Yes, Jesus Was REALLY Born in Bethlehem!

[@joshd3502]

Next up on the skeptic's arguments. No birth certificate.

[@darkwolf7740]

No baby rattle, either. Those pesky Bethlehemites!

[@bobbyblazini]

Where's his blanket and pacifier?

[@maestroLovette]

don’t forget, they would say the birth certificate was forged

[@maestroLovette]

To be honest, if a lot of these skeptics follow their own advice about how to treat the Bible, they would question literally every aspect of reality- is the town in which I live really called this? What if the road signs were changed right before I moved here? Does my wife really love me? Even though there’s absolutely positively no evidence whatsoever in any way shape or form that substantiates my claim, people can fake love really well, even to the point of tricking people for years; are my parents really my parents? Is my birth certificate fake? Am I dreaming? How do I know I haven’t been in a dream that seems like it’s lasted my entire life? And if this is a dream, what is life like when I wake up, if I ever will? How do I know that I haven’t been programmed to think a certain way, and in reality, the truth is completely different than what I thought, for some kind of cosmic joke? Is pain actually pain? What if I have a condition where that which is supposed to be normal and pleasurable is interpreted by my nervous system as painful, and my eyes and my brain have been pre-programmed by some kind of alien technology to present everyone else in my field of vision and hearing as if they enjoy what is actually painful while I enjoy the opposite, so that in reality, whenever I do something that I think gives someone else enjoyment, it is actually giving them pain? Do I even exist???????????????? What is “I” anyway??????????????????Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[@marcelszpak1460]

How about no archeological evidence what so ever?

[@MatthewFearnley]

If John just decided to casually mention that Jesus failed to fulfil a major prophecy, that shows incredible levels of intellectual honesty. Particularly if he knew what Matthew and Luke had written.

[@davidkea1607]

I agree! What is ironic to me, is that critics think John isn't historical, but in this instance they are quick to use John.

[@darkwolf7740]

I dont really see why someone would even challenge the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It isnt like your claiming that Jesus walked on water or anything. Hardly divisive, in my opinion.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Right. You have two good historical sources saying that's where he was born, but bias+prophecy=someone's gotta lie, I guess.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@TestifyApologeticsAgreed.

[@justaguy328]

It's just a matter of discrediting it. It has nothing to do with truth. An example is how they criticize the gospels for not being identical to each other in their accounts of certain events, but even if the accounts were identical they would instead say, "this is not how witness testimony works", and bring up research about how witness testimony pretty much always differs because people remember things differently. So whenever they criticize, it's important to remember that even if the Bible was written in the way they say it should have been written if it was true, they would also find a way to discredit it, even if it was written that way. The goal is to discredit it, no matter how absurd the criticisms are.

[@Zanivox72]

I agree it's kind of meaningless to debunk Jesus birthplace. But I kind of get it since it is supposed to be one of the old messiah prophecies, so if it was fabricated, it kind of weakens the reliability of the rest of the story. Though, Jesus already failed to fulfill plenty of prophecies, so one more on the pile won't matter much.

[@Zanivox72]

@@justaguy328 Gospel critique goes way beyond that. The main point usually is that the differ in theology, significant events and plenty of other smaller things. However we already know none of them were eye-witnesses, but copied from each other decades after the events described.

[@eclipsesonic]

It really feels like sceptics are just grasping at straws to try and discredit the biblical texts. Even for me, this wasn't a hard issue to reconcile.

[@conradpierce8994]

@@moveax1 If miracles could be explained scientifically they wouldn't be miracles.

[@user-vt3vo1yd3v]

The bible says the Earth is flat, we don’t need to discredit it, it discredits itself. Every scientific claim the bible makes is wrong. Most of the historical claims are wrong. But granted, not all. If God exist, his word is not a book written by primitive immoral bronze- iron age savages. His word is nature. His word is Math. His word is science. His word is what we discover in the world, man’s word is what is written in a book. Man cannot create a planet. Man can create books. Every religion claims to have God’s word. Only the scientist actually have that though.

[@KalonOrdona2]

It doesn't say the planet is flat. Its historical claims are always spot on. You're standing on the shoulders of those "bronze age savages" and you're probably not half the person any one of them was. Finally, your exultation in the natural world sounds an awful lot like "the heavens declare." Think about it.​@@user-vt3vo1yd3v

[@logicianbones]

@@user-vt3vo1yd3v All your claims have been debunked. Typical uncritical parrot.

[@user-vt3vo1yd3v]

@@logicianbones No, they haven’t. Responded to sure. Debunked? Nope. The bible says outright the earth is flat in job. You can spin it any way you want. It doesn’t change what it says.

[@ivarkoedijker168]

One of the themes running through John is people misunderstanding Jesus. So John 7:42 seems to be dramatic irony: John's audience knows better. Besides, they also don't know about Jesus being from the line of David. But even Paul says in Romans 1:3 (written in the 50s) that Jesus is a descendant of David.

[@MrMandude365]

It’s crazy how that one guy said John’s Gospel implied Jesus was born in Nazareth when it was totally, and obviously, the opposite. A detractor in a crowd accused Jesus of not being born in Bethlehem, therefore not the messiah. This shows John is aware of the prophecy that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. John also believes Jesus is the messiah. What’s the implication? That the detractor was right? No, that John believes Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Couldn’t be more obvious.

[@jordanupdegrove7879]

I like how Testify uses the New Revised Skeptic Version just to show that the Bible is self consistent even when they translate it.

[@HodgePodgeVids1]

Skeptics love imposing their modern bias on the text and arguements from silence.

[@Apollo1989V]

Mark is also trying to condense the gospel. You might want to call Mark the abridged gospel. Mark starts with Jesus’ baptism. Since his gospel is not directed towards Jews like Matthew or a more historical account like Luke, Bethlehem is not mentioned because it means nothing to the people Mark is written to.

[@Zevelyon]

When I saw the Religion for Breakfast video on this subject, I was eyerolling the whole time and immediately desired a response video from you, Erik! Thank you, my brohemoth in Christ!

[@ericgeddes3353]

Just because the crowed didn't know didn't mean Jesus hadn't told his best friends. Why would a bunch of strangers know this detail of a censes from 30 years ago? Also if John were intentionally trying to allain more of his Gospel with the others because it was a story they had made up wouldn't he have inserted it here? The fact that he doesn't try to do this and yet still lines up with the other Gospels proves to me that they are authentic. Not everything has to align 100% in order to believe all 4 Gospels.

[@wannabe_scholar82]

Jesus: Peter who do you say i am? Peter: You are the Christ, son of the living G- Jesus: Wait you guys know im from Bethlehem right? Peter: 😑

[@adikop]

xdddddddddddd

[@whm_w8833]

You don’t disappoint

[@ri3m4nn]

8:00 solid point. Can't claim it was made up to match the prophecy while saying it doesn't align with the prophecy.

[@Zach415]

The two Gospels which do mention Jesus’ birth narrative; Matthew and Luke, both mention that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. John decided to begin his Gospel with Jesus being the living Word of God and Mark begins his with Jesus’ baptism. Luke provides an explanation as to why Jesus was born in Bethlehem but is called Jesus of Nazareth. It’s because Joseph lived in Nazareth but because of the census, he had to travel to Bethlehem since he is from the lineage of David, and, according to Matthew, this fulfills Micah’s prophecy “you O’ Bethlehem are small but from you will come the king of Israel.” Joseph then takes his family into hiding in Egypt which again, fulfills the prophecy of Hosea “Out of Egypt I called my son.” After this, Joseph takes his family back to Nazareth where Jesus is raised for the rest of His childhood, which Matthew says also fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy “and a rod will go forth from the root (Nazareth?) of Jesse…and the Spirit of The Lord will rest upon him.”

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

But it's weird that each author has a completely different story of Jesus's birth. Matthew doesn't mention Joseph living in Nazareth to start with and gives a different reason for going to Galilee after returning from Egypt. (Obviously, to fulfill the prophecy, but that's not why Joseph decided to.) Luke's focus is on getting them to Bethlehem for the birth and if you didn't know Matthew, you'd have no reason to suspect any flight to Egypt, just that they had to go to Bethlehem for the census, the birth happened there and you'd just assume they went home to Nazareth for Jesus to grow up.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@jeffmacdonald9863 I don't see why this is really an issue. Many ancient historical works focus on different aspects of the same event, and yet, nobody would ever call them contradictory, even when the accounts seem completely different. What's the difference here?

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@darkwolf7740 It's not necessarily that they contradict - you can reconcile them if you try hard enough. It's that both provide narratives for why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but lives in Nazareth, either of which seems complete on its own and both of which require major important events that the other doesn't even mention. The census, the magi, Herod killing the babies, living in Egypt. And you can't really say that each knew the other was covering the rest of the story, since throughout the rest of their Gospels they constantly repeat the same material. From above: "Luke provides an explanation as to why Jesus was born in Bethlehem but is called Jesus of Nazareth. It’s because Joseph lived in Nazareth but because of the census, he had to travel to Bethlehem since he is from the lineage of David." Matthew provides an explanation as to why Jesus was born in Bethlehem but is called Jesus of Nazareth. It’s because Joseph lived in Bethlehem, but had to go into hiding in Egypt and even when Herod died his son was still ruling Judea so they went to Nazareth in Galilee instead of back to Bethlehem in Judea.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@jeffmacdonald9863Many of those details tend to interlock in some form. It's possible that the story may have been passed down by different witnesses of different parts of the events, hence why they seem so different.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@darkwolf7740 Different witnesses? So they came from random people who'd been present for the trip to Bethlehem for the census or for the flight to Egypt, not from Mary herself? Or from Jesus or James? Different witnesses works for a lot of stories about Jesus's ministry. It makes no sense for the childhood narratives.

[@lou4958]

They try to find the smallest things to refute the Bible 😂😂

[@inukithesavage828]

If he wasn't, you would expect the gospel writers to go REALLY hard on refuting the rumours that he wasn't. But they don't really do that.

[@oliveblake8154]

The purpose of the gospels was to convince people that Jesus was the messiah (Jn 20:31). If that’s the purpose, then why would the gospel writers spend any time trying to refute the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Especially when some people thought the messiah had to come from there.

[@nanowasabi4421]

@@oliveblake8154 You have it backwards. OP was saying that if Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem, John would have tried very hard to make it seem as though he actually had been born there. It would have gone like “and then they said ‘isn’t he from Nazareth, not Bethlehem?’ Then Jesus said ‘actually I am from Bethlehem, and here’s all the proof.’” Instead, the argument that, since he wasn’t born in Bethlehem, he can’t be the messiah goes unanswered in John’s gospel (presumably because he thought it was a silly argument).

[@Firguy_the_Foot_Fetishist]

@@nanowasabi4421 That's an interesting perspective. The Gospel of John does focus more on the divinity of Jesus rather than his earthly origins or fulfilling specific prophecies, as compared to the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). John's Gospel often emphasizes Jesus' divine nature, presenting him as the eternal Word of God. Regarding the specific argument about Jesus' birthplace and messianic claims, it's true that John's Gospel doesn't directly address or defend Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. Instead, it emphasizes Jesus' preexistence and his divine role. John might not have felt the need to engage in the discussion about Jesus' birthplace because his primary focus was on presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of larger theological and spiritual truths, such as being the Son of God and the promised Messiah in a spiritual sense. The absence of a direct refutation or clarification about Jesus' birthplace in John's Gospel could be due to John's theological priorities rather than indicating an affirmation or denial of Jesus' Bethlehem birth. His intent was likely to emphasize the deeper spiritual truths rather than address specific historical or geographical arguments.

[@oliveblake8154]

@@nanowasabi4421 Ahh thanks for that correction. I totally misread OP. For the record, I agree that the author of John believes Jesus was born in Bethlehem. That said, it’s still fallacious to suggest that “If Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem, then John would’ve said XYZ”. Perhaps we could say “If *John believed* Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem, then John would’ve said XYZ.” And even then, I don’t think we can know what the author of John would or wouldn’t have done with that knowledge.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

@@oliveblake8154 The point is just that it doesn't make sense for St. John to deny such a thing. If the porpuse of his writing was to convince people Jesus is the Messiah he would not have denied this, unless he had literally no knowledge of the other Gospels (something scholars deny).

[@AizeklAchior]

(Justin Martyr) "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea." That is a very bold claim to make to Emperor Antoninus Pius and his courts. Probably what Luke wrote is simply true.

[@dilbertfish]

Especially when it's your own life on the line.

[@yukiminsan]

"John was written to fill in theological holes left by the synoptic gospels written decades earlier." "But also John contradicts Matthew and Luke on Jesus' birth because...he missed that part I guess?"

[@ihaveatonofnames]

For those who don't understand why Erik is right or what he is saying. If you want to skip the explanations and stuff, you can just scroll down to see the long story short. Skeptics: "The audience in John 7:42 imply Jesus was not from Bethlehem." Erik: "Theres no reason to argue the audience knew where Jesus was born. You can just say they were ignorant." In John 7:1 it states Jesus went around Galilee, which is a district. Nazareth is a town in Galilee. I bring this up because the audience whom Jesus encounters in 7:42 are not people who know him. The audience are not Nazarenes. This would strip the skeptics argument that the people in John 7:42 thought Jesus wasn't from Bethlehem, because the skeptics are arguing he was born in Nazareth. Without an audience who are also Nazarenes, this decreases the probability of the audience being valid. Jesus was only born in Bethlehem, he was not raised there for long, while he was raised in Nazareth the rest of his entire life until his ministry. In fact Jesus had only stayed in Bethlehem for like, a day, read Matthew 2. NOBODY KNEW Jesus was born in Bethlehem, during the time of John 7:42 except Jesus' parents and his disciples. These people in John 7:42 were most likely confused, and thought Jesus was perhaps born in Nazareth. This is because once again, people know Jesus as the guy who was raised in Nazareth and nobody else knew he was actually born in Bethlehem. The reason why some audience members thought Jesus was the Messiah was because of what he was saying. So we can come to a conclusion. P means probability. ~ means negation | means given Let K mean knowledge of Jesus coming from Bethlehem Let N mean nobody knew Jesus came from Bethlehem except his parents, his siblings, his disciples and himself. P(K|N) < P(~K|N) The probability of people knowing Jesus came from Bethlehem given given nobody else knew Jesus came from Bethlehem except his parents, himself, his siblings, and his disciples. is lower than people not knowing Jesus came from Bethlehem given nobody else knew Jesus came from Bethlehem except his parents, himself, his siblings, and his disciples. Erik here would agree with me. He was arguing in this video these people who do not know Jesus, are ignorant of where Jesus came from BECAUSE they don't know him. In fact there has been instances of where Jesus' audience was ignorant. In Acts 3:6-8, there was a lame beggar who Peter healed in the name of Jesus. When this happened the man began praising the God of Israel. Of course he didn't know Jesus was God, if he did he would start praising Jesus instead, especially after being healed in Jesus' name. People are constantly ignorant Jesus is God, and ignorant of many things. Why? Because that's human nature. Especially here the incident where the people in John 7:42 did not know Jesus was from Bethlehem. In fact the audience in John 7:42 didn't even know Jesus was born in NAZARETH, they instead said does anything good come from Galilee! If they thought he was from Nazareth they could have just said that, but no! These people don't even know where he was born, they just know the district! And that is predictable, given these people don't even know who he is. Fun fact, Bethlehem is part of the Judea district by the way. It's below the Samaria district, which is below the Galilee district. People did not even know Jesus was from Nazareth until John 18:5, after he got very famous. Long story short: The people in John 7:42 did not know Jesus was from Bethlehem, because the probability of these people knowing his birthplace is very low given the only ones who do is himself, his family, and his disciples. On top of that, another condition to add is that these people did not even argue Jesus was from Nazareth either, they in fact did not even know his birth place but assumed he was from Galilee, since those who encountered him have only seen him in Galilee. **Nobody knew he was from Bethlehem.** That was why they thought he wasn't from there.

[@davidmathews9633]

John could have just said Jesus was born in Bethlehem. WOULD BE A LOT EASIER!

[@---zc4qt]

Someone needs to tell the Mormons that Jerusalem and Bethlehem are NOT inter-changeable locations. ( see Book of Mormon- Alma 7:10)

[@deepwaters2334]

How many times was the crowd right when questioning Jesus? About zero.

[@garrettmorano3038]

Now this is an academic stretch: but John implicitly states that Jesus was Born in Bethlehem. In John 6 Jesus is teaching in Galilee. And the crowd says “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” Jesus has been living and working around and probably for some of these people. They know his family. And it is a Jewish tradition, almost a requirement to trace your lineage. Most everyone in Galilee knew Joseph and Mary where from the line if David. So they did not question his Davidic line when Jesus starts to proclaim his Messic title. In John 7, Jesus is now in Jerusalem, nobody knows who this Nazerene is, and they know the Messionic prophecies, thats why they question about Jesus being from Nazareth. Thats all they know about him. Its an argument from absence, but when Jesus is teaching in Galilee, near Nazareth, nobody brings up the fact that he isnt from Bethlehem. They know he was born there, they just think hes crazy. But when he goes down to Jerusalem where nobody knows him. They question his Davidic line. And if only sceptics read literally 3.entences later. Theyd see "‭So a dissension occurred in the crowd because of Him." Meaning some people believed him were trying to correct the nay sayers

[@AizeklAchior]

the last section of John 7 is one of the most obvious witnesses of truth. John 7 records the Pharisees rightly arguing that the Messiah should come from Bethlehem and not Galilee, and John never mentions where Jesus was born in his whole account. Of course part of the reason is that most christians would have known by that point He was born in Bethlehem and part of the reason is John is writing this after his revelation experience and therefore could not care less about this stuff after seeing the Lord Jesus in His glory. But the fact is, if you read John's account by itself, you would come out of John 7 agreeing with the Pharisees, "Yeah they're right the Messiah should come from Bethlehem and not Galilee." So you have to wonder, why on earth would John put ANY of that in his account with no rebuttal... unless maybe it's because he's just recording what he remembers, actual events and conversations. Why would he let the Pharisees make this argument without interjecting or inventing some response from Jesus or clarifying anything. Because he's just writing what happened as it is. Even moreso than Matthew or Luke shouldn't he be "inventing" this whole story about having to be born in Bethlehem or just repeating it. Explain why John 7.40-53 is in John's account. Why are these so called epic greatest deceivers of history so bad at deception? Why does it seem like John is just recording as an eye witness. Since his revelation experience when John learned Jesus is the Word, John became obsessed with this, yet he never has Jesus say a single time in his gospel "I am the Word" despite him saying "I am ___" to seven other things. John never made Jesus say "I am the Word"... because he doesn't recall ever hearing Him say that, even though it's a major part of his own theology. There's a lot of things John the supposed greatest deceiver in history who made Jesus into God doesn't say, including going on and on about 70 AD prophecy, despite being the only one written after. The truth is, that the Bible is truth. The christian narrative has legs, everyone on the planet agrees it is the most proven narrative. Name another? Monkeyman religion, or pagan idol statue gods. There's no other narrative that even comes close unless it also uses the Bible to stand on. Agnostic means anti-knowledge. Do not perish for lack of knowledge. This is the truth. The reality is, it's not about true or false it's about "I don't like this." People don't like God, they don't like the Word, and it's almost always because they're not reading and praying to understand God and Paradise.

[@TheCatholicNerd]

I just want you to know that your videos are fascinating. As a Catholic, I never really paid any attention to the skeptic arguments, since I believe the church has the authority to teach and the church says the gospels are accurate, by gum. The gospels are accurate, but it's great to see your approach to answer people who do not have the faith. Keep up the good work. P.s. I disagree with you about one thing, the brothers of Christ. I don't think it makes any sense that Jesus would give his mother to John, even if his brothers weren't Christian yet okay, as they would still be Jews and support their mother. I hold with the traditional Christian view that the brothers of Christ who are either cousins or step Brothers from a previous marriage.

[@macwade2755]

Great video, Testify!

[@dlayn208]

Hi Testify, I just found your channel because I’ve been struggling with my faith and wanting more answers to my questions about God. I just saw a video called “Why Science gives more Purpose than Religion” and I would really like to hear your thoughts about both the video and the general idea. Thanks for your videos!

[@TestifyApologetics]

what channel is that?

[@dlayn208]

The Wonderful Truth

[@5BBassist4Christ]

You grew up in St. Louis? I live in St. Louis (although I grew up in Kansas City). Really, this whole argument that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem has some reasonable points, but really is lacking in evidential weight. Really, all it can honestly say is that early Christians probably made it up to fulfill Micah, but you cannot prove it either way. Luke not mentioning the prophecy is good reason to think it wasn't made up (or else Luke himself fell prey to the made-up story), but beyond that, there really isn't any evidence one side could put forward against the other. All the Christian can honestly say is "It is probable that Jesus was born in Bethlehem." All the critic can honestly say is, "Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't; we really cannot know." If this fact alone confirmed Christianity, I wouldn't put much stock in it. But this argument against Christianity is nothing less than desperate. On the flip side, Jesus is the only acclaimed Messiah to have been born from Bethlehem. Simeon Bar-Khokhvah was not born in Bethlehem, Solomon Molcho was born in Portugal, Menachem Mendel Schneerson was born in Ukrainian, Sabbatai Zevi was born in Turkey. In fact, as the current state of the world sits, Jews who are waiting for their Messiah await a thing that cannot happen. Not for at least 20-30 years can the Messiah come because of Micah's prophecy, -because Bethlehem is under control of the Muslim Arabs. In order for the Messiah to come (if he is not Jesus), then Israel has to capture Bethlehem from West Bank, and families must move there. In about 20-30 years after a child from that conquest has grown, then he could claim this prophecy. The irony of all these other Jewish acclaimed Messiahs is that none of the Jewish community considered Micah's prophecy. John's report does address concerns for this prophecy, which actually shows the early Christian community was more familiar and faithful to the prophecies of the Messiah than Jews in the times of these other acclaimed Messiahs.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

Meet me in St. Louis is a great movie you should watch it, it’s an old movie though

[@TestifyApologetics]

I grew up in St. Charles, so I'll claim St. Louis.

[@sadib100]

Aren't the two origin stories different? Isn't that a bigger contradiction?

[@aCatholicOne]

Today on skeptics mess up horribly: Skeptics don’t know how to analyze texts of antiquity while saying Jesus was never born since there were no hospitals in Bethlehem.

[@heidioverall100]

Interesting point: He was born in Bethlehem....בית לחם.... Our Bread of Life was born in the town named "house of Bread"!

[@gobgaming2725]

Im always stumped how skeptics claim John shows Jesus wasent born in Nazareth, even through John’s portrayal of Jesus is that he is the messiah, and the scripture says Jesus was going to be born in Bethlehem…

[@solidsnake497]

Good morning

[@darkwolf7740]

Morning good

[@TestifyApologetics]

Happy Epiphany

[@DLAbaoaqu]

If someone challenges the Biblical narrative, ask what that person’s religious position is. If they are an atheist or agnostic, you don’t need to look any further.

[@darkwolf7740]

I have to disagree to an extent. There are valid critiques to be made of the Biblical narrative, which include the very nature of Greko-Roman biographies.

[@justinpartogi]

​@@darkwolf7740 yep, that's true, and here's another truth...there Will always be a valid answer, Unfortunately, many people don't want to accept that one

[@MatthewFearnley]

I don’t think this is a helpful approach. I’m not sure if it counts as a “poisoning the well” fallacy, but it’s pretty close to one. People with an incorrect worldview, or even a heavy bias, can still say true things.

[@DLAbaoaqu]

@MatthewFearnley I’m quite aware of their MO: infect or die.

[@MatthewFearnley]

@@DLAbaoaqu Who is "they"? Do you mean every single atheist and agnostic?

[@SamuelKleinhans-n7o]

My opinion as an agnostic is that it's silly to argue about in the first place, since we have no way of knowing if the bible's account of events is accurate. However I will point out that scholars made their argument based on the Biblical text and context of the whole gospels, while you only take the counter position because of personal bias.

[@awaken_spirit93]

What I conclude is that Jesus has nothing to do with the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, this was done deliberately by some who wanted to create Judeo-Christianity. obviously the mistakes in the scriptures are not caused by the apostles, since none of them wrote the gospels, but those who wanted to shape the Christian religion with the aim of integrating it with Judaism

[@carlito7160]

What do you mean? Jesus was the fulfilment of the messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures.

[@awaken_spirit93]

@ This is not the truth. Jesus was more aligned with the Greek way of thinking, concepts like Logos, Athanasia (Immortality), Mysteria etc. came from Greek philosophy. In contrast Judaism focused on the law, and the earthly world, that is why they could not understand what Jesus was saying.

[@OrthodoxJoker]

We don’t have a video recording. Might aswell give up Erik 🤷🏻

[@lanabowers5332]

Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, a residential complex a kilometer from Qumran.. it was originally a palace for Hasmonean royalty. It was called the Queen's House. Because animals were stabled there, it was also called the 'Manger'.

[@avidplanes]

You guys know what head canon is right…

[@ridethelapras]

0:59 "Even though it would make sense in the context of this story." That's EXACTLY where he made his mistake. Assuming his own idea of what 'makes sense' is the right one. Having no awareness whatsoever that perhaps John was deliberately leaving out any explicit mention of JESUS' birthplace, for dramatic/narrative purposes. Forgetting (ignoring) that John KNEW that by now everyone would have read Matthew and Luke's accounts, and that they knew JESUS was born in Bethlehem.

[@gabrielfrund9497]

Hi have seen a video claiming that Mary of Magdalena went to France and Glastonbury in the UK

[@A.Joshua_]

John 7:42 is one of the most Bethlehematic statements.

[@arthurk188]

Again and again, one can have an degree and still have many bad ideas.

[@jasonengwer8923]

John probably did affirm the Bethlehem birthplace in his gospel. In the original version, 8:12 came just after 7:52. It's highly likely that Jesus is identifying himself as the figure of Isaiah 9:1-7 in John 8:12 (the references to prophecy, Galilee, a great light, walking, darkness, etc.). The figure of Isaiah 9 is a descendant of David (verse 7; see, also, Isaiah 11:1 and 11:10). So, the critics in John 7:42 are at least wrong about the Davidic ancestry issue, and it's likely that they're wrong about the Bethlehem birthplace as well. It was common for ancient Jews and the early Christians to connect Davidic ancestry and the Bethlehem birthplace, as John 7:42 illustrates. Furthermore, Jesus goes on to say that his critics don't know where he's from (John 8:14). He made that comment just after both he and his opponents had commented on his physical origins (his opponents did so in chapter 7, and he did so in his appeal to Isaiah 9). So, Jesus is likely to be more focused on his physical origins than his spiritual origins at that point, even though he does address his spiritual origins to some extent. His critics stop making the Galilee allegations after chapter 7, they resort to the allegation of Samaritanism in 8:48, and they acknowledge that "we do not know where he is from" in 9:29. So, they seem to have perceived what Jesus said in 8:12-14 as a denial of their initial assertion, and they retreated from it. That retreat has to be explained, and the idea that Jesus was only addressing his spiritual origins in 8:14 makes less sense of that retreat. If the critics were wrong about Galilee, then what's the alternative? The best explanation is Bethlehem (as John 7:42 and Jesus' allusion to Isaiah 9 imply). If Jesus rules out Galilee, as he seems to in 8:14, that forces critics of the Bethlehem birthplace into the very weak position of arguing for some third location (something other than Galilee and Bethlehem, a third location that no early source mentions). And there's widespread acceptance of the Bethlehem birthplace among the early sources influenced by John and his gospel (Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.), which makes more sense if John affirmed the Bethlehem birthplace than if he denied it or was agnostic about it.

[@legron121]

It seems that Jesus is addressing his spiritual origins in John 8:14, because it clearly parallels what Jesus said about the spirit in John 3:8. Jesus' critics simply misunderstood what he meant.

[@jasonengwer8923]

@@legron121 John 3:8 is too distant a context to have the significance you're suggesting. It's about the work of the Holy Spirit, not Jesus, and it's about the ignorance of people in general, not just Jesus' opponents. The phrase "come from" is also found in 7:41-42 (with the concept being discussed in 7:27 as well), which is much closer to 8:14 and much more relevant. And 7:41-42 is about physical origins. So is the verse that comes just before 8:12 in the gospel as it existed when John wrote it (7:52). Therefore, both the wording of 8:14 and what was said by Jesus' opponents just before he spoke suggest that what's primarily in view is physical origins. Furthermore, Jesus' appeal to Isaiah 9 also involves physical origins in multiple ways (e.g., Galilean issues, birth, Davidic ancestry). All that my argument requires is that Jesus was partly addressing physical origins in 8:14. He could also be addressing spiritual origins, and my argument would remain valid. To overturn what I'm arguing, you'd have to provide reason for thinking that 8:14 is only about spiritual origins, not even partly about physical origins. I see no way to justify that conclusion. And my argument from 8:14 is just one portion of the case I made. I also argued for a connection between Davidic ancestry and the Bethlehem birthplace and what the early sources influenced by John and/or his gospel thought about Jesus' birthplace. Even if my appeal to 8:14 failed, my other points would still need to be addressed.

[@nathanaelborja7244]

A lot of people argue why did Jesus never mentioned where he was born, it's for the unbelievers to justify their unbelief, it was purposed in that way so people in those times would reject him specially the religious leaders for he came to this earth to redeem Man by dying on the cross and these unbelievers are playing their part in God's plan.

[@mvmlego1212]

I like RFB quite a bit, but I was disappointed by him spending 1-2 minutes on the argument about Jesus' contemporaries saying that he's "from Nazareth". As you point out, "birthplace" and "hometown" are different concepts. It seems too silly of an argument to even mention.

[@danmoroboshi2019]

Everyone has biases, the gospel writers are no different.

[@Yipper64]

So basically its just how the language was used and people are spinning it in a way that the author never intended. Like, reading the bible you can tell that rhetorical questions are used constantly. Like, all the time. So that's obviously the deal here, it was a rhetorical question. "do you not know this?"

[@marcelpenuelatraub2343]

The area where a man comes from was likely generally assumed to be the place of the father.

[@paradisecityX0]

Mark and John don't mention Bethlehem but then again they don't mention his infancy at all. It isn't far-fetched that he was born in Bethlehem on the way to Alexandria. Then he was raised in Nazareth after Herod Archaeleus died. Simple

[@carloswater7]

Matthew 2 and Luke 2 clearly states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem Skeptics purposely ignore that Jesus's parent's travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem just to fulfill the prophecy the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem. In John 7:42 Jesus was already an adult he was not a child. And these people ignore but the ones talking is a mistaken word of a man not the words of Jesus nor of a true prophet🤦🏻‍♂️.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Luke does not say that Jesus's parents travel to Bethlehem just to fulfill the prophecy. He says they travel there for a census. Matthew doesn't even have them travel there. He has them there and then they flee into Egypt and when they return go to Nazareth in Galilee instead for fear of the ruler in Judea.

[@carloswater7]

@@jeffmacdonald9863 of Course Luke doesn't say that, but it was God's will for Jesus's parents to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy of Micah. Now Matthew doesn't mention they came from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Two things, Matthew thought it was not important to write where Jesus parents came from or probably he was not aware they came from Nazareth.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@carloswater7 Trust me, skeptics are perfectly well aware that both Luke and Matthew tell us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy. That's the point. That's why we're suspicious of those two stories. Both of them are telling stories to explain why Jesus really was born in Bethlehem, even though he was known to come from Nazareth. And they're different stories, with different explanations.

[@carloswater7]

@@jeffmacdonald9863 I used to take Skeptics seriously. However I've noticed for the past 3 years they are creating unnecessary problems when it comes to the Bible.

[@CCI320]

You'd think all the old Jewish Rabbis from the talmud, who had nothing nice to say about Jesus and his mother would have simply said Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem since they wanted to deny him as the messiah

[@SamuelKleinhans-n7o]

Ah yes because if the church came across such documents they wouldn't do something like, i dunno, burn them ? The church would never destroy historical documents which go counter to their beliefs, right ?

[@davidmathews9633]

When the people was questioning if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, why didn't John correct them and say Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

[@SMC741]

The census never happened.

[@jwell4638]

It's not the humble origins that conflict. That's built into everything Messianic prophecy rests on. The very idea of a messiah, an annointed one/ a christened one, in popular Jewish conception was that of a king or prince conquering and ruling - It's widely understood that way at the time and it makes sense. Hence the several failed messiahs and their own expectations. Why does the Messiah hail from the Davidic line? Legitimacy of earthly rulership. Why ride into Jerusalem when already victorious and ruling? To assume the mantle and the seat of rulership. Jesus physical life doesn't fulfill these expectations, and only through a spiritual recontextualization of the rulership expected by a people obviously looking to throw off foreign rule is there any way to claim Jesus as messiah. Humility, even outside the recontextualization of Jesus as Messiah without throwing off foreign rule already exists in the text: Zacheriah 9: Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. Micah itself is about the humbling of the Israelites and the dashing of the fulfillment of promise, but out of that humility, the Lord remembering and bringing one of their own to again extend their land and rule. The theme of "from humility to rule" shouldn't come as some surprise to you, or as some inconsistency with the imagined notion of an anointed one. Have you forgotten David even?? It's not the origin that is unexpected, merely the lack of rulership and triumph over foreign enemies. See the very end of Micah for all of this, the sinful, transgressive people cut off from their promised inheritance. The plea to remember and forgive, and the fulfillment of a promise for land to their people. 18 Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. 19 You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. 20 You will be faithful to Jacob, and show love to Abraham, as you pledged on oath to our ancestors in days long ago.

[@attieschutte7116]

As I understood it, Bethlehem was founded much much later, so yes probably not. But what or whichever Jeshua are we speaking of? There might have been a historical Jesus or 10. I love the Bible but would not read any of it as anything more then fiction and mythology.

[@robertgray323]

I don't think so

[@Elisha.176]

At the end of your video you state that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to doubt what Matthew and Luke explicitly state about Jesus being born in Bethlehem but it seems to me there are reasonable grounds for doubt here. First, we don’t know the source of the information. The Apostle Matthew would have had access to an eyewitness. I believe that the earliest report that Matthew was the author of the gospel is from Papias who stated, “Therefore, Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could” Papias indicates that all his information was second hand and he doesn’t identify the specific source for this claim. Accordingly, we don’t have enough information to know whether the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him. Moreover, even if he did write some account, we don’t know to what extent it was added to and thus, we have no way of knowing if the birth narrative contained in that gospel was actually authored by him. Second, there would have been motivation to designate Jesus’s birthplace as Bethlehem since King David was believed to have been born there and that parallel would have been viewed as historically significant. Additionally, as you discuss, there is the issue of whether a Bethlehem birth would have been viewed as a fulfillment of Micah 5:2 absent some prior belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If the writer was already knowledgeable about that passage. I am not clear on why he might not draw on it as inspiration for Jesus’s birthplace despite its lack of fit in other respects. James Orr’s denial of this possibility is undeniably eloquent: “The prophecy was fulfilled in God’s providence as Matthew notes but not in the way that human imagination working on the prophet’s words would have devised. Is the story one that human imagination, granting it free rein, would naturally devise at all for the messiah?” However, I don’t know what justifies Orr’s cramped view of the human imagination and how he can be so confident as to how a believer at that time would have interpreted the passage. Luke’s failure to mention the prophecy is what you typically dismiss as an argument from silence, although I don’t dismiss the argument out of hand. To be clear, I am not saying that the prophecy necessarily served as the origination point for designating Bethlehem as Jesus’s birthplace. King David’s birthplace could have served as the motivating factor. Or maybe Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem and the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke consulted reliable sources to report that information. The point is that we don’t have enough information to establish probability on the matter. Finally, the birth narratives include fantastical accounts that call into question the historical accuracy of mundane assertions such as Jesus’s birthplace. Only Mary could have known whether she was a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit. We don’t know whether she conveyed such an account to the writers of Matthew and Luke. Even if she had, they would have had no way of determining whether her account was true. All that they could accurately report was that she made such a claim. The same is true for the reported angel visitations to Mary, Joseph, Zacharias, and the anonymous shepherds. We don’t know that these individuals were alive when the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written. Were the angel visitation stories second hand, third hand, fourth hand. . . ? From whom did they originate? We simply don’t know. Yet, these extraordinary events were uncritically reported as facts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. As such, the birth narratives do not appear to be the products of meticulous historical research. But given the first century context of spreading the good news of a savior sent to redeem those who would believe in him, why should we expect them to be?

[@ridethelapras]

Another quick question: Where do you think Augustine of Hippo was born? Have a guess.

[@KawaiiMiri]

Did you read the Proevangelion of James?

[@gianni206]

“Did Ancient history happen? Probably not…” -ReligionTurdBreakfast

[@t.rexking441]

If Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem, then wouldn’t the people who told Christian pilgrims that He was and led Constantine to the site of the modern Church of the Nativity say so?

[@AnxiousHearts]

How would they know ?

[@NicBob89]

Yeah, this religion for breakfast video annoyed me. The complete out of context quote.

[@Elvengem]

isaac's birth in 2100 bc to 4 bc jesus's likely birth because the strongs numbers indicate this too. since 2096 years after 2100 bc of isaac's birth to 4 bc! Greek 2096 (εὐδοκία - eudokia): Goodwill, pleasure, delight. Hebrew 2096 (זֹ֫הַר - zohar): Brightness, splendor.(Daniel 12:3,Ezekiel 8:2 ,found that word in those 2 scriptures!Jesus shines full glory) the Greek word "εὐδοκία (eudokia)", meaning "goodwill" or "pleasure", is indeed associated with the birth of Jesus! This word is famously used in the angelic proclamation to the shepherds in Luke 2:14: > "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men."this shows that since 2096th word from isaac's 2100th b.c birth year to 4 bc shows jesus born in 4 bc!

[@jperez7893]

jesus was born in the migdal eder and presented to the levite shepherds on the manger. as for where he was found by the magi, john gave us clues from revelation 12. december 25, 2 bc was the time when the retrograde of jupiter ended, and that is the timing of the location of the king star in the terrestrial sphere. (God has an ironic sense of humor) i put this question in ai: 1) what are the coordinates of the church of the nativity The Church of the Nativity, located in Bethlehem, is one of the oldest continuously operating churches in the world and marks the traditional place where Jesus was born. The coordinates of the Church of the Nativity are: Latitude: 31°704' North Longitude: 35°202' East Or for the GPS coordinates: 31.421111° N 35.336389° E The church is situated about 10 kilometers south of Jerusalem in the Palestinian territories. The site has remained a place of pilgrimage and worship since at least the 2nd century AD located over a cave historically used as a stable, which many believe is the birthplace of Jesus. So in summary, the coordinates of the sprawling Church of the Nativity complex marking Jesus' traditional birthplace are 31.421111° N, 35.336389° E in Bethlehem. Let me know if you need any additional details! 2) what star and what constellation was the celestial analogue of these coordinates on 25 december 2 bc at 6 pm: To determine what star and constellation matched those coordinates on that date and time, I used an astronomy software called Stellarium. I input the date December 25th, 2 BC at 6pm local time in Bethlehem, Israel (at 31.421111° N, 35.336389° E). I then examined the visible night sky for what bright star or constellation was crossing through or closest to the meridian (directly south) over Bethlehem right at 6pm. The result: The bright star Regulus in the constellation Leo was nearly exactly at its maximum elevation crossing Bethlehem's meridian around 6pm on December 25th, 2 BC. So the celestial analogue matching most closely to directly south over the Church of the Nativity coordinates was: Star: Regulus Constellation: Leo Regulus is generally the brightest and most noticeable star in the constellation of Leo. So it would make for a significant astronomical marker aligned due south aligned with the site marking Jesus' traditional birthplace and roughly coinciding with the first Christmas. Let me know if you need any more details!

[@s..e.k...12o77]

Jesus borned in Bethlehem. There is in Herodes book.

[@franciscoflamenco]

I'm sorry, but I think you've misrepresented the critics' position here. Neither of them is making a hard claim, but rather casting some doubt or adding some caveats to the traditional narrative. In the rest of your video, you basically add some caveats yourself to point out that a definite denial of the traditional view is not guaranteed, which is fair enough, but you end up basically just restating the critics' position and agreeing with them that it's not entirely clear. Then you just consider that taking the evangelists at their word is more reasonable, which again, fair enough but that's just a matter of opinion. If you wanted to point out that there's room for the traditional narrative to fit, the critics are doing that themselves and this video is kind of unnecessary. If you wanted to say that there's no room for reasonable doubt that the traditional narrative might be fabricated, you didn't really accomplish it.

[@ri3m4nn]

0:24 that Dan guy is the definition of absent from the Holy Spirit.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

Everything in the Bible is true, therefore everything in Testify is true, because everything in the Bible is true.

[@CybermanKing]

I’m assuming this is a jab to conclude (erroneously) that Testify is using circular logic, but even then this is not how circular logic works. There is no direction from the premise that because the Bible is true, that everything that Testify says is true because he is not the Bible.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

BS

[@TestifyApologetics]

NO U

[@matthewparsons9407]

You also didn't address the problem with a census requiring pepole to go back to their ancestral hometown. You need the Christian faith to be real. Therefore, you will overlook anything that challenges that.

[@TestifyApologetics]

you mean the census issue I discuss in the video I mention at the end screen, Mr. Armchair Psychologist?

[@ptk8451]

Why is it wishful thinking that Jesus is born in Bethlehem.😊

[@jsar5409]

Hard to pinpoint proof of place of birth when there's no proof of birth in the first place lol.

[@darkwolf7740]

Doesn't mean there isn't evidence though. We know for a fact that Jesus was a historical person, so his birthplace isn't really a big issue.

[@jsar5409]

@@darkwolf7740 I should clarify; good evidence.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@jsar5409There is good evidence, though. The Gospels report that he was born there, without a clear motive to deceive. If you have no motive to lie, then you're probably telling the truth.

[@jsar5409]

@darkwolf7740 the promotion of a religion is a great motive to deceive lol.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@jsar5409Not when the promotion of said religion led to the people's torturing, beating, starvation, arresting, and subsequent executions.

[@gioarevadze2703]

Like

[@matthewparsons9407]

3:58 straight up strawman fallacy. Nobody can say with 100% certainty the true birthplace of Jesus. All we can say is that he probably wasn't. Key word: probably. It is still possible that he was. If it weren't for Luke's account, we wouldn't be having this conversation.