Part 4 - Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?

[bentopapa007]

Dr. Ehrman destroys this yahoo badly. Evans doesn't answer the questions put him, but "preaches" to his choir.

[sendtoanthony]

What we have here is a scholar vs a True-Believer.

[202rickh]

Evans seems to be make his defense based on his belief that SOME of the actibities of Jesus are accurattely described. That wasn't the question.

[kenzo5716]

I am amazed how these scholars use the words "Judaism" and "Jew". I challenge both scholars or anyone else to give verifiable,documented evidence that these words ever existed in ANY bible of ANY text or language before the 1700s. They do not.

[guymassive]

Is it only me? But i just skip Craig Evans parts and move on to Ehrman, That Craig guy is dodging every question. He has not asnwered a single straight question he was asked. lol. Unbelievable. He was in denial.

[andrewlgm]

There is no difference between Evans and muslims clerics arguing for the authority and infallibility of the Kuran. It's a travesty of the subject and scientific method.

History cannot prove Jesus was risen or that mohammed was taken up to heaven NO matter how many christians or muslims become "scholars."

It's pitiable that some christians - relarerfhjk - prove themselves followers of christ by cursing others on youtube meanwhile showing the expertise of 5th grade history students.

[Nashamoshe]

The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

[Nashamoshe]

Professor distinguished Ehrman, I have a question for you: You quote the historians and rely on their accounts, but you know well the authenticity of the historic accounts are already questionable. All of the Historians should write stories which pleased their authorities. At the same time, I believe there are some archaeological evidences which proves Christ the Messiah "STORY"... what do you have to say for it?

No matter if there are so called discrepancies in the bible, The Message is clear

[73geneva]

@idris090 Friend, Islam is a false religion. It's all part of Satan's game plan to deceive people into eternal damnation. Jesus is the only way to heaven and without Him there is no hope for anyone. He predicted His death and resurrection, yet Muhammed comes after five centuries to deny it. How could you base your faith on the claims of such a man?

[liduq]

Sorry to blow up the balloon of certain person, BUT, Bart D. Ehrman was discredited long ago ...

He just continue to write his insane lies. Bad quotations, gross inventions, unverifiable research etc...

The least we can say of him, is that he is quite arrogant to continue to write his lies even after being debunked!

Sorry

[aika092]

@liduq [citation needed]

[drewskione]

He is not taking on Erhman directly very much? Ehrman is being specific and Evans is being general in argument it seems.

[devante11]

Ehrman shows Evans the mistakes.....Evans just turns a blind eye...says it all really..the guy cant be honest with himself, hes in denial

[cctman]

@idris090 Why don't you put up your testimony of what your God does has done for you in your life and I will put up my testimony of God and what he has done in my life and then we will compare whose God is real.

[christofthedead]

@cctman I can't believe you two are still having the "my God is better" argument in the year 2011. This nonsense should be left in caveman times where it belongs.

[christofthedead]

@lightuponlight1 Did you even read the comments my reply was aimed at? You should get your parents to explain youtube to you before you start using it to communicate

[cctman]

@idris090 being raised in a religion doesn't mean a darn thing. Look how many former Muslims have converted to Christianity. Many many more than from Christianity to Islam. Your claim of weighing the evidence also falls short. There are many more theological studied Christians then studied Muslims. As far as your version of God goes... Yours is a God of war, indifference and is impersonal. The Christian God is one of love, forgiveness, strength and is personal relationship.

[rms16006]

@idris090 memorising a book does NOT make that book a miracle...lmao the quran could be memorized with errors or "mans" belief..that doesnt make it better or correct or inspired or anything..its just ANOTHER book that happens to be memorized by its followers..your comment proves nothing.

[MrMonsuralam]

I am shocked almost comment writer were for Bart deos that mean cray lost it? So not why he didn't reply even a single answer in debate?

[MrMonsuralam]

How can I stop laughing after watching this? Believe if cray was my student of any particulars subject would easily be failed? U guys know why bcoz if I ask him to write what is his name  , he would have replied I belive my dad was a teacher? Is ir logical to believe even by kids?? Oh cray don't mislead people for which you will be burnt in the hell!!!

[87Philips]

@idris090 I believe every ideology that threatens with eternal violence if you disagree with it is a form of indoctrination.

Also, the Qur'an and certain Hadith are to some extent based on the Bible. They make references to Jesus miracle works, etc.

[esiosan]

@idris090 The fatuous claims made by Christianity, and its discredited historicity does not in any way validate Islam's claims about the nature of the Universe either.

Especially since Islam's scriptures often borrow the same stories in Jewish and Christian scriptures, so discrediting Christianity 's veracity it is only detrimental to Islam's own claims.

It is hard to understand this when one has been subjected to indoctrination. So it takes intellectual honesty to leave one's comfort zone.

[andrewlgm]

Ehrman deals in fact and history. He wins every time. But for every evangelical he loses. How could he win when the opponent starts every speech with "I believe"? His fact-less faith needs no historical evidence to answer a question.

[relarerfhjk]

@andrewlgm Bart is good at pretending to be a credible scholar and pretending that he changed his mind about Gods existence because of his amazing historical research.

In reality, he has made no important contributions to the field of NT history and he has admitted elsewhere that the real reason he abandoned faith had nothing to do with history but was because he couldnt understand why God would allow evil in the world (an emotional rather than rational objection to theism)

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk anybody using logic* can clearly see that ehrman annihilates craig in this debate.

Bart Ehrman is simply the leading scholar discrediting the field of a "historical new testament" when that term in itself is an oxymoron. Might as well be a doctor in dirt tasting.

Go watch some videos of muslim scholars defending the Kuran's infallibility and maybe a light bulb will pop up above your head.

[relarerfhjk]

@andrewlgm Are you joking? Ehrman didnt "annihilate" anybody, do you know anything about NT scholarship? The vast majority of NT historians agree with Craig Evans on the historical facts surrounding Jesus's deat including great atheist historians like EP Sanders,(whom Craig quoted) Gush Vermes and Gerd Ludeman. Ehrman has changed his mind on the facts so many times that he has no credibility

Ehrman himself agrees that the empty tomb/post-mortem appearances of Jesus are historical facts

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk You don't seem to know what a "fact" is. By your definition, and that of scholars around the globe, Mohammed ascended to heaven "factually."

NT scholarship is a joke - a tremendous and sordid waste of mental time. A waste of time for me to write this. Go to a serious college without "bible" in its name, ask the first published, history professor not bound by belief for an opinion on the bible and they will undoubtedly, unequivocally, with utmost certainty tell you: MYTH.

[relarerfhjk]

@andrewlgm "a mental waste of time"

I'm afraid that description better fits your post. I just quoted great atheist historians who agree with the historical facts about Jesus, so open your stupid, closed mind and learn about the world. We have extraordinarily rich documentary evidence of Jesus's life from over 2500 first-century manuscripts and communities as far apart as Syria, Turkey and Greece within 20 years of his death

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk ad hominem works great doesn't it?

Ehrman recognizes the historical fact that Paul believed in his vision of Christ. Ehrman and every other "historian" in every "college" following the scientific method can with certainty tell you that Jesus being risen from the dead, however, is MYTH. History CANNOT prove miracles. In the same manner that Mohhamed seeing Gabriel is MYTH, however it is a historical fact that he believed it.

Separate history from theology.

[relarerfhjk]

@andrewlgm Jesus being risen from the dead is myth" No historian can establish any such thing since, to do that, they would have to prove God's existence is improbable, which they arent able or qualified to do, and which nobody has ever shown!

"History cannot prove miracles" this is known as the Hume Fallacy; probability theorists now say you can increase the probability of miracles if it is more improbable that the facts would be as they are if a miracle was NOT the explanation of those facts!

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk - no historian can establish that Jesus resuscitated or that Mohammed was risen to heaven. Only theologians can. Why? Because there is no evidence. Words on a gospel written 40 year later are not evidence. If they were written one hour later, it still wouldn't be evidence.

thume fallacy? You people claim this as defense to senselessness without realizing that it's the same is-ought problem that led hume into agnosticism, if not atheism. read his works. He criticized ur position.

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk For a miracle to be an accepted explanation of an event, every other explanation would have to fail, as probability goes, mathematically and scientifically backed up probability immediately rejects miracles since it's unfounded in objectivity. Give me a name of a scientifically respectable theorist who resorts to miracles when explaining why DNA forms helices.

by your logic the best explanation is that mohammed was in fact taken up to heaven.

How many times must one point this out?

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk You are liar. Plain and simple. You simply make things up to support your position. "Ehrman has changed his mind on the facts"? Can you provide evidence? No. Because you are a liar.

"he has admitted elsewhere that the real reason he abandoned faith..." Can you provide evidence? No. Because you are a liar.

You always make claims like "elsewhere" without being able to point out the exact reference. Why? Because you are a LIAR!!!

[relarerfhjk]

@moonlightdancer77 dont call me a liar to conceal your own ignorance, you pathetic little child.

Ehrman admits to changing his mind yet again about the historicity of the empty tomb etc in his debate with William Lane Craig, having already changed his mind when a Christian scholar! He has flip-flopped about more than a beached seal!

"Can you provide evidence" Yes, go on his Wikipedia profile it has links to interviews where hes explained thats why he abandoned faith

[andrewlgm]

@relarerfhjk Ehrman left the faith because of this: Numbers 31: 18.

There is no difference between christians and hitler. Christians r jubilant at the thought of loving Christ returning to earth to decimate billions in the largest and widest holocaust this planet has ever seen - with eternal gas chambers, that go on and on, with a perfect view from heaven so that the saints can admire the merciful and brilliant work of a God.

For a christ follower - perhaps you need to call yourself "stupid."

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk "dont call me a liar" Why? Can't handle the truth? Oops, sorry. You're a

fundie. Of course, you can't handle the truth.

One of you problems (and you have many) is that you assume athiests are just as closed minded as you fundies. You think that just because someone says somethings to support your position, it must be true. Athiests check the facts, which I did and it proves you are a liar.

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk "Ehrman admits to changing his mind yet again about the historicity of the empty tomb etc in his debate with William Lane Craig"

Lying again! The complete transcript of that debate is online, so you can clearly see that it was Craig who is making up something about Ehrman (the strawman argument is typical for Craig) . Craig says "And in fact Dr. Ehrman has himself come to re-think his position on these issues." So where are the exact quotes where Ehrman "changes his mind"?

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk Ehrman later refutes Craig obviously deceitful claims by saying "because what he's saying I've changed my mind to, I don't agree with." Ehrman even goes so far as to poke fun at Craig's absurd claim he changed his mind. Nowhere in the debate does Ehrman make a statement that he changed his mind. Like Craig, you twist the statements by others to the point that the only conclusion is that you are being intentionally deceitful, i.e. lying.

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk Even **IF**, Ehrman has "come to re-think his position", it does not mean he changed his mind. Honest people (unlike you) always question and "re-think" our position. We question our position and if it turns out to be wrong, we correct it. We don't deny the facts (like you) simply because it contradicts our current beliefs.

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk "he has no credibility"

Are you calling Craig Evans a liar??? You should watch the whole video, because Evans admits Ehrman is an expert.

You are a lying loser!

[relarerfhjk]

@andrewlgm If you want to see Ehrman's annihilated,watch Bart Ehrman vs William Lane Craig.

Craig explains the fallacy,known as the Hume Fallacy,at the core of Ehrman's rejection of the ressurection as the best explanation of the historical facts surrounding Jesus's death,agreed upon by most historians (the fact his tomb was found empty,the fact he was seen alive after his death and the fact his first disciples believed in the ressurection despite it being against their Jewish beliefs)

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk "his first disciples believed in the ressurection despite it being against their Jewish beliefs". WHAT???? Lying again or simply being ignorant? Which is it. The old testament contains many stories of people being resurrected, so the claim it is against their beliefs is disproven by your own storybook. And don't move the goalpost by claiming it's "different" because of some minor, unimportant aspect. You are simply clueless!!!

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk By "Hume Fallacy" do you mean that nonsense by John Earman? That has been shredded so many times, it is pathetic. The best one is perhaps A. Lieberman pointing out all of the places where Earman quotes Hume out of context or flat out gets Hume wrong. Or can *you* refute what Lieberman says? Willy Craig simply repeats Earman's garbage and adds nothing at all.

[moonlightdancer77]

@relarerfhjk As one modern philosopher put it "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic."

The bottom line is that if you look at the evidence and use reason, you are not going be a Christian.

[highperactive1]

Does Evans know he's at a debate?

[rovingdesertfox]

Bart absolutely owns craig. This was no contest!!!!

[SupremeHero777]

Wow, why is Ehrman being a negative nancy? Haha with all that zeal he should be a preacher! Playing on the emotions of the people.

[Alexdurrant7]

@SupremeHero777 Is it bad that he is rhetorically gifted?

[nubbs]

instead of asking a question and having both answer, they have let both then have one rebuttal before moving on to the next question.

[ghirotti77]

Let's just admit that in terms of facts and logic, Barth Ehrman just obliterates and destroys any discussion.

[seanhflowers]

I absolutely agree that the gospel accounts don't claim to be written by the person(s) in whose name(s) they are attributed. Ehrman makes this point well (5:43 - 7:17). However, it appears, for instance, that John's gospel account is claimed internally to have been written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved", an eyewitness to Jesus' life, and one of His closest followers.

See John 21.20-25 (see: Biblegateway [dot] com)

I hope I understood Dr. Ehrman correctly... In any case, good video!

[javed119]

to be honst mr bart erham is right, he just telling truth about the bible is conterdection. jesus was prophet of god not the son of GOD or god.... GLORY BE TO ALLAH, GOD FOR WHAT THEY ATTRIBUT TO HIM!!! HE IS ABOVE ALL HIS CREATION.... JESUS PEACE BE UP ON HIM SIMPLY PREACHED THE SAME MESSEG AS ,NUH,MUSES AND IBRAHIM DID.JESUS NEVER CLAIMED DEVINITY . IT IS THE BIBLE ITSELF.

[tekakaromatagi]

@bernlin2000: "So the more discrepancies between a historical accounts of the same events, the more likely you find the events to be?" No, that is your interpretation of what I said. If there was perfect agreement between two supposedy independant witnesses on even tiny details, there was collusion and even fabrication. If there is agreement on major points, I would conclude that the major points are true and that the small things are questionable.

Tekakaromatagi

[MrTruthAddict]

@tekakaromatagi In other words, you believe because the evidence is weak. Nice.

[tekakaromatagi]

@MrTruthAddict

That is your interpretation of what I said.  No. I don't believe because of the witnesses. I have determined that the witnesses have credibility because they are independant. I conclude that they are independant based on them disagreeing on small points while agreeing on the larger more important points.

Tekakaromatagi

[BozoTheBear]

i'm sure it was accidental, but i love the editing of these videos. we get 5 minutes of good honest reasoning from ehrman for why (eg) the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, then 5 seconds of craig saying "yes i think they were". lol.

[bernlin2000]

@BozoTheBear I love it...it's like Evans is completely immune to all arguments, and just steamrolls through his pre-written sermon.

[BozoTheBear]

@bernlin2000 i've read a few of ehrman's books recently, and found them very convincing. but of course, to understand the story you need to hear both sides. so it's actually interesting to see both sides like this, side by side, and note that evans really wasn't able to make a single response to ehrman. might look at a few of the other debates, and see if he manages to find a better opponent!

[tekakaromatagi]

"If they were inspired by holy spirit as christians suggest than there would be NO discrepancies whatsoever. "

Well, I guess I am not those Christians.  I don't think that they wrote down as they were inspired. They wrote down what they had heard or witnessed. MML may have been working off of earlier manuscript(s). John probably wrote down what he had witnessed. If it was a fabrication, they would have worked harder to make their stories consistent.

Tekakaromatagi

[tekakaromatagi]

@tekakaromatagi

It is a whole new question. They weren't inspired. They told the story. The differences only strengthens my view: It is mostly the truth and was not a conspiracy. The literalists have only been weakening their position, insisting that MMLJ were inspired when the evidence suggests that MML&J were four separate witnesses.

Tekakaromatagi

[bernlin2000]

@tekakaromatagi So the more discrepancies between a historical accounts of the same events, the more likely you find the events to be? I'm just glad you're not a historian...because you would be terrible at it.

[coffeeattack]

So, this is like a debate between Satan and the angel Michael. This Ehrman is an antichrist.

[albcorason]

@coffeeattack this ehrman is trying to tell a part of the truth to some idiots, i fell sorry for him, for u too, i wonder why do u need to see and hear at all, when u can not understand the clearest things

[HuckMeHard]

Craig Evans must be in a completely different dimension.

[johngeetar]

I give up on this debate. Shit on both sides.

[tekakaromatagi]

John was an eyewitness and he said that he was.

There are discrepancies. But they agree on the main points, resurrection, cruxificion, doctrine, Christian morals, etc. The Gospels also agree with the writings of Paul and Peter. The Gospels agree that Christ was tempted, but they don't agree on the order of the temptations. All the discrepancies show is that the gospel writers were independant witnesses.

Tekakaromatagi

[Dabo614]

@tekakaromatagi

If they were inspired by holy spirit as christians suggest than there would be NO discrepancies whatsoever. God does not make mistakes, if he inspires 4 people to write about the same man, they will write the exact same thing, not contradict each other dozens of times. Your own bible says God is not the author of confusion.

peace

[Christ724]

@tekakaromatagi author of John wrote the latest. It goes in chronological order:

~70AD - Mark

~80AD - Matthew

~85AD - Luke

~90AD - John

Btw, the author of John is anonymous as all the writers of the gospels. The names Mark, Luke, etc. are arbitrary.

[dobrinin]

A very enjoyable critical debate to view, thank you youtube!

[rexxar]

craig missing the point. if u just read what u wrote. no need ofr masters or PHD ppl can do that

[inkillerxyz1]

But Bart Ehrman has no organized answer. He just throws a bunch of attacks on each view, and then turns and attacks Evans many times. Ehrman makes many arbitrary claims without backing them up, such as assuming Papias gives no evidence? Why?! And so the Gospels don't claim to be disciples means they don't couint? Furthermore, why does he not address Luke's Prologue claiming he was using the eyewitness followers of Jesus? Why does he not address John's Gospel claiming eyewitness testimony?

[inkillerxyz1]

Ehrman is just doing the traditional view of rocki throwing. I want an organized answer to each question that completely addresses it with sources backed up. Ehrman rarely if ever does name a source. Evans cites E.P. Sanders plenty, and having read Sander's most important works, Sanders is a completely skeptical scholar, although still accepts most general things Ehrman does not. Sanders even accepts Jesus' miracles, and just says science will find an answer to them eventually.

[bigbrother1994]

@inkillerxyz1 ok, just question for u, did jesus say he was god? or son of god? or the only way to heaven? as u seem to say  it dont matter. what say u?

[specialk1988]

@inkillerxyz1 Sanders is a "completely skeptical scholar", yet "accepts Jesus' miracles, and...says science will find an answer to them eventually"?? Okay...Are you seriously saying those two statements make sense and are compatible? Surely you see that that is nonsense?

[inkillerxyz1]

@specialk1988 Yes, because I am obviousl saying miracles simply as such amazing deeds Jesus did in his lifetime. But if you need more clarification for his position:“There is agreement on the basic facts: Jesus performed miracles, drew crowds and promised the kingdom to sinners. It is a natural assumption that miracles and the inclusion of sinners are intimately tied to Jesus’ conception of the kingdom and of his own mission. Thus far most scholars will agree.”

(Sanders, JJ, 157)

[inkillerxyz1]

@specialk1988 "The view espoused by Cicero has become dominant in the modern world, and I fully share it. Some reports of ‘miracles’ are fanciful or exaggerated; the ‘miracles’ that actually happen are things that we cannot yet explain, because of ignorance on the range of natural causes."

(Sanders, HFJ, 143)

References:

Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. First Fortress Press, 1985.

Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1993.

Evans quotes from the1st

[acearms]

Evans seems to say the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, which is not a valid argument in any debate.  Also he likes to cite this Sanders fellow, rather than facts. Ehrman has it won without question.

[Lightmane321]

I can't believe how pathetic this debate is. Evans is embarassing himself. I'm shocked that at some point Ehrman didn't scream at him and ask him to actually debate the issues & stop reading from his script.

[SOAS007]

Gray is just preaching.

[inkillerxyz1]

Ehrman keeps wanting to debate against Craig, while at this moment, each scholar is simply being asked to answer the questions with their viewpoint. THat is what Craig is doing. His avoidance of getting into some fierce debate with Ehrman and acknowledging his constant attacks to address his points is wise. Right now, they are supposed to answer these questions with their own viewpoints, not debate fiercely the opposiing viewpoint.

[DideeKawaii]

@inkillerxyz1

A.k.a Craig Evans does not have the proper answer while being under the spot light.

[FatherOfAllGuys]

You must be kidding me. He asks if it ACCURATELY describes it. That means there are no descripancies whatsoever. Are you serious the answer is yes?

Craig answers are a joke.

[iahm87]

Those two guys in the middle look very awkward...

[ArchRascal]

@iahm87 lol I noticed that too. In fact, the whole 'debate' is awkward.

[gmn545]

I like how Ehrman echoes the idea of Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

[InverStone]

Bible = magical fairy tale. Craig = liar for jeebus

[mozzaneek]

dude craig gets OWNED!! but u gotta give him that: he's a good quoter :D

[psandbergnz]

Bart is giving Craig a very hard time! When the chips are down, Christians flounder. Their "evidence" is based on nothing more than hearsay - and hearsay from anonymous or corrupted sources. With so many skeptical and outspoken biblical scholars like Bart now coming to the fore, and neutralizing or squashing every argument that Christian apologists can raise, it's hard to see how christianiity can survive the onslaught.

[IhateGary]

@psandbergnz

If you read Ehrman's latest book, he makes it very clear that Historical/critical scholarship does not necessarily imply losing one's Christianity. It leads instead to understanding that religious claims are theological rather than historical. His agnosticism stems from not being able to reconcile Biblical teachings with real-life suffering and not from Historical-critical scholarship.

[brtherjohn]

An apologist's argument is almost always a circular one. They draw their supposed evidences almost exclusively from the Bible and not outside sources - even though they talk broadly about such sources they never bring the details in debate.

And I'm still waiting for any direct counterpoint to be made by Evans to Ehrman's arguments. And yet, within fundamentalist circles, folks like Evans reassure themselves how factual they are and how stupid critics are.

[SonnyDelight55]

Bart Ehrman claims that the names for the gospels were added later, but he fails to provide evidence for this. He needs to show us an ms that does not attribute authorship to mathew mark luke and john. He also claims that that they don't claim to be eyewitness accounts when Luke and John clearly say that. He also leaves out the fact that all four gospels were treated as canonical from the early days of the church, The church fathers would not be using them if they didn't know who wrote them.

[Englishdosser86]

@SonnyDelight55 I don't think that any of those claims of Ehrman are in dispute. It is accepted by Biblical scholars which is why they're not contested.

[SonnyDelight55]

@Englishdosser86 What claims are you refering to?

[Englishdosser86]

@SonnyDelight55 About the authorship of the gospels.

[SonnyDelight55]

@Englishdosser86 Well, the problem is anybody nowadays can call themselves a "scholar." I don't go by numbers, I go with whoever can provide the most evidence, and trust me, there is loads of evidence for the authorship of the gospels. If fact we have better evidence for mathew, mark, luke, and john than we do for plutarch and tacitus.

[Englishdosser86]

@SonnyDelight55 Then why are none of the gospels written in Aramaic?

[SonnyDelight55]

@Englishdosser86 Mathew was originally written in aramaic but it was later translated to greek. We don't know anything about mark, so there is no reason to assume that he didn't know greek. Luke, being a historian, definitely would have known greek. As for John, there is no reason to believe that he was an uneduacated man, thats just one of Bart Ehrman's assumptions, but he doesn't give any reasons for it. As for the epistles of Peter, he hired a scribe to write letters for him.

[FactualVSFictional]

@SonnyDelight55 Nothing from any ancient Aramaic Bible or Gospel has been archeologically discovered. Only the ancient Hebrew and Greek Bible or Gospel has been archeologically discovered containing contradictory manucripts as highlighted by Dr. Bart Ehrman.

In (Luke 1:2&3), Luke as a disciple of Jesus ironically said that he himself was NOT an eyewitness of Jesus, coz he learned from eyewitnesses instead of as words inspired by God or heard from Jesus in Aramaic.

[BozoTheBear]

@SonnyDelight55 the scribe writing peter theory is ridiculous. so, they differ wildly, and we have to deduce a scribe wrote them? different scribes? i'm really sure if paul was writing something so important, he'd just give the scribes a bunch of dot points and let them flesh them out with their own understandings....

[jacksawild]

@SonnyDelight55 Attestation is not the same as evidence as you portray it. Attestation is an affirmation of truth. Evidence is proof of truth. The gospels and the "evidence" you speak of is attestation, it is no wonder there is more attestation for the gospels than of classical figures as the gospels have spawned a religion which survives to this day. It has two-thousand years of attestation but there are no original manuscripts, the earliest we have all contradict each other in many ways.

[SonnyDelight55]

@jacksawild We don't have the original for any work in the ancient world, and the earliest manuscripts do not contradict each other in any way. You need to be more specific.

[jacksawild]

@SonnyDelight55 Even the most fundamentalist scholars say so. Evan's admits it in this very debate which shows that either you are lying or misinformed. Did you actually watch this or are you just arguing because you "know" something which two thousand years worth of learned men don't? The earliest copyists were not professional scribes or even well educated people, errors and and additions pervade; like the Markan Appendix. That is, the addition of the resurrection story to the earliest gospel.

[SonnyDelight55]

@jacksawild I thought you were talking about the authorship of the gospels, all the earliest manuscripts agree on that.

[SonnyDelight55]

@jacksawild Yes I am well aware of the textual variants in the new testament. Varients are to be expected and most of the so-called 40,000 varients are just spelling errors. The ones that you brought up (The ending of Mark, The story of the adulterest, etc.) Those have been well known for years.

[SonnyDelight55]

@jacksawild The gospel of Mark is defenitely not the earliest resurrection account. The epistles of Paul far predate mark and it contains a creed that dates to within 5 years of the cruxifiction. But you forgot to mention that Jesus IS resurrected in Mark.

When the women got to the tomb the angel said, "He isn't here. He is risen from the dead". That fact that you didn't know that makes me think that you've never read mark, and your just repeating everything bart ehrman says.

[jacksawild]

@SonnyDelight55

99% accuracy? Prove it!

You also seem to be accusing me of plagiarism. I shouldn't be surprised that this is devolving into some kind of insult-fest. I don't mind, if you want to go down that road you should feel free but I guarantee you wont like where it ends. Check out Phil 2:3 and come back when you've considered what kind of "christian" you want to be.

[SonnyDelight55]

@jacksawild You've got to be kidding me. I'm insulting you? Really? All I did was tell you to read the refutations to Bart Ehrman. Your the one who accused me of thinking I "know something which two thousand years worth of learned men don't" It looks like your just trying to start an insult-fest then try to make it look like I'm the one who started it. I don't have time for this.

[SonnyDelight55]

@jacksawild The text of the new testament have been re-established with 99% accuracy, as any liberal scholar would tell you. We have different lineages of manuscripts and papyri most dating within 100 years of the new testament. No other book of antiquity comes even close to this, as bart ehrman would admit. Maybe you should start reading other people besides bart ehrman.

[jacksawild]

@SonnyDelight55 YOU are accusing me of relying on ONE book? That is deliciously ironic! I will ignore it for now because it is blatantly a veiled insult even if it is highly amusing to me. I didn't say the resurrection wasn't mentioned, I said the last verses, which contain the full account, were added afterwards. As for most scholars agreeing authorship, I think you need to do more research. Even the Catholic church isn't as sure as they used to be and no one can accuse them of being "liberal"

[jacksawild]

@SonnyDelight55 Or how about John's story of the woman taken in adultery, you know "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". It does not exist in the earliest manuscripts which we have, its writing style differs from the rest of John, many of the words and phrases used are alien to the rest of the gospels. Ask any scholar, they will admit it. It's up to you to decide why this isn't taught to the laity. I know what I think. Read the footnotes of your own bible if you don't believe me.

[jacksawild]

@SonnyDelight55 Look up John Mill (1645 - 1707). His work "Novum testamentum græcum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS. exemplarium, versionun, editionum SS. patrum et scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, et in easdem nolis", with its snappy title noted some 30 000 differences between all extant manuscripts known at the time. Many more have been found since. Ehrman notes that there are more differences than words in the New Testament itself.

[BozoTheBear]

@SonnyDelight55 so hang on, you won't accept his word for it that "Mark" does not appear on the original autograph of the gospel of Mark unless Ehrman can produce the original, yet you accept that every single other word from the gospel of Mark can be trusted without seeing as much as a single manuscript from the 2nd century?

also, "the church fathers would not be using them if they didn't know who wrote them" - what about hebrews? and all the other epistles falsely attributed? vacous argument.

[uFlubber]

Craig lists the 8 events in Jesus'  according to Sanders life including his death, but he does not mention a resurrection.

[CRoadwarrior]

Craig did not properly prepare for this debate. I would have had answers for most if not all of Bart's claims and then some. All he would have been able to do is repeat his claims over and over after they were refuted. LOL.

[Nickcloudy]

@CRoadwarrior

You seem to be a highly renowned, intelligent, and *perfect* scholar, who has been exposed and talked with scholars all over the world such as Ehrman. Tell us, what are your answers which are based off of scholarly evidence?

[CRoadwarrior]

@Nickcloudy That's right, I have my own scholarship. But Bart is old hat in new clothes. Go read some Dr. Norman Geisler or Dr. William Lane Craig. I don't have time to deal with kids who question me but don't know half of what Bart or what the scholarship says, and who don't study the scholarly literature.

[CRoadwarrior]

@Nickcloudy If you want to learn some truth, watch my continuing series on Bart and see how you refute a heretic like Bart and his old claims.

[Nickcloudy]

@CRoadwarrior

HAHA! These posts made me laugh a lot.

What in the world are you doing commenting on Youtube if you have renowned scholarship. According to your channel, you're just a kid.

Describing Bart in the way you did is an "Ad hominem" argument. You discredit his facts because he's "old". Even if his claims are "old" they're are still factual, and therefore cannot be disproven (the facts, not the conclusions).

[LothairOfLorraine]

@Nickcloudy In the 4th century, a soon to be Roman Emperor named Julian the Apostate wrote a 'eulogy' to the reigning emperor in which he said the poets and rhetoriticians had licence to invent novelties and 'marshall the power of words against that of facts'.

[ravenmn]

The main distinction between Craig and Bart is that Craig focuses on general episodes, "generally what Jesus is about" which most historians, and scholars would agree, however as Bart notes the details are the issues. Its within the details that discrepancies occur.

[BozoTheBear]

@ravenmn right, and it's the exact detailed words of jesus (and others) that go into the doctrine-making. sometimes one needs to take a couple of words from one source, and some from another (seemingly disagreeing) source in order to make a doctrine, such as the trinity. so there's a huge need to be able to take everything literally, and not just generally. if i can only conclude that jesus was a guy who spoke against oppression say, how could i then go and tell gays they're going to hell?

[zedascovebr]

Is this a debate? Craig just reads what he has previously prepared. He never answer a question!

[Limbsy]

@zedascovebr so does ehrman... its the format of the debate...

[jawatroxion]

@zedascovebr I agree with you on that...

[jawatroxion]

@zedascovebr Oh... but u're a bit wrong on the part he doesnt answer the questions... If you realize, he begins many (or is it all?) of his speeches with ... "I believe they do", "Yes I do"... etc. :P Ok. i was just being cynical. In all, yes, he doesnt answer the questions....

[TheAmericanforJesus]

@zedascovebr And Ehrman doesn't? He barely addresses any arguments of Craig. Craig answers the primary question as does Ehrman.