Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The Other Massacre That Kept Joseph Away From Bethlehem
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 05. 2024
- Skeptics often claim that the story of the Massacre of the Innocents is a myth. However, Matthew's Gospel and the subtle, interlocking clues with Jewish historian Josephus provide evidence that supports the historical accuracy of Matthew's account.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...
Another point: the Slaughter of the Innocents, where Herod kills the newborn baby boys after the birth of Jesus, was probably only a small handful of children. Bethlehem was hardly a large population center, and there couldn't have been many baby boys in the area that would have fit the criteria. With someone of the other events from Herods history, it's hardly surprising something smaller like that would be mentioned by Josephus or other historians.
But the fact that he specifically targeted small children would make this act specially atrocious and worthy of mention. However, Josephus did not mention this event despite extensively recording Herod and his misdeeds, neither did any other historian. Think of how unusual and atrocious it would be to target and murder young children. When does such a thing happen? Tyrants usually kill their grown up enemies, not babies. The argument from silence is strong here because there should be no silence about it.
@@modernatheism
You could spin that and make the same case for the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Emperor Claudius. Josephus records extensively about Jewish history but never once mentions such a significant event like that. It’s only recorded by later sources like the Book of Acts, Suetonius and Cassius Dio.
You realize Romans regularly had babies and left them for dead right? Look up Roman practice on infant exposure. He could have thought no one would care. Also Josephus didn't mention Claudius kicking the Jews out of Rome. Why wouldn't he mention that? The argument from silence just ain't it. Yall should just abandon it
What??
Don't forget that for anyone writing anywhere near this time this story was utterly unimportant. It wasn't until Christianity becomes are large religion that there would be any reason for someone to take any interest in it. An unimportant town in an unimportant part of of the world.
The expulsion of the Jews is recorded from more than 1 source because it happened in Rome. Had it been another city in the empire nobody would have cared.
People also assume the slaughter of the babies was hundreds or more. In reality, it could have been as low as ten, given the probably small size of Bethlehem. Makes sense it would get overlooked without someone knowing the full story or context.
I just wonder how God overlooked the event. Or He just didn't care?
@@michaelnewsham1412 I don't know what you mean. God knew it happened. It fulfilled the prophecy from Jeremiah, and led to Jesus being out of Egypt as a fulfillment.
If you mean why didn't God stop it, then you could apply that to any death.
Some church traditions place the number in the 10s of thousands, but yes, following the data in the story and archaeology suggests less than a dozen. hardly noteworthy on the laundry list the guy had
@@michaelnewsham1412 God clearly didnt overlook it as He recorded it in His word, and what that has to do with Him caring is unclear to me but if you mean He shouldve acted to prevent it then i would say you need to go to square one on the effects of the fall of man and the authority of man with free will. Gods care will be clearly seen in the final judgment where herod and the rest will get exactly what they deserve
@@iamnotmyown 10,000 would be a city of around a million. That must assume they killed all the children in Jerusalem to Bethlehem, or even all of Israel.
One thing I learned (long, long ago) from reading Josephus is just what kind of paranoid monster Herod the Great was. A dude who killed his own wife and some of his sons would scarcely blink at killing all the boy babies and toddlers in a small village. Nor would such an atrocity be particularly noteworthy to a history writer, given the enormity of Herod's monstrosity.
Well, he did not the wife and sons thing, and killing babies is arguably worse, or at least as bad. No?
@@iilugs There were around ten children under the age of two in Bethlehem. This is not a major thing to do. Killing your own sons would have been seen as much more noteworthy and evil at the time.
@@iilugsthey didn't value life like we do. Slaughtering children in a tiny town was not the atrocity we see it as today.
And considering the reports from Josephus about Herod, it wouldn't be surprising if he had ways to silence any information about having had children killed, perhaps intimidation and further threats to the parents as well as anyone else trying to tell others.
Cesar said of Herod, "It was safer to be Herod's pig than his son".
That's funny thanks
There's also the fact that Archelaus was removed from power in 6 AD, when Jesus was about 9-11 years old. This fits with the account on Luke's Gospel about Jesus and his family going to Jerusalem during Easter when he was 12. Archelaus was no longer a problem
Never thought of that. Good point. Depending on whether Jesus was born 5 or 2 BC, the event recorded in Luke when Jesus was 12 was likely somewhere between 9 - 12 AD.
@darkwolf7740 if Dr. Heiser is correct at 9/11 3 B.C. then Jesus would have been in Jerusalem in the passover season of 10 A.D.
His time is based on tracking more than one constellation back in time to a time of convergence over Israel .
See: his video on the Star ( Constellations ) of David.
@@davidjanbaz7728Possibly. I mean, if you wanted to, you could also calculate the exact date that Jesus was at the temple. Luke's Gospel states when he was there and how many days after he was found by Joseph and Mary and taken home.
Sorry, Luke says Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem every year from his birth.
@@michaelnewsham1412No he doesn't, he says it was a tradition. It could have started as early as when Jesus was 9
"Joe See Fuss" cracked me up 😭💀
Thank you Saint Joseph, Guardian of the Holy Family.
Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. I'm trusting in nothing but the blood of Jesus to pay for my sins to keep me out of hell. Just like accepting a plea bargain in court.
And we need to trust the Holy Spirit and allow him to change us, like 1. John says.
You're forgetting the beating, scourging & crucifixion. It belittles the act. He became sin, all of our sins were laid upon him. If he'd just died & didn't suffer; where's the glory in that?
It's all of the suffering on our behalf that makes it so much more meaningful. Jesus hanging, nailed to a cross for all to see...
And yes, also because Jesus overcame death, ascending to God in heaven & taking his rightful seat @ the 'right hand' of Almighty God.❤️
@@EMMMDsJesus is God btw
@@DominikKoppensteiner nah that's works. We are saved only by faith in Christ Jesus. John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9
@@axxel9626 We are saved by faith alone, but "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17). What does this mean? It means, that our faith must become visible in our actions, otherwise it isn't genuine faith.
Jesus told us that he us the vine and we are the branches. Every branch that does not remain in him will be removed and cast into the fire. (John 15) 1. John 2:3-6 says "by this we know, that we have come to know him, when we keep his commandments" and "he, who says that he remains in him, must live just like Jesus lived."
Jesus respects our decision. If we do not allow the Holy Spirit to change us, he will not do it. He will let us remain lukewarm, if we want that, but when he comes, he will spit us out of his mouth.
I myself am guilty of being lukewarm. But we cannot deny the truth, that we cannot serve 2 masters: We can live either for ourselves or for God. But living for ourselves is living for the devil, because "whoever is not for Jesus, is against him."
Anyways, I want to thank you for your comment, because this rebuke applies to myself also.
Skeptics when the gospels get difficult historical details right: ….. 🦗 Skeptics on errors and contradictions: 🌊. But on a serious note, where are all the skeptics when the gospels are accurate on custom, culture and geography? Is it just me or is the only radar that they seem to have turned on is on locating errors and contradictions? And I’m an atheist.
thanks for your honesty and for not being one sided
Skeptics don't argue that everything in the Bible is false, so why would they care about geography or customs being accurate? Many Christians argue the Bible is inerrant, so all it takes is 1 error to show this is wrong.
If a skeptic was arguing that 100% of the Bible was wrong, then sure, you can cherry pick 1 accurate detail to disprove that, but who is making that claim?
@@spacemoose4726 geography and customs are super relevant when we talk about history and veracity
@@oscaralegre3683 Is having accurate geography and customs better then inaccurate geography and customs? Sure. Is it a good argument for accepting everything told to us by them? Absolutely not.
If a veteran tells you accurate details about the geography and customs of Afghanistan does it make it more likely they're a veteran? Sure. Does it mean you should believe them if they told you every enemy they killed came back as a zombie? Absolutely not.
@@spacemoose4726 is more than "just" accurate geography and customs. I just named those two
Herod had both his wife and sons executed. For someone to argue that the massacre of the innocents is "implausible" honestly makes no sense. That's not to say it did happen, as nothing in history is certain, but I'm almost 99% sure it probably did happen based on what we know from history about Herod's nature as a ruthless tyrant.
There's a big difference between executing family members and executing innocent children. If you read up on many of the rulers in that area in that time, many of them were ruthless when it came to perceived threats within their own 'castles' so to speak. That doesn't imply any of them were a knife's edge away from the slaughter of children. You can assert whatever percentage you choose, it's still just speculation at best.
@@GrahamRannickMy point is that Herod was willing to go to great lengths to preserve his power and authority. He did this on many occasions. If he is willing to murder his own family, what is stopping him from murder innocent babies? It's not that much of a leap.
@@darkwolf7740 Sure, not saying it isn't either. But not much of a leap is not equivalent to 99% certainty
This is like saying you're 99% sure Bill Clinton had 5 mistresses just because he had 1. You've created 4 women out of thin air.
@@GrahamRannickFair point, but you and I must at least grant that it is far more likely than not.
So glad I came across this channel. I will pray God blesses your channel and lets it grow so others can see
Absolutely nice.
“Using the bible to prove the bible lol. The resurrection didn't happen, you just gonna harmonize everything to make it as a fact, I'm better than most scholars” - some random dude on the internet with little (to no) knowledge about Christianity
Facts 😂 little knowledge about the Bible , Christianity , History & how the Bible and history literally intertwine like a professionally woven cloth
"muh spooderman"
There has never been a proven fact against anything in the Bible.Not one after 2000 years.
u R obviously looking in the mirror Random dude!!!
You misspelled "using extrabiblical sources to prove the bible"
Wow, amazing insight. Verily, so many people are unaware the Bible is much more than just miraculous events, these details are so accurate!
true. Even people who read the bible are unaware of these kind of details that proves the veracity of the gospels
What a timely video. Just started Matthew’s Gospel for the first time and recently read the passages about Herod and Archelaus. Nothing like bolstering up the Gospel with some good ol’ extra biblical accounts.
This was really well done. I like this series more than the undesigned coincidence series. The arguments are "stickier." Undesigned coincidence arguments require you to carry around a lot of trivial facts in your head to be able to repeat the argument to someone else. This type of argument is easier to remember.
I find the opposite to be true in terms of ease of memory but glad you're enjoying it
No "error-man" today.
I'm shocked Herod's son "shows the gospels are reliable"!! Who knew one man could do that & that we'd find out on CZcams? 😉
Naming everyone Herod is an early atheist attempt to sabotage the gospels. If they had succeeded there would have been no epistles and no gospels. Imagine "Herods epistle to the Herods", "Gospel according to Herod, Herod, Herod and Herod".
Just think of him as George Foreman
Thank you so much for your ministry ❤❤❤
Your videos are quite different and are very interesting. Thank you for the video.
Loved this video, had a tough time not laughing at the sound effects and brief reference to sauromon
Perhaps unintentionally, your wojak of Herod looks a lot like Ganishka from Berserk.
Could highlight the principle of embarrassment more too, like Matthew's genealogy having certain figures in it. Even this story the heros running away from the villian
this new series made me subscribe! good work!
Suh! Great video. Thank you
Love the sound effects
Really enjoy and appreciate your content. Thanks for your work!
In addition to the great content, the sound effects were hilarious
Love this channel. Excellent learning content for everyone that loves history despite differing views.
The entire Herodian dynasty was full of monsters.
Please keep going, I find this stuff particularly interesting.
Nice. These vids are great.
Thank you!
Thank you
Id think it would be interesting to do the Book of Mormon as a comparison
This really highlights how awesome St. Joseph is.
Great info.
Good video, I hadn't considered these things before, to be honest I was just resigned to the notion that the Herodian infanticide was either allegorical or a genuine interpolation &/or error (which under my view, isn't fatal to the overall text & message). Also, as a Zoomer, I appreciate the aesthetics & presentation of these vids w/ all the jaks, emoji, memes & other graphics. A lot of apologetics CZcams skews older in terms of the demographics usually consooming it, so I like having videos like this that stylistically resonate w/ younger people like myself & are easier to share w/ my peers (their accessible brevity helps too).
great work fam
One day, someone will create a visual official version of The Bible solely using memes
4:50 There's an angle about the Magi that I'd like to hear your opinion on. While the term "magi" is often translated simply as "Wise Man", my understanding is that it's also a technical term, referring to a priest in the religion of Zoroastrianism, the state religion of Persia/Iran before the rise of Islam. Meaning it seems at least plausible that the Magi were Persians with connections to the Persian government. Now Herod had history with Persia, also known in this time as the Parthian Empire. His "big break" came when the last heir of the Maccabee dynasty made an alliance with Parthians, promising to serve them as a vassal king if they would drive out the Romans. In the war that followed, Herod backed the Romans and Marc Antony appointed him as king of Judea as a reward.
Fast forward a few decades and suddenly a bunch of Persians, possibly with ties to the Persian government, show up in Jerusalem saying they're looking for an infant who just so happens to be a son of David. You know, the founder of the unquestioned Jewish royal dynasty, whose House and Line make the Maccabees look like posturing chumps. That would *have* to set off alarm bells for a man with Josef Stalin-level paranoia, "obviously" these Persians were trying to find some new figurehead to use to rally the Jewish people against him. Thus, the massacre...
I don't know if there's enough there to make a video out of, but it's an idea I find fascinating.
Tom Clancy's "The Hunt For Red October" novel was well researched. Will that make it reliable and historically accurate in 300 years?
Holy anachronism batman
Spider-man, Spider-man...the fallacy is back again. I don't know what Reddit atheists like more...Spooder-man fallacy or Doritos...
Just admit that Jesus Christ could appear in front of you and you would still say it wasn't proof.
So will you also believe that in 300 years other accounts of the time say it was written as fiction, the authors own account it was fiction.?
Even 300 years after the gospels were written that’s what people knew about them, that they were real historical accounts and the authors meant them as such.
@@Gotchism4Life if someone/something appeared in front of me right now, in my apartment office, claiming to be Jesus Christ, I'd be really impressed. *Really* impressed.
Would start questioning him, more than Doubting Thomas did. If that apparition "passed the test", then I could certainly start believing that the apparition was Jesus of Nazareth.
Of course, then I'd have a littler myriad of questions to ask him about the Bible, correct doctrine and which denomination and church to attend...
@@farmercraig6080 who knows what society and the Earth will look like in 300 (or, better yet, 1300 or 2300) years.
GTW, widespread non-nuclear wars, environmental catastrophe, famine leading to widespread loss of knowledge...
far future histories find a ratty barely-there copy of HfRO and don't realize it's fiction, since sooo much of history vanished when the electricity failed, and the computers eventually died.
This is embarrassing. Diasporic Jewish writers knew who the king was? Really?
Could you do a video on duplicate verses in the gospel that are basically 1:1 replicas of each other? I’m interested in how the argument from undesigned coincidences accounts for this
Something that really drove home the historicity of the gospels for me, namely how evident it is, is Cold Case Christianity. I think it would massively help your viewership to do some kind of an interview with J Warner Wallace to help explain the significance of this evidence.
4:35 start of UUUUOOOOH is funny😂
We read all the Passion Gospels last week. They don't exactly match up with each other. This is exactly what you would expect if they were written long after the events described. People have different recollections. The differences suggest that the stories are not made up but describe real events, since they agree on the essentials. It would not have been hard to fake the stories so that they all match.
By the way, the Last Supper can not have been a Seder.
I've discussed this objection at length in my response to Useful Charts and Holy Kool-Aid
God: "Israel's safe now, head on back."
Joseph: "Whoa, this guy's nuts."
God: "Yeah, you're right. Guess you're better at this than I am."
Galilee is part of the Land of Israel.
With all the people coming for the census,who knows how many young boys there were there at the time.even one murder was evil.and so was his reason for doing it.
I've been saving your videos, because of the context and history. Be careful with shifting or assigning different AD/BC. Since noting the actual years zero wasn't really done, we don't really know today. I'm sure I'll get some feedback. 58yo Christian for 48yrs, 7yrs Seminary, pay attention to astronomy for the era, and Still I haven't found solid evidence of When zero AD is. What's important is that it happened. Godspeed-
I bear witness. There is no god but The Lord and Christ is His Son.
3:23 can anyone tell me what Matthew is saying in his papyr?
I gotta say I don't think I've seen Mother Mary as a wojack
Joseph being afraid of going to Judea makes sense within the story, even if we did not know of Archelaus killer record. As Herod's son, Archelaus would have known in detail about his fathers plans and may have wanted to continue them. It would have been more of the same.
Hey, Antipas was also his son and had control over Galilee. If he were scared of him just because he was his son, he could've easily gone back to Egypt.
@@TestifyApologetics Ok, good point. But Archelaus record would have been part of common knowledge at the time.
you are missing the evidential value of casualness. Matthew isn't connecting this story about the massacre in Jerusalem with his own story of Joseph returning home.
I see Wojack, I click.
Simple as.
Would Joseph have been redirected to Nazareth at the time as Herod Antipas would have been considered a less threatening ruler?
Also, is it not odd that Josephus would record other killings of lineal successors under Herod the Great, as well as the incident involving 2 teachers and 40 youths, and then also record the death of 3000 in the temple once Archelaus came into power, but not mention the massacre of the innocents? It's fair to say the region of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth would have been anywhere from a few hundred to a couple thousand, so it's fair to posit the number of boys under two at the time could have comfortably exceeded 100, especially if there were more citizens than usual due to the census?
On the balance or probability, it seems unlikely that Josephus would miss this or not find it of value to record.
And I know it's not relevant to the video, but it also seems odd that rather than simply advise the Wise Men not to consult with Herod, God would instead send Joseph to Egypt and allow the slaughter of innocent children. Yes, I know the whole who am I to question God thing, but there is precedent for God interfering in instances like this, so don't think the question has no merit.
And yes I am familiar that Professor Albright estimates a population of 300 in Bethlehem and therefore six or seven boys under 2, but not only is this just speculation, but it would also make the account of Joesph feeling to Egypt utterly trivial.
this is still an argument from silence. Grafton never mentions the Magna Carta. US Grant never covers the Emancipation Proclamation. Roman babies were often subject to exposure. Perhaps he didn't hear of it, nor did he think his audience would care.
It's possible that Josephus simply never heard of the event. If the vicinity in which it happened was sparsely populated, not many would've heard of the event. Additionally, Josephus mainly focused on documentation political and military events. Given that the massacre of the innocents falls under neither category and may have not been significant enough to be an event for others to record, Josephus may have just ignored it.
Bethlehem was a small, insignificant, backwater village filled with only a small number of population, there should be no surprise at Josephus likely not having been aware of it. If Josephus was aware of such an event, why would he even bother to mention it to his Greco Roman audience who cared about much higher matters?
@@MrMortal_RaSpot on
Good video, a note on the illustrations: to show Saint Joseph guiding the donkey implies that he "knew" the holy mother of God. This is not so as She is the Ever-Virgin and he was Her guardian. That is why in Orthodox iconography one will NEVER see him guiding the donkey nor even be that close to her physically. Instead it was his son, Saint James the later Bishop of Jerusalem and Christ's "step-brother" who was with them as a young boy and guided the donkey.
The illustration shown is heretical and one stemming from Western post-1054 cacodoxies. Research the iconographies we have before then and i doubt you will find many, if at all, showing Saint Joseph in such a state prior to the Frankish takeover of the Church of Rome.
Can you do nonstampcollectors bible contradictions video?
I'll do a series on contradictions but I no longer do responses.
@@TestifyApologetics Why not?
@TestifyApologetics Why not?
Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem, it was located on the southern bank and at that time at the mouth of the Euphrates river. But like all rivers it has changed in the last 2,000 years. Along with the change of the town and river name it can still be found. Just look for the town of Bel'em. When Joseph, Mary & Jesus left the land of Israel (this to has changed its name) and moved to Northwest to Egypt ( another placed called by another name). When they moved to the regions of Galilee (name changed again) and lived in Nazareth (have not located the true location). So lets bring the story up to date, Joseph was asked to take Mary who was a Temple virgin away of the Temple for her safety. She became with child by the Father in Heaven. Then they moved some 3,000 miles to Bel'em were Jesus was born. From there they moved to the Yucatan for their safety. Later they moved back to Bel'em and from there they moved some were near lake Titicaca. Around 330 AD Constantine the Great changed the location of the Holy Lands to the middle east.
I dont understand. How is it still 4BC when Christ was already born?
That's due to the fact that the BC/AD system of numbering years was developed in the early 500s AD by a Byzantine priest named Dionysius Exiguus, who had to guess how many years before his time Christ had been born. Due to the fact that he didn't have access to all the documentation that modern researchers have, as well as the fact that over half a millennium had passed since the event, his best guess at the year Christ was born was at least 4 years too late, as Herod the Great died in 4 BC, making that the latest possible year Christ could have been born.
@@DamonNomad82 interesting
Herod and his son were both Jewish fyi.
If his son is, directly or indirectly, proving the reliability of the gospels…
…Is he really that stupid?
What? What are you talking about….?
God is a master of the boomerang
The gospels are true!
Saying "that's a classic argument from silence" doesn't magically debunk what biblical scholars are saying. Josephus (who christian apologists love to rely on) despised Herod and would've mentioned anything that tarnished his character. if this happened it's strange only one gospel out of the 4 mentions it. It's likely a mythological fiction by Matthew to make Jesus appear as the new Moses since the parallels are so strong
Ok so argument from silence is good and Josephus must've heard about a dozen dead babies in a tiny hamlet 100% for sure. And the Emancipation Proclamation never happened because General Grant never mentioned it even though he was the main civil war general
Please refrain from having Jesus Christ or our Blessed Mother as wojak edits
Revelation 12:17
New International Version
17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring-those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus
The Bubba Gump restaurant proves the Forrest Gump movie is reliable. Oh, and don’t forget Spider-Man 🤗 happy Friday folks.
Sounds like he was more interested, as a historian, in herod's lineage. Go figure...
Me, personally l say if you do Not by Faith believe the Bible(KJV) You are in extreme danger of Not being accepted by GOD the Father of all Spirits and His Son
"Yeshua for our Salvation" is dependent on Jesus. AMEN. I would say any Bible but their are to many interpretations of Gods Word. AMEN.
Is it not disrespectful to portray them all as wojaks?
I don't think so
Just one thing man, many historians think Jesus was born in 1bc not 4bc
those historians would be wrong.
@TestifyApologetics I disagree. The 4bc thing only became popular around a century ago. I made a mistake though in my opening. Herod not Jesus died not was born in 1bc and that some scholars consider (along with many of church fathers) 2bc or 3bc to be date of birth of Jesus.
@@patshee1758Herod died in 4 BC, which means Jesus was born around 6-4 BC
@@red20753If Herod died in 4 BC, Jesus was probably born in 5 BC. Otherwise, if Herod died in early 1 BC, Jesus was probably born in 2 BC.
It always cracks me up how theists get puffed up whenever something in the bible matches some generic historical context.
Guys, listen:
1. We atheists do not think, or expect, that a story from first century AD can't get ANYTHING right about the time period it was created in 🤣. It is absolutely basic and mundane that the general events and situation of that period is reflected in your stories from that time period. If your book had absolutely NOTHING in common with well documented historical reality, and yet you still believed the stories, you'd have to be formally insane.
2. Just because a story from some time period gets SOMETHING right about that time period does not and should not suffice as evidence of physically impossible claims therein, in the very same way having an accurate depiction of New York in Spiderman comics does not prove Spiderman. There is NOT A SINGLE document dated to the period of Jesus' life that mentions him. None. The earliest mention of him comes from Paul who, by his own admission, only saw Jesus during an acid trip (hallucination) several years after his death. At the very LEAST I would expect some Roman correspondence mentioning that there's a guy walking around Judea who is capable of feeding several thousand people with a few loaves of bread; Roman military would absolutely fall over itself if it could replace the entire logistics chain of an entire legion with one dude and an oven. Alas, there is NOTHING on Jesus in any source contemporary to him, not to mention anything that would support anything supernatural that he allegedly ever did.
And don't get me started on Josephus who wasn't even born by the time Jesus was already dead lol. Primary source, my @$$.
You definitely haven't seen some of this guy's other video's. On this channel that spiderman fallacy aint doing you any favors 💀
@@GoatOfAllTrades is the word "Spiderman" the only thing you managed to comprehend from the entire comment?
Oh for crying out loud 😂
@@WhoTheLoL Classic atheist who fails to have some basic intuition. The fact I got there in the first place implies I took in more info then just "Spiderman" such as how you stated the gospels are dated way after Jesus died (Which they weren't). Try harder.
@@TestifyApologetics fr 💀
no it doesn't
What do you know? you're a doge
@@TestifyApologeticsDoge knows all
art work massivly over done. Detracts greatly from the content. He's trying too hard.
The Bible is a Catholic book ❤️
Not really.
@@MrSeedi76 , non Catholic is self idolatry 💫
What if Jesus had been killed as a child?
Let’s go back in time.
He couldn't have been
Pilate said to Jesus in John 19:10
you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you. And Jesus replied you have no power over me except if it were given to you from above.
No one had power to kill baby Jesus because it was not given from above
@@CristianoRonaldo-fn4rr It’s not that deep, it’s just question for fun.