Bart is a one man wrecking crew to young minds and Christianity. It's pathetic because he is mendacious in the extreme, and I think that he knows it. I sense that he has an axe to grind from a private experience thst only he knows. He's a creepy dude, like Christoper Hitchens, who didn't like the moral law of Christianity but proffered no alternative other than his own perceived brilliance, which is thin gruel for the rest of us plebes.
@@sliglusamelius8578hey now that’s a laying it on a bit thick. Bart helped me get back into studying the Bible and ultimately Christ so he’s not all bad. God still works through him.
@@sliglusamelius8578He said he lost his faith because of the Problem of Evil. I call BS. No one with any degree of faith or understanding leaves the faith for something like that. It's gotta be a heart issue, and his deperate need to whittle down the faith of others confirms it.
Paul saying that he was blameless wasn’t him saying that he was perfect, he was simply saying that when it came to the legalistic religion he far outstripped those judaizers who were troubling the church.
Exactly. And perhaps even more importantly, it's entirely possible to be flawless according to the outward demands of the law, and still be - and feel yourself to be - a prisoner of the flesh. I think Paul is pretty clear about that!
Bart: nuh uh. Christian: uh huh. If you study the entire corpus of the NT, you will see a coherence and self-critical thinking and analysis that is unique to Christianity. Peter states in one of his epistles that Paul is hard to understand. Bart's comprehension is deficient. It is quite true that Paul seemingly contradicts himself with things like saved by faith/works dichotomy, but if you have the gray matter required to see his deeper point, you will understand that in the final analysis, no works would be "good enough" to merit heaven without the saving grace of Jesus and his sacrifice, and we are judged by our deeds in this world. Both are true.
Regarding the first point, Paul also says in Galatians 4:8-9, "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God..." So he says that they worshipped false gods when they did not know God, i.e., were ignorant, which later was no longer the case. Even in Romans, Paul, says "they knew God" (1:21), but later says, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (1:28), i.e., they suppressed the knowledge and became more ignorant, which is consistent with 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools." Even in Acts, Paul's point is that Greeks acknowledged the existence of the true God as "the unknown God," but by calling him such didn't recognize who he truly is. "Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you" (17:23). Also, his focus on ignorance in Acts is based on the altar's inscription to the unknown God. The words "unknown" and "ignorance" are related in Greek. Paul's view seemed to be that people could have a rudimentary knowledge of God, while at the same time having a great deal of ignorance about him, which increased with the suppression of that knowledge.
@@Howjadoo22At some point I worry we’re dealing with bad faith arguments. Most of the new atheists can claim ignorance since they don’t have a theology background, Ehrman shouldn’t have graduated with his misunderstandings of longstanding theology.
@@meglukes Ehrman’s problem, and the problem of skeptical critics in general, is that he reads the Bible like a fundamentalist, JP Holding likes to refer to “fundy atheists” and that is definitely what Ehrman is, every argument he makes can be refuted just by saying “but I’m not a fundamentalist!”
the more I listen to Bart Ehrman's arguments that aren't the big ones like the census or the women at the grave, or Jesus's time in Egypt, the more convinced I am that he is manufacturing contradictions to pander to his supporters and that he doesn't care if it's a twisting of the truth.
The problem with Ehrman is that his argument always breaks down to Premise 1: hardcore ultra fundamentalism is the only possible way to read the Bible and the only possible interpretation of Christianity Premise 2: hardcore ultra fundamentalism doesn’t work Conclusion: Christianity is false But 90% or more of Christians reject premise 1!
This isn’t about atheism though, it’s about the authorship and authenticity of the disputed letters of Paul. It doesn’t have anything to do with atheism.
"later Christians must have written letters in his name" Why yes because if I was a medieval forger I'd definitely want to write the most powerful criticisms in the new testament under the name of a former Pharisee. And I'm sure none of my colleagues would question why they hadn't seen these explosive letters beforehand, since yk, celibacy is such a low key thing they'd probably just roll with it
And why, if you were going to forge celibacy as a means of keeping property inside the Church, would you do it by Paul strongly emphasizing that it was just his point of view, not the Lord's?
One thing I love about this channel is he manages to have humour without making any ad hominem arguments. After 2 or 3 debunked books most people would write off ehrman as intellectually dishonest and move on but testify takes the time to go through individual arguments and destroy them one by one
Bart Erhman is always making up all kinds of dubious “contradictions” it’s honestly kind of sad because it’s obvious he’s doing this out of an irrational or emotional response, perhaps he’s angry at God for something, I don’t know.
His story is not a secret. He told it himself on his own youtube channel. Ehrman came from a very middle of the road protestant family. As an adolescent, he turned into a hardcore evangelical who took every word in the Bible literally, much to the dismay of his parents. You can imagine the tensions. He pushed through. Of course the position that every word in the Bible is literally true, is very brittle. If only one word can't be a literal representaton of an actual event, or can't be a literal quote of what someone really said, it all comes tumbling down. If one word is in question, everything is in question, because the whole building is built on the premise that everything in the Bible is literal truth. Now, he got that experience when studying at university. He discovered that there are many manuscripts that are all slightly different (inevitable, because of manual copying) and that there are different versions of some passages (also inevitable, because in the first century there were no tape recorders or camera's and communication was slow). So, his entire belief came crashing down. He tried it a bit as a liberal Christian, but that didn't work out. I understand. Liberal Christianity is all about vague talk and free interpretation, while Ehrman is a black and white thinker who likes rock solid ground to stand on. So he left that too. He apparently concluded that it is all a big giant lie and in that conviction he found solid ground again. And a mission, in exposing the big giant lie. It would be very strange if someone who went through all that, would not be angry. Psychologically it is all very understandable. But that doesn't make him right. Ehrman is a good talker and can be quite persuasive. When he talked about things that I happen to know a bit about, I noticed that what he said, didn't really add up. He takes a very small thing and draws giant conclusions from it (if that serves his agenda).
I once read an "argument" that Acts must be wrong because it says that Paul was dazzled by the light on the Road to Damascus, but that Paul said he was blinded. They completely overlooked the fact that "dazzled" means "blinded by a bright light." There are no ends to which atheists will not go to make arguments for doing something they know is wrong.
I thought it was something else like in one account the people with Paul see nothing but hear a voice. But in another account, the people with Paul see a bright light but hear nothing. I'll have to double check.
@@CCoburn3 Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@valinorean4816 The Resurrection could not have been staged. A body could have been stolen, but that would not explain the appearances of Jesus to hundreds of people who knew him. The Sanhedrin attempted to say the body was stolen and that explained the empty tomb. But that did not explain how Jesus could appear to hundreds of people-often at the same time. As for the conservation of matter, matter is conserved IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Since God created the universe, He cannot be part of the universe. So the universe is not a closed system where God is concerned.
Sometimes i wonder how Bart even achieved his title as "scholar". I have never been to school for anything biblical, i dont even read the bible as much as i ahould, yet a majority of his arguments are easily defended by even someone like myself. His arguments are just plane idiotic at best, but i hate that so many atheists hear his arguments and spout them all the time like they are "gotcha" ststements, but won't even let you respond, or what ive heard most often is " you christian always have a way to twist words to interpret the bible the way you want it"
I was thinking the same thing. He says things that anyone with even the minimum amount of bible knowledge knows isn't true. He straight up lies about what the Bible says and relies on his audience's ignorance to sell the lie, and uses his degree a shield from criticism.
@@adamcosper3308 good for you, blindly trust all you like it doesn't make what he says anymore logical though. He is known for saying complete opposite of what his published works say which means he intentionally tries to deceive those that blindly "trust" what he says.
To be honest mostly because they dont want people mixing religion and state laws together making everyone follow y'all god like that is the only god that exist.
Am I really supposed to believe Bart Ehrman isn’t smart enough to understand Paul might have addressed a group of Athenian pagans differently than the way he wrote to a Roman church? At what point do we start to believe these are bad faith arguments? Even I immediately thought of the different contexts and I’m a layman.
I realize that Bart Ehrman is regarded as a leading Bible scholar. However, when I read his writings, I often wonder if he ever actually read the Bible.
@@adamcosper3308 I disagree, and am generally impressed by him. He presents his points well, has a solid command of logic and exceptional exegesis. Maybe you' be interesting in pointing me to a period of mediocrity?
@@soarel325 Sure, I'm familiar. In the argument with Ehrman on the reliability of the gospels, he was not saying that this is actually what the case was, as he admits in a debrief video done on Pints with Aquinas, iirc; he was saying that the claim of contradiction of Joseph's housing is not verifiably a point of unreliability, i.e. disputing the resolution of the debate. You should get your info from the source when it's available, instead of from a 3rd party.
Testify, you’re a legend for your arguments about the Bible being the Word of God and reliable. Your videos have strengthened my faith. Great stuff for apologetics. God bless, bro!
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
I think Eric made a comment about this a while ago, saying he's not that good at debating and would probably lose against Bart. I'd like to see Bart Ehrman vs James White debate with their current, improved knowledge.
@@petarvasiljevic8764 Personally I'm more interested in a Brant Pitre vs Ehrman debate. Pitre was in the audience for one of Ehrman's debates. During the Q & A, Pitre asked Ehrman a simple question about Jesus divinity in the Gospel of Mark. It was in that simple question, that Ehrman completely stumbled and contradicted his position. Pitre caught him in a lie, and he wasn't even debating him!
Bart has very strong debating skills. Erik has yet to take part in a single public debate. Plus, Bart usually charges very high sums of money to do that sort of thing.
the arguments about church structure are kind of lame as well- Pauls letters were wrote over many years. Organizing and finding a church structure are literally one of the first things you would do if your church was growing - its not a surprise to find a church structure developing over a period of a few years. In Ehrman's beliefs it takes the church 100 years to figure out they needed leaders? Does he think people from the first century are dumber from people now? Any church plant and they will start with a small group of believers, and as they grow will very shortly have to decide on a church structure, roles, and leadership. GET IT TOGETHER EHRMAN!
Bart Ehrman's logic: Someone once made fun of me by misspelling my last name as Errman, which proves that it's possible for people to make typos. Ergo, since The Bible is real big, it's full of typos just like that, so it's not reasonable to think it's full of truth.
If you read the bible to look for contradictions hard enough, you will probably make up some arguments that'll convince a dude who never read the bible or read it without understanding If he read the bible with a open heart he would find answers to his own made up contradictions
Ehrmanberg. Ehrmanstein. Ehrmanowitz. He lies about having been a true Christian. He larped as one in order to leverage it for alleged authenticity and "I was one so I know what I'm talking about"
@@adamcosper3308 nice to see you throwing around slurs at anyone noticing the truth. That's not suspicious at all. Care to explain what you mean? Who's descended from Shem around here and what in the world does that have to do with what I said?
You are gaining traction my brother. Right time to produce an hour long video about Jesus and his teachings. Algorithm will take you to a wider audience and the world will come to know of you. Good luck and God bless you
I’ve heard ehrman and some others compare the gospels to ancient biographies of alexander or other famous people, saying things were embellished in those so it must be the same for the gospels. Thoughts on this? I don’t rlly agree with it but I’m not sure the best way to rebut it honestly
Even if that were true, it kinda fits the actual style the gospel authors were going for. You see this writing trope often used by guys like Plutarch and Cicero in their biographies. But we don't question most of the actions of Julius Caesar or Hannibal Barca.
I'm driving, I get stopped for speeding, I ve broken the law. I receive a ticket and pay a fine, both prescribed UNDER LAW. If I break the law, then pay for my disobedience by the law, I am still under law. Paul said his keeping of the law was perfect. He can claim to keep the law, and be disobedient to the law as perfection. Why? Because both disobedience and payment were both made under law. Now that that's clear as mud, look it up.
@@adamcosper3308 Christians can be qurralers, that’s certainly true. :P That said, discussing the substance, as Erik and Bart are doing, is productive and gets us closer to the Truth. :)
@@adamcosper3308 " it's not really a discussion though. It's closer to Eric cyber stalking Bart for views. Bart is a scholar. Eric is just an apologist." Why would one's credentials make them unable to discuss the substance? :/ For example, we are (presumably) both laypeople, yet we are able to discuss who is qualified on the topic when, by your own logic, we lack the credentials and are therefore unable to discuss due to said lack of credentials. This would seem unreasonable since it would even prevent your previous statement from being justified. :/ So, to avoid the unreasonable regress of neither of us being able to chat about the substance, I'd again say Erik and Bart are adding to the discourse well regardless of their credentials/professions. Maybe "discussion" is not the best term, but I think my general point is still fair. Thoughts?
@@adamcosper3308 Credentials are meaningless. Trust me I am a doctor. See? If I can be a doctor, then it is meaningless and irrelevant. Lots of fools are scholars and Ehrman is one of them.
Quran is copied by Imru' al Quias poem Imru' al-Qais: "By the dawn and the darkening night." Quran: "By the dawn and [by] ten nights." (Surah Al-Fajr 89:1-2) Imru' al-Qais on the stars: Imru' al-Qais: "When the earth shakes, it will shake, and the earth brings forth its burdens." Quran: "When the earth is shaken with its [final] earthquake and the earth discharges its burdens." (Surah Az-Zalzalah 99:1-2) Imru' al-Qais: "The clock struck and the moon split." Quran: "The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]." (Surah Al-Qamar 54:1) Imru' al-Qais: "Like the twigs of fence-builders." Quran: "Like the dry twig fragments of a fence-builder." (Surah Al-Qamar 54:31) Imru' al-Qais: "In the morning sunlight and the night it follows." Quran: "By the morning brightness and [by] the night when it covers with darkness." (Surah Ad-Dhuha 93:1-2) Imru' al-Qais: "Their dwellings have been overturned." Quran: "And their dwellings have been overturned." (Surah An-Najm 53:53) Imru' al-Qais: "By the morning brightness." Quran: "By the morning brightness." (Surah Ad-Duha 93:1) Imru' al-Qais: "When the stars fall." Quran: "When the stars fall, scattering." (Surah Al-Infitar 82:2) Imru' al-Qais: "And the mountains are like carded wool." Quran: "And the mountains will be like carded wool." (Surah Al-Qari'ah 101:5) Imru' al-Qais: "The earth splits open with a boom." Quran: "And the earth throws up its burdens." (Surah Az-Zalzalah 99:2) Imru' al-Qais: "When the seas are filled with flame." Quran: "And when the seas are filled with flame." (Surah At-Takwir 81:6) Imru' al-Qais: "When the seas overflow." Quran: "And when the seas are overflowed." (Surah Al-Infitar 82:3) Imru' al-Qais: "The sky is opened and becomes gates." Quran: "And the heaven is opened and will become gates." (Surah An-Naba 78:19) Imru' al-Qais: "The stars will scatter." Quran: "When the stars are scattered." (Surah Al-Infitar 82:2) Imru' al-Qais: "The mountains are set in motion." Quran: "And the mountains are set in motion and pass away." (Surah At-Tur 52:10) Imru' al-Qais: "When the pregnant camels are neglected." Quran: "And when the pregnant she-camels are neglected." (Surah At-Takwir 81:4) Imru' al-Qais: "When the wild beasts are gathered." Quran: "And when the wild beasts are gathered." (Surah At-Takwir 81:5) Imru' al-Qais: "The sky will be stripped away." Quran: "And when the sky is stripped away." (Surah At-Takwir 81:11) Imru' al-Qais: "The sun and moon are joined together." Quran: "And the sun and the moon are joined together." (Surah Al-Qiyamah 75:9) Imru' al-Qais: "The day when the secrets are put on trial." Quran: "The Day when secrets will be put on trial." (Surah At-Tariq 86:9) Imru' al-Qais: "On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth." Quran: "On the Day the earth will be changed to another earth." (Surah Ibrahim 14:48)
Bart erman has went way off the deep end (hyper skeptic) He seems to just want to make "DaVinci Code like books 📚 for a popular audience to make a lot of money.
The problem Ehrman and even many Christians have is not differentiating between Paul's Acts epistles and his post Acts epistles. Acts period letters are Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Romans and post Acts are Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Acts 28:28 clearly states that the Jews (to whom Paul directed his ministry during Acts) rejected the gospel, so from that point Paul went to the gentiles. “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!”
Obviously. I mean, what else would the creator of the universe do with his time apart from monitoring the sex lives of his favorite mammalian species??? It's so clear and obvious that the universe was created with us in mind. Duh.
Like many, Bart does not understand that Acts is a historical account of Paul preaching to unbelievers but Romans is written for/to people that have already believed and obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:38). People reading the epistles of the Bible but have not already believed and obeyed the gospel are just reading someone else’s mail - none of it applies to them. Rom 1:5 5 By whom *we have received grace and apostleship, for OBEDIENCE to the faith* among all nations, for his name: Rom 6:3-4 3 Know ye not, that *so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ* were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore *we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,* even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom 6:17 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, *but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.* Rom 16:26 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for *the obedience of faith:* 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
I’d have to do more studying to say for certain but I know there are some who don’t think Paul is speaking of the Pagans in Romans 1 and 2 but he’s speaking about the Jews. I’ve heard Steve Gregg hold to this view in his lecture series on Romans and he made a solid case that Paul is actually speaking to the Jews. And if that’s the case then Acts 17 and Romans 1 have no crossover.
I'm not a skeptic and Bart became my favorite author when I studied. Compared to Christianity, Bart is flawless. Go ahead. What is the context of Isaiah 40:3 in relation to Isaiah 40:2? Further, Adam was not deceived (1Ti 2:14 NABO) The way of the Lord in the desert needs to be put into context with the previous passage: Sacrifice - Indeed, she has received from the hand of the LORD double for all her sins. Resurrection - Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God! (Isa 40:2-3 NABO) Just as it is appointed that human beings die - be judged - appear a second time, so also Christ …will return Heb 9:27-28 …as the (Red) Dragon (Demon Sin) stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. (Rev 12:4 NABO) Adam, the Christ, wields the fiery sword on the day of vengeance AS judgment, setting up the abomination of desolation in himself, as the Temple without one stone left standing upon another. There are two appearances, the sacrifice followed by the resurrection within the same generation, at the end of the ages, the time of the harvest.
It should be remembered that Ehrman isn’t writing to convince anyone who knows the Bible. Ehrman’s audience is what it’s always been. People who don’t know anything about the Bible and Christianity and was to be told what they already believe. It a lucrative market that he and Dawkins and others have made a lot of money from.
Even if they did Acts and Romans each other, Romans could indicate an evolution of Paul's understanding or a later revelation to him. Maybe in Athens he was naive and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Then he would expressly need to call out his former mistake and apologize for it. He did not. This is part of the basis for the incorrect assumption of Paul's writings vs actions.
@@NFITC1 Why? He said one thing to the Athenians and wrote another thing to the Romans. There is probably missing correspondence that may have filled the gap, and there is certainly missing speech that could have.
LOL! These arguments are so lame I've never heard them before. But I have noticed some scholars assume Paul's later letters are forgeries, without proof.
Just about every iconoclastic, skeptical view Ehrman espouses is lame. Has been for a long time now. How he persuades anyone (except the already committed dyed-in-the wool Bible skeptics) has always been a mystery to me. It's always a good idea to be skeptical of these kind of guys; you can gainsay just about anything with an oddball presupposition or two and some song-and-dance rhetoric.
Quran copied from Talmudic and canonical Gospals avot D'rabbi Natan 25.3 verse as same as quran 18.109 Quran 5.32 and misnah 39-40.(Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5: ) Quran 6.76,77, 78 same as legends of jews 1.5 (Abraham worship stars, sun ) Quran 19.29-33 gospal of Thomas Quran 19.23-26 proevangelium of james Quran: Surah Al-Imran (3:49) and Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:110) from syric infacy gospal Jesus created bird using clay Quran: Surah Al-Baqarah (2:29) -7 heavens -Jewish Talmud Qurann :27.18-19 -ants and Solomon -Talmud Quran: Surah Al-Kahf (18:9-26)-Christian Legend of the Seven Sleepers Quran: Surah Al-Kahf (18:60-82)-Jewish Legend: The story of three men who encounter miraculous events during their journey. The Story of Luqman:-Quran: Surah Luqman (31:12-19)-Arabian Myth: -Wisdom of Solomon Quran 2:102 and the Book of Enoch (Harut and Marut) 1 Enoch 6-8: Quran 17:1 and Jewish Mystical Texts (Hekhalot literature): Quran 3:35-37 and the Protoevangelium of James Quran 21:69 and Midrash Genesis Rabba 38:13: Quran 18:83-101 and Alexander Romance (Is he Muslim ) Quran 6:74-83 and the Book of Jubilees 12:1-9: Quran 21:51-70 and the Book of Jubilees(Abraham smashes idols ) Jewish tradition, specifically in Genesis Rabbah 38. Seven Heavens Berakhot 58b: This Talmudic passage refers to the seven heavens, providing insight into their significance and order. Chagigah 12b: This text discusses the different levels of heaven and the beings that inhabit them. Seven Layers of Earth Sanhedrin 91a: This passage mentions the seven layers of the earth and the different types of beings that dwell within them. Its in Jewish mythology stories
"Luke's genealogy is different from Matthew's because Luke is giving the genealogy through Mary." "There must have been two censuses when Quirinius was governor of Syria." "Mark and Luke don't explicitly state that there wasn't a second donkey that Jesus triumphantly rode on into Jerusalem." "Jesus must have cleansed the temple twice: once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end." "Mark rounded the time of Jesus' crucifixion down to the third hour while John rounded it up to the sixth hour." Etcetera etcetera. It's the apologist's arguments that are LAME!
What do you mean by lame? What do you consider as good arguments? Why do you think it's a bad argument? Do you have any reasons to think the arguments are bad? If that's all you are going to say then why even bother to make a comment when you don't event attempt to refute his arguments. I assume you are atheist, i have few more questions for you, why as an atheist you even care enough to waste your energy to oppose apologetics when you don't even think God exist, so why would you be bothered about it? Afterall according to your worldview there is no goal, no right, no wrong, no evil, no good, in fact many of the things you enjoy are the fruits of Christianity.
Hold up Brother. Apostle Paul did not I repeat Paul did not refer to Phoebe as deacon in Romans 16:1. My KJV, the Bible, says Paul referred to her as a servant. If Paul had he would have contradicted himself in 1Timothy 2:12. No where does Paul ever give women authority in the church. Be careful my friend. This is the Greek Paul used to describe Phoebe. Englishman's Concordance: διάκονον (diakonon) It means servant. And or in one instance it’s interpreted as minister.
Bart Ehrman: we shouldnt trust the bible,we should tear it appart and not trust a single word, we shouldnt trust them simply because they were trusted by their contemporaries or because they were eye witnesses!!! But trust me bro, dont tear my words apart bro, if you do so out of context you are missunderstanding what i said bro, just trust me bro, i literally have a PhD bro, i am trusted by my School bro!
Regarding the Pastoral Epistles. The Gospel Coalition has a long article titled "Volume 23 - Issue 1 Recent Study of the Pastoral Epistles". On a quick read, I get the impression that even amongst Christian scholars there is an actual debate as to whether or not Paul wrote them. In essence then, it's hard to see that Ehrman is necessarily the clown you make him out to be. Given that Christians themselves have always been, and continue to be in dispute over who is and who is not a real Christian, and that often these disputes are based on biblical texts themselves, then maybe the bible itself is not as clear as believers too often try to make out. Even "spirit filled" believers are unable to stop their own mutual finger pointings and biblical cherry pickings. Given this, perhaps Ehrman is really onto something and he is simply the latest in a tradition that goes back a couple of centuries.
@@rolandwatts3218 I was referencing Ehrman's reasoning about the presence of church leaders in the Pastorals. The debate may exist, but Ehrman's "biggest problen" with Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is easily debunked. If that is the strongest argument, why should the presence of a debate mean he is really onto something?
@@reaganlecroy7773 How is Ehrman's problem with the Pastoral's easily debunked? Testify makes a small reference to them in this video. He does not deal with them much at all. In the genuine Pauline letters deacons are mentioned in relationship to overseers where they are assistants to the overseers. In the Pastorals, I believe the argument is that there is a lot more to church structure which is written about, including deacons, than in Paul's more vague references to overseers and their assistants in his definite letters.
he's not even that. the guy straight up lies about what's in scripture. he says things aren't there when they very clearly are. he's fraud, he know's he's a fraud, and he uses his degree to shield himself from criticism.
Bart is a bad dude…he knows his assertions and objections have satisfying answers, but pretends they don’t, to sow doubt and to make you lose your faith..it’s evil
Bart Ehrman's purpose is not "challenging Christian beliefs." He's spoken at great length about the purpose of his scholarship and public commentary. Bad faith in the first ten seconds of your video is impressive and LAME.
If you can’t be convinced that the differing death accounts of Judas and the tomb narratives aren’t at worst contradictions or at best inconsistencies suspect from a book supposedly designed by a divined author, than your dogmatism has far exceeded your willingness to be intellectually honest.
History wasn't written with accurate and objective recollections in mind back in those days. So, the question for me is: what is the author trying to say with his unique graveside account. And the meaning behind what he's trying to convey? - at the very least, THAT is divinely inspired, authoritative, and inerrant imo.
The differing death account of judas isn't a contradiction if you just use common sense. Simple, Luke was talking about the aftermath of what actually happened to judas, while matthew took the beginning of what happened(tried to hang himself on the rope). That's not contradiction that's a supplemental! The same as differing account about the women on the grave isn't contradiction because the authors can easily focus on more specific things that caught their attention. You probably need to watch Cold case christianity, the guy was a former atheist and a detective/former investigator, he explained that differing account from eyewitnesses are pretty common in Crime cases, just like how victims/eyewitnesses of titanic made different accounts about what happened, the same goes to the gospel writers. That's what we call different focus, personality, experience, people tend to focus more on different things depending on their personality, experience. For example lets say you and i watch an avenger movie(lets say endgame), despite we watch the same movie, i could have focused more on some aspect such as how Ironman killed thanos using infinity stones, while you could focus on the fact that ironman killed thanos and HIS SUBORDINATES. Do you see my point now? My account and your account aren't contradictory they complement each other.
You call testify intellectualy honest, yet at the same time your practicing what you accuse other people of doing. You aren't intellectualy honest if you think differing eyewitnesses account = Contradiction, when even in your everyday life you probably have met people with differing account when they are talking about the same story. A contradiction would be for me to say that ironman didn't kill thanos subordinates
@@None-if3mo the amount of mental gymnastics you’re doing could win you gold. It’s intellectually dishonest and biased to have to read into the text or add supplemental interpretation to the text in order to support a position you have a desire to be true. There is nothing in the original language of the gospels that indicate we are talking about “different times.” That’s insanely wishful thinking. The text is clear in its meaning and definition. This is a people who are very accustomed to death and decay, they knew that that was, but they described it as him TRIPPING them SPILLING. And no, I’m not saying differences in an eye witness mean contradiction, we’d EXPECT that from a MAN MADE uninspired document. What I’m saying is the contradictions are direct evidence against sola fida. And even further than that the amount of denominations further support the logical conclusion that it isn’t a perfectly divine inspired book on that it is so unclear we have thousands of different views on it; like god wouldn’t be able to make something so clear and concise. But I’m sure YOULL think that YOUR interpretation and reading is the most correct. Your book isn’t real. I’m sorry.
Can you help and show where testify did this so I can have to documented? It would be very helpful for people like me who hasn’t read Forged and someone like you who did can qoute the book into context and represent well.
You think so? He emphasizes spirit over the physical world but I don’t think he outright calls matter evil. I wouldn’t say Paul himself was gnostic he just influenced some gnostics like marcion Maybe proto gnostic? Idk
Bart Ehrman IS lame. It puzzles me how someone who clearly hates Jesus and His Gospel and everything about Him is able to make a living out of Him. Call me irrational, but bhe only explanation I can give for that is the influence diabolical.
babe wake up. testify just posted his 1000000000th video about bart ehrman.
lol
Bart is a one man wrecking crew to young minds and Christianity. It's pathetic because he is mendacious in the extreme, and I think that he knows it. I sense that he has an axe to grind from a private experience thst only he knows. He's a creepy dude, like Christoper Hitchens, who didn't like the moral law of Christianity but proffered no alternative other than his own perceived brilliance, which is thin gruel for the rest of us plebes.
@@sliglusamelius8578hey now that’s a laying it on a bit thick. Bart helped me get back into studying the Bible and ultimately Christ so he’s not all bad. God still works through him.
@@barbicud
Ok, talk about a backhanded compliment!
@@sliglusamelius8578He said he lost his faith because of the Problem of Evil. I call BS. No one with any degree of faith or understanding leaves the faith for something like that. It's gotta be a heart issue, and his deperate need to whittle down the faith of others confirms it.
Paul saying that he was blameless wasn’t him saying that he was perfect, he was simply saying that when it came to the legalistic religion he far outstripped those judaizers who were troubling the church.
Exactly. And perhaps even more importantly, it's entirely possible to be flawless according to the outward demands of the law, and still be - and feel yourself to be - a prisoner of the flesh. I think Paul is pretty clear about that!
Counterpoint: NUH UH
"muh scholars all make the same mistakes as me, and you're an apologist, so I win."
@@TestifyApologetics what was that paulogia catchphrase with that satan guy again?
Bart: nuh uh. Christian: uh huh.
If you study the entire corpus of the NT, you will see a coherence and self-critical thinking and analysis that is unique to Christianity. Peter states in one of his epistles that Paul is hard to understand. Bart's comprehension is deficient. It is quite true that Paul seemingly contradicts himself with things like saved by faith/works dichotomy, but if you have the gray matter required to see his deeper point, you will understand that in the final analysis, no works would be "good enough" to merit heaven without the saving grace of Jesus and his sacrifice, and we are judged by our deeds in this world. Both are true.
@@CorneliusCorndogJrI don’t remember either that wasn’t even that long ago 😭
@@sliglusamelius8578
I'd assume Paul would be hard to understand, especially while teaching In contrast to the Apostles.
Testify probably has the best cooking videos on TH-cam.
I'm really looking forward to his content being more recognized.
Quality quality stuff.
May the Lord bless him and his ministry.
Regarding the first point, Paul also says in Galatians 4:8-9, "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God..." So he says that they worshipped false gods when they did not know God, i.e., were ignorant, which later was no longer the case.
Even in Romans, Paul, says "they knew God" (1:21), but later says, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (1:28), i.e., they suppressed the knowledge and became more ignorant, which is consistent with 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools."
Even in Acts, Paul's point is that Greeks acknowledged the existence of the true God as "the unknown God," but by calling him such didn't recognize who he truly is. "Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you" (17:23). Also, his focus on ignorance in Acts is based on the altar's inscription to the unknown God. The words "unknown" and "ignorance" are related in Greek.
Paul's view seemed to be that people could have a rudimentary knowledge of God, while at the same time having a great deal of ignorance about him, which increased with the suppression of that knowledge.
Repeat after me:
“Dogmatic Atheists cannot be argued with.”
I painfully agree with you
Brainwashed Theists can not be educated ooop's never was good at repeating things
"Basically anything you say is wrong, and the contrary is always true, youre also gullible, im 10,000 iq"
-reddit tier atheism
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15)
@@MoonMoverGaming ouch and Amen
“Paul has inconsistent theology” says the guy who demonstrates an inability to grasp many of the basic aspects of Christian theology
Spiritual blindness.
@@Howjadoo22At some point I worry we’re dealing with bad faith arguments. Most of the new atheists can claim ignorance since they don’t have a theology background, Ehrman shouldn’t have graduated with his misunderstandings of longstanding theology.
@@meglukes Ehrman’s problem, and the problem of skeptical critics in general, is that he reads the Bible like a fundamentalist, JP Holding likes to refer to “fundy atheists” and that is definitely what Ehrman is, every argument he makes can be refuted just by saying “but I’m not a fundamentalist!”
Bart Ehrman really trying to gaslight Paul
the more I listen to Bart Ehrman's arguments that aren't the big ones like the census or the women at the grave, or Jesus's time in Egypt, the more convinced I am that he is manufacturing contradictions to pander to his supporters and that he doesn't care if it's a twisting of the truth.
How else do you keep selling books for them to eat up?
@@derekwoodley4084 precisely
It sells his books.
The problem with Ehrman is that his argument always breaks down to
Premise 1: hardcore ultra fundamentalism is the only possible way to read the Bible and the only possible interpretation of Christianity
Premise 2: hardcore ultra fundamentalism doesn’t work
Conclusion: Christianity is false
But 90% or more of Christians reject premise 1!
It’s also to sow doubt to rob you of your faith..it’s evil and so is he
Without illusion, atheism loses its fusion.
This isn’t about atheism though, it’s about the authorship and authenticity of the disputed letters of Paul. It doesn’t have anything to do with atheism.
I appreciate the attempt. I hope it catches on.
@@MrMortal_Ra That is true. I just wanted to share something
Yes. It does.
Right on! 😂
"later Christians must have written letters in his name"
Why yes because if I was a medieval forger I'd definitely want to write the most powerful criticisms in the new testament under the name of a former Pharisee. And I'm sure none of my colleagues would question why they hadn't seen these explosive letters beforehand, since yk, celibacy is such a low key thing they'd probably just roll with it
And why, if you were going to forge celibacy as a means of keeping property inside the Church, would you do it by Paul strongly emphasizing that it was just his point of view, not the Lord's?
@@paperIrori exactly!
One thing I love about this channel is he manages to have humour without making any ad hominem arguments. After 2 or 3 debunked books most people would write off ehrman as intellectually dishonest and move on but testify takes the time to go through individual arguments and destroy them one by one
I'm like that with the Bible. It's obviously false but I keep coming back anyways.
@@adamcosper3308 what are some things in the bible you have a problem believing
@@johnmccrossan9376 that a good god would order his followers to commit genocide is hard to swallow.
Bart Erhman is always making up all kinds of dubious “contradictions” it’s honestly kind of sad because it’s obvious he’s doing this out of an irrational or emotional response, perhaps he’s angry at God for something, I don’t know.
Bart is def angry like every atheist
Hard to be angry at something that doesn't exist. I am often angry with Christian leaders, but god doesn't enter the picture.
His story is not a secret. He told it himself on his own youtube channel.
Ehrman came from a very middle of the road protestant family. As an adolescent, he turned into a hardcore evangelical who took every word in the Bible literally, much to the dismay of his parents. You can imagine the tensions. He pushed through.
Of course the position that every word in the Bible is literally true, is very brittle. If only one word can't be a literal representaton of an actual event, or can't be a literal quote of what someone really said, it all comes tumbling down. If one word is in question, everything is in question, because the whole building is built on the premise that everything in the Bible is literal truth.
Now, he got that experience when studying at university. He discovered that there are many manuscripts that are all slightly different (inevitable, because of manual copying) and that there are different versions of some passages (also inevitable, because in the first century there were no tape recorders or camera's and communication was slow). So, his entire belief came crashing down.
He tried it a bit as a liberal Christian, but that didn't work out. I understand. Liberal Christianity is all about vague talk and free interpretation, while Ehrman is a black and white thinker who likes rock solid ground to stand on. So he left that too. He apparently concluded that it is all a big giant lie and in that conviction he found solid ground again. And a mission, in exposing the big giant lie.
It would be very strange if someone who went through all that, would not be angry. Psychologically it is all very understandable. But that doesn't make him right.
Ehrman is a good talker and can be quite persuasive. When he talked about things that I happen to know a bit about, I noticed that what he said, didn't really add up. He takes a very small thing and draws giant conclusions from it (if that serves his agenda).
@@theo-dr2dz horrible summary.
I once read an "argument" that Acts must be wrong because it says that Paul was dazzled by the light on the Road to Damascus, but that Paul said he was blinded. They completely overlooked the fact that "dazzled" means "blinded by a bright light." There are no ends to which atheists will not go to make arguments for doing something they know is wrong.
I thought it was something else like in one account the people with Paul see nothing but hear a voice. But in another account, the people with Paul see a bright light but hear nothing. I'll have to double check.
@@captainobvious2435 There are other arguments. But the "dazzle/blinded" argument was particularly dumb.
@@CCoburn3 Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
@@valinorean4816 The Resurrection could not have been staged. A body could have been stolen, but that would not explain the appearances of Jesus to hundreds of people who knew him. The Sanhedrin attempted to say the body was stolen and that explained the empty tomb. But that did not explain how Jesus could appear to hundreds of people-often at the same time.
As for the conservation of matter, matter is conserved IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Since God created the universe, He cannot be part of the universe. So the universe is not a closed system where God is concerned.
@@CCoburn3 paid actor-doppelganger, duh
Sometimes i wonder how Bart even achieved his title as "scholar". I have never been to school for anything biblical, i dont even read the bible as much as i ahould, yet a majority of his arguments are easily defended by even someone like myself. His arguments are just plane idiotic at best, but i hate that so many atheists hear his arguments and spout them all the time like they are "gotcha" ststements, but won't even let you respond, or what ive heard most often is " you christian always have a way to twist words to interpret the bible the way you want it"
I was thinking the same thing. He says things that anyone with even the minimum amount of bible knowledge knows isn't true. He straight up lies about what the Bible says and relies on his audience's ignorance to sell the lie, and uses his degree a shield from criticism.
He is textual critics by training which he stopped doing. Now he posed like a bible scholar and historian which he had no official training on.
To be fair to him, his academic writing is generally considered to be extremely different from his popular level writing.
I definitely trust Bart more than you or Eric Manning.
@@adamcosper3308 good for you, blindly trust all you like it doesn't make what he says anymore logical though. He is known for saying complete opposite of what his published works say which means he intentionally tries to deceive those that blindly "trust" what he says.
Love you brother Erik, keep up the great work. It’s been so cool seeing you low key blow up. More to come 🙏
Why would someone who doesn’t believe God exist spend their life trying to prove He doesn’t exist.
He sells books.
To quote Mr Krabs:
Money.
He like many of his heritage hates Christ.
Figuring out why people like you believe in something that seems so silly is endlessly fascinating.
To be honest mostly because they dont want people mixing religion and state laws together making everyone follow y'all god like that is the only god that exist.
Am I really supposed to believe Bart Ehrman isn’t smart enough to understand Paul might have addressed a group of Athenian pagans differently than the way he wrote to a Roman church? At what point do we start to believe these are bad faith arguments? Even I immediately thought of the different contexts and I’m a layman.
So is Eric.
I realize that Bart Ehrman is regarded as a leading Bible scholar. However, when I read his writings, I often wonder if he ever actually read the Bible.
I really recommend Jimmy Akin's debate with Ehrman on the reliability of the gospels. Excellent debate and Jimmy Akin really worked Bart Ehrman.
Jimmy isn't impressive.
@@adamcosper3308 I disagree, and am generally impressed by him. He presents his points well, has a solid command of logic and exceptional exegesis. Maybe you' be interesting in pointing me to a period of mediocrity?
@@soarel325 Sure, I'm familiar. In the argument with Ehrman on the reliability of the gospels, he was not saying that this is actually what the case was, as he admits in a debrief video done on Pints with Aquinas, iirc; he was saying that the claim of contradiction of Joseph's housing is not verifiably a point of unreliability, i.e. disputing the resolution of the debate. You should get your info from the source when it's available, instead of from a 3rd party.
Testify, you’re a legend for your arguments about the Bible being the Word of God and reliable. Your videos have strengthened my faith. Great stuff for apologetics. God bless, bro!
Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
I've encountered people who have become atheists because of people like Ehrman. You're doing God's work sir
0:26 meow :3
Lol
@@juiuice :3
We need an Erik vs Bart debate
I think Eric made a comment about this a while ago, saying he's not that good at debating and would probably lose against Bart. I'd like to see Bart Ehrman vs James White debate with their current, improved knowledge.
@@Pyr0Ben would be tough. Debate is such a unique skill, you don’t have to be on the side with the better case to win.
@@ryanevans2655 true. bart is very charismatic and laughs off his opponents credibility
@@petarvasiljevic8764 Personally I'm more interested in a Brant Pitre vs Ehrman debate.
Pitre was in the audience for one of Ehrman's debates. During the Q & A, Pitre asked Ehrman a simple question about Jesus divinity in the Gospel of Mark. It was in that simple question, that Ehrman completely stumbled and contradicted his position. Pitre caught him in a lie, and he wasn't even debating him!
Bart has very strong debating skills. Erik has yet to take part in a single public debate. Plus, Bart usually charges very high sums of money to do that sort of thing.
the arguments about church structure are kind of lame as well- Pauls letters were wrote over many years. Organizing and finding a church structure are literally one of the first things you would do if your church was growing - its not a surprise to find a church structure developing over a period of a few years. In Ehrman's beliefs it takes the church 100 years to figure out they needed leaders? Does he think people from the first century are dumber from people now? Any church plant and they will start with a small group of believers, and as they grow will very shortly have to decide on a church structure, roles, and leadership. GET IT TOGETHER EHRMAN!
Ehrman just wants to sell his doubt for a price. His soul.
it's almost like.... he sells books for a living.
The horror.
I mean, if you are going to make a living selling books, try to have accurate info (or just go to fiction if you won't)
@crocidile90 that's what text books are for. Something thought provoking or controversial sells.
Nope he's a Professor at UNC and his book sales go to charity
@@tomasrocha6139 he is a multi-millionaire brah
Bart Ehrman's logic: Someone once made fun of me by misspelling my last name as Errman, which proves that it's possible for people to make typos. Ergo, since The Bible is real big, it's full of typos just like that, so it's not reasonable to think it's full of truth.
If you read the bible to look for contradictions hard enough, you will probably make up some arguments that'll convince a dude who never read the bible or read it without understanding
If he read the bible with a open heart he would find answers to his own made up contradictions
I would love if you do a video validating the authenticity of the Pauline epistles.
I have several
Ehrmanberg. Ehrmanstein. Ehrmanowitz. He lies about having been a true Christian. He larped as one in order to leverage it for alleged authenticity and "I was one so I know what I'm talking about"
Micro head gear
Nice to see that Testify is reaching the antisemitic audience.
@@adamcosper3308 nice to see you throwing around slurs at anyone noticing the truth. That's not suspicious at all. Care to explain what you mean? Who's descended from Shem around here and what in the world does that have to do with what I said?
You are gaining traction my brother. Right time to produce an hour long video about Jesus and his teachings. Algorithm will take you to a wider audience and the world will come to know of you. Good luck and God bless you
TH-cam is no stranger to undeserved success.
Exactly when is literally anything Bart says… well… not lame?
I love how History Channel and all secular programs bring him on as a biblical “expert” but never an evangelical scholar.
Once you know Bart says different things depending on whether he is addressing academics or lay persons, tells you everything you need to know.
Erhman is a great textual critic. Not so good at the theology part. He needs to stick to what he's good at.
Bart Simpson is smarter than him, Bart goes to church and prays.
I’ve heard ehrman and some others compare the gospels to ancient biographies of alexander or other famous people, saying things were embellished in those so it must be the same for the gospels. Thoughts on this? I don’t rlly agree with it but I’m not sure the best way to rebut it honestly
False equivalence fallacy. Also we have way more evidence and corroboration for testimony from the gospels than those other works BY FAR.
Even if that were true, it kinda fits the actual style the gospel authors were going for. You see this writing trope often used by guys like Plutarch and Cicero in their biographies. But we don't question most of the actions of Julius Caesar or Hannibal Barca.
You should make some videos about the evidence the author of Luke-Acts travelled with Paul, you could call it something like “undesigned coincidences”
Are you new? 😂
@@TestifyApologetics 😂
Hi Testify, could you do a video on the Pericope Adulterae, John 7:53-8:11?
I'm driving, I get stopped for speeding, I ve broken the law. I receive a ticket and pay a fine, both prescribed UNDER LAW. If I break the law, then pay for my disobedience by the law, I am still under law. Paul said his keeping of the law was perfect. He can claim to keep the law, and be disobedient to the law as perfection. Why? Because both disobedience and payment were both made under law. Now that that's clear as mud, look it up.
If someone doesn’t listen and just want to quarrel, ignore. Because that person is a fool and a quarreler and isn’t even searching for truth.
I often feel the same way about Christians.
@@adamcosper3308
Christians can be qurralers, that’s certainly true. :P
That said, discussing the substance, as Erik and Bart are doing, is productive and gets us closer to the Truth. :)
@@FuddlyDud it's not really a discussion though. It's closer to Eric cyber stalking Bart for views. Bart is a scholar. Eric is just an apologist.
@@adamcosper3308
" it's not really a discussion though. It's closer to Eric cyber stalking Bart for views. Bart is a scholar. Eric is just an apologist."
Why would one's credentials make them unable to discuss the substance? :/
For example, we are (presumably) both laypeople, yet we are able to discuss who is qualified on the topic when, by your own logic, we lack the credentials and are therefore unable to discuss due to said lack of credentials. This would seem unreasonable since it would even prevent your previous statement from being justified. :/
So, to avoid the unreasonable regress of neither of us being able to chat about the substance, I'd again say Erik and Bart are adding to the discourse well regardless of their credentials/professions. Maybe "discussion" is not the best term, but I think my general point is still fair. Thoughts?
@@adamcosper3308 Credentials are meaningless. Trust me I am a doctor. See? If I can be a doctor, then it is meaningless and irrelevant. Lots of fools are scholars and Ehrman is one of them.
Quran is copied by Imru' al Quias poem
Imru' al-Qais: "By the dawn and the darkening night."
Quran: "By the dawn and [by] ten nights." (Surah Al-Fajr 89:1-2)
Imru' al-Qais on the stars:
Imru' al-Qais: "When the earth shakes, it will shake, and the earth brings forth its burdens."
Quran: "When the earth is shaken with its [final] earthquake and the earth discharges its burdens." (Surah Az-Zalzalah 99:1-2)
Imru' al-Qais: "The clock struck and the moon split."
Quran: "The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]." (Surah Al-Qamar 54:1)
Imru' al-Qais: "Like the twigs of fence-builders."
Quran: "Like the dry twig fragments of a fence-builder." (Surah Al-Qamar 54:31)
Imru' al-Qais: "In the morning sunlight and the night it follows."
Quran: "By the morning brightness and [by] the night when it covers with darkness." (Surah Ad-Dhuha 93:1-2)
Imru' al-Qais: "Their dwellings have been overturned."
Quran: "And their dwellings have been overturned." (Surah An-Najm 53:53)
Imru' al-Qais: "By the morning brightness."
Quran: "By the morning brightness." (Surah Ad-Duha 93:1)
Imru' al-Qais: "When the stars fall."
Quran: "When the stars fall, scattering." (Surah Al-Infitar 82:2)
Imru' al-Qais: "And the mountains are like carded wool."
Quran: "And the mountains will be like carded wool." (Surah Al-Qari'ah 101:5)
Imru' al-Qais: "The earth splits open with a boom."
Quran: "And the earth throws up its burdens." (Surah Az-Zalzalah 99:2)
Imru' al-Qais: "When the seas are filled with flame."
Quran: "And when the seas are filled with flame." (Surah At-Takwir 81:6)
Imru' al-Qais: "When the seas overflow."
Quran: "And when the seas are overflowed." (Surah Al-Infitar 82:3)
Imru' al-Qais: "The sky is opened and becomes gates."
Quran: "And the heaven is opened and will become gates." (Surah An-Naba 78:19)
Imru' al-Qais: "The stars will scatter."
Quran: "When the stars are scattered." (Surah Al-Infitar 82:2)
Imru' al-Qais: "The mountains are set in motion."
Quran: "And the mountains are set in motion and pass away." (Surah At-Tur 52:10)
Imru' al-Qais: "When the pregnant camels are neglected."
Quran: "And when the pregnant she-camels are neglected." (Surah At-Takwir 81:4)
Imru' al-Qais: "When the wild beasts are gathered."
Quran: "And when the wild beasts are gathered." (Surah At-Takwir 81:5)
Imru' al-Qais: "The sky will be stripped away."
Quran: "And when the sky is stripped away." (Surah At-Takwir 81:11)
Imru' al-Qais: "The sun and moon are joined together."
Quran: "And the sun and the moon are joined together." (Surah Al-Qiyamah 75:9)
Imru' al-Qais: "The day when the secrets are put on trial."
Quran: "The Day when secrets will be put on trial." (Surah At-Tariq 86:9)
Imru' al-Qais: "On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth."
Quran: "On the Day the earth will be changed to another earth." (Surah Ibrahim 14:48)
So what are you trying to say?
Thank you for making the effort to post that, I'd heard this before but had no examples.
@@anathamon I clearly says Quran is copied.
That's why Allah feared that poet 😂😂😂
@@HilaryB.👍🏻
@@anathamonFear of Allah and the poet 😂
quran 69.41, 36.69 , 21.5 , 37.36 ,52.30
Bart Errorman and his classic False Dichotomies.
I keep saying that he's a proof of what Paul writes in 2 Cor 4:4.
Bart erman has went way off the deep end (hyper skeptic) He seems to just want to make "DaVinci Code like books 📚 for a popular audience to make a lot of money.
I find it ironic when Muslims try to use Bart Ehrman, but completely ignore the fact that he does the same thing to the Koran.
Wow this is the first time ever that I'm first to a testify video. So now I can officially say....First! Even though I've said it twice already.
The problem Ehrman and even many Christians have is not differentiating between Paul's Acts epistles and his post Acts epistles. Acts period letters are Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Romans and post Acts are Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Acts 28:28 clearly states that the Jews (to whom Paul directed his ministry during Acts) rejected the gospel, so from that point Paul went to the gentiles.
“Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!”
In a parallel universe Mithraism became the dominant religion and apologists make videos discrediting Ehrman's views on Mithraism gospels.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: Critical scholars and creating contradictions out of thin air - name a more iconic duo!
Obviously. I mean, what else would the creator of the universe do with his time apart from monitoring the sex lives of his favorite mammalian species???
It's so clear and obvious that the universe was created with us in mind. Duh.
i love this channel thank god i found this
Like many, Bart does not understand that Acts is a historical account of Paul preaching to unbelievers but Romans is written for/to people that have already believed and obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:38).
People reading the epistles of the Bible but have not already believed and obeyed the gospel are just reading someone else’s mail - none of it applies to them.
Rom 1:5
5 By whom *we have received grace and apostleship, for OBEDIENCE to the faith* among all nations, for his name:
Rom 6:3-4
3 Know ye not, that *so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ* were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore *we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,* even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:17
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, *but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.*
Rom 16:26
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for *the obedience of faith:*
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
So Erik, which debates have you find the most satisfying to watch?
I'm not a big debate watcher, tbh.
I’d have to do more studying to say for certain but I know there are some who don’t think Paul is speaking of the Pagans in Romans 1 and 2 but he’s speaking about the Jews. I’ve heard Steve Gregg hold to this view in his lecture series on Romans and he made a solid case that Paul is actually speaking to the Jews. And if that’s the case then Acts 17 and Romans 1 have no crossover.
As much I respect Bart Ehrman's scholarly work, a lot of what's in his popular books really tends to overstate the available evidence
As much as I respect pretending to have read Ehrman's scholarly work ...
Glory To The Triune GOD
I'm not a skeptic and Bart became my favorite author when I studied. Compared to Christianity, Bart is flawless. Go ahead. What is the context of Isaiah 40:3 in relation to Isaiah 40:2? Further, Adam was not deceived (1Ti 2:14 NABO)
The way of the Lord in the desert needs to be put into context with the previous passage:
Sacrifice - Indeed, she has received from the hand of the LORD double for all her sins.
Resurrection - Make straight in the wasteland a highway for our God! (Isa 40:2-3 NABO)
Just as it is appointed that human beings die - be judged - appear a second time, so also Christ …will return Heb 9:27-28 …as the (Red) Dragon (Demon Sin) stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. (Rev 12:4 NABO)
Adam, the Christ, wields the fiery sword on the day of vengeance AS judgment, setting up the abomination of desolation in himself, as the Temple without one stone left standing upon another.
There are two appearances, the sacrifice followed by the resurrection within the same generation, at the end of the ages, the time of the harvest.
What is NABO?
@@None-if3mo New American Bible for Catholics. NAB. The "O" is a software designation for the 1991 version. I started with a paperback 1976 version.
It should be remembered that Ehrman isn’t writing to convince anyone who knows the Bible. Ehrman’s audience is what it’s always been. People who don’t know anything about the Bible and Christianity and was to be told what they already believe. It a lucrative market that he and Dawkins and others have made a lot of money from.
what's the website in the beginning?
I'm noone to judge, but that mill stone is looking quite heavy
Interesting content!
Even if they did Acts and Romans each other, Romans could indicate an evolution of Paul's understanding or a later revelation to him. Maybe in Athens he was naive and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Then he would expressly need to call out his former mistake and apologize for it. He did not. This is part of the basis for the incorrect assumption of Paul's writings vs actions.
@@NFITC1 Why? He said one thing to the Athenians and wrote another thing to the Romans. There is probably missing correspondence that may have filled the gap, and there is certainly missing speech that could have.
I'm loving these videos
Hey its Jackie Chan. And Kurt Angle and his broken neck?
All words are false to the unfaithfull.
LOL! These arguments are so lame I've never heard them before. But I have noticed some scholars assume Paul's later letters are forgeries, without proof.
Good video as always
Just about every iconoclastic, skeptical view Ehrman espouses is lame. Has been for a long time now. How he persuades anyone (except the already committed dyed-in-the wool Bible skeptics) has always been a mystery to me. It's always a good idea to be skeptical of these kind of guys; you can gainsay just about anything with an oddball presupposition or two and some song-and-dance rhetoric.
Quran copied from Talmudic and canonical Gospals
avot D'rabbi Natan 25.3 verse as same as quran 18.109
Quran 5.32 and misnah 39-40.(Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5: )
Quran 6.76,77, 78 same as legends of jews 1.5
(Abraham worship stars, sun )
Quran 19.29-33 gospal of Thomas
Quran 19.23-26 proevangelium of james
Quran: Surah Al-Imran (3:49) and Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:110) from syric infacy gospal Jesus created bird using clay
Quran: Surah Al-Baqarah (2:29) -7 heavens -Jewish Talmud
Qurann :27.18-19 -ants and Solomon -Talmud
Quran: Surah Al-Kahf (18:9-26)-Christian Legend of the Seven Sleepers
Quran: Surah Al-Kahf (18:60-82)-Jewish Legend: The story of three men who encounter miraculous events during their journey.
The Story of Luqman:-Quran: Surah Luqman (31:12-19)-Arabian Myth: -Wisdom of Solomon
Quran 2:102 and the Book of Enoch (Harut and Marut) 1 Enoch 6-8:
Quran 17:1 and Jewish Mystical Texts (Hekhalot literature):
Quran 3:35-37 and the Protoevangelium of James
Quran 21:69 and Midrash Genesis Rabba 38:13:
Quran 18:83-101 and Alexander Romance
(Is he Muslim )
Quran 6:74-83 and the Book of Jubilees 12:1-9:
Quran 21:51-70 and the Book of Jubilees(Abraham smashes idols ) Jewish tradition, specifically in Genesis Rabbah 38.
Seven Heavens
Berakhot 58b: This Talmudic passage refers to the seven heavens, providing insight into their significance and order.
Chagigah 12b: This text discusses the different levels of heaven and the beings that inhabit them.
Seven Layers of Earth
Sanhedrin 91a: This passage mentions the seven layers of the earth and the different types of beings that dwell within them.
Its in Jewish mythology stories
Thanks to Christian ✝️ Prince 🤴I can't take bart earmon seriously get your Bible shields 🛡🔰up
"Luke's genealogy is different from Matthew's because Luke is giving the genealogy through Mary." "There must have been two censuses when Quirinius was governor of Syria." "Mark and Luke don't explicitly state that there wasn't a second donkey that Jesus triumphantly rode on into Jerusalem." "Jesus must have cleansed the temple twice: once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end." "Mark rounded the time of Jesus' crucifixion down to the third hour while John rounded it up to the sixth hour." Etcetera etcetera. It's the apologist's arguments that are LAME!
What do you mean by lame? What do you consider as good arguments? Why do you think it's a bad argument? Do you have any reasons to think the arguments are bad? If that's all you are going to say then why even bother to make a comment when you don't event attempt to refute his arguments. I assume you are atheist, i have few more questions for you, why as an atheist you even care enough to waste your energy to oppose apologetics when you don't even think God exist, so why would you be bothered about it? Afterall according to your worldview there is no goal, no right, no wrong, no evil, no good, in fact many of the things you enjoy are the fruits of Christianity.
Disgruntled ex Christian
Bart Erhman: the Big Brother of biblical scholarship with his doublethink and newspeak tactics.
Did you even read 1984 😂
Did bro read 1984?
Actually intelligent people can recognize that Bart is unintelligent.
Another w ❤
Hold up Brother. Apostle Paul did not I repeat Paul did not refer to Phoebe as deacon in Romans 16:1. My KJV, the Bible, says Paul referred to her as a servant. If Paul had he would have contradicted himself in 1Timothy 2:12. No where does Paul ever give women authority in the church. Be careful my friend.
This is the Greek Paul used to describe Phoebe.
Englishman's Concordance:
διάκονον (diakonon)
It means servant. And or in one instance it’s interpreted as minister.
Ah yes, Bart Strawman debunked once again.
Bart Ehrman: we shouldnt trust the bible,we should tear it appart and not trust a single word, we shouldnt trust them simply because they were trusted by their contemporaries or because they were eye witnesses!!!
But trust me bro, dont tear my words apart bro, if you do so out of context you are missunderstanding what i said bro, just trust me bro, i literally have a PhD bro, i am trusted by my School bro!
Regarding the Pastoral Epistles. The Gospel Coalition has a long article titled "Volume 23 - Issue 1
Recent Study of the Pastoral Epistles". On a quick read, I get the impression that even amongst Christian scholars there is an actual debate as to whether or not Paul wrote them. In essence then, it's hard to see that Ehrman is necessarily the clown you make him out to be. Given that Christians themselves have always been, and continue to be in dispute over who is and who is not a real Christian, and that often these disputes are based on biblical texts themselves, then maybe the bible itself is not as clear as believers too often try to make out. Even "spirit filled" believers are unable to stop their own mutual finger pointings and biblical cherry pickings. Given this, perhaps Ehrman is really onto something and he is simply the latest in a tradition that goes back a couple of centuries.
That still doesn't give this particular argument any more validity
@@reaganlecroy7773
Why not?
@@rolandwatts3218 I was referencing Ehrman's reasoning about the presence of church leaders in the Pastorals. The debate may exist, but Ehrman's "biggest problen" with Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is easily debunked. If that is the strongest argument, why should the presence of a debate mean he is really onto something?
@@reaganlecroy7773 How is Ehrman's problem with the Pastoral's easily debunked? Testify makes a small reference to them in this video. He does not deal with them much at all. In the genuine Pauline letters deacons are mentioned in relationship to overseers where they are assistants to the overseers. In the Pastorals, I believe the argument is that there is a lot more to church structure which is written about, including deacons, than in Paul's more vague references to overseers and their assistants in his definite letters.
It's always a breath of fresh air when Eric posts 😌✝️❤️🙏
Sad.
@@adamcosper3308 Sorry to hear about that. Do you have family to cry on?? Hope you heal 🙏
@@raphaelfeneje486 what is refreshing about hearing Eric lie about anyone who isn't part of his cult?
@@adamcosper3308 Can you point to his lie?? I'm waiting 😌
Bart Erhman is Sola Scriptura done as horribly wrong as possible
he's not even that. the guy straight up lies about what's in scripture. he says things aren't there when they very clearly are. he's fraud, he know's he's a fraud, and he uses his degree to shield himself from criticism.
@@Doc-Holliday1851He lies to sell books
@@imbored6638 Yeah. It's sad. Sacrificing eternal salvation for earthly goods.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 He lies about what's in scripture? Like when?
Bert Ahrman
Don't forget why you make those videos is not just to make fun of those guys but that they may repeat and accept Jesus 😊❤
No. He makes these videos to help you stay content with what you were taught to believe.
For the algorithm
Bart is a bad dude…he knows his assertions and objections have satisfying answers, but pretends they don’t, to sow doubt and to make you lose your faith..it’s evil
Don't worry. Eric has plenty of bad "answers."
Bart Ehrman's purpose is not "challenging Christian beliefs." He's spoken at great length about the purpose of his scholarship and public commentary. Bad faith in the first ten seconds of your video is impressive and LAME.
In 2 Peter 2:3 the biblical authors warn us that certain texts are forgeries.
If you can’t be convinced that the differing death accounts of Judas and the tomb narratives aren’t at worst contradictions or at best inconsistencies suspect from a book supposedly designed by a divined author, than your dogmatism has far exceeded your willingness to be intellectually honest.
History wasn't written with accurate and objective recollections in mind back in those days. So, the question for me is: what is the author trying to say with his unique graveside account. And the meaning behind what he's trying to convey? - at the very least, THAT is divinely inspired, authoritative, and inerrant imo.
The differing death account of judas isn't a contradiction if you just use common sense. Simple, Luke was talking about the aftermath of what actually happened to judas, while matthew took the beginning of what happened(tried to hang himself on the rope). That's not contradiction that's a supplemental! The same as differing account about the women on the grave isn't contradiction because the authors can easily focus on more specific things that caught their attention. You probably need to watch Cold case christianity, the guy was a former atheist and a detective/former investigator, he explained that differing account from eyewitnesses are pretty common in Crime cases, just like how victims/eyewitnesses of titanic made different accounts about what happened, the same goes to the gospel writers. That's what we call different focus, personality, experience, people tend to focus more on different things depending on their personality, experience. For example lets say you and i watch an avenger movie(lets say endgame), despite we watch the same movie, i could have focused more on some aspect such as how Ironman killed thanos using infinity stones, while you could focus on the fact that ironman killed thanos and HIS SUBORDINATES. Do you see my point now? My account and your account aren't contradictory they complement each other.
You call testify intellectualy honest, yet at the same time your practicing what you accuse other people of doing. You aren't intellectualy honest if you think differing eyewitnesses account = Contradiction, when even in your everyday life you probably have met people with differing account when they are talking about the same story.
A contradiction would be for me to say that ironman didn't kill thanos subordinates
You should learn the definition of contradiction and inconsistency, or else you will make a fool out of yourself.
@@None-if3mo the amount of mental gymnastics you’re doing could win you gold. It’s intellectually dishonest and biased to have to read into the text or add supplemental interpretation to the text in order to support a position you have a desire to be true. There is nothing in the original language of the gospels that indicate we are talking about “different times.” That’s insanely wishful thinking. The text is clear in its meaning and definition. This is a people who are very accustomed to death and decay, they knew that that was, but they described it as him TRIPPING them SPILLING.
And no, I’m not saying differences in an eye witness mean contradiction, we’d EXPECT that from a MAN MADE uninspired document. What I’m saying is the contradictions are direct evidence against sola fida. And even further than that the amount of denominations further support the logical conclusion that it isn’t a perfectly divine inspired book on that it is so unclear we have thousands of different views on it; like god wouldn’t be able to make something so clear and concise. But I’m sure YOULL think that YOUR interpretation and reading is the most correct.
Your book isn’t real. I’m sorry.
Sheikh ehrman
These are HARAM level arguments
Trust Jesus now, your number is up soon.
Bot Erhman
Bro please make videos about islam(false religion ). I need to learn that
I just did a series on Islam right before this, see the playlists tab
👍🏻
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
He has problems with all he says because he's wrong in not believing in God so has to find reasons to justify his beliefs.
And you're just afraid of death and desperately clinging to the magic man who promises to save you from it.
I'm not afraid at all, if you are going to comment make it relevant.
@@pauloldham4605 my comment was relevant. I was assuming your motivation the same way you assumed Bart's motivation.
I didn't assume he is an affiest, you assumed what I believe and why.
@@pauloldham4605 I'm not wrong. 🤣
Thank you for make those videos so people might know that the bible isn't a fairy tale but was inspired by GOD 😊❤✝️🙏🛐🔥🤩💖🥰😊😇
I'd expect the Bible to be a good book if it were inspired by god.
U sir are dishonest... U misrepresent Bart ehrman to defend ur nonsense book
Can you help and show where testify did this so I can have to documented? It would be very helpful for people like me who hasn’t read Forged and someone like you who did can qoute the book into context and represent well.
The biggest issue with Paul is that his theology takes a very gnostic turn
You think so? He emphasizes spirit over the physical world but I don’t think he outright calls matter evil. I wouldn’t say Paul himself was gnostic he just influenced some gnostics like marcion
Maybe proto gnostic? Idk
nothing could be further from the truth
The same guy who said our physical bodies are gonna be risen on Christ's return? Sounds totally gnostic to me (irony)
explain yourself, it is impossible to respond to something so vague
In today’s installment of a cherry picker calling out someone for cherry picking by cherry picking…
Who are you? Please state your name and your credentials, Easy to check on ehrman. hard to check on you.
Bart Ehrman IS lame. It puzzles me how someone who clearly hates Jesus and His Gospel and everything about Him is able to make a living out of Him. Call me irrational, but bhe only explanation I can give for that is the influence diabolical.