has discovered a pattern that is repeated in Jesus coming back from Egypt. Same with Paul, he thinks he has discovered a typology pattern when he says of the rock struck by Moses “that rock was Christ”.

[@markcoote2829]

Won't he do it... WON'T HE DO IT

[@TheTruthHurts.-bc8fx]

”Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.“ ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭7‬:‭14‬ ‭according to you Isaiah was saying a child is born,Isaiah was talking to the father it doesn’t make sense he telling him his son is born but the whole context is speaking future sense! I mean you said its not a prophecy its a SIGN(Showing you where to go) Meaning it hasn’t happened yet! People,they sell all kinds of books for you understanding and the Holy Bible is one of them! Jesus is King!

[@CrossCory]

@dan McLellan I’d love for you to have a round circle talk of You, Jonathan pageau and Jordan Peterson.

[@ErraticFaith]

If only. William Lane Retard and Jordan the emotional joke need taking down pronto. A disgrace to intelligence. Likely Dan doesn’t want to be associated to such mental illness though, can hardly blame him. Sitting through their sky daddy obsession is insufferable.

[@LoveAllAnimals101]

The irony is that everything - except locations in the bible - is storytelling based on fiction, myth and legend.

[@noracola5285]

*some of the locations

[@cc3775]

John was never referring back to the beginning of creation. Saying “in the beginning” doesn’t necessitate the beginning of creation. We have to ask ourselves the beginning of what? “In the beginning” could very well mean the beginning of a Jesus’ ministry. The author of John never believed or taught some preexisting being. That comes from reading presuppositions into the text. Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated and was about a child in Ahazs day. Yes Matthew applies is it to Jesus but it wasn’t about Jesus in the original context. There is no reason God couldn’t have caused Mary to conceive a child.

[@lisameyer2068]

Explain the rest of Matthew, its not only the alma thing.

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

Mark also doesn't say that Jesus was the son of God. That became expanded on with Matthew and Luke's versions. The idea of a messiah being born of a virgin was not new at the time. In fact it was quite common among early religions, so no doubt our early Christians were like, "Oh yeah? Well OUR guy was born of a virgin too!"

[@jameschapman6559]

Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, the great pumpkin and finally god!

[@roberthunter6927]

Parthenogenesis is a thing in some species, but very rare. There are some problems with long term viability of that PG line, because of the build-up of mutational load. [Daughters are basically clones of the parthenogenic mother]. Parthenogenesis in the rare taxa where it occurs, is usually due to some male-killer allele, or the evolution of toxic factors in sperm due to intense sperm competition. PG is rare in humans, possibly because of ovarian teratoma. Tumors are usually benign with only 1 to 2 % turning malignant, but it is characterized by tissues growing in the wrong places. This often results in infertility, or a high incidence of infant mortality, very often in the early stages of fetal development. Unless the woman has appropriate treatment, a successful pregnancy is unlikely. Eighty percent of spontaneously abortions happen in the first trimester, with 10-15% overall. So a parthenogenic offspring is not likely to see the light of day anyway, and since only females can potentially become parthenogenic reproducers, the odds are culled even further. Besides, abnormalities in the ovary can affect hormone production, which can further complicate the survival of the fetus. So lots of things can go wrong.

[@thedude9941]

Isaiah 7:14 isn't about Jesus though, the virgin birth is from the gospels.

[@ineffableartistsmusic4109]

Great Stuff.

[@rosellestevenson246]

Thanks for your videos!

[@ranilodicen4460]

could it be that the virgin birth narrative was created to counter the jews gossiping ( according to celsus) about jesus being a bastard son of a roman soldier named pantera

[@diansc7322]

the Pantera thing imo is a waaaay later slander made exactly because of the virgin birth story.

[@ranilodicen4460]

@@diansc7322 that is because celsus writes about it in the 170's but he tells that it was a gossip among jews way before his time. and the talmud tells a story of a yeshua ibn pantera in galilee ( see dr tabors works) healing a rabbi bitten by a snake..

[@pansepot1490]

@@diansc7322 yeah, seems so to me too.

[@AnaBrigidaGomez]

According to a Jewish friend it would make more sense that the Jewish messiah was a bastard son than born under the law so not all Jewish would be gossiping badly about that.

[@ranilodicen4460]

@@AnaBrigidaGomez you think it could be that a roman soldier would be jesus biological father? joseph seems to be a minor cast in the gospels

[@dunk_law]

Poor translation had very little to do with it, but it was later.

[@omarjohnjoyce2979]

As a Mormon, do you believe God is the biological father of Jesus?

[@Ex_christian]

It doesn’t matter when you’re in a cult!

[@Magister195]

​@@Ex_christianbruh Joseph make Muhammad look like a true peophet

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Stolen! wait what not stolen. Matthew doesnt know how to read hebrew? Corrupted! Bart Ehrman paints the Birth Narrative as a crytic introduction to the body of the text. And so the sign posts are 1. Gods arrangment/council with mary and Joseph - creation of the messiah, annoited in the womb so to speak. IOW his station is higher than those annointed by priests. This reflects in the text the anti-ecclesiastical anti-scribal nature of the movement as if to say, you have a temple which gives you authority in heaven, but god can directly appoint his acolytes and circumvent the authority systems. 2. The signs, even the Zoroastrian priests see the sign of the coming messiah, but Herod and his priest cannot see it. In other words, the Jews were offered the sign, but they could not see it, others figured it out 3. The conspiracy to make sure the messiah does not come. Herod was aligned with the saducees who do no believe in messianic coming kingdoms. The high priest is not a corruption but was the intent of god. This mirrors the story in exodus, but also reflects the probable fact that Herod Antipas arranged for Yeshu to be executed. In other words Matthew is conflating Herodians with the Pharoahs as not knowing or understanding the will of the "one true god" 4. But in the end the messiah comes anyway, and is forced to flee. This may reflect Jesus fleeing to Syria and then to the decopolis after Herod's men realize he suoerceded the immerser. When you look at the Birth Narrative as a introduction/metaphorical depection of Jesus then it makes more sense in context.

[@salmansheikh4377]

Quran has it too. So it must be false there as well

[@thebook1889]

What about in Luke 1:34 where an Angel had visited Miriam/Mary and told her about her impending birth, I quote from the Codex Sinaiticus it's self, "34 But Mary said to the angel: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" One would think her saying I know not a man being she hadn't slept with one, which would make her by all means a virgin?

[@karldunnegan2689]

This is what Dan is saying. That the virgin birth story most likely didn't exist in earliest Christianity, as the letters of the Apostle Paul and the Gospel of Mark lack any reference to it. So in the early years of Christianity it was probably accepted that Jesus' mother was impregnated in the usual way, by a man's pecker. So it was also likely presumed that his mother was married. Both Paul and the Gospel of Mark seem to indicate that Jesus was in some way magically anointed by God, and wasn't "born" in any special way.

[@thebook1889]

@@karldunnegan2689 yes but I didn't reference Paul, I referenced Luke the physician, plus Paul's absence of any mentioning of Christ's birth really doesn't have much bearing on anything, mainly because he was neither there at the birth or was he in a close personal relationship with Jesus him self or his mother unlike Luke and the other disciples were. Paul didn't know Jesus personally. Plus there isn't any mentioning of magic in the Gospels pertaining to God's authority.

[@ldr540]

The thing about Dan McClellan is that he does not like to acknowledge any contradictions that would interfere with his mission of deconstructing traditional Christian understandings of the Bible.

[@karldunnegan2689]

@@thebook1889 Hey gomer, the authors of the Gospels no more knew Jesus personally than Paul or the Easter Bunny did. And "God's authority" is magical thinking. Just like your religion is.

[@thebook1889]

@@karldunnegan2689 insults are the argument of the ignorant

[@israeliteonlycampkilluhi.o2108]

Genesis Speaks of Virgin Birth...and ALL throughout the GOSPELS they Speak of VIRGIN BIRTH... Sorry your 1000% Incorrect

[@Debunked421]

Isaiah 7:4, Micah 5:2, Hosea 11:1 did OT just not exisit? The Virgin birth is legit, God is the masculine bloodline inheritance comes from God. So it has to be virgin birth. What am I missing?

[@Samael-ou7yo]

Read the original Hebrew text and you will see there's nothing about a virgin there. If you read it carefully you will also see that the young woman is already pregnant (adjective). If you look closer you will find a definite article there, because it's a specific woman known at the time the text was written and not "a" woman. Then if you read the text in context you will realize that the child was born during the reign of King Ahaz and has nothing to do with any Jesus 700 years later.

[@gilgamesh7652]

The fact that God is a spirit and is neither human, neither man or female or anything like that

[@therongjr]

P.S. I am very disappointed in the fit for this video.

[@MWMcKinley]

Without the virgin birth Jesus is born with sin and is not God. What a convenient narrative for the morman to be pushing. What kind of person devotes their whole life and education in their attempt to disprove the Bible? Oh wait...

[@curious011]

It's not an attempt. if you read the actual biblical text, it doesn't add up or make sense unless you twist it the ways apologists do to make it all fit.

[@BenM61]

Dan: … 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 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.” Saul didn’t care about Jesus or his teaching. To Saul, Jesus meant a lot more dead than a live. The author of the book of Mark was from a Pauline school. So no surprise there. Okay, I’ll give you a million dollars if you can prove it happened the way you described it. Why do you people talk like you know exactly what happened when they teach over and over again in school that history is all about assigning probability that certain events took place and that’s it. You can never go back in time and see what happened. All you have to say is I think… or probably. Stating speculation as facts is misleading.

[@curious011]

you are also saying I THINK OR I KNOW and assigning probability, and I hope you have the million dollars because it's getting ready to change hands.

[@danielsnyder2288]

Hey,.per the Bible Jesus was the second virgin birth

[@StevensOpinion-EnglishVersion]

Isiah finger point at young woman in king palace and that woman already pregnant. Gospel of Mathew turn it futuristic. Mislead everyone.

[@tzaphkielmelekiyah1518]

Actually incorrect, you don’t understand Hebraic second temple is thought, nor even modern mystic thought, the Hebrews had an idea of two messiahs one priestly and one kingly, both are fulfilled in Christ

[@Elvengem]

The tribal affiliation of Mary's father passed to Jesus because he inherited all her physical DNA,and the rules were different in a supernatural case. God is the one who made the rules here,just like a rule was changed from its usual path when God created miracles in the bible,and so there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to God's miracles. Speaking of if isaiah mentioned a present pregnant young maiden,that seems rather short handed or close range in time for a sign because if the Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered as a people and the two kings would be defeated before the child is old enough to even eat curds. ok a pregnant woman standing there has a 9 month gestation and a one year old before it can eat curds ,and yet sixty five years is given,so why bother to say sixty five years for a woman already there pregnant or with a child who will still not be old enough to eat curds by the time the two kings are defeated? what is the need of even mentioning the 65 years since its going to be obviously the two kings defeated long before then within a year? so then if she is already within 9 months pregnant,he is still an infant and that is any significant sign, but why does matthew 1;22 says this prophecy was for Jesus too as if the jews back then and him didnt already know better than we do that it might have pertained to someone in isaiah's time too, but if it did it is because they would then see it as a double prophecy. It was meant for someone back then and for Jesus,because the messiah already has other prophecies of Him being divine. Such as Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times eternity.”(As in preexistent and eternal like God with us"Immanuel).Then there is the other divine child prophecy of isaiah 9:6 a child is to be born to be called Mighty God,...." Jeremiah 23:5-6,ok that is Immanuel too. The messiah is the divine child ultimately.

[@cinnamondan4984]

Wet blanket much. JK, man.

[@TrisjensChronicles1203]

Thank thank thank you Dan. It’s crazy how people can come along and mistranslate a word and boom reach back to some texts to find support for their agenda. Now that I’m free from Christian mythology/religions i’ll always go where the data leads. Data >>> dogma.

[@Ex_christian]

It’s the Christian cult way to bring meaning where there isn’t any and to make stuff up to lie about.

[@newjerseylion4804]

Jesus name was Yes hu a Ben Joseph.

[@childofthesoil1163]

Tells us about white history where do u come from

[@angreehulk]

🤘

[@BobSmith-lb9nc]

An Ugaritic text (“The Betrothal of Moon and Nikkal-Ib”) has the same line or type-scene paralleling Isaiah 7:14 in Ugaritic, hl ǵlmt tld b[n . . .] “Behold, the ˁalmat shall give birth to a chi[ld]”(CAT 1.24, line 7). The early LXX Jewish understanding of parthenos as equivalent to ˁalma is certainly superior here, and the parallel use of betula and ˁalma in Ugaritic references to ˁAnat may indicate an ancient equation of the two words as a standard parallel word-pair. Thus, post-Christian Jewish scholars changed parthenos “virgin” to neanis “young-woman” (in a new ed of LXX) to cover the problem of Jewish-Christian claims. Note also that the ˁalmâ Rebekah (Gen 24:43) is termed a bětûlâ “virgin whom no man has known” (Gen 24:16). Even in ancient Sumerian texts of the Dumuzi-Inanna cycle (2000 years before Christ), the virginity of the Mother goddess is paramount - along with a host of other astonishing parallels concerning her son (Kramer, Sacred Marriage Rite [1969], 133).

[@pansepot1490]

And your point is? That Matthew and Luke knew ugaritic?

[@therongjr]

I am the 1,000th like!

[@aaronspry7861]

Lol, texts from the first century now count as “late traditions”?

[@Nai61a]

aaron etc: Well, it depends what you mean by the first century. I think Dr McClellan is referring to later texts here. That being the case, imagine we had a book from, say, 1930, written by a Mormon telling us all about Joseph Smith's divine inspiration and the reliability of the Book of Mormon. How much store would you set by that book?

[@annakimborahpa]

Isaiah 7:14 (KJV): "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." And if the King James Bible was good enough for Joseph Smith, then that's good enough for me.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Bible Came from Arabia “, Kamal Salibi,1985, plus his 3 other bible study books tell different ‘stories.’

[@joeaustin2919]

I don’t know why people are celebrating Christmas so early in November, it’s so silly, people have become to cynical, forgetting the true meaning of Christmas.

[@Nastya_07]

It's already December 1st

[@kenkindrick4227]

Doh

[@ldr540]

Friendly reminder that Dan has no inherent authority as a Bible scholar, and that everything he says is his own negotiation with the text.

[@TheThomas010519]

Everything? He references sources

[@ldr540]

@@TheThomas010519 That’s true, he does share sources that support his claim, while avoiding those that don’t. I guess that’s actually his way of negotiating with the text.

[@vmonk2]

Dan actually mostly puts forward the current scholarly consensus of modern non-confessional bible scholars. The data he puts forth in his videos are far from his own personal negotiations

[@ldr540]

@@vmonk2 Honestly I don't give him that kind of credit. I know he's an active LDS member, but what I don't know are his actual beliefs. But I can make a pretty good guess based on the way he presents his scholarship, the issues he chooses to cover, the evidence he chooses to ignore, etc.

[@KarlRadekBonk]

@@ldr540I mean, no one has inherent authority when reading, studying, interpreting, and educating people about ancient texts. What’s your point?

[@PoeLemic]

Dr. McClellan is rewriting the Bible verse-by-verse, concept-by-concept. Now, I just don't take the Bible as being unerring (like in the past). But, this religious scholar proves the errancy.

[@chrisparker2118]

Perhaps its addition to Christianity, but not new historically.

[@Ex_christian]

There isn’t anything like this historically! Only in the myth of religions…..

[@michaelhoerig4430]

It is not true that the virgin birth was a late 'development'. The Church has believed and taught the virgin birth from the beginning. This is ratified in Luke 1: 26-37 and Matthew 1: 18-25. The Church has also always believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. The Proto-evangelium of James, numerous Church councils and church dogmatic statements are evidence of this.

[@mkprr]

Scholars agree that Colossians is probably earlier than Mark and it is in agreement with John that Jesus was God before birth and the argument that colossians isn't by Paul is very weak and therefor disputed among scholars. That Paul and Mark don't talk about his birth doesn't mean it was a story invented later unless you are willing to base assertions not on data but on the lack of data.

[@mythacat1]

Bro, almah means maiden or marriagable young woman. The social context of the time excludes non-virgins from being considered marriage material, let alone the fact that the birth was given as a sign and young women getting pregnant inside the confines of marriage isn't special it's expected. You don't understand how prophecies have double fulfillments almost as a rule to verify the prophet. It's a sign of the future of the Davidic household, "don't worry, I your G-d will not only preserve you from the armies coming, but you will still see the messianic fulfillment once promised to David". The rabbinic scholars of the time, that translated the Septuagint knew the language much better than the rabbinic scholars of today, and even better than you aswell. Your pride causes you to ignorantly mislead people from the truth. I pray you'll reconsider and even develop a budding and beautiful relationship with God. He knows your hurts and insecurities and loves you still.

[@drot13]

A budding and beautiful relationship with god that impregnates a young woman (12-16 yo) without her consent?

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

What do you say about the Septuagint also translating naarah as virgin when it's an undisputed fact that naarah doesn't denote virginity? Like almah, it only conveys youth and gender, not sexual purity. Appealing to the authority of the translators of the Septuagint when they showed that they weren't particularly accurate in their translations is fallacious on your part.

[@mythacat1]

@@theophilussogoromo3000 It's a name.

[@mythacat1]

@@drot13 what is your issue with this? If it's the lack of consent: God gives us all life without consent and also takes it without consent, but that aside she was about to be married she was gonna be pregnant soon anyways, which addresses your contention with her age. She was gonna be pregnant then anyways. Your taking your sensibility abouf things and innacurately painting your judgements onto the story. Firstly, Miriam was an Isrealite, which means she was already covenented with God to be part of his people, there is no consent issue here. Just because women wait until 30 to get pregnant nowadays, doesn't mean we always have nor does it make it unethical not to.

[@mistermacwaffle2800]

Is there precedent for this "double fulfillment" elsewhere in the OT, prior to or outside the use of a Christian context? In other words, was this a Jewish idea that had roots prior to being utilized by the gospel writers? Seems rather convenient that certain things that are supposed to occur during the child's lifetime (the part about before the child knows how to choose the good, the land with the kings will be desolate in Isaiah 7:15-17) don't apply the Jesus life but can be ignored because of this idea of "double prophecy" that not only isn't clear that it was the intention in the text but was an unknown method of reading into the text until the gospels. To pick out one line and say it's about a future messiah and then say the very next line about the same child isn't doesn't seem to be anything like a reasonable position to take with the text as presented in most Bibles.

[@Micaiah144]

Virgin Birth and Virgin of Virginity Birth is not the same. Mary went from Joseph's espoused to his espoused wife and being a just man and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away secretly. Prophet Abraham's wife Sarah and also Priest Zacharias' wife also concieved of the Holy Ghost.

[@norswil8763]

Did you not listen? This is late tradition, the birth of Yeshua is only written in as miraculous a decade after his birth. Your semantics don’t really matter sorry.

[@Micaiah144]

@@norswil8763 If I tell you prophecy is shadow of things to come with the body being of Christ then quoted Colossians 2:17 would you believe? Most will not, because they want to make a Man or Son of Man the true Lord and Living God; therefore will tell you verses like Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6, are exclusive to the Messiah alone, and ignore the sons of the living God in the past which point us towards him. Hosea 1:9-11 Isaiah 43:6-8

[@norswil8763]

@@Micaiah144 I think biblical prophecies are convincing to the people who want to believe, any vague prophecy can be accepted and twisted into place if you try hard enough. Not for me. The NT was written and edited with prophecy in mind. Messiah according to who? As far as the Jews at the time were concerned Yeshua was no messiah. Anyway, that is all a distraction for a very simple and provable point, the virgin narrative is late, added scripture, not because we are hyper critical or we’re angry atheists, but because honest biblical scholarship tells us so. It may not align with what you’d like and what you’ve always been told, but it is the literary truth.

[@Micaiah144]

@@norswil8763 it was an Almah birth and he was born of the house and lineage of David, with the curse of Jeconiah being removed thru Zerrubabel, by signet being restored. 😌 Luk 2:4 KJV And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) Luk 2:5 KJV To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. Luk 2:41 KJV Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. Luk 2:42 KJV And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. Luk 2:43 KJV And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. Joh 1:45 KJV Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Joh 1:46 KJV And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Joh 6:41 KJV The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. Joh 6:42 KJV And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Joh 6:43 KJV Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

[@bevinfernandes3875]

Why, why Dr. Dan u keep dwelling on biblical issues that according to u are " after thoughts' to suit a certain narrative in the Bible. According to u all the prophecies in the Bible are false.Stop this money making racket of yours _ bashing the WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE. What is the value of your word compared to the word of God in the Bible?????

[@curious011]

you clearly don't READ the bible. if you did you would see it doesn't all add up without twisting it up and explaining scripturas to mean something NOT said. so i would say it's YOU thats messed up here.

[@SchwarzaufWeissundso]

In the Bible there is no development of Jesus where his origin is not mentioned (Mark's Gospel) to the virgin birth (Matthew and Luke), to Jesus' existence before the beginning of creation (John) as this video falsely claims. For Jesus' divine pre-existence can already be found in genuine Pauline letters such as the Letter to the Phillipians with its hymn (chapter 2). All scholars agree that Paul's letters are older than the Gospels, and therefore also older than Mark. Jesus' divine pre-existence is therefore an original claim and not a later development.

[@FernLovebond]

I think I speak for a number of people when I say "citations needed."

[@SchwarzaufWeissundso]

@@FernLovebond Actually, I have already quoted this, but here again in more detail Philippians 2:5-7: "5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." This is a genuine Pauline epistle and therefore earlier than Mark.

[@MarcillaSmith]

"[Christ Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross." John Gleason claims that Philo names the second Person of the Trinity as "Jesus" in the 1st century BC/BCE, but I haven't seen the primary documentation of it, yet.

[@germanboy14]

@Marcella Philo never even mentioned a trinity😂 there is also no trinity in Judaism. That's polytheism

[@germanboy14]

Philipians 2 6 has nothing to do with pre existence: Klaus Berger (German Catholic NT Scholar) Heidelberg exegete “Philippians 2:6 is primarily concerned with making statements about high status and by no means necessarily concerned with pre-existence.” Bas van Iersel (Dutch NT Scholar) p45. ‘Son of God in the New Testament’ “But of pre-existence and equality of being with God we cannot discover any trace in Paul’s letters” Anton Vogtle (German Catholic NT Scholar) Freiburg exegete “No pre-existence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Phil. 2.” Karl-Josef Kuschel (German Theologian) p250 “Born Before All Time” “From this fact that the Jewish rather than Hellenistic syncretism may be the key to understanding the Philippians hymn, present day exegetes have drawn the radically opposite conclusion that the Philippians hymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (Catholic NT Scholar) “Inevitably, those who begin their exegesis of this hymn with the assumption that it concerns a pre-existent divine being tend towards a docetic (gnostic) interpretation of these lines

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

An argument from silence coupled with poor understanding of biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew does not have tenses. Present, past or future is inferred simply from context. All prophecies in the OT should be in fact translated with a future tense, otherwise they are not prophecies. This is why the Septuagint translates with a future *way before Jesus* and also understands the miraculous sign and correctly interprets almah as virgin (what miraculous sign would be a girl conceiving a son?).

[@huttj509]

Yes, we agree that a 'prophecy' using the perfect tense is not a prophecy. You are not correct about biblical Hebrew not having tense.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@huttj509 really? Please let me know what the tenses are in Biblical Hebrews. In Hebrew there are verbal stems and forms, not tenses. Verbal stems do not indicate the timing of an action but the type of action. For instance, the hiphil stem adds a causative nuance to the base qal stem. The verbal forms (perfect vs imperfect) also say nothing about when the action takes place but rather about the completion of an action. The fact that generally the perfect is associated with the past and the imperfect with the future is not a rule but rather a function of the context. There are many examples when the perfect needs to be translated with a future tense, given the context. This is exactly the case for prophecies. In fact, the prophetic perfect is a well known rhetorical habit: the prophet foresees the action as already completed and uses the perfect to capture that.

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

Read Isaiah 7 in its context. It never says anything about a miracle. It says a sign, and it even says what the sign will be in verse 16 and says nothing about a virgin birth.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@theophilussogoromo3000 of course Isaiah 7 is about a miraculous sign. A sign from God is always a miracle, by definition, otherwise it would not be a sign, it would be a boring naturally explainable event. What kind of sign would be a non-virgin girl giving birth? That happens every second in every part of the world! 🤦🏻 And in fact, the translators of the Septuagint understood this immediately (you don’t have to be a genius) and used the Greek word for virgin, PARTHENOS, hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

[@travis1240]

Most of the "prophesies" in the OT were not prophesies at all. They were retconned into prophesies at a later date.

[@DoulosTis]

Are you into the scamming business or what?

[@Ex_christian]

That’s the Christian cult way! They are the scammers along with all other religious cults!

[@SlamminBenjammin]

Can you imagine dedicating your life to the bible just to trash Jesus ???? This is very telling about your heart and character. Congratulations Don you missed that narrow path. Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will be opened to you.

[@Tmanaz480]

Lol..."Don". Chef's kiss of ignorance, dude.

[@Satans_lil_helper]

He gone cry in the car. 😂

[@SlamminBenjammin]

Merry Christmas everybody! Joy to the world, the Lord is come! Let earth receive her King! Let every heart prepare Him room, and heaven and nature sing, and heaven and nature sing,

[@20quid]

There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of knowledge. It's as worthy career path as any other.

[@rainbowkrampus]

You're telling on yourself more than anything. How is demonstrating historical facts about the texts "trashing Jesus"? Kinda just seems like you're mad about your incorrect assumptions being challenged.

[@chumpchangechamp3643]

The idea of the virgin birth is a fact of evolution that you have not connected yet. Your still trying to understand the Bible as an account of history but rather, the book is explaining the evolution of consciousness. You talk about the four gospels as tho they are names of the authors, rather they are the names of things not people. I'll help you out, get you started, Luke is not the author or a person, Luke is "the innocence". Likewise Mathew, Mark and John are not people but the identities of four concepts relevant to the construct and limits of human consciousness. You have probably never realized the beginning of Genesis is identical to the hermetic doctrine "the above is as the below, the within is as the without..." As the first things that happen in Genesis is the division of light from darkness and the upper from the lower... The four corners of your world or rather, "the four limits of the conscious construct". You have never meet anyone who could tell you what the Bible is speaking about. The heard is lost of course...

[@drot13]

Yes, a biblic scholar who devouted his life to the bible doesn't know what't that all about, sure.

[@rainbowkrampus]

Dude, you forgot to take your bipolar meds again. You're having a manic episode. Take your pills.

[@mcdonaldsorwhatevers]

meds now

[@ErraticFaith]

Well the whole book is lies, it's hardly surprising lol.

[@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus]

How did you come to that conclusion?

[@chrisparker2118]

​@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesusCultural influences that trivialize everything that has to do with myth, religion, and ritual.

[@eddymetal]

@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus Geology, history, biology, and the list goes on. There was no mass exodus of Hebrew slaves out of Egypt. Noah’s global flood didn’t happen. Earth was not created in 6 days. Could go on all day.

[@zemorph42]

Not the whole thing, c'mon. Some of it contains portions of legitimate history and census information, although of dubious reliability. But I don't think it's necessarily lying to get the numbers of soldiers and chariots in your army wrong. It could have been a calculation error.

[@eddymetal]

@@zemorph42 Wrong. The Bible is not a historical text. Good luck citing the bible as a historical source in any academic paper. New York City existing doesn't make Spider-Man historical.