A true apologist would try to be a good historian. I'm not saying that all apologists are good historians, many of them are blatant evangelists as you say, but the goal of a good apoligist is to support his religion but through logical fact-based study and argument. You saying all apologists are only evangelists is stereotyping, something which I detest
@Sphenna1068 - I do not think you detest stereotyping as much as you think. You may commit such actions and not even know it. For who would you personally believe to be more convincing on the birth of Christ or say the miracles, as a believer? The Apologist or the Historian?
@wayman29 Apologist and Historian are not mutually exclusive. I know of people who became apologists (subsequently after becoming Christians for the same reason) BECAUSE OF their historical study.
@TheFunkyTheist - That's because it was not history they were studying but Apologetics. And they didn't even know it. You were going to name Art Strobel as an example.
@wayman29 No, actually, I'm not talking about Strobel. I disagree with most of Strobel's 'scholarship' such as his early dating of the gospels/Acts, his die-for-a-lie argument and so on. I am simply pointing out that there are historical cases to be made for, say, the resurrection. History does not exclude apologetics. And apologetics is not limited to Strobely. You may disagree with apologetics, but that doesn't give you the right to say it's not methodological history in some cases (Wright).
You said, "The only thing worse then an agnostic bible scholar is an evangelist disguised as a historian." my question is who is the evangelist disguised as historian? Also, what happened to the debate between Dr Ehrman and dr Oakley? Did it get canceled?
historians are: people who are authorities on history and who study it and write about it. They base their studies on find "evidence"
Aplologist: "A person who produces an intellectual defense of the Christian faith, in either oral or written form" BUT it "isn't based on evidence" although they try to make it appear as it does!
In my opinion, the historian is the more honest person as they're held accountable by other historians! Where as apologists have free rein!
An example: Benny Hinn(worth 200+ million dollars)is an apologist! I believe Pat Robertson(worth 300 million plus he owns a diamond mine in africa)also is an apologist!
@holypsychopath What proof do you have that their god isn't blessing them with millions for being good servants? It says in the good book ask and you shall receive.
@mythicalhell THEY ARE FRAUDS AND HYPOCRITS. Ask and you shall recieve is for christians one must be a part of the orthodox communion to get this blessing. Hinn is an apostate from the Orthodox church of Antioch under Ignatius
@mythicalhell The Holy Spirit goes where HE wills, And G-d can do what he wants and give what he wants to whom ever but the short answer is Yes, only the orthodox. But I will say anyone baptized in the name of the trinity is a christian so long that they cling to what is true and reject the frauds. Peace to you
@holypsychopath Oh, so the holy spirt is a "male?" Interesting a "male" god how sexist! So, where's his wife? Well, there's FAAAARRRR too much wrong with your version of religion for me and many, many others to buy into it! For example: The concept of an eternal hell, a divine christ, etc, etc. Anyway, enough said!
@mythicalhell how is it sexist? The he is to convey a personal force, not an impersonal. Many times the holy spirit is "she". the word NUMA/spirit is female. You know nothing about orthodoxy. In orthodoxy there is no such place as hell. hELL DOES NOT EXIST IN ORTHODOXY but as for fairy tales. I defend history. I am a fallen christian. I am actually a Laveyian Satanist, an Atheist. I believe in truth. Check out my videos on religion and you will see what I believe.
@mythicalhell why not? I begin to feel the peace and happiness you extend to me is sarcastic. Are you not interested in all points of view even if they are leftist, as mine are?
@wayman29; Unless there's a punchline here (and I'm kinda hoping there *is* one) - a Historian studies the socially-constructed myth of history (i.e. history is written by the victors), while an apologist attempts to extrapolate reasons to justify *any belief at all* in his myth/mythos.
@wayman29 wrote: "An apologist is nothing more then an evangelist disguised as a historian." Oooh, that's a *great* quote. Hope you don't mind if I steal.... er, borrow it, now and then.... ;D
@wayman29 a few questions...1) so..where was the spoiler 2) did you actually watch the debate between White and Ehrman 3) why not call in the dividing line and talk to James about how he doesn't "think critically" about his system... I would say the same thing about this video that you said about the debate with craig. nothing was learned, nothing was actually even said.
@Follower172 - I posted this video a month before they had the debate. I will not call into the dividing line because White deals with people rather unfairly on his show. I have see the videos. Sorry it took three months to respond..LOL.
Sounds like your not happy that Ehrman is going to face another challenge. Your commentary on the Craig / Ehrman debate clearly shows your bias. That certainly does not come as a surprise to me. Watching the debates is educational. Not everyone is well studied. I always want to get both sides of an issue because it reveals the strengths and weakness in the arguments.
Ehrman's world view is shaped by his "straw man" Christianity. He was warped when he claims that he was a Christian. I mean by that that his view of Jesus and the Bible was warped in his childhood somewhere. I don't think he can undo all that in his past. I feel for him honestly.
@nighthawk7878 Specious argument and a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. Same crap is hurled by "Catholic apologists" at former Catholics who become Evangelicals: "you never really KNEW your faith, otherwise you'd have never left it."
@BenAliGtor Have you read and listened closely to his explanation of his faith experience? I have. I said that I feel for him because I do. He got bad data in his high school environment and as best I can gather he lives a rather bland like now.
@BenAliGtor You may be judging a man you don't even know. There is something else to say for knowledge, discernment, and wisdom. I don't see Ehrman using any of the above wisely. He makes errors in his books and he does not correct them. He wrongly interprets passage but he doesn't care. He is an unfortunate model for a scholar. Yes I have read his books and there is some scholarship there but also misinterpretation.
@nighthawk7878 Jesus behind every OT word is not a misinterpretation?? Flavoring hebrew literature with Christian theology and passing it off as history is not a misinterpretation? Ehrman is accredited.
The problem I have with Bart Ehrman, unlike what you think, is that he comes to the biblical text with a theological bias. You think that Ehrman has an ability to "think" without bias? Freedom to change his mind? Really? Then I guess his book "God's problem" which is filled with theological bias doesn't really exist, right?
Ehrman cannot get beyond the "we don't have the originals" argument even though this hasn't stopped the vast majority of Christians from believing in Scripture.
Dejan2116-"even though this hasn't stopped the vast majority of Christians from believing in Scripture. " He did not plan on people to stop believing. And no, we do not have the originals. Looking at religion through a historical perspective rather then a particular theological historical perspective is refreshing. What is exegesis? Which theological historical perspective is correct? Muslim? Mormon? Christian? What happens when the theology changes?
Wayman, NOBODY is able to look at historical evidence without first interpreting the evidence through a particular bias about the nature of reality; EVERYONE has a bias when studying ANYTHING, including the study for the "originals" of the New Testament. If you think studying theology "historically" eliminates bias then you have bought into the myth of neutrality. Ehrman didn't plan on people to not believe? Then why doe she say the Bible cannot be inspired in light of textual variation?
@Dejan2116 "Then why doe she say the Bible cannot be inspired in light of textual variation?" simply because there are variations. Theology tells them that Gods word never changes. "bought into the myth of neutrality." no I have just seen just how unreliable exegesis is when interpreting history.
@Waynmen, What if God inspired his word in a different way, a way that would spread the text far and wide as fast as possible through a wide range of copies so that everyone would hear the gospel? What if God chose to keep textual variation in the textual tradition in order to prevent the text from being changed by some controlled wholesale editing process? i.e. in this way God's word never changes? If so, then the Bible could still be inspired in light of textual variation.
@Dejan2116 This comment has been de-spammed. Sorry that happened. Theology leaves no room for what if's. sorry It's either Orthodox according to the belief system or not. In the secular world the historian that could be seen as hypothesis based on supporting evidence. Apologists are not historians. They are missionaries of a belief system and therefore have to defend that belief system, right or wrong. If you think I am wrong just think of the apologists from religions other then your own.
My argument that the variation in the manuscripts is perfectly consistent with inspiration actually accounts for the early, wide and diverse transmission of the New Testament documents. Furthermore, my argument is as much a "what if" as Bart Ehrman's is, since Ehrman must also define what "God's word never changes" means-- while he takes this to mean every dot of a document cannot be changed by any scribe or it cannot be inspired (a radical skeptics position) I say the opposite.
@Dejan2116 you are right! and Ehrman generally does not reveal anything to us that has not been known for over 50 years. His comes on as someone just interested in history but views that history with extreme bias, though he comes off as "just the facts mam" kinda guy. He is far from that with errors, bias, distortions and out-of-mainstream interpretation.
This was marked as spam by a devout fan club of "Dr. James" If we all knew Greek we would be able to see right though the smoke screen. Your comment has been de-spammed! Thanks for your input!
He mentioned the Quran because that is the area he feels most comfortable in. when he reverts to discussing topics of Quran in a debate where is would not belong it is a good sign he is treading water. A Greek speaking YouTuber did a video on this topic and the same issue you discussed his name on here is ReligionFreeDeist.
Myth is only more true in reality when the one believing in myth is willing to close their eyes to reality! I do like Bart Erhman and am SO glad he's tried to inform people of the ignorance which runs ramped in the Christian community!
I don't get it. Why do Christians like Bruce Meztger, Raymond E. Brown, and Craig Blomberg like Ehrman's work while Lee Strobel and James White hate his works? Oh yeah! Textual critics are in general agreement on certain issues and apologists don't like that. Now, Blomberg has said he feels Ehrman has an axe to grind, but still found the information in MISQUOTING JESUS to be vary accurate and on the money.
Where do you get the idea that a Christian can't change his mind? In the past I've lived an unbiblical life, I've "changed my mind". Meaning I've done almost everything that the bible tells us not to do. I like my life better as a Christian.
What kind of canoe requires you to paddle on one side...? I'm so confused. How will I ever know theology if I can't even figure that out. Wait, I'm still watching. There seems to be a constant pull to the left. Is it wind? Perhaps a mild current? I guess it doesn't matter. Oh well.
James White is an ignorant bigot. Granted, an educated ignorant bigot, but still an evil, hateful man. Anybody that follows him and his "church" is missing all truths.
Ah but when it comes to religion some hypothesis are better then others. You find the same "truths" in the Hindu texts. So why not use them also. What is the difference between an evangelist and a historian?
"But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pritha—for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death." Gita 12: 6-7
"Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy—all these various qualities of living beings are created by Me alone." Gita 10:4-5
"There are three gates leading to this hell—lust, anger and greed. Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation of the soul." Gita 16:21
Dr. James White does need the publicity to defend his creedentials. Colombia Seminary School (where he got his doctorate) is a single office of a small business building and does not follow the rules that other accredited theological schools are required to follow. Bart Ehrman is agnostic because he felt what his researched demonstrated (from the New Testament) crontridicted his prior Evangelical Christian beliefs.
Guys like Dr. Oakley are restained by theology, they are freed by it. This video is so much like many others, and the thesis goes something like this: There is no God, and anybody who disagrees with the latest atheist apologetics has lost his mind and can't escape the locked box of absurd religious systems. My response: yawn.
You are talking about the assumed conversation from the theological world view. What need is honesty when one paints history with theological coloring.. In that case which historical theology is right? Every belief system says OURS. Islam as apologetics also... What do we do with them. I'm not interested in Christology but the historical Jesus. .Give me three ways theology frees research as far as finding true historical data... My response also: yawn.
Yes Erhman does have the freedom to change because he stands for nothing. His job depends on presenting something new at all cost (true or false). And if you are a Christian apologist than your arguments must be consistent and if they are not than what r u defending? If you are flip flopping your position then you are not an apologist, rather you are more of a liberal college professor.
Do you realize that if you hold to an orthodox Christian view that you in reality are not conforming to the norm. Dr. Erhman is the one who is tied down not Dr. White. If Dr. Erhman was to say anything that may undermine the liberal view he holds to he would have the entire liberal world crashing down on him. Just look at what they attempted to do to C.S. Lewis when he changed his mind.
"He tells it o'er and o'er but still in vain for they beg to hear it once again.
The hearer on the speakers mouth depends; and thus the tragic story never ends."
Aeneid Book 4 line 111-115 (some parts edited to fit the context..80) Read it for yourself and don't depend on the speakers mouth. Then you will know who has the best theories.
I take issue with the assertion that Ehrman is "not in the confines of a belief system". One thing that did get demonstrated in that debate is that he is just as wedded to his presuppositions as White is - which was White's point from the beginning. They both interacted with the same evidence, and yet had two entirely different conclusions due to different suppositional worldviews.
And for the record, White has easily enough knowledge in the field of textual criticism to debate meaningfully.
I'm assuming you mean "apologist", but the fact is White has authored two books on the subject.
Are you as irate that Daniel Wallace debated Bart Ehrman, too - or is it just that if White is working as an apologist that that mere fact invalidates everything he has to say? But White has no fewer presuppositions regarding the text of scripture than Ehrman does.
va3svd-Are you as irate that Daniel Wallace debated Bart Ehrman, too - or is it just that if White is working as an apologist that that mere fact invalidates everything he has to say" Behind every apologist there is a theology. So I would expect history to have it wrong most of the time. I just why Ehrman wastes his time debating..
Ehrman has room for error... The theology does not. It must be terrible to be under such pressure while trying to research. As I said before anyone can write a book. Everyone is an expert at something..;0)
Fine, anybody in this day and age can get published. We all know that. However, White has at least shown himself conversant and competent in the field, has he not? I think he has.
You're acting as though only some researchers are under the "pressure" of having presuppositions, namely, apologists. but Ehrman has his own pressure, his anti-Christian belief system which he refuses to even interact with meaningfully.
"but Ehrman has his own pressure, his anti-Christian belief system which he refuses to even interact with meaningfully. " It seems all the pressure comes from the theology department. I'm not upset about the debate you mention. However, Daniel Wallace is a spokes person for the Evangelical movement eventhough he is much more capable then White.. I would trust Raymond Brown over both if I wanted to read Christian scholars.
Oh, I see what you're saying....if you're an evangelical then you have no business stating your beliefs in public or attempting to justify them, and are just supposed to let everybody tee off on your beliefs without response. You're taking issue with evangelicals who deign to defend their own beliefs in a scholarly setting.
I'm sorry if that's not a fair representation of what you're stating, but it's hard not to think that when you shrug at Ehrman's presuppositions but condemn White's.
"Oh, I see what you're saying.." No what I am saying is that if one has theological convictions then one should be honest at the start, rather then posing as a historian.They are all theological and historical theories. Some are better then others.Teeing off without being allowed a response is practiced by both sides.
Right, and BArt Ehrman would tell you that one of the greatest living textual critics and greek expert as well as historian happens to be an evangelist names Daniel B. Wallace.
Wow--did Ehrman ever kick White's ass. He tried his red-herring of Islam, and he couldn't date one manuscript before 100 Ad. Ehrman made White look like an ass. White has such a negative attitute too. Just listen to how he tries to spin the debate. "that's just the way liberals are" in reference to Ehrman's "non=preparatioon" of White. He seems really offended that he didn't spend money on White's books. Why shoudl he? It's his field. He know the propaganda from the right.
He did date the mansucript on his blog, Ehrman was given the info, and made an error about it. Check out the blog and the follow up. Ehrman's point was wrong. Ehrmans point about Galatians being late was proven to be ridiculous as Ehrman quotes from much later sources! Sorry, but James White won that debate.
It's obvious you get your facts the same place White gets his:out your butt. White admits on his blog that he couldn't answer Ehrman's question about earlier manuscripts. It's right there on his blog. So if White fails to answer the most crucial question about earlier manuscripts, it's impossible to give him the debate. No rebuttal=lost debate. Remember to use logic when responding. 1+1=3 only for the Trininty.
he does not say that, he just did not have the list handy, but he did provide it and Ehrman has since responded to the list and James White further responded. So NO, Ehrman was incorrect. Ehrman's whole thing falls apart when one realized that all our ancient writings are of Late origin, much, much later than anything the New Testament offers, yet we are quoting from such.
I am not sure if you understand Barts position, and I don't think it is your fault. Its Barts, he is purposely being very loose and vague with certain facts. The reason Bart was so angry in the debate was he lost , and all he could was appeal to his own authority, or say things like "these things matter", which obviously they do else there would not be a debate!
I am not a big James White fan, I disagree with a lot of what he has to say, but clearly he was mispresented and clearly he won.
I understand Bart's position, and no, White didn't win the debate. The reason White throws in Islam and his own theory of textual origns is because he has no experience working with original texts, which Bart does. Bart wasn't angry. And no, White himself says he looked like an idiot for not being able to think of a response to Erhman. His argument of non existent whole Bible text is irrefutable, and White has no rebuttal. Who cares about other texts. We are talking about the Bible. Ra Ra Ra
This is what White says: "One other item. Ehrman asked me to cite all 12 papyri manuscripts that can be dated to within 100 years of the writing of the New Testament. I knew where my list was in a print book, but forgot totally that I had the same book in my Libronix library! I could have pulled the list in 20 seconds had I remembered that. I have been kicking myself for that all morning once I realized how quickly I could have accessed the information. "
here is what White says, "One other item. Ehrman asked me to cite all 12 papyri manuscripts that can be dated to within 100 years of the writing of the New Testament. I knew where my list was in a print book, but forgot totally that I had the same book in my Libronix library! I could have pulled the list in 20 seconds had I remembered that. I have been kicking myself for that all morning once I realized how quickly I could have accessed the information."
I guess you are just blind. In other words, White was unable to answer Ehrman's question in the debate. Whether he could answer it at home on his computer is irrelevant. He couldn't remember it. He couldn't answer Ehrman. He lost the debate. White can't hole a candle to Ehrman. White has never published one article in any peer reviewed journal about textual criticism. So where do I get my facts? Perhaps I get them from White's Libronix library, which is shoved up White's ass.
terriergal- Two questions . Can an apologetic truly be a good historian? How much does the belief system's theology influence the findings?
That is all I am jesting about here. The debate is not to debate history but to defend a particular theology and view of religious literature. Even Luke had issues with history to match a theological perspective. Just compare what he had to say in Acts with the writings of Paul.
Who is "we"--you and your spouse? I never knew a daisy was positve. Try not mixing your metaphors. I guess they don't teach that in seminary, do they?
James White won that debate. I think Bart should first examine the people he is debating and understand their side and arguments before entering a debate. It was one sided, and it will be used for years to come. I am surprised as well, I did not think this was going to happen.
did you hear the same debate as I did? White looked like a complete ass. he couldn't even answer basic textual critical questions from Ehrman. Wake up.
Those who believe metaphors are absolutely true are theists.Those who believe they are absolutely false are atheists. How did the religion of Jesus become a religion about Jesus? You bet I believe in mythology. ;0)
Lol... Well, you're funny, but I still think this was one of the most ridiculous videos I've seen on this type of issue here on Youtube... At least one of the most ridiculous I've seen in a while...
talk about red herring and ad hoc. Dr White aka Oakley does not need publicity, he is a prominent scholar. At least that debate will not be a waste of my time.
What is the difference between an apologetic and a historian? What rules do apologetics have to follow in order to be considered apologetics? What rules to historians have to follow for be considered historians?
The narrower a debate is, the more it can accomplish. It would be time prohibitive to have every possible side represented. I'm not really certain what the point of your video is.
the point is that when an apologetic from a belief system debates a historian, the belief system dictates what conclusions the apologetic can come to because it must land within the boundaries of the theology. All of which we have heard before.
Nice. I have been permanently booted from dr. oakleys IRC channels, for 1 being a jew, and 2 an atheist. The circular dogmatic logic the "dr." Oakley drills into these poor kids heads is sick, they cannot defend themselves without falling back on their dogma. If mr. oakley really cared for these followers of his he might encourage independent though, and maybe even a little textual criticism. The bible cannot be without error when there are clearly several inconsistencies in the gospels alone.
The basic rationale of this video is that biblical truth is not worth debating because it doesn't exist to begin with. Therefore, believing in salvation through biblical exegesis is the height of idiocy.
I would recommend the author of this video sell his canoe and get as many drugs as possible with the money, because physical pleasure is the only thing he has to look forward to. Maybe Dr White/Oakley have more hope...
Ehrman's view is based on the Bible being a human book, not a divine book. Ehrman thinks God couldn't preserve his word, therefor he must not be the God we give him credit for. (He says this in his book "misquoting Jesus."
What if Ehrman is wrong on that point?
What if?
I'm sure dr oakly and craig are everything you say they are. I've never heard of them.
But if Ehrman is wrong on that one critical point, where does that leave you?
With a view point less romanticized by the influence of Faith and ideas on the formation of texts and Early Church History. "Historical reality is always more complex and fascinating than the orthodox of any tradition would like us to believe. The winners rewrite history, and the rewrite is almost always a simplification. Simplifications are helpful to give us an initial grasp, but we should never content ourselves with them." -David Noel Freedman,
So, after you read all of the Joseph Campbell texts and realize the multifunctional usage of the metaphor you will realize that you may not be alone in the world. Just go to my page type in Metaphor, Mythology, or Joseph Campbell and plenty should come up.
Hi wayman. I just signed up for utube so I could aks you a question!
You made a buncha comments about religions being myths and dr.o arguing against other religions and scholars like dr. e, and I was wondering if you could gimme a link to your other video where you demonstrate all this stuff by all the research you've done into the primary sources that discredit religion. I figured that you had to have done this since you would never just believe dr. e's info on faith.
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all time have gone before us. The labyrinth is thoroughly known. We have only to follow the thread of the hero path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; and where we had thought to slay another we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; and where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world. -Joseph Campbell
wayman29, nice video. and thanks for the recommendation to the backyard professor on your other vid. he's fun.
I have a question:
Do you believe that in order to be able to have the "freedom to change your mind" on these types of issues, that you must be an agnostic when it comes to belief systems?
If one were interested in such things yes, because it removes the ever watching eye of Orthodox. But if one is happy in life and the metaphors,and rituals of the belief system answers life's questions in a satisfactory manner then I see no issue as long as your not killing your neighbor or being self destructive.People wrestle with gods and men all the time.
WOW. Thanks for the long & convoluted answer to a simple yes or no question, dude. lol. That was awesome. It seems to me your answer is yes.
But I don't understand the "but" part where you say, "But if one is happy in life & the metaphors, & rituals of the belief system answers life's questions in a satisfactory manner then I see no issue"
Does this mean that your answer can be "no, you don't have to be agnostic to change your mind" as long as one is happy in life with his religious beliefs?
Hey Wayman, I noticed it's been a couple days and you still hadn't responded back. I wasn't trying to pick on your answer, I just truly didn't understand the "but" part.
I had a sincere reason for asking the question in the first place. See, I believe Christ rose from the dead because of the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. But on dozens of other issues, I consider myself somewhat agnostic. Mainly the doctrines that are subject to interpretation...
... Such as creationism vs evolution (I am agnostic there), Arminianism vs. Calvinism, what day should we take off for Sabbath, even the existence of an eternal hell. Plus many other doctrinal issues not worth mentioning. The point is, I remain agnostic on many issues, and I am willing and PERMITTED to change my mind if convinced rationally. BUT I BELIEVE JESUS ROSE.
My point is, it doesn't seem to me that you have to be an agnostic toward God in order to be able to change your mind on issues.
Hey now.......CALM DOWN YOUNG MAN!!!!!! Grin! I am converting myself to Judaism, Mormonism, and Christianity all at once with all my studies. Does that make me ummmmm...... a......... MorChristaidism? lol.......
And you say Myth can be more true than reality?!? What kinda Campbellite have you become???? GRIN! Dude....... Eliade has also shown that reality IS myth. The underlying thing about reality IS MYTH....... We're on the same page on that one. That's in Eliade's "Myth of the Eternal Return," a seriously informative and interesting book!
I give you 5 stars my friend. 5 BIG ONES DUDE! You have not wasted ANY of your life. As Campbell says, it's all experience. Right? Remember that one?
Wayman baby!!! Yer a skeptic! LOL! Enjoyed the vid. I disagree with you in some respects, but for the most part, absolutely two thumbs up. I take it you really like Dr. Oakley! GRIN! Your sarcasm is fun! Smart alec that you are. I gotta get over to you so you can teach me how to canoe. I envy you that! NICE scenery.
I must be behind the curve 'cause I've learned a LOT from Ehrman.
You confuse me Wayman. Sometimes you say things that clearly the thoughts of a thinking person, but you can't make that millimeter leap to realise that Christianity is JUST another myth (albeit one with clear and actual global impact in the modern era). Sometimes I think you must only be missing a couple of small pieces.
Any idea how and when I can see Dr Oakley get his hat handed to him?
Big deal if these evangelicals use the event to proseltyize. Their intentions do nothing to invalidate their arguments. Take a class in logic 101.
By the way, in Ehrmans debate with William Lane Craig (who btw is far more highly esteemed, highly educated and academically reputable than James White) Dr. Craig did tell us 4 facts about the historical Jesus. We learned more about the historical Jesus from his case than anything Ehrman had to say on the matter.
You seemed to miss the part where Dr. Craig said the majority of NT scholars hold to those 4 facts. That's hardly an evangelical view only. You also missed the fact that Dr. Ehrman himself holds to those 4 facts (again as Dr. Craig stated). So it seems we really did learn a lot about the historical Jesus after all, not by Ehrman, but by Dr. Craig. Dr. Ehrman didn't tell us hardly anything about the historical Jesus.
You're welcome. I've actually found Habermas' route manageable in practice. I've run into resistence with 3 & 4, however, I've gotten help from N.T. Wright on those.
At the present time, I find it easier to argue for the resurrection than against. But I wouldn't let myself argue against Ehrman's idea (historians can't "prove" the resurrection occured). I'd just argue resurrection is a very doable explanation of what happened.
Actually most scholars I know of contest the first point. That could be because of my reading list, but it is very problematic as a statement, and possibly sloppy. Of course, this does not mean that it did not happen.
"Actually most scholars I know of contest the first point."
I'm very confident that the large majority of NT scholars hold to the burial of Jesus in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. Facts (3) and (4) are agreed upon universally by NT scholars. Fact (1) is accepted by approximately 85-90% of scholars. It's only fact (2) that most often gets disputed. And yet it would be very safe to say about 70-75% of scholars hold to historicity of the empty tomb. The scholars on your list must be very liberal.
A true apologist would try to be a good historian. I'm not saying that all apologists are good historians, many of them are blatant evangelists as you say, but the goal of a good apoligist is to support his religion but through logical fact-based study and argument. You saying all apologists are only evangelists is stereotyping, something which I detest
Sphenna1068 2 months ago
@Sphenna1068 - I do not think you detest stereotyping as much as you think. You may commit such actions and not even know it. For who would you personally believe to be more convincing on the birth of Christ or say the miracles, as a believer? The Apologist or the Historian?
wayman29 2 months ago
@wayman29 Apologist and Historian are not mutually exclusive. I know of people who became apologists (subsequently after becoming Christians for the same reason) BECAUSE OF their historical study.
TheFunkyTheist 2 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist - That's because it was not history they were studying but Apologetics. And they didn't even know it. You were going to name Art Strobel as an example.
wayman29 2 months ago
@wayman29 No, actually, I'm not talking about Strobel. I disagree with most of Strobel's 'scholarship' such as his early dating of the gospels/Acts, his die-for-a-lie argument and so on. I am simply pointing out that there are historical cases to be made for, say, the resurrection. History does not exclude apologetics. And apologetics is not limited to Strobely. You may disagree with apologetics, but that doesn't give you the right to say it's not methodological history in some cases (Wright).
TheFunkyTheist 2 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist Strobel*
TheFunkyTheist 2 months ago
Your biased. I don't think you really understand the point of a debate like this
Sphenna1068 2 months ago
@Sphenna1068- An apologist is nothing more then an evangelist disguised as a historian. What did I miss?
wayman29 2 months ago
Suffice to say Ehrman completely dismantled James White
koroigetsuga 1 year ago 4
You said, "The only thing worse then an agnostic bible scholar is an evangelist disguised as a historian." my question is who is the evangelist disguised as historian? Also, what happened to the debate between Dr Ehrman and dr Oakley? Did it get canceled?
99minerkc 1 year ago
historians are: people who are authorities on history and who study it and write about it. They base their studies on find "evidence"
Aplologist: "A person who produces an intellectual defense of the Christian faith, in either oral or written form" BUT it "isn't based on evidence" although they try to make it appear as it does!
In my opinion, the historian is the more honest person as they're held accountable by other historians! Where as apologists have free rein!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
An example: Benny Hinn(worth 200+ million dollars)is an apologist! I believe Pat Robertson(worth 300 million plus he owns a diamond mine in africa)also is an apologist!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell no, niether of them are they a ignorant frauds
holypsychopath 1 year ago
@holypsychopath What proof do you have that their god isn't blessing them with millions for being good servants? It says in the good book ask and you shall receive.
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell THEY ARE FRAUDS AND HYPOCRITS. Ask and you shall recieve is for christians one must be a part of the orthodox communion to get this blessing. Hinn is an apostate from the Orthodox church of Antioch under Ignatius
holypsychopath 1 year ago
@holypsychopath So, a born again believer who's not part of the "orthodox communion" shall NOT receive that blessing, right?
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell The Holy Spirit goes where HE wills, And G-d can do what he wants and give what he wants to whom ever but the short answer is Yes, only the orthodox. But I will say anyone baptized in the name of the trinity is a christian so long that they cling to what is true and reject the frauds. Peace to you
holypsychopath 1 year ago
@holypsychopath Oh, so the holy spirt is a "male?" Interesting a "male" god how sexist! So, where's his wife? Well, there's FAAAARRRR too much wrong with your version of religion for me and many, many others to buy into it! For example: The concept of an eternal hell, a divine christ, etc, etc. Anyway, enough said!
peace to you too
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell how is it sexist? The he is to convey a personal force, not an impersonal. Many times the holy spirit is "she". the word NUMA/spirit is female. You know nothing about orthodoxy. In orthodoxy there is no such place as hell. hELL DOES NOT EXIST IN ORTHODOXY but as for fairy tales. I defend history. I am a fallen christian. I am actually a Laveyian Satanist, an Atheist. I believe in truth. Check out my videos on religion and you will see what I believe.
holypsychopath 1 year ago
@holypsychopath No thanks, not interested in your videos.
peace to you and happy holidays
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@mythicalhell why not? I begin to feel the peace and happiness you extend to me is sarcastic. Are you not interested in all points of view even if they are leftist, as mine are?
holypsychopath 1 year ago
@mythicalhell Ok, I'll check your vids out. I'll think of them like a holiday gift from you. ;o
mythicalhell 1 year ago
What is the difference between an apologist and a Historian?
wayman29 1 year ago
@wayman29 There's a big difference between the two!! Google historian vs apologist and learn the difference! :p
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@wayman29; Unless there's a punchline here (and I'm kinda hoping there *is* one) - a Historian studies the socially-constructed myth of history (i.e. history is written by the victors), while an apologist attempts to extrapolate reasons to justify *any belief at all* in his myth/mythos.
MsGingergingercat 8 months ago
@MsGingergingercat - An apologist is nothing more then an evangelist disguised as a historian.
wayman29 8 months ago
@wayman29 wrote: "An apologist is nothing more then an evangelist disguised as a historian." Oooh, that's a *great* quote. Hope you don't mind if I steal.... er, borrow it, now and then.... ;D
MsGingergingercat 8 months ago
@MsGingergingercat -Sure use it as much as you can! I borrowed it ..errr ...stole it from Ehrman! LOL :0)
wayman29 8 months ago
@wayman29 a few questions...1) so..where was the spoiler 2) did you actually watch the debate between White and Ehrman 3) why not call in the dividing line and talk to James about how he doesn't "think critically" about his system... I would say the same thing about this video that you said about the debate with craig. nothing was learned, nothing was actually even said.
Follower172 5 months ago
@Follower172 - I posted this video a month before they had the debate. I will not call into the dividing line because White deals with people rather unfairly on his show. I have see the videos. Sorry it took three months to respond..LOL.
wayman29 2 months ago
Sounds like your not happy that Ehrman is going to face another challenge. Your commentary on the Craig / Ehrman debate clearly shows your bias. That certainly does not come as a surprise to me. Watching the debates is educational. Not everyone is well studied. I always want to get both sides of an issue because it reveals the strengths and weakness in the arguments.
proginosko 1 year ago
Hey where can i view this debate ??
optimusbible 1 year ago
Ehrman's world view is shaped by his "straw man" Christianity. He was warped when he claims that he was a Christian. I mean by that that his view of Jesus and the Bible was warped in his childhood somewhere. I don't think he can undo all that in his past. I feel for him honestly.
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
@nighthawk7878 Specious argument and a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. Same crap is hurled by "Catholic apologists" at former Catholics who become Evangelicals: "you never really KNEW your faith, otherwise you'd have never left it."
BenAliGtor 1 year ago
@BenAliGtor Have you read and listened closely to his explanation of his faith experience? I have. I said that I feel for him because I do. He got bad data in his high school environment and as best I can gather he lives a rather bland like now.
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
@nighthawk7878 Perhaps it is "bland"...but at least, it's honest. Unlike "Doctor" White, Ehrman's doctorate is from an accredited institution.
BenAliGtor 1 year ago
@BenAliGtor You may be judging a man you don't even know. There is something else to say for knowledge, discernment, and wisdom. I don't see Ehrman using any of the above wisely. He makes errors in his books and he does not correct them. He wrongly interprets passage but he doesn't care. He is an unfortunate model for a scholar. Yes I have read his books and there is some scholarship there but also misinterpretation.
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
@nighthawk7878 Jesus behind every OT word is not a misinterpretation?? Flavoring hebrew literature with Christian theology and passing it off as history is not a misinterpretation? Ehrman is accredited.
wayman29 1 year ago
@wayman29 "Ehrman is accredited" I believe that applies to a school. I don't know what the other sentences mean.
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
@nighthawk7878 What is the difference between an apologist and a Historian?
wayman29 1 year ago
@wayman29 okay.....
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
@Waymen,
The problem I have with Bart Ehrman, unlike what you think, is that he comes to the biblical text with a theological bias. You think that Ehrman has an ability to "think" without bias? Freedom to change his mind? Really? Then I guess his book "God's problem" which is filled with theological bias doesn't really exist, right?
Ehrman cannot get beyond the "we don't have the originals" argument even though this hasn't stopped the vast majority of Christians from believing in Scripture.
Dejan2116 1 year ago
Dejan2116-"even though this hasn't stopped the vast majority of Christians from believing in Scripture. " He did not plan on people to stop believing. And no, we do not have the originals. Looking at religion through a historical perspective rather then a particular theological historical perspective is refreshing. What is exegesis? Which theological historical perspective is correct? Muslim? Mormon? Christian? What happens when the theology changes?
wayman29 1 year ago
Wayman, NOBODY is able to look at historical evidence without first interpreting the evidence through a particular bias about the nature of reality; EVERYONE has a bias when studying ANYTHING, including the study for the "originals" of the New Testament. If you think studying theology "historically" eliminates bias then you have bought into the myth of neutrality. Ehrman didn't plan on people to not believe? Then why doe she say the Bible cannot be inspired in light of textual variation?
Dejan2116 1 year ago
@Dejan2116 "Then why doe she say the Bible cannot be inspired in light of textual variation?" simply because there are variations. Theology tells them that Gods word never changes. "bought into the myth of neutrality." no I have just seen just how unreliable exegesis is when interpreting history.
wayman29 1 year ago
Comment removed
Dejan2116 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Waynmen, What if God inspired his word in a different way, a way that would spread the text far and wide as fast as possible through a wide range of copies so that everyone would hear the gospel? What if God chose to keep textual variation in the textual tradition in order to prevent the text from being changed by some controlled wholesale editing process? i.e. in this way God's word never changes? If so, then the Bible could still be inspired in light of textual variation.
Dejan2116 1 year ago 2
@Dejan2116 This comment has been de-spammed. Sorry that happened. Theology leaves no room for what if's. sorry It's either Orthodox according to the belief system or not. In the secular world the historian that could be seen as hypothesis based on supporting evidence. Apologists are not historians. They are missionaries of a belief system and therefore have to defend that belief system, right or wrong. If you think I am wrong just think of the apologists from religions other then your own.
wayman29 1 year ago
@Waymen,
My argument that the variation in the manuscripts is perfectly consistent with inspiration actually accounts for the early, wide and diverse transmission of the New Testament documents. Furthermore, my argument is as much a "what if" as Bart Ehrman's is, since Ehrman must also define what "God's word never changes" means-- while he takes this to mean every dot of a document cannot be changed by any scribe or it cannot be inspired (a radical skeptics position) I say the opposite.
Dejan2116 1 year ago
@Dejan2116 you are right! and Ehrman generally does not reveal anything to us that has not been known for over 50 years. His comes on as someone just interested in history but views that history with extreme bias, though he comes off as "just the facts mam" kinda guy. He is far from that with errors, bias, distortions and out-of-mainstream interpretation.
nighthawk7878 1 year ago
I bought the MP3 of discussion, and I say Dr. White lost the debate.
I also fell sorry Dr. White mentioned about Quran in the debate. This is not muslm-christian debate, please do not involve Quran here.
Please do debate with muslim with fair.
As he said, this is public debate, so he should have more responsibility in making statement.
kangwardanaoke 2 years ago
This was marked as spam by a devout fan club of "Dr. James" If we all knew Greek we would be able to see right though the smoke screen. Your comment has been de-spammed! Thanks for your input!
wayman29 1 year ago
He mentioned the Quran because that is the area he feels most comfortable in. when he reverts to discussing topics of Quran in a debate where is would not belong it is a good sign he is treading water. A Greek speaking YouTuber did a video on this topic and the same issue you discussed his name on here is ReligionFreeDeist.
wayman29 1 year ago
Myth is only more true in reality when the one believing in myth is willing to close their eyes to reality! I do like Bart Erhman and am SO glad he's tried to inform people of the ignorance which runs ramped in the Christian community!
Great video!
99minerkc 2 years ago
I don't get it. Why do Christians like Bruce Meztger, Raymond E. Brown, and Craig Blomberg like Ehrman's work while Lee Strobel and James White hate his works? Oh yeah! Textual critics are in general agreement on certain issues and apologists don't like that. Now, Blomberg has said he feels Ehrman has an axe to grind, but still found the information in MISQUOTING JESUS to be vary accurate and on the money.
Christisms 2 years ago
nice lake
peacewalker7 2 years ago
You seem to like Dr. White. White is Not Craig. I think the debate may go differently there. Craig was good.
nighthawk7878 2 years ago
Where do you get the idea that a Christian can't change his mind? In the past I've lived an unbiblical life, I've "changed my mind". Meaning I've done almost everything that the bible tells us not to do. I like my life better as a Christian.
jasondukebaird 2 years ago
fed
TheNotoriousSoul 2 years ago
What kind of canoe requires you to paddle on one side...? I'm so confused. How will I ever know theology if I can't even figure that out. Wait, I'm still watching. There seems to be a constant pull to the left. Is it wind? Perhaps a mild current? I guess it doesn't matter. Oh well.
Gernatch 2 years ago
Someone apparently only told you that only row boats existed. Now that you have seen a canoe you can go and study theology.
wayman29 2 years ago
Then, by your reasoning, I am a Dr., too.
DawnOfTheHomo 2 years ago
Everyone on YouTube is a DR. Quick write a book! LOL
wayman29 2 years ago
James White is an ignorant bigot. Granted, an educated ignorant bigot, but still an evil, hateful man. Anybody that follows him and his "church" is missing all truths.
DawnOfTheHomo 2 years ago
interesting name you have there.
reformedman 2 years ago
thank you.
DawnOfTheHomo 2 years ago
Comment removed
AcademicTheologian 2 years ago
What is all truths?
nighthawk7878 2 years ago
Since he espouses no truths, by following him, you would be missing out on all truths.
DawnOfTheHomo 2 years ago
Ah, but he points to Jesus. There is much truth there.
nighthawk7878 2 years ago
I asked what is All Truths. I know James White
nighthawk7878 2 years ago
Ah but when it comes to religion some hypothesis are better then others. You find the same "truths" in the Hindu texts. So why not use them also. What is the difference between an evangelist and a historian?
wayman29 2 years ago
I know Hindu, I have been to temple. What same "truths" do you see in Hinduism that you refer to here?
nighthawk7878 2 years ago
"But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pritha—for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death." Gita 12: 6-7
wayman29 2 years ago
"Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy—all these various qualities of living beings are created by Me alone." Gita 10:4-5
wayman29 2 years ago
"There are three gates leading to this hell—lust, anger and greed. Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation of the soul." Gita 16:21
wayman29 2 years ago
"And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt." Gita 8:5
wayman29 2 years ago
I see that you are a fan of James White, so truth in any form is not important to you.
DawnOfTheHomo 2 years ago
Dr. James White does need the publicity to defend his creedentials. Colombia Seminary School (where he got his doctorate) is a single office of a small business building and does not follow the rules that other accredited theological schools are required to follow. Bart Ehrman is agnostic because he felt what his researched demonstrated (from the New Testament) crontridicted his prior Evangelical Christian beliefs.
deelerofdeath 2 years ago
CSS: Not based on their web site. The one you are thinking of must be run by an A. or an A.
nighthawk7878 2 years ago
Guys like Dr. Oakley are restained by theology, they are freed by it. This video is so much like many others, and the thesis goes something like this: There is no God, and anybody who disagrees with the latest atheist apologetics has lost his mind and can't escape the locked box of absurd religious systems. My response: yawn.
LothairOfLorraine 2 years ago
You are talking about the assumed conversation from the theological world view. What need is honesty when one paints history with theological coloring.. In that case which historical theology is right? Every belief system says OURS. Islam as apologetics also... What do we do with them. I'm not interested in Christology but the historical Jesus. .Give me three ways theology frees research as far as finding true historical data... My response also: yawn.
wayman29 2 years ago
Please, of course you'll yawn.Are you a believer in god? That's a snoozefest as well.jesus saves, and all of that,lol.
confluential 2 years ago
Yes Erhman does have the freedom to change because he stands for nothing. His job depends on presenting something new at all cost (true or false). And if you are a Christian apologist than your arguments must be consistent and if they are not than what r u defending? If you are flip flopping your position then you are not an apologist, rather you are more of a liberal college professor.
aburocko 3 years ago
Do you realize that if you hold to an orthodox Christian view that you in reality are not conforming to the norm. Dr. Erhman is the one who is tied down not Dr. White. If Dr. Erhman was to say anything that may undermine the liberal view he holds to he would have the entire liberal world crashing down on him. Just look at what they attempted to do to C.S. Lewis when he changed his mind.
aburocko 3 years ago 3
"He tells it o'er and o'er but still in vain for they beg to hear it once again.
The hearer on the speakers mouth depends; and thus the tragic story never ends."
Aeneid Book 4 line 111-115 (some parts edited to fit the context..80) Read it for yourself and don't depend on the speakers mouth. Then you will know who has the best theories.
wayman29 3 years ago
Your entire video was full of "I don't know" Did you stop and listen to yourself?
aburocko 3 years ago
It's a line everyone needs to say more often. I just may write a book on it and put DR. in my name ;0)
wayman29 3 years ago
I take issue with the assertion that Ehrman is "not in the confines of a belief system". One thing that did get demonstrated in that debate is that he is just as wedded to his presuppositions as White is - which was White's point from the beginning. They both interacted with the same evidence, and yet had two entirely different conclusions due to different suppositional worldviews.
And for the record, White has easily enough knowledge in the field of textual criticism to debate meaningfully.
va3svd 3 years ago
What is the difference between a historian and an apologetic?
wayman29 3 years ago
I'm assuming you mean "apologist", but the fact is White has authored two books on the subject.
Are you as irate that Daniel Wallace debated Bart Ehrman, too - or is it just that if White is working as an apologist that that mere fact invalidates everything he has to say? But White has no fewer presuppositions regarding the text of scripture than Ehrman does.
va3svd 3 years ago
va3svd-Are you as irate that Daniel Wallace debated Bart Ehrman, too - or is it just that if White is working as an apologist that that mere fact invalidates everything he has to say" Behind every apologist there is a theology. So I would expect history to have it wrong most of the time. I just why Ehrman wastes his time debating..
wayman29 3 years ago
Ehrman has room for error... The theology does not. It must be terrible to be under such pressure while trying to research. As I said before anyone can write a book. Everyone is an expert at something..;0)
wayman29 3 years ago
Fine, anybody in this day and age can get published. We all know that. However, White has at least shown himself conversant and competent in the field, has he not? I think he has.
You're acting as though only some researchers are under the "pressure" of having presuppositions, namely, apologists. but Ehrman has his own pressure, his anti-Christian belief system which he refuses to even interact with meaningfully.
va3svd 3 years ago
Well, there's a theology behind Ehrman, too. I don't know why you're not admitting that, when Ehrman has essentially done so himself.
And again - are you upset that Ehrman has debated Daniel Wallace, easily one of the two best scholars in the world in New Testament research?
va3svd 3 years ago
"but Ehrman has his own pressure, his anti-Christian belief system which he refuses to even interact with meaningfully. " It seems all the pressure comes from the theology department. I'm not upset about the debate you mention. However, Daniel Wallace is a spokes person for the Evangelical movement eventhough he is much more capable then White.. I would trust Raymond Brown over both if I wanted to read Christian scholars.
wayman29 3 years ago
I think we happen to be on at the same time.
wayman29 3 years ago
Oh, I see what you're saying....if you're an evangelical then you have no business stating your beliefs in public or attempting to justify them, and are just supposed to let everybody tee off on your beliefs without response. You're taking issue with evangelicals who deign to defend their own beliefs in a scholarly setting.
I'm sorry if that's not a fair representation of what you're stating, but it's hard not to think that when you shrug at Ehrman's presuppositions but condemn White's.
va3svd 3 years ago 2
"Oh, I see what you're saying.." No what I am saying is that if one has theological convictions then one should be honest at the start, rather then posing as a historian.They are all theological and historical theories. Some are better then others.Teeing off without being allowed a response is practiced by both sides.
wayman29 3 years ago
Sometimes I just don't understand other people...
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
This just goes to show that anybody can post anything
kestoelvis 3 years ago
Yes! Also you forgot a couple, anybody can write a book, and anyone can claim to be a historian, and everyone on YouTube holds a Phd. ;0)
wayman29 3 years ago
"if only these challengers to Dr White would occasionally bring their A game to the debate" -- a quote swiped from my husband.
terriergal 3 years ago
"Meow meow meow meow meow meow" a quote I swiped from my cat.
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
The only thing worse then an agnostic bible scholar is an evangelist disguised as a historian.
wayman29 3 years ago
Right, and BArt Ehrman would tell you that one of the greatest living textual critics and greek expert as well as historian happens to be an evangelist names Daniel B. Wallace.
babystinky 3 years ago
I don't see anything wrong with an agnostic bible scholar. So what if someone is an agnostic an studies the Bible? We can't psychologize.
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
I just threw that in for drama. Hey where its this debate posted?? I would like to see it.
wayman29 3 years ago
Limewire
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
Thanks! Thanks for the update here also. I anticipated such an outcome. lol
wayman29 3 years ago
Wow--did Ehrman ever kick White's ass. He tried his red-herring of Islam, and he couldn't date one manuscript before 100 Ad. Ehrman made White look like an ass. White has such a negative attitute too. Just listen to how he tries to spin the debate. "that's just the way liberals are" in reference to Ehrman's "non=preparatioon" of White. He seems really offended that he didn't spend money on White's books. Why shoudl he? It's his field. He know the propaganda from the right.
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
Hey do they have that debate posted yet?? I have not looked. SO did my prediction come true?? lol
wayman29 3 years ago
He did date the mansucript on his blog, Ehrman was given the info, and made an error about it. Check out the blog and the follow up. Ehrman's point was wrong. Ehrmans point about Galatians being late was proven to be ridiculous as Ehrman quotes from much later sources! Sorry, but James White won that debate.
babystinky 3 years ago
It's obvious you get your facts the same place White gets his:out your butt. White admits on his blog that he couldn't answer Ehrman's question about earlier manuscripts. It's right there on his blog. So if White fails to answer the most crucial question about earlier manuscripts, it's impossible to give him the debate. No rebuttal=lost debate. Remember to use logic when responding. 1+1=3 only for the Trininty.
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
he does not say that, he just did not have the list handy, but he did provide it and Ehrman has since responded to the list and James White further responded. So NO, Ehrman was incorrect. Ehrman's whole thing falls apart when one realized that all our ancient writings are of Late origin, much, much later than anything the New Testament offers, yet we are quoting from such.
babystinky 3 years ago
I am not sure if you understand Barts position, and I don't think it is your fault. Its Barts, he is purposely being very loose and vague with certain facts. The reason Bart was so angry in the debate was he lost , and all he could was appeal to his own authority, or say things like "these things matter", which obviously they do else there would not be a debate!
I am not a big James White fan, I disagree with a lot of what he has to say, but clearly he was mispresented and clearly he won.
babystinky 3 years ago
I understand Bart's position, and no, White didn't win the debate. The reason White throws in Islam and his own theory of textual origns is because he has no experience working with original texts, which Bart does. Bart wasn't angry. And no, White himself says he looked like an idiot for not being able to think of a response to Erhman. His argument of non existent whole Bible text is irrefutable, and White has no rebuttal. Who cares about other texts. We are talking about the Bible. Ra Ra Ra
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
This is what White says: "One other item. Ehrman asked me to cite all 12 papyri manuscripts that can be dated to within 100 years of the writing of the New Testament. I knew where my list was in a print book, but forgot totally that I had the same book in my Libronix library! I could have pulled the list in 20 seconds had I remembered that. I have been kicking myself for that all morning once I realized how quickly I could have accessed the information. "
terriergal 3 years ago
here is what White says, "One other item. Ehrman asked me to cite all 12 papyri manuscripts that can be dated to within 100 years of the writing of the New Testament. I knew where my list was in a print book, but forgot totally that I had the same book in my Libronix library! I could have pulled the list in 20 seconds had I remembered that. I have been kicking myself for that all morning once I realized how quickly I could have accessed the information."
Where do you get your facts?
terriergal 3 years ago
I guess you are just blind. In other words, White was unable to answer Ehrman's question in the debate. Whether he could answer it at home on his computer is irrelevant. He couldn't remember it. He couldn't answer Ehrman. He lost the debate. White can't hole a candle to Ehrman. White has never published one article in any peer reviewed journal about textual criticism. So where do I get my facts? Perhaps I get them from White's Libronix library, which is shoved up White's ass.
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
terriergal- Two questions . Can an apologetic truly be a good historian? How much does the belief system's theology influence the findings?
That is all I am jesting about here. The debate is not to debate history but to defend a particular theology and view of religious literature. Even Luke had issues with history to match a theological perspective. Just compare what he had to say in Acts with the writings of Paul.
wayman29 3 years ago
>Can an apologetic truly be a good historian?
I can't imagine why not.
>How much does the belief system's theology influence the findings?
How much does yours?
>The debate is not to debate history but to defend a particular theology and view of religious literature.
Ok so why are you debating history? (e.g. the dating of the manuscripts)
terriergal 3 years ago
>White has such a negative attitute too.
You're just as positive as a bloomin daisy. I guess that means we can discount your point of view.
terriergal 3 years ago
Who is "we"--you and your spouse? I never knew a daisy was positve. Try not mixing your metaphors. I guess they don't teach that in seminary, do they?
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
James White won that debate. I think Bart should first examine the people he is debating and understand their side and arguments before entering a debate. It was one sided, and it will be used for years to come. I am surprised as well, I did not think this was going to happen.
babystinky 3 years ago
did you hear the same debate as I did? White looked like a complete ass. he couldn't even answer basic textual critical questions from Ehrman. Wake up.
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
Sometimes I wonder what the other side is actually hearing when they listen to/watch debates...
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
I agree....and by otherside you mean of course yourself and your Christianity
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
This man has great faith....in mythology
donotweep 3 years ago
Those who believe metaphors are absolutely true are theists.Those who believe they are absolutely false are atheists. How did the religion of Jesus become a religion about Jesus? You bet I believe in mythology. ;0)
wayman29 3 years ago
Wow... You're an idiot...
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago 4
Only on Fridays.
wayman29 3 years ago
Lol... Well, you're funny, but I still think this was one of the most ridiculous videos I've seen on this type of issue here on Youtube... At least one of the most ridiculous I've seen in a while...
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Well said.
samuelmorrison 3 years ago
talk about red herring and ad hoc. Dr White aka Oakley does not need publicity, he is a prominent scholar. At least that debate will not be a waste of my time.
MBI3030 3 years ago
What is the difference between an apologetic and a historian? What rules do apologetics have to follow in order to be considered apologetics? What rules to historians have to follow for be considered historians?
wayman29 3 years ago
The narrower a debate is, the more it can accomplish. It would be time prohibitive to have every possible side represented. I'm not really certain what the point of your video is.
JosephAland 3 years ago
the point is that when an apologetic from a belief system debates a historian, the belief system dictates what conclusions the apologetic can come to because it must land within the boundaries of the theology. All of which we have heard before.
wayman29 3 years ago
Nice. I have been permanently booted from dr. oakleys IRC channels, for 1 being a jew, and 2 an atheist. The circular dogmatic logic the "dr." Oakley drills into these poor kids heads is sick, they cannot defend themselves without falling back on their dogma. If mr. oakley really cared for these followers of his he might encourage independent though, and maybe even a little textual criticism. The bible cannot be without error when there are clearly several inconsistencies in the gospels alone.
travymurder 3 years ago
travymurder -Sorry it took so long to be back to this comment but you are right.
wayman29 3 years ago
Why should we prefer the sensationalized to the romanticized?
berettaNZ 3 years ago
The basic rationale of this video is that biblical truth is not worth debating because it doesn't exist to begin with. Therefore, believing in salvation through biblical exegesis is the height of idiocy.
I would recommend the author of this video sell his canoe and get as many drugs as possible with the money, because physical pleasure is the only thing he has to look forward to. Maybe Dr White/Oakley have more hope...
curvalecce 3 years ago
Just say no to drugs.
wayman29 3 years ago
haha - well said!
curvalecce 3 years ago
Ehrman's view is based on the Bible being a human book, not a divine book. Ehrman thinks God couldn't preserve his word, therefor he must not be the God we give him credit for. (He says this in his book "misquoting Jesus."
What if Ehrman is wrong on that point?
What if?
I'm sure dr oakly and craig are everything you say they are. I've never heard of them.
But if Ehrman is wrong on that one critical point, where does that leave you?
itsmisterbojangles 3 years ago
With a view point less romanticized by the influence of Faith and ideas on the formation of texts and Early Church History. "Historical reality is always more complex and fascinating than the orthodox of any tradition would like us to believe. The winners rewrite history, and the rewrite is almost always a simplification. Simplifications are helpful to give us an initial grasp, but we should never content ourselves with them." -David Noel Freedman,
wayman29 3 years ago
Is he imitating Droakley???
Haha!
LOL!
koekiedow 3 years ago
Sorry, I ran outta characters to post...
So, lemme know where I can find that vid!
Thanks!
midlunowhar 3 years ago
So, after you read all of the Joseph Campbell texts and realize the multifunctional usage of the metaphor you will realize that you may not be alone in the world. Just go to my page type in Metaphor, Mythology, or Joseph Campbell and plenty should come up.
wayman29 3 years ago
Hi wayman. I just signed up for utube so I could aks you a question!
You made a buncha comments about religions being myths and dr.o arguing against other religions and scholars like dr. e, and I was wondering if you could gimme a link to your other video where you demonstrate all this stuff by all the research you've done into the primary sources that discredit religion. I figured that you had to have done this since you would never just believe dr. e's info on faith.
midlunowhar 3 years ago
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all time have gone before us. The labyrinth is thoroughly known. We have only to follow the thread of the hero path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; and where we had thought to slay another we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; and where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world. -Joseph Campbell
wayman29 3 years ago
wayman29, nice video. and thanks for the recommendation to the backyard professor on your other vid. he's fun.
I have a question:
Do you believe that in order to be able to have the "freedom to change your mind" on these types of issues, that you must be an agnostic when it comes to belief systems?
theman77777777232 3 years ago
If one were interested in such things yes, because it removes the ever watching eye of Orthodox. But if one is happy in life and the metaphors,and rituals of the belief system answers life's questions in a satisfactory manner then I see no issue as long as your not killing your neighbor or being self destructive.People wrestle with gods and men all the time.
wayman29 3 years ago
Here Dante had the same issue:
In the midway of this our mortal life,
I found me in a gloomy wood, astray
Gone from the path direct: and e'en to tell,
It were no easy task, how savage wild
That forest, how robust and rough its growth,
Which to remember only, my dismay
Renews, in bitterness not far from death.
Yet, to discourse of what there good befell,
All else will I relate discover'd there.
wayman29 3 years ago
Also here in the Aeneid:
"O Muse! the causes and the crimes relate;
What goddess was provok'd, and whence her hate;For what offense the Queen of Heav'n began To persecute so brave, so just a man;
Involv'd his anxious life in endless cares,
Expos'd to wants, and hurried into wars!
Can heav'nly minds such high resentment show,
Or exercise their spite in human woe?"
wayman29 3 years ago
I think I almost converted myself to Judaism on the last video I did concerning Jeremiah 31:31 and repentence. LOL
wayman29 3 years ago
WOW. Thanks for the long & convoluted answer to a simple yes or no question, dude. lol. That was awesome. It seems to me your answer is yes.
But I don't understand the "but" part where you say, "But if one is happy in life & the metaphors, & rituals of the belief system answers life's questions in a satisfactory manner then I see no issue"
Does this mean that your answer can be "no, you don't have to be agnostic to change your mind" as long as one is happy in life with his religious beliefs?
theman77777777232 3 years ago
Hey Wayman, I noticed it's been a couple days and you still hadn't responded back. I wasn't trying to pick on your answer, I just truly didn't understand the "but" part.
I had a sincere reason for asking the question in the first place. See, I believe Christ rose from the dead because of the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. But on dozens of other issues, I consider myself somewhat agnostic. Mainly the doctrines that are subject to interpretation...
theman77777777232 3 years ago
... Such as creationism vs evolution (I am agnostic there), Arminianism vs. Calvinism, what day should we take off for Sabbath, even the existence of an eternal hell. Plus many other doctrinal issues not worth mentioning. The point is, I remain agnostic on many issues, and I am willing and PERMITTED to change my mind if convinced rationally. BUT I BELIEVE JESUS ROSE.
My point is, it doesn't seem to me that you have to be an agnostic toward God in order to be able to change your mind on issues.
theman77777777232 3 years ago
Hey now.......CALM DOWN YOUNG MAN!!!!!! Grin! I am converting myself to Judaism, Mormonism, and Christianity all at once with all my studies. Does that make me ummmmm...... a......... MorChristaidism? lol.......
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
And you say Myth can be more true than reality?!? What kinda Campbellite have you become???? GRIN! Dude....... Eliade has also shown that reality IS myth. The underlying thing about reality IS MYTH....... We're on the same page on that one. That's in Eliade's "Myth of the Eternal Return," a seriously informative and interesting book!
I give you 5 stars my friend. 5 BIG ONES DUDE! You have not wasted ANY of your life. As Campbell says, it's all experience. Right? Remember that one?
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
Wayman baby!!! Yer a skeptic! LOL! Enjoyed the vid. I disagree with you in some respects, but for the most part, absolutely two thumbs up. I take it you really like Dr. Oakley! GRIN! Your sarcasm is fun! Smart alec that you are. I gotta get over to you so you can teach me how to canoe. I envy you that! NICE scenery.
TheBackyardProfessor 3 years ago
I must be behind the curve 'cause I've learned a LOT from Ehrman.
You confuse me Wayman. Sometimes you say things that clearly the thoughts of a thinking person, but you can't make that millimeter leap to realise that Christianity is JUST another myth (albeit one with clear and actual global impact in the modern era). Sometimes I think you must only be missing a couple of small pieces.
Any idea how and when I can see Dr Oakley get his hat handed to him?
philhellenes 3 years ago
beautiful place
nice vidoe
xiaahmad 3 years ago
Big deal if these evangelicals use the event to proseltyize. Their intentions do nothing to invalidate their arguments. Take a class in logic 101.
By the way, in Ehrmans debate with William Lane Craig (who btw is far more highly esteemed, highly educated and academically reputable than James White) Dr. Craig did tell us 4 facts about the historical Jesus. We learned more about the historical Jesus from his case than anything Ehrman had to say on the matter.
jer414 3 years ago
"Dr. Craig did tell us 4 facts about the historical Jesus" According to the evangelical world view.
wayman29 3 years ago
"According to the evangelical world view."
You seemed to miss the part where Dr. Craig said the majority of NT scholars hold to those 4 facts. That's hardly an evangelical view only. You also missed the fact that Dr. Ehrman himself holds to those 4 facts (again as Dr. Craig stated). So it seems we really did learn a lot about the historical Jesus after all, not by Ehrman, but by Dr. Craig. Dr. Ehrman didn't tell us hardly anything about the historical Jesus.
jer414 3 years ago
What were the 4 facts?
StormTrek 3 years ago
They were respectively:
(1)The Burial of Jesus in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
(2)The discovery of his empty tomb 3 days later by a group of his women followers
(3)The disciples' experiences of appearances of Jesus alive after his death
(4)The origin of the disciples belief in the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
jer414 3 years ago
Thanks, Gary Habermas presents what he calls 4+1 facts:
1) Jesus died from crucifixion
2) The apostles believe they witnessed a resurrected Christ
3) Paul was converted from a persecutor of the church to St Paul.
4) James, brother of Jesus, was converted from skeptic to believer.
The +1 is the empty tomb. What I like about Habermas' argument is that it doesn't rely on the sub argument that the gospels accounts are consistent.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Hey thanks for contributing your ideas and bringing theses other scholars into the conversation. Excellent job!
wayman29 3 years ago
You're welcome. I've actually found Habermas' route manageable in practice. I've run into resistence with 3 & 4, however, I've gotten help from N.T. Wright on those.
At the present time, I find it easier to argue for the resurrection than against. But I wouldn't let myself argue against Ehrman's idea (historians can't "prove" the resurrection occured). I'd just argue resurrection is a very doable explanation of what happened.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Actually most scholars I know of contest the first point. That could be because of my reading list, but it is very problematic as a statement, and possibly sloppy. Of course, this does not mean that it did not happen.
allergictoeverything 3 years ago
"Actually most scholars I know of contest the first point."
I'm very confident that the large majority of NT scholars hold to the burial of Jesus in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. Facts (3) and (4) are agreed upon universally by NT scholars. Fact (1) is accepted by approximately 85-90% of scholars. It's only fact (2) that most often gets disputed. And yet it would be very safe to say about 70-75% of scholars hold to historicity of the empty tomb. The scholars on your list must be very liberal.
jer414