The Jewish province of Judea in Ancient Rome was an exceptionally conservative, religious place. Gender roles were strictly defined, as were expectations when it came to sex and marriage. Deuteronomy, as a part of traditional Jewish law, pronounced a brutal and strict punishment for women who fornicated:
“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel.” So, it makes sense why a teenage Mary, after visiting her husband-to-be Joseph for several
Months and then becoming pregnant, would have not been merely in a lot of trouble with society, but facing death as a result of her supposed indiscretion. It also makes sense that if Joseph wasn’t the father, he would have wanted to dust off his hands and say bye-bye to his
Bride-to-be. That is, unless Joseph turned out to be precisely the kind of understanding, stand-up guy that he needed to be. The Bible uses a Greek word meaning “pledged to be married” to describe Mary and Joseph’s relationship in the time leading up to the birth of Jesus. Something between engaged
And married, and similar to “betrothed” this meant that Mary had passed along to Joseph’s rule from her father’s, but they were not yet allowed to have a sexual relationship. So, if Joseph noticed she was pregnant, whether he was the father or not, he could have exposed
Her and had her executed, even if only because he didn’t want to bear the shame of being implicated in a pre-wedlock pregnancy. Before they were betrothed, this right would have fallen to Mary’s father. Overall, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about Joseph, but his response to Mary’s unexpected
Pregnancy might be all we need to know about him and his character. Joseph didn’t rat Mary out, and in fact kept things hush-hush, planning at first to divorce her quietly, according to the book of Matthew. At this point Joseph hadn’t yet come around to accepting his divine fatherly duties, and
It’s understandable why he would have felt this way. Joseph also didn’t want to expose her to public disgrace, which is a nice way of saying that he didn’t want Mary murdered by rocks. Maybe not a high bar to clear, but it was still exceptional for the time.
Before Joseph could leave Mary, however, the book of Matthew states that an angel appeared to him, saying, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he
Shall save his people from their sins.” The passage goes on to say that this occurred as prophecy foretold. This heavenly intercession, similar to Mary’s visit by Gabriel recounted in the book of Luke, was all it took to make
Joseph a believer. The Bible says he was a God-fearing guy who, we presume, must have been acquainted with the prophecy. The next morning, Joseph woke up and did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him to
Do, and took Mary home as his wife. Easy-peasy. And just to be extra clear about the whole premarital sex issue, the passage in question goes on to say that Mary and Joseph didn’t have intercourse before they were officially, formally married. In the end, it seems that
The Almighty did a good job of choosing a couple to act as wards for His earthly incarnation. “The baby’s kicking. He’s strong.” “Like his mother.” Despite cinematic depictions to the contrary, this is all supposed to have happened when
Mary and Joseph were teenagers. We know this because only legal adults of ages 18 or higher were required to take part in censuses to pay taxes, which is why Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem around the time of Jesus’ birth. And as the Bible goes on to say, this is around
The time when Emperor Augustus called for the aforementioned census, which more or less forced Mary and Joseph to stick together and not backpedal from their celestial commitment. It would have certainly been a scandalous affair for a young, pregnant, betrothed couple
To take to the road in those days, but Mary and Joseph did it, nonetheless. Mary accepted her role, and Joseph stuck by her side, claiming Jesus as his own child. They set off towards Bethlehem, and the rest of the well-known story unfolds: they find no room at the inn,
Settle into a nice nativity scene, get a visit from three wise men, and chill with some livestock. Despite a challenging, mystical start, Mary and Joseph stayed together, raising Jesus prior to him setting off to preach at age 30.
Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Grunge videos about the dark side of religion and history are coming soon. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don’t miss a single one.
ARGUMENT VASKRSENJA ISUSA HRISTA Isusovo vaskrsenje jeste suštinska osnova hrišćanstva. Naša vera na ovome ili opstaje ili propada. Apostol Pavle postavio je ovu osnovu veoma rano, u svom prvom pismu Korinćanima. “Ako Hristos nije vaskrsnut iz mrtvih, onda je naše propovedanje uzaludno, i vaša vera je uzaludna. Tada smo čak i lažni svedoci Boga,
Jer smo svedočili o Bogu da je vaskrsnuo Hristosa, koga nije vaskrsnuo, ako je tačno da mrtvi nisu vaskrsnuti. Jer ako mrtvi nisu vaskrsnuti, onda ni Hristos nije vaskrsnut. A ako Hristos nije vaskrsnut, uzalud vam vera vaša, još uvek ste u gresima svojim. A i oni koji su zaspali u Hristu, nestali su.
Ako samo u ovom životu imamo veru u Hrista, onda nas treba sažaljevati više od bilo koga. Dakle, ako Hristos nije vaskrsnut onda nema ni hrišćanstva, i sve što radimo je uzaludno. Međutim, sa tako velikim ulogom ipak imamo sreće jer je vaskrsenje čudo koje ima više istorijskih dokaza od bilo koje tvrdnje o čudu.
Entoni Flu postao je deista pri kraju svog života ali dok je još uvek bio ateista, priznao je sledeće “Dokaz za vaskrsenje bolji je od čudotvornih tvrdnji iz bilo koje druge religije. Izuzetno se razlikuje i po kvalitetu i po količini…” Pre nego što pređemo na dokaze, moramo postaviti određene temelje.
Mnogi skeptici tvrde da, osim ako nemamo apsolutni dokaz, onda se vaskrsenje nije desilo i ne možemo reći da se desilo. Kao i obično, to nije tačno. Običan skepticizam i postavljanje izuzetno visokog praga neće predstavljati problem u istorijskoj odbrani vaskrsenja. Ako svi dokazi ukazuju na vaskrsenje, a neko ne misli da je to dovoljno,
Samo zato što su proizvoljno postavili prag tako da se ne može dostići, to neće opovrgnuti čitav slučaj, niti će ponuditi bolje objašnjenje za iznete dokaze niti će pokazati da dokazi nemaju zaključak da se vaskrsenje najverovatnije desilo. Možemo da nastavljamo da branimo slučaj vaskrsenja, bez da se brinemo za nekoga sa ovakvom dozom skepticizma.
To zapravo ne predstavlja problem za sam slučaj niti nudi bolje objašnjenje za dokaze. Pa, kako onda branimo slučaj i koji je cilj argumenta vaskrsenja? Cilj ne može biti pokazivanje da je vaskrsenje tačno na način kao što neko može da pokaže da se nešto dogodilo time što će ponoviti eksperiment.
Vaskrsenje je događaj koji se dogodio u prošlosti i ne može se ponoviti. Zato se zaključak može postići na način na koji se pokazuje istorijska činjenica ili na način kojim se zaključuje forenzičko istraživanje. Kao što Avizer Taker kaže, “Istoriografija ne rekonstruiše događaje. Ona ne može oživeti Cezara niti ponoviti bitku kod Akcijuma.
Istoriografija pokušava da pruži hipotetički opis i analizu nekih prošlih događaja kao najbolje objašnjenje prisutnih dokaza. Osoba procenjuje dokaze a zatim zaključuje prema teoriji koja najbolje objašnjava podatke. Ovo može da potvrdi vaskrsenje onako kako bi se pokazalo da se neki drugi istorijski događaj dogodio.
Tu predlažemo više teorija a zatim gledamo koja se najbolje uklapa u podatke. Ako teorija ne podržava podatke, ona se odbacuje kao nedovoljna i kao manje verovatna u odnosu na druge teorije koje bolje opisuju prisutne podatke. Takođe želim da kažem da jedini fer način pristupa prema vaskrsenju jeste pristup metodičke neutralnosti,
Gde onaj koji tvrdi nešto ima odgovornost da to i dokaže. Ako ja kažem da je Isus vaskrsao iz mrtvih, onda moram i da pokažem da ta teorija najbolje opisuje podatke, dok druge teorije to ne mogu. Međutim, ovo je mač sa dve oštrice. Jer ako ja prikažem slučaj, ateista ili musliman
Ne mogu samo da kažu da nisam u pravu i da Isus nije vaskrsao. On ili ona moraju da pruže kontraargumente sa boljim objašnjenjem onoga što oni misle da se dogodilo i moraju da pokažu zašto objašnjenje vaskrsenja nije u stanju da objasni podatke.
D. H. Fišer ističe da je “teret dokazivanja uvek na onome koji donosi tvrdnju, ali takođe i na onome koji opovrgava ili daje suprotstavljajuću tvrdnju.” Naravno, čovek može i da bude suzdržan i da ostane agnostik po ovom pitanju. Ali, to lično ubeđenje ne stvara objektivni argument protiv onoga koji iznosi istorijsku tvrdnju
Niti izaziva ili pobija predstavljen argument. Ako to žele da urade, onda moraju da predlože suprotstavljajuću teoriju i podrže je dokazima i verodostojnošću. Na kraju, za sam argument za vaskrsenje pomaže nam da prvo adresiramo ove tri stvari. One nisu nužno potrebne za slučaj vaskrsenja ali pomažu u celokupnom cilju.
Prvo, mogu se pružiti dokazi o postojanju Boga u vidu formalnih argumenata. Pre nego što pružimo dokaze za vaskrsenje i ustanovimo da je hrišćanstvo tačno, pomaže ukoliko prvo imamo dokaze za opštog teističkog tvorca. Kombinujući argumente iz prirodne teologije sa argumentom vaskrsenja dobijamo bolji, akumulisaniji slučaj za hrišćanski teizam.
Pošto smo ovo već uradili, naš slučaj bi ojačalo to ako već postoje dokazi da Bog postoji i da je u stanju da prouzrokuje takav događaj. Drugo, korisno je stvoriti slučaj i za pouzdanost Novog zaveta. Kad budemo prolazili kroz dokaze, nećemo da pretpostavljamo
Da je Novi zavet inspirisan ili da je precizan u svakom detalju, ili čak i u većini detalja. Samo ćemo se držati činjenica koje podržavaju naučnici i dokazi. Ali, barem bi trebalo da stvorimo slučaj da dokumenti nisu u potpunosti nepouzdani i da imaju dobar istorijski slučaj.
A pošto smo i ovo uradili, to će pomoći našem celokupnom argumentu. Treće, moramo da pokažemo da čuda nisu logični nemogući događaji, a ovo smo takođe uradili. Sada, kada smo dali dokaze za teistički pogled na svet, pokazali da je Novi zavet pouzdan i ustanovili da su čuda barem logički moguća,
Možemo nastaviti sa argumentom za vaskrsenje, uz ovo kao našu osnovu. Zatim ćemo ispratiti sa dodatnim dokazima, prikazaćemo sukobljene teorije i pobićemo prigovore koji postoje. INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY Preveo: Filip Eskić
MACARTHUR: If you don’t understand the doctrine of penal substitution, you don’t know why Christ died, and you would assume that if you’re Christian you would want to know why Christ died. If you took one verse, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says, “You’re ambassadors,” right? In 18 to 21.
So, you know, we go into the world, we beg people to be reconciled to God. He’s given us the Word of reconciliation, right? That’s the message we preach, “You can be reconciled to God.” We have the ministry of reconciliation. We have the message of reconciliation. But how is that possible?
How is it possible for a sinner to be reconciled to a holy God? That is the most legitimate question that a sinner could ever ask. Ok, you’re telling me God’s holy, that God is righteous. that God is perfect.
How is it possible for me to be reconciled to a holy God without Him not tarnishing His holiness? Or to put it in the language of Paul, “How can God be just and the justifier of sinners?” That is the absolute apex question of all religion.
The primary question that religion attempts to answer is, “How can I go from being God’s enemy to being His friend? How can I make peace with God?” whatever god that religion espouses. So, all religion is designed to somehow come to terms with the deity.
In Christianity, the question is built around holiness and justice and righteousness. So, how can God forgive me and still be holy? And, the only thing that answers that question is penal substitution because penal substitution says God is so holy every sin will be punished.
Every single sin in the life of every Christian believer through all of human history will be punished, was punished. All sin must be punished. Either the sinner will bear that punishment eternally or Christ took that punishment on the cross.
The only thing that protects the pure, righteous holiness of God is that sin is punished. That’s penal substitution. If you remove that part of the cross, then how does God reconcile His holiness with just wishing sin away without a punishment? There has to be a punishment for God to maintain His justice.
That punishment falls on His Son. BINGHAM: I can remember before I became a Christian but had heard the gospel a number of times, sitting down with the woman that’s actually now my wife and asking her, “Explain to me John 3:16. Why did God have to send His Son?
Why did Jesus have to die? Why didn’t God bake brownies to save the world?” Like, “What’s was this whole ‘dying on the cross’ thing?” At that time, she couldn’t answer the question, and it was actually hard. We had to go into church and try and get information.
“Explain to me penal substitution,” because all the gospel presentations I’d heard was missing that phase. MACARTHUR: You see that is “the question.” That is not some kind of optional issue, penal substitution. You’ve got a massive problem if God just says, “Hey, you’re forgiven.”
Now, the character of God is called into question as to His integrity, His holiness, His virtue, His righteousness, His perfection. And so, God is so pure and holy that He will punish every single sin ever committed by every person either in that person or in the substitute for that person.
That is the purest heart of Christianity and soteriology.
There is a war that is being waged between good and evil. Faith in God will lead us in one direction, the lack of faith will lead us in another. I have seen many manifestations of evil. Exorcism is the only cure for one who is truly demonically possessed.
The Catholic Church knows that most of these claims are baloney. They cling to this because they’re afraid to give up that last vestige of the supernatural. If there’s no demons, maybe there’s no devil . And if there is no devil, maybe there’s no God. I am Father Vincent Lampert.
I’ve been a Catholic priest for the past 25 years. I was appointed by my archbishop to be the exorcist for Indianapolis. It was not a position that I sought. But in 2005, the archbishop selected me for the role. He told me that he wanted a priest who believed in the reality of evil,
But not one who would be so gullible as to believe that everybody who came to him was actually up against the forces of evil. When I was appointed, I became 1 of only 12 officially appointed exorcists in the United States That number has now grown to around 50.
Some people will dabble in things of the occult. Believing that perhaps they’re just fun and entertaining But what they may not fully realize, is that they’re dabbling with evil. and they could be opening up an entry point for evil into their lives Take this, all of you, and eat of it
For this is my body, which will be given up for you I’m the pastor here at St. Malachi parish in Brownsburg, Indiana The parish has approximately 2500 families just around 9000 parishioners. There are many people who laugh at the notion of demonic possession. or even the reality itself.
But the Catholic Church does teach that evil is a reality and it is personified in the person of the Devil. Over the years, exorcism has undergone many different transformations. Exorcism goes back even before the time of Christ. But exorcisms became truly efficacious, or real, with the coming of Christ.
The oldest formalized version of the rite of excorcism would date back to 1614. It was revised in 1999. Some of the manifestations I’ve witnessed over the years seem kind of incredible, incredulous. I think that the manifestations that one sees in movies such as The Exorcist – all that truly is possible.
Eyes rolling in the back of the head, foaming at the mouth, growling and snarling like a wild animal, strong stenches, the temperature in the room will drop, bodily contortions. I remember a person who began to levitate during an exorcism. Now these manifestations are meant to distract the exorcist.
I learned quickly that the exorcist should not focus on the manifestations of evil, but focus on the power of God that is at work. There’s an international association of exorcists. Which received official Vatican approval about 2 years ago. I am a member of that organization.
And there’s a gathering in Rome every other year. Demonic possession is extremely rare. 1 out of every 5000 people who contact me is a genuine case of demonic possession. FATHER: Hello Mary. How are you? Obviously this is a ministry that I cannot do alone,
So there is a lady that works with me. I jokingly like to refer to her as my exorcis-tant. She’s really the first line of defense. The majority of people that she talks to just need a listening ear. I can help answer any questions that you have.
MARY: Well I got a revolving list right now of some people that are local because they would be in our diocese. I have that one guy from southern Indiana that keeps calling. I dont think he remembers all the times that we’ve talked because he always acts like
No one has ever talked to me or ever tried to help me. FATHER: And that’s what gives credence to the fact that this is truly something of a mental health issue as opposed to something that’s demonic. MARY: Of course it doesn’t help too because I also was talking to another priest.
He was telling me that he doesn’t believe any of this. FATHER: Some people will accept what the church believes and teaches about the reality of evil. Some people won’t. I am Dr. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, and the head of the 55000 member strong Skeptic Society. I have two graduate degrees
One in Experimental Psychology and the other in the History of Science. My speciality really is understanding belief systems how the mind works related to why we believe anything that we believe in. The investigation of exorcisms has been popular since we started the magazine really because it kinda comes and goes
Depending on what’s hot in popular culture. You know the research says 1 in 10. Americans claim that they’ve seen an exorcism. I suspect most of those are people that have seen The Exorcist or watched a documentary on TV or something like that. If you go on YouTube and just type in demon possession
There’s thousands of videos. You could spend an hour and be an expert on what they’re supposed to look like. The church has a list of criteria for what would constitute a possession. Speaking in tongues, glossolalia, is one of them. Spouting off this sort of sequence of syllables It sounds nonsensical
And then somebody interprets it. Now we know because we’ve had linguists analyze recordings of what is being said and they say this is not a language. It’s just babble. It’s lliterally a psycho-drama The music, the chanting, the dancing, the singing. It gets you caught up into it. It’s like a rave.
You feel the emotions. You feel the brain chemistry changing. The hormones pumping through your body. Contorted body postures and the writhing on the ground, the utterances. It’s just imitation. I’ve actually gone up to one of these. I could almost feel like, “Okay, here I go.” I could almost feel it coming on.
I wasn’t even a believer. This is imitation. It’s roleplaying. In addition to these exorcisms being nonsensical, from a scientific perspective. They’re also dangerous. There have been people killed. Suffocated. Tortured. It’s not a harmless exercise in entertainment. It’s potentially very dangerous. Once you start to believe something, the confirmation bias kicks in.
In which you look for confirming evidence that it’s true, and you ignore the disconfirming evidence. Everybody does it. Unfortunately, this leads to great distortions of belief. There’s no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural. There’s just the normal, the natural, and the things we haven’t explained yet
FATHER: This is where I performed my most intense case of exorcism. It took place 5 years ago here in this convent. The items I use for exorcism. In addition in my bag, I also have the holy water that I would use. We came into the space.
The spouse who was very strong and confident in his belief The woman who was afflicted sat down here. You could smell in the air the sense of perspiration just the anxiety of what was about to take place. No sooner did the drops of water hit the head of the lady,
Then the manifestations began immediately. She exhibited vocal outbursts. Speaking in languages that she didn’t otherwise know, exhibiting strength beyond the normal capacity of a person, and also an aversion to things of a sacred nature. All this was going on while I was praying *PRAYING IN LATIN*
I commanded the demon leviathan to depart immediately. Then the demon that had been speaking in this very strong, authoritative voice began to speak like a little baby. Then looked at me and said “Hail Mary, full of grace.” and there was a shriek and all the manifestations of evil ended.
Because the presence of evil was now completely gone. FATHER: People will believe what they will. It’s not really my task to try to convince people of something. Because if you are a person of faith, you began with the premise that believing is seeing.
People that may come from more of a scientific background may begin with the premise that I have to see in order to believe.
This is the story of how Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world was born the story begins in a place called Nazareth Nazareth was a quiet sleepy little town where most people were farmers and shepherds in this town there lived a young Jewish woman named Mary
She was a very obedient and God fearing woman she helped her parents in the field and did her chores in the house she was kind and helpful to everyone and people liked her very much Mary was going to get married soon to a good and honest man named Joseph
A few days before Mary’s engagement she had a visitor he was a very special guest an angel sent by God from heaven the holy angel Gabriel visited her in her room and called her in her sleep when Mary opened her eyes
She saw a heavenly figure bathed in a pool of white light floating beyond her window it wore bright white robes and had big silver wings fluttering behind him at first she thought she was dreaming but later when she heard the angels voice she realised this was no dream Mary do not be afraid
I am Gabriel God has sent me to you he loves you and you have been chosen for something very special your kind heart and pure soul is of great value to the Lord you are fortunate that God has chosen you above everyone else for this special task I’m not afraid
I’m honour to know that God has chosen me to carry out his wish I am lucky to be a favour to God bless you Mary God is pleased with you I have come to tell you that soon you will have a son
He will be a great King one day and he will be loved by everyone he will be called the son of God Mary was at first shocked at what Gabriel had to say however she remained calm and listened to everything that the angel had to say then she spoke to Gabriel
But how was this possible I’m not yet married do not be afraid Mary the Spirit of the Lord will take over you and you will be blessed with a son he will be called the Son of God he will do great things for the people
He will be hailed as the king of Jews and the Savior of mankind I’m grateful for whatever the Lord has done for me I’m happy to have as a wish come true through me the Lord is with you Mary you are blessed go in peace
Gabriel then left the house of Mary and returned to heaven in a few days Mary became pregnant in those days it was very unusual for a girl to become pregnant before marriage however Mary explained everything to Joseph about the angel and God’s wish and the son they were going to have
Joseph was a good man and he accepted everything he married Mary in a few days in those days the king of the land announced a census he wanted every citizen of his country to be counted and documented since Joseph was actually from Bethlehem he had to go there to be counted
Bethlehem was a long way from Nazareth Joseph and Mary had a long and difficult journey ahead to Bethlehem there were no cars or other means of transportation except for a donkey the whole journey had to be made by foot Mary sat on a donkey and Joseph walked behind them
It was even more difficult for Mary since she was going to give birth to her baby after many many days of walking through the desert Joseph and Mary finally reached Bethlehem it was getting very dark when they reached the town they desperately needed a place to rest and spend the night
But all the inns were full and nobody would give them space to spend the night Joseph walked all over the town knocking at the doors of houses and shops one after the other but nobody would allow them to come in Mary was about to give birth and it was important
That she had a safe and comfortable place for the baby and herself Joseph and Mary kept feeling hopeless after searching for a while Joseph found an empty barn built for cows there was plenty of fresh straw there Joseph used the straw and managed to make a bed for Mary
Later in the night something magical happened Mary gave birth to a beautiful baby boy Joseph made a small bed of fresh straw in the manger and laid him there it was warm and comfortable and the baby slept happily in the manger Mary was happy that the predictions of the Angels had come true
Jesus Christ the Savior of this world was born in a humble manger that same night while Joseph and Mary were looking for a place to stay the night not very far away two shepherds were out looking for their sheep on a hill
suddenly they were blinded by a bright light from the sky they opened their eyes to find a beautiful angel in front of them with long golden hair and silver wings she wore a shimmering white and gold dress which sparkled in the moonlight
The Shepherd’s did not know how to react and were amazed then the angel spoke to them do not be afraid I have come to give you good news tonight in the town of Bethlehem a baby boy has been born his name is Jesus
He will be known as a Savior of the world you will know it is Jesus when you see a baby boy wrapped in the clothes in the manger go to the world’s and just everybody know of this happy news let everybody know that Jesus the Savior of the Jews was born today
Go in peace now and spread the good news the shepherds were happy and shocked at the same time they were overjoyed at the fact that a Savior was born and they ran towards Bethlehem to find baby Jesus
The king of the Jews who had been born in a humble manger when they eventually found the baby in the manger in Bethlehem they praised him and bowed down in worship on the night that Jesus was born three wise men were travelling on their camels across the desert
Suddenly their felt a flash of light come down on them they looked up at the sky and they saw a bright star it was a kind of star that they had never seen before the three wise men were aware of the prophecy of Jesus
They were waiting for the Star of Bethlehem to appear and when they saw it they were overjoyed it meant that the Savior of the world and the king of the Jews was born at the time of Jesus birth the country was under the rule of King Herod
Who was a very selfish and evil king when the three wise men informed King Herod of the star they had seen in the sky in what it meant King Herod was worried that he would lose his kingdom to this baby boy
He told the Wise man to find the baby Jesus and let him know where the baby was although the king informed the wise men that he wanted to find the baby so he could go and worship Him Herod was actually plotting to kill the child
He feared that Jesus would grow up to overpower him someday the three wise men followed the star for several days and found baby Jesus in the manger they were surprised to find the future king of Jews lying in a barn
They found the barn in which Jesus was born a few days after he was born finally the star stopped right over the manger they smiled at Mary and bowed down in reverence to the new baby they had brought gifts of gold frankincense and myrrh for the baby
These were very valuable gifts and only given to Kings it was highly unusual for anybody to give these precious things to a newborn baby however this was no ordinary baby and the wise men fully understood the purpose of Jesus’s birth and so now you know the story of Christmas
And how the mighty Savior of the world started his journey on earth the story shows us that great things can have small and humble beginnings
Passover or the Feast of Freedom is the foundational feast of the Jewish people. In it, we remember God’s loving kindness in saving his people from bondage in Egypt and creating Israel as a nation. All that so that God himself would dwell among His people
And give us His Word in order to bless all nations. But could it be that this feast actually alludes to an even greater salvation yet to come? In the story of the crossing of the Red Sea. Moses encourages his nation to trust God. Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord.
Then, after God saves them from the Egyptians, it says. When Israel saw the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and they believed in the Lord and in His servant, Moses. But this would not be the
Last time at which God was gracious towards his people. God spoke to the Prophet Isaiah in Chapter 52 about a totally new exodus. Be cheerful, shout joyfully. Together you ruins of Jerusalem for the Lord has comforted His people. He has redeemed Jerusalem.
The Lord has buried His holy arm in the sight of all nations so that all the ends of the earth may see the salvation of our God. Isaiah prophesied that God would restore the nation of Israel, that He would save them from their enemies, grant them peace and security.
However, this time the salvation will not only include a physical redemption. Rather, it will include a spiritual redemption reaching the whole world. And this is what Isaiah talks about in the next chapter. Chapter 53. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way.
But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all to fall on Him, just like the Passover lamb. Isaiah prophesied that the servant of the Lord would give his life to save his people. In chapter 53, The Salvation that the servant of the Lord brings to
Israel is not from Egypt or from the plague of the first born. Rather, it is the salvation from our personal sinfulness. The salvation God offers to us is from our guilt. After Isaiah describes the death of the servant, he continues to prophesy that he would prolong his days.
How can it be the only way the servant of the Lord can prolong his days after his death is through His resurrection? No wonder that when we quote these verses to our Jewish brethren, they think we quote from the New Testament. But the Hebrew Bible states clearly
That the Messiah had to suffer and die to redeem his people. But he doesn’t remain in the grave. He rises and grants forgiveness of sins and justifies the sinner by the knowledge of the righteous one. My servant will justify the many. In first Corinthians 15, Paul boldly declares
That if the Messiah has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain. Your faith also is in vain. If the Messiah has not been raised, in other words, since the beginning of the faith in Yeshua, the Messiah, his resurrection stood as the cornerstone, the very foundation
Upon which the truth of Yeshua stands or falls. If you’re sure did not rise up from the dead, then his death is meaningless. We are still in Egypt without a savior. Guilty before God and slaves to sins, bondage. The disciples did not expect the resurrection of Yeshua.
They thought and hoped that he would free Israel from the Egyptians of that time, the Romans. They thought he would strike them and drive them out of the land. They missed part of the message of the prophets. They thought that the idea of a crucified
Messiah is a failing Messiah at best, or worse, a false messiah whom they would need to replace with another Moses who would deliver them from the Romans against all odds. And in contrast to their initial expectations after Yeshua’s death. Something happened. The disciples began to insist that
Yeshua, in fact, rose from the dead and conquered death. They began to proclaim their message in Jerusalem, in the very place where Yeshua was crucified and buried, where everyone could go and check if the tomb was in fact empty. Not only did they proclaim the message boldly,
But they were ready and willing to suffer and even die for it. And most of them did. The significance of the resurrection is that it validates Yeshua’s message. His gospel is true. Yeshua claimed to be God himself, who came to free us from sin, to cleanse us from our guilt and justify us.
The resurrection is the proof that his radical claims about his identity and work were true. Moreover, his resurrection gives us hope and assurance that this life is not all that there is. The death is not the end. On the basis of Yeshua’s resurrection, the New Testament proclaims that anyone
Who puts his faith in him will rise up from the dead to everlasting life. But the fact is, Messiah has been raised from the dead. The first fruit of those who are asleep for since by a man death came, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
Four as in Adam all die. So also in Messiah, all will be made alive. The gift of salvation is given freely. We receive it through faith, through putting our trust in the Savior of Israel. Yeshua, notice that in the story of the Exodus.
Or more specifically in the crossing of the Red Sea, the nation of Israel did not need to do anything to merit their salvation from the Egyptians. Their own power could not stop the Egyptian army God alone, granting them freedom and salvation. They only needed to step in faith towards the water.
As the author of Hebrews puts it by faith, they pass through the Red Sea as through dry land. All people, Jews and Gentiles, are guilty before God and find themselves separated from Him due to their personal sinfulness. In Hebrew, the word sin comes from the same root
As missing the mark in our inherent sinfulness as humans. We miss God’s mark, but through Yeshua, as death and resurrection, he opened a new way to enter into an eternal relationship with God through faith. Yeshua was delivered over because of our wrongdoings and was raised for our justification.
This relationship cannot be broken since it is established upon the perfect sacrifice of the ultimate Passover lamb. The sacrifice of Yeshua. Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world for by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. So what about you?
Have you put your faith in Yeshua? If not, today is the day of salvation. If you want to receive forgiveness of sins, eternal life and a living relationship with your loving creator, simply talk to your Heavenly Father in your own words. He listens and that is the meaning of prayer. Rejoice with us.
In part one, we looked at the logical version of the problem of suffering and evil.This argument attempts to show that since suffering and evil exist, it is logically impossible for God to exist, and we explained why even atheist philosophers admit that this argument fails. But wait. It may still be argued
That while it’s logically possible that God and suffering both exist, is far from likely. There’s just so much pointless suffering, it seems improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting it. This is the probability version of the problem. Suffering provides empirical evidence
That God’s existence is not impossible, just highly unlikely. Is this a good argument? Consider three points. First, we are not in a position to say with any confidence that God probably lacks reasons for allowing the suffering in the world. The problem is that we’re limited in space and time, and in
Intelligence and insight. God, on the other hand, sees every detail of history from beginning to end, and orders it through people’s free decisions and actions in order to achieve his purposes. God may have to allow a great deal of suffering along the way. Suffering which appears pointless within our limited scope of
Understanding may be seen to have been justly permitted by God within his wider framework. Sometimes what we experience makes no sense until we gain a wider perspective and see the big picture designed by the Creator. Here’s the second point. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s
Existence may well be probable. You see, probabilities are always relative to background information. For example, if we consider only how much this man weighs, we would say it’s highly improbable that he’s a world-class athlete. But when we’re willing to consider new information, that he’s a professional sumo wrestler and
The world champion, we quickly revise our view. In the same way, when the atheist claims that God’s existence is improbable, we should ask, improbable relative to what background information? If we consider only the suffering in the world, then God’s existence may very well appear to be improbable, but if we’re
Willing to look at the full scope of background information to take into account the powerful arguments for God’s existence, we may come to a very different conclusion. The third point is Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and suffering.
Consider four of these. First, the chief purpose of life is not happiness. People often assume that if God exists, his role is to create a comfortable environment for his human pets. They think the ultimate goal of our lives on earth is happiness, and therefore, God is obligated to keep us happy.
However, Christianity presents a radically different view, that the purpose of life is to know God. This alone brings true, lasting fulfillment. Suffering can bring about a deeper, more intimate knowledge of God either on the part of the one who’s suffering or those around him. The whole point of human history is
That God, having given us free will, is drawing as many people as he can into his unending Kingdom. Suffering is one of the ways God can draw people freely to himself. In fact, countries that have endured the most hardship often show the
Highest growth rate for Christianity. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world. Second, mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose. Terrible human evils are testimony to
Man’s depravity, a consequence of his alienation from God. The Christian isn’t surprised at moral evil in the world; on the contrary, he expects it. The third doctrine states that God’s purpose is not restricted to this life, but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life. This world is just the
Beginning, the entry way to an unimaginable, never-ending life beyond death’s door. Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, underwent afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, hunger; yet he wrote, we do not lose heart, for this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for
An eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen, for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. Paul understood
That life on earth, and whatever suffering it holds for each of us, is temporary. Our pain will not endure forever, but our lives with God will. Paul was not belittling the plight of those who suffer horribly in this life. Indeed,
He was one of them; but he saw that those sufferings will be overwhelmed forever by the ocean of joy that God will give to those who will freely receive it. And the fourth doctrine is this: the knowledge of God is an incomparable good. Knowing God
Is the ultimate fulfillment of human existence, an infinite good. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter how much he has suffered, can still say God is good to me. So if Christianity is true, it’s not at all improbable that suffering and evil should exist. In summary, for all these
Reasons, the probability version of the problem of evil is no more successful than the logical version. As a purely intellectual problem, then, the problem of evil does not disprove God’s existence. But even if those intellectual arguments fail, the emotional problem of suffering and evil
Remains very powerful. If you have suffered deeply, or if you’ve watched someone you love go to intense pain, you may be thinking, so what is God exists? Why would I want to respond to him or worship him? I feel cold and empty, and
Want nothing to do with him. You’re not alone. God knows your name; he knows who you are and what you’re going through. God promises to be with you through your suffering. He can give you the strength to endure. Jesus Christ also suffered;
Although he was innocent, he was tortured and sentenced to death.His suffering had a purpose: to provide you and me the life-giving connection to God. Not only does God exist, but he loves you. He seeks after you, he offers you hope, and in time, he will make all things new.
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death, or mourning, crying, or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.
If you read your whole Old Testament, you never see a demon being cast out of anyone. Ever. How in the world when Jesus shows up and he starts doing that? Did people automatically in their heads think: “Well, this is what the Messiah is supposed to do! This is a sign of Messiahship.”
Where does that come from? Psalm 91. Which, you know, in recent days, you’ve heard this quoted a lot: “He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty… he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence.
He will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you will find refuge… You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness.” In the corona environment, this passage gets quoted a lot.
And unfortunately, in some cases deeply out of context to suggest that well, you know, Christians can do whatever they want here because God will protect us and we won’t get sick and. Okay, that is not what the passage is about. The passage is much cooler than that. It’s more sinister too.
Psalm 91 is a psalm that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls in a jar with four other Psalms that are not in the Hebrew Bible. There are extra Psalms among the dead sea scrolls, we have 150 in the Hebrew Bible,
But this one that is in the Hebrew Bible, obviously, was put in this jar with four other ones. All four of those other ones are exorcism Psalm. So well, why would they lump Psalm 91 in there? That doesn’t look like an exorcism to me,
I’m, you read the whole thing and there’s no like casting devils out or anything like that. Well, if you read it in Hebrew, and you were a literate Israelite, you would know that words like pestilence (Deber). Okay, there’s pestilence there. Deber down here, Qeteb (destruction), “the arrow that flies by day.” Okay, right here.
This whole motif of the arrow flying by day and the tear of the night. Right here; Pahad. These are names and titles and epithets of Canaanite deities, all of them. To an Israelite, a Canaanite deity was a demonic, a sinister and evil spirit, you know, a power of darkness. That’s why Psalm 91 was lumped into that
Because this is a prayer of protection and thwarting of powers of darkness in ancient Jewish thought. What else is interesting is this psalm in the Hebrew Bible, you notice there’s no superscription. There’s a psalm of whoever. In the Septuagint, it’s a psalm of David. Okay, also in the Septuagint, there are certain different wordings,
The Septuagint would have been based on a Hebrew text. Is a translation of Hebrew, that don’t always align with a traditional Hebrew text. But in the Septuagint, where it’s a psalm of David, there are a couple of psalms that use specific words for the Psalms, and the hymns and the,
I want to use the word spell, because that’s what it means, or can mean, of David and Solomon. Okay, that in the poetry, the literature, they produced, some of that stuff uses vocabulary that you will find in exorcistic material in the Second Temple period. And so this answers an important question.
And here’s the question. And maybe you’ve wondered this. If you read your whole Old Testament, you never see a demon being cast out of anyone. Ever. There’s actually only two references in English Bibles to demons; Shedim is usually translated demon, which isn’t the greatest translation,
But we’ll run with it for the sake of the illustration, Deuteronomy 32. And then there’s a Psalm. Okay, but you never see a demon or a hostile evil spirit cast out of anyone. How in the world, when Jesus shows up, and he starts doing that, did people
Automatically in their heads think: “well, this is what the Messiah is supposed to do! This is a sign of Messiahship.” Where does that come from? It comes from what I just described. It comes from certain Psalms being associated with David, and a few with Solomon. In the Second Temple Period
There was the belief that David and Solomon had power over evil spirits. And so if the Messiah is a descendant, he is The David, The Son of David, he should be able to do that too. So this is something that we wouldn’t get because we’re not living in the culture.
And we’re not familiar with how Psalm 91 in particular was viewed. But when Jesus shows up and starts doing this, the bells and whistles are going off in people’s heads. This is an important thing he does to convince them that he’s the Messiah. And Isn’t it odd that Satan would choose Psalm 91
To quote to Jesus, in a temptation, and he quotes the part, down here, “he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” So what’s really going on here is Satan is fishing for information.
He’s got Jesus in front of him, he knows who he is, he knows why he’s there. His silly Kingdom of God stuff, okay. But he doesn’t know what the plan is. So he’s there to tempt Jesus. Try to shortcut the thing. And you know, the last one is the worst because it’s idolatry.
It’s just kind of a terrible attempt. But this one’s interesting because let’s say that Jesus looks at Satan and says, “Yeah, that’s a good quotation. Yep. Yep, you know, that’s a, that’s an exorcistic psalm. And I’m the son of David, and I’m supposed to be able to cast out demons.
And if that’s true, then the rest of the stuff in the song must be true too. So go ahead, it’ll take me up to the top here, I’m going to throw myself off.” What happens? Okay, let’s say the angels catch him. What is Satan learned? He can’t kill him,
So we’ll take killing the Messiah off the strategy plan. But Jesus knows, that’s exactly what needs to happen. “So I’m not going to demonstrate anything for you. You’re not going to learn anything in this conversation.” He just tells him that you hit the road, “you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”
And that could be a reference to himself. But it could also be another way of saying; “You shall not try to convince me to let God show you the hand that he’s going to play.” He has to die. He must die. Again, it’s an interesting tit for tat conversation
between these two. And again, my take on it is that Satan actually was fishing for information. It’s not a worthless conversation. And the fact that he quotes Psalm 91 I find really interesting because of its nature. You know, the servant (Israel) out in the wilderness. I mean, let’s think of Jesus
Now as the representative of the corporate nation. Did Israel in the Old Testament pass the test of being God’s servant? Well, yes, and no. You know, they get to the promised land? Sure, after they fail, and then they wander around for 40 years. So there’s that checkered past. They don’t really complete the conquest.
They ask for a king to replace God as the one who fights for them. And then three kings later they go off and start worshipping other gods and end up in exile. So probably no, they really don’t pass the test of being God’s representative son and his servant, but Jesus does.
He passes the test. And now it’s Game on. His ministry begins.
Without a doubt, Christian apologist are long. I can’t emphasize this enough. And it’s not just Christian apologist. There is this apologetic even within scholarship, that keeps going. That Jesus is birth. You know, that virgin birth by Mary, where the Purnima overshadows her and she has.
Jesus is unique and there are no other nonsexual union birth conceptions where the God conceives a child through a mortal woman without sex other than Jesus. This is not true. Let’s share this with anyone who denies it, because the evidence, they just haven’t seen it yet. But Dr.
David, while he has dug deep into this, every serious academic that I speak to goes his work is mind blowing. Be sure to go check out his stuff. Go in the description. Share this for the next fundamentalist or atheist that says otherwise. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re talking about divine births.
Maybe some of these might be virgins. Or we’re going to address this issue today with Dr. Tim David, that he’s got a YouTube channel. He’s got a patron. Go down in the description now. Maybe your children will be conceived of a god. If you do. So, go help them out.
Dr. Little, welcome back to Ms.. Vision. Hi there. Yeah, great to be here. Happy holidays to. You and everybody. It’s it’s good to be back. I’m really thankful you’re back. You’re going to be able to educate us today. And diving into my favorite book that you produced and it’s
I mean, it’s up there like it competes with, you know, the evil creator and some other stuff that I really enjoy, just understanding Jesus in a mediterranean world. Yes, it stays. It’s got a lot of praise among many other scholars as well. Today I’ll be. Looking. At whether. You need to. Have sex.
Between divine beings and human women in order to. Produce a. Divine conception. Because today. When. You know. People think of this on a popular. Level, they kind of have these binary categories set for them. So if they know a. Little bit about Greek mythology, they. Kind of imagine. That. Zuse and Apollo.
Were really. Really horny back in the day and. They would repeatedly have sex with. Human women and that. Would produce the race of demigods. And. Who are they? The heroes of the age of age of heroes. And that’s how we got Heraclius and Romulus. That and Asclepius and so many others.
It’s that you had a sex act. Between. God. And a mortal women, although sometimes. It could be the reverse. Of course, Aphrodite having sex with the, you know. Whoever she wanted to. I mean, she had her own escapades as well. So there’s this idea that that’s sort of what the Greek.
Religion was. Was about. In the time of Jesus. And then. The Jewish. Religion, where. God was or Yahweh was basically. An asexual being. And he didn’t hang around women and he didn’t even like women, you know, didn’t even allow menstruating women to go into the temple. And he was really kind of prudish.
And he never you know. The Jews. Just didn’t imagine their. Deity having sex. Or being involved. With. Sex and. Sexual activity. So it was a. Completely different. Worldview. Now, all this entire. Binary. Is based. On an. Apologetic. Framework. And this is really what do I want to emphasize here? This is exactly the.
Argument that Justin Martyr. Made. Around the year 150 in trying to. Argue for the truth. Of Christianity and this. Very. Contingent. Apologetic. Argument has unfortunately. Passed, has. Become so hackneyed and repeated so much that it. Has passed for historical fact. And that’s just. Not. The case. And it’s really important.
To see that our job. As thinking people and as historians or budding historians is not simply to. Repeat the apologetic. Arguments of ancient Christians as. As if they were fact. Okay. Because and to not. Let. One. Particular. Religion or insider. Discourse control the. Terms and the framework of thinking.
But to step outside of the box. Start afresh and think anew. Okay. I know many of you. You may have taken a course in classical mythology and or you may have a book in classical mythology and, you know, think that. This is all very obvious. But in the time of Jesus. These Greeks.
And Romans. Were as sophisticated as you. Or me in how. They thought about. Divine conception and for. Different reasons. Okay. They had issues with gods having sex. Okay. Now again, if you reading Homer, you know, Homer. Is archaic age. Okay. So doesn’t seem to. Have a problem with. Gods having.
Sex at all. Okay. Agreed. But the New Testament wasn’t written. When Homer or whoever was writing. It wasn’t. Written when he. Was writing. It was written 600 years after that, after the. Development of some of the most complex. Philosophies. And scientific arguments this. World has ever seen. Okay.
The new Testament is post Plato. And with Plato he. Revolutionizes everything. Typically elite, educated. And intellectual. Greeks. Of the time of Jesus and of the time of the New Testament writers. Which is the late first. And early second century. They do not. Believe, literally, that gods have sex
With mortals, because that’s just not what gods do. Okay. If I may, just to poke in here, this is great because I asked the question I’m giving people behind a paywall, a little sneak peek. A recent course was done on other virgin birth. I suppose it other virgin births. And Dr. Bart Ehrman,
Who was your professor at one point, took the stance that, you know, these gods that they had sex are in some way they end up impregnating these women. Like even the interpretation, let’s say in Suetonius, which I think we might mention with Augustus and there’s a serpents there
That is the in the bed with him, with his mother, with Augustus mother. I can’t remember her name, but she ends up going in like bathing. And then nine months later they have the baby and therefore this is somehow a sexual union. But I asked him a question, particularly in the
What you said. And I said, have there been any other gods who have impregnate women through Numa? And I use that specific term and he knew that was a catchy term, even emphasized that when he was saying it, he said no and I’m not trying to be pitting scholars against each other, but,
You know, sometimes I’ll catch Doctor Men where I’ll say, Hey, do you date Luke in the second century? And he’s like 85? And I’m like, Hold on. Steve Macey Steve Mason was Shelley MATTHEWS Like all of these scholars are late, you know, definitely late first
Or at least early second, maybe even the middle second. He’s still on the 85 A.D. So we want to give him a little credit here, but it sounds like he’s kind of holding on to maybe some dated ideas. Yes. Well, yeah, he’s he’s very. Traditional in some. Respects, despite his his reputation. Yep.
It is true that. Historians, even around the time of the late first century. Like Plutarch. Is a great example. He will tell you the story of how. Alexander the. Great was conceived. By means. Supposedly of a gigantic. Snake appearing in the bed. Of. Alexander’s mother. Olympias. But Plutarch will also tell you.
In his life as Alexandria. That he. Doesn’t believe. That story. And he doesn’t believe. That story because that’s just. Not. What gods do. And ever since the days of Plato. There were certain rules of theology. And this is in Plato’s Republic. Plato’s first rule of theology is a God. Does not. Lie.
And a God second. Which is. A more but expanded version of the first. A God does not change. And it’s these two rules of theology that. Revolutionized. All later theology. Including Christian. Theology. It was not acceptable. For a God to. Lie or be involved in a lying action. That is.
To take on the body and pretend to be someone. Else. For instance, in the story. Of Hercules, his birth. This takes on the. Body of Heraclitus. As human father. And between. Plato says, No, he didn’t. Or if he did. That’s not. Zeus, right? Because that’s. Not what. Gods do.
Gods do not deceive and they do not change. And why is it that gods. Do not change? It’s because gods are already perfect. Gods do not need anything. They are not deficient in any respect. Sex is the expression. Of human needs. You know, I’m well aware that, you know,
There are some asexual people. Okay. That’s totally. Fine. But for a large. Proportion of humanity. Sex is a. Biological need. It’s hormone driven, and it’s B and. And because it’s a need, okay? It’s an expression of our own deficiency, right? We’re not complete. Without. A partner. Without a sexual. Partner, we don’t.
Live the full. Flourishing life. We are incomplete. Without that. That is a manifestation of human weakness. Gods do not have that. Gods are not deficient in them. They do not change and they don’t have hormonal fluctuations and they do not get horny. Right. So this is this is Plato. Okay. Sex involves the.
Greatest amount of changes, emotionally and bodily. And that is unacceptable according to the platonic rules of theology. And anyone who is intellectual in the Roman period knows this. Okay. So, yes, historian. Can. Still, you know, tell. Like Suetonius. These. Mythological. Tales. But do they. In their mode. As philosophers, actually believe that.
First of all, women have sex with snakes in. Temples or wherever? No. And this. Is a case where we ask that great. Question. Did the. Greeks believe. Believe in their myths? Well, yes and no. They wanted to protect their sacred cultural lure. But just. Like Christians today, they reinterpret it.
So that it’s updated to the. Scientific and moral standards of the time. So they. Do not. Believe that gods have sex. And the key example. Of this is Plutarch. In talking about. The. Divine conception of. Plato. Okay. Plato is or was a human being, and he. Did not. Need to have or.
His mother did not. Have sex. With any God in order. To produce Plato. His mother was. Perfectly honest. And it was very early. Tradition put out. By Plato’s. Own nephew. Shortly after he died. So we’re talking about the middle fourth century. So 450. Years before Jesus. There was a. Tradition.
That Plato was the. Offspring of. Apollo. And during the time when. The author of Luke was. Writing. You, which. Is, I think in the first edition, the very late first century. You had Plutarch. Who’s writing at exactly the same time, telling us. How. He thinks that. Plato.
Was born from Apollo because he wants to save the myth. Right. It’s his myth. He wants to save the fact that Plato is divinely conceived, but he cannot accept. As an. Intellectual. And as a thinker. Of his time, late first, early second century, that that’s how gods operate.
So in his table talk and in his life of Numa, he presents. A theory that there is no. That general penetration. Of. Corinthian by Apollo. That wouldn’t be. How Apollo works. There is a more subtle way of conceiving. And, you know, the Greeks weren’t stupid. They observed. Things and.
They observed what they thought were. What they weren’t divine conceptions, but what. They called. Wind. Eggs. And wind eggs. Were eggs that produced chicks without. Any male rooster being involved. And they get the name wind eggs, which sounds rather simple. Or silly, but basically the way that the Greeks thought that this.
Happened. Was that these eggs were fertilized by. Panama. Which is wind. But in the New Testament it’s also translated spirit. It also means breath. It’s hot air that you breathe out. And it’s very. Subtle. And according to. Aristotle, it’s it is. That thing which is in male semen. Which fertilizes the female egg.
Inside. The womb. So numa is the natural. Choice, you know. Based on the scientific. Literature of the day, to talk about how. A woman gets pregnant and if a God is going to impregnate a woman, he need not. In fact, morally. He. Cannot impersonate a man with a penis that’s unnecessary.
And gods wouldn’t be involved in that. They have no interest in that. They have no need for that. That’s not what gods do, but it’s still possible. For them to. Breathe. Right? And they breathe. In, in efflux. Of their own. Divine seed, and then enters the woman’s body and makes her pregnant.
To illustrate. How. Concretely. Christians. Thought about this, there’s the later Christian. Tradition that Mary. Conceived through her ear, which means that. Divine tumor entered through an. Orifice is it has to go. Through somewhere. And so the. Theory was that. It went through. Mary’s ear. Why her ear? Well, because she was so obedient.
And if you look. At the route of. Obedience, it’s from audio. Audio and. Audio has to do with. Hearing, hence the. Ear. She is so. Obedient. She receives the spirit through the ear. And that is what makes her pregnant. Because the tumor has. To travel through her ear. Down to the. Uterus. That’s
How concretely they thought about this. This wasn’t some magical event. They actually did think about. You know, the. Actual. Connection of. Cause. And effect. They didn’t think that God snapped his fingers and all of a sudden, Mary was pregnant. No, you needed some. Biological. Material agent. And the natural solution was to Numa.
So this is what Plutarch says that pretty. Only Plato’s mother. Gave birth through. Another kind of divine. Power. Which is Denarius and Numa. And I have the text. Cited in chapter one. Of Yes status. I’ve also got on my YouTube channel an episode on chapter one.
So you can check out the footnotes there and. Read up. On Plutarch. What’s interesting is when you look. Up. Luke 135 we have in the Greek. The. Exact same words. Used by Plutarch. In reference to the pregnancy of. Plato used. Now. For the. Pregnancy for the divine conception of. Jesus.
Luke says in the Greek, and I’ll translate Numa how again? F.O. used to be Seth. Which means. A holy breath as I like to say, a holy breath. Will come upon you. This is the. Angel speaking to Mary. For how she gets. Pregnant. Kadima subsists to discuss sea.
And power of a most high. Will overshadow you. So he uses those exact same. Two terms. That Plutarch. Uses in the exact similar context when talking. About how a. God impregnated woman for Numa and denims. And so what this shows us is that the author of Luke is is probably at least
Trying. To sound as. Sophisticate in it as Plutarch, who is our. Representative Greek intellectual. Of the late. First and early second century. Guy. And Luke, whoever Luke is. I’m just using that. As a placeholder. The author of Luke, let’s say, knows that if he were to tell the story about. You know, God
Impregnating Mary by taking on, you know, the form of. Joseph. Well. That’s not going to fly. That’s not going to work. I mean, no Greek intellectual. Would touch that stuff. Okay. But if. There was a more. Subtle theory. Of divine conception, which involved. These quasar. Scientific terms, humor and dynamics. Well.
Then we’re talking that’s the point where. The author of the tries to get a foothold. Into the. Structures of plausibility for. The Greek intellectuals of this time. Because he’s. Already an. Apologist. He already knows that no one is going to. Believe a story of.
God having sex with a moral, with a mortal woman. Okay. He’s looking over his. Shoulder at people like Plutarch who would. Sneer at that kind of thing. So he’s. Smart enough to. Say that this. Divine conception happened through the mechanics of Numa and Denis. Just as Plato. Plato’s own divine conception happened.
So it ends up. That both Plutarch. And the. Author of Luke. Can have their cake and eat it. Too. Right. Because Plutarch. Can say. Yes, I revere Plato. I call Plato. See us Plato. On the divine Plato. Why do I do that? Because he is the. True son of Apollo.
He can still affirm that. Right. And Apollo is the God of music and the God of harmony. So, yes, that those are Plato’s characteristics. And the author. Of Luke. Can say. Guess what? Jesus is. The true son. Of a God. In this case. Yahweh. And. Yahweh. Doesn’t. Need to get his. Hands. Dirty.
And Yahweh doesn’t need a penis to. Do any of. These things. Yahweh can act. Just like Plutarch’s Apollo. And send his own breath to an pregnant Mary. So this completes Luke. 130. Five. Just to translate. It. So the Greek is Dr.. Token, Roman Hagen theCity. Choir statue. And because. Of this.
The divine. Mechanics. Of non-sexual conception. What is. Born. Will be called sacred. A son of a God. That’s the literal translation of the Greek. And this shows, once and for all that. For intellectuals, at least. And the. Author of Lucas. Trying to pose as an intellectual. You don’t need to. Have sexual intercourse
To produce a. Divine conception. Greeks don’t need. It. And Christians don’t don’t need it. So, yes, even though it’s true that in, you know, Homer. Gods have sex. And in historians. Gods have sex. Apparently by the time. Of the late first in early second century, they aren’t believing it. You know. This we’re.
Long beyond the age when. Yahweh had a life. I mean, he did. Have a wife at some point, but the Jews had ceased to believe that. For maybe half a millennium. Before Christianity. Came on the scene. So when you’re looking at the development of religions
And, you know, we were to take a time machine and go back to the eighth century B.C. And, you know, if we had, you know, archaic Hebrew. We would ask, you know, does Yahweh have a wife? And can he have can you have kids? Can you have. Sex?
Because l gives birth to Baal right. In you know, the Phoenicians say. That. So does his yoga give birth. To somebody or. Does somebody give birth this way? And I think they’d say. Well, yeah, well, because you always got a wife, just like Bill has a wife.
I mean, this is not a problem, right? Theologically, it’s not a problem. But then you fast. Forward. 500 years. All of a. Sudden it becomes a big problem. For different. Reasons. But both Jews. And. Greeks and Jews who were also. Christians. Were becoming sophisticated. Enough
By the era of the New Testament to say that, no, we don’t. We don’t. Have gods who have sex. We have divine conception, but there’s nothing to do with, you know, an attraction. So this shows you this shows. Everyone that Justin’s argument and the first. Apology. Again, written around 150. Is somewhat double.
Dealing. Let’s say. And not entirely. Accurate, because what Justin says is that. Greeks and Romans. They really do believe that, you know, Jesus dresses up. As somebody else and has sex for the mortal woman. Whereas the. Christians. They’re too good to believe that. Well, Plutarch shows. That that argument falls. Flat.
Greeks and Romans. Who are sophisticated. Intellectually, do not believe. That. Did not believe that, and neither did the Christians. They’re exactly equal. And so we need to lay down forever. That apologetic. Framework and argument. Hmm. There’s so many things here, Doctor, that what you said some great stuff. So I have a question.
We’ll start like a few questions at a time as we go into this, because I’m sure you’ll have plenty to cover. Are there any are there any examples that can be given about gods having sex with women after Plato? Is the tradition? Is it like a dual tradition?
Or would you say like you said, it’s pretty much stamped out, at least you’d say within the first few generations after Plato. Would you say it’s completely stamped out? No, it’s not sent out. No, not at all. Because it’s it’s intellectuals. Who are pushing this line. And, you know, other writers aren’t don’t.
Care. Too much about it. And it’s. Also a question. Of genre, you know, in the historical genre, like. What. Suetonius is writing in that genre, he can say. Oh yeah, I mean, there’s this story that, yeah, Augustus’s. Mother. Was in a temple. At night and had sex with a snake and there.
You go. He’s just reporting a story. He’s not telling you that. He believes. If he was in private conversation. With Tacitus, he’d be like, This is. Garbage, but I’m going to report. It because this will sell books. So, you know, this is exactly how they are. How they’re thinking.
And then when. Plutarch is, you. Can see this dynamic in. Plutarch. Plutarch writes a biography of. Alexander in which he. Talks in which he. He’s under obligation to tell you the common story that his mother had sex. With a snake. Okay. But he. He then. Says. Events, as you know, this.
Is the story is like Herodotus is and this is the story. I have no part in this. But then when he’s in the scientific mode and then the scientific. Treatise. Speaking simply. As a philosopher. Or not. As a biographer, he will say. No, no, we don’t. We don’t believe this.
No intellectual would believe this. We uphold the tradition that Plato is born of Apollo. Yes, but we do not believe. That Apollo had. Sex with a mortal woman. That’s just not. True. So this. At least this grants us that the author of the gospel we call Luke is within the elite, kind of
Maybe the elite isn’t the term, but the highly sophisticate, the thinkers, because I don’t want to give the idea that necessarily they’re rich. I mean, there’s some poor people who become sophisticated philosophers later on, high intellectuals. So they’re highly intellectual. Can we grant Matthew in the same category? Well.
So the way I would put it is these authors are. Trying to sound like they’re elite intellectuals. Whether we want to call them elite intellectuals is another story, but they know at least the modes and codes. Of how. To be most. Plausible. Right.
And so, yes, the author of Luke is of the highest register. He’s the one coming. Closest to Plutarch. Matthew is shows a lot less concern. Matthew is not as interested in the actual mechanics of the divine conception. I think Matthew would deny that. You know, obviously God had sex.
And I and I think. Other readers of Matthew, you know that would be yeah. Greek readers. Contemporary with Matthew you know would they would not be. Cool with that either. But I don’t. Think Matthew is interested in the mechanics. Of the sex. And he’s. He’s happy to tell what is essentially Christian mythology.
And just kind of. Let that sit with you. You know, so he’s got you know, escaped to Egypt in the massacre of the children probably never happened. All of these angels appearing in dreams. I mean. Greek. Greek historians who are trying to. Go up to the level of lucidity is would be like,
No, no, this is trash literature. This is not this is not good enough. This doesn’t come up to snuff. But if you’re just have. The standard of. Herodotus, right. Because Herodotus is the. Father of history and he tells you no more myths than. Matthew. So but Herodotus. Always says, I’m just reporting this.
Folks. I don’t actually believe this, but I’m going to tell you the story. And Matthew’s not that sophisticated. He he he tells the story as if he believes it, and he probably does. So he’s not quite. At the author of of Luke’s. Level. And I don’t think either of them are at the.
Level of two cities or of Tacitus. But they’re they’re. Pushing up. Word they’re. They’re going upward and they’re trying to sound plausible. As they can. So it is fair to say when we hear and I’m using anti apologetics here for a second,
Which I know you don’t care to get into the mix, but it is an interesting question. Christian apologists will go around and say this is unique. In fact, Bart Ehrman himself at least grants that in this case Jesus being born through a non-sexual union of a Virgin
Ad that which we haven’t got to the question of Virgin yet is wholly unique, and we’ve got to give that to Christianity. And where I would agree with BART and go at least every single one of these myths is unique in a sense. Every one of them, if you go to Zeus, you
Go to Hercules, you go to Plato, you go to they all have different narratives, different gods, different stories about maybe how things go. So if you want to be literal, sure, they’re unique. But to argue that this one isn’t within the zeitgeist of thought, that it’s somehow completely unique as Christian
Apologists do, that would be a false statement. Would you agree? Or at least a mistaken statement? Yeah. You haven’t read widely enough. Or you’ve you’ve you’ve. Just read in one genre, you know, you’ve just read in, you know. The Historia. Genre rather than the genre of scientific. Literature.
So you pick up Plutarch’s Table Talk or you pick up Aristotle’s. Discussion of, of. How, how. You can have, you know, hen’s giving. Birth to chicks without roosters. And, you know, they’re talking on a different register and a different level, and they’re. Happy to talk about. Things as intellectuals,
Not just, you know, reporting the common story. But even so, the. Case of Apollonius of Tiano is an interesting one. And I’ll just say. A little bit of about this while I have. Time. So I think Bart and I differ on reading Apollonius Tiano because. This is a. Third century.
Okay, so it’s it’s post post-Christian, it’s philosophers and philosophers. This tells the story about how Apollonius his mother gave birth. And he it’s. Quite a funny story, I think. But he. Says and I’m not including all the. Details, but he says that basically. His mother fell asleep in a field.
Of flowers, sort of like. Stephanie, and. That she was. Surrounded by. These birds, basically. I think he calls them geese. But I’ll have to check that book. And. That. In unison. These birds lift their. Wings and then beat them. And at that moment, his mother wakes. Up. Because she’s pregnant. So what are.
The assumptions. Of that story? Well, I think this is another instance of a nonsexual conception. What happens when birds beat their wings, moving air for numa? That’s how the Greeks thought of it. Panama’s moving air moving. Warm gust of air. Enters the woman. That’s how she gets pregnant. The mechanics are the same.
Right. It’s Panama. And who gets those birds together? Who fertilizes. The wind? Well. In. In this case, it’s Proteus. The Proteus, because Proteus is the real father of Apollonius. So here’s another case of a nonsexual birth. But it appears. In. History. You know, and in my book. How the Gospels.
Became History, I explained, you know, that there’s a difference between ancient history and modern history. But we’re talking. About ancient historia. This appears in a book of ancient history. It looks like a mythical tale. Greeks would call it a mythical tale. But it’s still. Based on the.
Presuppositions of the day of how a. Woman could give birth, not sexually. It would happen through two months. Wow. Okay, this is great. Now, question is, are there any virgins. And in I ask this of Dr. Airman and I even went so far to say, does it even matter?
I mean, at the end of the day, it’s the conception of the deity to the to having the child, I mean, through a mortal woman. Is virginity a valuable thing in the world at this time, or is that a later anachronistic kind of development as we see?
Eventually, Mary couldn’t even have had sex with Joseph. We have to have her be a perpetual virgin and these ideas start to kind of develop over time. I’m not sure how much time, but virginity can you touch this topic? Yeah, definitely.
I don’t have a lot of time, but I’ll try to give you as much background as I can. So. So if. You’re. And this will. Take us all the way back to Leviticus. Okay and Leviticus. Is, you know. Everyone’s favorite nighttime reading. And I’m sure.
All of your your viewers read this every day. But there’s all these rules. Menstruating women, and they can’t go into the temple. And so this. There’s something polluting. About. Sex and. Childbirth that goes back way, way back, way back. And then you. Have to ask, well, are the Greeks and the Jews,
Are they are they different on this one? No, they’re actually not. Because if you go to the Greek ritual law codes, they also say that, yeah. Women who are men are or. Who are after childbirth, they have to wait, you know, 30 or 40. Days
Before coming into the temple or the presence of the. God. And if you’ve just had sex last. Night, please don’t. Don’t go to the temple, okay? You have to wait a day. At least. You have to abstain from. Sex a day, at least. And if you’re really serious.
Like in the of ices, right? You’re reading Apollonius in the metamorphoses. He can’t appear before ices. Unless he’s abstain from sex and meat. For least. Ten. Days. So the gods, both Jewish. Gods and Greek. Gods, they do care about sex. And impurity and. Blood. And childbirth, and they don’t like. That stuff.
And they. Haven’t liked that stuff for. Thousands of. Years. So there’s a discourse. Of. Impurity. When you’re talking about sex. You are sex is ritually defiling. Okay? And Greeks and Jews are. Ah, hold that presupposition. Okay, long before. Plato didn’t know Plato for. You know, adds an. Extra.
Reason why gods don’t don’t have sex and why they don’t. Like sex. He tries to rationalize it and says, But they don’t lie and they don’t change. So rationally, we. Figured this out. But when you’re just. Talking on the level of of of. Impurity, then yes, this there’s something. Very. Very primitive.
About this idea that sex is is. Something that would make you impure. Therefore. A god wouldn’t be involved in that. Activity. And. It would be defiling for a God to have sex. With a mortal woman. And it would. Also be defiling. If a son of God was born from.
A mortal who had sex. With a man. It’s just. Not how it. Works. So if you’re going to. Have a true divine conception, then yes, you you need. To you need to get over this. You need to have. A. You need to have a virgin. Which is just to say.
A woman who is. Pure so that she gives birth to a pure child. And that’s exactly. The language. That that Luke or the author of Luke uses, that. Hagen, Hagen. Says. And because. Of because of. These divine. Mechanics, the child will be called. Hagen, which means sacred. And why sacred? Because it’s pure.
So he he’s he’s. Involved in purity, ideologies. And the best book that I can recommend. For people. Interested in ideologies. Of purity. And. Impurity is. Is Mary Douglas. Called. Purity and danger. I think that’s the title. Anyway, we can correct that later. But this book. Basically is an interpretation. Of.
Leviticus and shows you. Why why. Ancient people were so concerned about. Purity. Purity is different than cleanliness, right? It’s related. They overlap. But it’s different. And with a god, if you’re going to have any interaction with God, you need to be pure. So that’s why the. Virgin virgin birth becomes. Both a ritual.
And a rational necessity by the time. Of the author of the book. Wow. Okay, that makes a lot of sense of a lot of information. It is Christmas time and a lot of people right now are celebrating Christmas. They’re looking at this is the time which Jesus was born. And I figured this.
This would be like a perfect episode to give people who want to go deeper than maybe a surface level examination on the topic. Of course, you’re both. Yes, the status goes deeper. Are you is there anything in particular on your page you’re on that you’re doing that might actually take people further?
That should join up or anything else? Maybe other classes, ideas, topics, things like that that you have exclusive over there? Oh, definitely, yeah. I have I of an article on Divine. Births. And on the patron patrons. Get book deals with me. And I.
Also have a I also have a I teach Greek over the. Patron. For those. Getting introduced. To Greek. Who just want. To deal with a little bit of Greek to. Eventually, you know, free themselves from English translations or. Mistranslations that are, which are so frequent and. So yeah. I mean, I’m.
I hope that. Yeah, I can. Provide a service to. Anyone who wants to, to join and to. Get a little deeper. And. Yeah, just get out of this, these apologetic. Frameworks which. Unfortunately. You know, even. Scholars get trapped. In and, you know, it’s like quicksand. You know, you you’re trained
To think in a certain way and you never really. Get out of it. But we want to use the hammer and break. The apologetic. Framework so that we can think. Outside the box. And not only have found that the method you’re describing here and what you’re teaching more freeing
From the apologetics world, of course, but also it is allowed me to view a lot of this stuff more artistically and actually value it as a human. Like. Like divorce it from the dogma and the stigma that comes with it and see it and go, wow, that’s clever.
That’s an interesting story. How humans thought about that. I thought about how pine trees and pollen, you know, passes in the wind and how it pollinates other trees. And I thought about that with the the numa of, you know, God, it just made me think nature itself is a gift to humans.
And we have tried to interpret the world through these natural world, the natural observations and then, you know, put it into this category of the gods and stuff. So they might be more sophisticated than we give them credit for. Definitely. And, you know, in the end, you know, everyone.
Will have to decide. On what myths. They hold to be true. But I think. You’ve get to the. Point where you enjoy the myth as the myth. And then that frees. You to. Think about. Deeper levels of of truth. So yeah, we all. Eventually I think we come back.
To our. Tradition and we think think through how we may or may not be. Able to believe it. And that. Should be a. Joyful journey. It shouldn’t be a stressful one. We’re worried about. Being, you know, poked. With a pitchfork by. Screaming devils. You know, in the afterlife. Life should.
Be so much more enjoyable than worrying. About that. I agree. Are you working on any book right now? Before I let you go, is there any any book that’s coming out sometime in the next year or so? Well, I’m working on three. Books.
And I am not sure if any of them will come out. I’m hoping that I have a book on Alexandria. Or there’s. Christianity in Alexandria. Which is a. Revisionist. History of that earliest place where we see early. Christian diversity and. The birth. Of Christian theology in a way. That. Isn’t.
Like. The Roman form. Which people are so used to. And you know, we’ll be looking at people. Like. Bi-Lo and Apollo and. Barnabas facilities, Socrates products. You know. Julius. Cassiano Valentinian XV palace and the Nazi preacher. And I’ll be. Expanding my reflection on the nastiness in a in a. Complete book, which.
I hope to make. Accessible to a popular. Audience. And then I’m also seeing if I can finish up a book on Simon of Samaria. So there’s a lot coming down the pike. And yeah, very happy to. Help anyone in their journey. As they wade through. Some of this material,
Some of this both hidden and unfortunately. Yeah, unknown, inaccessible material. Thank you so much, Doctor Livia. Until next time. Sure thing. Happy holidays to you as well.
