For Craig, this debate took place on Jan 19th, or the 20th, or the 18th. To insist that one or more of those dates is inaccurate is merely a wooden interpretation of the event. 😅
Yes, because the evidence we have from the debate is the same as that we have from the historical Jesus, yes, surely! If ignorance shone, you would be the same sun.
First 20 min is a mixture of an argument from authority, an ad populem, with a dash of what I think of as the "veracity of Spiderman" argument (we know Spiderman to be a real superhero because of how accurately his chronologicalers represented New York City and the lifestyles of those who lived there at the time. The first 20 minutes were completely squandered. 😢
Regarding the example of Jairus's daughter. only when speaking of the Bible would the story as written in Matthew and the story as written in Mark be considered inconsistent. It is more than a little nitpicking. Mark by the way does not have Jairus say that his daughter is "ill". The phrase used is that his daughter was "at the point of death". And Mark has the servants meeting Jairus and Jesus while they are still traveling to Jairus' home. Matthew does not have that event. He leaves out a few other details as well. Basically, Matthew compacts the story. In both, the daughter is dead before Jesus reaches the home and Jesus goes to her anyway. In both their travel is interrupted, and in both Jesus brings the girl back to life. I don't see the contradiction. It is quite reasonable to think that the father was imagining the worst, and when he met Jesus he may have said "my daughter is dying and she may have already died (while I was travelling to you)". I find it odd that skeptics are more literal in their interpretations of the Bible than I, a conservative Christian, am.
@@endofscene Mark was likely one of his sources. [I say it cautiously because for a long time Matthew was considered to be first and Mark was thought to be an abridgment of Matthew. Scholarly consensus changes.] But Matthew clearly had other sources. Those that think the author of Matthew may have been an eyewitness, would say that Matthew copied some things from Mark as a matter of convenience or as a starting point. There is also an argument that both Matthew and Luke recognize some kind of "authority" (for lack of a better word) behind Mark. The tradition is that Peter was that authority behind Mark. So, they do not contradict, but only expand upon.
The question at hand is whether Jairus' daughter was dead when he approached Jesus. Yes and no, depending on which Gospel you read. Bart Ehrman's decision to highlight such an insignificant contradiction in the Bible is strategic. He understands that for those who are psychologically incapable of acknowledging the myriad contradictions within the Bible, presenting a clear yet minor one might just be the key to open their eyes. However, most of the time it does not work, and the person resorts to forgetting or to any rationalization.
@@vejekeIf you are going to make a semantic argument, which is what you are doing, then be more precise in your semantics. We can be fairly confident (from both accounts) that Jairus' daughter was indeed dead when Jairus approached Jesus. The question is "Did Jairus know that his daughter was dead when he first approached Jesus?" The answer I gave above is that he did not know with certainty, but suspected/worried that she was. In Matthew he expresses it with certainty and in Mark he expresses it with initial uncertainty (that becomes confirmed shortly after their initial meeting). Ehrman contradicted Mark (using your reasoning) when he reports that Mark says Jairus' daughter was ill. This not only is not what Mark says, it is a guess at what caused the daughters death. [Her death could have been caused by an injury rather than an illness.] Now I do not know how far Jairus travelled to get to Jesus, but to say "my daughter is at the point of death" would have a very different meaning if he only travelled 5 minutes than if he had to travel for 5 hours. But neither gospel gives that distance traveled. But given that they did not have motor vehicles back then I suspect it would be more likely 5 hours than it would be 5 minutes. The gospels do not, nor any of the New Testament, pretend to be an exhaustive verbatim account of every event or every dialogue that its books describe. No one, not even conservative Christians, believe that is what the New Testament writer's claim. Only skeptics present the New Testament in such a stilted way in making their straw man arguments.
@@skiamach6208 I'm not making the point you think I am. I'm actually saying that Ehrman points out a clear but minor contradiction because he understands that those who struggle to accept any contradictions in the Bible are less likely to engage in the kind of rationalization you're doing now, especially over something that's ultimately trivial. "dying", "at death’s door", "at the point of death", "at the last extremity", etc. Those, and the Greek text on which they are based, are expressions said about someone who is still alive, not about someone who has already died. So clearly depending on which gospel you read the daughter of Jairus was either alive or dead when he came to Jesus. People who are willing to accept that fact may come to realize the many, many other contradictions in the Bible. People who are not willing to accept that fact will most likely not see any other contradictions whatsoever, nor will they come to be able to do so. That's the reason why Bart is so nitpicky in this case.
@ellie698 Sounded just fine to me (considering what I paid to listen to it), and it seems to me you have more of an ear for this kind of thing! Sounds engineering might be great for you! Good luck in whatever you do!
I mean, this is nothing new. I bet the objections Bart has, and the defenses Craig has are the same as they were 2000 years ago. Interesting nonetheless.
If Jesus rose from the dead, the Gospels are totally unnecessary. The Gospel's only function is for apologetics. Paul's letters and teachings would be enough.
@@michael119castro4 I think you would still need the Gospels since an understanding of Paul's teachings rely on knowledge of the Gospels - or at least of the content contained in the Gospels (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).
@@Altobrun The Gospels are just an apologetic work of literature. If Jesus in fact resurrected, and it could be demonstrable proven that Jesus did resurrect. Paul's initial preaching will be enough. The Gospels are full of errors, misquotations, contradictions and shambles to be taken seriously. They are unnecessary. If Jesus indeed resurrected, he would still not be the messiah according to the specification of the Hebrew bible. But, could still be a divine being in a hellenistic way. After all, Paul didn't quote from any Gospel material when preaching.
@@michael119castro4 With that theory why not just read the Book of Mormon? Also, Imagine if you were a detective. Your investigation shouldn't start with what you think you already believe. Your line of reasoning would rather have the police officer plant the gun on the suspect then to take the time to look for the inconvenient truth.
@@darreneddy9787 Lots of problems with your reasoning. The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the "newly resurrected" Jesus. But, is just a new revelation by Jesus (just like Paul's new revelation from God.) So Joseph Smith and Paul are basically the same stories. Now. The gospels together are a fire dumpster. Mark is probably our early solidification of the Jesus legend. Matthew and Luke are re-editing Mark to fit rhetorical goals (Matthew as propaganda for the Jewish people & Luke as selling the "Messiah" to non-Jews.) and John is our latest (and fitting the rhetorical goal) solidification of the Jesus legend. If Jesus indeed resurrected. Paul's revelation and message are enough and the gospels would be unnecessary because they just add contradiction to Paul's message and contradict themselves.
Why would you debate anyone who doesn't believe in God.? (atheist) You use a testimony based of off your faith. They can't accept a testimony since they don't believe in a God.
What does being an atheist have to do with not accepting or accepting a testimony? Just because people give a testimoney, doesn't mean it's true. And as much as believers say, until they're blue in the face, that atheism is a faith, it's not.
@Randy W. Why wouldn't you be open to debate anyone if you felt strongly that your view was right ! The only reason Ehrman's atheism is even relevant is because of the fact that he was a adamant Evangelical Christian. Through the evolution of his scholarship he was led out of his commitment to Christianity. That, in itself, should tell you something !
@@childfreesingleandatheist8899 A testimony about truth from God. Your unbelief doesn't make the witness we "Know" from God a lie. "the spirit witnesses with our spirit" Now this is eternal life: that they "know yo", the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. From Genesis through revelation - you have that witness of the living God from many different people through 1000's of years. It can't be mistaken so you must believe it's all made up as in a lie. OK no need to debate you. You can not accept scripture. You can not accept our witness. The good news of the gospel is sent out for your "Good" not harm.
@@JudyJean-j2 Why as He doesn't even believe in God then how could he ever accept the testimony of God? Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. If your not willing neither am I. The world cannot receive him, because it neither sees nor knows him. You know him, because he is staying with you and will be united with you. The Spirit will show you what is true. The people of this world cannot accept the Spirit, because they don’t see or know him. But you know the Spirit, who is with you and will keep on living in you.
@Mark Twain Don't believe in "God" not your religion. What proof can you offer of a God that I suppose you believe started your faith? Jesus was very clear the message He gave was not His own. It was from the one who sent Him. So if one doesn't believe in the one who sent Him how can they believe that He gave Gods message? Those who seek truth can be aided. Those who seek conflict will not listen. They have the bible to speak to them. If they don't listen to the bible their unlikely to believe even if someone raises from the dead.
The Bible says that you will know the truth,and the truth shall set you free ,in Christ alone can we be saved! God doesn't get representative by men justly,but in power ,of the holy ghost, but in true children of God!the Bible says that there are some,who have a form of godliness,but deny the power there of,to turn away from them KJV ,Im learning what apologetic ,means ,still hasn't sunk in yet!
With all due respect, Evan is not able to respond to Bart's intelligent questions. New Testimony is really difficult to defend. Gospels are full of discrepancy and extremely contradictory.
Oops, how about the mystery of the eighteen missing years of this Jesus before starting his ministry at about thirty years ! Where did he go and who was he with to learn these magic trick miracles accorded to him by his somewhat naive uneducated disciples and followers ! Also , on the credibility of his Prophetic claim that he would come with power in his fathers celestial kingdom in the generation living THEN ? Bible believers and Christians who pin their lives and expectations on bronze age myths , fables and shamanistic fairy tales ought to get REAL on these stories !
Bla bla bla ,what do you know?it is true! That's why you try so hard to disprove him,! God's word is true I know it and you know it to you just don't accept it,that don't make it not true,! God is God and I know Jesus is his name! Praise God! KJV,
It's beyond stupid to keep typing "KJV" into every message you've posted. It's also the least accurate version of the scripture. Y'know. Because of its revisions and edits ordered by King James? This is the problem with theists. You don't THINK.
The KJV is what guides me in all truth led by the holy spirit in us,the holy spirit reveals God's truth thru his word of truth KJV I read other Bible translation's but they seem to water the truth down so much,it won't grow anything at all .so I stayed with KJV and I learned to trust it as God's word.
@@janeroberson4750 The KJV is the word of King James, honey. It's the bible he commissioned and it says what he wants it to say. Do you think Jesus if he existed at all spoke Olde English? No. He spoke Aramaic.
I don't know about all the different Bible translations ,I got the KJV and prayed to God for help,and he showed me in the KJV the truth of his word ,and that's how I know Jesus is the son of God and the only way to back to God! The holy spirit is in us thru Christ Jesus,and guides us in all truth thru his word KJV
If you want the truth, turn to Christ Jesus,in faith, and trust in his word KJV, and you will find the truth, in Christ alone, can we be saved,,born again in the spirit of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, this is God's gift to men,we just need to accept it,in faith, Jesus said he that comes to me, I will in no Wise cast out!
@jane roberson - the issue is that otherwise nice, good, presumably intelligent people are so pre-convinced that by virtue of a perceived personal defect, a lack or aberration of some kind, they are compelled to assuage some sense of worthy goodness by immersing one's psyche into the persona of a good Christianity following without completely knowing what it is they say they believe in and then suggest that others do what they did ! Did you look carefully enough to realize that the body of work you believe in is full of holes and doesn't make sense ?!!? Instead of making yourself a walking billboard, a controlled robot of Bible-speak just because you've fallen in love with THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE GOD'S WORD !?!
Interesting that you are referencing King James. A man who demanded a revision and editing of the scripture to make his own version he liked better. I'm pretty sure it says not to do that in the book.
@@GuitarGuy057 that's the first Bible I got when I looked for God,! It was a pain to study it ,it was hard to understand ,but it got easier as time went by,I tried other Bible's version's but they didn't help me much,so I stayed with KJV and it became my friend that I trust .
@@GuitarGuy057 what we receive from the word,comes only by the grace of God,he opened my eyes to see,my ears to hear,and a heart that understands,if he hadn't done this I wouldn't have received anything from God!
@@janeroberson4750 Who are you, a woman, to speak to me about god? 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 King James Version 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. According to "the word of God" you have no business trying to teach me about religion. Sit down and be obedient and obey your god.
“Many of you will already know Prof Bart Erman. But let me now give him a proper introduction………” such Pompous pseudo academic formality is so tedious, especially when read with such stultifying meticulosity!! 🥱 Yes we know Bart! And we we’re hoping not to have you read out his exhaustive bio because we know we’ll be here all day. 😮
Debate starts 4:50
Prof. Ehrman is a rare gift.
For Craig, this debate took place on Jan 19th, or the 20th, or the 18th. To insist that one or more of those dates is inaccurate is merely a wooden interpretation of the event. 😅
😂
Yes, because the evidence we have from the debate is the same as that we have from the historical Jesus, yes, surely!
If ignorance shone, you would be the same sun.
@@EfrainGamer-yu2mt Thanks for your support! 🥰
Barr is outstanding. We are learning so much from him.
The mental gymnastics of this apologist are so exhausting! OMG! How are you not exhausted with being that intellectually dishonest?
He's not apologizing. He's an excusigist! 😅
There are too many inconsistencies of copies of copies of copies I could go on and on but WHY?
First 20 min is a mixture of an argument from authority, an ad populem, with a dash of what I think of as the "veracity of Spiderman" argument (we know Spiderman to be a real superhero because of how accurately his chronologicalers represented New York City and the lifestyles of those who lived there at the time. The first 20 minutes were completely squandered. 😢
Took the words from my mouth
Regarding the example of Jairus's daughter. only when speaking of the Bible would the story as written in Matthew and the story as written in Mark be considered inconsistent. It is more than a little nitpicking. Mark by the way does not have Jairus say that his daughter is "ill". The phrase used is that his daughter was "at the point of death". And Mark has the servants meeting Jairus and Jesus while they are still traveling to Jairus' home. Matthew does not have that event. He leaves out a few other details as well. Basically, Matthew compacts the story. In both, the daughter is dead before Jesus reaches the home and Jesus goes to her anyway. In both their travel is interrupted, and in both Jesus brings the girl back to life. I don't see the contradiction. It is quite reasonable to think that the father was imagining the worst, and when he met Jesus he may have said "my daughter is dying and she may have already died (while I was travelling to you)". I find it odd that skeptics are more literal in their interpretations of the Bible than I, a conservative Christian, am.
Do you think ‘Matthew’ was using ‘Mark’ as a source, or that he wrote his gospel independently?
@@endofscene Mark was likely one of his sources. [I say it cautiously because for a long time Matthew was considered to be first and Mark was thought to be an abridgment of Matthew. Scholarly consensus changes.] But Matthew clearly had other sources. Those that think the author of Matthew may have been an eyewitness, would say that Matthew copied some things from Mark as a matter of convenience or as a starting point. There is also an argument that both Matthew and Luke recognize some kind of "authority" (for lack of a better word) behind Mark. The tradition is that Peter was that authority behind Mark. So, they do not contradict, but only expand upon.
The question at hand is whether Jairus' daughter was dead when he approached Jesus. Yes and no, depending on which Gospel you read.
Bart Ehrman's decision to highlight such an insignificant contradiction in the Bible is strategic. He understands that for those who are psychologically incapable of acknowledging the myriad contradictions within the Bible, presenting a clear yet minor one might just be the key to open their eyes.
However, most of the time it does not work, and the person resorts to forgetting or to any rationalization.
@@vejekeIf you are going to make a semantic argument, which is what you are doing, then be more precise in your semantics. We can be fairly confident (from both accounts) that Jairus' daughter was indeed dead when Jairus approached Jesus. The question is "Did Jairus know that his daughter was dead when he first approached Jesus?" The answer I gave above is that he did not know with certainty, but suspected/worried that she was. In Matthew he expresses it with certainty and in Mark he expresses it with initial uncertainty (that becomes confirmed shortly after their initial meeting). Ehrman contradicted Mark (using your reasoning) when he reports that Mark says Jairus' daughter was ill. This not only is not what Mark says, it is a guess at what caused the daughters death. [Her death could have been caused by an injury rather than an illness.] Now I do not know how far Jairus travelled to get to Jesus, but to say "my daughter is at the point of death" would have a very different meaning if he only travelled 5 minutes than if he had to travel for 5 hours. But neither gospel gives that distance traveled. But given that they did not have motor vehicles back then I suspect it would be more likely 5 hours than it would be 5 minutes. The gospels do not, nor any of the New Testament, pretend to be an exhaustive verbatim account of every event or every dialogue that its books describe. No one, not even conservative Christians, believe that is what the New Testament writer's claim. Only skeptics present the New Testament in such a stilted way in making their straw man arguments.
@@skiamach6208 I'm not making the point you think I am. I'm actually saying that Ehrman points out a clear but minor contradiction because he understands that those who struggle to accept any contradictions in the Bible are less likely to engage in the kind of rationalization you're doing now, especially over something that's ultimately trivial.
"dying", "at death’s door", "at the point of death", "at the last extremity", etc.
Those, and the Greek text on which they are based, are expressions said about someone who is still alive, not about someone who has already died. So clearly depending on which gospel you read the daughter of Jairus was either alive or dead when he came to Jesus.
People who are willing to accept that fact may come to realize the many, many other contradictions in the Bible. People who are not willing to accept that fact will most likely not see any other contradictions whatsoever, nor will they come to be able to do so.
That's the reason why Bart is so nitpicky in this case.
What's up with the sound quality?
Uh! If only you could do the sound for all you tube videos! Oh well.
@@tulpas93
I'm not a sound engineer.
But they needed one
@ellie698 Sounded just fine to me (considering what I paid to listen to it), and it seems to me you have more of an ear for this kind of thing! Sounds engineering might be great for you!
Good luck in whatever you do!
I mean, this is nothing new. I bet the objections Bart has, and the defenses Craig has are the same as they were 2000 years ago. Interesting nonetheless.
What can we know about Jesus, the son of God ?
For example, where did he sleep and shop ?
How often did he clean his teeth ?
Jesus, this guy rambles on !
" I think, I think" made Jesus from a Jewish messiah into a God. I think, sorry.
If Jesus rose from the dead the 4 gospels are sufficient. If he didn’t rise from the dead then devoting much time to his is a colossal waste of time
If Jesus rose from the dead, the Gospels are totally unnecessary. The Gospel's only function is for apologetics. Paul's letters and teachings would be enough.
@@michael119castro4 I think you would still need the Gospels since an understanding of Paul's teachings rely on knowledge of the Gospels - or at least of the content contained in the Gospels (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).
@@Altobrun The Gospels are just an apologetic work of literature. If Jesus in fact resurrected, and it could be demonstrable proven that Jesus did resurrect. Paul's initial preaching will be enough. The Gospels are full of errors, misquotations, contradictions and shambles to be taken seriously. They are unnecessary. If Jesus indeed resurrected, he would still not be the messiah according to the specification of the Hebrew bible. But, could still be a divine being in a hellenistic way. After all, Paul didn't quote from any Gospel material when preaching.
@@michael119castro4 With that theory why not just read the Book of Mormon?
Also, Imagine if you were a detective. Your investigation shouldn't start with what you think you already believe.
Your line of reasoning would rather have the police officer plant the gun on the suspect then to take the time to look for the inconvenient truth.
@@darreneddy9787 Lots of problems with your reasoning. The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the "newly resurrected" Jesus. But, is just a new revelation by Jesus (just like Paul's new revelation from God.) So Joseph Smith and Paul are basically the same stories. Now. The gospels together are a fire dumpster. Mark is probably our early solidification of the Jesus legend. Matthew and Luke are re-editing Mark to fit rhetorical goals (Matthew as propaganda for the Jewish people & Luke as selling the "Messiah" to non-Jews.) and John is our latest (and fitting the rhetorical goal) solidification of the Jesus legend. If Jesus indeed resurrected. Paul's revelation and message are enough and the gospels would be unnecessary because they just add contradiction to Paul's message and contradict themselves.
👏🙂
Why would you debate anyone who doesn't believe in God.? (atheist) You use a testimony based of off your faith. They can't accept a testimony since they don't believe in a God.
What does being an atheist have to do with not accepting or accepting a testimony? Just because people give a testimoney, doesn't mean it's true. And as much as believers say, until they're blue in the face, that atheism is a faith, it's not.
@Randy W. Why wouldn't you be open to debate anyone if you felt strongly that your view was right ! The only reason Ehrman's atheism is even relevant is because of the fact that he was a adamant Evangelical Christian. Through the evolution of his scholarship he was led out of his commitment to Christianity. That, in itself, should tell you something !
@@childfreesingleandatheist8899 A testimony about truth from God.
Your unbelief doesn't make the witness we "Know" from God a lie.
"the spirit witnesses with our spirit"
Now this is eternal life: that they "know yo", the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
From Genesis through revelation - you have that witness of the living God from many different people through 1000's of years.
It can't be mistaken so you must believe it's all made up as in a lie. OK no need to debate you. You can not accept scripture. You can not accept our witness.
The good news of the gospel is sent out for your "Good" not harm.
@@JudyJean-j2 Why as He doesn't even believe in God then how could he ever accept the testimony of God?
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
If your not willing neither am I.
The world cannot receive him, because it neither sees nor knows him. You know him, because he is staying with you and will be united with you. The Spirit will show you what is true. The people of this world cannot accept the Spirit, because they don’t see or know him. But you know the Spirit, who is with you and will keep on living in you.
@Mark Twain Don't believe in "God" not your religion. What proof can you offer of a God that I suppose you believe started your faith? Jesus was very clear the message He gave was not His own. It was from the one who sent Him. So if one doesn't believe in the one who sent Him how can they believe that He gave Gods message? Those who seek truth can be aided. Those who seek conflict will not listen. They have the bible to speak to them. If they don't listen to the bible their unlikely to believe even if someone raises from the dead.
The devil is deceitful
The Bible says that greater is he that is in you,than he that is in the world,Jesus,our Lord and savior!
Just like with God- there is no evidence for a devil ethier. He doesn't exist outside of folklore
But Ehrman was able to hold a pretty decent debate with him anyway!
Devil 😂😂😂
🤪
This apologetics is really pathetic. It's an assault to human intellect.
The Bible says that you will know the truth,and the truth shall set you free ,in Christ alone can we be saved! God doesn't get representative by men justly,but in power ,of the holy ghost, but in true children of God!the Bible says that there are some,who have a form of godliness,but deny the power there of,to turn away from them KJV ,Im learning what apologetic ,means ,still hasn't sunk in yet!
With all due respect, Evan is not able to respond to Bart's intelligent questions. New Testimony is really difficult to defend. Gospels are full of discrepancy and extremely contradictory.
Mike Winger does an incredible response to one of Bart Ehrman's points in this debate here: th-cam.com/video/g2ne3ndnVQk/w-d-xo.html
Oops, how about the mystery of the eighteen missing years of this Jesus before starting his ministry at about thirty years ! Where did he go and who was he with to learn these magic trick miracles accorded to him by his somewhat naive uneducated disciples and followers ! Also , on the credibility of his Prophetic claim that he would come with power in his fathers celestial kingdom in the generation living THEN ?
Bible believers and Christians who pin their lives and expectations on bronze age myths , fables and shamanistic fairy tales ought to get REAL on these stories !
Bla bla bla ,what do you know?it is true! That's why you try so hard to disprove him,! God's word is true I know it and you know it to you just don't accept it,that don't make it not true,! God is God and I know Jesus is his name! Praise God! KJV,
Wow, you edited your grammar very nicely. Just another brain dead uneducated christian is what you are jane.
It's beyond stupid to keep typing "KJV" into every message you've posted.
It's also the least accurate version of the scripture. Y'know. Because of its revisions and edits ordered by King James? This is the problem with theists. You don't THINK.
The KJV is what guides me in all truth led by the holy spirit in us,the holy spirit reveals God's truth thru his word of truth KJV I read other Bible translation's but they seem to water the truth down so much,it won't grow anything at all .so I stayed with KJV and I learned to trust it as God's word.
@@janeroberson4750 The KJV is the word of King James, honey. It's the bible he commissioned and it says what he wants it to say. Do you think Jesus if he existed at all spoke Olde English? No. He spoke Aramaic.
I don't know about all the different Bible translations ,I got the KJV and prayed to God for help,and he showed me in the KJV the truth of his word ,and that's how I know Jesus is the son of God and the only way to back to God! The holy spirit is in us thru Christ Jesus,and guides us in all truth thru his word KJV
slave father bart
If you want the truth, turn to Christ Jesus,in faith, and trust in his word KJV, and you will find the truth, in Christ alone, can we be saved,,born again in the spirit of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, this is God's gift to men,we just need to accept it,in faith, Jesus said he that comes to me, I will in no Wise cast out!
How do you know you have the truth ?
Being as a dumb as a stump sure helps to believe
Embarrassing drivel
@jane roberson - you are obviously a good person, but it appears you bought into the religious-person- programming.
@jane roberson - the issue is that otherwise nice, good, presumably intelligent people are so pre-convinced that by virtue of a perceived personal defect, a lack or aberration of some kind, they are compelled to assuage some sense of worthy goodness by immersing one's psyche into the persona of a good Christianity following without completely knowing what it is they say they believe in and then suggest that others do what they did ! Did you look carefully enough to realize that the body of work you believe in is full of holes and doesn't make sense ?!!? Instead of making yourself a walking billboard, a controlled robot of Bible-speak just because you've fallen in love with THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE GOD'S WORD !?!
God is spirit,the flesh cannot receive the things of God,for the flesh is enmity with God,KJV and cannot receive it,!
Interesting that you are referencing King James. A man who demanded a revision and editing of the scripture to make his own version he liked better. I'm pretty sure it says not to do that in the book.
@@GuitarGuy057 that's the first Bible I got when I looked for God,! It was a pain to study it ,it was hard to understand ,but it got easier as time went by,I tried other Bible's version's but they didn't help me much,so I stayed with KJV and it became my friend that I trust .
@@janeroberson4750 That doesn't mean anything. That's called "indoctrination". Familiarity does not mean "truth".
@@GuitarGuy057 what we receive from the word,comes only by the grace of God,he opened my eyes to see,my ears to hear,and a heart that understands,if he hadn't done this I wouldn't have received anything from God!
@@janeroberson4750
Who are you, a woman, to speak to me about god?
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
King James Version
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
According to "the word of God" you have no business trying to teach me about religion. Sit down and be obedient and obey your god.
“Many of you will already know Prof Bart Erman. But let me now give him a proper introduction………” such
Pompous pseudo academic formality is so tedious, especially when read with such stultifying meticulosity!! 🥱
Yes we know Bart! And we we’re hoping not to have you read out his exhaustive bio because we know we’ll be here all day. 😮