The VIDEO says: "It was PAUL who taught the resurrection (Acts 17:18) PAUL who never saw Jesus said that the resurrection was HIS GOSPEL. (2 Tim. 2:8) He was the first one to declare Jesus the Son of God (Acts 9:20). So, Christianity is not a teaching of Jesus but of Paul." Acts 17:[18] Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.2. Tim. 2:[8] Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:Acts 9:[20] And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. wow...This VIDEO so WRONG on so many levels. I 'bout don't know where to begin. No, PAUL was NOT the FIRST to call Jesus the Son of God. No, PAUL didn't say it was HIS GOSPEL but the GOSPEL given to him by REVELATION. JESUS himself spoke of his own crucifixion and RESURRECTION. Matt. 3:[16] And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:[17] And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.Matt. 16:[15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?[16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.John 10:[29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.[30] I and my Father are one.John 14:[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?Gal. 1:[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Did Jesus Predict His Resurrection? John Piper Jesus spoke openly about what would happen to him: crucifixion and then resurrection from the dead. "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31; see also Matthew 17:22; Luke 9:22). Those who consider the resurrection of Christ unbelievable will probably say that Jesus was deluded or (more likely) that the early church put these statements in his mouth to make him teach the falsehood that they themselves conceived. But those who read the Gospels and come to the considered conviction that the one who speaks so compellingly through these witnesses is not the figment of foolish imagination will be unsatisfied with this effort to explain away Jesus' own testimony to his resurrection from the dead. This is especially true in view of the fact that the words which predict the resurrection are not only the simple straightforward words quoted above, but also the very oblique and indirect words which are far less likely to be the simple invention of deluded disciples. For example, two separate witnesses testify in two very different ways to Jesus' statement during his lifetime that if his enemies destroyed the temple (of his body), he would build it again in three days (John 2:19; Mark 14:58; cf. Matthew 26:61). He also spoke allusively of the "sign of Jonah" - three days in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39; 16:4). And he hinted at it again in Matthew 21:42 - "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner." On top of his own witness to the coming resurrection, his accusers said that this was part of Jesus' claim: "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise'" (Matthew 27:63). complete article here: http://www.jesus.org/death-and-resurrection/resurrection/did-jesus-predict-his-resurrection.html
....Moreover, one needs to study and research the Hebrew language and the culture of Biblical times and eras. Here is a similar usage in the Book of Ruth>>> Ruth 4:[13] So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.[14] And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel.[15] And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.[16] And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.[17] And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David. So, we see that the child was not the BIOLOGICAL son of NAOMI but was her daughter-in-law, RUTH's child. ----But, it was considered "born TO" her to nurture and "born TO" her as a relative/kin.
You know you've won when they resort to personal attacks and start to spam the thread with random, nonsensical bible quotes. Most interesting part is when she said, "Oh, it's 700 companies which is equal to 7000. It is so easy to explain." All like that out of the blue. Company - 62 to 190 soldiers. Squad: 9 to 10. Besides each Syrian chariot had 3 men not 10: an archer, a javelin man (melee) and a driver.
lol....Aint no "personal attacks" involved here. Keita STOLE the word's of a white man as his own and tried to deceive others that it was HIS "research and study." --- So, that is not a "personal attack."----That is being EXPOSED as a LIAR and a FRAUD. HERE IS THE POST (everything in RED, he stole from another site, link is provided) http://destee.com/index.php?threads/can-any-christian-answer-these.72681/page-2#post-752264 This pertains to how many men may have been on a CHARIOT. So, in "your study," how many men are in a "company" of HORSEMEN? ....as in the "cavalry?" ---How many men would be in each group?