This was one of the most entertaining debates I've seen thus far! This had me smiling with joy through and through. Giggled and chuckled a few times because RC was working up poor Dr. Gerstner nerves, like a little brother poking fun at his big brother. This is such a treasure! You can see their friendship shine through this mock debate!
During Bible Study we did a mock debate too. I become Orthodox Jews and criticized how Christians interpret the Old Testament... and it was a heated argument and they mad against me 🤣🤣🤣 I mean, mad at my relentless questions and twisting arguments.
Who else got all tense while watching this? Had I been RC, I would've been afraid I might give Dr. Gerstner a heart attack ... but that's just me ;) That said, I absolutely LOVED this "debate".
Tbh I am grateful for RC Sproul's, "Let me see if I understand you ..." statements, as Dr. John's statements are a bit too complex for me to grasp what he is in its entirety.
I would like to buy these debates on DVD. Is that possible? Secondly, can you imagine if presidential debates were like this and debated on issues that mattered rather then the absurdities they argue about.
There is a natural choreography that goes on here that would not happen if a true unbeliever were debating Professor Gerstner. Both of these players understand a ladder of logical thought so there is a lovely choreography that's fun to listen to here. Under the hairy hide of a true atheist lies the deep desire to trip every single participant in the Ballroom. So a natural debate between follower of Christ and an unbeliever is frought with ankle breaking stones every third beat.
This shows clearly how weak Gerstner's arguments are. We do not know from independent sources that Jesus was admired, that he was a miracle-worker. We also know from the legends of medieval saints that they were admired, they were miracle-workers, and their legends were generally written not 40 years after their death as in the case of Jesus, but much earlier.
@@kofi7110 Of course I did. But Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, his work is later than the first gospel, and most scholars think the "Testimonium flavium" is a later insertion by a Christian scribe.
I like rc Mohawk ,if he shaved the sides of his head he would have a Mohawk, look how far his hair sticks out on the front of his head lol,I think rc would laugh if he heard me say this lol
Gerstner: The bible says so Sproul: Lots of books say things that aren't true Gerstner: Yeah, but not the bible! Prove otherwise! hahahaha LOL, if that's all it takes for you to think Gerstner "got him" no wonder you believe stories about talking snakes, walking on water, and resurrections. Fact is, there's not a single extra-biblical eyewitness account of Jesus or any of his miracles. No historian today says there is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles. There is nothing more than claims made in the gospels which were written 20-60 years after jesus supposedly died. The sad thing about this video is that Sproul is smart enough to absolutely destroy Gerstner in this "debate" if he wanted, but he can't because they're both on the same team so he has to pretend along with everyone else that what Gerstner is saying is a valid and logical argument. So sad.
I am by no means one of those fire-breathing Presuppositionalists, but I have to say, I think this particular topic in a mock debate would have been far more enlightening had it been Van Til vs. Bahnsen as the Devil's Advocate
So true! They both know it's all BS, but they just keep on going with it because people eat it up and fill the offering plate at the end of the show. Truly despicable.
The adversary is NOT jumping around. He is holding the subject of miracles as supposed proof by seeing how his opponent talks about them in other historical contexts to see if his opponent is consistent.
The Old Testament writers had a very limited understanding of the nature of God. They made God in their image: angry, jealous, hostile, omnipotent, judgmental and fearful. Jesus changed everything. To him, God was Our Father. .
@@john1-29_aka_LHT-LFA Yes, there are some good parts to the Old Testament but there are some really horrific writings there as well. You must cherry pick. But still the writers didn't understand the nature of God. For instance, the 10 commandments does not have the word love in any of them. That is because the Moses didn't understand the importance of unconditional love. Jesus introduced unconditional love with his two great commandments and his sermon on the mount. Love is what is important.
@@PeterProf7777 there is enough love in form of grace and mercy. not from the days of Moses but one love example would be : The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.
@@john1-29_aka_LHT-LFA But Moses wrote some pretty awful stuff. This is what Moses wrote in Leviticus: When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. “If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. “However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. “When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. “Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. “Thus, you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. “Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.
Oh dear! There are so many logical fallacies in these arguments that it beggars belief. Assertion after assertion, jumping to conclusions with no evidence, presuppositions all the way…. Yes it was entertaining but, by Jove, it was pathetic from an epistemological point of view.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJVS [15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
This was disappointing. How do we just assume that the New Testament record is generally reliable when it comes to Jesus and His miracles? Would there not be a bias from its writers? If this man REALLY was walking around doing all of this stuff, there should be RECORDS not only in the Bible, but outside as well! Can someone please help me with this?
The Bible is the only source of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and the only record of his miracles. The Bible's credibility is supported by its' internal evidence. This enables the reader's confidence and assurance that the information is true. Some have questioned Jesus' existence, however there's secular testimony that supports Jesus' existence, namely Jewish historian Josephus(Antiquities of the Jews) and Roman historian Tacitus(Annals)
....also the character of a person can make what he says reliable. Also,If you dont accept what the NT says or doubts it reliability how then do you accept the timing of its writing is that also not disputable?
@@ripcord8738 Josephus and Tacitus were both born after Jesus died, so they were not eyewitnesses of anything he supposedly did. Tacitus did write about the early church, early Christians, and Christianity in general - all of which he was an eyewitness to. Here's what he said: he said Christians were evil, haters of humanity, they committed abominations, and that Christianity was a mischievous superstition. So, umm, I'm not sure you really want to use them as a source, because they don't paint a pretty picture for your side.
just think about it, if it is a lie: why would almost all disciples go willingly into brutal death for a LIE? they had every chance to get out by just telling the "truth". They did not. Why would you take so rather obscure names like Mark, Luke or even the "hated" tax collector MAtthew as Gospel writers and not, like the many fake gnostic gospels, who took the names of the known apostels "Peter"or "Andrew" if you want to sell your lie? What did the apostley have to gain from all of that? They were hunted down everywheere, they lost their livelihood, had no financial gains and were slaughtered. And then, what about the hard sayings of Jesus in the NT? Why, if it is a lie, not soften them up so people accept it easier?
I'm impressed at how well R.C. Sproul was able to play devil's advocate, but he missed a couple of glaring problems. First, Gerstner's contention that Jesus's miracles are *inextricable* from his historical existence is extreme, verging on laughable. Of course it's possible that Jesus was a real person, but who was the subject of considerable legendary development. Gerstner would have you believe that Jesus without miracles is like a married bachelor-completely inconceivable. That's just not true. Second, for very obvious reasons, Jesus only ever quoted the Hebrew Bible. There was no New Testament for him to quote at any point during his life, so it's impossible to claim that he ever intended to lend his authority to the specific books of the protestant NT canon. Third, and probably least of all, I think Gerstner failed to make his point that Jesus would have hedged on the books of Moses or Isaiah if he wasn't 100% divinely certain that those were their authors. He referred to those books, as Sproul said, in the way they were understood by his milieu at the time. To expect that he would have gone on and on about the fact that he was only 80% certain or 50% or 30% certain of any given bit of common knowledge at the time is a little ridiculous.
It sounds like Dr. Gerstner is arguing that if an ancient writing is true at all, then it is necessarily true altogether. Maybe I am missing something, but that idea seems to strain credulity.
Hmmm... Dr Gerstner did mention that even Jesus’ enemies admitted keys facts of his life. One example of this is the empty tomb. Other apologists like WLC and Frank Turek have vids with lots more evidence of the reliability of the NT documents (Corroboration, Time written, number of manuscripts, embarrassing & excruciating accounts, etc.)
The argument was made on the honest of the character of Jesus which history does not disprove but infact upholds which gives the Bible its authoritative character
The whole point is faith. You hear the Gospel and you hear about Christ and then you respond, either you believed or not. That’s it. Faith doesn’t require any proof, otherwise it’s not faith. How do we know Pharaoh ever existed? Or Napoleon or George Washington ? We can’t. We only believe in what the historical records tell us and we assume they are true. However the evidence is thousands of people who share their testimony about having contact with Jesus in their lives (in any form) and their lives have changed dramatically. Another issue is, why to debate something what doesn’t exist and why “scholars” spend all their lives to discredit the Bible ? Isn’t that nonsense? Why even pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ causes fever and chain reaction in many minds at all ?
The question isn't "how can we know _________ existed," it's "how can we discern between fact and fiction?" The Bible clearly falls into the fiction category.
@@tomtom2300 The Bible is clearly factual book. Israel exists isn’t it ? The story of Noah is confirmed by other writings. The Ark of Noah is discovered and rebuilt. Countless site discoveries in Israel match to the description from the Old Testament. Thousands claim they experienced Jesus in their lives, including myself. There are millions of churches around the world. Babylon existed, Jericho existed. Hebrew and Greek writings (the Scripture) exists, the scrolls from Cumran caves confirm for example the Book of Isiah and the Book of Enoch. J. Flavius writes pretty much the same from the Bible says. Fiction is Star Wars and Harry Potter.
No, but to get into why would require more depth than they went into in this debate. The "historical record" wasn't as firmly established as reliable in this debate as it should've.
@@tomtom2300 compare it to the historical record to like the alexander the great, who was written about couple hundred ys after his death. This is historical and good evidence in the science of history. What we have in the form of all the epistles, gospels and the non christian witnesses is more than enough and way more than fo any other historical person of that time we take for granted.
Luke 13:1-5 New Living Translation A Call to Repentance 13 About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. 2 “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? 3 Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. 4 And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? 5 No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.”
The debate isn’t circular; information was given to support the Bible as The Word of God…. now one can accept or deny it is the Word of God …. My question to you is show me the evidence it isn’t the Word of God ?
How did the Bible come to be? There was no Bible prior to the 4th Century. There were lots of Christian writing. The Gospel of Thomas the Gospel of Peter for example. The reality is that at this point central to the Church was it's ritual and tradition. Then the Bible came to be. The Church decided some of the works in existence were inspired. Others such as the Gospel of Thomas or Peter were of not great value so they got the boot. Thus thanks to the Catholic Church we have the Bible. That Church filtered out what they saw as the good from the bad. With the Church it was one aspect of the reaching. It was not widely disseminated and played a small role for most Christians. For most Christians the rituals and sacraments of the Church were the most important. Fast forward to Martin Luther the Bible becomes the center of the doctrine and the oral tradition is dumped. We thus have the irony that the authority of the Bible is based on the role of an institution both these guys thinks is wrong and heretical. Thus in seeking to back their view they have to rabbit on about the internal stories in the New Testament suggesting that rather than being stories these are historical facts and thus the various miracles demonstrate truth. All well and good for them but to anyone outside the tradition highly unconvincing. The video is the opposite of short and pithy and is somewhat labored
THE ALMIGHTY GOD IS REAL.. YOUR EITHER A TRUE BELIEVER IN" HIS" TRUTH OR NOT. THE devil CAN'T TEACH ABOUT GOD.. THESE demons HAVE A PLACE IN HELL WAITING FOR THEM FOR THE Lies THEY TAUGHT AND TEACHING ABOUT THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.
I think that I would have to give this one to Rc. One cannot prove the validity of the Bible without ultimately drawing inference from it. The validity of miracles is only proven from the Bible simply because that outside of the Bible they do not happen. Miracles do not happen today and outside of the Bible they never happened so it is the only available source from which B to prove the point that miracles ever indeed happened.
I think I might agree with you, if the Bible were one book written by one man/group of men. But it's not. It's firstly, a collection historical accounts written by people who claimed to have direct knowledge from God. Second, it's a compilation of prophesies written down by men, once again having claimed to receive them from God. Third, it's a collection of multiple, corroborating eyewitness accounts about a Jewish carpenter who performed miracles, fulfilled numerous aforementioned prophesies, was killed, and rose again. The rest of the bible is a collection of testimonies of men transformed by the revelations they received from this Jesus. The Bible is a remarkable canon, it wasn't invented by a group of people with interests. It's radically different to any other religion, and more people have claimed (and demonstrated to be) changed by it than what can be explained by a placebo effect. It's real.
GOD IS REAL AND JESUS IS REAL, BUT HIS NAME WAS/IS NOT JESUS, IT WAS CHANGED SO THEY COULD PRONOUNCE HIS IT... MUCH MUCH OF THE BIBLE WAS TAKEN OUT AND REWRITTEN BY THE THESE SAME PEOPLE'S ANCESTORS THAT'S TALKING NOW🤔😱👎
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.). And yet Paul and the church added a whole New Testament with a different gospel
You have a very limited understanding of what the word/scripture is. Jesus clearly lays it out on what books of the old testament are canon and points towards the new with his minister and the eye/ear witness of the apostles. That is all scripture, Chirst included
Jesus Christ is the Gospel. There is no Gospel without Christ. There is no reason without Christ. There is no hope for a resurrection without Christ because everyone has missed the mark for qualification to goodness according to God given law.
It's a poor author who's manual can't be agreed upon by any two people. The level of petty emotion, cruelty, and remarkable failures displayed by the biblical deity is truly appalling not to mention the remarkable number of errors and inconsistencies in the book.
#1. You can take any translation of the Bible and compare it to the ancient Greek manuscripts and you can know for sure whether it's a reliable translation or not, so even if it were true that there were "24K versions" your point would be completely irrelevant. So to answer your question, any version that accurately translates the original text is the word of God. #2. There are different versions of the quran so you have to answer your own question. I know you believe the quran only exists perfectly in arabic but there are different arabic versions so please explain this to me. Why do muslims have double standards for everything when you know you're supposed to use equal scales. When you use a double standard it lets everyone know you're being deceptive and therefore something is very suspicious about your religion. Do you think this will make islam seem attractive to me?
Know the Bible book is not inspired by God. In the old Covenant there was no Bible book. But the scriptures were inspired by God. But in the New Covenant holy spirit is inspired by God. in the New Covenant God did not give you a Bible book the apostles did not have a Bible book. The Holy Spirit told him what to do. The Bible book came out around the 12th century.
Matt they did not have a Bible 2000 and 4000 years ago. What Constantine made they called it the Bible but it was Scrolls. They do not have no Bible book. until the twelfth Century or around the 12th century. And thanks I should have said Bible book. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I would change it right now
@@jameszapata8290 At the time of Jesus, they had the Tanakh, which is the Old testament. And the texts of the New testament was around very early. And no, that's not what happened during the church councils. The texts were regarded as Scripture long before those meetings.
Some scholars say that the more you study Christianity the more you will become confused. On the contrary the more you study Islam the more you become intelligent and wise.
The vast majority of scholars say the quran is full of fantasy stories and historically laughable nonsense, and many of them doubt mohammad was ever a real person. So do you really want to appeal to "scholars"? More muslim double standards on display for everyone to see.
The only confusion in Christianity is inspired by satan and bred by the hundreds of Protestant sects. If they hadn’t rebelled and just stayed Catholic, there would be more unity. But hindsight is 20/20.
This was one of the most entertaining debates I've seen thus far! This had me smiling with joy through and through. Giggled and chuckled a few times because RC was working up poor Dr. Gerstner nerves, like a little brother poking fun at his big brother. This is such a treasure! You can see their friendship shine through this mock debate!
Yes, a lot of banter going back and forth. Lol! 😃 I miss Dr Sproul
I just love Dr Gerstner
Dr. Sproul and Dr. Gerstner are one of the greatest tag teams of all time.
Man, I still miss Dr. Sproul...
Oh well, I know he wouldn't want us wishing him back here.
Became a Christian 3 years ago and yet I still do.
Boy I'm glad RC was on our team :)
I love hearing these two interact. You can hear that famous Gerstner growl that RC incorporated into his own speaking style.
Lol I was just thinking the same thing. So this is where it came from 😂
Excellent. These men were true friends. To God be the glory.
Mind blown!!! Thank you Jesus😌
I didn't see Jesus taking part in this debate? 🤔
Wonder what year these were recorded. Cool to see where RC got his mannerisms from. True discipleship indeed
RC has (or had) the characteristic "Gerstner Growl" as did many of Dr G's students.
I missed the chalk board men.
I love these series. I cant figure out if its like watching two dr. Gerstners or watching two dr. Sprouls. 😂
During Bible Study we did a mock debate too. I become Orthodox Jews and criticized how Christians interpret the Old Testament... and it was a heated argument and they mad against me 🤣🤣🤣 I mean, mad at my relentless questions and twisting arguments.
That sounds like it became a real debate lol
Who else got all tense while watching this? Had I been RC, I would've been afraid I might give Dr. Gerstner a heart attack ... but that's just me ;) That said, I absolutely LOVED this "debate".
So glad I found these videos! Great biblical teaching!!! This is gold.
Amen
Tbh I am grateful for RC Sproul's, "Let me see if I understand you ..." statements, as Dr. John's statements are a bit too complex for me to grasp what he is in its entirety.
Dr Sproul with the ultimate steelman. An inspired performance.
Every Christian needs to hear this, good ground for understanding apologetics.
I would like to buy these debates on DVD. Is that possible? Secondly, can you imagine if presidential debates were like this and debated on issues that mattered rather then the absurdities they argue about.
Call Ligonier.
My first time hearing Dr. Gerstner speak. I see where RC gets his some of his swag from! Lol! 😊Love this debate!
There is a natural choreography that goes on here that would not happen if a true unbeliever were debating Professor Gerstner. Both of these players understand a ladder of logical thought so there is a lovely choreography that's fun to listen to here. Under the hairy hide of a true atheist lies the deep desire to trip every single participant in the Ballroom. So a natural debate between follower of Christ and an unbeliever is frought with ankle breaking stones every third beat.
What a colorful way of putting it!
because, as a prophet God speaks directly to him.
This shows clearly how weak Gerstner's arguments are. We do not know from independent sources that Jesus was admired, that he was a miracle-worker.
We also know from the legends of medieval saints that they were admired, they were miracle-workers, and their legends were generally written not 40 years after their death as in the case of Jesus, but much earlier.
Did you ever hear of Josephus the Jewish historian?
@@kofi7110 Of course I did. But Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, his work is later than the first gospel, and most scholars think the "Testimonium flavium" is a later insertion by a Christian scribe.
simplesmente magnifico ! Marcos - Brazil
RC would've made a great lawyer!
Lol I tried to have this video going in the background while I studied but I forgot who was who :P
I like rc Mohawk ,if he shaved the sides of his head he would have a Mohawk, look how far his hair sticks out on the front of his head lol,I think rc would laugh if he heard me say this lol
When Gerstner put the burden of proof back in Sprouls court around halfway thru was when I was like, ‘Gerstner GOT’m!’
Gerstner: The bible says so
Sproul: Lots of books say things that aren't true
Gerstner: Yeah, but not the bible! Prove otherwise! hahahaha
LOL, if that's all it takes for you to think Gerstner "got him" no wonder you believe stories about talking snakes, walking on water, and resurrections.
Fact is, there's not a single extra-biblical eyewitness account of Jesus or any of his miracles. No historian today says there is historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles. There is nothing more than claims made in the gospels which were written 20-60 years after jesus supposedly died.
The sad thing about this video is that Sproul is smart enough to absolutely destroy Gerstner in this "debate" if he wanted, but he can't because they're both on the same team so he has to pretend along with everyone else that what Gerstner is saying is a valid and logical argument. So sad.
This is great stuff here you can see allot of RC’s personality and teaching came from his mentor DR. Gerstner love this
I am by no means one of those fire-breathing Presuppositionalists, but I have to say, I think this particular topic in a mock debate would have been far more enlightening had it been Van Til vs. Bahnsen as the Devil's Advocate
Dr. Gordon H. Clark began his apologetics with the axiom of Scripture.
How are they doing this with straight faces.
I know right lol
So true! They both know it's all BS, but they just keep on going with it because people eat it up and fill the offering plate at the end of the show. Truly despicable.
@@tomtom2300 what exactly do you not understand with the words MOCK debate ?
In Spanish...Is Excellent!
The adversary is NOT jumping around. He is holding the subject of miracles as supposed proof by seeing how his opponent talks about them in other historical contexts to see if his opponent is consistent.
The Old Testament writers had a very limited understanding of the nature of God. They made God in their image: angry, jealous, hostile, omnipotent, judgmental and fearful.
Jesus changed everything. To him, God was Our Father. .
not true, you can find all the other benevolent characteristics in the OT as well.
@@john1-29_aka_LHT-LFA Yes, there are some good parts to the Old Testament but there are some really horrific writings there as well. You must cherry pick. But still the writers didn't understand the nature of God. For instance, the 10 commandments does not have the word love in any of them. That is because the Moses didn't understand the importance of unconditional love. Jesus introduced unconditional love with his two great commandments and his sermon on the mount. Love is what is important.
@@PeterProf7777 there is enough love in form of grace and mercy. not from the days of Moses but one love example would be : The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.
@@john1-29_aka_LHT-LFA That is a good one. Thank you for sharing.
@@john1-29_aka_LHT-LFA But Moses wrote some pretty awful stuff. This is what Moses wrote in Leviticus:
When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. “If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. “However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. “When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. “Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. “Thus, you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. “Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.
I love these so much
Oh dear! There are so many logical fallacies in these arguments that it beggars belief. Assertion after assertion, jumping to conclusions with no evidence, presuppositions all the way…. Yes it was entertaining but, by Jove, it was pathetic from an epistemological point of view.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJVS
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Historcity of Muhammed is being questioned...Tom Holland and Jay Smith is a good resource
Do a TH-cam search for “It’s in the book.”
This was disappointing. How do we just assume that the New Testament record is generally reliable when it comes to Jesus and His miracles? Would there not be a bias from its writers? If this man REALLY was walking around doing all of this stuff, there should be RECORDS not only in the Bible, but outside as well! Can someone please help me with this?
The Bible is the only source of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and the only record of his miracles.
The Bible's credibility is supported by its' internal evidence. This enables the reader's confidence and assurance that the information is true.
Some have questioned Jesus' existence, however there's secular testimony that supports Jesus' existence, namely Jewish historian Josephus(Antiquities of the Jews) and Roman historian Tacitus(Annals)
Josephus the Jewish historian
....also the character of a person can make what he says reliable. Also,If you dont accept what the NT says or doubts it reliability how then do you accept the timing of its writing is that also not disputable?
@@ripcord8738 Josephus and Tacitus were both born after Jesus died, so they were not eyewitnesses of anything he supposedly did. Tacitus did write about the early church, early Christians, and Christianity in general - all of which he was an eyewitness to. Here's what he said: he said Christians were evil, haters of humanity, they committed abominations, and that Christianity was a mischievous superstition. So, umm, I'm not sure you really want to use them as a source, because they don't paint a pretty picture for your side.
just think about it, if it is a lie: why would almost all disciples go willingly into brutal death for a LIE? they had every chance to get out by just telling the "truth". They did not. Why would you take so rather obscure names like Mark, Luke or even the "hated" tax collector MAtthew as Gospel writers and not, like the many fake gnostic gospels, who took the names of the known apostels "Peter"or "Andrew" if you want to sell your lie? What did the apostley have to gain from all of that? They were hunted down everywheere, they lost their livelihood, had no financial gains and were slaughtered. And then, what about the hard sayings of Jesus in the NT? Why, if it is a lie, not soften them up so people accept it easier?
Fantastic.
1st Corinthians chapter one , verses one to thirty-one.
I'm impressed at how well R.C. Sproul was able to play devil's advocate, but he missed a couple of glaring problems.
First, Gerstner's contention that Jesus's miracles are *inextricable* from his historical existence is extreme, verging on laughable. Of course it's possible that Jesus was a real person, but who was the subject of considerable legendary development. Gerstner would have you believe that Jesus without miracles is like a married bachelor-completely inconceivable. That's just not true.
Second, for very obvious reasons, Jesus only ever quoted the Hebrew Bible. There was no New Testament for him to quote at any point during his life, so it's impossible to claim that he ever intended to lend his authority to the specific books of the protestant NT canon.
Third, and probably least of all, I think Gerstner failed to make his point that Jesus would have hedged on the books of Moses or Isaiah if he wasn't 100% divinely certain that those were their authors. He referred to those books, as Sproul said, in the way they were understood by his milieu at the time. To expect that he would have gone on and on about the fact that he was only 80% certain or 50% or 30% certain of any given bit of common knowledge at the time is a little ridiculous.
It sounds like Dr. Gerstner is arguing that if an ancient writing is true at all, then it is necessarily true altogether. Maybe I am missing something, but that idea seems to strain credulity.
Hmmm... Dr Gerstner did mention that even Jesus’ enemies admitted keys facts of his life. One example of this is the empty tomb. Other apologists like WLC and Frank Turek have vids with lots more evidence of the reliability of the NT documents (Corroboration, Time written, number of manuscripts, embarrassing & excruciating accounts, etc.)
The argument was made on the honest of the character of Jesus which history does not disprove but infact upholds which gives the Bible its authoritative character
Hahah Dr. R.C. is great at this impression
The whole point is faith. You hear the Gospel and you hear about Christ and then you respond, either you believed or not. That’s it. Faith doesn’t require any proof, otherwise it’s not faith.
How do we know Pharaoh ever existed? Or Napoleon or George Washington ? We can’t. We only believe in what the historical records tell us and we assume they are true.
However the evidence is thousands of people who share their testimony about having contact with Jesus in their lives (in any form) and their lives have changed dramatically.
Another issue is, why to debate something what doesn’t exist and why “scholars” spend all their lives to discredit the Bible ? Isn’t that nonsense?
Why even pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ causes fever and chain reaction in many minds at all ?
The question isn't "how can we know _________ existed," it's "how can we discern between fact and fiction?"
The Bible clearly falls into the fiction category.
@@tomtom2300 The Bible is clearly factual book. Israel exists isn’t it ? The story of Noah is confirmed by other writings. The Ark of Noah is discovered and rebuilt. Countless site discoveries in Israel match to the description from the Old Testament. Thousands claim they experienced Jesus in their lives, including myself. There are millions of churches around the world. Babylon existed, Jericho existed. Hebrew and Greek writings (the Scripture) exists, the scrolls from Cumran caves confirm for example the Book of Isiah and the Book of Enoch. J. Flavius writes pretty much the same from the Bible says.
Fiction is Star Wars and Harry Potter.
No.... next question.
See "Antiquity Unveiled" for the reality of Jesus.
I feel dumb am I the only person who doesn't understand T-T
No one else thinks this is circular reasoning? Using Jesus to prove the inspiration?
No, but to get into why would require more depth than they went into in this debate. The "historical record" wasn't as firmly established as reliable in this debate as it should've.
@@christopherbest1348 what historical record? It literally doesn't exist.
@@tomtom2300 compare it to the historical record to like the alexander the great, who was written about couple hundred ys after his death. This is historical and good evidence in the science of history.
What we have in the form of all the epistles, gospels and the non christian witnesses is more than enough and way more than fo any other historical person of that time we take for granted.
Luke 13:1-5
New Living Translation
A Call to Repentance
13 About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. 2 “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? 3 Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. 4 And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? 5 No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.”
Lovely
Scholars are religious people
A mock debate is a mockery of a true attempt to find truth.
The bible was written by Greek scribes employed by the Romans. It says what the Romans wanted it to say. No devine guidance involved.
An entirely circular and self serving "debate".
The debate isn’t circular; information was given to support the Bible as The Word of God…. now one can accept or deny it is the Word of God …. My question to you is show me the evidence it isn’t the Word of God ?
How did the Bible come to be? There was no Bible prior to the 4th Century. There were lots of Christian writing. The Gospel of Thomas the Gospel of Peter for example. The reality is that at this point central to the Church was it's ritual and tradition. Then the Bible came to be. The Church decided some of the works in existence were inspired. Others such as the Gospel of Thomas or Peter were of not great value so they got the boot. Thus thanks to the Catholic Church we have the Bible. That Church filtered out what they saw as the good from the bad. With the Church it was one aspect of the reaching. It was not widely disseminated and played a small role for most Christians. For most Christians the rituals and sacraments of the Church were the most important. Fast forward to Martin Luther the Bible becomes the center of the doctrine and the oral tradition is dumped. We thus have the irony that the authority of the Bible is based on the role of an institution both these guys thinks is wrong and heretical. Thus in seeking to back their view they have to rabbit on about the internal stories in the New Testament suggesting that rather than being stories these are historical facts and thus the various miracles demonstrate truth. All well and good for them but to anyone outside the tradition highly unconvincing. The video is the opposite of short and pithy and is somewhat labored
THE ALMIGHTY GOD IS REAL.. YOUR EITHER A TRUE BELIEVER IN" HIS" TRUTH OR NOT.
THE devil CAN'T TEACH ABOUT GOD.. THESE demons HAVE A PLACE IN HELL WAITING FOR THEM FOR THE Lies THEY TAUGHT AND TEACHING ABOUT THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.
I think that I would have to give this one to Rc. One cannot prove the validity of the Bible without ultimately drawing inference from it. The validity of miracles is only proven from the Bible simply because that outside of the Bible they do not happen. Miracles do not happen today and outside of the Bible they never happened so it is the only available source from which B to prove the point that miracles ever indeed happened.
I think I might agree with you, if the Bible were one book written by one man/group of men. But it's not. It's firstly, a collection historical accounts written by people who claimed to have direct knowledge from God. Second, it's a compilation of prophesies written down by men, once again having claimed to receive them from God. Third, it's a collection of multiple, corroborating eyewitness accounts about a Jewish carpenter who performed miracles, fulfilled numerous aforementioned prophesies, was killed, and rose again. The rest of the bible is a collection of testimonies of men transformed by the revelations they received from this Jesus.
The Bible is a remarkable canon, it wasn't invented by a group of people with interests. It's radically different to any other religion, and more people have claimed (and demonstrated to be) changed by it than what can be explained by a placebo effect. It's real.
Hollywood fare is the modern Bible.
Gerstner's axiom is Scripture, not Jesus. He admitted he could not prove his axiom. The excursion into historicity is a huge red herring.
Please in Spanish!
hehehe
The Bible is not inspired by God but scriptures is inspired by God.
GOD IS REAL AND JESUS IS REAL, BUT HIS NAME WAS/IS NOT JESUS, IT WAS CHANGED SO THEY COULD PRONOUNCE HIS IT... MUCH MUCH OF THE BIBLE WAS TAKEN OUT AND REWRITTEN BY THE THESE SAME PEOPLE'S ANCESTORS THAT'S TALKING NOW🤔😱👎
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.). And yet Paul and the church added a whole New Testament with a different gospel
You have a very limited understanding of what the word/scripture is. Jesus clearly lays it out on what books of the old testament are canon and points towards the new with his minister and the eye/ear witness of the apostles.
That is all scripture, Chirst included
Jesus Christ is the Gospel. There is no Gospel without Christ. There is no reason without Christ. There is no hope for a resurrection without Christ because everyone has missed the mark for qualification to goodness according to God given law.
It's a poor author who's manual can't be agreed upon by any two people. The level of petty emotion, cruelty, and remarkable failures displayed by the biblical deity is truly appalling not to mention the remarkable number of errors and inconsistencies in the book.
You can't silence the Devil when he is the author of the Bible.
There are 24K versions of the bible. Which one is the word of God Almighty in your opinion?
#1. You can take any translation of the Bible and compare it to the ancient Greek manuscripts and you can know for sure whether it's a reliable translation or not, so even if it were true that there were "24K versions" your point would be completely irrelevant. So to answer your question, any version that accurately translates the original text is the word of God. #2. There are different versions of the quran so you have to answer your own question. I know you believe the quran only exists perfectly in arabic but there are different arabic versions so please explain this to me. Why do muslims have double standards for everything when you know you're supposed to use equal scales. When you use a double standard it lets everyone know you're being deceptive and therefore something is very suspicious about your religion. Do you think this will make islam seem attractive to me?
Thanks for the laugh 😃. To answer the question the NA 28th.
Jesus didn’t say the Bible is the word of God. He said the Old Testament is the word of God.
and since the new testament is all about jesus, then it is also the Word of God, then Jesus is God.
Know the Bible book is not inspired by God. In the old Covenant there was no Bible book. But the scriptures were inspired by God. But in the New Covenant holy spirit is inspired by God. in the New Covenant God did not give you a Bible book the apostles did not have a Bible book. The Holy Spirit told him what to do. The Bible book came out around the 12th century.
If you find out one of the miracles of the number "19" in the Qua'an, you will completely forget the miracles in the bible.
Mohammed was visited by a demon not Gabriel the angel. That alone destroys the Quran.
No the bible book is not inspired by god. They did not have a bible book in those days.
That actually made me laugh out loud. Thanks, you should be a comedian.
They did lol.
Matt they did not have a Bible 2000 and 4000 years ago. What Constantine made they called it the Bible but it was Scrolls. They do not have no Bible book. until the twelfth Century or around the 12th century. And thanks I should have said Bible book. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I would change it right now
@@jameszapata8290 At the time of Jesus, they had the Tanakh, which is the Old testament. And the texts of the New testament was around very early. And no, that's not what happened during the church councils. The texts were regarded as Scripture long before those meetings.
@@melodysundberg7171 eactly
Some scholars say that the more you study Christianity the more you will become confused. On the contrary the more you study Islam the more you become intelligent and wise.
The vast majority of scholars say the quran is full of fantasy stories and historically laughable nonsense, and many of them doubt mohammad was ever a real person. So do you really want to appeal to "scholars"? More muslim double standards on display for everyone to see.
More the opposite. The Quran is a collection of confusing and contradictory statements.
The only confusion in Christianity is inspired by satan and bred by the hundreds of Protestant sects. If they hadn’t rebelled and just stayed Catholic, there would be more unity. But hindsight is 20/20.
Historcity of Muhammed is being questioned...Tom Holland and Jay Smith is a good resource