@@iamdigory The fact he believes that those who go to hell, will also be vanquished from existence. Questions the reliability of the Christian Community and Tradition?
And now I am writing a comment to a dude who wrote a comment after watching a dude commenting on watching two dudes commenting on watching a dude comment in a video.
This makes total sense and really helps me with an area of prophecy that I was struggling with... How could all these passages people claim are "prophecies" of the Messiah truely be prophecies if the original author was not writing about the Messiah? It's because they typologies being referenced! This is so logical, I can't believe I missed it before. Thank you!
I remember the first time I watched Bart Ehrman speak on Paulogia's channel. I had just watched a Mike Winger video, and saw that Bart made a response on Paulogia's channel. While I was watching it, I noticed they had completely misrepresented Mike, saying he said that when Jesus said, "My God My God why have you forsaken me" Jesus was actually referring to the end of psalm 22, but it Mikes video, Mike had clearly stated that he did not hold to that view. Can't say I'm suprised to see Bart misrepresent something(although I don't think he does it intentially)
What video did mike winger upload showing his stance on why Jesus said “My God My God why have you forsaken me.” I thought Psalm 22 was the universal answer but id love to see Mikes unique perspective on it since i think he’s a smart guy!
@@youngtidepod3507 it was his video responding to Bart Ehrman in his mark series. He does think it refers to psalm22, but he thinks it refers to the entire psalm(the suffering and triumph) while Bart misrepresented him as saying Jesus was only referring to the triumph at the end.
@@endygonewild2899paulogia's video did include Mike explaining his opinion about referring to the whole psalm. It looks like Bart wasn't shown that though so he unintentionally misrepresented him. Mike's personal opinion here is not too important though, since Bart's point is that we ought to read Mark with the intention of understanding what he is trying to say rather than trying to reconcile it with the other gospels
It is difficult to pray for specific atheists in name. I'll just pray for them all. Whenever I pray for athiests, I just say, Lord I pray for all atheists and agnostics that they come to know you the Only True God
@@diegofuentes6783 I have a soft spot in my heart for Bart. I've struggled with and continue to struggle with the problem of evil, which is what took him away from the faith.
@@benduhova1643not at all. God bring people and arguments into their lives to show they their error. The people can then freely choose to accept the evidence and arguments.
Ngl them super chats be weird as hell but at the same time it gives me a laugh and keeps me engage 😭 I suppose it’s a net positive tho! You get support and I get a laugh lol
IMO, the Bart Ehrman/Jimmy Akin debate in 2022 did a lot to show that Ehrman doesn't seem to be as "invincible" as he's often portrayed. Coupled with this video, I wonder how much he actually reads the newest scholarship, or whether he's stuck repeating his greatest hits from 20 years ago, working under the assumption that nobody ever responded to what he said then. In fact, since he cites Fr. John Meier, I have a feeling he thinks Catholic scholarship today is still the world of Frs. Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer (i.e., the 70s, 80s, and early 90s) rather than the world of Drs. Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn, and John Bergsma.
You can trace most of his ideas back to the 19th century and early 20th. Read D. F. Strauß and Albert Schweitzer and you'll have about 90 percent of anything I ever heard Ehrman say.
@@tomasrocha6139 , not really. Country homes of the time often had one room for the family, plus a lower, rough room for livestock. Families tended to be huge, so that one room would be crowded. When Joseph and Mary showed up at a house he owned, the tenants might well have told him that he and his wife would have to stay in the lower room with the livestock. Luke adding in that there was no room at the inn is very plausible, if many Jews had traveled to Bethlehem to pay their taxes.
@@tomasrocha6139 , that is simply an assumption on your part, for which you provide NO evidence. In a modern town, people rent homes from others, even if they were born in that town! WHY do you think the same situation was impossible in ancient times???
With regards to matthew and the 2 donkey thing I saw a scholary paper that you can look up as "matthew and 2 donkeys scholar" and then a Pan african Journal of theology answer will show up here is the abstract. " There has been a challenge regarding the number of donkeys ridden by Jesus during the triumphant entry into Jerusalem. This is exacerbated by the notion that Matthew was unaware of Hebrew poetic parallelism in his allusion to Zechariah’s prophecy and portrayed Jesus as riding two donkeys. Matthew’s gospel contrasts the other three evangelists, who report only one donkey in their accounts. In this article, an exegetical analysis of Matthew 21:2 reveals grammatical and lexical considerations that clarify Matthew’s apparent divergence. It has been established that Jesus mounted a young male donkey that had never been ridden before. The final personal plural pronoun αὐτωv in Matthew 21:7, read together with the final coordinating conjunction καὶ, has been shown that it relates to the garments upon which Jesus sat, not on the two donkeys. The study also shows that when the final καί in Matthew 21:5 is read epexegetically as an adverb or ascensive conjunction and translated as “even,” the allusion to Zechariah’s prophecy proves that Matthew was aware of Hebraic poetic parallelism. The same holds for the Hebrew text in Zechariah 9:9, where the waw conjunction is considered epexegetical."
Me thinks that if Dr Erhman is wrong with the simple things (I.e. not actually looking at the scholarship), that he may be wrong in many areas. We can all say that we may have presuppositions on the cases, but for Dr Erhman to “say” he doesn’t, is preposterous.
I don’t understand what you are saying. The Hebrew text is a parallelism, speaking of one animal; the text of Matthew has two, and Jesus commands both to be brought to him. Whatever Matthew is doing, he is not accurately representing the OT text.
Im actually more upset that Paulogia just let Ehrman laugh without actually pressing him to answer your claim. Shows the Paulogia isnt able to notice a lack of critical thinking with his guests when they are Atheist.
If you're expecting the nuance and charity that cosmic skeptic has then you're gonna be sorely disappointed in Paulogia. He's an apologist. There was a 0.0% chance he was ever going to push back against Bart. It's not in his blood. Would you expect Turek to push back on another theist? Of course not. On the other hand there was a 100% chance Alex pushed back against Bart because he's a curious thinker. Paul takes the worst theist arguments and responds to them.
He might sound more polite than most @@reevertounbut hes never shown 1 iota of actually interacting critically with a counterargument or like he'd change a position to account for new data... he just dismisses and pivots and moves on. I've never understood why people sing this guys praises. He's a broken record with slightly better social skills than Godless Engineer.
I was wanting to hear an orthodox response to Mr. Ehrman. Then the algorithm showed me this video. The AI is getting creepy. Anyhow, great video, and nice channel!
Inspiringphilosophy i absolutely love your work and i highly appreciate what you do. It has helped me so much in my walk with Chirst. I pray that your ministry continues to bring more to christ
@@seektruth5074 he massages the conclusions to fit his narrative. He uses parts of studies that are still "to be studied" to fill it with "Jesus". Pure dishonesty
I am rarely impressed by Bart's reasonings he seems to be making assertions without forwarding many supporting arguments. One example is when Bart he said Jesus was shocked in Mark when he was on the cross even though Jesus said many times he was going to be crucified
Yess or when he said that Jesus body wasn’t taken off the cross because crucifixion victims were left to decompose and that its just a made up story to help with the resurrection. But he provides no actual evidence to support his claim that Jesus remained on the cross
@@adamcosper3308 Agreed, but Bart claims that the shock that Jesus displays disproves Jesus's own prophecies about his death. He claims those prophecies were added as an after effect.
@@debbiedebz7297you've completely missed why bart says that. He says that crucified criminals were commonly left on the cross to decay and be eaten by scavengers and were not given a proper burial, so the likelihood that this one instance would be different is unlikely.
@@iceqtip2764 and why would it be unlikely?? Its also very unlikely to have an innocent man be subjected to crucifixion when it was primarily for criminals but yet still it happens. All of what Bart says is based on his own assumptions which holds no facts he thinks the burial needed to happen so that the disciples could claim resurrection when that could happen even on the cross. but psalm 16 specifically states that the Holy one of God would be in a grave
Saludos desde Ecuador. Sería bueno organizar un grupo para ayudarnos en temas de filosofía y lectura bíblica desde un punto de vista histórico crítico.
Wow, I never really knew Ehrman was that bad when it comes to scholarly work. I always just assumed he was a pretty well versed guy for the most part. Maybe he is usually, but surprising that a guy with his credentials could make these kinds of mistakes.
I haven't watched the whole video yet, so I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. However, Bart Ehrman seems to have two modes when it comes to Biblical scholarship. As a scholar he is well versed in the Bible and are pretty knowledgable, however he does have (or at least entertain) some fringe views (like Jesus's body not being buried, but thrown to the dogs). His other mode is "popular scholar" where he blows a lot of things out of proportion and are much less careful with how he speaks. I think it might have to do something with popularity and fame as similar things can be seen with famous scientists from other fields (like Niel de Grass Tyson, Richard Dawkins or the late Stephen Hawking)
I started being skeptical of him when, during the audience Q&A of a debate, Brant Pitre, another scholar, asked him a pretty simple question about Mark's gospel where Jesus is accused of blasphemy and right there on stage on the spot he changed his mind and admitted that Mark does have Jesus himself claim to be divine, after previously saying that Jesus as divine didn't appear until the gospel of John. I was thinking "He's a veteran scholar and he's only just now recognizing this? What?" To see this, search "Bart Ehrman Stumbles On The Deity of Christ".
@billyg898 But that is how Bart engages issues. For example, He believes that divinity of Jesus happened LATE, not until John. It is in his books and such. That's the interpretation or revisionist of his position on how Christianity began. So of course you can't have Mark claiming divinity. He'll argue against the variation of 1:1 etc. He simply does not research what any other scholar is saying. REMEMBER, Bart does not engage with scholarship outside of his critical arena in many of his positions. He does not take conservative scholars seriously not even some Harmonization (sometimes this can be awful but some legit ones do exist as a way at looking at differences but Bart laughs off every attempt as just being silly). Bart can be a great scholar at times but often he let his bias against "fundamentalists" and a higher view of Scriptures to shine through, and he'll shrug and giggle or laugh (it's kinda off putting and condescending) when alternative yet more conservative explanation is given.
@tomasrocha6139 yes, you are correct yet he maintains that Jesus never claim divinity until John. That is not correct. He claimed equality with God in Mark, when the Jewish council accused him of blasphemy when he equated himself with God. So his whole theory of adoptionist Christology falls flat
@@tomasrocha6139 He can't claim such because that would mean he is a CREATED being, and created beings are not equal with God. The adoptionist position claims for Jesus what we are often called in NT: Sons and Daughters of God. But we are not equal with God, are we?
Everyone Watch this from beginning to end if you want to help IP. It's NOT the comments that help the algorithm that much. It's the watch time that greatly helps the algorithm.
Really seems like Paulogia just brought Ehrman on to just laugh and dismiss without engaging in any serious, substantive argument. Paulogia is just there to mindlessly nod in agreement at any bit of snobby dismissal that Ehrman throws out there. Honestly, just embarrassing on their part.
Excellent response. I'll say, I don't understand why scholars insist that the same cloaks on the must be spread over _both_ donkeys. Like... when I read, "they spread their cloaks on them and he sat on them," I think, "They put two or three on the colt, and two or three more on the mother, and then he sat on the colt". And honestly, I don't think it is even all that crazy to take and say, "Jesus sat on the donkeys," but then understand that he is really just sitting on just the colt, because the two are travelling as a unit, therefore, by sitting on just the colt, he is sitting on the mother by extension. You might even tie them together, further cementing how they are a single unit. In other words, a circus trick is the least likely reasonable interpretation. In fact, you can't sit on both at the same time unless they are in a very... **clears through** interesting "position"... or you have a board laying across their backs and you sit on the board. Therefore, to posit a circus trick, it would be better to say he "stood on them", and that would sound a lot like the Baal bull-riding motif, which would make the donkey-riding into a possible divine claim, I think. (Baal as a bull-rider was depicted as standing on the back of a bull -- they hadn't yet developed the concept of saddling and sitting on a bull, so to "ride" one implied standing on its back... so quite like bull surfing).
The problem is that instead of reading the Bible like you would any other book of its genre and time, they read looking for things to attack and criticize. In other words, they are finding and attacking things that they'd shrug at and understand in any other context or book.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 02:17 *📜 New Testament Prophecy Misconceptions* - Addressing misconceptions about New Testament prophecies. - Correcting misunderstandings regarding Old Testament prophecies used in the New Testament. - Explaining the typological fulfillments of prophecies in the New Testament. 05:01 *📖 Understanding Proof Texting* - Explaining proof texting as an interpretative method. - Discussing how New Testament authors utilized Old Testament texts. - Highlighting the typological fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies in the New Testament. 06:12 *📚 Conservative Scholar Perspectives* - Quoting conservative scholars' perspectives on literal and typological fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. - Emphasizing typology as a method of interpreting Old Testament passages in the New Testament. - Refuting misconceptions about New Testament interpretations of Old Testament prophecies. 13:16 *🤔 Critical Examination of Biblical Texts* - Analyzing specific passages from the Gospel of Matthew. - Discussing scholarly debates and interpretations regarding biblical texts. - Evaluating differing perspectives on the interpretation of biblical passages. 18:51 *📚 Discussion on Matthew's familiarity with Hebrew scholarship* - Examining Bart Ehrman's response regarding Matthew 21 and Jesus riding two donkeys. - Lofton highlights Ehrman's lack of awareness regarding Matthew's proficiency in Hebrew grammar and parallelism. - Scholars like Bernard B. are cited to support Matthew's competence in Hebrew. 20:02 *📚 Advice for aspiring authors and content creators* - Lofton advises new authors and content creators to consider incorporating video content. - Emphasizes the growing trend of consuming media through video platforms like TH-cam. - Suggests creating short videos to promote written content and engage with a wider audience. 21:42 *📚 Analysis of Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew 21* - Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew 21 is examined regarding the narrative of Jesus riding into Jerusalem. - Lofton critiques Keener's interpretation and suggests a different perspective on the text. - Keener's view on the garments covering both animals is discussed and questioned. 37:22 *📖 Interpreting the Bible's reliability and textual accuracy* - Views on the Bible's inspiration and accuracy, - Discussion on scribal errors and their impact on reliability. 39:56 *🤔 Examining the prophecy of Nazarene in Matthew* - Matthew's citation of a prophecy not found in the Old Testament, - Exploring the possible meaning of "Nazarene" and its relation to prophecy. 42:13 *📜 Understanding Matthew's use of Hebrew wordplay* - Matthew's potential knowledge of Hebrew, - Interpretation of Matthew's reference to Old Testament prophecy. 46:14 *🧐 Analyzing Matthew's typological interpretation* - Differentiating between literal and typological fulfillment, - Exploring the theological implications of Matthew's approach. 48:17 *💭 Reconsidering interpretations of Matthew's prophecy* - Reevaluation of historical and theological interpretations, - Debating the plausibility of various explanations. 51:41 *💬 Discussing scholarly perspectives on Matthew's text* - Assessing scholarly opinions on Matthew's knowledge and intent, - Examining potential historical and theological implications of Matthew's writing. 54:44 *📜 Matthew's Reference to Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9-10* - Matthew's citation of Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9-10 is often seen as an error because the prophecy actually comes from Zechariah. - James White and Dr. Michael Brown suggest that Matthew used Jeremiah's name due to the practicality of locating the text in scrolls. - However, the separation of Jeremiah and the Minor Prophets in scrolls challenges this explanation, indicating a potential error. 59:19 *🔍 Interpreting Matthew's Reference to Jeremiah* - Matthew's citation of Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9-10 may not necessarily be an error but rather a literary device known as "gazar shavah" used by Jewish rabbis to connect passages. - Craig Keener suggests that Matthew intended to draw a parallel between Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction and Zechariah's prophecy regarding the Potter's field. - This approach aligns with Jewish interpretive practices and mitigates the perceived discrepancy in Matthew's citation. 01:09:41 *📖 Matthew's Use of Isaiah 7:14* - Matthew's citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23, regarding the virgin birth of Jesus, presents interpretative challenges. - Paul Copan acknowledges the context of Isaiah 7:14, which refers to events contemporary to Ahaz, not to Jesus centuries later. - Understanding Matthew's typological interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 resolves potential discrepancies and aligns with scholarly perspectives on Old Testament prophecy fulfillment. 01:13:03 *💬 Interpreting the Name "Emmanuel"* - Matthew's use of the name "Emmanuel" signifies the presence of God with humanity through Jesus. - Jesus' name "Emmanuel" reflects the concept of God being with humanity, reinforcing Matthew's high Christology. - Bart Ehrman and Michael Lofton discuss the significance of the name "Emmanuel" and its theological implications, debating its interpretation as a gotcha mistake. 01:15:07 *💡 Major Takeaways from Bart Ehrman's Response* - Bart Ehrman demonstrates charity in his response to Lofton's arguments, highlighting nuanced interpretations rather than flubs. - Lofton emphasizes the typological nature of many prophecies in Matthew, challenging fundamentalist readings of the text. - Lofton appreciates Ehrman's engagement with his content, acknowledging the opportunity for scholarly discourse and disagreement in theological discussions.
I have become painfully aware of the fact that Dr. Bart Ehrman has allowed his popularity to shape his answers more so than his academic background. It seems to me that when people reach a certain level of popularity, they no longer study because now they’re coasting off of their popularity.
Meh... We have a guy who is a respected bible scholar and another who misinterprets scientific studies to tell his followers that they are not mad in believing the bible is true. One of the 2 is definitely more trustworthy
I disagree, I find that sometimes Bart holds to more traditional views and sometimes does not move with the most recent scholarship such as still believing in Q or holding that Luke and Acts were not written in the second century CE. Other than that , he is pretty good.
Bart Erhman : makes random assertions which are demonstrably false and doesn't cite or show his points Atheists: blindly agree because he is Bart Ehrman
@@davidjanbaz7728 Wow, what a scathing jab. Consider me severely reprimanded and reconsidering my life choices after the intense sickness of that burn.
Let's go IP!!!! 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻 Prayers for you everyday. Stay strong, brother. Strive to stick closer to Jesus. Glory to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the blessings of the Triune God for all you do. Amen. 🙏🏻
@@mtamer2943he is right. IP is a smart guy who knows the bible and Christianity are completely irrational and he can't stand it. So he tries very hard to find historical and scientific reasons to make it rational. The issue is that it's an impossible task. So he has to "massage" the historical and scientific papers' conclusions in order to make them fit. I mean, he made a video(or a series of videos) about how the exodus trying to convince you that it was an historical event. Get a quote from here, cite a fringe historian there, sprinkle some magic coming from god and et voila, the exodus happened! Amazing
@@piage84 My comment is entirely aimed at the fact that the original commenter is on a Paulogia defense comment spree in this video. You can dislike the bible but calling it completely irrational is biased. There's a reason it's a fascinating topic for people like Bart. You can find a lot of meaningful content even from a secular lens. Heck, calling it completely nonsensical is even, in a way, antisemitic; jews are not a myth.
Why does Bart automatically assume the worst without looking into it? If he was sincere, he'd look into it and then pass judgement. It seems like he's assumed this position of authority on the matter and so has the final say which is either woefully arrogant or wilfully ignorant on his part. It in no way diminishes his work but it does bring to light his atheistic position and why he may disregard other scholarly work and viewpoints that do not align to his.
He has become a bit lazy and sloppy in his scholarship over the years, just repeating the same stuff to every new class of freshmen without working any harder on it. Why should he? He got rich and famous off it.
Laughing does a better job at preserving your image than giving a bad rebuttal does. I just imahine that everytime Ehrman laughs and brushes the question aside - he knows his response is inadequate. But rather than trying, he tricks his listeners by pretending he has a great response - he just forgot to give it.
God bless your ministry. I remember watching these two chuckleheads awhile back the first time one of their vids hit my feed. I wasn’t aware at the time that Dr. Ehrman was one of the two commentators. I was struck by the arrogance with which they always laughed away pro-Christian arguments without always offering actual counter arguments. Since I became a Christian and began my own informal study of Christian apologetics I have been aware of Dr. Ehrman’s scholarship. However I’ve never been particularly swayed by any of his arguments. No idea who the other chucklehead is.
Good grief Jesus could have had two donkeys to ride, resting one and riding the other and switching later to rest the first one. So stupid of Bart, really reaching.
Best thing to do is have him on your show or vice versa, however you two can discuss/debate virtually face-to-face. He seems to be open to debating anyone as long as they argue in good faith.
I am pro God and despise how christians think they are the only but I give you a thumbs up because your clickbait is honest and refreshing to see....In other words you don't say we "dismantle or destroy" Bart or any other person . I believe that is Godly compared to the clickbait on You Tube .Bless you !
Ehrman isn't ignorant, he's disingenuous. He's aware of the views that disagree with his interpretations but either dismisses them prima facia, misrepresents them, and either mocks or outright ignores them.
Going back 20 years, on both an undergrad and grad level, from multiple schools and multiple denominations... EVERY major conservative source or class/set of experts I interacted with, all of them clarified that "fulfilled" =/=prophecy. How does this guy not understand this? How do experts get this out of touch? This is BASIC biblical scholarship that's well established and long standing. Even Messianic Rabbis teach this, talking about rabbinical attitudes of patterns in history. (Rabbi Dr. John Fischer)
Ehrman's argument always felt bizarre to me, and self defeating. The sum up of his work is "we don't have enough documentation to affirm with certainty that Jesus claimed to be God; therefore we can affirm with certainty that he didn't (?!)". He has his conclusion before his argument, and I feel it is because he is at the crossroads C S Lewis pointed out, he cannot say that Jesus is mad, or lying or telling the truth, so he found a "way out", which is trying to prove Jesus was neither telling the truth, nor lying nor was he mad, that, in fact, other people corrupted and changed what Jesus said. This is precisely the Islamic argument, which is why Ehrman resonates with Islamic apologists so much.
The corruption of Jesus's words is what the evidence suggests. We can see it clearly as Matthew copies Mark adding and removing lines to align with his worldview. Luke does the same but to a greater degree. And John says hold my beer, let's make Jesus sound like a Stoic Philosopher who delivers pages of monologue. It's not even the same guy after 2 generations of anonymous authors.
You can just say that Jesus was a lunatic, and then when people clutch their pearls about it say that it's their fault for picking a super loaded and uncharitable word for the dilemma
@@ryanrevland4333 with ancient literature, there is always a degree of uncertainty, but the New Testament is the best textual sample we have. A couple of things can be said with a degree of certainty as high as can be achieved in these matters, because the 4 Gospels converge on them, the letters (which predate the Gospels) attest a very early mainstream community already believing, and other sources. Those are 1) that Jesus existed 2) that he was crucified for blasphemy related accusations 3) that these blasphemy related accusations have their grounds on widespread contemporary Jewish trends, it didn't come from nowhere out of the blue. That relates to trends such as those by Philo of Alexandria, references to Isaiah and Daniel and Genesis and so forth. You can raise skepticism about the degree to which the documentation can be trusted at all, but the fact remains that the documentation that does exist attests all of this heavily. As for different styles, emphasis on different events from different angles, using different kinds of rhetoric, that is normal based on events narrated by different authors. I doubt you would say the French Revolution never happened, or that we cannot approximate what happened from the sources, because Hobsbawn and Michelet sound so different when talking about it.
You're right, I wouldn’t call into question the history of the French Revolution recorded by Michelet and Hobspawm because they sounded different. They were published in different centuries and languages so it might not be the best comparison. Let’s recontextualize your analogy to be more comparable to the Gospel accounts. Let’s say our hero, Josué and his gang are peasants living through the Reign of Terror and voicing their opinions against the Revolution. They argue that the Jacobins have ousted one corrupt government only to replace it with another! Josué is noticed by Robespierre for his dissension and sent to the guillotine, leaving his followers in shock and dismay. A community builds up around the memory of Josué and his predictions of a French Republic. Over the next 20 years, a movement forms based on his vision and strategies. Legends developed that after his execution, he stood, picked up his own head and delivered a message to 500 people that a Republic would soon form and then he disappeared. 20 years after that an account is written down by an anonymous author detailing the life and ministry of Josué. 20 years after that another anonymous account is published that revises the first and adds additional details. Then a third…and a fourth… Are we recording history? Or expanding a legend? @@duckdialectics8810
@@ryanrevland4333 legend might be seen as derogatory, but it is a tool for condensing information, there are 3 constraints in literature that get relaxed with industrialization, all connected 1) how many people can read 2) how easy a text is to memorize (mnemonic constraints) 3) how expensive it is to circulate texts. With near total illeteracy, in pre industrial economies, it is very important that your text condenses as much information as possible (which leads, among other things, to character fusion, for example, an entire nation through history might become a character, like Israel in the OT is used both as a single individual and as a nation) 2) mnemonics will depend on poetics heavily, aestheticized texts are easier to remember, which is great when you need people reciting from memory, obviously 3) when texts are expensive to write, you lower the word count, and increase the dependence on recitation, because less copies are available, fueling 1) and 2). So, "legend" is a literary technology, that you should not assume I see negatively. It is the highest form of literature, legend. Slopy writers that can write whatever because writing is so cheap tend to write boring, unmemorable unaestheticized, filled with irrelevant details texts, because, again, writing is so cheap. Someone like the anonymous collective oral author of Genesis and Homer are among the greatest we can aspire to, as writers. Humbling.
It absolutely is true that Matthew is quoting the Hebrew Bible and not the Septuagint and anybody who compares can see that in a moment. All this comes down to is trying to deny Matthias priority and making Mark first as this would blow up most of modern biblical scholarship.
@@charliesburnerhe has been exposed by Erik Manning, Mike Winger, James White, William Lane Craig, Mike Jones, David Wood, Trent Horn, Brandon Briscoe, Cameron Betuzzi, and a host of others. It's a joke that he is teaching at a college. It shows that academia is trash.
@jonathandutra4831 mostly yeah, look st the cencuses to europe, most Christians are christians from being born in a beliveing family and converts numbers are small, in fact more people have left christianity than people comverting
Your thinking mirrors a bit that of Jonathan Pageau. And your analysis points brings to light something I’ve noticed which is that the Bible speaks differently to people based on the heart and intent of the reader. Those who seek God’s word will hear it and see the connections of the whole context in a more subtle way, whereas those who’d seek flaws and inconsistencies and reasons to reject it will find exactly that to the point that it becomes an absurdity.
I've noticed it too. I see and feel things. And I've noticed that as I've read and gone from one scholor to another my spirit seems to shift. There are some fundamentalist teachings that seems correct. I got tricked for a bit with young earth. Is there some stuff they present sure. But Ken ham and them are charismatic But I started with this guy I'm glad I got away from young earth Some things and my praying led me from it. I don't fully agree with him or churches on everything. I.e. I don't see a issue with masterbation. I think churches are wrong my praying and what I've read and debates I've seen from many preachers. I just can't agree. But ya. It seems different people see different things. I have issues still I struggle with sin of course.. But ya. It seems like that's why so many see different things.
All the New Atheists have and continue to do so. The more they argue and insist on the same discredited, exploded ideas and the more they are unable to answer critical questions, the weaker they look
Me and my GF was studying Matthew 1-3 this morning and I pointed out how Matthew (being the most Jewish Gospel) did what was common during 2nd Temple Judaism, by conflated Old Testament fulfillments, people, and events that happened to what was happening in their day. I also pointed out how it goes from prophecies from Isaiah 7, Hoshea, Micah 5 (Assyrian Conquest) to Jeremiah 31 and Isaiah 40 (Babylonian Exile to Cyrus restoring the Jews). Come to think of it, everything continues down to Daniel 8, 9, 11(Maccabean Revolt). Therefore Matthew seems to be conflated the chronology of the Old Testament Era from Assyria>Babylon>Persia>(and ultimately) Greece to what was going on in the 1st century within the Gospel. I started seeing this pattern quite recently and I think this structure was done on purpose!!!!
Why is it that IP's the one who gets pestered by all of: Sus IP Gay P Sus AP Sus DW Sus Mohammed Hijab and Sus Ali Dawah while AP and DW do not get these guys like ever??? Doesn't seem fair
Just to let you know, Michael. some people on Paulogia's said that your response to Bart is messed up and flawed. I think it was great. what would you say to them.
Arguments against inerrancy miss the entire point. As Christians, we believe the core doctrine and teachings of the scriptures are inerrant. Literally nobody believes that the transmission is inerrant. This is a point David Wood often brings up when Muslims claim the Torah and the Gospel are corrupted.
1:05:20 It makes sense for Matthew to say that that passage refers to what Jeremiah was saying, because Jeremiah's fragment was the last part of the passage, so it was the conclusion or the "last words", therefore Jeremiah receiving the credit for the (meaning of the) whole saying.
Bart doesn't really engage in recent scholarships as he tends to just recycle his arguments. Once he encountered an interpretation he tends to repeat it and then act unaware of anything else...even when you can show him other explanations...partly because Ehrman thinks that is just harmonization.
Dr. Chuck Missler used to mention often that it’s Greek culture to see prophecy as prediction then fulfillment but to the Jewish mind prophecy is pattern repeating.
@InspiringPhilosophy. I really like your content overall. I would suggest you try to interview reputable scholars on your channel. I notice how Derek from "MistakenVision" loves to interview every liberal scholar he can find that will make outlandish claims against the Bible and Christianity, but rarely interacts with scholars on the other side. Convenient and probably intentional. I remember you said Bart is expensive. I know some of these professors do charge, but let me suggest one to you that does not charge a dime. His name is Dr. John Oswalt, and he wrote the great book "The Bible Among the Myths." I had him on my channel recently, and he doesn't charge a cent. Now out of courtesy I did offer and give him something for his work, but I practically had to force him to take it. LOL. So, please do yourself a favor and reach out to him. I'm going to have him on again this month. You have a much larger subscriber base than I do, and it would be great for you to take advantage of the wealth of information you can get from Dr. Oswalt for your audience to counter the nonsense coming from "MistakenVision."
One of my big projects the last three years has been pulling together my reasons for thinking that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. One of the problems that people are eager to point to defend that Matthew wrote in Greek is that Matthew quotes from the LXX. So I actually did a deep dive into that last year, and it turns out that he doesn't First thing to clarify is that it's clear that the translator from Hebrew Matthew to Greek Matthew was aware of the LXX, and in the vast majority of cases the text of the LXX is close enough to the Hebrew that it's not clear which he's following. But in several cases Matthew does diverge from the LXX text notably to follow the Hebrew text. You mentioned Matthew 21:5, which breaks away from the LXX's masculine nouns and gives feminine nouns like the Hebrew. One that took me off-guard was Matthew 19:18-19. I had never noticed the ten commandments were in a different order in the LXX than the Hebrew before I did that study, but it turns out that Matthew follows the order of commandments in the Hebrew rather than the LXX. Another example is Matthew 8:17, where the Greek text doesn't match the LXX at all so it can follow the Hebrew text of Isaiah.
Hi Michael, thank you for your great work. This is the first time I’ve given one of your videos a thumbs down. I’m surprised to see you give away one of the most profound prophesies of Jesus’ life on earth in the OT, the virgin birth. One For Israel does a deep dive into the Hebrew word used in Isaiah for the virgin birth. The word does not mean “young woman” or “virgin”. It is a rare word with a precise meaning for “young virgin”. It is used in four other places in the OT. In each instance the woman is specifically identified as both being young and being a virgin. As I’m sure you know, many prophesies are spoken in past tense. In fact, it was common.
The question comes down to whether one trusts the text and its author or whether one starts with skepticism. Do we assume the best or the worst. I think Ehrman's foundational hermeneutic is one of distrust and skepticism. You can see this in his cavalier approach to dismissing more sympathetic readings of Matthew. I think his approach blinds him at times to more satisfactory and in some cases obvious readings in Matthew.
Paulogia posted a video mischaracterizing arguments and promoting false information? That's so unlike him (this comment is sarcasm). I'm guessing Paulogia will respond to this live by playing the victim for receiving criticism, and when he does ... called it.
IP, I hope you make a short video on the summary of your responses here for those who have no time to go through the entire thing or might not retain the information (because of the length) despite watching it.
In my graduate studies many years ago, my dept chair of Comparative Religion was an orthodox Jewish scholar. He set the stage for our graduate work saying he had no idea why people believe outright what some scholar writes because they are considered a great scholar. Great scholars make mistakes and you cannot rely on a scholar to be always correct. Ehrman's quoting of that Catholic scholar is a perfect example of using an error in judgment by a great scholar to support his arguments. The laughing by Ehrman is just childish.
@@InspiringPhilosophy fair. You just have him very little pushback and I found it difficult to watch. Or wish you had done a debrief on another stream discussing points of disagreement.
@@reasonableperson3002 fair. Like I said, I wish there was some push back on assertions or had some kind of video after the fact saying "here is where we agree, and where we disagree"
It seems to me the simplest explanation for why Matthew includes the donkey and her foal is because that is what happened. The other three gospels only mention the colt upon which Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Matthew includes the extra detail of the colt's mother. There's nothing manufactured about this detail at all. They are simply narrating what happened from different perspectives, including different detail.
7:50 "Out of Egypt I called my son" also means that, just as Israel was called out and freed from a kingdom of idolatry and sin, through Christ, Israel and all mankind was called out and freed from the slavery and the power of sin, from the kingdom or the empire of the devil. I've learned that from the Lord of Spirits podcast, which I recommend to all, especially to Bart Ehrman (a "friend of the show", as he is called there by fr. Stephen de Young) and to Paulogia.
For someone as smart as Bart, I am always surprised at how weak his arguments are. They seem to be nitpicky and never actually address a real issue. I’m always amazed that atheists lift him up on a high pedestal because he really isn’t that good of an anti-apologist pray for Bart. Pray for Paul that they come back to know the Lord Jesus, as their savior.
![เปิดใจ “ต้นหอม ศกุนตลา” หลังโดนพาดพิงธุรกิจที่เคยทำ และผลกระทบทำถูกปลดฟ้าผ่า! | แฉ 24 ต.ค.67 [2/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vCi5OIqlxaE/mqdefault.jpg)
I thank God for your ministry and pray that it continues to grow. You have been a true blessing to my faith, IP.
Same here
His annihilationism calls into question the reliability of the whole Christian community and tradition.
@iamdigory Ok spammer. Now you can stop.
@@greenbird679 Quit whining, fundie.
Pray to God and ask Him to reveal His word by His Spirit, and watch what happens.
I’m here to bump that algorithm. God bless you and your ministry!
Thank you
His annihilationism calls into question the reliability of the whole Christian community and tradition.
@@iamdigory The fact he believes that those who go to hell, will also be vanquished from existence. Questions the reliability of the Christian Community and Tradition?
@iamdigory It's true! Literally no Christian has ever disagreed about hell until IP lmao
@@InspiringPhilosophyJesus power proof❤. Starting
Most sheep are weak minded.lead by their following. Like believe in adventures beyond lower orbit.
Pov: you're watching a dude watch 2 dudes watching him in another video.
Getting a bit too meta at this point 😂.
And now I am writing a comment to a dude who wrote a comment after watching a dude commenting on watching two dudes commenting on watching a dude comment in a video.
@@studywithmefolks5809 I’m lookin at dude who doesn’t know which dude he is
I think the second dude is technically a bro
@@hrossaman ah yes, bro. Pronounced "brah" in some regions
Love how the argument is "Bart just laughs at it and moves on without using common sense" and then to respond Bart does exactly that
not every piece of nonsense deserves a response
@@notmyproblem88 apparently mine did
@@micahdye7215 😂 😂
it did@@micahdye7215
@@notmyproblem88Except that’s the purpose of responding, to respond.
IP: Present arguments and quote scholars / Paulogia: Laught
Christian from Nepal listen to you brother... Keep up the good work 💪
InspiringPhilosophy is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels. Thanks for all your hard work, Michael.
This makes total sense and really helps me with an area of prophecy that I was struggling with... How could all these passages people claim are "prophecies" of the Messiah truely be prophecies if the original author was not writing about the Messiah? It's because they typologies being referenced! This is so logical, I can't believe I missed it before. Thank you!
I remember the first time I watched Bart Ehrman speak on Paulogia's channel. I had just watched a Mike Winger video, and saw that Bart made a response on Paulogia's channel. While I was watching it, I noticed they had completely misrepresented Mike, saying he said that when Jesus said, "My God My God why have you forsaken me" Jesus was actually referring to the end of psalm 22, but it Mikes video, Mike had clearly stated that he did not hold to that view. Can't say I'm suprised to see Bart misrepresent something(although I don't think he does it intentially)
What video did mike winger upload showing his stance on why Jesus said “My God My God why have you forsaken me.” I thought Psalm 22 was the universal answer but id love to see Mikes unique perspective on it since i think he’s a smart guy!
@@youngtidepod3507 it was his video responding to Bart Ehrman in his mark series. He does think it refers to psalm22, but he thinks it refers to the entire psalm(the suffering and triumph) while Bart misrepresented him as saying Jesus was only referring to the triumph at the end.
@@endygonewild2899 ohhh ok thanks fam, that makes sense, I’ll give the video a look
@@endygonewild2899paulogia's video did include Mike explaining his opinion about referring to the whole psalm. It looks like Bart wasn't shown that though so he unintentionally misrepresented him. Mike's personal opinion here is not too important though, since Bart's point is that we ought to read Mark with the intention of understanding what he is trying to say rather than trying to reconcile it with the other gospels
@@jgone4856 I already said I dont think Bart does it intentionally
Remember to pray for Paul and Bart.
It is difficult to pray for specific atheists in name. I'll just pray for them all. Whenever I pray for athiests, I just say, Lord I pray for all atheists and agnostics that they come to know you the Only True God
@@diegofuentes6783 I have a soft spot in my heart for Bart. I've struggled with and continue to struggle with the problem of evil, which is what took him away from the faith.
@@ReallySquishyHeadip made a video discussing that if you haven't seen it. Its helped me alot
Wouldn't your praying for them violate free will?
@@benduhova1643not at all. God bring people and arguments into their lives to show they their error. The people can then freely choose to accept the evidence and arguments.
Ngl them super chats be weird as hell but at the same time it gives me a laugh and keeps me engage 😭 I suppose it’s a net positive tho! You get support and I get a laugh lol
God bless your ministry, Michael.
I'm thankful for your efforts
The Muslim new Prophet Bart Ehrman
No
Yeah, only when heavily cherry-picked since he thinks Jesus being crucified under pilot is undeniably historical fact.
IMO, the Bart Ehrman/Jimmy Akin debate in 2022 did a lot to show that Ehrman doesn't seem to be as "invincible" as he's often portrayed. Coupled with this video, I wonder how much he actually reads the newest scholarship, or whether he's stuck repeating his greatest hits from 20 years ago, working under the assumption that nobody ever responded to what he said then. In fact, since he cites Fr. John Meier, I have a feeling he thinks Catholic scholarship today is still the world of Frs. Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer (i.e., the 70s, 80s, and early 90s) rather than the world of Drs. Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn, and John Bergsma.
You can trace most of his ideas back to the 19th century and early 20th. Read D. F. Strauß and Albert Schweitzer and you'll have about 90 percent of anything I ever heard Ehrman say.
Ehrman got refuted back in 2014, via the book "How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart Ehrman".
@@tomasrocha6139 , not really. Country homes of the time often had one room for the family, plus a lower, rough room for livestock. Families tended to be huge, so that one room would be crowded. When Joseph and Mary showed up at a house he owned, the tenants might well have told him that he and his wife would have to stay in the lower room with the livestock. Luke adding in that there was no room at the inn is very plausible, if many Jews had traveled to Bethlehem to pay their taxes.
@@tomasrocha6139 , WHY would they, if they were natives of Bethlehem, or did not own any taxable property???
@@tomasrocha6139 , that is simply an assumption on your part, for which you provide NO evidence. In a modern town, people rent homes from others, even if they were born in that town! WHY do you think the same situation was impossible in ancient times???
You’ve got types, symbols, prefiguring, analogy, etc etc etc. They knew and understood the Old Testament better than we ever could.
Exactly.
With regards to matthew and the 2 donkey thing I saw a scholary paper that you can look up as "matthew and 2 donkeys scholar" and then a Pan african Journal of theology answer will show up here is the abstract. " There has been a challenge regarding the number of donkeys ridden by Jesus during the triumphant entry into Jerusalem. This is exacerbated by the notion that Matthew was unaware of Hebrew poetic parallelism in his allusion to Zechariah’s prophecy and portrayed Jesus as riding two donkeys. Matthew’s gospel contrasts the other three evangelists, who report only one donkey in their accounts. In this article, an exegetical analysis of Matthew 21:2 reveals grammatical and lexical considerations that clarify Matthew’s apparent divergence. It has been established that Jesus mounted a young male donkey that had never been ridden before. The final personal plural pronoun αὐτωv in Matthew 21:7, read together with the final coordinating conjunction καὶ, has been shown that it relates to the garments upon which Jesus sat, not on the two donkeys. The study also shows that when the final καί in Matthew 21:5 is read epexegetically as an adverb or ascensive conjunction and translated as “even,” the allusion to Zechariah’s prophecy proves that Matthew was aware of Hebraic poetic parallelism. The same holds for the Hebrew text in Zechariah 9:9, where the waw conjunction is considered epexegetical."
Of all arguments against Christianity, that one is the most ludicrous of all. Gimme a break.
Me thinks that if Dr Erhman is wrong with the simple things (I.e. not actually looking at the scholarship), that he may be wrong in many areas. We can all say that we may have presuppositions on the cases, but for Dr Erhman to “say” he doesn’t, is preposterous.
I don’t understand what you are saying. The Hebrew text is a parallelism, speaking of one animal; the text of Matthew has two, and Jesus commands both to be brought to him. Whatever Matthew is doing, he is not accurately representing the OT text.
Matthew's double donkey show is the least of its failed prophecy. Much easier ways to debunk Christianity
@davethebrahman9870 are you hindu? Your last name same "brahman". Just curious.
Recently found your channel. Very interesting and educational.
Im actually more upset that Paulogia just let Ehrman laugh without actually pressing him to answer your claim. Shows the Paulogia isnt able to notice a lack of critical thinking with his guests when they are Atheist.
He isn’t able to draw himself either
Paulogia isn’t _nearly_ as good a host in this video as Alex O’Connor was with Richard Dawkins.
If you're expecting the nuance and charity that cosmic skeptic has then you're gonna be sorely disappointed in Paulogia. He's an apologist. There was a 0.0% chance he was ever going to push back against Bart. It's not in his blood. Would you expect Turek to push back on another theist? Of course not. On the other hand there was a 100% chance Alex pushed back against Bart because he's a curious thinker. Paul takes the worst theist arguments and responds to them.
He might sound more polite than most @@reevertounbut hes never shown 1 iota of actually interacting critically with a counterargument or like he'd change a position to account for new data... he just dismisses and pivots and moves on.
I've never understood why people sing this guys praises. He's a broken record with slightly better social skills than Godless Engineer.
@@ravissary79 I agree, but at least he doesn't straw man his interlocutors.
Proud to be an anti-atheist.
As am I.
Proud to be a Militant AntiTheist. Great channel for arguments against theism.
proud to dedicate my life to being anti baseball. don’t play it myself, but spend every waking moment thinking about how much I dislike it. euphoric.
@@sandbridgekid4121being anti theist sounds very miserable
@sandbridgekid4121 Thank you. You’ve justified my position.
I was wanting to hear an orthodox response to Mr. Ehrman. Then the algorithm showed me this video.
The AI is getting creepy. Anyhow, great video, and nice channel!
Actually, I'm just assuming you're Orthodox. But if you're not capital O Orthodox(noun) at least you're little o orthodox(adjective). 😃👍
Take a look at the book, "How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart Ehrman (2014).
@mysotiras21 thank you!
This one is on my list for tomorrow! Looking forward to it!
Inspiringphilosophy i absolutely love your work and i highly appreciate what you do. It has helped me so much in my walk with Chirst. I pray that your ministry continues to bring more to christ
So you are impressed by a guy who misrepresents scientific studies on purpose to prop up the bible and theism? Got a very low bar, hey?
@@piage84. How does he misrepresent scientific studies?
@@seektruth5074 he massages the conclusions to fit his narrative. He uses parts of studies that are still "to be studied" to fill it with "Jesus". Pure dishonesty
Excellent work, IP. ❤👌✝️☦️
Great conversation. God Bless you 🙏
I am rarely impressed by Bart's reasonings he seems to be making assertions without forwarding many supporting arguments. One example is when Bart he said Jesus was shocked in Mark when he was on the cross even though Jesus said many times he was going to be crucified
Yess or when he said that Jesus body wasn’t taken off the cross because crucifixion victims were left to decompose and that its just a made up story to help with the resurrection.
But he provides no actual evidence to support his claim that Jesus remained on the cross
Do you not know humans? People are more than capable of knowing something is coming but still being devastated by its arrival.
@@adamcosper3308 Agreed, but Bart claims that the shock that Jesus displays disproves Jesus's own prophecies about his death. He claims those prophecies were added as an after effect.
@@debbiedebz7297you've completely missed why bart says that. He says that crucified criminals were commonly left on the cross to decay and be eaten by scavengers and were not given a proper burial, so the likelihood that this one instance would be different is unlikely.
@@iceqtip2764 and why would it be unlikely??
Its also very unlikely to have an innocent man be subjected to crucifixion when it was primarily for criminals but yet still it happens.
All of what Bart says is based on his own assumptions which holds no facts he thinks the burial needed to happen so that the disciples could claim resurrection when that could happen even on the cross.
but psalm 16 specifically states that the Holy one of God would be in a grave
Great livestream!
Hola ip, saludos desde argentina, muchas bendiciones, me has sido un hermano que me guia a entender la biblia!
Brasileiro aqui, mesma coisa.
Mexicano aquí, Dios los bendiga a todos ustedes
Me encanta saber que habemos latinoamericanos en el canal de IP ❤️. Saludos desde México, y que Dios los bendiga a todos❤️✝️.
@@AnimaJanoYo también soy Mexicano, Creyente y me encanta este canal. Saludos Amigo
Saludos desde Ecuador. Sería bueno organizar un grupo para ayudarnos en temas de filosofía y lectura bíblica desde un punto de vista histórico crítico.
Great session IP. Thank you for the video.
Wow, I never really knew Ehrman was that bad when it comes to scholarly work. I always just assumed he was a pretty well versed guy for the most part. Maybe he is usually, but surprising that a guy with his credentials could make these kinds of mistakes.
I haven't watched the whole video yet, so I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not.
However, Bart Ehrman seems to have two modes when it comes to Biblical scholarship. As a scholar he is well versed in the Bible and are pretty knowledgable, however he does have (or at least entertain) some fringe views (like Jesus's body not being buried, but thrown to the dogs).
His other mode is "popular scholar" where he blows a lot of things out of proportion and are much less careful with how he speaks.
I think it might have to do something with popularity and fame as similar things can be seen with famous scientists from other fields (like Niel de Grass Tyson, Richard Dawkins or the late Stephen Hawking)
I started being skeptical of him when, during the audience Q&A of a debate, Brant Pitre, another scholar, asked him a pretty simple question about Mark's gospel where Jesus is accused of blasphemy and right there on stage on the spot he changed his mind and admitted that Mark does have Jesus himself claim to be divine, after previously saying that Jesus as divine didn't appear until the gospel of John. I was thinking "He's a veteran scholar and he's only just now recognizing this? What?"
To see this, search "Bart Ehrman Stumbles On The Deity of Christ".
@billyg898 But that is how Bart engages issues. For example, He believes that divinity of Jesus happened LATE, not until John. It is in his books and such. That's the interpretation or revisionist of his position on how Christianity began. So of course you can't have Mark claiming divinity. He'll argue against the variation of 1:1 etc. He simply does not research what any other scholar is saying.
REMEMBER, Bart does not engage with scholarship outside of his critical arena in many of his positions. He does not take conservative scholars seriously not even some Harmonization (sometimes this can be awful but some legit ones do exist as a way at looking at differences but Bart laughs off every attempt as just being silly).
Bart can be a great scholar at times but often he let his bias against "fundamentalists" and a higher view of Scriptures to shine through, and he'll shrug and giggle or laugh (it's kinda off putting and condescending) when alternative yet more conservative explanation is given.
@tomasrocha6139 yes, you are correct yet he maintains that Jesus never claim divinity until John. That is not correct. He claimed equality with God in Mark, when the Jewish council accused him of blasphemy when he equated himself with God. So his whole theory of adoptionist Christology falls flat
@@tomasrocha6139 He can't claim such because that would mean he is a CREATED being, and created beings are not equal with God. The adoptionist position claims for Jesus what we are often called in NT: Sons and Daughters of God. But we are not equal with God, are we?
God bless IP! Keep up your great work.
Everyone Watch this from beginning to end if you want to help IP. It's NOT the comments that help the algorithm that much. It's the watch time that greatly helps the algorithm.
Really seems like Paulogia just brought Ehrman on to just laugh and dismiss without engaging in any serious, substantive argument. Paulogia is just there to mindlessly nod in agreement at any bit of snobby dismissal that Ehrman throws out there. Honestly, just embarrassing on their part.
Excellent response.
I'll say, I don't understand why scholars insist that the same cloaks on the must be spread over _both_ donkeys. Like... when I read, "they spread their cloaks on them and he sat on them," I think, "They put two or three on the colt, and two or three more on the mother, and then he sat on the colt".
And honestly, I don't think it is even all that crazy to take and say, "Jesus sat on the donkeys," but then understand that he is really just sitting on just the colt, because the two are travelling as a unit, therefore, by sitting on just the colt, he is sitting on the mother by extension. You might even tie them together, further cementing how they are a single unit.
In other words, a circus trick is the least likely reasonable interpretation. In fact, you can't sit on both at the same time unless they are in a very... **clears through** interesting "position"... or you have a board laying across their backs and you sit on the board. Therefore, to posit a circus trick, it would be better to say he "stood on them", and that would sound a lot like the Baal bull-riding motif, which would make the donkey-riding into a possible divine claim, I think. (Baal as a bull-rider was depicted as standing on the back of a bull -- they hadn't yet developed the concept of saddling and sitting on a bull, so to "ride" one implied standing on its back... so quite like bull surfing).
The problem is that instead of reading the Bible like you would any other book of its genre and time, they read looking for things to attack and criticize. In other words, they are finding and attacking things that they'd shrug at and understand in any other context or book.
Syriac Orthodox here, God bless your toil of love
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
02:17 *📜 New Testament Prophecy Misconceptions*
- Addressing misconceptions about New Testament prophecies.
- Correcting misunderstandings regarding Old Testament prophecies used in the New Testament.
- Explaining the typological fulfillments of prophecies in the New Testament.
05:01 *📖 Understanding Proof Texting*
- Explaining proof texting as an interpretative method.
- Discussing how New Testament authors utilized Old Testament texts.
- Highlighting the typological fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies in the New Testament.
06:12 *📚 Conservative Scholar Perspectives*
- Quoting conservative scholars' perspectives on literal and typological fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
- Emphasizing typology as a method of interpreting Old Testament passages in the New Testament.
- Refuting misconceptions about New Testament interpretations of Old Testament prophecies.
13:16 *🤔 Critical Examination of Biblical Texts*
- Analyzing specific passages from the Gospel of Matthew.
- Discussing scholarly debates and interpretations regarding biblical texts.
- Evaluating differing perspectives on the interpretation of biblical passages.
18:51 *📚 Discussion on Matthew's familiarity with Hebrew scholarship*
- Examining Bart Ehrman's response regarding Matthew 21 and Jesus riding two donkeys.
- Lofton highlights Ehrman's lack of awareness regarding Matthew's proficiency in Hebrew grammar and parallelism.
- Scholars like Bernard B. are cited to support Matthew's competence in Hebrew.
20:02 *📚 Advice for aspiring authors and content creators*
- Lofton advises new authors and content creators to consider incorporating video content.
- Emphasizes the growing trend of consuming media through video platforms like TH-cam.
- Suggests creating short videos to promote written content and engage with a wider audience.
21:42 *📚 Analysis of Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew 21*
- Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew 21 is examined regarding the narrative of Jesus riding into Jerusalem.
- Lofton critiques Keener's interpretation and suggests a different perspective on the text.
- Keener's view on the garments covering both animals is discussed and questioned.
37:22 *📖 Interpreting the Bible's reliability and textual accuracy*
- Views on the Bible's inspiration and accuracy,
- Discussion on scribal errors and their impact on reliability.
39:56 *🤔 Examining the prophecy of Nazarene in Matthew*
- Matthew's citation of a prophecy not found in the Old Testament,
- Exploring the possible meaning of "Nazarene" and its relation to prophecy.
42:13 *📜 Understanding Matthew's use of Hebrew wordplay*
- Matthew's potential knowledge of Hebrew,
- Interpretation of Matthew's reference to Old Testament prophecy.
46:14 *🧐 Analyzing Matthew's typological interpretation*
- Differentiating between literal and typological fulfillment,
- Exploring the theological implications of Matthew's approach.
48:17 *💭 Reconsidering interpretations of Matthew's prophecy*
- Reevaluation of historical and theological interpretations,
- Debating the plausibility of various explanations.
51:41 *💬 Discussing scholarly perspectives on Matthew's text*
- Assessing scholarly opinions on Matthew's knowledge and intent,
- Examining potential historical and theological implications of Matthew's writing.
54:44 *📜 Matthew's Reference to Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9-10*
- Matthew's citation of Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9-10 is often seen as an error because the prophecy actually comes from Zechariah.
- James White and Dr. Michael Brown suggest that Matthew used Jeremiah's name due to the practicality of locating the text in scrolls.
- However, the separation of Jeremiah and the Minor Prophets in scrolls challenges this explanation, indicating a potential error.
59:19 *🔍 Interpreting Matthew's Reference to Jeremiah*
- Matthew's citation of Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9-10 may not necessarily be an error but rather a literary device known as "gazar shavah" used by Jewish rabbis to connect passages.
- Craig Keener suggests that Matthew intended to draw a parallel between Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction and Zechariah's prophecy regarding the Potter's field.
- This approach aligns with Jewish interpretive practices and mitigates the perceived discrepancy in Matthew's citation.
01:09:41 *📖 Matthew's Use of Isaiah 7:14*
- Matthew's citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23, regarding the virgin birth of Jesus, presents interpretative challenges.
- Paul Copan acknowledges the context of Isaiah 7:14, which refers to events contemporary to Ahaz, not to Jesus centuries later.
- Understanding Matthew's typological interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 resolves potential discrepancies and aligns with scholarly perspectives on Old Testament prophecy fulfillment.
01:13:03 *💬 Interpreting the Name "Emmanuel"*
- Matthew's use of the name "Emmanuel" signifies the presence of God with humanity through Jesus.
- Jesus' name "Emmanuel" reflects the concept of God being with humanity, reinforcing Matthew's high Christology.
- Bart Ehrman and Michael Lofton discuss the significance of the name "Emmanuel" and its theological implications, debating its interpretation as a gotcha mistake.
01:15:07 *💡 Major Takeaways from Bart Ehrman's Response*
- Bart Ehrman demonstrates charity in his response to Lofton's arguments, highlighting nuanced interpretations rather than flubs.
- Lofton emphasizes the typological nature of many prophecies in Matthew, challenging fundamentalist readings of the text.
- Lofton appreciates Ehrman's engagement with his content, acknowledging the opportunity for scholarly discourse and disagreement in theological discussions.
Here to bump the algorithm! Thank you again for your job!
I have become painfully aware of the fact that Dr. Bart Ehrman has allowed his popularity to shape his answers more so than his academic background. It seems to me that when people reach a certain level of popularity, they no longer study because now they’re coasting off of their popularity.
very much agree with this.
Can you give some examples of what you mean?
Meh... We have a guy who is a respected bible scholar and another who misinterprets scientific studies to tell his followers that they are not mad in believing the bible is true. One of the 2 is definitely more trustworthy
I disagree, I find that sometimes Bart holds to more traditional views and sometimes does not move with the most recent scholarship such as still believing in Q or holding that Luke and Acts were not written in the second century CE. Other than that , he is pretty good.
Michael! You are amaizing and cool! Keep on keeping!
Bart Erhman : makes random assertions which are demonstrably false and doesn't cite or show his points
Atheists: blindly agree because he is Bart Ehrman
TheMeekTheMild: makes random assertions which are demonstrably false and doesn't cite or show his points
Atheists: Who is Bart Ehrman?
@@georgeofthejungle6313 George your head injury is obvious !
@@davidjanbaz7728 Wow, what a scathing jab. Consider me severely reprimanded and reconsidering my life choices after the intense sickness of that burn.
Tell us what these random assertions that are demonstrably false are. Atheist rarely blindly accept anything so let's test your theory.
Did u not watch the video?@@ryanrevland4333
Let's go IP!!!! 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻 Prayers for you everyday. Stay strong, brother. Strive to stick closer to Jesus. Glory to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the blessings of the Triune God for all you do. Amen. 🙏🏻
Ehrman strikes me a smart man whose own bias blind spots and shortcomings evade him.
My thoughts exactly.
Spot on
His emotions get the better of his mind, like atheists.
You strike me as someone who isn't very bright but is woefully gullible.
@@highroller-jq3ix oh no, I am defeated by a man with insults. Oh, forever beaten.
IP man, my favorite sensei.
The most powerful Christian apologist and philosopher I have ever come across. Thank you for all you do!
He has nominal philosophical education and no standing whatsoever in the field.
@@highroller-jq3ix You're highly upset at the commenters in this video. Is there anything you'd like to talk about?
@@mtamer2943 You're highly creepy and predatory. Are you trying to cruise me because you think I'm a child?
@@mtamer2943he is right. IP is a smart guy who knows the bible and Christianity are completely irrational and he can't stand it. So he tries very hard to find historical and scientific reasons to make it rational. The issue is that it's an impossible task. So he has to "massage" the historical and scientific papers' conclusions in order to make them fit.
I mean, he made a video(or a series of videos) about how the exodus trying to convince you that it was an historical event. Get a quote from here, cite a fringe historian there, sprinkle some magic coming from god and et voila, the exodus happened!
Amazing
@@piage84 My comment is entirely aimed at the fact that the original commenter is on a Paulogia defense comment spree in this video.
You can dislike the bible but calling it completely irrational is biased. There's a reason it's a fascinating topic for people like Bart. You can find a lot of meaningful content even from a secular lens. Heck, calling it completely nonsensical is even, in a way, antisemitic; jews are not a myth.
Just commenting for the algorithm. Big up IP 👍🏿
So, these guys are arguing that Matthew has been written by ChatGTP, since the author has no concept of a real donkey and how are they used.
The superchats in the beginning tho 😂
Catholic here GBY Michael Jones,
Why does Bart automatically assume the worst without looking into it? If he was sincere, he'd look into it and then pass judgement. It seems like he's assumed this position of authority on the matter and so has the final say which is either woefully arrogant or wilfully ignorant on his part. It in no way diminishes his work but it does bring to light his atheistic position and why he may disregard other scholarly work and viewpoints that do not align to his.
He has become a bit lazy and sloppy in his scholarship over the years, just repeating the same stuff to every new class of freshmen without working any harder on it. Why should he? He got rich and famous off it.
Pray for the enemies.
Love IP
Laughing does a better job at preserving your image than giving a bad rebuttal does.
I just imahine that everytime Ehrman laughs and brushes the question aside - he knows his response is inadequate. But rather than trying, he tricks his listeners by pretending he has a great response - he just forgot to give it.
The last two weeks i kept hoping you'd address Bart. Glad to see it happened
I'd love to see you on Timcast Irl
God bless your ministry. I remember watching these two chuckleheads awhile back the first time one of their vids hit my feed. I wasn’t aware at the time that Dr. Ehrman was one of the two commentators. I was struck by the arrogance with which they always laughed away pro-Christian arguments without always offering actual counter arguments. Since I became a Christian and began my own informal study of Christian apologetics I have been aware of Dr. Ehrman’s scholarship. However I’ve never been particularly swayed by any of his arguments. No idea who the other chucklehead is.
Good grief Jesus could have had two donkeys to ride, resting one and riding the other and switching later to rest the first one. So stupid of Bart, really reaching.
lol
💯...and that's exactly how young equines are saddle broke...I've personally done it myself
Best thing to do is have him on your show or vice versa, however you two can discuss/debate virtually face-to-face.
He seems to be open to debating anyone as long as they argue in good faith.
Ehrman: That's not how the original text reads in context.
Me: Oh ye of little faith. Wherefore dids't thou doubt?
I am pro God and despise how christians think they are the only but I give you a thumbs up because your clickbait is honest and refreshing to see....In other words you don't say we "dismantle or destroy" Bart or any other person . I believe that is Godly
compared to the clickbait on You Tube .Bless you !
Ehrman isn't ignorant, he's disingenuous. He's aware of the views that disagree with his interpretations but either dismisses them prima facia, misrepresents them, and either mocks or outright ignores them.
Going back 20 years, on both an undergrad and grad level, from multiple schools and multiple denominations... EVERY major conservative source or class/set of experts I interacted with, all of them clarified that "fulfilled" =/=prophecy.
How does this guy not understand this?
How do experts get this out of touch? This is BASIC biblical scholarship that's well established and long standing.
Even Messianic Rabbis teach this, talking about rabbinical attitudes of patterns in history.
(Rabbi Dr. John Fischer)
Bart Errorman
IP=incorrect person
Ehrman's argument always felt bizarre to me, and self defeating. The sum up of his work is "we don't have enough documentation to affirm with certainty that Jesus claimed to be God; therefore we can affirm with certainty that he didn't (?!)". He has his conclusion before his argument, and I feel it is because he is at the crossroads C S Lewis pointed out, he cannot say that Jesus is mad, or lying or telling the truth, so he found a "way out", which is trying to prove Jesus was neither telling the truth, nor lying nor was he mad, that, in fact, other people corrupted and changed what Jesus said. This is precisely the Islamic argument, which is why Ehrman resonates with Islamic apologists so much.
The corruption of Jesus's words is what the evidence suggests. We can see it clearly as Matthew copies Mark adding and removing lines to align with his worldview. Luke does the same but to a greater degree. And John says hold my beer, let's make Jesus sound like a Stoic Philosopher who delivers pages of monologue. It's not even the same guy after 2 generations of anonymous authors.
You can just say that Jesus was a lunatic, and then when people clutch their pearls about it say that it's their fault for picking a super loaded and uncharitable word for the dilemma
@@ryanrevland4333 with ancient literature, there is always a degree of uncertainty, but the New Testament is the best textual sample we have. A couple of things can be said with a degree of certainty as high as can be achieved in these matters, because the 4 Gospels converge on them, the letters (which predate the Gospels) attest a very early mainstream community already believing, and other sources. Those are 1) that Jesus existed 2) that he was crucified for blasphemy related accusations 3) that these blasphemy related accusations have their grounds on widespread contemporary Jewish trends, it didn't come from nowhere out of the blue. That relates to trends such as those by Philo of Alexandria, references to Isaiah and Daniel and Genesis and so forth. You can raise skepticism about the degree to which the documentation can be trusted at all, but the fact remains that the documentation that does exist attests all of this heavily. As for different styles, emphasis on different events from different angles, using different kinds of rhetoric, that is normal based on events narrated by different authors. I doubt you would say the French Revolution never happened, or that we cannot approximate what happened from the sources, because Hobsbawn and Michelet sound so different when talking about it.
You're right, I wouldn’t call into question the history of the French Revolution recorded by Michelet and Hobspawm because they sounded different. They were published in different centuries and languages so it might not be the best comparison. Let’s recontextualize your analogy to be more comparable to the Gospel accounts.
Let’s say our hero, Josué and his gang are peasants living through the Reign of Terror and voicing their opinions against the Revolution. They argue that the Jacobins have ousted one corrupt government only to replace it with another! Josué is noticed by Robespierre for his dissension and sent to the guillotine, leaving his followers in shock and dismay.
A community builds up around the memory of Josué and his predictions of a French Republic. Over the next 20 years, a movement forms based on his vision and strategies. Legends developed that after his execution, he stood, picked up his own head and delivered a message to 500 people that a Republic would soon form and then he disappeared.
20 years after that an account is written down by an anonymous author detailing the life and ministry of Josué. 20 years after that another anonymous account is published that revises the first and adds additional details. Then a third…and a fourth…
Are we recording history? Or expanding a legend?
@@duckdialectics8810
@@ryanrevland4333 legend might be seen as derogatory, but it is a tool for condensing information, there are 3 constraints in literature that get relaxed with industrialization, all connected 1) how many people can read 2) how easy a text is to memorize (mnemonic constraints) 3) how expensive it is to circulate texts. With near total illeteracy, in pre industrial economies, it is very important that your text condenses as much information as possible (which leads, among other things, to character fusion, for example, an entire nation through history might become a character, like Israel in the OT is used both as a single individual and as a nation) 2) mnemonics will depend on poetics heavily, aestheticized texts are easier to remember, which is great when you need people reciting from memory, obviously 3) when texts are expensive to write, you lower the word count, and increase the dependence on recitation, because less copies are available, fueling 1) and 2). So, "legend" is a literary technology, that you should not assume I see negatively. It is the highest form of literature, legend. Slopy writers that can write whatever because writing is so cheap tend to write boring, unmemorable unaestheticized, filled with irrelevant details texts, because, again, writing is so cheap. Someone like the anonymous collective oral author of Genesis and Homer are among the greatest we can aspire to, as writers. Humbling.
Fulfillment often means more "it's like poetry, it rhymes". Motifs reoccurring, being deepened or fully unpacked.
The more New Testament scholarship I read, the less I’m impressed with Ehrman.
I would love to see the two of you debating on stage.🤞
Anyone still take Bart Ehrman seriously??? I mean, let's be real, the man's "arguments" are just recreational atheism silly now! 🙄
It absolutely is true that Matthew is quoting the Hebrew Bible and not the Septuagint and anybody who compares can see that in a moment. All this comes down to is trying to deny Matthias priority and making Mark first as this would blow up most of modern biblical scholarship.
Who is still a Bart erhman fan? The man is just old and bitter. He has been exposed countless times
Wym exposed?
@@charliesburner Yes; he exposes his backside pretty-much every time he opens-his-mouth. 😏
Huge Bart fan, more more qualified than thus channels host and almost EVERYONE who posts.
His course in the triumph of Christianity was really Good
@@charliesburnerhe has been exposed by Erik Manning, Mike Winger, James White, William Lane Craig, Mike Jones, David Wood, Trent Horn, Brandon Briscoe, Cameron Betuzzi, and a host of others. It's a joke that he is teaching at a college. It shows that academia is trash.
I don’t think Michael knows who well-known he is. Listed in multiple places as a top apologist under 40. The future of apologetics is this.
Poor Bart, He desperately wants Christianity to be wrong.
Christianity is for anyone who can’t think for themselves and keep believing what their mommy and daddy told them.
@@reeseexplains8935 So everyone who is a Christian came from Christian parents ? 🤡 Got it 👍
@@jonathandutra4831yes
@jonathandutra4831 mostly yeah, look st the cencuses to europe, most Christians are christians from being born in a beliveing family and converts numbers are small, in fact more people have left christianity than people comverting
@@amigos2841have you seen Kipps refutation of this video.
Your thinking mirrors a bit that of Jonathan Pageau. And your analysis points brings to light something I’ve noticed which is that the Bible speaks differently to people based on the heart and intent of the reader. Those who seek God’s word will hear it and see the connections of the whole context in a more subtle way, whereas those who’d seek flaws and inconsistencies and reasons to reject it will find exactly that to the point that it becomes an absurdity.
I've noticed it too.
I see and feel things. And I've noticed that as I've read and gone from one scholor to another my spirit seems to shift.
There are some fundamentalist teachings that seems correct. I got tricked for a bit with young earth. Is there some stuff they present sure. But Ken ham and them are charismatic
But I started with this guy
I'm glad I got away from young earth
Some things and my praying led me from it.
I don't fully agree with him or churches on everything.
I.e. I don't see a issue with masterbation.
I think churches are wrong my praying and what I've read and debates I've seen from many preachers. I just can't agree.
But ya. It seems different people see different things. I have issues still I struggle with sin of course..
But ya. It seems like that's why so many see different things.
Ehrman is digging his academic grave deeper with each of his debates and appearances
All the New Atheists have and continue to do so. The more they argue and insist on the same discredited, exploded ideas and the more they are unable to answer critical questions, the weaker they look
Me and my GF was studying Matthew 1-3 this morning and I pointed out how Matthew (being the most Jewish Gospel) did what was common during 2nd Temple Judaism, by conflated Old Testament fulfillments, people, and events that happened to what was happening in their day. I also pointed out how it goes from prophecies from Isaiah 7, Hoshea, Micah 5 (Assyrian Conquest) to Jeremiah 31 and Isaiah 40 (Babylonian Exile to Cyrus restoring the Jews). Come to think of it, everything continues down to Daniel 8, 9, 11(Maccabean Revolt). Therefore Matthew seems to be conflated the chronology of the Old Testament Era from Assyria>Babylon>Persia>(and ultimately) Greece to what was going on in the 1st century within the Gospel. I started seeing this pattern quite recently and I think this structure was done on purpose!!!!
Why is it that IP's the one who gets pestered by all of:
Sus IP
Gay P
Sus AP
Sus DW
Sus Mohammed Hijab
and Sus Ali Dawah
while AP and DW do not get these guys like ever??? Doesn't seem fair
Wendigoon is a TH-camr. He does long form deep dives into things like cryptozoology, conspiracy theories, media and literature, including the Bible.
Just to let you know, Michael. some people on Paulogia's said that your response to Bart is messed up and flawed. I think it was great. what would you say to them.
Well what else would they say?
IP 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 great video
Arguments against inerrancy miss the entire point.
As Christians, we believe the core doctrine and teachings of the scriptures are inerrant. Literally nobody believes that the transmission is inerrant.
This is a point David Wood often brings up when Muslims claim the Torah and the Gospel are corrupted.
1:05:20 It makes sense for Matthew to say that that passage refers to what Jeremiah was saying, because Jeremiah's fragment was the last part of the passage, so it was the conclusion or the "last words", therefore Jeremiah receiving the credit for the (meaning of the) whole saying.
Ehrman is a sad sad man.
The thumbnail looks like a dramatic Father & Son chess match.
Bart doesn't really engage in recent scholarships as he tends to just recycle his arguments. Once he encountered an interpretation he tends to repeat it and then act unaware of anything else...even when you can show him other explanations...partly because Ehrman thinks that is just harmonization.
Dr. Chuck Missler used to mention often that it’s Greek culture to see prophecy as prediction then fulfillment but to the Jewish mind prophecy is pattern repeating.
@InspiringPhilosophy. I really like your content overall. I would suggest you try to interview reputable scholars on your channel. I notice how Derek from "MistakenVision" loves to interview every liberal scholar he can find that will make outlandish claims against the Bible and Christianity, but rarely interacts with scholars on the other side. Convenient and probably intentional.
I remember you said Bart is expensive. I know some of these professors do charge, but let me suggest one to you that does not charge a dime. His name is Dr. John Oswalt, and he wrote the great book "The Bible Among the Myths."
I had him on my channel recently, and he doesn't charge a cent. Now out of courtesy I did offer and give him something for his work, but I practically had to force him to take it. LOL. So, please do yourself a favor and reach out to him. I'm going to have him on again this month. You have a much larger subscriber base than I do, and it would be great for you to take advantage of the wealth of information you can get from Dr. Oswalt for your audience to counter the nonsense coming from "MistakenVision."
One of my big projects the last three years has been pulling together my reasons for thinking that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. One of the problems that people are eager to point to defend that Matthew wrote in Greek is that Matthew quotes from the LXX. So I actually did a deep dive into that last year, and it turns out that he doesn't
First thing to clarify is that it's clear that the translator from Hebrew Matthew to Greek Matthew was aware of the LXX, and in the vast majority of cases the text of the LXX is close enough to the Hebrew that it's not clear which he's following. But in several cases Matthew does diverge from the LXX text notably to follow the Hebrew text. You mentioned Matthew 21:5, which breaks away from the LXX's masculine nouns and gives feminine nouns like the Hebrew.
One that took me off-guard was Matthew 19:18-19. I had never noticed the ten commandments were in a different order in the LXX than the Hebrew before I did that study, but it turns out that Matthew follows the order of commandments in the Hebrew rather than the LXX. Another example is Matthew 8:17, where the Greek text doesn't match the LXX at all so it can follow the Hebrew text of Isaiah.
Hi Michael, thank you for your great work. This is the first time I’ve given one of your videos a thumbs down. I’m surprised to see you give away one of the most profound prophesies of Jesus’ life on earth in the OT, the virgin birth. One For Israel does a deep dive into the Hebrew word used in Isaiah for the virgin birth. The word does not mean “young woman” or “virgin”. It is a rare word with a precise meaning for “young virgin”. It is used in four other places in the OT. In each instance the woman is specifically identified as both being young and being a virgin. As I’m sure you know, many prophesies are spoken in past tense. In fact, it was common.
Bart found that he could not handle the problem of evil and instead of following the classical work on it he apostasized.
The question comes down to whether one trusts the text and its author or whether one starts with skepticism. Do we assume the best or the worst. I think Ehrman's foundational hermeneutic is one of distrust and skepticism. You can see this in his cavalier approach to dismissing more sympathetic readings of Matthew. I think his approach blinds him at times to more satisfactory and in some cases obvious readings in Matthew.
1:09:56 as an Alabamian, i have heard much worse. Aside from that, biscuits and gravy is awesome lol
Every Donkey has a cross on its back. Check mate, Bart.
Paulogia posted a video mischaracterizing arguments and promoting false information? That's so unlike him (this comment is sarcasm). I'm guessing Paulogia will respond to this live by playing the victim for receiving criticism, and when he does ... called it.
I’m so bored of him dude. They should just give up
IP, I hope you make a short video on the summary of your responses here for those who have no time to go through the entire thing or might not retain the information (because of the length) despite watching it.
Great idea.
In my graduate studies many years ago, my dept chair of Comparative Religion was an orthodox Jewish scholar. He set the stage for our graduate work saying he had no idea why people believe outright what some scholar writes because they are considered a great scholar. Great scholars make mistakes and you cannot rely on a scholar to be always correct. Ehrman's quoting of that Catholic scholar is a perfect example of using an error in judgment by a great scholar to support his arguments. The laughing by Ehrman is just childish.
Didn't you have Bart on your stream last year promoting his view of Revelation?
No, i interviewed him about it. I did not agree with it.
@@InspiringPhilosophy fair. You just have him very little pushback and I found it difficult to watch. Or wish you had done a debrief on another stream discussing points of disagreement.
@@RealCaptainAwesome Because it was an interview not a debate?
@@reasonableperson3002 fair. Like I said, I wish there was some push back on assertions or had some kind of video after the fact saying "here is where we agree, and where we disagree"
It seems to me the simplest explanation for why Matthew includes the donkey and her foal is because that is what happened. The other three gospels only mention the colt upon which Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Matthew includes the extra detail of the colt's mother. There's nothing manufactured about this detail at all. They are simply narrating what happened from different perspectives, including different detail.
What if Bart reviews Michael Heiser's contents on OT-NT continuity? 😊
7:50 "Out of Egypt I called my son" also means that, just as Israel was called out and freed from a kingdom of idolatry and sin, through Christ, Israel and all mankind was called out and freed from the slavery and the power of sin, from the kingdom or the empire of the devil. I've learned that from the Lord of Spirits podcast, which I recommend to all, especially to Bart Ehrman (a "friend of the show", as he is called there by fr. Stephen de Young) and to Paulogia.
Jesus literally lived in Egypt 3 years
@@christophertaylor9100 I know, I wasn't arguing against that.
For someone as smart as Bart, I am always surprised at how weak his arguments are. They seem to be nitpicky and never actually address a real issue. I’m always amazed that atheists lift him up on a high pedestal because he really isn’t that good of an anti-apologist pray for Bart. Pray for Paul that they come back to know the Lord Jesus, as their savior.
It's interesting one of the gnostic gospels says no man can ride two horses
For a overly detailed version of the Alma Virgin detail. Courtney from Bible Apologitics has details.
A lot of tap dancing at 23:00 to explain the 2 animals. The scholars are doing mental gymnastics as well to make it make sense.