Evangelicals are impervious to rational argument because they are in a state of self-delusion perpetuated by those with the same self-delusion. No amount of evidence or debate will affect their beliefs because it is a form of mental illness.
Evans: "Do scholars think that Jesus' followers were so ignorant that they were unable to proclaim what Jesus taught? Not too many think this. Should we not assume that disciples/learners did in fact learn what the Rabbi taught? ...the disciples were capable learners" (applause).
Hello? The disciples DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT JESUS WAS TO BE RESURRECTED! John 20:9 "For as yet they (the disciples) DID NOT KNOW the scripture, that he (Jesus) must rise again from the dead."
Evans is useless in this "debate". He reads his prepared answer and doesn't even try respond to Ehrman's points. When he reads his points he backs them up with "I believe" and "many scholars say". How is this even a conversation? Bible School (UK) should take his PhD back for intellectual dishonesty. I guess he knows his audience because they seem to be lapping it up, more's the pity.
Why would god allow for his holy word to be corrupted? You'd think he'd be pissed and not allow for such things and if jesus was his incarnation he should've written something down.
What about presuppositional apologetics?? It would have "ERR MAN" runnin for the hills. Granted, he is not a philosopher. But it would challenge his autonomous thinking
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Bart D. Ehrman should have been a laywer. Do your homework, all this guys allegations have been refuted, but you'll never shut him up cause he's making too much money tickling ears in a Godless age.
i hear this a lot. i unlikely that you are even aware of ehrman's many allegation's. it's more likely that you've looked for refutations ... probably a fan of wlc. lol take any allegation ehrman makes on this vid and make your case. other wise you are just noise.
@HellRehab Wouldn't waste my time. Do your own homework, Go to a book store and grab a good book on christian apologetics or go to christian-thinktank (dot)com and you'll find that ALL his arguments have more than convincingly been shot down. His arguments are as old as the Bible itself, he has nothing new. If it's Truth you REALLY want, without bias you will objectively PURSUE BOTH SIDES of the argument/evidence. But you will NEVER arrive at truth if you just want to be right. Cheers
i figured you wouldn't waste your time. blanket assertions seen to suite you. let me know if you want to take on any of bart's specific positions. btw life long evangelical you're talking to. quite aware of the other side of the reliability argument. please school me. or.....just assert away.
@HellRehab "blank assertions", that's your assumption. As for being a 'life long' evangelical, I could care less. The question is, did you KNOW Him? Rather than blank assertions I have come to my CONCLUSIONS based on extensive investigation and research. Furthermore, I've also concluded that there are two types of researchers, those seeking the Truth or those who just want to be right or knock God out of the equation. YouTube 'Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler' succinct,says what I would
@AlainSta60 and Normon Geisler most ASSUREDLY, did not refute Bart Ehrman. Geisler speaks theologically but not historically . Thats the same as arguing apples to oranges.
@AlainSta60 The problem with Christian "think tanks" is the same as problems with "political think tanks". Its all about spin. Their job is to figure out the best way to spin an argument and make it make sense. Anyone can do this. but it is dishonest and NEVER stands up to scrutiny. Id challenge you to point out a major point of Ehrmans, and show me how any apologist has refuted it without there being some major flaw in the refutation.
Ehrman why on earth u bother I have no idea. Every1 knws that the Bible is contradictry, anon, re-written & belief is clearly not based on Jesus' teachings & they still believe.
So why on earth wld a logical historically accurate argument which requires intelligence, change their minds? They are not using their minds, they r using blind faith. Hopefully there r some who will wake up. There is God. I don't agree with everything Ehrman says but lets be honest. The Bible is not 100% relaible
Evans starts pretty much every response with " believe that'. That isn't intellectual debate its a cop-out and certainly not what you would expect from a theological Professor or historian.
Why wouldn't the gospels have discrepancies? Don't different witnesses say different things, but get the same message across? Each Gospel author had a specific topic and therefore certain information was followed to the dime, while others were lax.
@TheAmericanforJesus Yeh but if this were a court of law and you brought these people into the witness box you would have major problems. Witnesses need to agree on the important issues and in the gospels they simply don't. If I was a juryman I'd have to conclude 'case not proven' on some very big issues, at least not on the evidence provided. We don't even know who the witnesses are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. and the Bible, both Old & New is extraordinarily error-strewn.
Dr. Evans argument: The Gospels may not be the verbatim account of what Jesus said, and there may even be things which were added later which Jesus did not say or did, BUT they capture "THE ESSENCE" of his teachings so Bible must be true, OTHERWISE HOW would the church even be possible?
Is this an argument!?
OK so, the only way an organized religion with temples and followers can exist is if the teachings of its founder(s) must be true? This is indefensible! I'm disappointed again
Evans is not responding to Ehrman's questions because he does not want to become an atheist in front of a crowd. To ignore, deflect, or misdirect, is the only option open to a xian who wishes to remain a xian. To honestly question their beliefs, is to lose their 'belief'. That is what atheists, and the clergy, have been saying all these years. You can only 'believe', if you don't question. You don't need 'faith', or 'belief', if a thing is 'true'. Do you need 'faith' to believe that ice is cold?
@rshlim Because this is how brainwashed people think. They are taught NOT to think. They just spew out what they have heard of been taught. That is why he will not directly address Ehrmans questions and points.
worse debate ever. the only good point so far is evans's point @3:29. the writers in the times of christ were not obsessed with details in their gospels. they were interested in getting across the gist of the teachings. historians know this. i've come across this info. in my own readings. btw ehrman himself said in a lecture that the errors in the gospel copies don't change the basic dogma of christianity.
Every field of science disagrees with religion: psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, evolution.....it just goes on and on. Science wins. Here endeth the lesson.
Far out, is Evans ever going to answer Ehrman's incisive questions? Even the moderator, who I assume is an evangelical as well says he sounds like an evangelist. Notice also how the audience clapped, I think this had less to do with what he was saying and more to do with the way he started jumping up and down a bit when he said it.
"sound like an evangelist" sums it up, Evans isn't responding directly to the subjects of debate he is trying to obfuscate and basically bore his opponent into submission.
Ehrman's flaw here is that he expects the Bible to be a strict tape recorder. By the same logic, you'd have to be an originalist about Batman, Spiderman, and Sherlock Holmes. Not to mention James Bond. If James Bond is shown with a cellphone (ANACRHONISM ALERT!), does this bother you that the item did not exist in the 1950s??? Even today, telling and retelling stories accepts that sort of change. Ehrman fails to note that the Bible is art, not just straightforward reporting for its own sake.
@Tristaths What do you mean by the bible is art? That is a very very very ambiguous claim. Secondly, your charge about him expecting it to be a tape recorder is just false. Have you read of heard anything he has to say? For example the very *character* of Jesus differs in gospels. By this I mean that in one narrative, Jesus is not worried on his way to crucifixion, he knows what is going to happen, and in the other, he is scared and asks god why did he betray him.
Ehrman uses facts and examples in his debate and responds to Evans nonsense.
Evans just PREACHES from the bible and doesn't debate at all...typical religious fundamental technique... no matter what somebody says just keep on preaching and ignore what was said...
One of the most common questions about the Gospels is authorship. Who wrote them? It is hard to say with a high degree of certainty, but, the writers must have been influenced by Greek sophism. It was a common practice in sophistic etiquette to avoid the direct use of names. That may help to explain why John is carefull to use epithets rather than name the 'beloved disciple' or himself.
@LothairOfLorraine "It was a common practice in sophistic etiquette to avoid the direct use of names." It was also a common practice at the time to embellish stories to not only make them exiting, but also fit specifically to the target audience. A story that appears to be a "history" is at best a "docu-drama" in modern terms. They were far more interested in getting the message across than present an historically accurate "play by play".
the truth slowly comes out the lie they have told about jesus peace be up on him, jesus was no more then a prophet. he never said i am god worshipe, he was a prophe like Moses. Ibrahim, like nuh. that is what the muslims insistint that jesus never claimed devinity. the bible have been crupted. there is no god but and muhammad, is last messenger.
Ehrman says that John the Evangelist and John the Baptist speak with the same voice. His point is that John the Evangelist was making up what John the Baptist said. But John the Baptist didn't say enough in the book of John for someone to be able to identify a different speaking style (by word counting) that is statistically significant.
@Putnis1 "Like I said...'Erhman is a evil little man.'"
Can't attack the argument, so we attack the man.
Interesting that Putnis1's channel is no longer available. Seems Christians do that a lot. They create a sock puppet, make a very obnoxious comments then disappear. That definately says a lot for the validity of their arguments and their beliefs.
This is pitiful! This isn't a debate...it's a slaughter, and only Ehrman was armed.
Evans hasn't directly addressed any of Ehrman's arguments, or points. He's only made general statements proclaiming the gospels are accurate but doesn't demonstrate that by countering any of Ehrman's examples.
There are no bible books & manuscripts, there are no originals, no one knows who the authors were. How can anyone claim accuracy when they can't validate the writings? And that's all it is....text.
@Cootabux And the church claps for Evans anyhow...because they didn't come there to actually learn the historical truth: they prefer sermonizing and apologetic. It's very sad, and I feel very sorry for Ehrman, whose only consolation (with a group completely against his message) can be that at least he's trying to figure out what history can say about Jesus without glomming on theological bits.
My props to Bart for owning Evans ass despite the fact that he is in a biased and predisposed religious audience. There wern't any atheist or agnostics there to applaud him, but those religiouse lunatics know deep inside that the better debater was Bart. Thats the only reason why they would applaud such a weak argument.
@KittenButter "It seems like Ehrman's trying to scare people into agreeing with him by shouting like a lunatic."you mean shouting like a preacher, but without the threats of eternal damnation and accusations of sin.. Bart did used to be a preacher b4 he saw the light, so you should forgive his 'style'. :-)
Man it was so easy when i was just memorizing bible verses why did i have to go and studied it. Ignorance is bliss, I thought the bible could handle all my hard questions then i went and spent real time studying all angles not just my own. I believe in Jesus and God but i don't believe in Christianity. If you are honestly whole heartedly searching to know the truth be prepared to have your whole ripped apart. Stay ignorant its easier just be honest and admit you don't know the answer.
@meangreen4321 Its funny how Bart keeps insisting on evidence, historical accuracy, and even challenges Evans to debate with out theological arguments, and Evans keeps pretty much preaching. The only way someone could keep believing in the gosples' reliability is to maintain a spiritual perspective and not an intellectual one.
...a more appropriate term would be a "devotional" perspective, v.s. "historical critical". I think Bart Ehrman makes this distinction in his books as well. It is obvious that Craig's position does not allow horizontal comparisons of the gospels to see if all details can be reconciled. It is obvious that Jesus did not say and do "everything" that is ascribed to him.
@RevInt1 or by viewing the tens of thousands of manuscripts dating all the way back to 250 BC validating the hundreds of prophetic claims about christ.
@anonazero All of which of course have nothing original in them, or anything that other manuscripts from other civilizations and religions hadn't said. And keeping in mind how easily they have been altered and how easily we've been lied to, I really don't see why the Bible should be considered infalible. Its pretty simple, read the manuscripts and make the present fit in to them.
@RevInt1 look, its a big red flag to me when someone starts going on about manuscripts being altered because that tells me they have no idea what they're talking about. if you're just going to make stuff up go write science fiction but in the secular world that HATES the gospel it is almost universally agreed upon that the documentary support for the bible is unparalleled. nothing even comes close to it. we know what first century christians believed because we have their writings.
@anonazero Look you dumb fuck, you idiots don't even have ONE original when it comes to the bible books, So don't even start that whole "go write science fiction" bullshit. I don't hate the gosple. I pitty people like you who are to afraid to face reality. The writings that you have of the first century christians are only copies of copies. Oh, and what ass did you pull out that it's almost universally agreed that the documentary support for the bible is unparalleled? Bullshit, and you know it.
@anonazero "its a big red flag to me when someone starts going on about manuscripts being altered because that tells me they have no idea what they're talking about."
So that means you have more knowledge and understanding of bible history than one of the world's leading experts on the subject??? Even Evans admitted Ehrman knows more about it than he does. (within this very video series!) Do you believe you actually know more about the subject than Ehrman? My we do have a huge ego, don't we?
@jimmo42 to put it simply ehrman dishonestly misrepresents facts in order to sell books and push his own agenda. watch william lane craig's dissection of the two personas erhman projects. also you need to realize that when bart stands there to try to discredit the bible he's one VS a thousands secular scholars that say the exact opposite.
@anonazero "a thousands secular scholars"? Could you name just 10% of them or is this an example where *you* "misrepresent facts"? I doubt I could come up with even 10 that are as much of an expert as Ehrman. I've read the bible, as well as five of Dr. Ehrman's books. Have *you* read any (which ones?) or are simply regurgitating something someone else said? What *specifically* do you think he misrepresents? (based on what *he* has said or written, *not* other people's interpretation.)
@jimmo42 start with cornelius tacitus and work your way to gary habermas. then look up william lane craig's youtube dissection of bart's two faced persona.
@anonazero So you are admitting that your objections to what Dr. Ehrman's says is based on what other people says and not what you know personnally. I would call that being intellectually dishonest, but at least you are honest about the fact, you don't personal know what Ehrman says. Second, Habermas and Craig are NOT "secular scholars" either you do not know what that term means or again your intellectually dishonest.
@jimmo42 its based on what he's said being inconsistent with every other scholar i've ever heard speak on the subject and when he's pushed he changes his story.
second, i never said habermas and craig were, if you knew anything about them you'd know that gary only uses secular validated sources and craig shreds barts claims in debate and in another youtube vid.
you clearly just want to win an argument not learn. i've given you something to look into and you just want to cry about details.
@anonazero " i've given you something to look into". *You* made the original claim "ehrman dishonestly misrepresents facts". I asked *you* to provide example based on your *own* personal experience. "*not* other people's interpretation." Can you provide examples from your own experience. No, you cannot. I'll debate you anytime you choose about what Ehrman says and what is in the bible and I won't point you to other sources saying you should go look up something.
@anonazero "second, i never said habermas and craig were,"
Second you are being intentionally deceitful. I asked "Could you name just 10% of them...?", you responding by mentioning Habermas and Craig. The logical conclusion is that you were responding to my original request for 10% of those 1000 scholars. Or is it your intention to continually avoid answering direct questions with unrelated answer or telling me to go look up something?
@anonazero "you clearly just want to win an argument not learn. "
Uh, no. Obviously I *do* want to learn, which is why I asked *you* the questions. What do *you* see as things that Ehrman misrepresents? I have seen videos and read articles by Habermas, Craig, James White and Daniel Wallace, just to name a few. (I have even exchanged email with Dr. Wallace, a really nice man!) I already know what *they* say about Ehrman. What do *you* think?
@jimmo42 i think that bart's objective to discredit the bible is soley personal and he uses intellectually dishonest fallacious means to accomplish this because it sells books.
@jimmo42 you asked what i thought and then want me to quote the guy's lectures from when i watched them whenever i watched him? pfffft
and the presumption that he doesn't care and has no agenda (despite standing in opposition to the great majority of historians/scholars) is laughable at best. nobody swims upstream without a reason.
@anonazero "You asked what i thought and then want me to quote the guy's lectures"
Uh, no. *You* made a claim and I am expecting *you* to back up that claim with facts. I can read Habermas and Wallace on my own. I am not discussing this topic with them, but with *you*. What do *you* feel are the problems with Ehrman's arguments? If you say you are simply regurgitating what others write and have no clue about what Ehrman says, that's fine. I will go elsewhere for an intellectual discussion.
@anonazero "nobody swims upstream without a reason."
That is person opinion, not based on any facts. He is an historian who beleives that the historical facts and the bible itself do not support the belief in a magical entity that got a woman pregnant so he himself could be born in order to sacrafice himself to himself. It is a position I support as well. What then is *my* reason?
Maybe you are right. *My* reason is that I support truth and not myths made up to scare little children.
@anonazero "despite standing in opposition to the great majority of historians/scholars"
No that is not correct. If you look at the history of bible translation over the last several decades, you will find that they have changed a lot. Ehrman discusses the reasons in his books. So you are saying Ehrman is wrong and "the great majority of historians/scholars" disagree with him, but they still redo translations of the bible. Hmmmm. And that seems logical to you?
@anonazero "once again you saying something does not make it true."
You do realize that the same applies to you. Simply repeating what *others* say about Ehrman does not make it true. Hey, at least I have read all of the works in question. You haven't so you really cannot provide anything to this kind of discussion other than empty rhetoric.
@anonazero And PLEASE don't go to some site and quote mine a few things about what others say about Ehrman and pretend they are yours. If you can't provide any support for your arguments *on your own*, be honest and admit it.
@anonazero Well YOU have not provided any data, simply rhetoric. What data? What facts? Even in this video series Evans went so far as to imply Ehrman know more about bible history than he (Evans) does. People like James White and Daniel Wallace consider him one of the world's leading experts he often is asked to evaluate new historical finds. (e.g the Gospel of Judah) In your opionion, what exactly are those issues that Ehrman claims that others disagree with?
@jimmo42 oh I HAVEN'T provided you information in a youtube box, i've only give you multiple sources to check. so since i haven't given you the data DIRECTLY you're saying that you have no reason to check those guys out. so instead of just going to garyhabermas(dot)com to deal with data you neglect that by crying on youtube.
also, james white will also attest to the deceitful nature of barts representation of the new testament. i think i've seen him speak on that before, actually.
In the space of your content-less rhetoric you *could* have provided a couple of good example. Instead, you continually point me to other people's opinion. As I said, I have *already* read Habermas, so giving me the URL to his website is somewhat ludicrous. Crying? No, I have repeatedly asked for YOUR opinion. Not Habermas', Not Whites, not Wallaces.
What is the point of posting if you are unwilling to provide your own opinion?
@anonazero "james white will also attest to the deceitful nature"
That I would like to see. I have never, EVER seen James White use any word whatsoever that even comes close to "deceitful nature" or anything similar. I submit for all you read this, you are making that up! Backup it up with facts. Don't just give me random URL to look up "something". Give me specifics that are YOUR opinion and not simply ad hominem attacks.
Jesus was also "the EXTREME minority ". Pasteur was also "the EXTREME minority ", which is why so many peoeple died in the 19th century. Given time, I could name at least a dozen scientists who were "the EXTREME minority " in their own time, but were still right. Simply being the minority does not necessarily mean you are wrong. Or is this a popularity contest. Ehrmans assertions are based on what everyone can see for themselves!
@anonazero BTW, just what does Tacitus say Ehrman misrepresent? What I ever read that talks about Tacitus says that he only mentioned Jesus *very* briefly and there is major debate if was talking about "Christians" at all or something else. So what exactly did Tacitus say about Christian theology, doctrine or history that contradicts anything Dr. Ehrman said? I would imagine you could impress a lot of people if you have something significant he wrote about *anything* surrounding Jesus.
@anonazero "want to learn more about the subject at hand first."
Let's see the dicussion is about what bart ehrman says is in the bible. I have read both the bible AND bart ehrman. Therefore, I know what he says about the bible which I have read. Therefore, logically I do have first hand knowledge of the subject. The references to tacitus was that you provide his name in response to the request to name 10% of your 1000 secular scholars. Which you still haven't.
@jimmo42 it is just a joke that you want 10% of all scholarship that validates the historicity of the bible. that kind of ridiculous task is what you like to do instead of looking at the ONE guy i gave you that cites ONLY secular validated sources. i gave you a GREAT source. if he's biased then he should be an easy take down.
oh wait, you just immediately threw it out because you're not a skeptic by any stretch of the imagination.
@anonazero Obviously since I posted that tacticus wrote extremely little about Jesus although you *claim* to use him as a source seems pretty clear you have no clue about what tacticus wrote. Or can you point me to some writings of tacticus that other people do not know about yet?
@anonazero You really don't know what you are talking about. I bet you looked up those names on Wikipedia or somewhere else. If you really did know anything about this subject, you would have mentioned some better examples.
@jimmo42 gary habermas listed ALL of them so ask him for it. im not going to list out something google can do for you. i haven't read anything from ehrman so i can't comment on his books but i know that his rhetoric is completely inconsistent with the rest of the scholarship world.
you probably haven't seen craig shred the stuff bart says so here ya go:
@anonazero "gary habermas listed ALL of them so ask him for it."
Translated: "You have no clue about the subject but are merely repeating things other people say."
"i haven't read anything from ehrman " So you are logically not in a position to make any claims about what he says. These other people have personal reasons to attempt to contradict ehrman, so naturally their comments are biased. But you blindly repeat them without know the facts.
@anonazero "we know what first century christians believed because we have their writings."
Ahhhh, so based on these writing *you* believe that there are two gods: one that creating this world plus the christian God? So, *you* believe Jesus was not divine at all, but completely human? But wait a minute, "first century christians" also believed Jesus was completely divine and not human, at all. Dare I say that is yet another contradiction? Hmmmmmm......
@anonazero "jews have never believed in anything other than one God."
That is historical inacurate. Jews were polytheistic. That is why the ten commandments says "no other god *before* me", not just "no other god" because at that time it was OK to worship more than one God, you just have to have Yaweh as the top, as in "before" all other Gods.
@jimmo42 actually thats a reference to idolatry because people are idol factories that make gods of everything from cars to sports teams. what that literally means is "dont value anything more than me"
"‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 44:6 "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Isaiah 44:8 "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5
@anonazero 'what that literally means is "dont value anything more than me"'
Uh, no. That is incorrect. The words say "no god before me". The interpretation *might* be as you said, but if you look at the original it is NOT what you claim, so by definition the *literal* meaning is "No god before me".
I would suggest reading some Jodi Magness. She is one of the world's expert on early Judaismn. She definitely would say you are wrong. Early jews were polytheistic.
@anonazero "we have tens of thousands of historical documents proving they believed this."
Uh, no. That is again incorrect. The historical documents (including the bible in the original Hebrew) are quite clear that ancient Jews were polytheistic. One of the most accessible writers on the subject is Jodi Mangess. I did a course from her on holy land archelogy, very intersting.
3. A possible and logical explanation of why the NT seems to fulfill prophecy is that the authors knew the OT and wrote stories in the NT explicitely to match the alledged prophecies. This is demonstrated by the attempt to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem in Luke. That is to fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem, so the author of Luke made up a story about a census in order to show that a prophecy was being "fulfilled".
@anonazero "LOL so they just got lucky with that whole "census" thing. riiiiight."
No, they made it up. There are NO records of a census anything like what is described in Luke. If you are thinking about the census of Quirinius, it happened at a time that would contradict Matthew. It was made up in order to get Jesus born in bethlehem. Futher millions of people travelling for months would not have gone unnoticed and would have been impossible at that time.
@meangreen4321 Evans has a nasty habit here of not answering the questions, but just spouting theology. They seem to be on separate tracks: Ehrman approaching the Bible from as a textual historical critic, and Evans as a theological apologist. It's making for some back and forth that is frustratingly lacking in candor.
i say that the kingdom of god is the persons mind since the concept of god is an idea which of course, comes from the mind 1st.jesus was humble and loving and educated teacher who made a difference for the poor.something like a mlk and jfk at his time.
If I was i christian and listend to Bart Erhman I would have left christianity LOOOONG time ago. Why are you christians stuburn, dont you see that your bible is corupt? How can you see whats true and whats false even when the scholars dont know?(sorry for my spelling)
This format is awful. The 2 speakers are good but this format doesn't allow for them to address each other - they've prepared answers for the question but don't have time to engage each other's answers. Plus by moving from topic to topic, the speakers aren't able to build a case. Ehrman looks like he won because he answers the question one way. Evans as the 2nd speaker, answers the question in his own way but doesn't have time to respond to Ehrman. Please don't use this format again!
Do people like unbelievers just because they are unbelievers? Cause I rarely see anyone on here defending the pro-christian side. It seems youtube attracts angry atheists and agnostics... the mere 10% of the population ON these videos JUST to show their anger and disassociation with religion. It's so unattractive..
Hey Evans, maybe try answering a question. Or just doing something having to do with the debate you're in. You're using all kinds of words to say absolutely nothing.
Why can't Craig answer Bart's question, ARE THERE ANY ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?? Because Craig is afraid to admit that there IS ERRORS and people would be upset!! Sorry, but Bart E. is 100% correct!
Evans is doing a monologue to himself -- and Bart D. Ehrman throws out one attack after another, producing historical arguments again and again -- and Evans just goes around in circles in the Bible, wrapped himself up in his theological position...
Bart Ehrman's objections are completely ridiculous. He expects all four gospels to tell the exact same story with the exact number of details. I garantee you he would not apply that same critique to other historical documents.
@SonnyDelight55 Bullshit! He shows conclusively how the story originated with "mark" as a simple tale, and then was expanded by later authors to answer stinging questions that had arose in the interim. Anyone should be able to discern that without the help of Bart Ehrman. Why can't you?
Sorry utoobers. I have an off-topic question you may be able to help me with. There was a study done years ago where they compared the number of professed xians in America who said they attended church every Sunday to the attendance records of all churches in America and found a HUGE discrepancy. If all of the xians who said they attended church every week actually attended church, they wouldn't have enough room. Also, they found that overall church attendance had dropped significantly. Thanks!
@SonnyDelight55 I read them. Evidently it can be done. I did not say you 'could not' read 'Mark', I just said that you could not read it and abscribe an author to it. Caesar and Tacitus at least refer to themselves. The 'author' of 'Mark', did not.
@yeshuahfullofit Caesar and Tacitus do NOT refer to themselves in any of their writings. So you must apply the same criteria for them, as you would for the gospels. The only way we know that Tacitus wrote them is through tradition, and the earliest mention we get of Tacitus being the author is over 100 years later by tertullian. Thats far worst attestation we have for the gospels, and yet you don't deny that Tacitus was the author. Its The same with Plutarch and Plato
@SonnyDelight55 Okay. I deny authorship of ALL of those materials. My world still looks the same. Can YOU deny the authorship of the 'gospels', and tell me the same thing? I really don't care. I'll continue to live my life without a 'need' of 'salvation'. Your 'hell' doesn't bother me and your 'heaven' doesn't entice me. Peace. *~@:-{>
@yeshuahfullofit This has nothing to do with how my world looks. It also has nothing to do with heaven or hell. And yes, if I denied the authorship of the gospels my world would still look the same.
@SonnyDelight55 Fine. Caesar, Tacitus, Plutarch and Plato are not historical persons. Pause......... Nothing happened. I don't care. Now, you say that Jesus and the four apostles are not real historical persons. Pause............... Do you care? If so, why? It clearly isn't "history" you are concerned with. Just admit to yourself that it is all bullshit, then get on with your new life. Easy.
The problem with this debate is that Craig does not directly address Bart's points. The other point is that it seems both of them are essentially reading from prepared, written speeches. But I myself would not allow Bart to get away with his logical fallacies.
Adding to 4:38, can you really base your salvation on the oral traditions that lasted 30-70 years? It's not as if it's a 3 month oral tradition, although, in terms of hoping for salvation, 3 months would be too late for me, but 30-70 years with agenda, apologetic motif, hearsay stories, building on stories that are heresay made to suit a particular agenda etc. etc.
@Sammygirl7466 Not so. All Ehrman is doing is being nitpicky and picking little errors out and points of criticism while Evan's is addressing the bigger picture. The sweep of New Testament scholarship is to be critical, while Ehrman misses the bigger picture. I think Ehrman is being simplistic and has a much easier job he is trying to push though here - Evan's is right to argue back this way.
@Mylth " All Ehrman is doing is being nitpicky and picking little errors " Little errors!! the errors show that the BIG picture is the gospels are unrelieble ( most of the NT, is also known to be forged.). Christians for 200 years didn't believe this version of christianity, they had many gods. It has been made up years later. That is the real BIG picture.!
@SOAS007 What books are you reading?? If you did read any you would know all of what you are saying is rubbish. I would suggest reading a book on the New Testament. Try 'The New Testament Gospels: Are they Reliable' by F.F. Bruce, or 'Is the New Testament Reliable' by Barnett. I don't know anyone who thinks that the 'New Testament is known to be forged.
@Mylth "at books are you reading??" the epistle to the HEbrews. Or if you have an oldet bible. St PAuls Epistle to the Hebrews, which as it is considered he did not write no lionger since about 1950 makes this claim. The same can be said for 5 othe paul episltes too, plus ones that didn't makle it into the canon.! 3 corinthians e.g.
@Mylth " think you just want to believe what you want to believe," that is a religious trait. Christians for hundreds of years BELIEVED completely different things than those today., In fact it was a polytheistic religion. Christians BELIEVE many different things today, hence so many types of this religion. The facts are , there are many errors and contradictions in the bible, and completely different narratives repeated by unknown writers,without other sources.
@SOAS007 I think I provided two books there before that are worth reading. But I also studyed it myself before. I am confident if you look into in you will find the evidence is very very good. The main objection most people have is against miraculous events etc in the Bible. But in terms of this video, all Ehrman is doing here is picking on errors. This would be like me saying I don't believe in evolution because it has some issues, without actually reading about it.
@Mylth " all Ehrman is doing here is picking on errors." apart from all the errors .He is stating that the bible makes miraculous claims .FACT. that its authors are unknown. FACT. there are no first hand eyewitnesses and other sources for these claims. FACT. The stories in each gospel is different, written from the perspective of an author.Fact. ( JUST READ THE NT) It makes false testable historical claims about jesus to try and make him Christ.
@SOAS007 What I find odd here is I am very familar with the literature on the historicity of the New Testament, if all those so called 'facts' are true, why do the majority of historians not believe them... I still don't really see how your 'facts' besides that have much relevance at all to this issue. The Bible make miraculous claims, yes it does - but that is beside the point - what is the history? The authors are quite easily known, even if they were not they are still either witnesses con..
@SOAS007 or knew others who were witnesses, and we can verify Jesus actually existed from non Christian historical sources. We would further expect them to be different if they were written independently by different authors - but yet they all agree on the things of significance, further proof if you needed any that they are authentic. I have no idea what these 'false testable claims' are, and beside, how would you test them? I think the case is very good from the history.
Evangelicals are impervious to rational argument because they are in a state of self-delusion perpetuated by those with the same self-delusion. No amount of evidence or debate will affect their beliefs because it is a form of mental illness.
sendtoanthony 3 weeks ago
Evans: "Do scholars think that Jesus' followers were so ignorant that they were unable to proclaim what Jesus taught? Not too many think this. Should we not assume that disciples/learners did in fact learn what the Rabbi taught? ...the disciples were capable learners" (applause).
Hello? The disciples DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT JESUS WAS TO BE RESURRECTED! John 20:9 "For as yet they (the disciples) DID NOT KNOW the scripture, that he (Jesus) must rise again from the dead."
truthbknwn 1 month ago
Evans is useless in this "debate". He reads his prepared answer and doesn't even try respond to Ehrman's points. When he reads his points he backs them up with "I believe" and "many scholars say". How is this even a conversation? Bible School (UK) should take his PhD back for intellectual dishonesty. I guess he knows his audience because they seem to be lapping it up, more's the pity.
eTourist 4 months ago 4
Why would god allow for his holy word to be corrupted? You'd think he'd be pissed and not allow for such things and if jesus was his incarnation he should've written something down.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 4 months ago
What about presuppositional apologetics?? It would have "ERR MAN" runnin for the hills. Granted, he is not a philosopher. But it would challenge his autonomous thinking
plato7770 5 months ago
Comment removed
believeonetime 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Bart D. Ehrman should have been a laywer. Do your homework, all this guys allegations have been refuted, but you'll never shut him up cause he's making too much money tickling ears in a Godless age.
AlainSta60 6 months ago
@AlainSta60
i hear this a lot. i unlikely that you are even aware of ehrman's many allegation's. it's more likely that you've looked for refutations ... probably a fan of wlc. lol take any allegation ehrman makes on this vid and make your case. other wise you are just noise.
HellRehab 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Balabaw2
@HellRehab Wouldn't waste my time. Do your own homework, Go to a book store and grab a good book on christian apologetics or go to christian-thinktank (dot)com and you'll find that ALL his arguments have more than convincingly been shot down. His arguments are as old as the Bible itself, he has nothing new. If it's Truth you REALLY want, without bias you will objectively PURSUE BOTH SIDES of the argument/evidence. But you will NEVER arrive at truth if you just want to be right. Cheers
AlainSta60 5 months ago
@AlainSta60
i figured you wouldn't waste your time. blanket assertions seen to suite you. let me know if you want to take on any of bart's specific positions. btw life long evangelical you're talking to. quite aware of the other side of the reliability argument. please school me. or.....just assert away.
HellRehab 5 months ago
@HellRehab "blank assertions", that's your assumption. As for being a 'life long' evangelical, I could care less. The question is, did you KNOW Him? Rather than blank assertions I have come to my CONCLUSIONS based on extensive investigation and research. Furthermore, I've also concluded that there are two types of researchers, those seeking the Truth or those who just want to be right or knock God out of the equation. YouTube 'Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler' succinct,says what I would
AlainSta60 5 months ago
@AlainSta60 and Normon Geisler most ASSUREDLY, did not refute Bart Ehrman. Geisler speaks theologically but not historically . Thats the same as arguing apples to oranges.
shoelessjoe2555 2 months ago
@AlainSta60 The problem with Christian "think tanks" is the same as problems with "political think tanks". Its all about spin. Their job is to figure out the best way to spin an argument and make it make sense. Anyone can do this. but it is dishonest and NEVER stands up to scrutiny. Id challenge you to point out a major point of Ehrmans, and show me how any apologist has refuted it without there being some major flaw in the refutation.
shoelessjoe2555 2 months ago
Ehrman why on earth u bother I have no idea. Every1 knws that the Bible is contradictry, anon, re-written & belief is clearly not based on Jesus' teachings & they still believe.
So why on earth wld a logical historically accurate argument which requires intelligence, change their minds? They are not using their minds, they r using blind faith. Hopefully there r some who will wake up. There is God. I don't agree with everything Ehrman says but lets be honest. The Bible is not 100% relaible
lightuponlight1 6 months ago
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
liduq 7 months ago
Ehrman owned. It was pretty hot.
drewskione 7 months ago
Evans starts pretty much every response with " believe that'. That isn't intellectual debate its a cop-out and certainly not what you would expect from a theological Professor or historian.
aslanmaskadov 7 months ago
Why wouldn't the gospels have discrepancies? Don't different witnesses say different things, but get the same message across? Each Gospel author had a specific topic and therefore certain information was followed to the dime, while others were lax.
TheAmericanforJesus 7 months ago
@TheAmericanforJesus Yeh but if this were a court of law and you brought these people into the witness box you would have major problems. Witnesses need to agree on the important issues and in the gospels they simply don't. If I was a juryman I'd have to conclude 'case not proven' on some very big issues, at least not on the evidence provided. We don't even know who the witnesses are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. and the Bible, both Old & New is extraordinarily error-strewn.
aslanmaskadov 7 months ago
Is it just me or is Craig just simply ignoring Ehrman points?? Is Craig debating or preaching??
ascott2112 7 months ago
I say Craig looked like an elementary kid student...no way he matched up Mr. Ehrnman..
erikfadli 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch this YouTube ( Where are YOU Going to after death?! )
(See why corruption Aslam Yusuf Estes )
(See why Aslam Abdul Raheem assigned )
(Jesus Christ in Islam)
(why she became muslim)
(Christian Professor converts to Islam )
(European Scientist converts to Islam)
(A Compilation of Converts to Islam )
(Anatomy : Scientist converted to islam after reading Quran)
(compilation of converts to islam New Muslims from different places)
MRafh979 7 months ago
This was a waste of time Craig Evans just doesn't address the points raised by Ehrman
Tridhos 7 months ago
Dr. Evans argument: The Gospels may not be the verbatim account of what Jesus said, and there may even be things which were added later which Jesus did not say or did, BUT they capture "THE ESSENCE" of his teachings so Bible must be true, OTHERWISE HOW would the church even be possible?
Is this an argument!?
OK so, the only way an organized religion with temples and followers can exist is if the teachings of its founder(s) must be true? This is indefensible! I'm disappointed again
esiosan 8 months ago
Evans is not responding to Ehrman's questions because he does not want to become an atheist in front of a crowd. To ignore, deflect, or misdirect, is the only option open to a xian who wishes to remain a xian. To honestly question their beliefs, is to lose their 'belief'. That is what atheists, and the clergy, have been saying all these years. You can only 'believe', if you don't question. You don't need 'faith', or 'belief', if a thing is 'true'. Do you need 'faith' to believe that ice is cold?
yeshuahfullofit 8 months ago
This is not a debate at all ! Why is Evans not replying to Ehrman's questions ?
rshlim 8 months ago 12
@rshlim Because this is how brainwashed people think. They are taught NOT to think. They just spew out what they have heard of been taught. That is why he will not directly address Ehrmans questions and points.
shoelessjoe2555 2 months ago
@rshlim Evans can't answer the questions because Ehrman is way too smart and knows how to think and ask questions about info.
monkeymuggs 2 months ago
Bart's a critical thinker, Evan's a preacher. Evans won't even respond to Bart's points. Evans may as well be on stage alone on Sunday morning.
highperactive1 8 months ago 16
worse debate ever. the only good point so far is evans's point @3:29. the writers in the times of christ were not obsessed with details in their gospels. they were interested in getting across the gist of the teachings. historians know this. i've come across this info. in my own readings. btw ehrman himself said in a lecture that the errors in the gospel copies don't change the basic dogma of christianity.
DickOPlenty 8 months ago
Both scholars are reading prepared statements. This isn't a debate. Craig isn't responding to Ehrman's arguments.
Lorenzo8D 9 months ago
none of Craig Evans reasoning really answers to most of the important
questions raised by Ehrman, panelist or even the audience.
So frustrating ,,,, well ..facts are just facts...
iskandre 9 months ago
Every field of science disagrees with religion: psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, evolution.....it just goes on and on. Science wins. Here endeth the lesson.
MrJohndl 9 months ago 2
Far out, is Evans ever going to answer Ehrman's incisive questions? Even the moderator, who I assume is an evangelical as well says he sounds like an evangelist. Notice also how the audience clapped, I think this had less to do with what he was saying and more to do with the way he started jumping up and down a bit when he said it.
illegalbrain 9 months ago
"sound like an evangelist" sums it up, Evans isn't responding directly to the subjects of debate he is trying to obfuscate and basically bore his opponent into submission.
ogdroadsong 10 months ago
Why is Bart so angry?
forrestcandy 11 months ago
@forrestcandy He is responding emphatically in a hostile environment. I don't detect anger. I detect uneasiness.
Lorenzo8D 9 months ago
Ehrman's flaw here is that he expects the Bible to be a strict tape recorder. By the same logic, you'd have to be an originalist about Batman, Spiderman, and Sherlock Holmes. Not to mention James Bond. If James Bond is shown with a cellphone (ANACRHONISM ALERT!), does this bother you that the item did not exist in the 1950s??? Even today, telling and retelling stories accepts that sort of change. Ehrman fails to note that the Bible is art, not just straightforward reporting for its own sake.
Tristaths 11 months ago
@Tristaths What do you mean by the bible is art? That is a very very very ambiguous claim. Secondly, your charge about him expecting it to be a tape recorder is just false. Have you read of heard anything he has to say? For example the very *character* of Jesus differs in gospels. By this I mean that in one narrative, Jesus is not worried on his way to crucifixion, he knows what is going to happen, and in the other, he is scared and asks god why did he betray him.
AR333 11 months ago
@Tristaths I see you're not one to support your claims.
AR333 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A RESPONSE TO BART D. EHRMAN'S
WEBSITES: isca-apologetics(dot)org and bethinking(dot)org and nobtsapologetics(dot)com and bible(dot)org
They have rebuked all the False Claims of Mr. BART D. EHRMAN.
Must see the Exposed and False Face of Bart D. Ehrman
2000peterpaul 11 months ago
Ehrman uses facts and examples in his debate and responds to Evans nonsense.
Evans just PREACHES from the bible and doesn't debate at all...typical religious fundamental technique... no matter what somebody says just keep on preaching and ignore what was said...
This is just Evans preaching "to the choir"
Ehrman = WIN
ShamanicVoices 1 year ago
One of the most common questions about the Gospels is authorship. Who wrote them? It is hard to say with a high degree of certainty, but, the writers must have been influenced by Greek sophism. It was a common practice in sophistic etiquette to avoid the direct use of names. That may help to explain why John is carefull to use epithets rather than name the 'beloved disciple' or himself.
LothairOfLorraine 1 year ago
@LothairOfLorraine "It was a common practice in sophistic etiquette to avoid the direct use of names." It was also a common practice at the time to embellish stories to not only make them exiting, but also fit specifically to the target audience. A story that appears to be a "history" is at best a "docu-drama" in modern terms. They were far more interested in getting the message across than present an historically accurate "play by play".
jimmo42 1 year ago
the truth slowly comes out the lie they have told about jesus peace be up on him, jesus was no more then a prophet. he never said i am god worshipe, he was a prophe like Moses. Ibrahim, like nuh. that is what the muslims insistint that jesus never claimed devinity. the bible have been crupted. there is no god but and muhammad, is last messenger.
javed119 1 year ago
Ehrman destroys.
singring76 1 year ago
This is a scholar citing evidence arguing with a person claming that 'scholars' disagree with him on the basis of some unspecified evidence.
Slaughter.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
Ehrman says that John the Evangelist and John the Baptist speak with the same voice. His point is that John the Evangelist was making up what John the Baptist said. But John the Baptist didn't say enough in the book of John for someone to be able to identify a different speaking style (by word counting) that is statistically significant.
Tekakaromatagi
tekakaromatagi 1 year ago
Erhman is a evil little man...
Putnis1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Putnis1 "Erhman is a evil little man... " why is he evil? He is not average size too.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@Putnis1 I know right? Using your brain to think critically about your beliefs...truly the workings of Satan.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@bernlin2000 Like I said...'Erhman is a evil little man.'
Putnis1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Putnis1 "Like I said...'Erhman is a evil little man.'"
Can't attack the argument, so we attack the man.
Interesting that Putnis1's channel is no longer available. Seems Christians do that a lot. They create a sock puppet, make a very obnoxious comments then disappear. That definately says a lot for the validity of their arguments and their beliefs.
jimmo42 1 year ago
Evans is just reading a pre-written response. I would have got an F in speech in high school if I did that. What a light weight!
justinbarrow 1 year ago 3
This is pitiful! This isn't a debate...it's a slaughter, and only Ehrman was armed.
Evans hasn't directly addressed any of Ehrman's arguments, or points. He's only made general statements proclaiming the gospels are accurate but doesn't demonstrate that by countering any of Ehrman's examples.
There are no bible books & manuscripts, there are no originals, no one knows who the authors were. How can anyone claim accuracy when they can't validate the writings? And that's all it is....text.
Cootabux 1 year ago 10
@Cootabux Well said!
RealName007 1 year ago
@Cootabux And the church claps for Evans anyhow...because they didn't come there to actually learn the historical truth: they prefer sermonizing and apologetic. It's very sad, and I feel very sorry for Ehrman, whose only consolation (with a group completely against his message) can be that at least he's trying to figure out what history can say about Jesus without glomming on theological bits.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@Cootabux so what you're saying is that nothing in history can be validated.
anonazero 1 year ago
My props to Bart for owning Evans ass despite the fact that he is in a biased and predisposed religious audience. There wern't any atheist or agnostics there to applaud him, but those religiouse lunatics know deep inside that the better debater was Bart. Thats the only reason why they would applaud such a weak argument.
RevInt1 1 year ago 3
It seems like Ehrman's trying to scare people into agreeing with him, by shouting like a lunatic.
KittenButter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KittenButter "It seems like Ehrman's trying to scare people into agreeing with him by shouting like a lunatic."you mean shouting like a preacher, but without the threats of eternal damnation and accusations of sin.. Bart did used to be a preacher b4 he saw the light, so you should forgive his 'style'. :-)
SOAS007 1 year ago
Man it was so easy when i was just memorizing bible verses why did i have to go and studied it. Ignorance is bliss, I thought the bible could handle all my hard questions then i went and spent real time studying all angles not just my own. I believe in Jesus and God but i don't believe in Christianity. If you are honestly whole heartedly searching to know the truth be prepared to have your whole ripped apart. Stay ignorant its easier just be honest and admit you don't know the answer.
ReligiousFreedom666 1 year ago
I like the straightforward approach of Ehrman. What he says makes sense, since it seems more historically and intellectually honest.
meangreen4321 1 year ago 33
@meangreen4321 Its funny how Bart keeps insisting on evidence, historical accuracy, and even challenges Evans to debate with out theological arguments, and Evans keeps pretty much preaching. The only way someone could keep believing in the gosples' reliability is to maintain a spiritual perspective and not an intellectual one.
RevInt1 1 year ago 39
@RevInt1
...a more appropriate term would be a "devotional" perspective, v.s. "historical critical". I think Bart Ehrman makes this distinction in his books as well. It is obvious that Craig's position does not allow horizontal comparisons of the gospels to see if all details can be reconciled. It is obvious that Jesus did not say and do "everything" that is ascribed to him.
meangreen4321 1 year ago
@RevInt1 That's likely why Ehrman is now an agnostic...the historical evidence simply isn't there
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@RevInt1 or by viewing the tens of thousands of manuscripts dating all the way back to 250 BC validating the hundreds of prophetic claims about christ.
ya know, except for that and some other stuff.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero All of which of course have nothing original in them, or anything that other manuscripts from other civilizations and religions hadn't said. And keeping in mind how easily they have been altered and how easily we've been lied to, I really don't see why the Bible should be considered infalible. Its pretty simple, read the manuscripts and make the present fit in to them.
RevInt1 1 year ago
@RevInt1 look, its a big red flag to me when someone starts going on about manuscripts being altered because that tells me they have no idea what they're talking about. if you're just going to make stuff up go write science fiction but in the secular world that HATES the gospel it is almost universally agreed upon that the documentary support for the bible is unparalleled. nothing even comes close to it. we know what first century christians believed because we have their writings.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero Look you dumb fuck, you idiots don't even have ONE original when it comes to the bible books, So don't even start that whole "go write science fiction" bullshit. I don't hate the gosple. I pitty people like you who are to afraid to face reality. The writings that you have of the first century christians are only copies of copies. Oh, and what ass did you pull out that it's almost universally agreed that the documentary support for the bible is unparalleled? Bullshit, and you know it.
RevInt1 1 year ago
@anonazero "its a big red flag to me when someone starts going on about manuscripts being altered because that tells me they have no idea what they're talking about."
So that means you have more knowledge and understanding of bible history than one of the world's leading experts on the subject??? Even Evans admitted Ehrman knows more about it than he does. (within this very video series!) Do you believe you actually know more about the subject than Ehrman? My we do have a huge ego, don't we?
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 to put it simply ehrman dishonestly misrepresents facts in order to sell books and push his own agenda. watch william lane craig's dissection of the two personas erhman projects. also you need to realize that when bart stands there to try to discredit the bible he's one VS a thousands secular scholars that say the exact opposite.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "a thousands secular scholars"? Could you name just 10% of them or is this an example where *you* "misrepresent facts"? I doubt I could come up with even 10 that are as much of an expert as Ehrman. I've read the bible, as well as five of Dr. Ehrman's books. Have *you* read any (which ones?) or are simply regurgitating something someone else said? What *specifically* do you think he misrepresents? (based on what *he* has said or written, *not* other people's interpretation.)
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 start with cornelius tacitus and work your way to gary habermas. then look up william lane craig's youtube dissection of bart's two faced persona.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero So you are admitting that your objections to what Dr. Ehrman's says is based on what other people says and not what you know personnally. I would call that being intellectually dishonest, but at least you are honest about the fact, you don't personal know what Ehrman says. Second, Habermas and Craig are NOT "secular scholars" either you do not know what that term means or again your intellectually dishonest.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 its based on what he's said being inconsistent with every other scholar i've ever heard speak on the subject and when he's pushed he changes his story.
second, i never said habermas and craig were, if you knew anything about them you'd know that gary only uses secular validated sources and craig shreds barts claims in debate and in another youtube vid.
you clearly just want to win an argument not learn. i've given you something to look into and you just want to cry about details.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero " i've given you something to look into". *You* made the original claim "ehrman dishonestly misrepresents facts". I asked *you* to provide example based on your *own* personal experience. "*not* other people's interpretation." Can you provide examples from your own experience. No, you cannot. I'll debate you anytime you choose about what Ehrman says and what is in the bible and I won't point you to other sources saying you should go look up something.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "second, i never said habermas and craig were,"
Second you are being intentionally deceitful. I asked "Could you name just 10% of them...?", you responding by mentioning Habermas and Craig. The logical conclusion is that you were responding to my original request for 10% of those 1000 scholars. Or is it your intention to continually avoid answering direct questions with unrelated answer or telling me to go look up something?
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "you clearly just want to win an argument not learn. "
Uh, no. Obviously I *do* want to learn, which is why I asked *you* the questions. What do *you* see as things that Ehrman misrepresents? I have seen videos and read articles by Habermas, Craig, James White and Daniel Wallace, just to name a few. (I have even exchanged email with Dr. Wallace, a really nice man!) I already know what *they* say about Ehrman. What do *you* think?
Is that clear, now?
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 i think that bart's objective to discredit the bible is soley personal and he uses intellectually dishonest fallacious means to accomplish this because it sells books.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "I think that bart's objective to discredit the bible"
He's an historian, he doesn't care.
"intellectually dishonest fallacious means "
For example, WHAT??? Give us examples, not rhetoric. I submit you have none. You are simply repeating what other say. Give us examples!!!
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 you asked what i thought and then want me to quote the guy's lectures from when i watched them whenever i watched him? pfffft
and the presumption that he doesn't care and has no agenda (despite standing in opposition to the great majority of historians/scholars) is laughable at best. nobody swims upstream without a reason.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "You asked what i thought and then want me to quote the guy's lectures"
Uh, no. *You* made a claim and I am expecting *you* to back up that claim with facts. I can read Habermas and Wallace on my own. I am not discussing this topic with them, but with *you*. What do *you* feel are the problems with Ehrman's arguments? If you say you are simply regurgitating what others write and have no clue about what Ehrman says, that's fine. I will go elsewhere for an intellectual discussion.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "nobody swims upstream without a reason."
That is person opinion, not based on any facts. He is an historian who beleives that the historical facts and the bible itself do not support the belief in a magical entity that got a woman pregnant so he himself could be born in order to sacrafice himself to himself. It is a position I support as well. What then is *my* reason?
Maybe you are right. *My* reason is that I support truth and not myths made up to scare little children.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "despite standing in opposition to the great majority of historians/scholars"
No that is not correct. If you look at the history of bible translation over the last several decades, you will find that they have changed a lot. Ehrman discusses the reasons in his books. So you are saying Ehrman is wrong and "the great majority of historians/scholars" disagree with him, but they still redo translations of the bible. Hmmmm. And that seems logical to you?
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 once again you saying something does not make it true.
anonazero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anonazero "once again you saying something does not make it true."
You do realize that the same applies to you. Simply repeating what *others* say about Ehrman does not make it true. Hey, at least I have read all of the works in question. You haven't so you really cannot provide anything to this kind of discussion other than empty rhetoric.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero And PLEASE don't go to some site and quote mine a few things about what others say about Ehrman and pretend they are yours. If you can't provide any support for your arguments *on your own*, be honest and admit it.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 you're clearly a fanboy and will go to any length (intellectually dishonest or not) to try to uphold this joke's second persona.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "you're clearly a fanboy and will go to any length "
You are trully sad. Everyone can see that I already admitted I disagree with Ehrman on some points.
Since YOU have not provided any facts to argue against, please be so kind as to point out what I have said here that you perceive as deceitful.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 bart is the EXTREME minority and to assert otherwise is to lie to yourself, lie to others, and ignore data.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero Well YOU have not provided any data, simply rhetoric. What data? What facts? Even in this video series Evans went so far as to imply Ehrman know more about bible history than he (Evans) does. People like James White and Daniel Wallace consider him one of the world's leading experts he often is asked to evaluate new historical finds. (e.g the Gospel of Judah) In your opionion, what exactly are those issues that Ehrman claims that others disagree with?
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 oh I HAVEN'T provided you information in a youtube box, i've only give you multiple sources to check. so since i haven't given you the data DIRECTLY you're saying that you have no reason to check those guys out. so instead of just going to garyhabermas(dot)com to deal with data you neglect that by crying on youtube.
also, james white will also attest to the deceitful nature of barts representation of the new testament. i think i've seen him speak on that before, actually.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "I HAVEN'T provided you information"
In the space of your content-less rhetoric you *could* have provided a couple of good example. Instead, you continually point me to other people's opinion. As I said, I have *already* read Habermas, so giving me the URL to his website is somewhat ludicrous. Crying? No, I have repeatedly asked for YOUR opinion. Not Habermas', Not Whites, not Wallaces.
What is the point of posting if you are unwilling to provide your own opinion?
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "james white will also attest to the deceitful nature"
That I would like to see. I have never, EVER seen James White use any word whatsoever that even comes close to "deceitful nature" or anything similar. I submit for all you read this, you are making that up! Backup it up with facts. Don't just give me random URL to look up "something". Give me specifics that are YOUR opinion and not simply ad hominem attacks.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "bart is the EXTREME minority "
Jesus was also "the EXTREME minority ". Pasteur was also "the EXTREME minority ", which is why so many peoeple died in the 19th century. Given time, I could name at least a dozen scientists who were "the EXTREME minority " in their own time, but were still right. Simply being the minority does not necessarily mean you are wrong. Or is this a popularity contest. Ehrmans assertions are based on what everyone can see for themselves!
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero: What does that have to do wth Ehrman being factually correct?
confluential 9 months ago
@anonazero BTW, just what does Tacitus say Ehrman misrepresent? What I ever read that talks about Tacitus says that he only mentioned Jesus *very* briefly and there is major debate if was talking about "Christians" at all or something else. So what exactly did Tacitus say about Christian theology, doctrine or history that contradicts anything Dr. Ehrman said? I would imagine you could impress a lot of people if you have something significant he wrote about *anything* surrounding Jesus.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 LOL tacitus has only been dead for nearly 2000 years.
seriously, if you want to say someone doesn't know what they're talking about you'll want to learn more about the subject at hand first.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "want to learn more about the subject at hand first."
Let's see the dicussion is about what bart ehrman says is in the bible. I have read both the bible AND bart ehrman. Therefore, I know what he says about the bible which I have read. Therefore, logically I do have first hand knowledge of the subject. The references to tacitus was that you provide his name in response to the request to name 10% of your 1000 secular scholars. Which you still haven't.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 it is just a joke that you want 10% of all scholarship that validates the historicity of the bible. that kind of ridiculous task is what you like to do instead of looking at the ONE guy i gave you that cites ONLY secular validated sources. i gave you a GREAT source. if he's biased then he should be an easy take down.
oh wait, you just immediately threw it out because you're not a skeptic by any stretch of the imagination.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero Obviously since I posted that tacticus wrote extremely little about Jesus although you *claim* to use him as a source seems pretty clear you have no clue about what tacticus wrote. Or can you point me to some writings of tacticus that other people do not know about yet?
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero You really don't know what you are talking about. I bet you looked up those names on Wikipedia or somewhere else. If you really did know anything about this subject, you would have mentioned some better examples.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 oh, my bad. i thought you were a skeptic. feel free to not check the sources in favor of blind faith.
i dont have that much faith, though, so i prefer to scrutinize the data.
anonazero 1 year ago
@jimmo42 gary habermas listed ALL of them so ask him for it. im not going to list out something google can do for you. i haven't read anything from ehrman so i can't comment on his books but i know that his rhetoric is completely inconsistent with the rest of the scholarship world.
you probably haven't seen craig shred the stuff bart says so here ya go:
youtube(dot)com/ view_play_list?p=767F947E1F05452D
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "gary habermas listed ALL of them so ask him for it."
Translated: "You have no clue about the subject but are merely repeating things other people say."
"i haven't read anything from ehrman " So you are logically not in a position to make any claims about what he says. These other people have personal reasons to attempt to contradict ehrman, so naturally their comments are biased. But you blindly repeat them without know the facts.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "we know what first century christians believed because we have their writings."
Ahhhh, so based on these writing *you* believe that there are two gods: one that creating this world plus the christian God? So, *you* believe Jesus was not divine at all, but completely human? But wait a minute, "first century christians" also believed Jesus was completely divine and not human, at all. Dare I say that is yet another contradiction? Hmmmmmm......
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 Jesus is God in the flesh. christians and jews have never believed in anything other than one God.
we know this because we have tens of thousands of historical documents proving they believed this.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "jews have never believed in anything other than one God."
That is historical inacurate. Jews were polytheistic. That is why the ten commandments says "no other god *before* me", not just "no other god" because at that time it was OK to worship more than one God, you just have to have Yaweh as the top, as in "before" all other Gods.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 actually thats a reference to idolatry because people are idol factories that make gods of everything from cars to sports teams. what that literally means is "dont value anything more than me"
"‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 44:6 "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Isaiah 44:8 "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero 'what that literally means is "dont value anything more than me"'
Uh, no. That is incorrect. The words say "no god before me". The interpretation *might* be as you said, but if you look at the original it is NOT what you claim, so by definition the *literal* meaning is "No god before me".
I would suggest reading some Jodi Magness. She is one of the world's expert on early Judaismn. She definitely would say you are wrong. Early jews were polytheistic.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero "we have tens of thousands of historical documents proving they believed this."
Uh, no. That is again incorrect. The historical documents (including the bible in the original Hebrew) are quite clear that ancient Jews were polytheistic. One of the most accessible writers on the subject is Jodi Mangess. I did a course from her on holy land archelogy, very intersting.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@anonazero
3. A possible and logical explanation of why the NT seems to fulfill prophecy is that the authors knew the OT and wrote stories in the NT explicitely to match the alledged prophecies. This is demonstrated by the attempt to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem in Luke. That is to fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem, so the author of Luke made up a story about a census in order to show that a prophecy was being "fulfilled".
jimmo42 1 year ago
@jimmo42 LOL so they just got lucky with that whole "census" thing. riiiiight.
anonazero 1 year ago
@anonazero "LOL so they just got lucky with that whole "census" thing. riiiiight."
No, they made it up. There are NO records of a census anything like what is described in Luke. If you are thinking about the census of Quirinius, it happened at a time that would contradict Matthew. It was made up in order to get Jesus born in bethlehem. Futher millions of people travelling for months would not have gone unnoticed and would have been impossible at that time.
jimmo42 1 year ago
@RevInt1 lol it really amaze me how u manage to make the guy asking for historical accuracy look bad...really amazing
SightLock 9 months ago
@RevInt1 you are right, why just he just keep on preaching and not answering any questions. typical evangelist
brownie7317 8 months ago
@meangreen4321 Evans has a nasty habit here of not answering the questions, but just spouting theology. They seem to be on separate tracks: Ehrman approaching the Bible from as a textual historical critic, and Evans as a theological apologist. It's making for some back and forth that is frustratingly lacking in candor.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@meangreen4321 Yep, he got some many points and do not mind looking honestly at the truth. The other guy couldnt defend his ideas!
AAAjMMMiRRR 7 months ago
Bart Ehrman was awesome in this debate.
97roscoe 1 year ago
Why does Ehrman always rip on the Mark 15 thing and makes no reference of the fact that Jesus is referencing Psalm 22?
hoosfan77 1 year ago
@hoosfan77 "Why does Ehrman always rip on the Mark 15 thing" because it disagrees with the other canonical gospel narratives. Psalm 22 or not.
SOAS007 1 year ago
i say that the kingdom of god is the persons mind since the concept of god is an idea which of course, comes from the mind 1st.jesus was humble and loving and educated teacher who made a difference for the poor.something like a mlk and jfk at his time.
razeone100 1 year ago
If I was i christian and listend to Bart Erhman I would have left christianity LOOOONG time ago. Why are you christians stuburn, dont you see that your bible is corupt? How can you see whats true and whats false even when the scholars dont know?(sorry for my spelling)
MrMohammedr9 1 year ago
This format is awful. The 2 speakers are good but this format doesn't allow for them to address each other - they've prepared answers for the question but don't have time to engage each other's answers. Plus by moving from topic to topic, the speakers aren't able to build a case. Ehrman looks like he won because he answers the question one way. Evans as the 2nd speaker, answers the question in his own way but doesn't have time to respond to Ehrman. Please don't use this format again!
Canbuhay 1 year ago
Is Craig just reading?
pedroamaralcouto 1 year ago
Do people like unbelievers just because they are unbelievers? Cause I rarely see anyone on here defending the pro-christian side. It seems youtube attracts angry atheists and agnostics... the mere 10% of the population ON these videos JUST to show their anger and disassociation with religion. It's so unattractive..
Limbsy 1 year ago
Hey Evans, maybe try answering a question. Or just doing something having to do with the debate you're in. You're using all kinds of words to say absolutely nothing.
RCRhythm 1 year ago
Why can't Craig answer Bart's question, ARE THERE ANY ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?? Because Craig is afraid to admit that there IS ERRORS and people would be upset!! Sorry, but Bart E. is 100% correct!
99minerkc 1 year ago
Evans is doing a monologue to himself -- and Bart D. Ehrman throws out one attack after another, producing historical arguments again and again -- and Evans just goes around in circles in the Bible, wrapped himself up in his theological position...
yellowlynx 1 year ago
I sure wish this guy would respond to Bart's questions and not just go on ranting. This is getting so boring ....
EruditeScythian 1 year ago 2
You could edit out Prof Ehrman and it wouldn't even be noticeable. He is completely ignored. Anyone want to do this editing and post a video reply?
jacksawild 1 year ago
@jacksawild No...just listening to Evans will bore me to death...edit out Dr. Evans and I just want to listen to Prof. Ehrman.
yellowlynx 1 year ago
@yellowlynx Good point. This is interesting: /watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U it features Ehrman and the religious guy is mostly sane and reasonable.
jacksawild 1 year ago
It's hardly a debate. Dr. Craig Evens didn't answer any of the critical question. He could have answered better.
michellehuang67 1 year ago 2
Bart Ehrman's objections are completely ridiculous. He expects all four gospels to tell the exact same story with the exact number of details. I garantee you he would not apply that same critique to other historical documents.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Bullshit! He shows conclusively how the story originated with "mark" as a simple tale, and then was expanded by later authors to answer stinging questions that had arose in the interim. Anyone should be able to discern that without the help of Bart Ehrman. Why can't you?
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
Sorry utoobers. I have an off-topic question you may be able to help me with. There was a study done years ago where they compared the number of professed xians in America who said they attended church every Sunday to the attendance records of all churches in America and found a HUGE discrepancy. If all of the xians who said they attended church every week actually attended church, they wouldn't have enough room. Also, they found that overall church attendance had dropped significantly. Thanks!
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
@yeshuahfullofit Almost all works are unsigned. I challenge you to read The Twelve Caesars or Tacitus' Annals without the titles, it can't be done.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 I read them. Evidently it can be done. I did not say you 'could not' read 'Mark', I just said that you could not read it and abscribe an author to it. Caesar and Tacitus at least refer to themselves. The 'author' of 'Mark', did not.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
@yeshuahfullofit Caesar and Tacitus do NOT refer to themselves in any of their writings. So you must apply the same criteria for them, as you would for the gospels. The only way we know that Tacitus wrote them is through tradition, and the earliest mention we get of Tacitus being the author is over 100 years later by tertullian. Thats far worst attestation we have for the gospels, and yet you don't deny that Tacitus was the author. Its The same with Plutarch and Plato
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Okay. I deny authorship of ALL of those materials. My world still looks the same. Can YOU deny the authorship of the 'gospels', and tell me the same thing? I really don't care. I'll continue to live my life without a 'need' of 'salvation'. Your 'hell' doesn't bother me and your 'heaven' doesn't entice me. Peace. *~@:-{>
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
@yeshuahfullofit This has nothing to do with how my world looks. It also has nothing to do with heaven or hell. And yes, if I denied the authorship of the gospels my world would still look the same.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Fine. Caesar, Tacitus, Plutarch and Plato are not historical persons. Pause......... Nothing happened. I don't care. Now, you say that Jesus and the four apostles are not real historical persons. Pause............... Do you care? If so, why? It clearly isn't "history" you are concerned with. Just admit to yourself that it is all bullshit, then get on with your new life. Easy.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago 2
Ya.. Allah should chiristan listen real history
mizanaa 1 year ago
The problem with this debate is that Craig does not directly address Bart's points. The other point is that it seems both of them are essentially reading from prepared, written speeches. But I myself would not allow Bart to get away with his logical fallacies.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Adding to 4:38, can you really base your salvation on the oral traditions that lasted 30-70 years? It's not as if it's a 3 month oral tradition, although, in terms of hoping for salvation, 3 months would be too late for me, but 30-70 years with agenda, apologetic motif, hearsay stories, building on stories that are heresay made to suit a particular agenda etc. etc.
oombuddah 1 year ago
Ehrman makes complete sense and is easily understood. Evans is preaching, not really explaining anything or actually answering the questions.
Sammygirl7466 1 year ago 23
@Sammygirl7466 Not so. All Ehrman is doing is being nitpicky and picking little errors out and points of criticism while Evan's is addressing the bigger picture. The sweep of New Testament scholarship is to be critical, while Ehrman misses the bigger picture. I think Ehrman is being simplistic and has a much easier job he is trying to push though here - Evan's is right to argue back this way.
Mylth 1 year ago
@Mylth " All Ehrman is doing is being nitpicky and picking little errors " Little errors!! the errors show that the BIG picture is the gospels are unrelieble ( most of the NT, is also known to be forged.). Christians for 200 years didn't believe this version of christianity, they had many gods. It has been made up years later. That is the real BIG picture.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 What books are you reading?? If you did read any you would know all of what you are saying is rubbish. I would suggest reading a book on the New Testament. Try 'The New Testament Gospels: Are they Reliable' by F.F. Bruce, or 'Is the New Testament Reliable' by Barnett. I don't know anyone who thinks that the 'New Testament is known to be forged.
Mylth 1 year ago
@Mylth "at books are you reading??" the epistle to the HEbrews. Or if you have an oldet bible. St PAuls Epistle to the Hebrews, which as it is considered he did not write no lionger since about 1950 makes this claim. The same can be said for 5 othe paul episltes too, plus ones that didn't makle it into the canon.! 3 corinthians e.g.
SOAS007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SOAS007 I think you just want to believe what you want to believe, without doing the research :)
Mylth 1 year ago
@SOAS007 I think you just want to believe what you want to believe, without doing the research :)
Mylth 1 year ago
@Mylth " think you just want to believe what you want to believe," that is a religious trait. Christians for hundreds of years BELIEVED completely different things than those today., In fact it was a polytheistic religion. Christians BELIEVE many different things today, hence so many types of this religion. The facts are , there are many errors and contradictions in the bible, and completely different narratives repeated by unknown writers,without other sources.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 I think I provided two books there before that are worth reading. But I also studyed it myself before. I am confident if you look into in you will find the evidence is very very good. The main objection most people have is against miraculous events etc in the Bible. But in terms of this video, all Ehrman is doing here is picking on errors. This would be like me saying I don't believe in evolution because it has some issues, without actually reading about it.
Mylth 1 year ago
@Mylth " all Ehrman is doing here is picking on errors." apart from all the errors .He is stating that the bible makes miraculous claims .FACT. that its authors are unknown. FACT. there are no first hand eyewitnesses and other sources for these claims. FACT. The stories in each gospel is different, written from the perspective of an author.Fact. ( JUST READ THE NT) It makes false testable historical claims about jesus to try and make him Christ.
Many Early christians were polytheists.!!
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 What I find odd here is I am very familar with the literature on the historicity of the New Testament, if all those so called 'facts' are true, why do the majority of historians not believe them... I still don't really see how your 'facts' besides that have much relevance at all to this issue. The Bible make miraculous claims, yes it does - but that is beside the point - what is the history? The authors are quite easily known, even if they were not they are still either witnesses con..
Mylth 1 year ago
@Mylth "The authors are quite easily known," the gospel authors are unknown greek writers.
SOAS007 1 year ago
@SOAS007 or knew others who were witnesses, and we can verify Jesus actually existed from non Christian historical sources. We would further expect them to be different if they were written independently by different authors - but yet they all agree on the things of significance, further proof if you needed any that they are authentic. I have no idea what these 'false testable claims' are, and beside, how would you test them? I think the case is very good from the history.
Mylth 1 year ago