Evans cites Corinthians and Acts, but the question involved the gospels. Blind sheep will see what they want to believe. Blind faith for many means blind gullibilty.
Jesus says ego eimi (I AM) many more times in John than Matthew, Mark or Luke. But it is there and could be easily misunderstood without the background that John provides. o On (the BEING) only occurs in John.
Throwing out John as a red herring and at the same time expressing a wish list for more apocryphal works to be found is a weakness of Ehrman’s contrarian arguments. We can get so caught up in disagreeing, we lose track of what we agree on.
24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
@MOADAM2010 no you nigger, i just know that islam is bullshit (and so is christianity). why must you assume i'm from a rival religion? does the world only make sense to you if ppl only believe in your religion or another? you never thought that islam might be full of shit just because it's empirically wrong? you are hopeless (also, your capslock is on in case you failed to notice)
Professor Ehrman speaks the truth concerning the errors in the letters called the New Testament. We should embrace the facts that the letters are copies of the originals with many errors. The errors are both intended and accidental, however they are still errors and we should be attentive to correcting and restoring to the best of our ability the original words of these letters. If we refuse to be open to the truth then our "Christianity" is fraudulent. Thank YHWH for men like Bart Ehrman.
I agree that people believe in opinions even though they have been debunked. that is exactly what christianity today does. i am not really sure what you are saying in your second comment. could you elaborate a little more?
@ShiftyWeasel Well, it doesn't bother me for anyone to mock me; you have the freedom to do such things.
I don't worry about what fallible men say. There have been well known atheist that converted to believers in Elohim, have you ever read any of their stories?. There are also men of great wisdom, like Sir Issac Newton, that loved and believed the Scriptures ferverently; I agree with like men.
Please explain your last incomplete sentence. Thanks.
@natzrim Yah-huh. Tons of stories about atheists converting to Christianity, I'm sure. (I highly doubt it). A much more likely story is that those stories fit the bill--they reassure Christians of their own superiority, and they show that atheism is just like another darned religion, so of course they can deconvert!
Studies would strongly disagree with you, and since you're making the claim, you would need to make the cite.
@ShiftyWeasel I don't care if you hurl insults, and refuse to have a civil dialogue. I don't have to totally agree with Bart Ehrman to appreciate that he was man enough to come forth with the evidence that men tampered with the Word of YHWH. Even Bart Ehrman's wife still is a practicing Christian you ignorant bastard, don't you know you are insulting Mrs. Ehrman too with your comments. Damn, I hope you can evolve a bit more so you can think before you open your smart ass mouth.
@natzrim Wait..what insults? I was sarcastic for sure, but I don't think I actually mocked you or attacked you directly.
Besides, you probably shouldn't complain about insults (yes, even mentioning it is a form of complaint) and then in your next few sentences proceed to insult me. Tad hypocritical. (Ignorant bastard? Huh, strange choice.)
@natzrim I..don't really care about Mrs. Ehrman's personal beliefs, so I'm confused about why you felt the need to bring her up. Do you think I hero-worship Mr. Ehrman or something?
I'll freely accept that I have a "smart ass" mouth, but I also find it interesting that nowhere in your reply did you actually provide any substantial point about how or why I was wrong.
@natzrim Regarding "men of great wisdom": Yeah, everyone makes mistakes. Snark aside, if you REALLY wanted to do a head count of intelligent men of wisdom and their beliefs, I'd bet it wouldn't turn out in your favor. Not that it would matter anyways, even an intelligent person can believe in woo, humans are fairly irrational.
@natzrim What incomplete sentence? You mean explain what I meant in my original comment to you? I'm saying you are a perfect example of someone who acknowledges errors in the Bible, but instead of rightly casting aside belief, you've somehow used it to strengthen yours. You've basically had incorrect and debunked beliefs reinforced by the very evidence that should have done the debunking.
Poorly formatted debate. Two knowledgeable people with prepared answers to set questions that are being interpreted in different ways and with no opportunity to address each others points. They are, through no fault of their own, talking past each other.
Evans does state, though, that the Bible isn't literally true. " Are they sufficient in content and accuracy" "to provide us with what we need to know" That is not a statement of literal truth just is it close enough, a relative concept.
"are the gospels sufficient" says Evans. Which basically means no they aren't reliable, at least not as a literal sense.
Not much of a debate really, both speakers are talking past each other. Not their fault really. The format is wrong. They both have prepared speeches on set topics and they don't ask questions of each other. They are also both taking different approaches to the bible.
my only issue with bart ehrman, is when he says things like "i do believe that some things in the gospel jesus actually said" he doesn't explain what and why. he makes a lot of assumptions that i do not understand the reasoning for. like why does he even believe that jesus existed. why would he believe the earlier gospels have any more validity than john?
@moddie84 Ehrman isn't given time to answer those questions and those aren't assumptions but conclusions drawn from detailed research. If you want to know his reasoning I'd recommend reading his books. Obviously he believes there's sufficient evidence for Jesus' existence & earlier gospels being more accurate by being closer to the events with less alteration by copying error or intentional edit. Perhaps the early versions are inaccurate too but these are the inaccuracies he has evidence for.
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
Everything that Bart had mentioned of discrepancy in the writing of gospel are none essential and has nothing to do with the message of the gospel which is the salvation by the grace of God . It is very obvious that he just blew everything out of proportion. The essence of the doctrine of the gospel is very reliable.
@fbarrios56 Here is why he did not just "blow it out of proportion" as you said. The reason why he said that there are "discrepancies" in the gospels and pointed out THE CORE theological foundation of Christianity - the one that Jesus claimed to be GOD when in fact HE DID NOT.
The point of directing attention to this DIRECT compromising discrepancy WEAKENS the gospel message that Jesus is God almighty who incarnates and takes up your sins away through blood sacrifice. Do you see now what he did?
@fbarrios56 In essence Christianity's message is that God's son descended from the Trinity and incarnated into a human body and offered himself as a vicarious blood sacrifice to expiate the transgressions of humanity
Prof Ehrman spotlights a discrepancy in that only in John Jesus seem to claim to be GOD himself and that in fact HE DID NOT CLAIM IT then that it was added later by scribes perhaps because the death of one man would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire species
Is this a debate? All I see is Prof. Ehrman eviscerating any notions with regards to the bible's credibility.
Another thing, whenever Dr. Evans is asked the same question he says "I BELIEVE so"... how about some strong contextual evidence countering Ehrman's arguments fgs? You're killing me here!
I'm disappointed with the lack of intellectual and reasonable veracity from Dr. Evans! All talk, no "meat".
@sam375 My comment was a critique of Evans inability to articulate a well based argument. Prof. Ehrman quotes and presents verifiable facts and historical contextualization while Evans' points are based on mere faith or theological doctrine with a hint of self deceit. That is what is very disappointing to me. I have watched tens of debates with apologists from all faiths and in this one the apologist [Evans] imo is one of the worse.
I am a skeptic(atheist) analyzing both sides impartially.
@GamerFTW21 That's what I'm saying. Who says it was 500 people? Not any of the 500. Some guy saw someone who looked like him, and maybe there were a lot of people around, and his story was "there were like 500 people there!"
And the difference in Caesar and Jesus is the romans kept records of the events and times, of which Jesus is conveniently missing, which shows how little insignificant he was in the time, There are NO writings from the time of Jesus' time of living and dying. Nothing.
What a silly and made criterion. So unless the people to whom the story relates attest themselves to what happened, the account is not reliable? I guess that if we don't have written records by Alexander the Great, or any number of historical figures who are the center of a given text, we need to handwave it away?
"Caesar and Jesus is the romans kept records of the events and times"
All texts post-date the purported events. The New Testament documents are eariler.
@regelemihai That's not what I said. You're taking it as the 500 were the historical event. The 500 were a supposed witness to the event. It's a case of the broken telephone game. The story changed from the event to the writing.
I'm not that knowledgeable on Alex the great. but Socrates as an example may not have existed. Like Jesus, he never wrote anything. The difference is, a direct source did, Plato.
Yes, all texts post-date, but not all by 20-70 years by people who weren't there to witness.
Well that's just a presuposition without any grounds, but the whole point behind him mentioning the 500 was to substnatiate his case as he even says that although some of them have died, many are still alive--sort of an allusion to those who still deny the historical claim, to go and ask them themselves.
"but not all by 20-70 years"
You're right, they're usually by hundreds if not thousands of years. The first accounts of Alexander...
...the Great come some 400 years after his death. By all standards of historical credibility, the Gospels are the earilest attested ancient documents. 20 years is nothing if you take in the context, and again, assuming history MUST be written by direct eyewitnesses is just a made up criterion. The entirety of history would crumble if your standard were to be held. Those are all eyewitness accounts. Mark's source was Peter who was an eyewitness, John was an eyewitness, and Paul knew Peter and...
...James who were eyewitnesses too. In order for the event reported to be credible you don't need it to be directly recorded by an eyewitness. It would certainly help, but it's by no means a standard.
@GamerFTW21 Yes, the whisper game. How many thousands of stories do you think will be the same from last nights riots in vancouver? I'll bet not one of the re-tellings of the stories are accurate to the events. And these events were captured on the news, but the personal stories will still be wrong, embellished to make it seem more exciting. More interesting.
Like seeing someone who looked liked jesus three days after he died, turning to seeing jesus three days after the story is told.
@GamerFTW21 They can tell by the style of writing and the grammar used. The people who review and investigate old texts have the ability to tell these things. Also, Josephus being jewish would most likely not be a follower of jesus, and anything written would not be claiming his divinity.
@GamerFTW21 They can't prove it was added by Christians. All they can do is show it wasn't Josephus, which they have done.
And it's those oral traditions that make everything written questionable. If you've ever played the whisper game, you know how impossible it is to pass along any message by oral means.It changes and the more people between, the more it changes and the original is lost. And the accuracy from scribes hand copying each copy suffers from the same errancy.
@GamerFTW21 You mean beside Bart Ehrman? How about Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter, or E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. There are more of course. And all say the same thing. "Once the obviously Christian additions are removed, the remaining comments are consistent with Josephus's vocabulary and style."
All Josephus mentioned was Jesus, not anything about divinity. The earliest gospel was written more than 20 yrs after Jesus. Then other 40 years after. None by people who knew him
@GamerFTW21 The closest thing Josephus said about Jesus being divine was "Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and miracle worker, attracting a large following who revered him after his death." People can say the say about Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell, and hopefully soon Peter Popoff. All sort of teachers and all did miracles on behalf of God. It's not that difficult to believe that even back in the 1st century, there were scams and fake healings just like today.
@GamerFTW21 The majority of christian scholars believe they were written by eyewitnesses. Not the majority of scholars and historians. And yes, Josephus talks about the James, the borhter of Jesus, but in his original writings, there is no mention of Jesus being divine. Anything on "Jesus the Messiah" or "Jesus, who was called Christs" was all added much later. Again, this is accepted by most scholars, except Christian apologist who argue for it's authenticity.
@GamerFTW21 Most historians and scholars would disagree with you. Matthew and Luke borrowed from 2 sources. And none of the writers were witness to any of what they wrote about.
The below is in regards to Luke.
Critical scholarship generally holds to the two-source hypothesis as most probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the Q (Quelle) document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel. The Q document is based on hypothetical saying by Jesus.
@GamerFTW21 You do know that the gospels weren't actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, right? They're anonymously written and the names attributed to them as far as 200+ years after being written?
As for the genealogy, in those times, the genealogy was always based on paternal. The women were pretty much insignificant. Her genealogy did not matter, and yes, even Mary. Her line is not important at all. Both Mat and Luke used Mark as a source, but still wrote things differently.
@GamerFTW21 I see you are agueing with everyone here now. Interesting. Not much is going to enter that brain washed head of yours. My point was: you will not leave christianity because of the fear of eternal damnation.
About control: If you don't think the worldwide mission of the church is to control people and become rich in the process, you just aren't paying attention.
You are too busy argueing and defending your faith ... The faith that makes no sense.
@GamerFTW21 I didn't say anything about an in law. What I was saying was your initial response when you claimed Luke is on the genealogy of Mary, was wrong because there is no explicit Biblical record of Mary’s genealogy at all. That was invented to help apologist come up with reasons for some of the contradictions. Kind of like claiming the whole world is Israel because it was considered the centre of the world.
@GamerFTW21 You'll find "an answer" for any contradiction or error.The genealogy answer was wrong for two reasons. One is that regardless of Mary's or Joseph's genealogy, it's still Joseph. Second, in those times, they always spoke of paternal genealogy.
So what you're saying, is the whole world is just the centre of the world?
That's cool. You obviously will never see the errancy of this book, so there's really no sense continuing.
@GamerFTW21 My friend, this is the bubble I was referring to before. It wouldn't matter if Jesus came up to you and told you he didn't die for you, you'd still believe it. You have a need to believe this for some reason.
one reason might be that the penalty for not believing is eternal damnation, but what do I know.
You see, you think this stuff is sacred, but it's only man made scare tactics. Sorry to say it. Have you ever been skammed? I have. And I recognized it again with religion.
@rovingdesertfox Scare tactics for control/money/income for the church. I am 60 years old and was a christian for 40 of those years. I never once felt better for taking communion, I never once felt as if god was speaking to me in any way, I never once felt comforted. If you have found truth great. Happy living.
@GamerFTW21 Uhm, no. First, doesn't matter whose genealogy, it's referring to Josephs father. Second, it's a name. Hebrew or Greek, it's a name.
It specifies all the kingdom of the world, not just the centre of the world. You are interpreting it to justify what it says, and that is the only way the bible makes sense.
@GamerFTW21 You may want to check on-line on just how many other saviours and holy men were said to have had virgin mothers. I believe there are 20-30. Check out the video on YouTube: Zeitgeist (Religion) The
@GamerFTW21 "Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
or
"Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
"Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." I hope you can see the error in this. No matter how high the mountain, you can't see all the kingdoms of the world. The book assumed flat earth. There lies the error.
@GamerFTW21 No. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have different stories/details to the same events. Which is explainable by the fact they were written 40-70 years after the events, but still, details are different. The NT, is just as erroneous as the OT. Just not as violent.
And understand this. This is not an argument against God. This is strictly on the accuracy of the holy writings. None of this says there is or isn't a God, or there was or wasn't a Jesus.
@GamerFTW21 Well, it's not trying to find errors. They're blatant. If I tell you I was born before the first person walked on the moon, then a few minutes later said I was born after the apollo 13 mission, that is a contradiction. Both cannot be true, therefore one is wrong. Either a blatant lie, or an error. If I do that 400 times, then it's not an error. It's misleading and lying or a story.
@GamerFTW21 I suppose you want me to wipe your ass when you take a shit next. YOU do some fucking work moron. You asked for contradictions, I gave you a whole mother fucking list. Go fuck yourself.
@GamerFTW21 The order of creation. Is god good to all or just a few? Who was at the empty tomb? How many creation stories are there? The number of animals in the ark? Human vs. spirit impregnation? The bat is not a bird. Do bats chew their cuds? Snails do not melt. The shape of the earth. The genealogy of Jesus. Judas died how? How many times did the cock crow? Who bought the potter's field? Do you answer a fool? Does every man sin? How long was Jesus in the tomb? Need more?
@GamerFTW21 Because the errors are right there in print. Just like in the Qur'an.
What happens is that each person interprets the bible their own way. They decide what to take literally, or what to interpret the writer meant by it. The problem is, as a book in whole, there are parts you can take literally, and others you take symbolically and interpret to mean something else. The same within books within the whole book
The book is filled with errors when you don't justify and change the meaning
@GamerFTW21 I think there is approx 400+ contradictions in the bible. Have you read the whole thing?
Error
Matt 13:31-32: "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." The error? Well, there's 2. There are smaller seeds, and mustard seeds do not become trees.
Profmth ( user/ProfMTH?blend=1&ob=5 ) has a series called brief bible blunders where he goes into a few in each episdode.
@GamerFTW21 Stay in your comfort bubble; when you are ready to know the truth, you'll come out of your own will. You obviously have a need to believe in an ancient book. Why the bible? Who cares. Why not another holy book? Because you were born learning this one, so now you think this is the only truth. I guess we never realize if we were born Jewish, we'd look at life totally different and would think the new testament was insanity. As long as you look to a book, you'll be deluded.
"Luke 9:47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, Luke 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me"
and i found this in luke 5:20/21: " And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"
ehrman claimed jesus only said he was god in john. i found this at the end of matthew: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." the concept of the trinity is evident here. if jesus was not claiming to be god in that verse along with the holy spirit why would people be baptised in his name? it makes no sense to be baptised in the name of a man
What a frikkin' moron. Because of these discrepancies: "This is why scholars are so keen to look for other texts outside the new testament". I know I'm repeating, but the people sitting in this audience aught to boo this guy. Is he kidding? They are debating the bible and HIS position is suppose to be defending the book. SSOOOOOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAAADDD!!!!!
The pastor told this faithful believer that god put mistakes in the bible on purpose to test people's faith ... and of course, this long time blind faith based man bought it hook line and sinker. Pathetic.
Now the bible tells us "what is necessary".....hey mister, this is suppose to be the stinking word of god. Think for a minute. If god did a job, would he have been this sloppy. You are back pedalling and are really bad at it. These apologists don't want to be honest. They have too much invested in the lie. I knew a christian who had to go to his pastor to get this answer about mistakes in the bible. cont.
@mattetho You are quite a blabber mouth from what I can tell in these comments. Since you think atheists are ignorant and anti-intellectual, I would check out the atheist experience here on YouTube. In fact, I'd love to hear your call in recorded for all to hear. THIS would be real entertainment. Have a nice day.
@mattetho "ehram seems to think that if you yell loud enough and present insignificant differences in the gospels ( whic by the way prove their authenticity)..." If you have watched any of his other debates, you will see that he uses different samples in each one. Like the time that Jesus died. I'd think that THAT is no an insignificant difference to christianity. Yes, some differences are insignificant. But some are very significant. I've played the whisper game. I know what's more likely true
@mattetho "science has actually given more weight to the existence of God" I would love yo hear how you arrived at this conclusion.
And true, science has nothing to do with religion. Can't prove or disprove a god, but it can disprove stories in religious texts, which does NOT disprove God
Historians have proven the inaccuracies of the bible. Sorry, non biased historians. Ones that don't start with the "God" answer and work backwards. If the first pages of the bible are wrong, Then maybe all are
@mattetho Why is it that when faced with simple questions, your answer is, "You're stupid / the Gospels are right." Did you (for a moment) consider trying an answer instead of ranting? The degree of ignorance of Christians about the origins & evolution of their own religion is astounding. IIf the Gospels :agree: why would they omit John;s miracle of Lazarus, the most important miracle in the Bible. Why would they have Jesus saying contradictory things if it were eye witnesses writing?
Atheist indoctrination???? LOL Now THAT is funny!! Gee, you really don't have a clue - typical moronic religious nutjob. Scientific knowledge is ALL we have you idiot. Religion is shit. Your god doesn't exist - never did. Oh by the way, I am educated (university, you might have heard of it??) Idiot.
You are clearly biased because of your religious indoctrination - ALL religions and religious books are man made - just story telling that's all. You just won't accept that your faith is made up like all the rest - and of course, science killed religion 150 years ago. :)
I repeat, what doesn't make sense are the actions of Jesus after he was resurrected/ Why don't the Gospels agree? Why did it take the disciples weeks to believe if Jesus was there. Why, if we he could establish the Kingdom, did he disappear for 2,000 years?
Evans shows a lack of knowledge of 1st century times - especially the view of the people concerning ghosts, "resurrection", evil spirits, demons, angels, etc. It is so unlike modern humans as to almost be a different species.
@smb12321 The Gospels are not intended to function as standalone narratives; they are dramatic portrayals meant to back up the story of Jesus passed by word of mouth within the early churches. As dramatic portrayals, it's not really a surprise that they have different events. And, no, not all non-evangelical scholars would disagree with Craig. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would, also. Note also "AnglicanApologist72" below.
@Tristaths You can't have it both ways: Get knowledge of Jesus from the Gospels then deprecate their historical worth. If they don't reflect original witnesses then why do they contradict & only John include Lazarus?
I agree they're "dramatic portrayals", not source accounts. What's so odd is the discrepancy between Paul & the Gospels. Gospels written decades later know intimate thoughts yet Paul knows nothing about a virgin birth, miracles, teachings, disciples, events or actions. LOL
@DrivinWest definitely, the Bible is self-contradictory end of story even the most deluded Christian can't deny that but they can't bring themselves to confront the reality that Jesus doesn't want them for a sun-beam either.
From 7:27... "If Jesus went around calling himself God, how did he manage to escape getting stoned to death for blasphemy?"
That's basically what happened in Mark 14:62-64 (as well as the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke). The Jewish leaders recognized that by calling himself the "Son of Man", Jesus was equating himself with the divine figure in Daniel 7.
Bart is actually correct about GJohn, at least insofar as John is not trying to be history. It's more of a dramatized play than a biography. It even opens like a Greek play.
Why doesn't Ehrman contradict Evans when he said the Gospels we have were written in the first century when all scholars agree the earliest manuscripts we have are from the mid to late second century?
@26Jaiden I know why. That's because Ehrman also agrees that the Synoptics were written from the first century. Ehrman's argument is a lot more nuanced than what you proposed, his view is that although they were written early, the extant manuscripts are so unreliable that we can't have access to the text of the Gospels that were from the first century. Later in this debate he brought up this point, but Evans had his objections against this view.
@ShamanicVoices Uh... Craig Evans has done more scholarship than Ehrman. The introduction made that rather clear. He's a worthy opponent for Ehrman. Besides: religious fundamentalists don't quote Jewish historians. Silly Voices! :D
@Tristaths No, what Evans has done is hone arguments based not on science, history or logic but on his personal theology. His views are - how to say this nicely - accepted only by fundamentalists? His penchant for viewing the Gospels as eye witness Jewish accounts ("from different viewpoints") is rejected by virtually all non-evangelical scholars. Moreover, the idea of even entertaining the possibility of a miracle as explanation of a historical event is beyond the pale.
When Jesus asked the disciples who men said He was and they all answered,then He asked Peter who- he- thought He was and Peter said,"You are the Christ",Jesus told Peter that flesh and blood did not reveal that to him,but rather The Father did,MK8:27-28 this shows that the Bible is divinely inspired by God as was Peter's answer.It is God who reveals these truths to His elect and not to the world.So,it's backing up it's claim unless a man be Born Again he can not know or understand divine things.
@CBALLEN The word Christ means "the anointed one", which is not the same as saying "I am god in human form".
It's ambiguous, and whether you believe he was god or not is a matter of faith. I find it hard to believe that an all powerful, all loving god would make his message so obscure, let alone as inconsistent and contradictory as Bart Erhman proves the gospels to be.
@tecciztucatl Bart,like all lost men,don't understand the scriptures,each gospel told a different angle of Jesus' life.Of course without the Holy Spirit it's fruitless to know or understand the things of God.
@CBALLEN The ones who are lost are those who claim to understand the scriptures and still 'believe'. You should actually read Bart's books. He was more a believer than you and he knows the scriptures better than you. If the holy spirit secret decoder ring is as powerful as you claim then why couldn't Bart keep his faith while learning the true origin of your stories? He most certainly had one.
Fact is, the bible is full of forgeries. This is known. There is no way to know if any of it is true.
@CBALLEN having a different angle or view doesn't entail discrepancies in a story. (like taking away details or adding them or changing things up like the gospels do)
@Christ724 If I say,"I'm coming tomorrow"(and it's Tuesday),then someone asks,What did he say,and they say"He said,he's coming on Wednsday " one is quoting and the other is paraphrasing,so which is right and which is wrong or are both right?
@CBALLEN Right, but if someone says, "I heard he's coming the day after tomorrow." does that not say that whoever added "after" changed the very essence of what was intentioned? One can't take this seriously anymore, granted he is still coming but not the way he originally stated. The person who said, "He's coming on Wednesday" is more reliable than the person who says, "He's coming the day after tomorrow."
@CBALLEN and that is the problem with using the gospels as sources. They are like someone adding "the day after" to the sentence "I'm coming tomorrow." It's not unique however, many legends and stories have been passed down by word of mouth and additions and subtractions carry on in the story. It happens, the point is just that from a historical view, the gospels just aren't a reliable source on their own.
I have been a Christian for many years and always knew that there were discrepencies in the Bible. Man wrote the Bible and man is given to error and bias. I have never thought that the Bible is perfect in every way. If it were we would begin to place it on a higher plane than God or Jesus. What I love about my faith is that in spite of man's lack of perfection, God reveals himself and his plan of redemption to all through the Bible. Let's not make the Bible an idol. It is not.
Ehrman says that Christ doesn't call himself God in Matthew, Mark and Luke. As soon as he said that I went and checked. No, Christ isn't as explicit in MM & L, but he calls himself the Son of God or the Son of Man in several places. In Matthew 25, he talks about coming in all his glory to judge the world. In several other places he tells people that their sins are forgiven (speaking in the position of God). Eventually, the Jewish leaders had him crucified. It took time thought.
You should learn more about the language the Bible is written in. Practically everyone in the Bible calls themselves sons of God. This is just a Jewish saying and doesn't literally mean son of God. He is correct when he says MM&L Jesus doesn't say he is God (or son of). In fact, it would run incredibly contrary to the overarching theology of those three gospels if he did.
@PainefulMass. Actually no. In Matt. 26 Caiappahs asks him point blank, "Are you the Son of God?" He answers by again referring to himself as the "Son of Man". The response is, "There we have it! He has spoken blasphemy!" They understood his response to mean that he said that he was THE son of God, not A son of God.
And then he was telling people that their sins were forgiven. Again, the leaders understood that he was speaking in the place of God.
Evans has twisted the first question..it is not what the gospels tell us that's important it is how reliable and accurate are they? The need to know issue presumes religious belief in Jesus as God etc...this guy cannot see past his evangelical bias. Read Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted; it blows this guy out of the water..
Please Craig Evans, You are not a debater. I bet in your a nice guy & a good Christian. But you don't answer the textual problems. Just gloss over it with typical apologist "feel good" rhetoric.
Bart Ehrman was a much better debator in this debate. It was kind of embarrassing watching Craig Evans so I couldn't watch the rest of it. Bart Ehrman though got creamed with the debate against William Lane Craig--he was out of Ehrmans league.
@Welle92 The man is a potential Muslim the way he's a potential Morman you don't want a man like him looking at Islam with a critical eye. He does the work believers are to scared to do. I read the Qur'an and much of the Hadith and compared it to the Bible and it just made me a stronger atheist Like Dr. Erhman.
subhanallah how true is the quran when it says "So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."
Subhanallah..how true is the quran when it says in 2:79 "So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."
@Lightmane321 Not ignoring anything Lightman. I just like to keep with one subject at a time instead of jumping all over. Your original comment to me was regarding my statement on Ehrman's ignorance of the teaching that Christ is Lord/God in the synoptics. *Keeping to the subject* I demonstrated my point.
@formeragnostic I don't discuss topics with people who don't answer questions. I never would've 'jumped all over' if you were simply clear & concise, but you enjoy playing games, so I played games & your response to my 'game playing' was priceless. I think even I could beat you in a debate on biblical inerrancy. But if you 'debate' like you 'discuss' then don't bother taking me up on it. Wasting time is not something that I normally choose to do.
@Lightmane321 If there is any question or topic you'd like to ask me about specifically Lightman, always know I'm open to talk to you. I became a disciple of Christ after carefully studying the issues and have thought through and studied many of these subjects so know I am open to talk with you. Consider me a friend.
@formeragnostic BACKING DOWN??? ROFL!!! You're a riot, you know that?
The reason I won't talk with you is because you refuse to answer ANY of my questions. Would you continue to discuss stuff with me if I refused to answer any of yours? (Whoops!!! there's another question from me - LOL)
Backing down my ass. You're just a coward. Otherwise, you would've answered ALL of my questions, but you didn't.
All that matters is that we dont have the originals or autographs of the writers. How can we know for sure what the bible says if we dont have the original manuscripts to compare to? End of story!!! Go Bart.
@dave1122drum Then you might as well dismiss all the history you've ever learned in school because not ONE ancient historical document has as much manuscript evidence behind it than the New Testament does.
@formeragnostic HAHA. You obviously dont know Bart's material do you? There is no evidence but the evidence of scribes writing the NT. Again we do not have the originals therefore you believe in BLIND faith. What do you have to compare these COPIES to? The first manuscripts copies were not written until 100+ years after christ. That is discouraging....
Evans cites Corinthians and Acts, but the question involved the gospels. Blind sheep will see what they want to believe. Blind faith for many means blind gullibilty.
bentopapa007 1 week ago
Bart Ehrman reminds me of Douglas Walker, the Nostalgia Critic on internet.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 2 weeks ago
Jesus says ego eimi (I AM) many more times in John than Matthew, Mark or Luke. But it is there and could be easily misunderstood without the background that John provides. o On (the BEING) only occurs in John.
Throwing out John as a red herring and at the same time expressing a wish list for more apocryphal works to be found is a weakness of Ehrman’s contrarian arguments. We can get so caught up in disagreeing, we lose track of what we agree on.
ChristopheroJones 1 month ago
i like how the views go down as you progress through a youtube video part series
LIGHTRONIX 1 month ago
Man Ehrman is way too smart for Evans.
monkeymuggs 2 months ago
ISLAM IS THE TRUTH !!!!
MOADAM2010 3 months ago
@MOADAM2010 Islam is the truth when the question is "what religion will send you to hell?"
gcnengineer 3 months ago
@gcnengineer : so whats the truth accoring 2 you :-) ????
MOADAM2010 3 months ago
@MOADAM2010 Galatians 1:8
gcnengineer 3 months ago
@gcnengineer : and what Galatians 1:8 say :-) ???
MOADAM2010 3 months ago
@MOADAM2010 Google it, you should know, it speaks about men like Muhammad
gcnengineer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gcnengineer : can you please explain this 2 me :
Ezekiel 20 (King James Version) :
24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
MOADAM2010 3 months ago
@MOADAM2010 LMAO no it isn't!! XD
dattebenforcer 2 months ago
@dattebenforcer : WHAT IS YOUR TRUTH THEN :) ????
MOADAM2010 2 months ago
@MOADAM2010 wtf? truth is not a personal thing, islam is just demonstrably false in *reality*. dumbass.
dattebenforcer 2 months ago
@dattebenforcer : OK WHATS THE TRUTH THEN :) ????
MOADAM2010 2 months ago
@MOADAM2010 that islam is bullshit?
dattebenforcer 2 months ago
@dattebenforcer : ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN :) ????
MOADAM2010 2 months ago
@MOADAM2010 no you nigger, i just know that islam is bullshit (and so is christianity). why must you assume i'm from a rival religion? does the world only make sense to you if ppl only believe in your religion or another? you never thought that islam might be full of shit just because it's empirically wrong? you are hopeless (also, your capslock is on in case you failed to notice)
dattebenforcer 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dattebenforcer : HAVE YOU READ THE QURAN ???
MOADAM2010 2 months ago
Professor Ehrman speaks the truth concerning the errors in the letters called the New Testament. We should embrace the facts that the letters are copies of the originals with many errors. The errors are both intended and accidental, however they are still errors and we should be attentive to correcting and restoring to the best of our ability the original words of these letters. If we refuse to be open to the truth then our "Christianity" is fraudulent. Thank YHWH for men like Bart Ehrman.
natzrim 5 months ago
@natzrim I'm reminded of recent studies that show people maintain belief in debunked and falsified opinions they hold.
Then I read your comment, and I realized how very silly those studies must be. Clearly isn't the case.
ShiftyWeasel 4 months ago
@ShiftyWeasel
I agree that people believe in opinions even though they have been debunked. that is exactly what christianity today does. i am not really sure what you are saying in your second comment. could you elaborate a little more?
natzrim 3 months ago
@natzrim I'm mocking you.
ShiftyWeasel 3 months ago
@ShiftyWeasel Well, it doesn't bother me for anyone to mock me; you have the freedom to do such things.
I don't worry about what fallible men say. There have been well known atheist that converted to believers in Elohim, have you ever read any of their stories?. There are also men of great wisdom, like Sir Issac Newton, that loved and believed the Scriptures ferverently; I agree with like men.
Please explain your last incomplete sentence. Thanks.
natzrim 3 months ago
@natzrim Yah-huh. Tons of stories about atheists converting to Christianity, I'm sure. (I highly doubt it). A much more likely story is that those stories fit the bill--they reassure Christians of their own superiority, and they show that atheism is just like another darned religion, so of course they can deconvert!
Studies would strongly disagree with you, and since you're making the claim, you would need to make the cite.
ShiftyWeasel 3 months ago
@ShiftyWeasel I don't care if you hurl insults, and refuse to have a civil dialogue. I don't have to totally agree with Bart Ehrman to appreciate that he was man enough to come forth with the evidence that men tampered with the Word of YHWH. Even Bart Ehrman's wife still is a practicing Christian you ignorant bastard, don't you know you are insulting Mrs. Ehrman too with your comments. Damn, I hope you can evolve a bit more so you can think before you open your smart ass mouth.
natzrim 3 months ago
@natzrim Wait..what insults? I was sarcastic for sure, but I don't think I actually mocked you or attacked you directly.
Besides, you probably shouldn't complain about insults (yes, even mentioning it is a form of complaint) and then in your next few sentences proceed to insult me. Tad hypocritical. (Ignorant bastard? Huh, strange choice.)
ShiftyWeasel 3 months ago
@natzrim I..don't really care about Mrs. Ehrman's personal beliefs, so I'm confused about why you felt the need to bring her up. Do you think I hero-worship Mr. Ehrman or something?
I'll freely accept that I have a "smart ass" mouth, but I also find it interesting that nowhere in your reply did you actually provide any substantial point about how or why I was wrong.
ShiftyWeasel 3 months ago
@natzrim Regarding "men of great wisdom": Yeah, everyone makes mistakes. Snark aside, if you REALLY wanted to do a head count of intelligent men of wisdom and their beliefs, I'd bet it wouldn't turn out in your favor. Not that it would matter anyways, even an intelligent person can believe in woo, humans are fairly irrational.
ShiftyWeasel 3 months ago
@natzrim What incomplete sentence? You mean explain what I meant in my original comment to you? I'm saying you are a perfect example of someone who acknowledges errors in the Bible, but instead of rightly casting aside belief, you've somehow used it to strengthen yours. You've basically had incorrect and debunked beliefs reinforced by the very evidence that should have done the debunking.
ShiftyWeasel 3 months ago
Comment removed
believeonetime 5 months ago
Poorly formatted debate. Two knowledgeable people with prepared answers to set questions that are being interpreted in different ways and with no opportunity to address each others points. They are, through no fault of their own, talking past each other.
Evans does state, though, that the Bible isn't literally true. " Are they sufficient in content and accuracy" "to provide us with what we need to know" That is not a statement of literal truth just is it close enough, a relative concept.
rugbyguy59 6 months ago
"are the gospels sufficient" says Evans. Which basically means no they aren't reliable, at least not as a literal sense.
Not much of a debate really, both speakers are talking past each other. Not their fault really. The format is wrong. They both have prepared speeches on set topics and they don't ask questions of each other. They are also both taking different approaches to the bible.
rugbyguy59 6 months ago
my only issue with bart ehrman, is when he says things like "i do believe that some things in the gospel jesus actually said" he doesn't explain what and why. he makes a lot of assumptions that i do not understand the reasoning for. like why does he even believe that jesus existed. why would he believe the earlier gospels have any more validity than john?
moddie84 6 months ago
@moddie84 Ehrman isn't given time to answer those questions and those aren't assumptions but conclusions drawn from detailed research. If you want to know his reasoning I'd recommend reading his books. Obviously he believes there's sufficient evidence for Jesus' existence & earlier gospels being more accurate by being closer to the events with less alteration by copying error or intentional edit. Perhaps the early versions are inaccurate too but these are the inaccuracies he has evidence for.
rugbyguy59 6 months ago
I wonder if Jesus ever got a boner.
dschroff70 6 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
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 6 months ago
@liduq
Feel sorry for YOURSELF...
sfyr 6 months ago
@liduq
a bit vague!
HellRehab 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Balabaw2
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!
The lie of Erhman may please some people, but it's not make it truth.
Sorry
liduq 6 months ago
Everything that Bart had mentioned of discrepancy in the writing of gospel are none essential and has nothing to do with the message of the gospel which is the salvation by the grace of God . It is very obvious that he just blew everything out of proportion. The essence of the doctrine of the gospel is very reliable.
fbarrios56 7 months ago
@fbarrios56 Here is why he did not just "blow it out of proportion" as you said. The reason why he said that there are "discrepancies" in the gospels and pointed out THE CORE theological foundation of Christianity - the one that Jesus claimed to be GOD when in fact HE DID NOT.
The point of directing attention to this DIRECT compromising discrepancy WEAKENS the gospel message that Jesus is God almighty who incarnates and takes up your sins away through blood sacrifice. Do you see now what he did?
esiosan 7 months ago
@fbarrios56 In essence Christianity's message is that God's son descended from the Trinity and incarnated into a human body and offered himself as a vicarious blood sacrifice to expiate the transgressions of humanity
Prof Ehrman spotlights a discrepancy in that only in John Jesus seem to claim to be GOD himself and that in fact HE DID NOT CLAIM IT then that it was added later by scribes perhaps because the death of one man would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire species
esiosan 7 months ago
Congratulation Dr Bart ehrman for your excellent statement and the fool was listening n , the answe was I believe not he could proved!!!
MrMonsuralam 7 months ago
There is no way to believe in its where five place five thing in same book!!! Even modern writer won't do this same contradiction!!!
MrMonsuralam 7 months ago
Is this a debate? All I see is Prof. Ehrman eviscerating any notions with regards to the bible's credibility.
Another thing, whenever Dr. Evans is asked the same question he says "I BELIEVE so"... how about some strong contextual evidence countering Ehrman's arguments fgs? You're killing me here!
I'm disappointed with the lack of intellectual and reasonable veracity from Dr. Evans! All talk, no "meat".
esiosan 8 months ago 13
@esiosan Well you have an opportunity to do here what Dr Evans was not able to, go ahead
sam375 7 months ago
@sam375 My comment was a critique of Evans inability to articulate a well based argument. Prof. Ehrman quotes and presents verifiable facts and historical contextualization while Evans' points are based on mere faith or theological doctrine with a hint of self deceit. That is what is very disappointing to me. I have watched tens of debates with apologists from all faiths and in this one the apologist [Evans] imo is one of the worse.
I am a skeptic(atheist) analyzing both sides impartially.
esiosan 7 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Anyway, this isn't really going anywhere, so I'm going to call it a day. :)
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 That's what I'm saying. Who says it was 500 people? Not any of the 500. Some guy saw someone who looked like him, and maybe there were a lot of people around, and his story was "there were like 500 people there!"
And the difference in Caesar and Jesus is the romans kept records of the events and times, of which Jesus is conveniently missing, which shows how little insignificant he was in the time, There are NO writings from the time of Jesus' time of living and dying. Nothing.
tommy605 8 months ago 4
"Not any of the 500"
What a silly and made criterion. So unless the people to whom the story relates attest themselves to what happened, the account is not reliable? I guess that if we don't have written records by Alexander the Great, or any number of historical figures who are the center of a given text, we need to handwave it away?
"Caesar and Jesus is the romans kept records of the events and times"
All texts post-date the purported events. The New Testament documents are eariler.
regelemihai 2 months ago
@regelemihai That's not what I said. You're taking it as the 500 were the historical event. The 500 were a supposed witness to the event. It's a case of the broken telephone game. The story changed from the event to the writing.
I'm not that knowledgeable on Alex the great. but Socrates as an example may not have existed. Like Jesus, he never wrote anything. The difference is, a direct source did, Plato.
Yes, all texts post-date, but not all by 20-70 years by people who weren't there to witness.
tommy605 2 months ago
"The story changed from the event to the writing"
Well that's just a presuposition without any grounds, but the whole point behind him mentioning the 500 was to substnatiate his case as he even says that although some of them have died, many are still alive--sort of an allusion to those who still deny the historical claim, to go and ask them themselves.
"but not all by 20-70 years"
You're right, they're usually by hundreds if not thousands of years. The first accounts of Alexander...
regelemihai 2 months ago
...the Great come some 400 years after his death. By all standards of historical credibility, the Gospels are the earilest attested ancient documents. 20 years is nothing if you take in the context, and again, assuming history MUST be written by direct eyewitnesses is just a made up criterion. The entirety of history would crumble if your standard were to be held. Those are all eyewitness accounts. Mark's source was Peter who was an eyewitness, John was an eyewitness, and Paul knew Peter and...
regelemihai 2 months ago
...James who were eyewitnesses too. In order for the event reported to be credible you don't need it to be directly recorded by an eyewitness. It would certainly help, but it's by no means a standard.
regelemihai 2 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Yes, the whisper game. How many thousands of stories do you think will be the same from last nights riots in vancouver? I'll bet not one of the re-tellings of the stories are accurate to the events. And these events were captured on the news, but the personal stories will still be wrong, embellished to make it seem more exciting. More interesting.
Like seeing someone who looked liked jesus three days after he died, turning to seeing jesus three days after the story is told.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 They can tell by the style of writing and the grammar used. The people who review and investigate old texts have the ability to tell these things. Also, Josephus being jewish would most likely not be a follower of jesus, and anything written would not be claiming his divinity.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 They can't prove it was added by Christians. All they can do is show it wasn't Josephus, which they have done.
And it's those oral traditions that make everything written questionable. If you've ever played the whisper game, you know how impossible it is to pass along any message by oral means.It changes and the more people between, the more it changes and the original is lost. And the accuracy from scribes hand copying each copy suffers from the same errancy.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 You mean beside Bart Ehrman? How about Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter, or E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. There are more of course. And all say the same thing. "Once the obviously Christian additions are removed, the remaining comments are consistent with Josephus's vocabulary and style."
All Josephus mentioned was Jesus, not anything about divinity. The earliest gospel was written more than 20 yrs after Jesus. Then other 40 years after. None by people who knew him
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 The closest thing Josephus said about Jesus being divine was "Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and miracle worker, attracting a large following who revered him after his death." People can say the say about Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell, and hopefully soon Peter Popoff. All sort of teachers and all did miracles on behalf of God. It's not that difficult to believe that even back in the 1st century, there were scams and fake healings just like today.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 The majority of christian scholars believe they were written by eyewitnesses. Not the majority of scholars and historians. And yes, Josephus talks about the James, the borhter of Jesus, but in his original writings, there is no mention of Jesus being divine. Anything on "Jesus the Messiah" or "Jesus, who was called Christs" was all added much later. Again, this is accepted by most scholars, except Christian apologist who argue for it's authenticity.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 It's called faith for a reason: Faith does not equal knowing. It's all in your head young man.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Most historians and scholars would disagree with you. Matthew and Luke borrowed from 2 sources. And none of the writers were witness to any of what they wrote about.
The below is in regards to Luke.
Critical scholarship generally holds to the two-source hypothesis as most probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the Q (Quelle) document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel. The Q document is based on hypothetical saying by Jesus.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 You do know that the gospels weren't actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, right? They're anonymously written and the names attributed to them as far as 200+ years after being written?
As for the genealogy, in those times, the genealogy was always based on paternal. The women were pretty much insignificant. Her genealogy did not matter, and yes, even Mary. Her line is not important at all. Both Mat and Luke used Mark as a source, but still wrote things differently.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 I see you are agueing with everyone here now. Interesting. Not much is going to enter that brain washed head of yours. My point was: you will not leave christianity because of the fear of eternal damnation.
About control: If you don't think the worldwide mission of the church is to control people and become rich in the process, you just aren't paying attention.
You are too busy argueing and defending your faith ... The faith that makes no sense.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 I didn't say anything about an in law. What I was saying was your initial response when you claimed Luke is on the genealogy of Mary, was wrong because there is no explicit Biblical record of Mary’s genealogy at all. That was invented to help apologist come up with reasons for some of the contradictions. Kind of like claiming the whole world is Israel because it was considered the centre of the world.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 You'll find "an answer" for any contradiction or error.The genealogy answer was wrong for two reasons. One is that regardless of Mary's or Joseph's genealogy, it's still Joseph. Second, in those times, they always spoke of paternal genealogy.
So what you're saying, is the whole world is just the centre of the world?
That's cool. You obviously will never see the errancy of this book, so there's really no sense continuing.
tommy605 8 months ago
@tommy605 I've been going at it with this Gamer dude too long also. He won't listen to anything and is totally
brainwashed/programmed. I think christianity is an implant.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 My friend, this is the bubble I was referring to before. It wouldn't matter if Jesus came up to you and told you he didn't die for you, you'd still believe it. You have a need to believe this for some reason.
one reason might be that the penalty for not believing is eternal damnation, but what do I know.
You see, you think this stuff is sacred, but it's only man made scare tactics. Sorry to say it. Have you ever been skammed? I have. And I recognized it again with religion.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@rovingdesertfox Scare tactics for control/money/income for the church. I am 60 years old and was a christian for 40 of those years. I never once felt better for taking communion, I never once felt as if god was speaking to me in any way, I never once felt comforted. If you have found truth great. Happy living.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Uhm, no. First, doesn't matter whose genealogy, it's referring to Josephs father. Second, it's a name. Hebrew or Greek, it's a name.
It specifies all the kingdom of the world, not just the centre of the world. You are interpreting it to justify what it says, and that is the only way the bible makes sense.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 You may want to check on-line on just how many other saviours and holy men were said to have had virgin mothers. I believe there are 20-30. Check out the video on YouTube: Zeitgeist (Religion) The
Greatest Story ever sold (1 of 3).
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 "Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
or
"Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
"Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." I hope you can see the error in this. No matter how high the mountain, you can't see all the kingdoms of the world. The book assumed flat earth. There lies the error.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 No. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have different stories/details to the same events. Which is explainable by the fact they were written 40-70 years after the events, but still, details are different. The NT, is just as erroneous as the OT. Just not as violent.
And understand this. This is not an argument against God. This is strictly on the accuracy of the holy writings. None of this says there is or isn't a God, or there was or wasn't a Jesus.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Well, it's not trying to find errors. They're blatant. If I tell you I was born before the first person walked on the moon, then a few minutes later said I was born after the apollo 13 mission, that is a contradiction. Both cannot be true, therefore one is wrong. Either a blatant lie, or an error. If I do that 400 times, then it's not an error. It's misleading and lying or a story.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 great, so Joseph has royal blood, but Jesus doesn't, because Joseph wasn't his biological father.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Genealogy of Jesus/Joseph: why in the world was it even listed? Supposedly god himself was the father.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 You wanted contradictions, I gave you a list. This now means you have to do some work.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 I suppose you want me to wipe your ass when you take a shit next. YOU do some fucking work moron. You asked for contradictions, I gave you a whole mother fucking list. Go fuck yourself.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 talking to you is like having gum in my hair. Enough. I give up. Whatever you say. just leave me alone.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 It's this kind of logic that keeps people in the dark. Way to go. What you are saying is,
when you stop thinking/looking for errors, they will go away. Perfect.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Because the errors are right there in print. Just like in the Qur'an.
What happens is that each person interprets the bible their own way. They decide what to take literally, or what to interpret the writer meant by it. The problem is, as a book in whole, there are parts you can take literally, and others you take symbolically and interpret to mean something else. The same within books within the whole book
The book is filled with errors when you don't justify and change the meaning
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 I think there is approx 400+ contradictions in the bible. Have you read the whole thing?
Error
Matt 13:31-32: "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." The error? Well, there's 2. There are smaller seeds, and mustard seeds do not become trees.
Profmth ( user/ProfMTH?blend=1&ob=5 ) has a series called brief bible blunders where he goes into a few in each episdode.
tommy605 8 months ago
@GamerFTW21 Stay in your comfort bubble; when you are ready to know the truth, you'll come out of your own will. You obviously have a need to believe in an ancient book. Why the bible? Who cares. Why not another holy book? Because you were born learning this one, so now you think this is the only truth. I guess we never realize if we were born Jewish, we'd look at life totally different and would think the new testament was insanity. As long as you look to a book, you'll be deluded.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
Comment removed
DickOPlenty 8 months ago
"Luke 9:47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, Luke 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me"
DickOPlenty 8 months ago
and i found this in luke 5:20/21: " And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"
DickOPlenty 8 months ago
ehrman claimed jesus only said he was god in john. i found this at the end of matthew: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." the concept of the trinity is evident here. if jesus was not claiming to be god in that verse along with the holy spirit why would people be baptised in his name? it makes no sense to be baptised in the name of a man
DickOPlenty 8 months ago in playlist BiBLE
Does anyone else think it is strange to watch these two mopes in the middle? Do we need two morons looking on pretending to be interested. Lame.
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
What a frikkin' moron. Because of these discrepancies: "This is why scholars are so keen to look for other texts outside the new testament". I know I'm repeating, but the people sitting in this audience aught to boo this guy. Is he kidding? They are debating the bible and HIS position is suppose to be defending the book. SSOOOOOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAAADDD!!!!!
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
The pastor told this faithful believer that god put mistakes in the bible on purpose to test people's faith ... and of course, this long time blind faith based man bought it hook line and sinker. Pathetic.
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
Now the bible tells us "what is necessary".....hey mister, this is suppose to be the stinking word of god. Think for a minute. If god did a job, would he have been this sloppy. You are back pedalling and are really bad at it. These apologists don't want to be honest. They have too much invested in the lie. I knew a christian who had to go to his pastor to get this answer about mistakes in the bible. cont.
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
@mattetho You are quite a blabber mouth from what I can tell in these comments. Since you think atheists are ignorant and anti-intellectual, I would check out the atheist experience here on YouTube. In fact, I'd love to hear your call in recorded for all to hear. THIS would be real entertainment. Have a nice day.
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
@mattetho "ehram seems to think that if you yell loud enough and present insignificant differences in the gospels ( whic by the way prove their authenticity)..." If you have watched any of his other debates, you will see that he uses different samples in each one. Like the time that Jesus died. I'd think that THAT is no an insignificant difference to christianity. Yes, some differences are insignificant. But some are very significant. I've played the whisper game. I know what's more likely true
tommy605 9 months ago
@mattetho "science has actually given more weight to the existence of God" I would love yo hear how you arrived at this conclusion.
And true, science has nothing to do with religion. Can't prove or disprove a god, but it can disprove stories in religious texts, which does NOT disprove God
Historians have proven the inaccuracies of the bible. Sorry, non biased historians. Ones that don't start with the "God" answer and work backwards. If the first pages of the bible are wrong, Then maybe all are
tommy605 9 months ago
@tommy605 "If the first pages of the bible are wrong, Then maybe all are"
woa... this is one big leap of faith!
salaino1452 9 months ago
@salaino1452 Naw. Not a leap of faith. No faith at all. With all the errors, and contradictions, it's easy to dismiss it as a work of fiction.
tommy605 9 months ago
@tommy605 hmmm... being a skeptic, I'll just stick to what we've got so far. I don't like making assumptions :)
salaino1452 9 months ago
Evans is clearly a liar and a crook. And what lives beneath lies and crookery?? FEAR.
richwfd2002 9 months ago
Evans seems to think that this was supposed to be a sermon and not a debate. What a desperate dope.
richwfd2002 9 months ago
@mattetho i don't really want to offend you, but you're wrong.
tr1bute1 9 months ago
@mattetho Why is it that when faced with simple questions, your answer is, "You're stupid / the Gospels are right." Did you (for a moment) consider trying an answer instead of ranting? The degree of ignorance of Christians about the origins & evolution of their own religion is astounding. IIf the Gospels :agree: why would they omit John;s miracle of Lazarus, the most important miracle in the Bible. Why would they have Jesus saying contradictory things if it were eye witnesses writing?
smb12321 9 months ago
@smb12321 Because they are too scared to face the truth, which is, of course what they accuse us of. Soooo hypocritical.
richwfd2002 9 months ago
@mattetho
Atheist indoctrination???? LOL Now THAT is funny!! Gee, you really don't have a clue - typical moronic religious nutjob. Scientific knowledge is ALL we have you idiot. Religion is shit. Your god doesn't exist - never did. Oh by the way, I am educated (university, you might have heard of it??) Idiot.
MrJohndl 9 months ago
@mattetho
You are clearly biased because of your religious indoctrination - ALL religions and religious books are man made - just story telling that's all. You just won't accept that your faith is made up like all the rest - and of course, science killed religion 150 years ago. :)
MrJohndl 9 months ago
Comment removed
motegn07 9 months ago
Ehrman owned Evans of course!
MrJohndl 9 months ago
I repeat, what doesn't make sense are the actions of Jesus after he was resurrected/ Why don't the Gospels agree? Why did it take the disciples weeks to believe if Jesus was there. Why, if we he could establish the Kingdom, did he disappear for 2,000 years?
Evans shows a lack of knowledge of 1st century times - especially the view of the people concerning ghosts, "resurrection", evil spirits, demons, angels, etc. It is so unlike modern humans as to almost be a different species.
smb12321 9 months ago
@smb12321 The Gospels are not intended to function as standalone narratives; they are dramatic portrayals meant to back up the story of Jesus passed by word of mouth within the early churches. As dramatic portrayals, it's not really a surprise that they have different events. And, no, not all non-evangelical scholars would disagree with Craig. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would, also. Note also "AnglicanApologist72" below.
Tristaths 9 months ago
@Tristaths You can't have it both ways: Get knowledge of Jesus from the Gospels then deprecate their historical worth. If they don't reflect original witnesses then why do they contradict & only John include Lazarus?
I agree they're "dramatic portrayals", not source accounts. What's so odd is the discrepancy between Paul & the Gospels. Gospels written decades later know intimate thoughts yet Paul knows nothing about a virgin birth, miracles, teachings, disciples, events or actions. LOL
smb12321 9 months ago
Craig Evans simply avoided the questions. He looks like knew he was defending a flawed position.
DrivinWest 10 months ago
@DrivinWest definitely, the Bible is self-contradictory end of story even the most deluded Christian can't deny that but they can't bring themselves to confront the reality that Jesus doesn't want them for a sun-beam either.
ogdroadsong 10 months ago
Ok...so...is Evans ever going to answer the questions? No?
MichaelnChristine 10 months ago
@blacice5x except that in aramaic the phrase we translate as son of man simply means man.
mrjdgibbs 10 months ago
From 7:27... "If Jesus went around calling himself God, how did he manage to escape getting stoned to death for blasphemy?"
That's basically what happened in Mark 14:62-64 (as well as the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke). The Jewish leaders recognized that by calling himself the "Son of Man", Jesus was equating himself with the divine figure in Daniel 7.
blacice5x 10 months ago
*waves hand* excuse me, Mr. CRaig, will you please answer the question about the historical accuracy of the Gospels"?
sudburylawyer 10 months ago
Bart is actually correct about GJohn, at least insofar as John is not trying to be history. It's more of a dramatized play than a biography. It even opens like a Greek play.
Tristaths 11 months ago
Why doesn't Ehrman contradict Evans when he said the Gospels we have were written in the first century when all scholars agree the earliest manuscripts we have are from the mid to late second century?
26Jaiden 11 months ago
@26Jaiden I know why. That's because Ehrman also agrees that the Synoptics were written from the first century. Ehrman's argument is a lot more nuanced than what you proposed, his view is that although they were written early, the extant manuscripts are so unreliable that we can't have access to the text of the Gospels that were from the first century. Later in this debate he brought up this point, but Evans had his objections against this view.
howtindog 11 months ago
I'm with Ehrman
Happy2Hate 11 months ago
Ehrman is coming from a historical, critical, scholarly view, while Evans is coming from a Religious Fundamental perspective...
These two men are in totally different worlds...
I Support EHRMAN !!!
ShamanicVoices 1 year ago
@ShamanicVoices Uh... Craig Evans has done more scholarship than Ehrman. The introduction made that rather clear. He's a worthy opponent for Ehrman. Besides: religious fundamentalists don't quote Jewish historians. Silly Voices! :D
Tristaths 11 months ago
@Tristaths No, what Evans has done is hone arguments based not on science, history or logic but on his personal theology. His views are - how to say this nicely - accepted only by fundamentalists? His penchant for viewing the Gospels as eye witness Jewish accounts ("from different viewpoints") is rejected by virtually all non-evangelical scholars. Moreover, the idea of even entertaining the possibility of a miracle as explanation of a historical event is beyond the pale.
smb12321 9 months ago
When Jesus asked the disciples who men said He was and they all answered,then He asked Peter who- he- thought He was and Peter said,"You are the Christ",Jesus told Peter that flesh and blood did not reveal that to him,but rather The Father did,MK8:27-28 this shows that the Bible is divinely inspired by God as was Peter's answer.It is God who reveals these truths to His elect and not to the world.So,it's backing up it's claim unless a man be Born Again he can not know or understand divine things.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN The word Christ means "the anointed one", which is not the same as saying "I am god in human form".
It's ambiguous, and whether you believe he was god or not is a matter of faith. I find it hard to believe that an all powerful, all loving god would make his message so obscure, let alone as inconsistent and contradictory as Bart Erhman proves the gospels to be.
tecciztucatl 1 year ago
@tecciztucatl Bart,like all lost men,don't understand the scriptures,each gospel told a different angle of Jesus' life.Of course without the Holy Spirit it's fruitless to know or understand the things of God.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN The ones who are lost are those who claim to understand the scriptures and still 'believe'. You should actually read Bart's books. He was more a believer than you and he knows the scriptures better than you. If the holy spirit secret decoder ring is as powerful as you claim then why couldn't Bart keep his faith while learning the true origin of your stories? He most certainly had one.
Fact is, the bible is full of forgeries. This is known. There is no way to know if any of it is true.
sfg911 1 year ago
@sfg911 A man centered faith is just that,a God given faith is supernatural.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Elves are supernatural
sfg911 1 year ago
@CBALLEN having a different angle or view doesn't entail discrepancies in a story. (like taking away details or adding them or changing things up like the gospels do)
Christ724 1 year ago
@Christ724 If I say,"I'm coming tomorrow"(and it's Tuesday),then someone asks,What did he say,and they say"He said,he's coming on Wednsday " one is quoting and the other is paraphrasing,so which is right and which is wrong or are both right?
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Right, but if someone says, "I heard he's coming the day after tomorrow." does that not say that whoever added "after" changed the very essence of what was intentioned? One can't take this seriously anymore, granted he is still coming but not the way he originally stated. The person who said, "He's coming on Wednesday" is more reliable than the person who says, "He's coming the day after tomorrow."
Christ724 1 year ago
@CBALLEN and that is the problem with using the gospels as sources. They are like someone adding "the day after" to the sentence "I'm coming tomorrow." It's not unique however, many legends and stories have been passed down by word of mouth and additions and subtractions carry on in the story. It happens, the point is just that from a historical view, the gospels just aren't a reliable source on their own.
Christ724 1 year ago
I have been a Christian for many years and always knew that there were discrepencies in the Bible. Man wrote the Bible and man is given to error and bias. I have never thought that the Bible is perfect in every way. If it were we would begin to place it on a higher plane than God or Jesus. What I love about my faith is that in spite of man's lack of perfection, God reveals himself and his plan of redemption to all through the Bible. Let's not make the Bible an idol. It is not.
gdavid483 1 year ago
Ehrman says that Christ doesn't call himself God in Matthew, Mark and Luke. As soon as he said that I went and checked. No, Christ isn't as explicit in MM & L, but he calls himself the Son of God or the Son of Man in several places. In Matthew 25, he talks about coming in all his glory to judge the world. In several other places he tells people that their sins are forgiven (speaking in the position of God). Eventually, the Jewish leaders had him crucified. It took time thought.
Tekakaroma
tekakaromatagi 1 year ago
@tekakaromatagi :(
You should learn more about the language the Bible is written in. Practically everyone in the Bible calls themselves sons of God. This is just a Jewish saying and doesn't literally mean son of God. He is correct when he says MM&L Jesus doesn't say he is God (or son of). In fact, it would run incredibly contrary to the overarching theology of those three gospels if he did.
PainefulMass 1 year ago
@PainefulMass. Actually no. In Matt. 26 Caiappahs asks him point blank, "Are you the Son of God?" He answers by again referring to himself as the "Son of Man". The response is, "There we have it! He has spoken blasphemy!" They understood his response to mean that he said that he was THE son of God, not A son of God.
And then he was telling people that their sins were forgiven. Again, the leaders understood that he was speaking in the place of God.
So you know biblical Greek?
Tkkrmatagi
tekakaromatagi 1 year ago
Evans has twisted the first question..it is not what the gospels tell us that's important it is how reliable and accurate are they? The need to know issue presumes religious belief in Jesus as God etc...this guy cannot see past his evangelical bias. Read Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted; it blows this guy out of the water..
rds1958 1 year ago
Please Craig Evans, You are not a debater. I bet in your a nice guy & a good Christian. But you don't answer the textual problems. Just gloss over it with typical apologist "feel good" rhetoric.
grassburner 1 year ago
There is only one way Islam! People read the Quran and you will see the truth!
I bear witness that there is no deity (none truely to be worshipped) but, Allah, and I bear witness that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah",
RealName007 1 year ago
Al you muslims claiming Bart for the future can go and fuck youself. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic, deal with it.
RevInt1 1 year ago
Why is Bart Ehrman shouting? It's infuriating me.
KittenButter 1 year ago
Bart Ehrman was a much better debator in this debate. It was kind of embarrassing watching Craig Evans so I couldn't watch the rest of it. Bart Ehrman though got creamed with the debate against William Lane Craig--he was out of Ehrmans league.
heymanhmm 1 year ago
OI suggest this man goes and join that man made cult called Islam.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
Bart Ehrman is an potential muslim inshallah
Welle92 1 year ago
@Welle92 The man is a potential Muslim the way he's a potential Morman you don't want a man like him looking at Islam with a critical eye. He does the work believers are to scared to do. I read the Qur'an and much of the Hadith and compared it to the Bible and it just made me a stronger atheist Like Dr. Erhman.
lb10128 1 year ago
Bart Ehrman spanked Craig Evans in this debate!
97roscoe 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
subhanallah how true is the quran when it says "So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."
ucuci101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Subhanallah..how true is the quran when it says in 2:79 "So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."
ucuci101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey former. Now I KNOW that you're a jerk. I've answered ALL of your questions, but you keep ignoring mine. That's what cowards do.
Hopscotch?
Try Dodgeball
Lightmane321 1 year ago
@Lightmane321 Not ignoring anything Lightman. I just like to keep with one subject at a time instead of jumping all over. Your original comment to me was regarding my statement on Ehrman's ignorance of the teaching that Christ is Lord/God in the synoptics. *Keeping to the subject* I demonstrated my point.
What question would you like to discuss next?
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic I don't discuss topics with people who don't answer questions. I never would've 'jumped all over' if you were simply clear & concise, but you enjoy playing games, so I played games & your response to my 'game playing' was priceless. I think even I could beat you in a debate on biblical inerrancy. But if you 'debate' like you 'discuss' then don't bother taking me up on it. Wasting time is not something that I normally choose to do.
Lightmane321 1 year ago
@Lightmane321 Look who's backing down now. Thanks for proving my point Lightman.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@Lightmane321 If there is any question or topic you'd like to ask me about specifically Lightman, always know I'm open to talk to you. I became a disciple of Christ after carefully studying the issues and have thought through and studied many of these subjects so know I am open to talk with you. Consider me a friend.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic BACKING DOWN??? ROFL!!! You're a riot, you know that?
The reason I won't talk with you is because you refuse to answer ANY of my questions. Would you continue to discuss stuff with me if I refused to answer any of yours? (Whoops!!! there's another question from me - LOL)
Backing down my ass. You're just a coward. Otherwise, you would've answered ALL of my questions, but you didn't.
Who's point was proved again? Right!!!!!
Lightmane321 1 year ago
Don't you love people who don't speak straight.
They say things like 'and you are making something else glaringly obvious, but they didn't say what it was'
And then when you ask them, they don't answer?
I just love people like that. Don't you?
Lightmane321 1 year ago
All that matters is that we dont have the originals or autographs of the writers. How can we know for sure what the bible says if we dont have the original manuscripts to compare to? End of story!!! Go Bart.
dave1122drum 1 year ago
@dave1122drum Then you might as well dismiss all the history you've ever learned in school because not ONE ancient historical document has as much manuscript evidence behind it than the New Testament does.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic HAHA. You obviously dont know Bart's material do you? There is no evidence but the evidence of scribes writing the NT. Again we do not have the originals therefore you believe in BLIND faith. What do you have to compare these COPIES to? The first manuscripts copies were not written until 100+ years after christ. That is discouraging....
dave1122drum 1 year ago