"Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?"
Of course not!
Without the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all the other miracles, what do you have left?
How do we know what "Jesus" said? Who recorded the private prayers in the garden of Gethsemane? Who was hiding behind the curtain recording what the Roman Soldiers and the High Priests were saying in private?
There are hundreds of questions you can ask yourself, if you just pay attention.
OK, I'm at about 1:30:00 into the debate. It seems to me that they are essentially having a semantic argument about what constitutes "historically accurate". And quite honestly, it seems to me that Dr Evans (same as other Christians debaters with Dr Ehrman) have a very lax definition that I can only believe comes from the fact that they are not a disinterested party. He has a conflict of interest, IMHO, so he accepts a rather lax and sloppy standard of historicity.
@crucisnh I do find it a bit hard to take seriously someone who says Dr. Evans has a "sloppy standard of historicity". Even though I hold to Evan's view and not Dr, Ehrman, I would never say something silly that a professional historian like Ehrman has a weak view of history. So, what did Evans say that shows his view of historicity is weak? You need to actually quote if you plan to attack a scholar right at the very source of where they make their bread as professionals.
@djwishwon I can't give you specifics without watching the debate again (which I don't mind doing, just not this instant). However, in a general sense, as I recall, my gripe with the people who debate Dr Ehrman on historicity of the NT is that their standards of historical data simply aren't as exacting as Dr Ehrman's, and seem to be left intentionally soft because it supports their view of the NT. If they held to tougher standards, they'd inevitably come to Ehrman's side of things.
@crucisnh Then, for the time being I will suspend judgment on your contention. However, there are a couple of things. One is the Ehrman might have a extremely stringent standard, and might be intentionally hard as it supports his view. From what I have read of his I would have to say you would have to throw away most knowledge of textual history under his criterion he used for the Bible. Two, Evans is a highly respected historical scholar and didn't get that respect by being soft.
@crucisnh Then, for the time being I will suspend judgment on your contention. However, there are a couple of things. One is the Ehrman might have a extremely stringent standard, and might be intentionally hard as it supports his view. From what I have read of his I would have to say you would have to throw away most knowledge of textual history under his criterion he used for the Bible. Two, Evans is a highly respected historical scholar and didn't get that respect by being soft.
Oh god, here come the Muslims thinking that what Ehrman says legitimizes the Quran. How lovely. Why don't you guys go pay attention to scholars who talk about the discrepancies between the Hebrew Bible and the Quran? Why don't you guys go read about how the authors of the Quran confuse basic stories in the Hebrew Bible, like who Saul was and what he did. Why do that right? Just listen to scholars you don't have a problem with, ignore the ones that question your beliefs. Great logic there ;)
@heathsawyer I agree. I have to say that it's a rare thing for me to waste my time on any video where the comments have been disabled. If an uploader isn't willing to accept comments, then I'm not willing to watch.
Of course, how do you expect we're suppose to learn the texts and its sayings without knowing what in language they were originally written in? It only takes a little bit if patience and study to go through that way, in order to learn something, for your own benefit and to everyone. It goes for the all of the orignial texts.
@WichkaChannel Are you quite finished spamming my channel with this nonsense? Please explain how this even remotely connects to the topic of the debate. It doesn't. Use your own channel, make videos, my channel is not your soapbox. Got it?
to say few historical things about the Quran and how it came to us, first the Quran is not the word of Muhammad peace be upon him, once a chapter is revealed to the prophet he orders his scribes to write it down on scrolls and papers, second the companions used to memorize the Quran word bu word in A VERBATIM WAY and that was sth quite normal in their time third Allah challenged the arabs to come up with just a surah like one of the Quran and they didnt and couldnt......
I wanna say just a word, Ehrman was just great he smashed this guy Craig and left him speechless, u now instead of admitting that ur Bible is unreliable historically "so invalid" religiously u started questioning the truthfulness and accuracy of the Quran which by all modern standards the only accurate divine book in the world that has been preserved in its entirety from the time of its revelation up to this moment i want just to remind u that millions of people memorize it word by word it'all!
@iwantyou9944 "iam muslim i just want to say Bart Ehrman very poor historain we muslims discovered this contradictions 100year ago when we start read bible loool "
Pity you are still unable to see the contradictions and absurdities in your fairy tale the Koran.
@zilexxx lol beacuze he fed up with religions after what he saw in christianity lol and we muslims notice this contradictions in bible along long time in ahmed deedat time and even longer if he good scholer why he didnt notice it back then,? beacuze he was blind as you , wake up before the time is up
@iwantyou9944 how the hell didnt you muslims notice all those contradictions in quran lol,how didnt you notice what mohammed was i wont start offending you but sahih hadiths tell us a lot about mohammed and quran as well.and didnt you know that bart ehrman say that the crucifixion of jesus is a fact,hm!
@zilexxx haha there is no one contradiction in quran give me one?, and iam talking about brat not muhmmed peace be upon him , brat is so stupid when we muslims notice this contradictions and he now figered out lol
@iwantyou9944 i can give you twenty ,thirty,whole Surah Kafiroon contradicts the medina verses like fight the unbelievers until all religion is for allah alone ,its a clear contradiction,coming more later!
@iwantyou9944 It is no big surprise that the Qur'an is internally more consistent than the Bible as the Bible was written by various different authors at different times in different places. The Qur'an was written by only one - or one group of authors. Hardly miraculous that it contains no contradication of the sort we find in the Bible.
@87Philips plzzz philip use your mind how in the world that the bible is written by many authors and it from god? god said in quran ((many books that they will say its from god has many contradiction by men made))if it from god they will be no one contradiction in it, the bible that you have it now made by men not god, the bible never once claimed that from god ,none one of the authors said this one from god, and muhmmed never claimed that he wrote it ,and muhmmed cant read and write ,plz think
@iwantyou9944 I am not a Christian and I do not believe that either the Bible or the Quran are from God. Muhammad did not have to read or write to have composed the Qur'an. Many poets from the ancient world were illiterate, but they made up their writings in their head and memorized them and someone else wrote it.
And stop threatening people with eternal torture. It is not impressive it only makes me sick.
@87Philips muhmmed cant produce 1 poem meccan know that muhmmed cant make poem they call him the truthfull and when muhmmed reveled to him the quran meccan told him this words are not normal from where did you bring it? no one of the meccan can produce like it, and one time muhmmed recite chapter from quran all meccan bow down and they didnt feel them self why they bowed you cant know how powerfull it is beacuze its in arabic,enternal torture for who deny god sory i have to warn not to theaten
@iwantyou9944 Many stories surrounding Muhammad are legends. I cannot believe that you accept them as history. You are told that Muhammad recited a part from the Qur'an and everyone bowed and you just believe it. You are told what his enemies said about him and the Qur'an, but you don't really know. It is Muslims telling these stories.
No I cannot read arabic. A bit strange God makes a revelation that most people cannot read, isn't it?
...when the author of John refers to "Jesus" as the "word of God", and has "Jesus" say that he hasn't spoken a single word of his own, but only those he received from his father, or source, this is what he is attempting to convey.
...fulfillment, the fact that "YHWH has sent me" will be confirmed. These comments are used by some in attempts to legitimize the concept of the Christian Trinity, with "Jesus, the son", being the one speaking. The truth is somewhat different. The intention of the author of Zechariah is to convey that the personality making the aforementioned comments is, in fact, the word of YHWH, which is the being responsible or agency which conveys the prophetic messages from YHWH to the prophet. Thus,...
There's another thing about which I don't know whether Dr. Ehrman doesn't realize this, or just chooses not to expound it. The concept of "Jesus" as the "word of God", as in the gospel of John is rooted in the prophetic books of the Tanakh. Especially in the book of Zechariah, there are a few comments occurring within the prophetic messages that have confused people and facilitated false conclusions. These comments are the ones which presage certain events and claim that by way of their...
So according to Ehrman the Gospels are not historically reliable.. Now what about Muhammads quran? Jesus and Moses etc are all mentioned in muhammads quran would the quran be more reliable than from a historal perspective? If Bart had the guts, he would say that the quran is unhistorical rubbish. I hope muslims will realise that before they start jumping up and down in their chairs and can't wait to cut parts out of this debate to promote it
If a couple of alleged contradictions puts to question the historical reliability of the Bible than by the same logic, everything that the Gospels agree on has to account for the historical reliability of the Bible.. and so the question is do these ancient documents (Gospels) agree more than the contradict or not? I think we all know the answer.
Ehrman is such a fool.. if a contradiction between 2 accounts means that one of the 2 accounts has to be false, than what about everything they are inagreement on? What about everything Matthew, Luke etc agree on? That suddenly accounts for nothing? Just because one account says something happened a day before or after doesn't mean the author was intentionally lying or that the rest of his writing was inaccurate.
...to believe that these religious leaders considered the doctrine legitimate, given that they wished to affirm it with a fraudulent text, but that they did not take seriously the idea of their scriptures being "God-breathed" either. Many seem to make the mistake of thinking that religious leaders believe what they preach, whereas they are, in many cases, atheists who use their indoctrination of others to accomplish their very atheistic ends.
Another thing, which Dr. Ehrman has mentioned in other debates but did not delve into the reasoning for, is the alteration of scriptural text by Church authorities. He mentions a scholar (Erasmus?) whom the Church requested that he produce a translation containing a non-existent affirmation of the trinity in the book of John. In response to his challenging them to provide a Greek manuscript containing the aforementioned, they fabricated one. This demonstrates not only that there is no reason...
I do find it frustrating and seemingly deliberately ignorant, that when parallels are to be found, such as in the general concept of a savior who dies while saving, along with some specifics, Christians conclude that "the agents of Satan" have counterfeited the idea. This they do instead of seeing their religion as having been created by the same mystery schools, BTW, who was it that, according to gospel of Matthew received divine guidance to "Jesus's" birthplace? Not Jewish prophets or sages,..
See i think a good case could be made that Jesus never existed at all so Im curious to see what evidence Ehrman presents in his next book. I'd like to see him adress mythra, horus, hercules etc. the antient religions and their god men were very simalar to jesus.
@meganh8093 I think that those parallels may have been created in order to be knocked down to reaffirm the faith in Christianity of those who became concerned that they were valid. They are not necessary to disprove Christianity, and yet, aside from the example of Theophilus, I haven't read or heard of anyone using the real irrefutable evidence.
...were that of the historicized gospels and/or Pauline theology, then we would expect to find things that are not present. For example, the idea of justification by faith, the crucifixion as vicarious atonement and absolutely necessary for the salvation of souls, and the rejection of Tanakh-based theology. What we find instead is theology based essentially completely upon the Tanakh.
His theology is based upon the Tanakh, with a few quotes fro mwhat he calls "the gospel". He attributes the saying "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God" to someone named John, and this saying just so happens to now make up the first couple of verses of the gospel of John. He even mentions the part about marriage, which in the historicized gospels is attributed to "Jesus", yet, he does not mention "Jesus" as having said it. If Theophilus's Christianity...
Theophilus, the bishop, that 's right, BISHOP, of Antioch, wrote a three book apology on the Christian religion in the mid to late second century. He gives the reason why Christians are called Christians. His definition has nothing to do with "Jesus", whom he does not mention at all throughout the three book apology. To clarify, these are not full length books as we think of them. He devotes chapters to righteousness, atonement, and the word of God, and never, ever, ever, ever mentions "Jesus".
Dr. Evans Question: "Why do all these (Biblical) scholars believe this way?"
Answer: Because they bought into it before becoming scholars, and are typically more concerned about the preservation of their faith, than about giving an honest account of Biblical studies findings to the public and/or interpreting them outside the Christian worldview.
I wonder... how would Dr. Evans respond when asked why the majority of Quranic scholars all believe that the Quran is a reliable text, too?
My god, (so to speak). This was like watching the clubbing of a baby seal. It did not seem as though at any point Evans ever stood a chance. He kept up with the oh yea, well my momma can beat up your momma. As he has his arse handed to him.
@jdh501 yeah. the point about how this is what all historians do is they take many stories with loose ends and construct one true story just doesn't apply to the bible. What other example are we seeing all these 'other stories' where they are just 4~ stories in a book without any other outside references? And if there was to be another example of this in another area of historical research, we'd do exactly what Ehrman suggests: place way less certainty in it.
@Arcexey Exactly. The Gospels are not history, they are theological fiction written as propaganda to motivate people into accepting a god-king to replace Roman rule in Judaea.
@Smiling Skeptic: Thanks for offering your commentary under the video so the viewer had their biased altered before watching. P.S. Did you watch this debate other than just record it? Yes, Evans and Ehrman agree on discrepancies in the New Testament. However, discrepancies don't mean something is unreliable. Re-watch Evans' discussion of pedagogy in the ancient world. As well as his discussion of genre. Ehrman was so oversimplified. Because two sources contradict doesn't mean both are wrong!
@gregmonette Well, I paid close enough attention to know that Ehrman never said that if two sources contradict, then both were wrong. He said - repeatedly, and correctly - that both can't be right. At least ONE must be wrong. There's a big difference, and I wouldn't think I'd have to explain that to the moderator. Who's letting their bias in? Both people were answering different questions, and that's a result of a poorly formed question that allowed for two very different interpretations.
@g Ehrman is just defending his layman's presentation that he gives in some of his books & interviews which are filled with half-truths. He knows full well that all the points and issues open up doors to complicated in-depth analysis and matters which Ehrman is just simplifying in a attempt to save face for his layman's audience. I see this is going on on Ehrman's part; over simplifying everything for the people who don't know much about these issues while Evans takes it to the scholarly realm
@un2mensch He does, however, use more grammatical language than Ehrman :) For example, "they both can't be right" means "both are wrong", but "they can't both be right" means "a maximum of only one can be right".
So, Evans agrees that the infancy narratives cannot be counted on as completely reliable, he agrees there are discrepancies among the gospels, and he agrees that many of Jesus' saying are not historical... So why does he argue that they present a reliable picture of Jesus? He seems to just be falsely equating "historical information can be derived from the gospels" with "the gospels are historically reliable." Under that definition we could say that the movie Gladiator is historically reliable.
@antybu86 I would worship russell crowe. Have you seen master and commander? man is a god. imo its proof and evidence.that russell being a god is accurate and correct.
@Jaybird196 There was a weird static fuzzy-pop sound that kept appearing during Evans' opening statement. It got worse and worse, it was consistent with what you'd hear if the battery on his wireless mic decided to crap out in the middle of his presentation. You'll hear a periodic (about 2Hz) electronic interference sound as well. I never saw the techs change out his mic, but they "rebooted" the wireless receiver and it seemed to go away.
@SmilingSkeptic Thank you very much for answering my question. It was kinda' bugging me, and detractracted from Evan's speech. Thankfully, it went away near the middle and end. TBH, I wondered or a moment if it was purposeful. Silly me :) .
@AtheistPowerlifter Just reading "Jesus Interrupted" myself. I've read "God's Problem", "Misquoting Jesus" and "Lost Scriptures". I have "The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot" next on my list, but "Forged" looks really appealing, and he has another book coming out in March, apparently.
@SmilingSkeptic I've read all his books too, Jesus interrupted was my fav. What have you heard about his new book? i couldn't find any info, what's it about?
Hmm .. what kind of a God would give us a book like the New Testament. so full of errors, inconsistencies and contradictions, so open to interpretation? :) ..
Prof Evans: the movie Spiderman also depicts lots of reliable evidence about New York City. Does it mean that Spiderman actually lived, and did those wonderful things? No. The fact the New Testament contains lots of historically correct (and many incorrect) facts, says nothing about the correctness about the details of descriptions of Jesus' life - not to speak of the correctness of the basic idea of Christianity: that he was the Son of God, and his death 'saved' us all.
Oh man - I didn't hear one made by the apologist for the first 18 minutes that I couldn't rebut or refute. Then I turned off the video feeling cheated out of a great debate.
Christian Scholars agree New Testament supports the existence of Jesus shocker! The Tale of Peter Rabbit has never been out of print, so therefore Peter Rabbit exists! The scriptures mention real places, ergo everything they say is true! Wow, wow and wow! Is that the best they can offer? Really?
@SmilingSkeptic I Know that Ehrman is not Christian, however Evans did to all intents and purposes say this in his opening remarks, when he asserts that the dominant view of Christian scholars is that we can know from the New Testament what Jesus said, did and thought and confirms his existence. He says that the Bible is more reliable than other books because it has no gaps in its lineage and states that the Bible is reliable as it mentions real places found by archaeologists.
@TheTomtompiper So we have an appeal to Authority, and appeal to popularity and an assumption that because a text gets some things right it follows that it is entirely reliable. Nothing he said in the rest of the debate undermined his opening remarks, he was very careful even when pushed by Ehrman not to admit to any errors in the Testaments.
@TheTomtompiper Yes. that's pretty much it. Not one of Ehrman's more "stimulating" debates, but it was interesting to see Ehrman's visible frustration when he talked Evans around in circles.
@DaithiMcG I don't understand your question, you need to give me a clue as to what "that" is in order for me to do so. If you can expand on your question or rephrase it I will try to answer it.
These scholars that Evans name-drops in his first speech don't seem to be saying quite what he wants them to say. I know from reading John Maier that he finds many aspects of the New Testament to be of doubtful historicity, and the fact that he says "a careful reading" of the gospels combined with "standards of historicity" is hardly different than how Ehrman approaches them. I question that these scholars would support Evans' view that the New Testament is reliable even on supernatural claims.
@Scarletpooky That's a good summary. Evans can usually speak better than this, I was disappointed that he got lazy and relied on cheap theatrics - Ehrman described it as "slight of hand" - to get his argument out.
@SmilingSkeptic big thing I'm noticing (still on Ehrman) is whereas Evans is saying "listen to what others say" Ehrman says "don't just believe me, check it for yourself"
That's probably the biggest difference between theologans and skeptics.
@Scarletpooky I can say that some in the audience actually were checking it for themselves, right there. The audience was mostly bible-carrying Christians, literally. As he'd give a chapter and verse reference, they'd look it up right then. (to balance out the bibles being wielded, I had my copy of Jesus, Interrupted with me.)
@JesusOrMuhammad yep, read it for yourself not listen to what others tell you they say.
However that does not mean ignore suggestions. ie:
As he says the best way to read them is to read one story and compare how all 4 gospels tell that story rather than read all of one gospel then all of another etc. it's the best way to see the glaring inconsistancies
@Scarletpook And i agree.. but is it really such a big deal if one account says something took place on monday and the other account says it was tuesday? Surely both can't be right but what Ehrman does and haas a tendency of, is that he always exegerates in his conclusions. And a contradiction would certainly qualify as evidence that the text was not copied from the other account.
@JesusOrMuhammad Well given that the stories were passed orally before written down it's understandable that will be some differences but when there are differences no one can claim to know which (if any) of them really happened
Also imo when there are so many inconsistances it puts a huge question mark over the whole thing
@Scarletpooky But thats the thing.. there are not a lot of inconsistancies and they are not that significant as Ehrman tries to make us think. One of them he mentioned was about a difference in day.. i really don't see why that needs to be dramatized the way Ehrman does.
And everything the Gospels agree on has to account for historical reliability than by the same logic that supposedly renders them as historically unreliable..
@Scarletpooky "The ENTIRE story of the resurection is packed with inconsistances"
Well im not aware of them. But i do know that they are certainly packed with agreement in details.
Well, but have u thought about the possibility that for almost if not every alleged contradiction is a explanation which would explain the contradiction away?
If there were really that many inconsistancies than there would be no christian left and certainly no christian scholar.
@JesusOrMuhammad They are not "packed with agreement", the ONLY agreement in the stories of the resurection is that he did resurect. that's it. Every other detail has inconsistancies
How found the tomb open, who was at the tomb, was the tomb already open, what did they see, what were they told, what did they do aferwards. EVERY detail has inconsistancies
@Scarletpooky No every detail has not inconsistancies if u take a timeline into account.. those Gospel accounts narrate about a timeline.. where Matthew gives us details for example of something on 4 pm, Luke has other details right after 4 pm. Again, if u were right that the resurrection acounts are filled with contradictions than how do u explain that there are still millions of christians and christian scholars?
So mary walked up to the tomb, then went home and came back with a friend, then returned home again returning with a group of women. when they got there the tomb was closed, they turned around and when they looked back it was open. the men that had been there had run off and angels had appeared instead. Mary ran off to tell the disciples, then came back to pick up her friend(s) and ran off without telling anyone..??
@JesusOrMuhammad the relevant verses are the resurections story in all 4 gospels.
Read one and write down a list of the main points (who went, what they saw, who was already there, what they did etc), then do the same for the other gospels. writing down the points for all of them. Then compare the 4 lists you have written
@JesusOrMuhammad perhaps you should check the passages they list for yourself like I did ;)
But the problem is that even if there are reason/excuse for why there are inconsistancies we have ZERO way of knowing which version of the story is the one that actually happened (if any of them) and if we have no way of knowing which story is true then we have no rational reason for believing any of them untill we get aditional evidence about which one is accurate
@Scarletpooky Well, i don't agree ofcourse atheists want reasons to disbelieve in God they hate belief in God they think God believers are stupid so they want reasons to reject the Bible. I understand.
If 1 account says something happened monday and the other account says tuesday.. is that really such a big deal? What u want to do like Ehrman is dramatize it to the point of hopeless.
This is limiting ur view on purpose in a way that leads u to reject everything.
@Scarletpooky Also, inconsistancies can be used as evidence that they are independent accounts.. so a couple of real inconsistancies would actually increase reliability of the accounts in light of everything they agree on
@JesusOrMuhammad Your example of the ship. There's logical reasons why the 2 passangers would state different times. Given that there are reasons for the inconsistancy would you believe it sank at 5am? or 4? both? OR would you say "I need more evidence before deciding"
If you said "more evidence" for every bible inconsistance, as well as for every bible passage shown to be inacurate, there's not much left you can say "yes, that's what happened"
@Scarletpooky Does it matter wether it sank on 5 or 4 pm? Is it a big deal? Does it mean one of them is lying on purpose or could there be other reasons? Why does something like that make u doubt if the boat really sank? This is the whole problem consistencies don't nessesary prove anything all it does is that you cannot know for certain which account has it right.. but than u have to look at everything they agree on.. and thats a lot.
@JesusOrMuhammad What Ehrman shows are not all as simple as you suggest. Some are glaring errors in simple aspects of the storytelling of events that show that the accounts in general are not historically accurate. You need a better understanding of accuracy when it comes to historicity. Other discrepancies provide some SERIOUS theological problems such as Jesus's knowledge (or lack of) of the events surrounding his crucifixion. If you don't see these as problems, you are wearing blinders.
@SmilingSkeptic who says they are not historically accurate only because a couple alleged inconsistancies? Just because someone thinks there are theological problems doesnt mean there are. In all the Gospels Jesus knew he was going to the cross and thats what happened. The agreement between the Gospels and Old Testament prophecy is astonishing for those who are not biased and have eyes to see
@JesusOrMuhammad A couple of alleged inconsistencies? May I suggest you actually read the Bible and the scholarship thereof. Its flat out contradictions, falsehoods and known historically inaccurate information that has nothing to do with the bogus field of 'theology'.
Your 'New Testament prophesies' are post hoc rationalizations by early Christians. They were not prophesies at all until desperate Jesus followers made them like that.
@johnycannuk Do i need to remind u that there are plenty of unbiased scholars who were led to believe the Bible? Do i need to remind u that mr ehrman himself was a christian? Its not all black and white like u skeptics think.. Ehrman has a tendency to over simplify complicated or rather issues that lead to more considerations and study.
If the Bible was nonsense no one would study it and no scholar would be christian. But keep believing in YOUR delusions buddy boy
@JesusOrMuhammad Haha, after all we see clearly that the crucifixion is not "historical fact" because the only documents that deal in details with these so-called 'facts' can't even agree which day he was crucified,what time,who found the body and how etc. The foundation of your faith is in essence a contradiction.I think you should seriously start thinking about changing your title to "Jesus and Muhammad or Paul of Tarsus" because Paul is the one who led you into this mess.
@PobjedaIstine And ur retarded quran is reliable? It claims 600 years AFTER JESUS that he wasnt crucified and hey moron , did u know Ehrman is convinced that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact? Ehrman would say that ur quran is unhistorical rubbish.. Keep that in mind before opening ur big mouth.
@JesusOrMuhammad 1. I can see from the way you write that you are not really educated, but anyhow, let me educate you on what the Qur'an really says. 'He was not killed nor crucified but IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM or simlilitude of it was shown to them' etc.That explains why his enemies boasted that the crucifixion happened. But the Qur'an makes it clear that Jesus did not die on the cross. This was never the 'creed' of his followers, but was made into a 'creed' by Paul.
@JesusOrMuhammad O your intelligence is mind blowing. It's so lovely to interact with somebody so well spoken and educated. The Qur'an doesn't say that someone else was made in the image of Jesus, but it is obviously a waste of time to try and explain to you. Your ability to communicate and interact with people is miserable, as evidenced by your comments. Therefore, any open minded person wouldn't have any reason to take your videos seriously. Allahu Akbar. Proud to be Muslim.
@PobjedaIstine Tell Ehrman that ur satan allah deceived everyone according to muhammad 600yrs later by making it seem as if Jesus was being crucified.. i would love to se Ehrman laughing at u in ur face.. if u told him that
@JesusOrMuhammad 2. Bart Ehrman does not deal with miracles, and according to the Qur'an, Jesus was miraculously saved from the cross. Based on this, I'm not expecting him to agree with it, but he still cannot disprove it. The fact that Ehrman and the vast majority of modern scholars are confirming that the statements about the crucfixion and resurrection are full of forgeries and contradictions, is enough to reject Christianity and minimally be neutral towards Islam.
@PobjedaIstine Hahahaha listen to urself silly mohammadan.. keep telling urself this in order to believe in ur false prophet who got all his credentials from the Bible to begin with.. ur muhammad got every Biblical story from HEARSAY u moron. Now get lost i have no time for u.
@JesusOrMuhammad 3. The videos that you have on your channel, and the future videos you will upload, may seem like some sort of evidence to you ('scholar' that you are) but to anybody familar with these topics, they are just bigotry and a pathetic attempt to discredit the character of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). All this, because his life and teachings are testimony to the corruption of the pagan Greco-Roman elite to that of the pure monotheistic teachings of Jesus (pbuh).
@PobjedaIstine The videos on my channel do a very good job at exposing ur false prophet, although he did a pretty good job himself at that.
Imagine what Ehrman would have to say about ur false prophet once he would find out that islam is filled with paganism that influenced Muhammad in 7th century pagan Arabia (i.e black meteorite in the kaaba etc)
@PobjedaIstine Sorry but not everything people say is related to Muhammad somehow. This is a debate about the New Testament not about Islam, which should be obvious.
@djwishwon This comment is no.3 ,comment 1 and 2 are not on the front page.Go on the back and see no.1 and 2 and read it in the context.My comment is the answer to Jesus or Muhammad's comments.Peace.
@JesusOrMuhammad Once you examine the Qur'an and the Bible, you see that every time the Bible contradicts the Qur'an, in the same time it contradicts historical and scientific facts, as well as sound theological concepts. What you do on your channel is cheap propoganda, which has no basis on scholarly approach. Even if you could, by any means, prove Islam wrong (it will never happen) you would still be left with a book (Bible) full of contradictions, absurdities and forgeries.
@PobjedaIstine Ahh, u must be a muslim.. just wait for when Christians are going to make videos using the exact same methods and arguements of Ehrman against ur quran and see what happens.. now ofcourse we have done this already in tons of videos and on websites but just wait.. im already working on a video using Ehrman's methods and criticism against the historical reliability of muhammads quran. Since Ehrman is not going to do it.. we will do it for him. And btw, what u said is nonsense.
@Sockpuppet2012 So what ur saying is that Ehrman is a uneducated fool for studying the Bible?
from all the books u mentioned none of them contains around a 100 fulfilled prophecies except the Bible and which book is historically the most accurate and rich in details and confirmed by archaeology? Thats right the Bible
@JesusOrMuhammad "If there were really that many inconsistancies than there would be no christian left and certainly no christian scholar. "
for most christians it's easy, they don't actually read the bible. those who do don't read it in a way that makes the inconsistancies obvious
As for scholars it's a case of they NEED to believe so they will invent any excuse for why the stories are like that (eg WLC making excuses for the massacre of children in the OT)
@Scarletpooky IF the Gospels contain inconsistancies in almost every detail as u claim, than certainly EVERY Christian that read the Bible would have noticed atleast many of them.
And no Christian in his right mind would believe a book filled with inconsistancies in every detail. That is absurd.. The fact of the matter is that there are probably a couple of inconsistencies but they are no big deal in reality if u consider that they are found in certain details only.
I just tried to give you a link to four HUNDRED sixtyone inconsistancies
An understanding of psychology: conformation bias, need to conform, control of authority etc as well as the simple fact that even today most christians still don't read the bible explains so much
Majority of christians just follow what their preacher tells them and read the bits of the bible their told to read.
@Scarletpooky Ur acting as if there are not many christians that do know the Bible.
Yea "four hundreds" from a anti christian site and what makes u think each one of them is a contradiction? I have looked up tons of explanations for alleged contradictions and read the Bible myself and in all cases i found out there wasn't a contradiction
Again, there are just as many christians who did read the Bible or atleast the Gospels
@Scarletpooky JOM here fails to realize that the reason WHY there are biblical scholars is because the bible IS so inaccurately written that we can't just take it at face value as a historical document and we must apply scholarship to it in order to glean anything halfways significant from it. Someone has to figure out what's reliable and what's not. The mere existence of biblical scholars and their MANY varied opinions speaks to the unreliability of the new testament. It's quite simple, really.
@SmilingSkeptic Even if the Bible had not even variances in the manuscripts we would still not take the Bible as historical accurate simply because we were not there to withness the events. So scholarship is needed anyway. But scholars are forced to use criteria's to determine whats reliable.. although those criteria's might be the best way to determine something, they are not waterproof criteria's
@JesusOrMuhammad People beleive because they want to believe, because they need to believe. So when they come to think and read they are already biassed into accepting that it must be true, they have so much invested that they just refuse to accept they are wrong. people in that mindset will accept any excuse/arguement that justifies their pre-held beliefs
@Scarletpooky If people on board of a ship said that the boat sank on 5 am yesterday & another person said it was 4 am does that mean the boat didn't sank yesterday? No. All it means is that one of the 2 has to be slighly of in narrating a certain detail of what happened yesterday. Ehrman seems to willingly neglect such important considerations
@JesusOrMuhammad You can't be certain of any of the details only the main event ie A ship sank
BUT what if those stories were 2000 yrs old and disagreed on most of the details? eg not just time but name and colour of the ship, why it sank, who was in charge, were other ships around and how many. As well as provably false info eg: the crew list says 'x' name when the ship didn't even have a crew list..
In that case we'd be justified in being skeptical that any ship sank at all
"Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?"
Of course not!
Without the virgin birth, the resurrection, and all the other miracles, what do you have left?
How do we know what "Jesus" said? Who recorded the private prayers in the garden of Gethsemane? Who was hiding behind the curtain recording what the Roman Soldiers and the High Priests were saying in private?
There are hundreds of questions you can ask yourself, if you just pay attention.
Sockpuppet2012 20 hours ago in playlist Liked videos
1:56:06 - Ehrman stops chewing on Evans' sophistry because it is too bitter & distasteful.
1:56:11 - Ehrman puts it back in his mouth because it hurts so good.
myerssa7 2 days ago
evans sounds like kermit the frog!
DoctorFreed 1 week ago
During the Q&A section, Dr Evans seems to be almost, though not quite, filibustering. Certainly, being overly verbose.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
OK, I'm at about 1:30:00 into the debate. It seems to me that they are essentially having a semantic argument about what constitutes "historically accurate". And quite honestly, it seems to me that Dr Evans (same as other Christians debaters with Dr Ehrman) have a very lax definition that I can only believe comes from the fact that they are not a disinterested party. He has a conflict of interest, IMHO, so he accepts a rather lax and sloppy standard of historicity.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh I do find it a bit hard to take seriously someone who says Dr. Evans has a "sloppy standard of historicity". Even though I hold to Evan's view and not Dr, Ehrman, I would never say something silly that a professional historian like Ehrman has a weak view of history. So, what did Evans say that shows his view of historicity is weak? You need to actually quote if you plan to attack a scholar right at the very source of where they make their bread as professionals.
djwishwon 1 week ago
@djwishwon I can't give you specifics without watching the debate again (which I don't mind doing, just not this instant). However, in a general sense, as I recall, my gripe with the people who debate Dr Ehrman on historicity of the NT is that their standards of historical data simply aren't as exacting as Dr Ehrman's, and seem to be left intentionally soft because it supports their view of the NT. If they held to tougher standards, they'd inevitably come to Ehrman's side of things.
crucisnh 1 week ago
@crucisnh Then, for the time being I will suspend judgment on your contention. However, there are a couple of things. One is the Ehrman might have a extremely stringent standard, and might be intentionally hard as it supports his view. From what I have read of his I would have to say you would have to throw away most knowledge of textual history under his criterion he used for the Bible. Two, Evans is a highly respected historical scholar and didn't get that respect by being soft.
djwishwon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crucisnh Then, for the time being I will suspend judgment on your contention. However, there are a couple of things. One is the Ehrman might have a extremely stringent standard, and might be intentionally hard as it supports his view. From what I have read of his I would have to say you would have to throw away most knowledge of textual history under his criterion he used for the Bible. Two, Evans is a highly respected historical scholar and didn't get that respect by being soft.
djwishwon 1 week ago
BTW, I am quite impressed that this 2+ hr debate has had 2100+ views in such a short time.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
Oh god, here come the Muslims thinking that what Ehrman says legitimizes the Quran. How lovely. Why don't you guys go pay attention to scholars who talk about the discrepancies between the Hebrew Bible and the Quran? Why don't you guys go read about how the authors of the Quran confuse basic stories in the Hebrew Bible, like who Saul was and what he did. Why do that right? Just listen to scholars you don't have a problem with, ignore the ones that question your beliefs. Great logic there ;)
AR333 3 weeks ago
ehrman kills
wubbadubdub 3 weeks ago
at least the comments are not disable on this video
heathsawyer 3 weeks ago
@heathsawyer I agree. I have to say that it's a rare thing for me to waste my time on any video where the comments have been disabled. If an uploader isn't willing to accept comments, then I'm not willing to watch.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@87Philips
Of course, how do you expect we're suppose to learn the texts and its sayings without knowing what in language they were originally written in? It only takes a little bit if patience and study to go through that way, in order to learn something, for your own benefit and to everyone. It goes for the all of the orignial texts.
missyuna06 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
WichkaChannel 3 weeks ago
@WichkaChannel Are you quite finished spamming my channel with this nonsense? Please explain how this even remotely connects to the topic of the debate. It doesn't. Use your own channel, make videos, my channel is not your soapbox. Got it?
SmilingSkeptic 3 weeks ago
@SmilingSkeptic :) re u angry ? chill out :D
WichkaChannel 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
to say few historical things about the Quran and how it came to us, first the Quran is not the word of Muhammad peace be upon him, once a chapter is revealed to the prophet he orders his scribes to write it down on scrolls and papers, second the companions used to memorize the Quran word bu word in A VERBATIM WAY and that was sth quite normal in their time third Allah challenged the arabs to come up with just a surah like one of the Quran and they didnt and couldnt......
WichkaChannel 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
WichkaChannel 3 weeks ago
I wanna say just a word, Ehrman was just great he smashed this guy Craig and left him speechless, u now instead of admitting that ur Bible is unreliable historically "so invalid" religiously u started questioning the truthfulness and accuracy of the Quran which by all modern standards the only accurate divine book in the world that has been preserved in its entirety from the time of its revelation up to this moment i want just to remind u that millions of people memorize it word by word it'all!
WichkaChannel 3 weeks ago
That AWFUL crackling microphone sound makes this video just about completely unwatchable.
MagnumDB 1 month ago
@MagnumDB It only lasts a few minutes. I hope you were able to nut up and tough it out and are not permanently scarred by the experience.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago 7
iam muslim i just want to say Bart Ehrman very poor historain we muslims discovered this contradictions 100year ago when we start read bible loool
iwantyou9944 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iwantyou9944 "iam muslim i just want to say Bart Ehrman very poor historain we muslims discovered this contradictions 100year ago when we start read bible loool "
Pity you are still unable to see the contradictions and absurdities in your fairy tale the Koran.
saintpine 1 month ago 2
@iwantyou9944 if bart ehrman starts talking about quran i dont think you would like it much !
zilexxx 1 month ago
@zilexxx lol beacuze he fed up with religions after what he saw in christianity lol and we muslims notice this contradictions in bible along long time in ahmed deedat time and even longer if he good scholer why he didnt notice it back then,? beacuze he was blind as you , wake up before the time is up
iwantyou9944 4 weeks ago
@iwantyou9944 how the hell didnt you muslims notice all those contradictions in quran lol,how didnt you notice what mohammed was i wont start offending you but sahih hadiths tell us a lot about mohammed and quran as well.and didnt you know that bart ehrman say that the crucifixion of jesus is a fact,hm!
zilexxx 4 weeks ago
@zilexxx haha there is no one contradiction in quran give me one?, and iam talking about brat not muhmmed peace be upon him , brat is so stupid when we muslims notice this contradictions and he now figered out lol
iwantyou9944 4 weeks ago
@iwantyou9944 i can give you twenty ,thirty,whole Surah Kafiroon contradicts the medina verses like fight the unbelievers until all religion is for allah alone ,its a clear contradiction,coming more later!
zilexxx 4 weeks ago
@iwantyou9944 It is no big surprise that the Qur'an is internally more consistent than the Bible as the Bible was written by various different authors at different times in different places. The Qur'an was written by only one - or one group of authors. Hardly miraculous that it contains no contradication of the sort we find in the Bible.
87Philips 4 weeks ago
@87Philips plzzz philip use your mind how in the world that the bible is written by many authors and it from god? god said in quran ((many books that they will say its from god has many contradiction by men made))if it from god they will be no one contradiction in it, the bible that you have it now made by men not god, the bible never once claimed that from god ,none one of the authors said this one from god, and muhmmed never claimed that he wrote it ,and muhmmed cant read and write ,plz think
iwantyou9944 4 weeks ago
@iwantyou9944 I am not a Christian and I do not believe that either the Bible or the Quran are from God. Muhammad did not have to read or write to have composed the Qur'an. Many poets from the ancient world were illiterate, but they made up their writings in their head and memorized them and someone else wrote it.
And stop threatening people with eternal torture. It is not impressive it only makes me sick.
87Philips 4 weeks ago
@87Philips muhmmed cant produce 1 poem meccan know that muhmmed cant make poem they call him the truthfull and when muhmmed reveled to him the quran meccan told him this words are not normal from where did you bring it? no one of the meccan can produce like it, and one time muhmmed recite chapter from quran all meccan bow down and they didnt feel them self why they bowed you cant know how powerfull it is beacuze its in arabic,enternal torture for who deny god sory i have to warn not to theaten
iwantyou9944 3 weeks ago
@iwantyou9944 Many stories surrounding Muhammad are legends. I cannot believe that you accept them as history. You are told that Muhammad recited a part from the Qur'an and everyone bowed and you just believe it. You are told what his enemies said about him and the Qur'an, but you don't really know. It is Muslims telling these stories.
No I cannot read arabic. A bit strange God makes a revelation that most people cannot read, isn't it?
87Philips 3 weeks ago
@87Philips "chain of narrators do you know what it mean ?
iwantyou9944 3 weeks ago
@iwantyou9944 no
87Philips 3 weeks ago
@87Philips
so you knew aramaic then, like the original language Jesus(pbuh) spoke : )?The bible was written in greek, did the whole world know that language?
missyuna06 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
87Philips 3 weeks ago
@missyuna06 No but I am not a Christian. Why do you assume that I am?
many Muslims claim that you absolutely have to read and understand the Qur'an in its original language, which to me is a self-defeater
87Philips 3 weeks ago
gospels are not accurate as man is imperfect. Any god using imperfect man rather than writing it himself.....is obviously very dumb and imperfect also
*No one knows the mysteries of the universe. But we do know the bible hasnt a clue either
devante11 1 month ago
...when the author of John refers to "Jesus" as the "word of God", and has "Jesus" say that he hasn't spoken a single word of his own, but only those he received from his father, or source, this is what he is attempting to convey.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
...fulfillment, the fact that "YHWH has sent me" will be confirmed. These comments are used by some in attempts to legitimize the concept of the Christian Trinity, with "Jesus, the son", being the one speaking. The truth is somewhat different. The intention of the author of Zechariah is to convey that the personality making the aforementioned comments is, in fact, the word of YHWH, which is the being responsible or agency which conveys the prophetic messages from YHWH to the prophet. Thus,...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
There's another thing about which I don't know whether Dr. Ehrman doesn't realize this, or just chooses not to expound it. The concept of "Jesus" as the "word of God", as in the gospel of John is rooted in the prophetic books of the Tanakh. Especially in the book of Zechariah, there are a few comments occurring within the prophetic messages that have confused people and facilitated false conclusions. These comments are the ones which presage certain events and claim that by way of their...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
So according to Ehrman the Gospels are not historically reliable.. Now what about Muhammads quran? Jesus and Moses etc are all mentioned in muhammads quran would the quran be more reliable than from a historal perspective? If Bart had the guts, he would say that the quran is unhistorical rubbish. I hope muslims will realise that before they start jumping up and down in their chairs and can't wait to cut parts out of this debate to promote it
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
If a couple of alleged contradictions puts to question the historical reliability of the Bible than by the same logic, everything that the Gospels agree on has to account for the historical reliability of the Bible.. and so the question is do these ancient documents (Gospels) agree more than the contradict or not? I think we all know the answer.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
Ehrman is such a fool.. if a contradiction between 2 accounts means that one of the 2 accounts has to be false, than what about everything they are inagreement on? What about everything Matthew, Luke etc agree on? That suddenly accounts for nothing? Just because one account says something happened a day before or after doesn't mean the author was intentionally lying or that the rest of his writing was inaccurate.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
Comment removed
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
thanks for posting this.
ndjarnag 1 month ago
...to believe that these religious leaders considered the doctrine legitimate, given that they wished to affirm it with a fraudulent text, but that they did not take seriously the idea of their scriptures being "God-breathed" either. Many seem to make the mistake of thinking that religious leaders believe what they preach, whereas they are, in many cases, atheists who use their indoctrination of others to accomplish their very atheistic ends.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
Another thing, which Dr. Ehrman has mentioned in other debates but did not delve into the reasoning for, is the alteration of scriptural text by Church authorities. He mentions a scholar (Erasmus?) whom the Church requested that he produce a translation containing a non-existent affirmation of the trinity in the book of John. In response to his challenging them to provide a Greek manuscript containing the aforementioned, they fabricated one. This demonstrates not only that there is no reason...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
...but Persian, pagan, mystery school magi.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
I do find it frustrating and seemingly deliberately ignorant, that when parallels are to be found, such as in the general concept of a savior who dies while saving, along with some specifics, Christians conclude that "the agents of Satan" have counterfeited the idea. This they do instead of seeing their religion as having been created by the same mystery schools, BTW, who was it that, according to gospel of Matthew received divine guidance to "Jesus's" birthplace? Not Jewish prophets or sages,..
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
See i think a good case could be made that Jesus never existed at all so Im curious to see what evidence Ehrman presents in his next book. I'd like to see him adress mythra, horus, hercules etc. the antient religions and their god men were very simalar to jesus.
meganh8093 1 month ago
@meganh8093 I think that those parallels may have been created in order to be knocked down to reaffirm the faith in Christianity of those who became concerned that they were valid. They are not necessary to disprove Christianity, and yet, aside from the example of Theophilus, I haven't read or heard of anyone using the real irrefutable evidence.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
Evans "the bible is condensed"
if so, why does it waste so much time on useless secondary stories and details?
saintpine 1 month ago
Why is there faint organ music beginning at 1:03:17?
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 I think that was someone's cell phone, if I remember correctly
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic Okay. Just wanted to rule out the possibility of some sort of attempt at psychological manipulation while Dr. Ehrman was speaking.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
...were that of the historicized gospels and/or Pauline theology, then we would expect to find things that are not present. For example, the idea of justification by faith, the crucifixion as vicarious atonement and absolutely necessary for the salvation of souls, and the rejection of Tanakh-based theology. What we find instead is theology based essentially completely upon the Tanakh.
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
His theology is based upon the Tanakh, with a few quotes fro mwhat he calls "the gospel". He attributes the saying "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God" to someone named John, and this saying just so happens to now make up the first couple of verses of the gospel of John. He even mentions the part about marriage, which in the historicized gospels is attributed to "Jesus", yet, he does not mention "Jesus" as having said it. If Theophilus's Christianity...
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
Theophilus, the bishop, that 's right, BISHOP, of Antioch, wrote a three book apology on the Christian religion in the mid to late second century. He gives the reason why Christians are called Christians. His definition has nothing to do with "Jesus", whom he does not mention at all throughout the three book apology. To clarify, these are not full length books as we think of them. He devotes chapters to righteousness, atonement, and the word of God, and never, ever, ever, ever mentions "Jesus".
Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 1 month ago
Dr. Evans Question: "Why do all these (Biblical) scholars believe this way?"
Answer: Because they bought into it before becoming scholars, and are typically more concerned about the preservation of their faith, than about giving an honest account of Biblical studies findings to the public and/or interpreting them outside the Christian worldview.
I wonder... how would Dr. Evans respond when asked why the majority of Quranic scholars all believe that the Quran is a reliable text, too?
muzakgeek 1 month ago
My god, (so to speak). This was like watching the clubbing of a baby seal. It did not seem as though at any point Evans ever stood a chance. He kept up with the oh yea, well my momma can beat up your momma. As he has his arse handed to him.
pumpstations 1 month ago
Craig Evans's "rebuttal" was more like a "surrender". hahaha
jdh501 1 month ago
@jdh501 yeah. the point about how this is what all historians do is they take many stories with loose ends and construct one true story just doesn't apply to the bible. What other example are we seeing all these 'other stories' where they are just 4~ stories in a book without any other outside references? And if there was to be another example of this in another area of historical research, we'd do exactly what Ehrman suggests: place way less certainty in it.
Arcexey 1 month ago in playlist More videos from SmilingSkeptic
@Arcexey Exactly. The Gospels are not history, they are theological fiction written as propaganda to motivate people into accepting a god-king to replace Roman rule in Judaea.
jdh501 1 month ago
@jdh501 I was so drunk when I wrote that I'm surprised it even made sense to you, haha.
Arcexey 1 month ago
@Smiling Skeptic: Thanks for offering your commentary under the video so the viewer had their biased altered before watching. P.S. Did you watch this debate other than just record it? Yes, Evans and Ehrman agree on discrepancies in the New Testament. However, discrepancies don't mean something is unreliable. Re-watch Evans' discussion of pedagogy in the ancient world. As well as his discussion of genre. Ehrman was so oversimplified. Because two sources contradict doesn't mean both are wrong!
gregmonette 1 month ago
@gregmonette Well, I paid close enough attention to know that Ehrman never said that if two sources contradict, then both were wrong. He said - repeatedly, and correctly - that both can't be right. At least ONE must be wrong. There's a big difference, and I wouldn't think I'd have to explain that to the moderator. Who's letting their bias in? Both people were answering different questions, and that's a result of a poorly formed question that allowed for two very different interpretations.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@g Ehrman is just defending his layman's presentation that he gives in some of his books & interviews which are filled with half-truths. He knows full well that all the points and issues open up doors to complicated in-depth analysis and matters which Ehrman is just simplifying in a attempt to save face for his layman's audience. I see this is going on on Ehrman's part; over simplifying everything for the people who don't know much about these issues while Evans takes it to the scholarly realm
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
Evans should be thoroughly ashamed of this effort.
un2mensch 1 month ago
@un2mensch He does, however, use more grammatical language than Ehrman :) For example, "they both can't be right" means "both are wrong", but "they can't both be right" means "a maximum of only one can be right".
un2mensch 1 month ago
So, Evans agrees that the infancy narratives cannot be counted on as completely reliable, he agrees there are discrepancies among the gospels, and he agrees that many of Jesus' saying are not historical... So why does he argue that they present a reliable picture of Jesus? He seems to just be falsely equating "historical information can be derived from the gospels" with "the gospels are historically reliable." Under that definition we could say that the movie Gladiator is historically reliable.
antybu86 1 month ago
@antybu86 I would worship russell crowe. Have you seen master and commander? man is a god. imo its proof and evidence.that russell being a god is accurate and correct.
Arcexey 1 month ago in playlist More videos from SmilingSkeptic
What the hell is that banging sound?
Jaybird196 1 month ago
@Jaybird196 There was a weird static fuzzy-pop sound that kept appearing during Evans' opening statement. It got worse and worse, it was consistent with what you'd hear if the battery on his wireless mic decided to crap out in the middle of his presentation. You'll hear a periodic (about 2Hz) electronic interference sound as well. I never saw the techs change out his mic, but they "rebooted" the wireless receiver and it seemed to go away.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic Thank you very much for answering my question. It was kinda' bugging me, and detractracted from Evan's speech. Thankfully, it went away near the middle and end. TBH, I wondered or a moment if it was purposeful. Silly me :) .
Jaybird196 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic Thanks for uploading this. I am working my way through Ehrman's books. Just finished "jesus interrupted"...good stuff.
AtheistPowerlifter 1 month ago
@AtheistPowerlifter Just reading "Jesus Interrupted" myself. I've read "God's Problem", "Misquoting Jesus" and "Lost Scriptures". I have "The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot" next on my list, but "Forged" looks really appealing, and he has another book coming out in March, apparently.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic I've read all his books too, Jesus interrupted was my fav. What have you heard about his new book? i couldn't find any info, what's it about?
mcarbone80 1 month ago
@mcarbone80 never mind i got through the vid and see what his books going to be about in march thanks.
meganh8093 1 month ago
Ehrman is nice and good evidence, i agree with him
mgodfathersa 1 month ago
Prof Evans: PLEASE stop referring to authority all the time.. Just cite the EVIDENCE!
rubinood 1 month ago
Hmm .. what kind of a God would give us a book like the New Testament. so full of errors, inconsistencies and contradictions, so open to interpretation? :) ..
rubinood 1 month ago
Prof Evans: the movie Spiderman also depicts lots of reliable evidence about New York City. Does it mean that Spiderman actually lived, and did those wonderful things? No. The fact the New Testament contains lots of historically correct (and many incorrect) facts, says nothing about the correctness about the details of descriptions of Jesus' life - not to speak of the correctness of the basic idea of Christianity: that he was the Son of God, and his death 'saved' us all.
rubinood 1 month ago
'Are all of these scholars wrong?' asks Evans rhetorically. Just quote reliable evidence, that's all is needed, Prof Evans.
rubinood 1 month ago
Oh man - I didn't hear one made by the apologist for the first 18 minutes that I couldn't rebut or refute. Then I turned off the video feeling cheated out of a great debate.
Does he seriously do this for a living?
itsjustameme 1 month ago
Thanks for uploading! I wanted to attend, but couldn't make it. This is just as good, but I can drink through the frustration. ;)
jbrydle 1 month ago
Christian Scholars agree New Testament supports the existence of Jesus shocker! The Tale of Peter Rabbit has never been out of print, so therefore Peter Rabbit exists! The scriptures mention real places, ergo everything they say is true! Wow, wow and wow! Is that the best they can offer? Really?
TheTomtompiper 1 month ago
@TheTomtompiper Bart Ehrman is not Christian, and neither one in the debate said this.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic I Know that Ehrman is not Christian, however Evans did to all intents and purposes say this in his opening remarks, when he asserts that the dominant view of Christian scholars is that we can know from the New Testament what Jesus said, did and thought and confirms his existence. He says that the Bible is more reliable than other books because it has no gaps in its lineage and states that the Bible is reliable as it mentions real places found by archaeologists.
TheTomtompiper 1 month ago
@TheTomtompiper So we have an appeal to Authority, and appeal to popularity and an assumption that because a text gets some things right it follows that it is entirely reliable. Nothing he said in the rest of the debate undermined his opening remarks, he was very careful even when pushed by Ehrman not to admit to any errors in the Testaments.
TheTomtompiper 1 month ago
@TheTomtompiper By the way thanks for posting the Video, it was highly entertaining and informative.
TheTomtompiper 1 month ago
@TheTomtompiper Yes. that's pretty much it. Not one of Ehrman's more "stimulating" debates, but it was interesting to see Ehrman's visible frustration when he talked Evans around in circles.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@TheTomtompiper Ah, ok. I see your point now.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@TheTomtompiper: What difference does that make to the evidence of NT reliability?
DaithiMcG 1 month ago
@DaithiMcG I don't understand your question, you need to give me a clue as to what "that" is in order for me to do so. If you can expand on your question or rephrase it I will try to answer it.
TheTomtompiper 1 month ago
These scholars that Evans name-drops in his first speech don't seem to be saying quite what he wants them to say. I know from reading John Maier that he finds many aspects of the New Testament to be of doubtful historicity, and the fact that he says "a careful reading" of the gospels combined with "standards of historicity" is hardly different than how Ehrman approaches them. I question that these scholars would support Evans' view that the New Testament is reliable even on supernatural claims.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
Does the New Testament provide a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?
Does the literature put out by the Church of Scientology provide a reliable portrait of the historical L. Ron Hubbard?
ShadowPa1adin 1 month ago
@ShadowPa1adin
The most intelligent comment on the page!
The first thing I thought of, was:
"Does a painting of Jesus provide an acurate representation of what He looked like?"
It's as stupid a question as "Does the New Testament provide a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?"
Sockpuppet2012 1 day ago
They can't all be right; but they can all be wrong.
iviewthetube 1 month ago
Interesting, although not much I haven't heard before. Thanks for posting.
mwildish 1 month ago
ok so Evans presentation consists of:
Appeals to authority
"the gospels are old so they must be true"
"people who are trying to use archeology to prove the bible is true keep quoting it"
Making excuses for the inconsistances
and ends with another appeal to authority
Scarletpooky 1 month ago 3
@Scarletpooky That's a good summary. Evans can usually speak better than this, I was disappointed that he got lazy and relied on cheap theatrics - Ehrman described it as "slight of hand" - to get his argument out.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic big thing I'm noticing (still on Ehrman) is whereas Evans is saying "listen to what others say" Ehrman says "don't just believe me, check it for yourself"
That's probably the biggest difference between theologans and skeptics.
Scarletpooky 1 month ago 8
@Scarletpooky I can say that some in the audience actually were checking it for themselves, right there. The audience was mostly bible-carrying Christians, literally. As he'd give a chapter and verse reference, they'd look it up right then. (to balance out the bibles being wielded, I had my copy of Jesus, Interrupted with me.)
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky So according to Ehrman we should all read the Gospels and not listen to any scholar right?
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad yep, read it for yourself not listen to what others tell you they say.
However that does not mean ignore suggestions. ie:
As he says the best way to read them is to read one story and compare how all 4 gospels tell that story rather than read all of one gospel then all of another etc. it's the best way to see the glaring inconsistancies
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpook And i agree.. but is it really such a big deal if one account says something took place on monday and the other account says it was tuesday? Surely both can't be right but what Ehrman does and haas a tendency of, is that he always exegerates in his conclusions. And a contradiction would certainly qualify as evidence that the text was not copied from the other account.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad Well given that the stories were passed orally before written down it's understandable that will be some differences but when there are differences no one can claim to know which (if any) of them really happened
Also imo when there are so many inconsistances it puts a huge question mark over the whole thing
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky But thats the thing.. there are not a lot of inconsistancies and they are not that significant as Ehrman tries to make us think. One of them he mentioned was about a difference in day.. i really don't see why that needs to be dramatized the way Ehrman does.
And everything the Gospels agree on has to account for historical reliability than by the same logic that supposedly renders them as historically unreliable..
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad "not a lot of inconsistancies" there's loads. just because he only quoted a few doesn't mean there aren't others.
The ENTIRE story of the resurection is packed with inconsistances.
A large number of the stories in the gospel have inconsistances. (as well as a lot of other examples throughout the bible)
skepticsannotatedbible(dot)com /contra /by_name lists 461 bible contradictions (we're being nice calling them inconsistancies)
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky "The ENTIRE story of the resurection is packed with inconsistances"
Well im not aware of them. But i do know that they are certainly packed with agreement in details.
Well, but have u thought about the possibility that for almost if not every alleged contradiction is a explanation which would explain the contradiction away?
If there were really that many inconsistancies than there would be no christian left and certainly no christian scholar.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad They are not "packed with agreement", the ONLY agreement in the stories of the resurection is that he did resurect. that's it. Every other detail has inconsistancies
How found the tomb open, who was at the tomb, was the tomb already open, what did they see, what were they told, what did they do aferwards. EVERY detail has inconsistancies
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky No every detail has not inconsistancies if u take a timeline into account.. those Gospel accounts narrate about a timeline.. where Matthew gives us details for example of something on 4 pm, Luke has other details right after 4 pm. Again, if u were right that the resurrection acounts are filled with contradictions than how do u explain that there are still millions of christians and christian scholars?
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad "if u take a timeline into account.."
Really?
So mary walked up to the tomb, then went home and came back with a friend, then returned home again returning with a group of women. when they got there the tomb was closed, they turned around and when they looked back it was open. the men that had been there had run off and angels had appeared instead. Mary ran off to tell the disciples, then came back to pick up her friend(s) and ran off without telling anyone..??
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky Im not sure what ur talkin about, perhaps u should post the relevant verses
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad the relevant verses are the resurections story in all 4 gospels.
Read one and write down a list of the main points (who went, what they saw, who was already there, what they did etc), then do the same for the other gospels. writing down the points for all of them. Then compare the 4 lists you have written
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky Perhaps u should look up the answer to that alleged contradiction before swallowing it blindy from that site u posted
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad perhaps you should check the passages they list for yourself like I did ;)
But the problem is that even if there are reason/excuse for why there are inconsistancies we have ZERO way of knowing which version of the story is the one that actually happened (if any of them) and if we have no way of knowing which story is true then we have no rational reason for believing any of them untill we get aditional evidence about which one is accurate
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky Well, i don't agree ofcourse atheists want reasons to disbelieve in God they hate belief in God they think God believers are stupid so they want reasons to reject the Bible. I understand.
If 1 account says something happened monday and the other account says tuesday.. is that really such a big deal? What u want to do like Ehrman is dramatize it to the point of hopeless.
This is limiting ur view on purpose in a way that leads u to reject everything.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky Also, inconsistancies can be used as evidence that they are independent accounts.. so a couple of real inconsistancies would actually increase reliability of the accounts in light of everything they agree on
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad Your example of the ship. There's logical reasons why the 2 passangers would state different times. Given that there are reasons for the inconsistancy would you believe it sank at 5am? or 4? both? OR would you say "I need more evidence before deciding"
If you said "more evidence" for every bible inconsistance, as well as for every bible passage shown to be inacurate, there's not much left you can say "yes, that's what happened"
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky Does it matter wether it sank on 5 or 4 pm? Is it a big deal? Does it mean one of them is lying on purpose or could there be other reasons? Why does something like that make u doubt if the boat really sank? This is the whole problem consistencies don't nessesary prove anything all it does is that you cannot know for certain which account has it right.. but than u have to look at everything they agree on.. and thats a lot.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad What Ehrman shows are not all as simple as you suggest. Some are glaring errors in simple aspects of the storytelling of events that show that the accounts in general are not historically accurate. You need a better understanding of accuracy when it comes to historicity. Other discrepancies provide some SERIOUS theological problems such as Jesus's knowledge (or lack of) of the events surrounding his crucifixion. If you don't see these as problems, you are wearing blinders.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic who says they are not historically accurate only because a couple alleged inconsistancies? Just because someone thinks there are theological problems doesnt mean there are. In all the Gospels Jesus knew he was going to the cross and thats what happened. The agreement between the Gospels and Old Testament prophecy is astonishing for those who are not biased and have eyes to see
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad A couple of alleged inconsistencies? May I suggest you actually read the Bible and the scholarship thereof. Its flat out contradictions, falsehoods and known historically inaccurate information that has nothing to do with the bogus field of 'theology'.
Your 'New Testament prophesies' are post hoc rationalizations by early Christians. They were not prophesies at all until desperate Jesus followers made them like that.
johnycannuk 1 month ago
@johnycannuk Thats ur spin on it
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad No my son, that is a fact. Not my problem if you won't accept it and follow the evidence.
Enjoy your silly delusion, just try not to be surprised or offended when people laugh at you and scorn you for believing such nonsense.
johnycannuk 1 month ago
@johnycannuk Do i need to remind u that there are plenty of unbiased scholars who were led to believe the Bible? Do i need to remind u that mr ehrman himself was a christian? Its not all black and white like u skeptics think.. Ehrman has a tendency to over simplify complicated or rather issues that lead to more considerations and study.
If the Bible was nonsense no one would study it and no scholar would be christian. But keep believing in YOUR delusions buddy boy
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad Haha, after all we see clearly that the crucifixion is not "historical fact" because the only documents that deal in details with these so-called 'facts' can't even agree which day he was crucified,what time,who found the body and how etc. The foundation of your faith is in essence a contradiction.I think you should seriously start thinking about changing your title to "Jesus and Muhammad or Paul of Tarsus" because Paul is the one who led you into this mess.
PobjedaIstine 1 month ago
@PobjedaIstine And ur retarded quran is reliable? It claims 600 years AFTER JESUS that he wasnt crucified and hey moron , did u know Ehrman is convinced that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact? Ehrman would say that ur quran is unhistorical rubbish.. Keep that in mind before opening ur big mouth.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad 1. I can see from the way you write that you are not really educated, but anyhow, let me educate you on what the Qur'an really says. 'He was not killed nor crucified but IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM or simlilitude of it was shown to them' etc.That explains why his enemies boasted that the crucifixion happened. But the Qur'an makes it clear that Jesus did not die on the cross. This was never the 'creed' of his followers, but was made into a 'creed' by Paul.
PobjedaIstine 1 month ago
@PobjedaIstine Yea right ur Allah made someone look like Jesus and u believe those lies of ur satan allah
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad O your intelligence is mind blowing. It's so lovely to interact with somebody so well spoken and educated. The Qur'an doesn't say that someone else was made in the image of Jesus, but it is obviously a waste of time to try and explain to you. Your ability to communicate and interact with people is miserable, as evidenced by your comments. Therefore, any open minded person wouldn't have any reason to take your videos seriously. Allahu Akbar. Proud to be Muslim.
PobjedaIstine 1 month ago 2
@PobjedaIstine Tell Ehrman that ur satan allah deceived everyone according to muhammad 600yrs later by making it seem as if Jesus was being crucified.. i would love to se Ehrman laughing at u in ur face.. if u told him that
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad 2. Bart Ehrman does not deal with miracles, and according to the Qur'an, Jesus was miraculously saved from the cross. Based on this, I'm not expecting him to agree with it, but he still cannot disprove it. The fact that Ehrman and the vast majority of modern scholars are confirming that the statements about the crucfixion and resurrection are full of forgeries and contradictions, is enough to reject Christianity and minimally be neutral towards Islam.
PobjedaIstine 1 month ago 2
@PobjedaIstine Hahahaha listen to urself silly mohammadan.. keep telling urself this in order to believe in ur false prophet who got all his credentials from the Bible to begin with.. ur muhammad got every Biblical story from HEARSAY u moron. Now get lost i have no time for u.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad 3. The videos that you have on your channel, and the future videos you will upload, may seem like some sort of evidence to you ('scholar' that you are) but to anybody familar with these topics, they are just bigotry and a pathetic attempt to discredit the character of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). All this, because his life and teachings are testimony to the corruption of the pagan Greco-Roman elite to that of the pure monotheistic teachings of Jesus (pbuh).
PobjedaIstine 1 month ago 6
@PobjedaIstine The videos on my channel do a very good job at exposing ur false prophet, although he did a pretty good job himself at that.
Imagine what Ehrman would have to say about ur false prophet once he would find out that islam is filled with paganism that influenced Muhammad in 7th century pagan Arabia (i.e black meteorite in the kaaba etc)
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@PobjedaIstine pbuh wtf ruh lol tgif
iamasickman 2 weeks ago
@PobjedaIstine Sorry but not everything people say is related to Muhammad somehow. This is a debate about the New Testament not about Islam, which should be obvious.
djwishwon 1 week ago
@djwishwon This comment is no.3 ,comment 1 and 2 are not on the front page.Go on the back and see no.1 and 2 and read it in the context.My comment is the answer to Jesus or Muhammad's comments.Peace.
PobjedaIstine 1 week ago
@PobjedaIstine "can't even agree which day he was crucified"
answering - islam.org / Cross / crucifixion - day.html
Enjoy.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad Once you examine the Qur'an and the Bible, you see that every time the Bible contradicts the Qur'an, in the same time it contradicts historical and scientific facts, as well as sound theological concepts. What you do on your channel is cheap propoganda, which has no basis on scholarly approach. Even if you could, by any means, prove Islam wrong (it will never happen) you would still be left with a book (Bible) full of contradictions, absurdities and forgeries.
PobjedaIstine 1 month ago
@PobjedaIstine Ahh, u must be a muslim.. just wait for when Christians are going to make videos using the exact same methods and arguements of Ehrman against ur quran and see what happens.. now ofcourse we have done this already in tons of videos and on websites but just wait.. im already working on a video using Ehrman's methods and criticism against the historical reliability of muhammads quran. Since Ehrman is not going to do it.. we will do it for him. And btw, what u said is nonsense.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusOrMuhammad
"Do i need to remind u that there are plenty of unbiased scholars who were led to believe the Bible?"
That's "Appeal to Authority"
" Do i need to remind u that mr ehrman himself was a christian?"
Until he studied the Bible, and "saw the light"!
Sockpuppet2012 2 weeks ago
@JesusOrMuhammad
"If the Bible was nonsense no one would study it and no scholar would be christian"
If the Quran was nonsense.....
If the Book of Mormon......
If the Bhagavad Gita.....
If the Tao Te Ching.....
That's "Appeal to Popularity"
Sockpuppet2012 2 weeks ago
@Sockpuppet2012 So what ur saying is that Ehrman is a uneducated fool for studying the Bible?
from all the books u mentioned none of them contains around a 100 fulfilled prophecies except the Bible and which book is historically the most accurate and rich in details and confirmed by archaeology? Thats right the Bible
JesusOrMuhammad 2 weeks ago
@Sockpuppet2012 All scholars including Ehrman were stupid fools for taking a Bible study for years?
JesusOrMuhammad 2 weeks ago
@JesusOrMuhammad ok, I think we''ve reached an impass here, we're repeating ourselves. Also it's 2:30 am and I'm really tired.
We obviously not going to agree so let's just end it here. It's been fun but I really need sleep
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad "If there were really that many inconsistancies than there would be no christian left and certainly no christian scholar. "
for most christians it's easy, they don't actually read the bible. those who do don't read it in a way that makes the inconsistancies obvious
As for scholars it's a case of they NEED to believe so they will invent any excuse for why the stories are like that (eg WLC making excuses for the massacre of children in the OT)
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky IF the Gospels contain inconsistancies in almost every detail as u claim, than certainly EVERY Christian that read the Bible would have noticed atleast many of them.
And no Christian in his right mind would believe a book filled with inconsistancies in every detail. That is absurd.. The fact of the matter is that there are probably a couple of inconsistencies but they are no big deal in reality if u consider that they are found in certain details only.
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad "probably a couple of inconsistencies"
I just tried to give you a link to four HUNDRED sixtyone inconsistancies
An understanding of psychology: conformation bias, need to conform, control of authority etc as well as the simple fact that even today most christians still don't read the bible explains so much
Majority of christians just follow what their preacher tells them and read the bits of the bible their told to read.
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky Ur acting as if there are not many christians that do know the Bible.
Yea "four hundreds" from a anti christian site and what makes u think each one of them is a contradiction? I have looked up tons of explanations for alleged contradictions and read the Bible myself and in all cases i found out there wasn't a contradiction
Again, there are just as many christians who did read the Bible or atleast the Gospels
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky JOM here fails to realize that the reason WHY there are biblical scholars is because the bible IS so inaccurately written that we can't just take it at face value as a historical document and we must apply scholarship to it in order to glean anything halfways significant from it. Someone has to figure out what's reliable and what's not. The mere existence of biblical scholars and their MANY varied opinions speaks to the unreliability of the new testament. It's quite simple, really.
SmilingSkeptic 1 month ago
@SmilingSkeptic Even if the Bible had not even variances in the manuscripts we would still not take the Bible as historical accurate simply because we were not there to withness the events. So scholarship is needed anyway. But scholars are forced to use criteria's to determine whats reliable.. although those criteria's might be the best way to determine something, they are not waterproof criteria's
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad People beleive because they want to believe, because they need to believe. So when they come to think and read they are already biassed into accepting that it must be true, they have so much invested that they just refuse to accept they are wrong. people in that mindset will accept any excuse/arguement that justifies their pre-held beliefs
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusOrMuhammad "is it really such a big deal if one account says something took place on monday and the other account says it was tuesday?"
Yes, it's a big deal; it's a huge flashing neon sign, that says:
"THIS IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD!!!"
Sockpuppet2012 1 day ago
@Scarletpooky If people on board of a ship said that the boat sank on 5 am yesterday & another person said it was 4 am does that mean the boat didn't sank yesterday? No. All it means is that one of the 2 has to be slighly of in narrating a certain detail of what happened yesterday. Ehrman seems to willingly neglect such important considerations
JesusOrMuhammad 1 month ago
@JesusOrMuhammad You can't be certain of any of the details only the main event ie A ship sank
BUT what if those stories were 2000 yrs old and disagreed on most of the details? eg not just time but name and colour of the ship, why it sank, who was in charge, were other ships around and how many. As well as provably false info eg: the crew list says 'x' name when the ship didn't even have a crew list..
In that case we'd be justified in being skeptical that any ship sank at all
Scarletpooky 1 month ago