As a reformed Christian Jimmy Akin is probably in my top 5 favorite living Catholics (I know a lot of Catholics would find it hard to believe a Calvinist would even like 5 Catholics). He’s so intelligent and articulate.
I couldn't help but notice the similarities in their voices. I listened without video for much of the debate.. the only way I knew who was talking was to process what was being said.
🎯 Key Takeaways (grouped by topics) for quick navigation: 02:38 *📜 Historical reliability of the canonical Gospels* - Understanding the historical reliability of the Gospels. - Examining the key terms "historically reliable" and what they entail. - Addressing the broad outlines of Jesus's life while acknowledging inconsistencies and contradictions within the Gospels. 06:28 *🌟 Discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus's birth* - Analyzing the differences between the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. - Exploring discrepancies regarding Bethlehem and Nazareth in the two accounts. - Highlighting the absence of accounts of Jesus's birth in other New Testament writings and questioning their significance. 15:31 *⚖️ Variances in the narratives of Jesus's resurrection* - Contrasting the resurrection accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. - Pointing out discrepancies in the accounts of how the disciples learned about Jesus's resurrection. - Highlighting the divergent narratives regarding the disciples' post-resurrection actions and locations. 19:07 *🗣️ Jesus's self-revelation in the Synoptic Gospels* - Examining Jesus's teachings about himself in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. - Emphasizing the predominant theme of Jesus preaching about God's kingdom and the need for repentance. - Contrasting the message of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels with the portrayal in the Gospel of John. 20:16 *📖 Jesus' Identity in the Synoptic Gospels* - Jesus focuses on preparing people for the imminent arrival of God's kingdom in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). - He emphasizes repentance, belief in the good news, and love for God and one another as ways to get ready for God's kingdom. - Jesus does not explicitly discuss his divine identity or coming from heaven in the Synoptic Gospels, unlike in the Gospel of John. 21:42 *📜 Jesus' Identity in the Gospel of John* - In the Gospel of John, Jesus prominently discusses his identity through the "I am" sayings, such as "I am the bread of life" and "I am the resurrection and the life." - Jesus presents himself as the one who reveals the truth from God and claims to be "I am," evoking the name of God from the Old Testament. 23:22 *📚 Sources and Jesus' Self-Understanding* - The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the Gospel of John offer different perspectives on Jesus' self-understanding. - Earlier sources used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, such as Q and the "M" and "L" sources, do not depict Jesus explicitly claiming divinity. 26:12 *📊 Evaluating Gospel Reliability: Major Claims* - Historical reliability of the Gospels can be assessed by examining major, intermediate, and lesser claims. - Major claims about Jesus, such as his existence, Jewish background, teaching ministry, discipleship, crucifixion, and involvement of Pontius Pilate, are supported by both historical evidence and Bart Ehrman's agreement. 34:44 *📜 Evaluating Gospel Reliability: Intermediate and Lesser Claims* - Intermediate and lesser claims about Jesus, including his specific teachings, associations, actions, and predictions, align with historical evidence and Bart Ehrman's assessment. - Bart Ehrman's agreement with these claims further supports the historical reliability of the Gospels, indicating consistency and accuracy in depicting Jesus' life and ministry. 36:23 *📋 Conclusion: Bart Ehrman's Assessment* - Bart Ehrman affirms the historical accuracy of major, intermediate, and lesser claims presented in the Gospels, demonstrating reliability in depicting Jesus' life and teachings. - His agreement with key aspects of Jesus' biography supports the argument for the Gospels' historical reliability, emphasizing the credibility of their portrayal of Jesus' identity and ministry. 41:37 *📜 Bart Ehrman questions the historical reliability of the Gospels* - Bart Ehrman challenges the historical reliability of the Gospels based on discrepancies in key events such as the virgin birth and resurrection. - Ehrman argues that disagreements on major claims like these undermine the overall reliability of the Gospels. 44:05 *🧐 Analyzing differences in Gospel accounts* - Bart Ehrman illustrates significant differences in the portrayal of Jesus's death between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke. - He emphasizes how these differences in narrative details reflect distinct theological perspectives and messages. 54:47 *📚 Resources for further study and understanding ancient writing practices* - Jimmy Akin offers resources on his website to aid in further study of the historical reliability of the Gospels and understanding ancient writing practices. - Akin discusses the importance of recognizing ancient writing practices such as selection, paraphrase, and sequencing in understanding Gospel accounts. 01:02:51 *📜 Ancient Authorial Practices* - Ancient authors, including gospel writers, often provided gist accounts with approximate details rather than precise, word-for-word transcripts. - Details in ancient accounts were meant to convey the essence of events rather than precision, similar to how individuals convey information in everyday conversations. 01:05:00 *🔍 Examining Gospel Narratives* - Discussion on whether certain events in the gospels were historical or invented by the gospel writers. - Examples provided include the story of people rising from the tombs in Matthew's gospel and Jesus's birth in Bethlehem as mentioned in Luke's gospel. 01:17:00 *📚 Comparing Gospel Narratives to Biographies* - Analogous comparison drawn between reading the gospels individually and examining biographies of historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. - Emphasis on the importance of comparing different sources to reconstruct historical events, despite discrepancies between accounts. 01:21:14 *📜 Organizational Methods in Gospel Narratives* - Discussion on the organization of material in the Gospels. - Matthew's topical organization enhances storytelling. 01:23:47 *📖 Genre and Historical Reliability* - Examination of the genre of ancient biographies and their historical reliability. - Comparison with other ancient biographies and their accuracy. 01:27:14 *🗣️ Oral Tradition and Gospel Transmission* - Exploration of the impact of oral tradition on gospel transmission. - Analysis of the reliability of oral transmission over time. 01:38:45 *📜 Authorship and Reliability of John's Gospel* - The debate centers on the authorship of the Gospel of John, particularly whether it was written by an eyewitness or based on sources. - Scholars debate whether John himself or someone else wrote the Gospel, with arguments focusing on internal evidence and historical context. 01:40:37 *💀 Multiple Attestation and Supernatural Events* - The discussion revolves around the lack of third-party attestation to supernatural events described in the Bible, such as the "zombie apocalypse" in Matthew 27:53. - Arguments are made concerning the significance of these events to Jesus's followers and the likelihood of external sources recording them. 01:43:23 *🌟 Jesus's Claims of Divinity and Miracles* - Examination of Jesus's actions and statements regarding his divinity, particularly focusing on his miracles and forgiveness of sins. - Perspectives are shared regarding the significance of Jesus's actions in demonstrating his divine nature, with emphasis on biblical interpretations and historical context. 01:49:03 *📚 Synoptic Problem and Gospel Composition* - Analysis of the synoptic problem, discussing the priority of Mark's Gospel and the existence of the Q source. - Perspectives are offered on the compositional practices of the gospel authors, including the relationships between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 01:51:54 *👻 Supernatural Claims in Historical Context* - Exploration of supernatural claims in historical texts beyond the Bible, considering their credibility and interpretation within various cultural and religious contexts. - Perspectives are shared on the acceptance of supernatural events in different religious traditions and the criteria for evaluating their authenticity. 01:57:07 *📜 Examination of Crucifixion Accounts* - Comparing crucifixion accounts from Mark and Luke. - Differences in Jesus' words and audience addressed in each gospel. 02:00:27 *📖 Luke's Use of Mary as a Source* - Discussion on Luke's use of Mary as a source for the infancy narratives. - Evaluation of Mary's influence on Luke's Gospel. 02:03:04 *🙏 Significance of Faith in Gospel Healing Stories* - Examination of the role of faith in gospel healing narratives. - Interpretation of Jesus' statement on faith in healing miracles. 02:05:17 *💬 Concluding Remarks by Bart Ehrman* - Gospels viewed as documents of faith rather than historical accuracy. - Importance of understanding differences in gospel narratives. 02:09:29 *🛡️ Concluding Remarks by Jimmy Akin* - Proposal on assessing historical reliability of the Gospels. - Importance of understanding ancient writing practices in evaluating gospel accounts.
For those distressed by Akin's emphasis on definitions, types, and especially his introductory focus on clear and well understood semantics: this is necessary for honest debate, and any laziness here gives either party room for rhetorical slight-of-hand; everyone should learn to appreciate the rigor of good semantics - it keeps bad actors from 'hiding the ball' and forces honest partisans to concede fairly contested ground instead of indulging their biases. If you don't care about semantics, then you don't care about truth, and your only concern is winning.
To be wrapped up saying they only gave the "gist" of the whole account. To claim to be the inspired word from God himself and only have the "gist" should be extremely concerning to you.
@tristentesla1304 you're confusing two different things. What is revealed and what isn't. The things that ARE revealed aren't accurate enough. And when you read this verse, there is more ambiguity. John says "I suppose", and that is not a confident assertion, only an assumption. Again, just the "gist". We are not talking about what is NOT revealed, but what IS revealed and the quality of those claims.
Just a note about poor people having two homes... come to Africa. People have a home they call home in the rural, then they maintain a residence in their place of work. It is so normal that I'm kind of bewildered that those in the west would assume it is a preserve of the rich. In Kenya, we have ushago (rural where our ancestry can be traced) and a home in Nairobi. Our rural home is over 200 miles from where I grew up... It is where my father was born and my ancestors for about 500 years lived.
Africa is not the Middle East of 2,000 years ago. Studying the history should inform your opinion. Only one person on the stage, Ehrman, studied the history of the time. The other guy was simply speculating.
@@KBosch-xp2ut the point I'm making... just like the brothers of Jesus and stuff, is that I'd understand why Joseph could have two homes in different towns. One is where he came from, his roots and the other is where he learns his keep. Actually that is how many in Africa (which is not the Middle East 2000 years ago) understand this. The west kind of assumes that their understanding of stuff is it... that is the assumption Bart makes, that Joseph was either rich, or it makes no sense.
@@BradleyKisia You can make up any stories you want. The evidence just isn’t there. He’s speculating because he is simply making things up about what could have been to try and justify his beliefs.
@@KBosch-xp2ut who has made up a story... mine is not a story... I have stated a fact, that you didn't know and now do, say thank you. If you are discussing the rest of the debate, I was careful to raise a point about one item only; so you are reading more into my comment than is there. Just to remphasize: I talked about two homes and stated that it is possible and reasonable (for me and my kinsmen) ... so, I am not sure what else you're on about. You're looking for a fight in the wrong place, creating your own demons. Look for someone else's post to argue on/in... Mine was just a fact...
@ I appreciate Bart's sense of humour. @ - Bart appreciates it even better than you for you might have smiled at his jokes while Bart laughs hysterically
@@Андреич-с4н Laughing at your own jokes is the sign of someone who thinks themselves very funny. Cheers! I find Bart funny, too. Some of his arguments are bit funny. Although I respect his scholarship, I often feel he is projecting his intellect against his fundamentalist past and to fundamentalists today. For those who have never really experienced fundamentalism (I haven't experienced much as a Canadian Catholic) his arguments are less useful. I fully agree with him that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. How about you? I know mythicism has its proponents, academic even. The mythicist arguments and debates bore me, though. They seem overly speculative and play loose with the relevant texts.
@@PaxMundi118 :::I fully agree with him that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. How about you? ===================== About me? There is no evidence that Jesus lived. But as we agreed, no proves of existance does not prove non-existance
@@PaxMundi118 :::Laughing at your own jokes is the sign of someone who thinks themselves very funny. ===================== It is OK to think themselves very funny. But to laughing at your own jokes (i.e. to demonstrate that you think youselve very funny) is a sign of... I was going to say "idiotism", but this would be too impolite ... English is not my mother tongue... which word to use... smugness?
@@PaxMundi118 ::::I respect his scholarship, I often feel he is projecting his intellect ====================== in this here debates on Gospels Historical Reliability I failed to detect any Bart's intellect. I posted explanation of my opinion earlier. Will copy it here for you: Bart Ehrman is either not smart or playing giveaway. This Barba-rossa in a cawboy hat draws a list of important and less important features of the Gospels. According to this list Jesus was just one of many ordinary preachers who accidentally got executed, like today in the former USSR an ordinary bloger gets accused of insulting religious feelings, or of being a so called "foreign agent", or stirring up national hatred or showing disrespect to authorities etc. and ends up in prison. Yet Bart, being preoccupied with virginity of Jesus' mother, fails to notice that the main feature of the Gospels is Jesus being presented as the Son of God. To this end the Gospels describes several great miracles preformed by Jesus. Whether these miracles really happened or not, makes the Gospels reliable or unreliable. Not some discrepancies between the Gospels, which discrepancies are unavoidable taking into account that the "memoirs" of these four old gentlemen (who, btw. most probably could neither write nor read) were compiled many-many years after the events they narrate. At drinking parties with my Uni mates we often remember our students' life and the same episode is often discribed differently by those who were there. Sometimes even disputes arise if this or that episode did happen
Luke didn't quote from Mark or Matthew about the watchtower or wall built around the vineyard that the farmer made on in the ("Parable of the Tenant's.")
Coming from a position that allows the Bible NOT to be absolutely perfect allows for more common agreement than if the Christian was a fundamentalist Bible inerrantist.
@@77goanywhere To be clear, Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant in all it means to assert in precisely the sense and manner which it means to assert it. This is why it's so valuable to know the genre of the book to have an educated understanding of what it means to propose (i.e. that Jesus in his ministry said x y and z even if he may have only said x and z at the sermon on the mount where Matthew also places y because it fits the topical organization. ) A fundie definitely has more trouble, because in taking everything as literal narrative history (which subconsciously they often fail to be consistent about), he's taking the bible to say things it never meant to. i've seen them claim that all Jesus' parables were literal events he was relaying for example purposes, and Genesis especially becomes a mess on the fundie model.
There are Sola Scriptura protestants who don't believe the bible is literal history or natural history. They just believe it is the only validi source of doctrine, (which doesn't make sense to me since they develop their own interpretational traditions but the earliest protestants believed in Sola Scriptura, but also that the Bible may, in parts only be allegorically true or apocalyptically true. That being said, if the Pope has the capacity to speak on doctrine, and is "literally" the vicar of Christ, why not just have him once and for all tell us what the Gospel or other biblical inconsistencies mean.
Reading Ehrman brought me back to Catholicism. As he picked his way across the gospels, finding tiny faults, I had the realization that the gospels were essentially true. I did NOT want to return to Christianity. I fought it and lost. I attend mass several times a week.
Yeah, among his many errors, the way he says "well Jesus probably said this, probably not that, maybe this, maybe that" like he has any sort of way to verify or give strong reasons for this. Possibly one of my favorite of his logical fallacies was in a debate, he said because God "cannot" violate the laws of mathematics(i.e. God can't make 2+2=5), therefore somehow he cannot violate the laws of physics and thus, miracles and a resurrection aren't possible.
@@mattm7798 Bart Ehrman demonstrates a critical lack of imagination. Physics is not a stationary science. It swells, and changes. Physics exists because people with imagination asked questions and then set about finding answers. But those answers only made for more questions. Physics has not been finalized.
This was fun to watch. I wish more debates were like this. Both guys were respectful, funny and witty, and brought a lot of intelligent points to the discussion.
@@nicokarsen6131 If anything, Akin was too easy on Erhman. There were several occations that Ehrman was about to lose composure and his body language were suggesting he wasn't comfortable that Akin came prepared to address his points. It wasn't because Ehrman took it easy, but it was because that Akin was in control of the pace of their debate because he knew how to address Bart.
Bart' presentation reflects his personal mocking opinions. Does not support his assertion that the books , Matthew Mark Luke and John are not reliable.
I actually thought Akin humbly and calmly mopped the floor. I mean you can clearly see Erhman's body language (stiffening, head titlting, eye brow raising, change in tone of voice, etc) on multiple occasions, each time his few opposing points, that he brought up, were one by one reasonably addressed by Akin.
@Gluteus Maximus You can tell Akin really studied Ehrman's debate approach and avoided several traps that most apologists fall into. Particularly, the denial of non-Christian miracles and dealing with the discrepancies. The startrek analogy and the genealogy rebuttle had Ehrman on the defense.
I am never in line with Ehrman on these debates, but he is always a gentleman and at times I think his good manners are exploited. I hope whatever turned him away from God is some day healed.
Your last sentence proves you’re biased. This wasn’t a theological debate, and YOUR opinion is based on your faith, rather than on the facts presented. I get tired of seeing comments like “hope he comes back to God” as if your opinion of faith holds any weight.
@@ChrisLindeman-d4m Bart has described his exit from faith as being caused by the suffering of humanity , and the fact that he cried as he told this made me believe that he also suffered personally. I don’t care for the Way his opponent disrespected Bart. I thought he was rude to Mr. Ehrman and that was my point. I do not care who won the debate and I did not address the issue. Bart was a happy person when he called himself a Christian. I hope whatever has hurt him in life is eventually resolved. I think he is a very decent human being at heart.
I’ve seen him talk before and watched his biblical series on TH-cam. Him leaving faith was a painful experience. When he discusses it, I kind of feel that he would prefer to believe. I say this as someone who gave up faith as a young man, and called myself an agnostic/atheist for many years. I had a hard time believing, but it doesn’t quite make sense not believing as well. I kind of feel he will eventually find his way back.
@Deewood9996 what makes you so angry that you attack Christians even when they express concern for atheists? Bart’s decision to leave the Christian faith was an emotional one. I only expressed concern over his well being. Do you normally react so aggressively towards kindness? Are you in any kind of counseling? Have you noticed a pattern of difficulty within your relationships? Whether you ever turn towards Christianity or not there is no need to go through life angry and confrontational. If you get that triggered by a benevolent comment by a total stranger I shudder to think how horrible your life must be. I hope things get better for you.
@@tibbar1000 Your comments here may align with your perception of "kindness", but this kindness has wreaked untold pain and suffering on much of the world and many cultures that opposed christian views. Bart is spot on that this is all garbage and post-hoc rationalization now suggesting the "gist" of the story is outwardly disingenuous. I hate when you christians claim a hatred towards a non-existent being, not possible. The horrors perpetrated in the name of your religion is testament to the fact that religion makes otherwise good people commit horrible acts.
Jimmy and Bart are both so interesting to listen to. Jimmy is a powerful force for faith and Bart is a christian reality check. Both men are so valuable to the conversation. Great debate guys. Thanks for your work!
@@freethinkman7678 Was Bart honest when he said "father why have you forsaken me" as if Jesus was doubting God, when in fact, Bart turn out knew knew Jesus was quoting Psalms all along? He was trying to test if there were ignorants or less knowledgeable from the audience that would buy it, until Akin corrected & exposed him.
@@gluteusMAXlMUS “more” honest… there is a plethora of dishonesty with Jimmy Akin with his efforts to defend the “Faith” (a word centered in dishonesty)… Bart could be dishonest with several items of interest and never touch his opponent in this regard
@@freethinkman7678 I just realized how redundant your response was. Bart wont use Faith on debates. Of course he wont, he's debates for athiest. Jimmy akins defends for faith on debates. Of course he will he's on the religious side. But that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. Otherwise, there's no point of debate It also, works both ways. One can easily Accuse Bart as dishonest from the opposition by saying that because he's an athiest, there is no moral grounds that would stop him from making up stories. Of course, I already pointed the part where Bart lied. The burden now is on you to prove your point. Otherwise, Akin literally calmly dismantled Bart and controlled the whole debate. Anyone who is honest enough who watch the whole debate could clearly see it.
Ehrman makes a really great point about 45-50 minutes in, about the value of reading each Gospel on its own and not letting our expectations of the Scriptures blind us to the real text when we approach it. EDIT: Can't believe I'm still getting uncomprehending comments about this. I meant this about private devotion and personal familiarity with the Scriptural texts, not about their literal meanings (which are almost always related to a previous Scripture). Read the words on the page first, internalize them, then start trying to "understand" or "harmonize" them.
That’s however just one form of academic historical criticism. There are others that Bart is just ignoring. There is a reason the codex of the Bible was made.
@Andrewpearson1903 referring to Ehrman's talk at 45-50 mins - talking about the Gospel of Mark. He summaries the Gospel and presents it as something completely different from the other gospels.. at 48:50 to 49:17 states that Jesus "wonders why" God had forsaken him.... This is the problem with Protestants which Ehrman was, Mark wrote the gospel as a Jew for Jew's because the early Christians did not read Mark's gospel and think "oh my even Jesus is wondering WHY".. No, the Jews of that time knew the reference "My God. My God. Why have you forsaken me?" Its from Psalm 22. It is another fulfilment of scripture not a questionable end of "wondering". Ehrman made no good points there buddy.
Actually it is a very poor way to read the Bible. We can assume, in most cases, that the gospel writers were aware of one another's works, and that they wrote with the knowledge that (other than perhaps Luke) what they were writing would be fleshed out and given more context in the body of the other works.
@@hross1991you are making an assumption and putting words in Jesus mouth that aren’t there. Bart is quoting the text whereas and you are making excuses as an apologist. “Another fulfillment” is laughable buddy. THe gospels were written way after Jesus’ death by educated Greeks who knew the Old Testament and knowingly constructed the stories in order to make Jesus a fulfillment of prophesy. Not hard to do buddy.
Thanks for doing this debate. I’m not a Catholic but you have done one of the best jobs of anyone I have seen debating Bart and actually having a solid understanding at Barts level and able to actually have a meaningful debate.
I agree. I've watched a half dozen or more debates with Bart vs. Protestant apologists, and this one seems to do the best. Probably because he doesn't (secretly) believe in inerrancy.
I beg to differ. Akin didn't address the issue at hand and even made claims that Joseph (a carpenter) had two houses. Not only does he fail to give historical evidence for this, it goes completely against the narrative in the bible. Had Joseph been in possession of a second home, they wouldn't have gone looking for an inn nor would they have been forced to camp in an animal shelter. He might as well go to the extreme and claim that Joseph had a beach condo in Egypt too. Cause one of the gospels has them fleeing there while the other gospel has them going to the temple!? Like the contradictions are so blatant you can't possibly solve them.
@@proculusjulius7035 Jimmy doesn't make that claim; he said that Joseph would have had some share in estate property with kin, not necessarily a permanent dwelling place. This would be the only reason to return under the census to be taxed as a resident of Nazareth. I am surprised Jimmy doesn't point out how it was quite common for someone to receive a part of an estate inheritance, when property is left to multiple heirs. Just think of the parable of the prodigal son who told his father he wanted his share of property inheritance now rather than later. BTW, the word "Tekton" does not strictly convey a carpenter, but more likely a craftsman. We historically use the word carpenter for Joseph because the early church fathers said he made wooden farm implements such as ploughs.
@@proculusjulius7035 That's the only question I think he didn't answer well. I talked to Father Mitch Pacwa on the radio about that today and he doubts that Joseph had a "summer home" in Bethlehem because he was not a rich man. Fr Mitch has been to Israel several times and speaks 12 languages fluently, to include Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic (Jesus language), and Arabic and has a PhD in Old Testament studies. He said the likely explanation, since the Bible doesn't give exact details, is that he left Bethlehem and went to Nazareth for employment. He goes into detail on why work was likely available in Nazareth because of the destruction that occurred in the area after the Zealot rebellion during that time frame. Why he had to go back to Bethlehem is because he was a resident of Bethlehem. He was born of the lineage of King David who was also from Bethlehem and that was his legal resident. That legal residence will stay with him wherever he goes and so when taxes are due, you have to go back to your town of legal residence and pay them. Here is a link to Fr Mitch's response: th-cam.com/video/hK0JQKyYk0Q/w-d-xo.html (it is around minute 18).
Growing into adulthood as a Christian Bart thought he was ‘truly touched by God’s grace’. If he wasn’t as implied here then where does that leave believers?
@@nardforu131, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
I'm a long-time fan of Bart (I'm an ex-Christian who found out about him after I left the faith)....but I wanted to say Jimmy did an amazing job in this debate. Extremely good points and so well-prepared. A pleasure to listen to this!
Hey brother, I sincerely hope you find security in Christ someday... the narrow road is hard to find; the scripture indicates as much. Narrow the road and difficult the way.
@@scottward4316 thanks for the kind wishes Scott. I hope the same for you. Christianity is a man-made religion and it took me almost 30 years of living in it to learn this. The brainwashing goes deep. Took me a LOT of study and work to get the courage to leave. I know first hand that it's not easy.
I’ve watched so many debates and lots of Bart Ehrman debates, specifically. Jimmy is by far my favorite opponent of Bart’s!!!! Awesome discussion and I love how pleasant they were to each other. ☺️ I could only hope to be half as wise as either of these fellas one day!!!
When you can see the older copies and check for mistakes against older copies, the telephone game analogy falls apart. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the ability of the copiers to keep the high accuracy over thousands of years.
Bart's logic is that if four people saw a car wreck and one of them says the car was silver and another says the car was white and another says it was gray and another says it was light yellow, it follows that we have good reason to believe there wasn't a car wreck at all.
Well, no. The analogy would be more if 4 grandchildren were told by their grandparents that apparently 50 years earlier there was a vehicle wreck they all saw, one of them seeing a silver truck, another a red bus, another a blue motorcycle and another a pink boat. In that scenario, it’s most likely it never happened
Not what his point was at all. He never says none of it happened, he says it's impossible to know for sure what exactly happened. Who was right, who was not. His point is if you're going to use the bible as a history book you'll be left wanting. Read it as it was intended to be read and that is for the messege, not the accuracy.
I thought Jimmy lost this one. His preparation for a specific debate opponent was much better, but his arguments came across as disingenuous fluff-arounds. He simultaneously acknowledges a faith-based argument, while saying his opponent has the burden of proof regarding historical accuracy with his criticisms, and when Bart gives major points of contention for both the historical and belief-based accuracy of the documents, they're labeled as "minor historical discrepancies," despite them not being minor and also meeting his definition of a major historical contention to the ideas presented in the texts themselves. Jimmy's argument hinges on the separation of history and ideas, but it's a debate on historical philosophy that includes historical documents. The separation of idea and history is disingenuous, and it's how he structured his debate, which he hid in the form of a "backhanded compliment" towards Bart. I give him credit for the preparation and the opponent-specific targeting, that was amazing. I'm all for tactical debate sneakery. The argument itself fell short and was lost in the show, though. I think acknowledging the significant shortcomings of his own stance would have been more honest and appealing, especially when dealing with faith, rather than making a framework "Bart agrees with me" list. Especially since the texts, even with their unreliable aspects, still are reliable historical documents in their own right. Just not necessarily in the exact way people want them to be.
At 1:14:37, Bart Ehrman is incorrect. It is not explicit in Luke 24 that verse 44+ (where Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem) is on the same day as the previous verses where they first discover Jesus after the resurrection. The "on the same day" reference ties two earlier events, not the command to stay in Jerusalem. In fact, when we relate this to Acts 1 (also written by Luke) we know the time period was 40 days altogether within the events of Luke 24, so we know there are time gaps not laid out in detail within Luke 24, which is *corroborated* by Matthew 28 and John 20-21, not contradicted by them. This makes sense, since witnesses (eg: Matthew) are going to remember the long trip to Galilee and back, where this wouldn't be front-of-mind to a writer like Luke who didn't take the trip.
if you read the text carefully.. all the events are on the same day. Luke 24.. "on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, ..." The women find the tomb empty, they rush to tell the Disciples.. Peter runs and goes away in amazement. verse 13.. Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus,.....29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” 33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them..... 49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
@@oceancoast92657 No, it's not on the same day (the part from verse 49, where Jesus goes up to Heaven). If you read the Book of Acts Chapter 1, 1-10 you can see that this talk happens on the day 40. And Luke is the author of the Book of Acts. Jesus appeared to all apostles except Thomas at the first day, as it's being said in Luke, but the talk from the verse Luke 24:49 happens on day 40. Just like Matthew didn't say that "they immediately go to Galilee" as Bart claimed. There is no such a phrase in the text. Just read Luke 24:49-53 and the Book of Acts 1:1-13. Luke, the author of Book of Acts explains it more detailed that it was on day 40, when Jesus commanded the disciples to stay in Jerusalem and was taken into Heaven. So no any contradiction with Matthew that Jesus met with the disciples in Galilee, also because in the Books of acts it's says that the disciples saw Jesus during those 40 days. So there is just no any contradictions at all.
Ehrman said in his own opening that Mark has Jesus predict his death multiple times, after being rejected by the priests and scribes, and yet Ehrman still pushed the line that Jesus in Mark was surprised that he was going to die after being rejected by the priests and scribes. So Mark both has Jesus predicting his death and being surprised that he was going to die? How does that make sense to Ehrman? But then he claims that Jesus' 'Son of Man' references are not about himself. So, if Ehrman was challenged on the death predictions in Mark, which all mention the Son of Man, would he change his claim and say they are not about Jesus? If so, then why did he say this? Also, just because Mark doesn't mention Jesus saying something, it doesn't follow that Jesus didn't say anything. Ehrman assumes that and then somehow invents the entire psychology of Jesus during his passion from that assumption.
Mark is a bit of a mess and holds secrets that we never as the reader are informed of(Seems somewhat gnostic - Disciples are clueless throughout and Jesus says he teaches in parables so that if overheard people won't be magically saved who he did not mean to save.etc). You must also remember it was written some 50 years after the events claimed.
@@davidfrisken1617 ''You must also remember it was written some 50 years after the events claimed.'' The current acceptable dating of Mark is 65 - 72 AD, which means around 30-40 years What is this dating based on? Its based on a single thing: Namely, that Jesus predicts the persecution in Judea, therefore the author of Mark must have seen it. This is the only reason for dating Mark so late and literary nothing else. Also Mark is extremely clear and is not a mess, and literary has the highest Christology of all the gospels - just because Erhman doesn't accept this doesnt mean the vast majority of scholars also dont.
When you see that a person feels the urge to say that Mark has the highest Christology of all the gospels you know that this guy is not looking for the truth but to silence his deep insecurities about the religion in which he was probably indoctrinated.
@@floydthomas4195 Nope. it is definitely dated at a minimum of post Temple destruction. It is probably a lot later than admitted. eg Luke is now dated 125-150CE
@@vejeke ''I say you're wrong therefore you are wrong'' The absolute state of atheists lmao Majority of New testament scholars accept the highest Christology in Mark.
Lol what? Majority of Christian’s barely read the Bible. I’m sure many are missing the point. Yeah super ironic one of the most well respected new testament scholars and historian, with the most popular college textbook on the New Testament in use today is missing the point of the gospel.
Yeah. Did he really think Jesus quoted psalm 22 because he was in distress? I don’t need to have a doctorate to understand that he quoted a prophecy about that exact moment. Most of his claims were debunked in “misreading the Bible with western eyes” and that wasn’t even such a great book. I’m disappointed.
@@ModernLadyPsalm 22 isn’t a prophecy, it’s a song about feeling despair and being comforted in God’s protection. It could have been an allusion to Psalm 22 when Jesus cried out to God, but it certainly isn’t fulfilling some prophecy.
@@christophecrist2171 By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending. The psalmist describes the crucifixion long before crucifixion was a thing: “they have pierced my hands and feet” and “They divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots”. Just like it happened. But the psalm ends in hope and salvation from enemies and worship of the Lord by the whole world. Just as it happened.
@@ModernLady Where in the Psalm does it say that it’s a prophecy? Just because events correspond to each other, does not make it a prophecy. Where are the strong bulls of Bashan during the crucifixion? What about the dogs that encircle the speaker? What language can we take as allegorical, and which can we take to be literal? My view is that Psalm 22 is a song, and since the message of the cross is one of victory over death, the themes overlap to the point where people misinterpret the song as a prophecy. David was not a prophet.
If you just listen to this without watching the video, you could easily be forgiven for being confused as to whether Jimmy or Bart is speaking. Their cadence and pitch is so similar, as is their respective enthusiasm for each one's position. Great debate to listen to (although I'm a little more of a Bart fan.)
Catholic arguments won this debate. Ehrman looked as if he knew it was a hard climb up to defeat a tradition that is rooted in a millennia of scholarship, and some of the most agile minds in the Western tradition. I wonder how he'd fair with a Greek Orthodox scholar with a mastery of the Greek manuscripts? He'd probably struggle. His polemics work best against the Protestants who claim inerrancy in the Bible, but fall somewhat flat with a hermeneutics based on a Church tradition.
Right, one guy vs. another guy who also has 2000 years of the best argumentation and scholarshiop of all time. Yes, people like Aquinas and his followers (millions?) spent whole life times and centuries honind and refining these arguments which even still don't hold up too well, but can keep you from being blown out of the water by one dude.
Jimmy I hope you don't mind that a Classical pagan like me will lend you a hand 😅..., here's an argument to support why Joseph went to Jerusalem for the census: You know, Galilee actually was not annexed to the Jewish kingdom until the reign of the Hasmonean (Maccabean) king Alexander Jannaeus (Jonathan), 104-76 BC, and that's when some Jews moved from Judaea to Galilee, that was just a couple of generations before Jesus was born. We may presume that Joseph's ancestors moved to Galilee at that time, or even some time later, so he may have perfectly remembered where his grandfather or even his father came from, as Joseph is also presumed to be an older man. He didn't even have to know he was a descended of King David. Of course Bart is brillant, but I think he is mostly prepared to debate to those who say the Gospels are historically accurate to prove the supernatural contents are true.
Still doesn't explain why we have no account anywhere else of Augustus calling for an empire wide census and demanding everyone go back to their ancestral home to register for it, considering Augustus is one of the most well attested lives in all of ancient history. Wouldn't somebody somewhere write that down? Wouldn't somebody somewhere have held onto some scrap of paper about it? If there were pagan records corroborating the gospel account, wouldnt the Medieval scribes have copied it just like they did Josephus?
@@QuiteWellAdjusted No account of the Census of Quirinus? Of course we have. Only point is that it was not Empire wide and its date contradicts the gospels because it was in AD 6. But that does not matter at all because oral tradition tends to confuse these things and, in any case, Jesus was executed most likely in AD 36, not 33 nor 30.
@@LetsgoB Akin's ludicrous theories that Joseph owned two homes when Luke 2:7 says Jesus was born in a manger and that Joseph is descended through both genealogies even though that would give him two fathers hammered nothing.
Its more than enough. The claims or Christianity are bogus. Akins claims that Jesus not quoting Psalms 22:1 in its entirity because he was "tired" is laughable, it really is. Ehrman is spot on in his analysis of how the passion narritives tell completely different and totally incompatible versions of events.
@1:02:47 Jimmy concedes the debate. The Gospels are not 'historically' reliable, they may be inerrant (fit for teaching) but according to Jimmy the authors did not have the tools to make a historically accurate account... A historically reliable account of the gist is not a historically reliable account of what happened, it is a historically reliable account of what people thought had happened.
But more reliable than most or anything else written about that time period. The Gospels are more contemporary than writings about many historical figures that we accept without question
@@beorbeorian150 except that a lot of those similar accounts you're referring to, actually make it clear that they're referencing older contemporary works that we just no longer have and are lost to history. Not all, but more than you think.
@@beorbeorian150 I really don't know how you can think this argument helps your case as you have also now conceded the debate. You are comparing the word of God with historians that by today's standards are hacks. You have now taken the argument from inerrant, to reliable to merely a collection of human gists. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE WORD OF GOD!
@@truthseeker2275 you have a complete miss understanding of the term inerrant. And the debate was not about that anyways. You are not going to find any inerrant history book or ancient source.
@@beorbeorian150 mmmmh, why does Jimmy then highlight inerrant vs reliable if there is no such a thing as inerrant? The claim has been made throughout history that the word of God is inerrant...now you say there is no such a thing? Or are you saying the bible is not a history book? Please explain your understanding of inerrant... I have always taken it to be as flawless for teaching...but others take it as flawless history. What is your take?
1:06:00-1:09:25 Aiken argues that Joseph had two separate homes, one in Nazareth and one in Bethlehem. Yet, Jesus was born in a manger due to there being no room in the inn according to Luke’s account. 1Why would you need an inn when you have a home in the same area?
I have my doubts any of the birth legends were ever meant to be history in the first place but there is actually an explanation that is even based on archeological findings. We actually do have a written account of a couple who had to travel because of a census to a place where they had a field they had inherited. There aren't always houses on fields. But, like I said, it's barely even relevant for my personal faith.
That’s the best analogy you can come up with, how elementary. The facts are the gospels were written 40-70 years after the death of Jesus. We all know how much can get lost in translation when 10 people play telephone.
The difference is the Gospels aren't independent because of the synoptic problem and because the 4th gospel was written so late there's no way the author didn't know the others
Absolutely, there are millions of people who indeed memorize word for word. You're referring to the Muslims and the Qur'an? Millions have memorized it word for word by heart from start to finish - most of them Arabic isn't even their first language - many of whom are kids below the age of 5.
Saying that the gospels are in agreement with Bart Ehrman's claims about them (42:00) only proves fact that Bart has read the gospels carefully. This isn't an agreement of two independent sources.
And saying that just because Ehrman agrees that the gospels contain that information is confirmation that they're historically reliable is ridiculous. How Akin got away with making that assertion blows my mind. The fact that Ehrman didn't notice that rather clumsy sleight-of-hand and immediately protest in the rebuttal is disappointing. Having said that, I'm sure it's much easier to see these things in the comfort of my recliner than standing up there on stage. I haven't read all the comments. Perhaps others noticed what Akin did...
Also wanted to mention, I'm happy the optics of Jimmy being quickly eloquent and Bart needing a moment to think on his feet didn't tarnish the debate. Optics ruin debates these days. They can obscure the points.
Thank you Akin! 1:14:45 In this moment Bart misrepresents the text. Luke doesn't say that in the same day of the Resurrection, Jesus told the desciples not to leave Jerusalem. Moreover, the Book of Acts written by the same author (Luke) clearly shows that Jesus said it on days 40 when they went outside of Jerusalem. They stayed in Jerusalem from 40th to 50th day. In the Gospel by Luke this fragment is shortened, but it doesn't say that it happened in the same day, and the Book of Acts explains it. Bart misrepresents this fragment. Also Bart says that according to Matthew, Jesus said it in Galilee, but if you check the text you can clearly see that what Jesus said to the desciples in Galilee (Matthew) is different from what Jesus said in Jerusalem (Luke, Acts) which shows that those are two different events. In fact Jesus appeared to the desciples in about this order: 1) To Maria Magdalena, day 1 2) To other women, day 1 3) To two desciples at Emmaus, day 1 4) To all desciples except Thomas, day 1 5) To all desciples with Thomas, day 8, the next week after Resurrection 6) 7) At the Sea of Tiberias and in Galilee 8) On 40th day, in Jerusalem. Where Jesus told the desciples to stay in Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit, which was on 50th day.
Dude, we don't know what Jesus said. We only know what anonymous authors who have never met him wrote about what he supposedly has said. How reliable is that? Not at all.
You are mistaken.. Bart is absolutely correct.. Read Luke .. on the day of the resurrection, Jesus appears to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and then to the 11 in Jerusalem.. he tells them that day to remain in Jerusalem.
@@oceancoast92657 Please, show the exact quote where it says that Jesus tells them that day to remain in Jerusalem. I didn't find any. Moreover in the Book of Acts Luke clearly shows that that talk happened on the mountain next to Jerusalem on the day 40. (Luke 1:1-10) In Gospel of Luke, Luke speaks about the same talk, he just put it right after day 1. But same Luke explains it in the Book of Acts, that Jesus went to haven not in day 1, but day 40. So that very talk happens on day 40, not day 1. Bart just misrepresents the text or he didn't understand it when he read it. You can check it yourself.
@@lepidoptera9337 What reliable proofs can you give to show that the authors of gospels didn't meet Jesus in person? At least some of the author (Matthew, John and most likely Luke) met Jesus in person, what you can find out when you analyze the text. For example, the way the things are described in the Gospel of John shows that the author was a witness. Also many scholars think that there was a text with Jesus sayings made by desciples (most likely Matthew) which later was used as one of the sources for Gospels.
@@ronrontall6370 The texts are too late and they were written in the wrong language. Just because a text says that the author was a witness doesn't make it true. The texts also say that a man walked on water, which is obviously a myth.
He spent his entire opening defining terms we all know and identifying areas where Bart agrees with him. Who cares? He didn't argue for the reliability for the Bible because it's not.
1:39:00 It seems Dr. Ehrman is confusing John 19:35 ("The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe") with John 21:24 ("This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.")
If God knew that his word would be misinterpreted,or lost in translation, why didn't he make it so that all people would correctly understand it forever?
Just as Jesus is fully God and fully man, the Bible is God's Word expressed in human literature, and as with any human literature, it is also prone to being misinterpreted.
@nguyenhuy2163 Wouldn't he have known that and made things explicitly clear...that's what I never can get around in the Bible. God created the Universe and everything in it but has left his teachings so unclear that people have argued and killed each other for centuries. Doesn't sound like divine planning.
@ He knew that people would misinterpret it, that’s why He also left the Catholic Church as the teaching authority and the sole authoritative interpreter of the essential contents of Scripture. So that people would correctly understand it in the fullness of time.
1:40:51 this is a guy who knows he made a statement that he can’t support in any way. There isn’t sufficient proof remaining to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, let alone a group of other people. Not to mention, the disciples may have been writing all this while in a “channeling” state. John is in “the wilderness” when he writes revelation. Ezekiel is in “the wilderness” when he writes his book. Moses spends 40 years in “the wilderness”, while writing his books. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel. All of the prophets wrote their prophecies either directly from the wilderness, or while remembering their time in the wilderness, and not one of them records a single encounter with a single Satan, while they are in the wilderness. Satans love to pretend like the are God, and none of the prophets recorded a Satan in the wilderness, that’s strange, isn’t it?
He's talking to religious people so it needs to be made simple and clear. Some of them might argue it was a parable and actually means hundreds of years.
Many, many people think a ten-minute break is for other people. Their break is about an hour, give or take, so they can come back in whenever they please.
He's emphasizing that 10 minutes is 10 minutes, not 15, not 20, not 30 so don't dally. Reminds me of my first boss who when we were late for work would bellow: Work starts at 8 not 8:15!
And the Lord spake, saying, ''First shalt thou break for 10 minutes. Thee shalt thou count to ten minutes, no more, no less. Ten shall be the number of minutes thou shalt break, and the number of the break shall be ten minutes. Eleven shalt thou not break, neither break thou nine, excepting that thou then proceed to break for ten. Twelve is right out. Once the number ten, being the tenth number, be breaked, then returnest thou to thy Holy Debate of Antioch."
Historians are trying to write anything about the slaughter of innocents. Herod - once your pen touches the papyrus you will be beheaded.> Historian - Fair enough.
That is a huge claim and as the other comment points out Herod couldn't do jake squat against Roman citizens because he would have lost his life..... Try again.
Not one person anywhere in the Roman world wrote a single word about the slaughter of innocents except the author of Luke, because a podunk backwater Roman vassal would get mad? Why isn't it in Josephus? Herod was dead, he wasn't gonna behead him from beyond the grave
Everybody knows that jesus's dad was a developer. So you'd expect him to have multiple homes in different areas because that's just what developers did in ancient Rome. They used to be cation on the Riviera all the time what's so odd about that
@Jimmy Akin, in the town of El Arish on the north shores of the Sinai Penninusla there is a road sign which effectively says (in Arabic) "Jesus, Joseph and Mary Slept here." I've driven right by it a few times.
@@stevenbatke2475 no about half way through. Hey green checked all of what Bart's agrees with which is all the major claims. Bart only disagrees a small amount and therefore, even by Bart's standards, the gospels should still be reliable when you weight what even Bart agrees with vs disagrees.
@@UNKLEnic I agree that Jimmy presented that part very well. But as Bart said, it’s the differences of the birth narrative and the resurrection, that have contradictions that can’t be harmonized.
@@UNKLEnic I’m not saying major, just saying differences. Ones I’m sure you’ve heard before, but it’s been a hell of a week, so I’m too tired to list chapter and verse. Forgive the laziness. These are ones I’m rattling off the top of my head: did the temple curtain tear before Jesus died, or after? How did Judas die? Who and how many people were at the open tomb? Those are just a few, I know, and it may sound insignificant to believers, and they have been explained away many times, but the gospels in total, tell different stories from each other. All the differences cannot be harmonized. Two separate accounts cannot both be simultaneously true.
Jimmy Akin is so far the most knowledgeable, but I have to give it to Bart, watch it, and form your own opinion. I wish these guys could go at it for longer
bruh since the time I knew bart ehrman, I have never seen a single christian at the level of bart ehrman.... but this one, man, I was absolutely amazed by how well Jimmy argued his point... Kudos to both gentlemen!
Relevant to around 1:28:00 Can’t remember where I heard this, but if ancient people wanted to quote a psalm they’d often just recite the first bit and everyone would understand they were quoting the entirety of the psalm. Can’t back it up with a source but you can always look it up.
Wish Dr. Ehrman would have pressed him more on the fist question, the virgin birth. I think it's fairly clear that both authors are "forcing" Jesus to be born in Bethlehem via different made up stories (neither is attested in any source and and both are quite ridiculous), because the Messiah needs to be born there.
We believe in what seems impossible to humans. You have a choice to believe as you like, but why resort to ridiculing others because of their faith. Christians widely influenced civilization through education, charity, dignity of the human, etc through the centuries so why not try to enjoy the benefits that you are reaping from Christianity and be happy with yourself instead of trying to convince others. Studies show Christians are happier, live longer, and recover more quickly from surgery than non-Christians. So if these are the benefits, why would you want people to join your misery -- living aimlessly without book ends on life. I guess misery likes company.
Christopher Hitchens mentions this when he says Jesus was real otherwise the writers of the gospel would have him come from bethlehem rather than trying to force him there. Obviously there was a memory from that time that Jesus was from Nazareth.
@@Shawn-nq7du you don't choose beliefs. That's a position called doxastic volunterism and it's garbage. We are convinced by reasons, you don't just go shopping for beliefs.
@@CaptainGrimes1 why have him come from bethlehem Along exile in Babylon followed by 3 moreempires.A longing for roots and facing the reality of havingto earn livelihood
This was the first time I watched this debate and I can tell Bart was not ready for Jimmy to go in the direction he did in his opening statement. I enjoyed it a lot!
It was a good debate. I didn't understand the effectiveness of what Jimmy was doing in his opening. There are many true things in the Mormon Bible and the Quran, but that doesn't mean the actual story is reliable in both cases.
Ready or not, Bart was certainly able and more than prepared to rebut Akin's apologetics. Mostly because Akin's argument was not really reasonable, it only sounded like it was until given a little careful thought beyond assuming he was making actual sense.
Dear@@joelrivardguitar You raise an excellent point. I agree with you; There are many true things in different scriptures and text and that doesn't mean the whole thing's reliable, but how do you personally go about establishing what's reliable from what's not? Because if different texts say contradictory irreconcilable things, then either all are incorrect or only one is correct. What falsification means and criteria do you employ to distinguish reliability?
@@SearchKnowTruth The Gospels do not harmonize, you can read Bart Ehrmans Jesus Interrupted for some examples or just buy The Synopsis of the Four Gospels by American Bible Society, which shows each verse side by side. It's generally accepted that Mark is the source for the other Gospels, the Markan Priority arguments are given here: bible.org/article/synoptic-problem Mark does not seem to be writing history but using older narratives to construct a story, Dr Carrier writes a bit about that and some of the info is used here: lagevondissen.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/the-gospels-as-allegorical-myth-part-i-mark/ But the theology is not Jewish, it's Platonic/Hellenism. David Litwa and Richard Miller write about this. J.Z. Smith as well. Dr Tabor also has many free resources on this topic, all PhD historical scholars. Here is one: Death & Afterlife: Do Christians Follow Plato rather than Jesus or Paul? Dr James Tabor th-cam.com/video/MYyXf4V8e9U/w-d-xo.html 5:40 1st Hebrew view of cosmology and afterlife. The dead are sleeping in Sheol, earth is above, the firmament is above that and divides the upper ocean from falling to earth, 7:50 A linear version emerged with time and an end times and final Judgment. Genesis says you will return to dust. 9:00 Translation of Genesis 2:6 God breathes the breath of life into Adam (giving him a soul). The actual Hebrew translation is “living-breathing”, meaning all life is this. 10:40 Hellenistic period - the Hebrew religion adopts the Greek ideas. Sources the Britannica article and explains it’s an excellent resource from an excellent scholar. (JZ Smith) 13:35 In the Hellenistic period the common perception is not the Hebrew view, it’s the idea that the soul belongs in Heaven. 14:15 The basic Hellenistic idea is taken into the Hebrew tradition. Salvation in the Hellenistic world is how do you save your soul and get to Heaven. How to transcend the physical body. Greek tomb “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home” 15:46 Does this sound familiar, Christian hymns - “this world is not my home, I’m a pilgrim passing through, Jesus will come and take you home”. Common theme that comes from the Hellenistic religions. Immortal souls trapped in a human body etc… 47:15 Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology Material world/body is a prison of the soul Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world Death sets the soul free No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth Immortality is inherent for all humans Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul Humans are fallen and misplaced Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul 49:35 Genesis view Creation/body very good, procreation good Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust” Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation Humans belong on earth Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body Death is an enemy Physical life and sensory pleasures are good But really, even if all of the text kept the theology perfect and the Greeks were not involved and they strictly used OT resurrection/end times theology which was Jewish beliefs, that doesn't make it true.
Why would Mary and Joseph have to look for an inn, which turned out were all booked, and the ultimately stay and give birth in a stable if they had a second home in Bethlehem?
The word for "inn" used in the Greek is κατάλυμα which means "lodging place". Obviously, "lodging place" could be any number of locations and is not necessarily an inn. Perhaps it is translated as "inn" in some translations because Luke says Mary and Joseph came from Nazareth and the translators infer κατάλυμα to mean "lodging specifically for travelers". The text doesn't say the "inn was all booked", it just says there was no room for them to stay, or at least for Mary to give birth. Giving birth made the woman ritually unclean so it would make sense for Mary to be outside the normal lodging areas since it would make the whole place unclean. If Joseph and his other relatives returned to Bethlehem for the Registry as their place of legal residence, it makes sense that Mary may have had to give birth outside. After all, Bethlehem was a small town and there's no reason to think they were staying in a large estate, just some family owned property.
@@grantgooch5834 because giving birth in a barn is what people do. Nobody would give up their room to a woman in labor. Especially since it was supposedly Joseph’s place.
@@grantgooch5834 Your comment and point is absolutely meaningless. The book of Matthew has then living in Bethlehem than fleeing because of Herod. Later seeking refuge in Nazareth after Egypt because they still feared him. The stories do not add up!
Bart @1:31:22 reminds Jimmy that he said he wasn't going to use faith during the debate. Jimmy said no he didn't say that but I thought I heard it too so I looked back and he did in fact say, "...we are not here to debate faith tonight as Bart said we're looking at the gospels from a historical perspective..."
As someone who falls on Bart's side on this debate, I think the largest mistake people make when trying to hormonise the different gospels is the presumption, just because they all appear within the established Christian cannon, that these texts were intended to fit together. All the historical evidence we have about them, combined with our more general knowledge about how oral traditions evolve and what the preliterary traditions of the time were, indicates that these were texts written by people presenting a unique account of the stories and traditions they had personally been exposed to, each having a different take-away from the Jesus story and, in all likelihood, each holding different - mutually exclusive - theological and Christological views. This means that the authors intended their works to be standalone pieces that encompassed the fundamentals of their beliefs about Jesus. We can't say that Mark, Matthew, and Luke didn't mention Jesus's divinity because they were relying on John to cover that aspect, because the gospels were not written as segments of a four part set. When the authors of the gospels wrote their works, they did not think of themselves as writing 'John's Gospel' or 'Luke's Gospel'. They were simply writing THE account of Jesus's life and ministry. We should take these authors at their word
That's a really good point. If you asked me and a group of my friends to recount an event, chances are we would all mention different parts of it and different things that we heard and saw. It doesn't mean any of us are lying or inaccurate if our descriptions of the event don't match exactly. It's just different from our different points of view. I think this especially applies to Bart's complaints about the resurrection and how some gospels claim Jesus said X and other gospels claim He said Y. How is it not possible that all of those things were said, or were heard slightly differently? The major story doesn't change based on if Jesus did or did not say a certain line.
@sassychimpanzee7431 Yes, you're absolutely correct. If a group of witnesses to an event write about that event, they will naturally mention only those aspects they personally see as important/relevant. We can take all these accounts together to form a more accurate view of what happened due to the fact that they all witnessed the same thing. The reason this doesn't work with the Gospels is that none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus - and they most probably didn't know anyone who knew Jesus either. The Gospels are written accounts of folk stories that the authors heard. They are not witness testimonies
From a Bayesian perspective, Jimmy makes a solid case for reliability. Bart's notion of reliability comes off as subjective in contrast. Sadly Jimmy didn't have time to sketch the two houses case.
@trump bellend I think it is a minor point..? People seem to want it to flow like a just so story rather than being real life. The complaint is like "you wrote the story down wrong because you didn't explain this thing I don't understand". We don't know why, but there are a dozen of plausible reasons why - He might have rented it out and simply couldn't for the tenants to leave. It might have not been suitable for them staying in in general - eg it was small, filled up with materials and tools and just didn't have a bed. It may have been a distance away and they didn't want to travel further at night. The midwife Joseph was using in town was close to the inn and they couldn't travel to his house for some reason. Real life is messy. My parents put their cat in a pet hotel when they went on vacation. Several of their pets stayed at home - the cat was new and not getting along with the others. The cat freaked at the pet hotel and I had to go get him, but the cat couldn't go back to their house and I was leaving town so we had to go find another pet sitter for a weekend - somebody skeptically scrutinizing an account that included my parents hired a stranger to watch their cat while the other pets stayed home in 2000 years might scoff. Real life is messy.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t use “life is messy” when scripture doesn’t make sense, but then you’re certain about something use the opposite premise.
@Nahmanides Scripture is clear about what it's clear about. Ascriptural events, the wider context of scriptiral events can be debated within the confines of history and the text. That's not having your cake and eating it too, that's understanding the limitations of what can be known and what can't be known for certain.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 Scripture isn’t really clear about anything though. There are probably 10 separate interpretative traditions for each piece of scripture. We as humans extrapolate information based upon many different variables. The way you or I interpret a specific chapter or verse is vastly different than a 2nd century Jew or 6th century Monophysite. I’ve studied rabbinical interpretive tradition ,early Christian interpretative tradition, and both Jewish and Christian early modern interpretive tradition and what I’ve realized is that all of them, while having some shared underpinnings, extrapolate different verses largely based upon the cultural climate they live in. None of us were alive or spoke to the authors of ANY scripture, so we’re all basically guessing as to what they actually meant. Ultimately, we all see what we want to see. And especially now 20 centuries later, most Christian’s view the Bible from the point of view of long established scriptural traditions, often times erroneously established.
Bart Ehrman loses all credibility when he begins his speech at 6:35 with the statement that there are no other sources for the virgin birth outside of the new testament .. Has this man ever read the bible? When there are hundreds of prophecies in the old testament of Jesus and his ministry. Not the least of these is this: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14
That was a mistranslation, it originally meant young woman, not virgin. Look it up. Ehrman is one of the worlds top scholars on the Bibe, he studies it in Hebrew and Greek. Peace.
@@joecheffo5942 It's not a mistranslation. It's from the Septuagint, one of the earliest witnesses and texts used by the Apostles themselves. Ehrman is a joke, do you really think he's smarter than a 2000 year old Church? Not even close. The Church Fathers are unanimous and in agreement, modern Bible scholars have nothing but theories to offer.
@@Justin-kn6dp The church is a RELIGION. They always say they are right, all religions do the. The Septuigent has absolute verified mistakes but religion cant admit it. Virgins cant give birth its ridiculous snd gross like the Greek gods having sex with people and other myths. Tell me one scientist that thinks a virgin can have a baby, no human semen. Are you kidding me? If we know anything we know that. The Hebrew word means young women. Why couldnt Joseph be the dad. Wasnt that her husband? Or she just told him an angel made her pregnant and he believed that? 2000 year old church did back track on many things and we know there have been additions and deletions. The word hell NEVER appears in original greek or he rew scriptures. Just made up by KJV bible. Made up, period. Word Hel is name of a Norse goddess. Eternal torment idea comes from Greeks and Plato. It was “from dust you came and dust you shall return”. Soul idea came from Plato.
This is the only opponent of Bart that I've come across to actually respect Bart. Almost all Bart's opponents before this debate are trash, talks trash to Bart, etc.. Hoping next time for a dialogue between Bart and Akin, in a podcast! That would be fun! 💯💯
Although not a formal debate, his discussion(s) with Peter J Williams is pretty good to watch, it looks like they think highly of each other even when they disagree.
Jimmy’s entire argument is an exercise in “moving the goalpost.” Only by redefining what any normal person would call “reliable“ does hw argue that the gospels are “reliable.” It reminds me of claiming that you are “faithful“ to your spouse by arguing that if you were faithful 51% of the time, you were faithful.
If you don't think the Gospels are reliable... Do you not believe in Alexander the Great or Hannibal? You deny history, your like a flat earther who denies science
@@Christi_Bellator First of all it’s “you’re” not “your.” Secondly, While there is that business about crossing the alps with elephants, neither Alexander the Great nor Hannibal are claimed to have risen from the dead, or did any other nifty magic tricks that defy credulity. I think Hannibal once did a keen “pick a card, any card” bit at a party, but never cured a leper or sent a demon into a pig.
At 1:16:25 Ehrman wrongly states that "Jesus stayed with them for 40 days in Jerusalem." The verse actually says "To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God', nothing about location. Verse 4 has the order not to depart from Jerusalem which makes obvious sense in the context: 'Stay here now because the Spirit will come to Jerusalem.' Ehrman also misrepresents Mark as showing that Jesus was "surprised" by his crucifixion ('Eloi Eloi etc) when it is clear from Mark 8.31-32 and 10.45 that Jesus fully expected to die. Ehrman's strengths are as a textual critic, not as an interpreter of the theology of each of the evangelists.
In the first part or 40 minutes of the debate Jimmy already made 5 fallacies: cherry-picking fallacy, Straw man , fallacy of relative privation, red herring, appeal to authority, bandwaggon, and hasty generalization.
Jimmy Akin did his homework with a capital "H" and being able to refer the audience to his website for further information on points he made and especially points he didn't have time to go into was really rhetorically effective. He made very effective use of his closing statement by saying, "I won." And I thought that Bart Ehrman got a bit lazy on this one. He was prepared as a scholar but not a debater. Maybe the other people he debates are not as well prepared as Jimmy Akin. And that is a shame, because I think he had better arguments he could have used. Akin did well by claiming that on the major, medium and minor points, the New Testament had shown itself to be historically accurate--by Ehrman's own account. The problem is that he left out the really key points of the story. Ehrman has written a book arguing that the outline of the life and earthly career of Jesus is probably accurately depicted in the gospels. But the key issue for Christians is, what did he teach? What did he claim to be? Do the gospels support the claim that he claimed to be the son of God or God himself? If so, then Christianity is vindicated, at least for those who accept the claim as according with reality. If he doesn't claim this in the gospels, then the theological foundation of most Christianities is in trouble. Ehrman points out in his opening statement that the synoptic gospels present a Jesus whose teachings focus on God and preparing for the imminent judgement. The gospel of John, by contrast, presents a Jesus whose teachings focus on himself as the son of God and God himself. This is really the crux of the issue, and Ehrman should have hammered on this point over and over. As he said in his opening statement, if Jesus' message was the one conveyed in John, you would think it would come up in the synoptics. If Jesus taught that he was God ("he who as seen me as seen the Father"), how could this core teaching be completely absent in 3 of the 4 gospels? Akin and one or two of the questioners said in response, basically, if you squint and look hard, you can sort of see something like that in the synoptics as well. Not convincing. Ehrman said, but did not emphasize specifically enough, that, in the key points, the ones most important to Christians, the gospels were formed by different theological positions, not by historical events. The theology of John is very hard to reconcile with the theologies of Mark, Matthew and Luke. As Erhman pointed out, they can't all be right on this point. And this point matters a lot more than questions of where Jesus was born, where he preached, how he acted during his execution, and who saw him after his death, and when, and where.
Mr Akin did say Jesus was on the 'low' with the 'I am God' thing. Making those direct claims among staunch monotheists was to put an end to a Divine Mission yet completed. He mentioned stoning as mob justice in those parts. Jesus always spoke wisely, metaphorically, and, at times, enigmatically.
Yours is a claim about Jesus' rhetorical strategy in representing himself. How would we know how Jesus represented himself? By reading the gospels. And Ehrman's point is that the gospels contradict one another in this respect, with the strongest differences being those between the synoptics and John. If Jesus downplayed his divinity, why does John not downplay his divinity? Ehrman's answer is that the gospels are human creations with distinct theological agendas that came more from their authors and the communities they were writing for and less from Jesus himself. If this is so, we don't actually know much with certainty about what Jesus taught or what kind of rhetorical strategies he employed. @@MrResearcher122
@@ekhelmekhelIsn't it quite clear from your own outline? Jesus downplayed his divinity during his early ministry for it was not 'his time' but that is not the same as denying it. Indeed in key moments even in the synoptics he let it shine through clearly, esp in the lead up to the passion and after the resurrection. If the agenda of the synoptic writers is to give an exegesis of Jesus' teachings and ministry to young but faithful communities, why should they preach to the choir? John's on the other hand, coming later on, was written to combat insidious emerging heresies so it makes sense that he should amplify those aspects of Jesus teachings that assert his divinity of which there are quite many. I'm not even sure what the controversy is or how a strong point of contention can be built on the fact that different writers had different audiences and agendas. Your misgivings sound contrived.
It seems to me that you are confusing two different time frames: the progression of the ministry of Jesus and the progression of the writing of the gospels. If we assume that Jesus worked up to the fullness of his message and that the fullness of his message was that he was God, the we would expect his message to develop over the course of the narratives of his ministry in the various gospels. In all four gospels, we would expect an early focus on God and a later focus on Jesus as God. After all, all four were clearly written after Jesus' death and his completion of his mission and message, whatever that was This is not what we find. We find three narratives of his ministry that convey the first message: focus on God and an imminent apocalypse, and one that conveys the second message, Jesus as God Himself. How do we explain this? If I were a certain kind of Christian, I suppose I would start with the the conclusion that the four gospels can be harmonized and look for a way to show that they all converge on John's message, given the centrality of the doctrine of the trinity to most (though not all) Christians today. But I am not, and I am persuaded by the conclusion of Ehrman and other scholars of the gospels, both Christian and non-Christian, that the gospels are human documents written by different authors from different Christian communities with different theologies and christologies. Given the differences in their messages, the four gospels can't all be correct. Which of them correctly portrays the nature and message of Jesus? Do any of them accurately convey the nature and message of Jesus? To what authority would we appeal to adjudicate between them? I don't see what is contrived about this. @@mandatumnovum7127
@@ekhelmekhel I'm not sure you are getting my point. The issue isn't the 'progression' of the story but the agenda. You do realize, don't you, that the written gospels were not the primary vehicle for evangelization or exegesis in the early christian communities but complementary to preaching of the gospel message. It's not like the writers sat down and said let's publish a comprehensive, authoritative manual for everyone, so we must have the same flow and content! Communities already developed and their beliefs were already fairly well established ever before the first evangelists put paper to pen. Thus, a community that fully believes that Jesus is God does not need an extensive demonstration of the fact. They may have needed a clarification of key events from eyewitnesses and perhaps emphasis on certain doctrines which the evangelist sought to supply. On the other hand a different community ravaged by doubt due to insidious heresies would need a completely different approach. Thus the demand for thematic uniformity is superfluous and ahistorical and the conclusion that some are 'wrong' simply because they chose to focus on different aspects of such a huge subject verges on the illogical. It's also simply non-sequitur that they therefore must cater to different Christologies. Furthermore, like Bart, you must certainly be aware that there were very many stories written about Jesus beyond the four gospels. What makes the 4 authoritative was that they were selected by the faith community of being representative of their understanding of the Christian message. In this light, this particular objection becomes even more absurd and it clearly punctures the idea of different Christologies.
1:36:58 Lol, no Jimmy, sorry, but the telephone game has the same results when being played by adults as it does with children. They even did it on that Ellen game show. You can try it at parties with your friends and see for yourself how much one sentence can change in just a few minutes. Accumulate those random errors over a period of years, and then decades, and it’d be ridiculous to claim that telling stories orally would NOT contain any changes over time. Not to mention, it’s incredibly naive and assumptive to think everyone who told the story orally through decades had not only a perfect memory, but was always sober when telling the story.
One interesting point where I believe Bart seems inconsistent is at 1:48:32 in this video. The discussion is about Mark 14 and Jesus' quotation of Daniel 7 (Son of Man coming on the clouds). In this video, Bart states that Jesus isn't talking about himself. However, in an earlier debate a couple of years ago with Michael Bird , Bart concedes that Jesus is in some sense making a divine claim about himself. For some reason now Bart thinks that Jesus isn't referencing himself. In his next debate, someone needs to call him out on this inconsistency. What does Bart actually believe about Mark 14? Bart's debate with Bird can be found at th-cam.com/video/RtkeNuCwinc/w-d-xo.html. Pay attention at the 1 hour and 52 min mark.
Indeed. There is no doubt that Jesus believes himself to be Daniel's Son of Man but Ehrman has tried, and failed, to argue against that because he knows full well that Daniel's son of man is a divine/human figure.
Bart is a scholar who is constantly working and updating his information to reflect the current research. He’s not beholden to a single idea just because it’s older-he’s not a religous zealot, in other words.
@@gobot90 Thanks for your statement. I agree, Bart is most definitely a scholar. He's been a scholar for over 30 years in this field on New Testament studies. That's why I'm perplexed. This passage in Mark 14:62 is universally accepted as Jesus signaling himself as the Son of Man. Jesus alludes to himself as the Son of Man many times before Mark 14. I actually think Bart is correct in his assessment with Michael Bird from a few years back. To me, in my humble opinion he is trying to deflect Akin's argument considering Jesus as a divine being. If pressed more on that, I think he would agree that Mark is trying to convey that Jesus is the Son of Man.
1:25:18 Wow, if only you honored this on your end, or if Bart had the gall to interrupt you in this way. I would have loved to hear more of Bart's questions instead of hearing you hucksterishly advocate your website dedicated to debunking him. You should have been debunking him here, but it's much easier to hit a baseball on a tee isn't it?
1:34:40-1:34:18 Bart is stuck in the loop of one person to another. He forgets it's a "community" that all heard it and then weekly/daily gathered to repeat the stories. As Jimmy says it's not a telephone game.
Bart: "I am not here to disabuse anyone of their faith...I'm here as a historian..." This is the most appropriate disclaimer since most people would consider it an attack on their faith if they are presented with things (no matter how credible) contrary to their beliefs." Although, I'm on Bart's side but I respect Jimmy's position, both did a great job.
🤣 After he said that & things got started I thought, Yes he is. That's exactly why he's here. over the last few years though I've honestly never seen anyone ever get so much so wrong. There's much better people to get opposite opinions from, even anyone else who doesn't believe in God or anyone else who has never picked up a bible ever. Bart is the worst. I've watched videos of literal Satan worshippers who get more right than Bart & they don't piss me off as much as he does, because at least they are honest about what they are doing & you just know. but Bart...It must be all an act, or deliberate... or maybe, dementia.. that one seems right, it fits. for sure. One of these though. It's the only logical explanation for him.. 🤪
@@mr.anonymous5856he annoys you because you cant dismiss him as he probably knows alot more about the gospels than 90 percent of the people who blindly follow them
I've watched a lot of Bart and Jimmy debates. The respect shown in this one is beyond amazing. It's also one of the best debates taking on Ehrman that I've seen, cause despite being a Catholic, I think he has a lot of great points. This is healthy debate at its best and it gives me more room to look at both sides rather than just believing one side alone
Bart really struggles with possibly being wrong, and it appears he thinks he’s figured all this out. therefore no one should enlighten him. Akin is a master of kindness and generosity it leave his opponents speechless
Jimmy’s argument is very heavy on style and weak on substance. Bart Ehrman (and most critical scholars) believe the Gospels are a mixture of both true and false things. Jimmy’s argument is essentially to just list all the true things. Cool. This doesn’t deal with the false things at all.
🎯 Key Takeaways (by idea) for quick navigation: 02:38 *🎙️ The debate format includes 20-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttals, 10-minute cross-examinations, and audience questions.* 03:38 *📜 Bart Ehrman focuses on the historical reliability of the Gospels, not their theological or religious accuracy.* 05:06 *📚 Ehrman believes the Gospels contain significant historical information about Jesus but also discrepancies that make them unreliable.* 06:28 *🌟 Ehrman critiques the differences in the birth narratives of Jesus between Matthew and Luke, highlighting contradictions regarding Bethlehem and Nazareth.* 15:31 *⚖️ Ehrman discusses discrepancies in the resurrection accounts, citing differences in how the disciples learn about Jesus' resurrection and where they encounter him.* 19:07 *🗣️ Ehrman analyzes Jesus' preaching in the Synoptic Gospels, emphasizing his focus on God's kingdom and repentance rather than his own divine identity.* 21:42 *📜 Jesus' identity in the Gospel of John is emphasized through the "I am" sayings, where he identifies himself as the bread of life, the light of the world, and the resurrection and the life.* 22:25 *📜 Jesus' use of "I am" in the Gospel of John parallels the Old Testament's reference to God's name in Exodus 3, implying a claim to divinity.* 23:22 *📜 Scholars recognize that Matthew, Mark, and Luke draw from earlier sources like Mark, Q, M, and L, none of which depict Jesus explicitly claiming divinity, unlike John.* 26:12 *📜 In the debate, the burden of proof lies on Bart Ehrman to demonstrate the gospels' historical unreliability, not on the believer to prove their reliability.* 28:02 *📜 The Catholic Church's interpretation of inerrancy allows for a more nuanced understanding, distinct from fundamentalist Christianity's literalist view.* 29:23 *📜 Reliability of historical documents is assessed by verifying major, intermediate, and lesser claims rather than demanding absolute inerrancy.* 33:07 *📜 Historical reliability is determined by the accuracy of a document's major, intermediate, and minor claims, rather than requiring perfection.* 36:23 *📜 Bart Ehrman, a skeptic, acknowledges the accuracy of major and intermediate claims in the Gospels regarding Jesus' existence, teachings, and crucifixion.* 39:23 *📜 Bart Ehrman confirms the accuracy of numerous lesser claims in the Gospels regarding Jesus' teachings, actions, and interactions, supporting their historical reliability.* 43:18 *📜 The minor discrepancies pointed out by Bart Ehrman do not challenge the major claims in the Gospels.* 46:17 *🏙️ Bart Ehrman illustrates discrepancies in the Gospels by comparing them to varying descriptions of New York City, highlighting differing details.* 47:28 *📖 Each Gospel presents a unique message, and readers should approach them individually to understand their distinct perspectives.* 49:13 *⚡ Bart Ehrman analyzes the portrayal of Jesus' death in Mark's Gospel, emphasizing Jesus' silence and the centurion's recognition of his divinity.* 50:54 *🌟 Bart Ehrman contrasts Mark and Luke's portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion, highlighting Jesus' interactions and demeanor in each narrative.* 53:59 *📚 Bart Ehrman argues against harmonizing the Gospels, asserting that each author has a unique message that should not be blended together.* 54:47 *💡 Jimmy Aiken provides resources and writing practices to aid in understanding the Gospels' nuances and historical reliability.* 56:02 *📚 Jimmy Aiken suggests further study and understanding of ancient writing practices to comprehend the Gospels accurately.* 01:02:38 *🔄 Jimmy Aiken emphasizes the gist principle in ancient writing, urging readers not to expect modern precision from the Gospels but to focus on their accurate essence.* 01:04:38 *📜 Jimmy Aiken concludes that judged by their intended standards, the Gospels are historically reliable in conveying the essence of Jesus' life and teachings.* 01:05:28 *📖 Bart Ehrman discusses the historicity of events in the Gospels, like the resurrection of Lazarus and Jairus's daughter, suggesting the possibility of people other than Jesus raising the dead.* 01:06:10 *🏘️ Jimmy Akin proposes the idea that Joseph and Mary had homes in both Bethlehem and Nazareth, explaining the differences in the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth.* 01:09:40 *📜 A comparison is drawn between Queen Elizabeth II's multiple lineages from William the Conqueror and the differing genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, suggesting they represent different lines of descent.* 01:14:38 *🔍 Bart Ehrman discusses the discrepancies among the Gospels regarding the disciples' movements after Jesus's resurrection, highlighting John's account as harmonizing the apparent contradictions.* 01:17:16 *📚 Jimmy Akin compares studying the Gospels individually to reading multiple biographies of Abraham Lincoln, emphasizing the importance of piecing together different accounts to understand historical figures accurately.* 01:21:41 *🗂️ Bart Ehrman discusses the organizational methods of the Gospel authors, suggesting that topical organization, such as in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, doesn't necessarily imply events happening all at once.* 01:24:28 *📜 Ancient biographies, like those of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, are known to contain inaccuracies, raising questions about the reliability of the Gospels.* 01:25:09 *🗣️ Debate on whether Matthew, written years after Jesus' ministry, accurately records his teachings hinges on the preservation of Jesus' sayings within the Christian community.* 01:26:32 *📖 Jesus' quote on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is a reference to Psalm 22, suggesting a deeper theological context rather than despair.* 01:28:36 *💬 Ethical teachings attributed to Jesus are considered well preserved due to their memorable nature and circulation within the early Christian community.* 01:29:44 *🎙️ While the genre of the Gospels may differ from modern biographies, the burden of proof lies in demonstrating their accuracy, especially considering the passage of time and potential for variation in oral tradition.* 01:36:27 *📞 Traditional understanding posits that the Gospels were not merely products of a "telephone game" but were based on eyewitness accounts or close sources within the Christian community.* 01:40:37 *🌍 Lack of third-party attestation for events like the "zombie apocalypse" in Matthew 27:53 raises questions about their historical validity, with explanations ranging from local significance to potential natural phenomena.* 01:43:36 *📜 Matthew presents Jesus as having the power to forgive sins, akin to priests in the temple.* 01:45:12 *🌟 Disciples believed Jesus was God early on, but Jesus himself didn't openly claim equality with God in synoptics.* 01:46:47 *📖 High priest saw Jesus' reference to Daniel 7 as blasphemy, a claim to divinity, reflecting the "two powers in heaven" doctrine.* 01:49:17 *📚 Jimmy Akin favors Markan priority in Gospel authorship and leans toward the Wilke hypothesis for Q source material.* 01:53:00 *📖 Bart Ehrman suggests the Gospel writers were more concerned with conveying a message than with historical accuracy.* 01:55:05 *✨ Jimmy Akin takes supernatural claims outside the Christian community seriously but believes Christianity offers superior evidence.* 01:59:57 *💬 Audience context matters in Gospel variations, influencing how messages were conveyed rather than strictly historical accuracy.* 02:01:52 *📜 Mary's influence in Luke's Gospel is evident in the infancy narratives, but she likely wasn't Luke's primary source for the entire Gospel.* 02:02:19 *💡 Luke's chapters 1 and 2 likely based on memories originating from the Virgin Mary.* 02:03:59 *🧠 Faith often attributed as the catalyst for miracles in the Synoptic Gospels, showing belief in Jesus' divine power.* 02:05:32 *🔍 Gospels should be seen as documents of faith, not just historical records, conveying individual messages to their audiences.* 02:09:29 *🎤 A source may be considered historically reliable if many of its major, intermediate, and lesser claims can be verified, despite approximations in ancient writing practices.*
Just read Luke 24-don’t see anything about him saying Jesus only appeared in Jerusalem, only that he indeed appeared in Jerusalem. And to Jimmy’s point, still not a major issue, but can happily fall under an approximation.
I love it when my prejudices jump up and poke me in the eye. I had never seen or heard of Mr. Akin before this. Based upon the thumbnail, I didn't expect much from him. Shame on me. I enjoyed his arguments a lot, and I'm a certified Bartfan®.
Glad to be able to reach across the aisle and make a favorable impression. Incidentally, off stage, Bart and I have gotten alone extremely well. Both very friendly.
Jimmy’s assumption that Joseph had a home in both locations is a perfect example of what believers and apologists do in order to erase contradictions. There is no biblical or historical evidence or suggestion of this theory. He just made it up to make the Gospels work without conflict. That’s not acceptable historical evaluation. There is so much wrong with his approach to reconciling the gospels.
There is current day situations in the poorest of countries under the same exact conditions. He hey leave their family home to get work in a different city. Many people form third world countries have posted the same in response to Bart’s ridiculous dismissal that it is possible.
@@beorbeorian150 there are many many scenarios that may be possible. That’s not how history is done. There’s no evidence for it. It’s an assumption designed to make the discrepancy go away. He just made it up and then accepted it.
@@FuzzyChesterfield - no - Bart claimed it’s not possible. Many reasons why it is and even likely. Despite guffaws from Bart, his best argument in most cases, he has been proven to be incorrect in his argument that it is not plausible. He claimed it was not plausible, has said the same for decades, scholars, apologist, atheist scholars have all given an exhaustive list of counterpoints but Bart just guffaws like an 18 year old told to clean his room.
@@FuzzyChesterfield a claimed discrepancy that is no discrepancy at all. An unfounded claim by Bart , the burden of proof is on him. That is the agreement he had going into the debate.
Very interesting debate. I think the most important point is brought up by Bart at around the 1:59:00 mark were he states the difference is between what is religiously accurate and what is historically accurate. Jimmy seems unable to decipher the difference between the two.
@@mrnarason Wallace points out that even as anonymous books, they carried enough internal weight to be accepted as reliable. Conversely, the 2nd century gospels like Thomas Mary and Peter were not anonymous but were spurious and had unreliable material. So, how important is anonymity in reality? LOL.
When people comment against the plain consensus of scholarship with pithy remarks like, "destroyed" I laugh. I'm not saying the consensus is always right and eill always hold but I will say that there is a reason your view is not the consensus and for good reason... The gospels are anonymous by definition because they don't claim authorship lol. Such a silly argument. Again when you lower your mental standards to accept such strange claims, you lose the ability to say anything about other religions.
First of all: thank you for this factual and respectful debate! I personally am with Bart, I feel that the differences Bart mentions are major and cannot be correct at the same time.
In reference to Barts claim that people wouldnt remember the sermon on the mount, and says well can you recite Obama's inaugural adress, no, but I bet many people could recite Martin Luther's I have a Dream speech word for word decades and decades later, this was a high impact speech it is not at all crazy to say Paul remembered the sermon on the mount 30 years later
Jimi Akin's main thesis was that he could list 11 "Major", 23 "Intermediate", and 30 "Minor" gospel claims that Bart Ehrman agreed with. BUT ... if you look closely at what these claims are, then not one of them are central to Christian theology. i.e. they are ALL very minor claims. Every last one of them. AND... if you look at the issues Bart raised, they were ALL on issues central to Christian theology. For instance do you seriously think Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul and the other NT authors ALL simply forgot to mention that Jesus repeatedly told everyone HE IS GOD (as claimed by John throughout his gospel)? Seriously? It simply slipped their mind? If the issues Bart raised failed to give you pause to seriously reflect then I'd suggest that is evidence of closed-mindedness.
@@boxingboxingboxing99 Exactly. A Jewish preacher existing, being considered rebellious and being crucified was a regular, mundane event in Israel 2,000 years ago. The fact that any of these preachers 'existed' is meaningless trivia. Christianity is obviously centred solely on the claim that a man (Jesus) was GOD!!! Which is why the No. 1 key issue is the contradiction between John's account that Jesus openly and repeatedly preached to everyone that he was God VERSUS the total absence of this claim in all the other gospels, Paul's writings, and every other book in the bible. They simply forgot to mention Jesus said he was God??? Really?
@@KaycCal No. John's Jesus continually, unambiguously, and openly claims to be god, telling everyone this, without fear or reservation... unlike Matthew's Jesus, and unlike Mark's Jesus, and unlike Luke's Jesus, and unlike Paul's Jesus. None of these other authors had Jesus claiming to be god. Do you think ALL of these other gospel writers and Paul simply forgot to mention this little tidbit... the most fundamental "fact" in modern Christian dogma???
@@canwelook Again, only someone uneducated in the subject, wilfully ignorant or someone deceitful would say that Jesus never claimed to be God, outside of Luke or just in general. Mark 14:61-62 John 10:30 2 Peter 1:1 Hebrews 1:8 Matthew 2:11 Matthew 14:33 John 9:38 1 John 2:2 2 Corinthians 5:21 Etc etc etc I literally just copy pasted some of the most "famous" passage which infer His Godhood. Now, again, only someone who is uninformed on the jewish traditions, or the significance of the titles like for example "Son of Man", or someone unfamiliar of who can forgive sin, would then dismiss some of those passages. So again, be an atheist for all I care, live your life however you want, but don't make such a stupid argument that Jesus never claimed to be God or that others didn't acknowledge Him to be God without Him rebuking them. Don't be that kind of atheist. Be the one that is honest with his disagreement.
When asked to explain why the birth place of Jesus is different in the gospels, Jimmy said Joseph and Mary, against all odds, may have had multiple residences and thus both gospels are correct. The mind boggles.
@@david52875 Fair point. The problem with his proposition though is that having multiple residences doesn’t seem to be a common practice in the Bible and he’s only suggesting it here to fix an apparent contradiction.
In the paternal line, one cannot descend from two different forefathers. Both genealogical lines contradict each other, and there is no way to connect them. If Joseph had a house to live in in Bethlehem and Nazareth, why did they have to stay in the stable of an inn in Luke?
Aiken doesn't know the difference between an explanation that sounds good and one that actually explains something. It isn't enough to point to literary practices as an explanation unless you can show this is what the author is doing. I may leave out details because I want to shorten a story or because I don't know them, don't think they're true or have some other objection. Aiken simply assumes the explanation that confirms his thinking. There are all sorts of current literary practices that go unused by writers for various reasons. So if we want to show. Matthew is leaving something out because he wants to shorten the story, we need to ask if Matthew's account is actually shorter and are there other examples of this in Matthew's work. So, we could compare Matthew with Mark and see if this explanation holds up
I think you misunderstand what Jimmy is arguing. He’s simply showing that these supposed contradictions are not necessarily contradictions, not that they are definitively NOT contradictions. Bart even agrees these are valid ways to understand the writing styles of ancient authors.
Matthew 27 is a huge problem ... Jimmy has no issues with the graves opening and the dead saints marching around ... Mark, Luke and John make no mention of it or anybody else in history ... It seems resurrection was a banality of the 1st century ... At that actual moment the people of Jerusalem were not aware yet of the resurrection of Jesus so I would imagine dead people walking around would have been quite troubling and astonishing.
Who's here after the Matt Fradd interview with Jimmy Akin?
Yeap. Hahaha.
Yep hahaha
Yep
Here here here 😅
....guilty
2:45 Ehrman
25:07 Akin
44:07 Ehrman rebuttal
54:40 Akin rebuttal
1:05:01 Ehrman cross examination
1:16:37 Akin cross examination
You missed the highlight of the debate, 35:50
@@ultimateoriginalgod 🤣🤣
Thank you for this brother.
The High 5 was pretty kool 😎
1:33:13 Q&A
2:05:28 Ehrman Closing
2:09:31 Akin Closing
As a reformed Christian Jimmy Akin is probably in my top 5 favorite living Catholics (I know a lot of Catholics would find it hard to believe a Calvinist would even like 5 Catholics). He’s so intelligent and articulate.
Thank you, and God bless you!
I couldn't help but notice the similarities in their voices. I listened without video for much of the debate.. the only way I knew who was talking was to process what was being said.
Akin is clueless.
@@Win-d1s Well substantiated argument, I'm convinced!
@@Win-d1s I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. His argument was well formed
🎯 Key Takeaways (grouped by topics) for quick navigation:
02:38 *📜 Historical reliability of the canonical Gospels*
- Understanding the historical reliability of the Gospels.
- Examining the key terms "historically reliable" and what they entail.
- Addressing the broad outlines of Jesus's life while acknowledging inconsistencies and contradictions within the Gospels.
06:28 *🌟 Discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus's birth*
- Analyzing the differences between the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.
- Exploring discrepancies regarding Bethlehem and Nazareth in the two accounts.
- Highlighting the absence of accounts of Jesus's birth in other New Testament writings and questioning their significance.
15:31 *⚖️ Variances in the narratives of Jesus's resurrection*
- Contrasting the resurrection accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
- Pointing out discrepancies in the accounts of how the disciples learned about Jesus's resurrection.
- Highlighting the divergent narratives regarding the disciples' post-resurrection actions and locations.
19:07 *🗣️ Jesus's self-revelation in the Synoptic Gospels*
- Examining Jesus's teachings about himself in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
- Emphasizing the predominant theme of Jesus preaching about God's kingdom and the need for repentance.
- Contrasting the message of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels with the portrayal in the Gospel of John.
20:16 *📖 Jesus' Identity in the Synoptic Gospels*
- Jesus focuses on preparing people for the imminent arrival of God's kingdom in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).
- He emphasizes repentance, belief in the good news, and love for God and one another as ways to get ready for God's kingdom.
- Jesus does not explicitly discuss his divine identity or coming from heaven in the Synoptic Gospels, unlike in the Gospel of John.
21:42 *📜 Jesus' Identity in the Gospel of John*
- In the Gospel of John, Jesus prominently discusses his identity through the "I am" sayings, such as "I am the bread of life" and "I am the resurrection and the life."
- Jesus presents himself as the one who reveals the truth from God and claims to be "I am," evoking the name of God from the Old Testament.
23:22 *📚 Sources and Jesus' Self-Understanding*
- The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the Gospel of John offer different perspectives on Jesus' self-understanding.
- Earlier sources used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, such as Q and the "M" and "L" sources, do not depict Jesus explicitly claiming divinity.
26:12 *📊 Evaluating Gospel Reliability: Major Claims*
- Historical reliability of the Gospels can be assessed by examining major, intermediate, and lesser claims.
- Major claims about Jesus, such as his existence, Jewish background, teaching ministry, discipleship, crucifixion, and involvement of Pontius Pilate, are supported by both historical evidence and Bart Ehrman's agreement.
34:44 *📜 Evaluating Gospel Reliability: Intermediate and Lesser Claims*
- Intermediate and lesser claims about Jesus, including his specific teachings, associations, actions, and predictions, align with historical evidence and Bart Ehrman's assessment.
- Bart Ehrman's agreement with these claims further supports the historical reliability of the Gospels, indicating consistency and accuracy in depicting Jesus' life and ministry.
36:23 *📋 Conclusion: Bart Ehrman's Assessment*
- Bart Ehrman affirms the historical accuracy of major, intermediate, and lesser claims presented in the Gospels, demonstrating reliability in depicting Jesus' life and teachings.
- His agreement with key aspects of Jesus' biography supports the argument for the Gospels' historical reliability, emphasizing the credibility of their portrayal of Jesus' identity and ministry.
41:37 *📜 Bart Ehrman questions the historical reliability of the Gospels*
- Bart Ehrman challenges the historical reliability of the Gospels based on discrepancies in key events such as the virgin birth and resurrection.
- Ehrman argues that disagreements on major claims like these undermine the overall reliability of the Gospels.
44:05 *🧐 Analyzing differences in Gospel accounts*
- Bart Ehrman illustrates significant differences in the portrayal of Jesus's death between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke.
- He emphasizes how these differences in narrative details reflect distinct theological perspectives and messages.
54:47 *📚 Resources for further study and understanding ancient writing practices*
- Jimmy Akin offers resources on his website to aid in further study of the historical reliability of the Gospels and understanding ancient writing practices.
- Akin discusses the importance of recognizing ancient writing practices such as selection, paraphrase, and sequencing in understanding Gospel accounts.
01:02:51 *📜 Ancient Authorial Practices*
- Ancient authors, including gospel writers, often provided gist accounts with approximate details rather than precise, word-for-word transcripts.
- Details in ancient accounts were meant to convey the essence of events rather than precision, similar to how individuals convey information in everyday conversations.
01:05:00 *🔍 Examining Gospel Narratives*
- Discussion on whether certain events in the gospels were historical or invented by the gospel writers.
- Examples provided include the story of people rising from the tombs in Matthew's gospel and Jesus's birth in Bethlehem as mentioned in Luke's gospel.
01:17:00 *📚 Comparing Gospel Narratives to Biographies*
- Analogous comparison drawn between reading the gospels individually and examining biographies of historical figures like Abraham Lincoln.
- Emphasis on the importance of comparing different sources to reconstruct historical events, despite discrepancies between accounts.
01:21:14 *📜 Organizational Methods in Gospel Narratives*
- Discussion on the organization of material in the Gospels.
- Matthew's topical organization enhances storytelling.
01:23:47 *📖 Genre and Historical Reliability*
- Examination of the genre of ancient biographies and their historical reliability.
- Comparison with other ancient biographies and their accuracy.
01:27:14 *🗣️ Oral Tradition and Gospel Transmission*
- Exploration of the impact of oral tradition on gospel transmission.
- Analysis of the reliability of oral transmission over time.
01:38:45 *📜 Authorship and Reliability of John's Gospel*
- The debate centers on the authorship of the Gospel of John, particularly whether it was written by an eyewitness or based on sources.
- Scholars debate whether John himself or someone else wrote the Gospel, with arguments focusing on internal evidence and historical context.
01:40:37 *💀 Multiple Attestation and Supernatural Events*
- The discussion revolves around the lack of third-party attestation to supernatural events described in the Bible, such as the "zombie apocalypse" in Matthew 27:53.
- Arguments are made concerning the significance of these events to Jesus's followers and the likelihood of external sources recording them.
01:43:23 *🌟 Jesus's Claims of Divinity and Miracles*
- Examination of Jesus's actions and statements regarding his divinity, particularly focusing on his miracles and forgiveness of sins.
- Perspectives are shared regarding the significance of Jesus's actions in demonstrating his divine nature, with emphasis on biblical interpretations and historical context.
01:49:03 *📚 Synoptic Problem and Gospel Composition*
- Analysis of the synoptic problem, discussing the priority of Mark's Gospel and the existence of the Q source.
- Perspectives are offered on the compositional practices of the gospel authors, including the relationships between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
01:51:54 *👻 Supernatural Claims in Historical Context*
- Exploration of supernatural claims in historical texts beyond the Bible, considering their credibility and interpretation within various cultural and religious contexts.
- Perspectives are shared on the acceptance of supernatural events in different religious traditions and the criteria for evaluating their authenticity.
01:57:07 *📜 Examination of Crucifixion Accounts*
- Comparing crucifixion accounts from Mark and Luke.
- Differences in Jesus' words and audience addressed in each gospel.
02:00:27 *📖 Luke's Use of Mary as a Source*
- Discussion on Luke's use of Mary as a source for the infancy narratives.
- Evaluation of Mary's influence on Luke's Gospel.
02:03:04 *🙏 Significance of Faith in Gospel Healing Stories*
- Examination of the role of faith in gospel healing narratives.
- Interpretation of Jesus' statement on faith in healing miracles.
02:05:17 *💬 Concluding Remarks by Bart Ehrman*
- Gospels viewed as documents of faith rather than historical accuracy.
- Importance of understanding differences in gospel narratives.
02:09:29 *🛡️ Concluding Remarks by Jimmy Akin*
- Proposal on assessing historical reliability of the Gospels.
- Importance of understanding ancient writing practices in evaluating gospel accounts.
Bro used chatgpt
AI where have you been all my life
For those distressed by Akin's emphasis on definitions, types, and especially his introductory focus on clear and well understood semantics: this is necessary for honest debate, and any laziness here gives either party room for rhetorical slight-of-hand; everyone should learn to appreciate the rigor of good semantics - it keeps bad actors from 'hiding the ball' and forces honest partisans to concede fairly contested ground instead of indulging their biases.
If you don't care about semantics, then you don't care about truth, and your only concern is winning.
To be wrapped up saying they only gave the "gist" of the whole account. To claim to be the inspired word from God himself and only have the "gist" should be extremely concerning to you.
@@NoWayJose.50 John 21:25
I'm not concerned. And I don't assent to Sola Scriptura. The Bible is a record of the faith, not the whole faith.
@tristentesla1304 you're confusing two different things. What is revealed and what isn't. The things that ARE revealed aren't accurate enough. And when you read this verse, there is more ambiguity. John says "I suppose", and that is not a confident assertion, only an assumption. Again, just the "gist".
We are not talking about what is NOT revealed, but what IS revealed and the quality of those claims.
Truth shouldn't need flowery language or structured lies.
@@notsocrates9529 you wouldn't know the truth if it was two inches from your nose
Just a note about poor people having two homes... come to Africa. People have a home they call home in the rural, then they maintain a residence in their place of work. It is so normal that I'm kind of bewildered that those in the west would assume it is a preserve of the rich. In Kenya, we have ushago (rural where our ancestry can be traced) and a home in Nairobi. Our rural home is over 200 miles from where I grew up... It is where my father was born and my ancestors for about 500 years lived.
Africa is not the Middle East of 2,000 years ago. Studying the history should inform your opinion. Only one person on the stage, Ehrman, studied the history of the time. The other guy was simply speculating.
@@KBosch-xp2ut the point I'm making... just like the brothers of Jesus and stuff, is that I'd understand why Joseph could have two homes in different towns. One is where he came from, his roots and the other is where he learns his keep. Actually that is how many in Africa (which is not the Middle East 2000 years ago) understand this. The west kind of assumes that their understanding of stuff is it... that is the assumption Bart makes, that Joseph was either rich, or it makes no sense.
@@KBosch-xp2ut do you even know the other guy and his creds? Why do you assume he is speculating? Because he is a Christian? Ad hominem-ish.
@@BradleyKisia
You can make up any stories you want. The evidence just isn’t there.
He’s speculating because he is simply making things up about what could have been to try and justify his beliefs.
@@KBosch-xp2ut who has made up a story... mine is not a story... I have stated a fact, that you didn't know and now do, say thank you.
If you are discussing the rest of the debate, I was careful to raise a point about one item only; so you are reading more into my comment than is there. Just to remphasize: I talked about two homes and stated that it is possible and reasonable (for me and my kinsmen) ... so, I am not sure what else you're on about.
You're looking for a fight in the wrong place, creating your own demons. Look for someone else's post to argue on/in... Mine was just a fact...
As a Catholic, I appreciate Bart's sense of humour. Great debate. Jimmy is first class, too.
@ I appreciate Bart's sense of humour. @ - Bart appreciates it even better than you for you might have smiled at his jokes while Bart laughs hysterically
@@Андреич-с4н Laughing at your own jokes is the sign of someone who thinks themselves very funny. Cheers!
I find Bart funny, too.
Some of his arguments are bit funny. Although I respect his scholarship, I often feel he is projecting his intellect against his fundamentalist past and to fundamentalists today.
For those who have never really experienced fundamentalism (I haven't experienced much as a Canadian Catholic) his arguments are less useful.
I fully agree with him that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. How about you?
I know mythicism has its proponents, academic even. The mythicist arguments and debates bore me, though. They seem overly speculative and play loose with the relevant texts.
@@PaxMundi118 :::I fully agree with him that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. How about you?
=====================
About me? There is no evidence that Jesus lived. But as we agreed, no proves of existance does not prove non-existance
@@PaxMundi118 :::Laughing at your own jokes is the sign of someone who thinks themselves very funny.
=====================
It is OK to think themselves very funny. But to laughing at your own jokes (i.e. to demonstrate that you think youselve very funny) is a sign of... I was going to say "idiotism", but this would be too impolite ... English is not my mother tongue... which word to use... smugness?
@@PaxMundi118 ::::I respect his scholarship, I often feel he is projecting his intellect
======================
in this here debates on Gospels Historical Reliability I failed to detect any Bart's intellect. I posted explanation of my opinion earlier. Will copy it here for you:
Bart Ehrman is either not smart or playing giveaway. This Barba-rossa in a cawboy hat draws a list of important and less important features of the Gospels. According to this list Jesus was just one of many ordinary preachers who accidentally got executed, like today in the former USSR an ordinary bloger gets accused of insulting religious feelings, or of being a so called "foreign agent", or stirring up national hatred or showing disrespect to authorities etc. and ends up in prison.
Yet Bart, being preoccupied with virginity of Jesus' mother, fails to notice that the main feature of the Gospels is Jesus being presented as the Son of God. To this end the Gospels describes several great miracles preformed by Jesus. Whether these miracles really happened or not, makes the Gospels reliable or unreliable. Not some discrepancies between the Gospels, which discrepancies are unavoidable taking into account that the "memoirs" of these four old gentlemen (who, btw. most probably could neither write nor read) were compiled many-many years after the events they narrate.
At drinking parties with my Uni mates we often remember our students' life and the same episode is often discribed differently by those who were there. Sometimes even disputes arise if this or that episode did happen
This is the first time I've realized that Jesus quoting Psalm 22 is a beautiful, sorrowful way of saying, "I've heard your cries."
I found it amazing when I learnt that too. Or daniel7:13-14 then Philippians2:10-11
A popular psalm read often in synagogue. Mark was wise to use it as his inspiration when composing this scene.
I heard the opposite.
Would be, if it ever occurred, clown.
Luke didn't quote from Mark or Matthew about the watchtower or wall built around the vineyard that the farmer made on in the ("Parable of the Tenant's.")
Jimmy was much more rational than most Christian apologists I have seen.
Coming from a position that allows the Bible NOT to be absolutely perfect allows for more common agreement than if the Christian was a fundamentalist Bible inerrantist.
Yes, chalk one up for the Catholics!
@@77goanywhere To be clear, Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant in all it means to assert in precisely the sense and manner which it means to assert it. This is why it's so valuable to know the genre of the book to have an educated understanding of what it means to propose (i.e. that Jesus in his ministry said x y and z even if he may have only said x and z at the sermon on the mount where Matthew also places y because it fits the topical organization. ) A fundie definitely has more trouble, because in taking everything as literal narrative history (which subconsciously they often fail to be consistent about), he's taking the bible to say things it never meant to. i've seen them claim that all Jesus' parables were literal events he was relaying for example purposes, and Genesis especially becomes a mess on the fundie model.
Where do you think rational apologetics came from? The scholastic era of the Catholic university system.
There are Sola Scriptura protestants who don't believe the bible is literal history or natural history. They just believe it is the only validi source of doctrine, (which doesn't make sense to me since they develop their own interpretational traditions but the earliest protestants believed in Sola Scriptura, but also that the Bible may, in parts only be allegorically true or apocalyptically true.
That being said, if the Pope has the capacity to speak on doctrine, and is "literally" the vicar of Christ, why not just have him once and for all tell us what the Gospel or other biblical inconsistencies mean.
I liked this a lot, but seeing the two handshake and hug at the end was the most heartwarming part. It really made my day.
Reading Ehrman brought me back to Catholicism. As he picked his way across the gospels, finding tiny faults, I had the realization that the gospels were essentially true. I did NOT want to return to Christianity. I fought it and lost. I attend mass several times a week.
Yeah, among his many errors, the way he says "well Jesus probably said this, probably not that, maybe this, maybe that" like he has any sort of way to verify or give strong reasons for this.
Possibly one of my favorite of his logical fallacies was in a debate, he said because God "cannot" violate the laws of mathematics(i.e. God can't make 2+2=5), therefore somehow he cannot violate the laws of physics and thus, miracles and a resurrection aren't possible.
@@mattm7798 Bart Ehrman demonstrates a critical lack of imagination. Physics is not a stationary science. It swells, and changes. Physics exists because people with imagination asked questions and then set about finding answers. But those answers only made for more questions. Physics has not been finalized.
@@mattm7798 Assuming you have any idea what qualifies as logical fallacy, how is that a logical fallacy?
@@cjp.6880 That's a great emoji, Barbie. Thanks for demonstrating the typical wit and intellect of gawwd's most special little projects.
Tiny faults? There are massive contradictions dude. You sound like you didn't read Ehrman.
This was fun to watch. I wish more debates were like this. Both guys were respectful, funny and witty, and brought a lot of intelligent points to the discussion.
To be fair both are at the world class level of their positions. So not many can operate on this level.
I did not enjoy it. Ehrman is a scholar but goes too easy on Christians.
@@nicokarsen6131 How so?
@@nicokarsen6131 If anything, Akin was too easy on Erhman. There were several occations that Ehrman was about to lose composure and his body language were suggesting he wasn't comfortable that Akin came prepared to address his points. It wasn't because Ehrman took it easy, but it was because that Akin was in control of the pace of their debate because he knew how to address Bart.
@@gluteusMAXlMUS Akin is just a human search engine, he's definitely a very prepared debater
Never had seen Ehrman hesitate so much during a debate. Good job brother!
Wow, this is by far the best I've seen someone deal with Ehrman's arguments. Akin came very prepared.
And still failed 😂
@Ken Asai Did he? depends on which gospel you read lol.
Bart' presentation reflects his personal mocking opinions. Does not support his assertion that the books , Matthew Mark Luke and John are not reliable.
I actually thought Akin humbly and calmly mopped the floor. I mean you can clearly see Erhman's body language (stiffening, head titlting, eye brow raising, change in tone of voice, etc) on multiple occasions, each time his few opposing points, that he brought up, were one by one reasonably addressed by Akin.
@Gluteus Maximus You can tell Akin really studied Ehrman's debate approach and avoided several traps that most apologists fall into. Particularly, the denial of non-Christian miracles and dealing with the discrepancies. The startrek analogy and the genealogy rebuttle had Ehrman on the defense.
I am never in line with Ehrman on these debates, but he is always a gentleman and at times I think his good manners are exploited. I hope whatever turned him away from God is some day healed.
Your last sentence proves you’re biased. This wasn’t a theological debate, and YOUR opinion is based on your faith, rather than on the facts presented. I get tired of seeing comments like “hope he comes back to God” as if your opinion of faith holds any weight.
@@ChrisLindeman-d4m Bart has described his exit from faith as being caused by the suffering of humanity , and the fact that he cried as he told this made me believe that he also suffered personally. I don’t care for the Way his opponent disrespected Bart. I thought he was rude to Mr. Ehrman and that was my point. I do not care who won the debate and I did not address the issue. Bart was a happy person when he called himself a Christian. I hope whatever has hurt him in life is eventually resolved. I think he is a very decent human being at heart.
I’ve seen him talk before and watched his biblical series on TH-cam. Him leaving faith was a painful experience. When he discusses it, I kind of feel that he would prefer to believe. I say this as someone who gave up faith as a young man, and called myself an agnostic/atheist for many years. I had a hard time believing, but it doesn’t quite make sense not believing as well. I kind of feel he will eventually find his way back.
@Deewood9996 what makes you so angry that you attack Christians even when they express concern for atheists? Bart’s decision to leave the Christian faith was an emotional one. I only expressed concern over his well being. Do you normally react so aggressively towards kindness? Are you in any kind of counseling? Have you noticed a pattern of difficulty within your relationships? Whether you ever turn towards Christianity or not there is no need to go through life angry and confrontational. If you get that triggered by a benevolent comment by a total stranger I shudder to think how horrible your life must be. I hope things get better for you.
@@tibbar1000 Your comments here may align with your perception of "kindness", but this kindness has wreaked untold pain and suffering on much of the world and many cultures that opposed christian views. Bart is spot on that this is all garbage and post-hoc rationalization now suggesting the "gist" of the story is outwardly disingenuous. I hate when you christians claim a hatred towards a non-existent being, not possible. The horrors perpetrated in the name of your religion is testament to the fact that religion makes otherwise good people commit horrible acts.
Jimmy and Bart are both so interesting to listen to. Jimmy is a powerful force for faith and Bart is a christian reality check. Both men are so valuable to the conversation. Great debate guys. Thanks for your work!
Bart was “more” honest.
@@freethinkman7678 Was Bart honest when he said "father why have you forsaken me" as if Jesus was doubting God, when in fact, Bart turn out knew knew Jesus was quoting Psalms all along? He was trying to test if there were ignorants or less knowledgeable from the audience that would buy it, until Akin corrected & exposed him.
@@gluteusMAXlMUS “more” honest… there is a plethora of dishonesty with Jimmy Akin with his efforts to defend the “Faith” (a word centered in dishonesty)…
Bart could be dishonest with several items of interest and never touch his opponent in this regard
@@freethinkman7678 well give us a specific example to prove your point
@@freethinkman7678 I just realized how redundant your response was. Bart wont use Faith on debates. Of course he wont, he's debates for athiest.
Jimmy akins defends for faith on debates. Of course he will he's on the religious side. But that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. Otherwise, there's no point of debate
It also, works both ways. One can easily
Accuse Bart as dishonest from the opposition by saying that because he's an athiest, there is no moral grounds that would stop him from making up stories.
Of course, I already pointed the part where Bart lied. The burden now is on you to prove your point. Otherwise, Akin literally calmly dismantled Bart and controlled the whole debate. Anyone who is honest enough who watch the whole debate could clearly see it.
One of the best debates I have ever seen. Thank you very much!
It really was. A pleasure to listen to.
Ehrman makes a really great point about 45-50 minutes in, about the value of reading each Gospel on its own and not letting our expectations of the Scriptures blind us to the real text when we approach it.
EDIT: Can't believe I'm still getting uncomprehending comments about this. I meant this about private devotion and personal familiarity with the Scriptural texts, not about their literal meanings (which are almost always related to a previous Scripture). Read the words on the page first, internalize them, then start trying to "understand" or "harmonize" them.
That’s however just one form of academic historical criticism. There are others that Bart is just ignoring. There is a reason the codex of the Bible was made.
@@eswing2153 What are you talking about? The "Codex" of the bible is literally a collection of separate books.
@Andrewpearson1903 referring to Ehrman's talk at 45-50 mins - talking about the Gospel of Mark. He summaries the Gospel and presents it as something completely different from the other gospels.. at 48:50 to 49:17 states that Jesus "wonders why" God had forsaken him.... This is the problem with Protestants which Ehrman was, Mark wrote the gospel as a Jew for Jew's because the early Christians did not read Mark's gospel and think "oh my even Jesus is wondering WHY".. No, the Jews of that time knew the reference "My God. My God. Why have you forsaken me?" Its from Psalm 22. It is another fulfilment of scripture not a questionable end of "wondering". Ehrman made no good points there buddy.
Actually it is a very poor way to read the Bible. We can assume, in most cases, that the gospel writers were aware of one another's works, and that they wrote with the knowledge that (other than perhaps Luke) what they were writing would be fleshed out and given more context in the body of the other works.
@@hross1991you are making an assumption and putting words in Jesus mouth that aren’t there. Bart is quoting the text whereas and you are making excuses as an apologist. “Another fulfillment” is laughable buddy. THe gospels were written way after Jesus’ death by educated Greeks who knew the Old Testament and knowingly constructed the stories in order to make Jesus a fulfillment of prophesy. Not hard to do buddy.
Thanks for doing this debate. I’m not a Catholic but you have done one of the best jobs of anyone I have seen debating Bart and actually having a solid understanding at Barts level and able to actually have a meaningful debate.
I agree. I've watched a half dozen or more debates with Bart vs. Protestant apologists, and this one seems to do the best. Probably because he doesn't (secretly) believe in inerrancy.
I don’t know. I think Bart had a better grasp on the scriptures than Akin did.
I beg to differ. Akin didn't address the issue at hand and even made claims that Joseph (a carpenter) had two houses. Not only does he fail to give historical evidence for this, it goes completely against the narrative in the bible. Had Joseph been in possession of a second home, they wouldn't have gone looking for an inn nor would they have been forced to camp in an animal shelter.
He might as well go to the extreme and claim that Joseph had a beach condo in Egypt too. Cause one of the gospels has them fleeing there while the other gospel has them going to the temple!? Like the contradictions are so blatant you can't possibly solve them.
@@proculusjulius7035 Jimmy doesn't make that claim; he said that Joseph would have had some share in estate property with kin, not necessarily a permanent dwelling place. This would be the only reason to return under the census to be taxed as a resident of Nazareth. I am surprised Jimmy doesn't point out how it was quite common for someone to receive a part of an estate inheritance, when property is left to multiple heirs. Just think of the parable of the prodigal son who told his father he wanted his share of property inheritance now rather than later. BTW, the word "Tekton" does not strictly convey a carpenter, but more likely a craftsman. We historically use the word carpenter for Joseph because the early church fathers said he made wooden farm implements such as ploughs.
@@proculusjulius7035 That's the only question I think he didn't answer well. I talked to Father Mitch Pacwa on the radio about that today and he doubts that Joseph had a "summer home" in Bethlehem because he was not a rich man. Fr Mitch has been to Israel several times and speaks 12 languages fluently, to include Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic (Jesus language), and Arabic and has a PhD in Old Testament studies. He said the likely explanation, since the Bible doesn't give exact details, is that he left Bethlehem and went to Nazareth for employment. He goes into detail on why work was likely available in Nazareth because of the destruction that occurred in the area after the Zealot rebellion during that time frame. Why he had to go back to Bethlehem is because he was a resident of Bethlehem. He was born of the lineage of King David who was also from Bethlehem and that was his legal resident. That legal residence will stay with him wherever he goes and so when taxes are due, you have to go back to your town of legal residence and pay them. Here is a link to Fr Mitch's response: th-cam.com/video/hK0JQKyYk0Q/w-d-xo.html (it is around minute 18).
Bart is a very genuine and likable man, regardless of his faith! God Bless him and hopefully one day Gods grace truly touches him🙏
ima pray for you as well that yall leave polytheism and instead accept Islam
@@bstlybengali I appreciate your kindness. 🙏
His faith?
@@Fabian-kv9tw yes, we all have a faith system, it just may not be Christianity, Islam, etc. evolutionists have way more faith than most christians.🙏
Growing into adulthood as a Christian Bart thought he was ‘truly touched by God’s grace’. If he wasn’t as implied here then where does that leave believers?
Good job. I appreciate the friendly dialogue between Jiimmy and Bart . Two great experts in their field.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. ;)
@@TheWorldTeacher thanks. How do you see the debate? Good and things they could have improved on?
@@nardforu131, I’m an ATHEIST, but I consider Lord Jesus Christ to be a very holy person. 😇
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@TheWorldTeacher Not a vegan. Why do you ask?
@@nardforu131, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
I'm a long-time fan of Bart (I'm an ex-Christian who found out about him after I left the faith)....but I wanted to say Jimmy did an amazing job in this debate. Extremely good points and so well-prepared. A pleasure to listen to this!
Hey brother, I sincerely hope you find security in Christ someday... the narrow road is hard to find; the scripture indicates as much. Narrow the road and difficult the way.
@@scottward4316 He should have done a better job spreading his message around the world before he died
How so?
@@scottward4316 thanks for the kind wishes Scott. I hope the same for you. Christianity is a man-made religion and it took me almost 30 years of living in it to learn this. The brainwashing goes deep. Took me a LOT of study and work to get the courage to leave. I know first hand that it's not easy.
@@mrsatire9475 oh really !? You da man ! Lol
I'm thankful to Bart ehrman; because of him, I'm searching for the word and it's reliability and tbh I'm getting stronger in faith everyday.
OK, spread Bart Ehrman to all your friends.
Jimmy akin did really well. Hats off.
Are you suggesting he take of his giant cowboy hat? 🤠
@@nikkmitchell He's bald. I've seen it, and it isn't pretty.
But he's still wrong
@@KendraAndTheLawnope, he isnt😂
@@joe5959 but he's saying the Bible is not accurate ... just a gist
I’ve watched so many debates and lots of Bart Ehrman debates, specifically. Jimmy is by far my favorite opponent of Bart’s!!!! Awesome discussion and I love how pleasant they were to each other. ☺️ I could only hope to be half as wise as either of these fellas one day!!!
Jimmy is a joke. Ask me why.
Watch James white
@@TheTranq ok I’ll look it up
When you can see the older copies and check for mistakes against older copies, the telephone game analogy falls apart. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the ability of the copiers to keep the high accuracy over thousands of years.
What Bart is talking about is pre-written text
Bart's logic is that if four people saw a car wreck and one of them says the car was silver and another says the car was white and another says it was gray and another says it was light yellow, it follows that we have good reason to believe there wasn't a car wreck at all.
Well, no. The analogy would be more if 4 grandchildren were told by their grandparents that apparently 50 years earlier there was a vehicle wreck they all saw, one of them seeing a silver truck, another a red bus, another a blue motorcycle and another a pink boat. In that scenario, it’s most likely it never happened
@@hardwoodthought1213this seems more likely, thank you.
Not what his point was at all. He never says none of it happened, he says it's impossible to know for sure what exactly happened. Who was right, who was not. His point is if you're going to use the bible as a history book you'll be left wanting. Read it as it was intended to be read and that is for the messege, not the accuracy.
Joey, your account is not historically accurate ... and it hasn't even been 50 years yet, smh
What an incredibly dishonest straw man.
This has strengthened my faith to Yeshua...
Why?
watchin this for the first time in 2024, Jimmy was phenomenal.
Man, I can not say Jimmy was phenomenal. I do not think for a second that Jimmy did Catholicism any favors.
I thought Jimmy lost this one. His preparation for a specific debate opponent was much better, but his arguments came across as disingenuous fluff-arounds. He simultaneously acknowledges a faith-based argument, while saying his opponent has the burden of proof regarding historical accuracy with his criticisms, and when Bart gives major points of contention for both the historical and belief-based accuracy of the documents, they're labeled as "minor historical discrepancies," despite them not being minor and also meeting his definition of a major historical contention to the ideas presented in the texts themselves. Jimmy's argument hinges on the separation of history and ideas, but it's a debate on historical philosophy that includes historical documents. The separation of idea and history is disingenuous, and it's how he structured his debate, which he hid in the form of a "backhanded compliment" towards Bart. I give him credit for the preparation and the opponent-specific targeting, that was amazing. I'm all for tactical debate sneakery. The argument itself fell short and was lost in the show, though.
I think acknowledging the significant shortcomings of his own stance would have been more honest and appealing, especially when dealing with faith, rather than making a framework "Bart agrees with me" list. Especially since the texts, even with their unreliable aspects, still are reliable historical documents in their own right. Just not necessarily in the exact way people want them to be.
At 1:14:37, Bart Ehrman is incorrect. It is not explicit in Luke 24 that verse 44+ (where Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem) is on the same day as the previous verses where they first discover Jesus after the resurrection. The "on the same day" reference ties two earlier events, not the command to stay in Jerusalem.
In fact, when we relate this to Acts 1 (also written by Luke) we know the time period was 40 days altogether within the events of Luke 24, so we know there are time gaps not laid out in detail within Luke 24, which is *corroborated* by Matthew 28 and John 20-21, not contradicted by them.
This makes sense, since witnesses (eg: Matthew) are going to remember the long trip to Galilee and back, where this wouldn't be front-of-mind to a writer like Luke who didn't take the trip.
if you read the text carefully.. all the events are on the same day.
Luke 24.. "on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, ..." The women find the tomb empty, they rush to tell the Disciples.. Peter runs and goes away in amazement.
verse 13.. Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus,.....29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.”
33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together.
36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them.....
49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
@@oceancoast92657 No, it's not on the same day (the part from verse 49, where Jesus goes up to Heaven). If you read the Book of Acts Chapter 1, 1-10 you can see that this talk happens on the day 40. And Luke is the author of the Book of Acts.
Jesus appeared to all apostles except Thomas at the first day, as it's being said in Luke, but the talk from the verse Luke 24:49 happens on day 40.
Just like Matthew didn't say that "they immediately go to Galilee" as Bart claimed. There is no such a phrase in the text.
Just read Luke 24:49-53 and the Book of Acts 1:1-13. Luke, the author of Book of Acts explains it more detailed that it was on day 40, when Jesus commanded the disciples to stay in Jerusalem and was taken into Heaven. So no any contradiction with Matthew that Jesus met with the disciples in Galilee, also because in the Books of acts it's says that the disciples saw Jesus during those 40 days. So there is just no any contradictions at all.
@Russell DeLong
Correct!
@@oceancoast92657 Verse 44 is likely a separate day. We know verse 50 is a separate day, and neither have clean breaks.
@@QuadraticSquared 'likely "? If you can prove that "IT WAS " the next day then maybe, just maybe, you'd have an argument.
PERSONAL NOTES (Thanks to @dharmatech)
2:45 Opening Statement - Ehrman
25:07 Opening Statement -Akin
44:07 Ehrman rebuttal
54:40 Akin rebuttal
1:05:01 Ehrman cross examination
1:16:37 Akin cross examination
Debate highlight? 35:50
Ehrman said in his own opening that Mark has Jesus predict his death multiple times, after being rejected by the priests and scribes, and yet Ehrman still pushed the line that Jesus in Mark was surprised that he was going to die after being rejected by the priests and scribes. So Mark both has Jesus predicting his death and being surprised that he was going to die? How does that make sense to Ehrman?
But then he claims that Jesus' 'Son of Man' references are not about himself. So, if Ehrman was challenged on the death predictions in Mark, which all mention the Son of Man, would he change his claim and say they are not about Jesus? If so, then why did he say this?
Also, just because Mark doesn't mention Jesus saying something, it doesn't follow that Jesus didn't say anything. Ehrman assumes that and then somehow invents the entire psychology of Jesus during his passion from that assumption.
Mark is a bit of a mess and holds secrets that we never as the reader are informed of(Seems somewhat gnostic - Disciples are clueless throughout and Jesus says he teaches in parables so that if overheard people won't be magically saved who he did not mean to save.etc). You must also remember it was written some 50 years after the events claimed.
@@davidfrisken1617
''You must also remember it was written some 50 years after the events claimed.''
The current acceptable dating of Mark is 65 - 72 AD, which means around 30-40 years
What is this dating based on? Its based on a single thing: Namely, that Jesus predicts the persecution in Judea, therefore the author of Mark must have seen it.
This is the only reason for dating Mark so late and literary nothing else.
Also Mark is extremely clear and is not a mess, and literary has the highest Christology of all the gospels - just because Erhman doesn't accept this doesnt mean the vast majority of scholars also dont.
When you see that a person feels the urge to say that Mark has the highest Christology of all the gospels you know that this guy is not looking for the truth but to silence his deep insecurities about the religion in which he was probably indoctrinated.
@@floydthomas4195 Nope. it is definitely dated at a minimum of post Temple destruction. It is probably a lot later than admitted. eg Luke is now dated 125-150CE
@@vejeke
''I say you're wrong therefore you are wrong''
The absolute state of atheists lmao
Majority of New testament scholars accept the highest Christology in Mark.
This was a great debate, Jimmy. Both sides performed well and made coherent points. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing.
Bart claiming Christians are missing the point of the Gospels has got to be a peak of irony.
Lol what? Majority of Christian’s barely read the Bible. I’m sure many are missing the point. Yeah super ironic one of the most well respected new testament scholars and historian, with the most popular college textbook on the New Testament in use today is missing the point of the gospel.
Yeah. Did he really think Jesus quoted psalm 22 because he was in distress? I don’t need to have a doctorate to understand that he quoted a prophecy about that exact moment.
Most of his claims were debunked in “misreading the Bible with western eyes” and that wasn’t even such a great book. I’m disappointed.
@@ModernLadyPsalm 22 isn’t a prophecy, it’s a song about feeling despair and being comforted in God’s protection. It could have been an allusion to Psalm 22 when Jesus cried out to God, but it certainly isn’t fulfilling some prophecy.
@@christophecrist2171
By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending.
The psalmist describes the crucifixion long before crucifixion was a thing: “they have pierced my hands and feet” and “They divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots”. Just like it happened.
But the psalm ends in hope and salvation from enemies and worship of the Lord by the whole world. Just as it happened.
@@ModernLady Where in the Psalm does it say that it’s a prophecy? Just because events correspond to each other, does not make it a prophecy. Where are the strong bulls of Bashan during the crucifixion? What about the dogs that encircle the speaker? What language can we take as allegorical, and which can we take to be literal? My view is that Psalm 22 is a song, and since the message of the cross is one of victory over death, the themes overlap to the point where people misinterpret the song as a prophecy. David was not a prophet.
I’m impressed by Jimmy Akin’s clean, well-organized presentation. Bart Erhman has met his match - himself.
If you just listen to this without watching the video, you could easily be forgiven for being confused as to whether Jimmy or Bart is speaking. Their cadence and pitch is so similar, as is their respective enthusiasm for each one's position. Great debate to listen to (although I'm a little more of a Bart fan.)
It wouldnt surprise me if Mr Bart was a secret Gnostic.
@@sheldonmurphy6031 well he has identified himself as somewhat of a christian-atheist...so not too far a stretch.
@@proculusjulius7035
Roger That!!
I just wasn't going to go there with mr pussnuts. lol
@@sheldonmurphy6031 Maybe not a gnostic, but he maybe he knows some cules how to find Jesus our Lord🤣👍🤌
Not in the slightest
Catholic arguments won this debate. Ehrman looked as if he knew it was a hard climb up to defeat a tradition that is rooted in a millennia of scholarship, and some of the most agile minds in the Western tradition. I wonder how he'd fair with a Greek Orthodox scholar with a mastery of the Greek manuscripts? He'd probably struggle. His polemics work best against the Protestants who claim inerrancy in the Bible, but fall somewhat flat with a hermeneutics based on a Church tradition.
Right, one guy vs. another guy who also has 2000 years of the best argumentation and scholarshiop of all time. Yes, people like Aquinas and his followers (millions?) spent whole life times and centuries honind and refining these arguments which even still don't hold up too well, but can keep you from being blown out of the water by one dude.
@@joecheffo5942Bart Erhman's arguments didn't even exist back then, genius.
@@david52875 The existence of evil argument didnt exist? All Bart Ehrmans arguments are unique and novel? Really? Then hes the genius not me.
Exactly. Well said.
Jimmy I hope you don't mind that a Classical pagan like me will lend you a hand 😅..., here's an argument to support why Joseph went to Jerusalem for the census: You know, Galilee actually was not annexed to the Jewish kingdom until the reign of the Hasmonean (Maccabean) king Alexander Jannaeus (Jonathan), 104-76 BC, and that's when some Jews moved from Judaea to Galilee, that was just a couple of generations before Jesus was born. We may presume that Joseph's ancestors moved to Galilee at that time, or even some time later, so he may have perfectly remembered where his grandfather or even his father came from, as Joseph is also presumed to be an older man. He didn't even have to know he was a descended of King David. Of course Bart is brillant, but I think he is mostly prepared to debate to those who say the Gospels are historically accurate to prove the supernatural contents are true.
Still doesn't explain why we have no account anywhere else of Augustus calling for an empire wide census and demanding everyone go back to their ancestral home to register for it, considering Augustus is one of the most well attested lives in all of ancient history. Wouldn't somebody somewhere write that down? Wouldn't somebody somewhere have held onto some scrap of paper about it? If there were pagan records corroborating the gospel account, wouldnt the Medieval scribes have copied it just like they did Josephus?
@@QuiteWellAdjusted No account of the Census of Quirinus? Of course we have. Only point is that it was not Empire wide and its date contradicts the gospels because it was in AD 6. But that does not matter at all because oral tradition tends to confuse these things and, in any case, Jesus was executed most likely in AD 36, not 33 nor 30.
What this debate reveals is that two hours isn't enough to really drill down into this subject.
It would not be fair to Erhman to allow this to continue. When a fighter is getting hammered round after round you got to throw in the towel.
@@LetsgoB It wasn't really a debate since Erhman's "opponent" conceded from the start that the Bible is not historically accurate.
@@LetsgoB Akin's ludicrous theories that Joseph owned two homes when Luke 2:7 says Jesus was born in a manger and that Joseph is descended through both genealogies even though that would give him two fathers hammered nothing.
🔨⚒️⛏️🛠️🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨
Its more than enough. The claims or Christianity are bogus. Akins claims that Jesus not quoting Psalms 22:1 in its entirity because he was "tired" is laughable, it really is. Ehrman is spot on in his analysis of how the passion narritives tell completely different and totally incompatible versions of events.
@1:02:47 Jimmy concedes the debate. The Gospels are not 'historically' reliable, they may be inerrant (fit for teaching) but according to Jimmy the authors did not have the tools to make a historically accurate account... A historically reliable account of the gist is not a historically reliable account of what happened, it is a historically reliable account of what people thought had happened.
But more reliable than most or anything else written about that time period. The Gospels are more contemporary than writings about many historical figures that we accept without question
@@beorbeorian150 except that a lot of those similar accounts you're referring to, actually make it clear that they're referencing older contemporary works that we just no longer have and are lost to history. Not all, but more than you think.
@@beorbeorian150 I really don't know how you can think this argument helps your case as you have also now conceded the debate. You are comparing the word of God with historians that by today's standards are hacks. You have now taken the argument from inerrant, to reliable to merely a collection of human gists. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE WORD OF GOD!
@@truthseeker2275 you have a complete miss understanding of the term inerrant. And the debate was not about that anyways. You are not going to find any inerrant history book or ancient source.
@@beorbeorian150 mmmmh, why does Jimmy then highlight inerrant vs reliable if there is no such a thing as inerrant? The claim has been made throughout history that the word of God is inerrant...now you say there is no such a thing? Or are you saying the bible is not a history book? Please explain your understanding of inerrant... I have always taken it to be as flawless for teaching...but others take it as flawless history. What is your take?
1:06:00-1:09:25
Aiken argues that Joseph had two separate homes, one in Nazareth and one in Bethlehem.
Yet, Jesus was born in a manger due to there being no room in the inn according to Luke’s account.
1Why would you need an inn when you have a home in the same area?
That's covered in this article: jimmyakin.com/2022/03/where-was-josephs-residence.html
@@JimmyAkin did he have a home in Egypt too when they went there yet the other gospel has them travelling in another direction?
Excellent point, it is a ad-hoc explanation in attempt to harmonize the gospels.
Obvious contradiction and it cannot relied upon historically.
I have my doubts any of the birth legends were ever meant to be history in the first place but there is actually an explanation that is even based on archeological findings. We actually do have a written account of a couple who had to travel because of a census to a place where they had a field they had inherited. There aren't always houses on fields. But, like I said, it's barely even relevant for my personal faith.
@@proculusjulius7035 Obviously they found a home in Egypt because they lived there for a while.
What a dumb comment...
When police interview witnesses after a car accident there are often conflicting reports. That doesn't mean the car accident wasn't real.
That’s the best analogy you can come up with, how elementary. The facts are the gospels were written 40-70 years after the death of Jesus. We all know how much can get lost in translation when 10 people play telephone.
The difference is the Gospels aren't independent because of the synoptic problem and because the 4th gospel was written so late there's no way the author didn't know the others
Where are getting this 40-70 years from?
@@zeraphking1407for real?
@@2haydnt Yes.
For something as memorable as attaining eternity, there are people who would memorise word for word., and I know many people have such ability.
Absolutely, there are millions of people who indeed memorize word for word. You're referring to the Muslims and the Qur'an? Millions have memorized it word for word by heart from start to finish - most of them Arabic isn't even their first language - many of whom are kids below the age of 5.
eternity is guaranteed 😉😉🙏🙏✝✝❤❤
Saying that the gospels are in agreement with Bart Ehrman's claims about them (42:00) only proves fact that Bart has read the gospels carefully. This isn't an agreement of two independent sources.
And saying that just because Ehrman agrees that the gospels contain that information is confirmation that they're historically reliable is ridiculous. How Akin got away with making that assertion blows my mind. The fact that Ehrman didn't notice that rather clumsy sleight-of-hand and immediately protest in the rebuttal is disappointing. Having said that, I'm sure it's much easier to see these things in the comfort of my recliner than standing up there on stage. I haven't read all the comments. Perhaps others noticed what Akin did...
@@olphartus5743No you misunderstand. Those are things Ehrman agrees with the Gospels about, not things he believes the Gospels claim.
@@olphartus5743lol you completely missed Jimmy's argument
@@ACE-pm3gh Could be. I'll go back and look at it. Thanks.
Also wanted to mention, I'm happy the optics of Jimmy being quickly eloquent and Bart needing a moment to think on his feet didn't tarnish the debate. Optics ruin debates these days. They can obscure the points.
Also glad the optics of Bart not rebutting after most of Jimmy's questions but Jimmy rebutting after 100% of Barts didn't tarnish the debate either.
Thank you Akin!
1:14:45 In this moment Bart misrepresents the text. Luke doesn't say that in the same day of the Resurrection, Jesus told the desciples not to leave Jerusalem. Moreover, the Book of Acts written by the same author (Luke) clearly shows that Jesus said it on days 40 when they went outside of Jerusalem. They stayed in Jerusalem from 40th to 50th day. In the Gospel by Luke this fragment is shortened, but it doesn't say that it happened in the same day, and the Book of Acts explains it. Bart misrepresents this fragment.
Also Bart says that according to Matthew, Jesus said it in Galilee, but if you check the text you can clearly see that what Jesus said to the desciples in Galilee (Matthew) is different from what Jesus said in Jerusalem (Luke, Acts) which shows that those are two different events.
In fact Jesus appeared to the desciples in about this order:
1) To Maria Magdalena, day 1
2) To other women, day 1
3) To two desciples at Emmaus, day 1
4) To all desciples except Thomas, day 1
5) To all desciples with Thomas, day 8, the next week after Resurrection
6) 7) At the Sea of Tiberias and in Galilee
8) On 40th day, in Jerusalem. Where Jesus told the desciples to stay in Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit, which was on 50th day.
Dude, we don't know what Jesus said. We only know what anonymous authors who have never met him wrote about what he supposedly has said. How reliable is that? Not at all.
You are mistaken.. Bart is absolutely correct.. Read Luke .. on the day of the resurrection, Jesus appears to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and then to the 11 in Jerusalem.. he tells them that day to remain in Jerusalem.
@@oceancoast92657 Please, show the exact quote where it says that Jesus tells them that day to remain in Jerusalem. I didn't find any.
Moreover in the Book of Acts Luke clearly shows that that talk happened on the mountain next to Jerusalem on the day 40. (Luke 1:1-10)
In Gospel of Luke, Luke speaks about the same talk, he just put it right after day 1. But same Luke explains it in the Book of Acts, that Jesus went to haven not in day 1, but day 40. So that very talk happens on day 40, not day 1.
Bart just misrepresents the text or he didn't understand it when he read it. You can check it yourself.
@@lepidoptera9337 What reliable proofs can you give to show that the authors of gospels didn't meet Jesus in person?
At least some of the author (Matthew, John and most likely Luke) met Jesus in person, what you can find out when you analyze the text. For example, the way the things are described in the Gospel of John shows that the author was a witness. Also many scholars think that there was a text with Jesus sayings made by desciples (most likely Matthew) which later was used as one of the sources for Gospels.
@@ronrontall6370 The texts are too late and they were written in the wrong language. Just because a text says that the author was a witness doesn't make it true. The texts also say that a man walked on water, which is obviously a myth.
I was not confident with the cowboy but the man delivered!
Jimmy Akin is a beast! (A compliment) Seen a couple of his debates, and wow, he is thorough. Wouldn't want to be on his opposing side
He spent his entire opening defining terms we all know and identifying areas where Bart agrees with him. Who cares? He didn't argue for the reliability for the Bible because it's not.
1:39:00 It seems Dr. Ehrman is confusing John 19:35 ("The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe") with John 21:24 ("This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.")
John didn't write the book of John, are you kidding? 😂
@@nauticdixonsWhy do you not think he did?
If God knew that his word would be misinterpreted,or lost in translation, why didn't he make it so that all people would correctly understand it forever?
Yep
He made the Quran
Just as Jesus is fully God and fully man, the Bible is God's Word expressed in human literature, and as with any human literature, it is also prone to being misinterpreted.
@nguyenhuy2163 Wouldn't he have known that and made things explicitly clear...that's what I never can get around in the Bible. God created the Universe and everything in it but has left his teachings so unclear that people have argued and killed each other for centuries. Doesn't sound like divine planning.
@ He knew that people would misinterpret it, that’s why He also left the Catholic Church as the teaching authority and the sole authoritative interpreter of the essential contents of Scripture. So that people would correctly understand it in the fullness of time.
1:40:51 this is a guy who knows he made a statement that he can’t support in any way. There isn’t sufficient proof remaining to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, let alone a group of other people. Not to mention, the disciples may have been writing all this while in a “channeling” state. John is in “the wilderness” when he writes revelation. Ezekiel is in “the wilderness” when he writes his book. Moses spends 40 years in “the wilderness”, while writing his books. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel. All of the prophets wrote their prophecies either directly from the wilderness, or while remembering their time in the wilderness, and not one of them records a single encounter with a single Satan, while they are in the wilderness. Satans love to pretend like the are God, and none of the prophets recorded a Satan in the wilderness, that’s strange, isn’t it?
Hey does anyone know if Jimmy Akin has a website??
56:27 Watching the wholde discussion helps ;-)
@@Weserman75 WHOOSH
😂
“We’re going to have a 10 minute break and that break is 10 minutes”. Well, thanks for explaining that!
He's talking to religious people so it needs to be made simple and clear. Some of them might argue it was a parable and actually means hundreds of years.
Many, many people think a ten-minute break is for other people. Their break is about an hour, give or take, so they can come back in whenever they please.
He's emphasizing that 10 minutes is 10 minutes, not 15, not 20, not 30 so don't dally. Reminds me of my first boss who when we were late for work would bellow: Work starts at 8 not 8:15!
@@masterpassword2 😂And in the tenth minute we rested.
And the Lord spake, saying, ''First shalt thou break for 10 minutes. Thee shalt thou count to ten minutes, no more, no less. Ten shall be the number of minutes thou shalt break, and the number of the break shall be ten minutes. Eleven shalt thou not break, neither break thou nine, excepting that thou then proceed to break for ten. Twelve is right out. Once the number ten, being the tenth number, be breaked, then returnest thou to thy Holy Debate of Antioch."
Historians are trying to write anything about the slaughter of innocents.
Herod - once your pen touches the papyrus you will be beheaded.>
Historian - Fair enough.
Herod couldn't have executed any Roman citizens, though. Only Jewish historians could be thus threatened.
That is a huge claim and as the other comment points out Herod couldn't do jake squat against Roman citizens because he would have lost his life.....
Try again.
Not one person anywhere in the Roman world wrote a single word about the slaughter of innocents except the author of Luke, because a podunk backwater Roman vassal would get mad? Why isn't it in Josephus? Herod was dead, he wasn't gonna behead him from beyond the grave
Everybody knows that jesus's dad was a developer. So you'd expect him to have multiple homes in different areas because that's just what developers did in ancient Rome. They used to be cation on the Riviera all the time what's so odd about that
@Jimmy Akin, in the town of El Arish on the north shores of the Sinai Penninusla there is a road sign which effectively says (in Arabic) "Jesus, Joseph and Mary Slept here."
I've driven right by it a few times.
Wow Jimmy really killed it with the check mark display. All Ehrman followers should watch that part. I'd love to see what they say.
Do you mean in his opening? I’m only listening. Halfway through, but a good debate so far.
@@stevenbatke2475 no about half way through. Hey green checked all of what Bart's agrees with which is all the major claims. Bart only disagrees a small amount and therefore, even by Bart's standards, the gospels should still be reliable when you weight what even Bart agrees with vs disagrees.
@@UNKLEnic I agree that Jimmy presented that part very well. But as Bart said, it’s the differences of the birth narrative and the resurrection, that have contradictions that can’t be harmonized.
@@stevenbatke2475 could you elaborate on what major contradiction of the resurrection that you're referring to?
@@UNKLEnic I’m not saying major, just saying differences. Ones I’m sure you’ve heard before, but it’s been a hell of a week, so I’m too tired to list chapter and verse.
Forgive the laziness.
These are ones I’m rattling off the top of my head: did the temple curtain tear before Jesus died, or after? How did Judas die? Who and how many people were at the open tomb?
Those are just a few, I know, and it may sound insignificant to believers, and they have been explained away many times, but the gospels in total, tell different stories from each other. All the differences cannot be harmonized. Two separate accounts cannot both be simultaneously true.
Jimmy Akin is so far the most knowledgeable, but I have to give it to Bart, watch it, and form your own opinion. I wish these guys could go at it for longer
bruh since the time I knew bart ehrman, I have never seen a single christian at the level of bart ehrman....
but this one, man, I was absolutely amazed by how well Jimmy argued his point...
Kudos to both gentlemen!
Relevant to around 1:28:00
Can’t remember where I heard this, but if ancient people wanted to quote a psalm they’d often just recite the first bit and everyone would understand they were quoting the entirety of the psalm. Can’t back it up with a source but you can always look it up.
Wish Dr. Ehrman would have pressed him more on the fist question, the virgin birth. I think it's fairly clear that both authors are "forcing" Jesus to be born in Bethlehem via different made up stories (neither is attested in any source and and both are quite ridiculous), because the Messiah needs to be born there.
We believe in what seems impossible to humans. You have a choice to believe as you like, but why resort to ridiculing others because of their faith. Christians widely influenced civilization through education, charity, dignity of the human, etc through the centuries so why not try to enjoy the benefits that you are reaping from Christianity and be happy with yourself instead of trying to convince others. Studies show Christians are happier, live longer, and recover more quickly from surgery than non-Christians. So if these are the benefits, why would you want people to join your misery -- living aimlessly without book ends on life. I guess misery likes company.
Christopher Hitchens mentions this when he says Jesus was real otherwise the writers of the gospel would have him come from bethlehem rather than trying to force him there. Obviously there was a memory from that time that Jesus was from Nazareth.
@@Shawn-nq7du you don't choose beliefs. That's a position called doxastic volunterism and it's garbage. We are convinced by reasons, you don't just go shopping for beliefs.
What kind of attestations do you expect for a story that is 2000 years old
@@CaptainGrimes1 why have him come from bethlehem Along exile in Babylon followed by 3 moreempires.A longing for roots and facing the reality of havingto earn livelihood
This was the first time I watched this debate and I can tell Bart was not ready for Jimmy to go in the direction he did in his opening statement. I enjoyed it a lot!
It was a good debate. I didn't understand the effectiveness of what Jimmy was doing in his opening. There are many true things in the Mormon Bible and the Quran, but that doesn't mean the actual story is reliable in both cases.
Ready or not, Bart was certainly able and more than prepared to rebut Akin's apologetics. Mostly because Akin's argument was not really reasonable, it only sounded like it was until given a little careful thought beyond assuming he was making actual sense.
Dear@@joelrivardguitar You raise an excellent point. I agree with you; There are many true things in different scriptures and text and that doesn't mean the whole thing's reliable, but how do you personally go about establishing what's reliable from what's not?
Because if different texts say contradictory irreconcilable things, then either all are incorrect or only one is correct.
What falsification means and criteria do you employ to distinguish reliability?
@@SearchKnowTruth The Gospels do not harmonize, you can read Bart Ehrmans Jesus Interrupted for some examples or just buy The Synopsis of the Four Gospels by American Bible Society, which shows each verse side by side.
It's generally accepted that Mark is the source for the other Gospels, the Markan Priority arguments are given here:
bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
Mark does not seem to be writing history but using older narratives to construct a story, Dr Carrier writes a bit about that and some of the info is used here:
lagevondissen.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/the-gospels-as-allegorical-myth-part-i-mark/
But the theology is not Jewish, it's Platonic/Hellenism. David Litwa and Richard Miller write about this. J.Z. Smith as well. Dr Tabor also has many free resources on this topic, all PhD historical scholars. Here is one:
Death & Afterlife: Do Christians Follow Plato rather than Jesus or Paul?
Dr James Tabor
th-cam.com/video/MYyXf4V8e9U/w-d-xo.html
5:40 1st Hebrew view of cosmology and afterlife. The dead are sleeping in Sheol, earth is above, the firmament is above that and divides the upper ocean from falling to earth,
7:50 A linear version emerged with time and an end times and final Judgment.
Genesis says you will return to dust.
9:00 Translation of Genesis 2:6 God breathes the breath of life into Adam (giving him a soul). The actual Hebrew translation is “living-breathing”, meaning all life is this.
10:40 Hellenistic period - the Hebrew religion adopts the Greek ideas.
Sources the Britannica article and explains it’s an excellent resource from an excellent scholar. (JZ Smith)
13:35 In the Hellenistic period the common perception is not the Hebrew view, it’s the idea that the soul belongs in Heaven.
14:15 The basic Hellenistic idea is taken into the Hebrew tradition. Salvation in the Hellenistic world is how do you save your soul and get to Heaven. How to transcend the physical body.
Greek tomb “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home”
15:46 Does this sound familiar, Christian hymns - “this world is not my home, I’m a pilgrim passing through, Jesus will come and take you home”.
Common theme that comes from the Hellenistic religions. Immortal souls trapped in a human body etc…
47:15 Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology
Material world/body is a prison of the soul
Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world
Death sets the soul free
No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth
Immortality is inherent for all humans
Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul
Humans are fallen and misplaced
Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free
Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed
Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul
49:35 Genesis view
Creation/body very good, procreation good
Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth
Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust”
Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation
Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation
Humans belong on earth
Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body
Death is an enemy
Physical life and sensory pleasures are good
But really, even if all of the text kept the theology perfect and the Greeks were not involved and they strictly used OT resurrection/end times theology which was Jewish beliefs, that doesn't make it true.
What?😂😂
Why would Mary and Joseph have to look for an inn, which turned out were all booked, and the ultimately stay and give birth in a stable if they had a second home in Bethlehem?
The word for "inn" used in the Greek is κατάλυμα which means "lodging place". Obviously, "lodging place" could be any number of locations and is not necessarily an inn. Perhaps it is translated as "inn" in some translations because Luke says Mary and Joseph came from Nazareth and the translators infer κατάλυμα to mean "lodging specifically for travelers".
The text doesn't say the "inn was all booked", it just says there was no room for them to stay, or at least for Mary to give birth. Giving birth made the woman ritually unclean so it would make sense for Mary to be outside the normal lodging areas since it would make the whole place unclean.
If Joseph and his other relatives returned to Bethlehem for the Registry as their place of legal residence, it makes sense that Mary may have had to give birth outside. After all, Bethlehem was a small town and there's no reason to think they were staying in a large estate, just some family owned property.
Plot armour.
Quit asking valid questions.
@@grantgooch5834 because giving birth in a barn is what people do. Nobody would give up their room to a woman in labor. Especially since it was supposedly Joseph’s place.
@@grantgooch5834
Your comment and point is absolutely meaningless. The book of Matthew has then living in Bethlehem than fleeing because of Herod. Later seeking refuge in Nazareth after Egypt because they still feared him.
The stories do not add up!
Bart @1:31:22 reminds Jimmy that he said he wasn't going to use faith during the debate. Jimmy said no he didn't say that but I thought I heard it too so I looked back and he did in fact say, "...we are not here to debate faith tonight as Bart said we're looking at the gospels from a historical perspective..."
The question was questioning a faith statement in the text though.
It would be like if Bart asked how people resurrect
Jimmy, the links on your website no-longer work! I would love to read them
As someone who falls on Bart's side on this debate, I think the largest mistake people make when trying to hormonise the different gospels is the presumption, just because they all appear within the established Christian cannon, that these texts were intended to fit together. All the historical evidence we have about them, combined with our more general knowledge about how oral traditions evolve and what the preliterary traditions of the time were, indicates that these were texts written by people presenting a unique account of the stories and traditions they had personally been exposed to, each having a different take-away from the Jesus story and, in all likelihood, each holding different - mutually exclusive - theological and Christological views. This means that the authors intended their works to be standalone pieces that encompassed the fundamentals of their beliefs about Jesus. We can't say that Mark, Matthew, and Luke didn't mention Jesus's divinity because they were relying on John to cover that aspect, because the gospels were not written as segments of a four part set. When the authors of the gospels wrote their works, they did not think of themselves as writing 'John's Gospel' or 'Luke's Gospel'. They were simply writing THE account of Jesus's life and ministry. We should take these authors at their word
That's a really good point. If you asked me and a group of my friends to recount an event, chances are we would all mention different parts of it and different things that we heard and saw. It doesn't mean any of us are lying or inaccurate if our descriptions of the event don't match exactly. It's just different from our different points of view. I think this especially applies to Bart's complaints about the resurrection and how some gospels claim Jesus said X and other gospels claim He said Y. How is it not possible that all of those things were said, or were heard slightly differently? The major story doesn't change based on if Jesus did or did not say a certain line.
@sassychimpanzee7431 Yes, you're absolutely correct. If a group of witnesses to an event write about that event, they will naturally mention only those aspects they personally see as important/relevant. We can take all these accounts together to form a more accurate view of what happened due to the fact that they all witnessed the same thing. The reason this doesn't work with the Gospels is that none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus - and they most probably didn't know anyone who knew Jesus either. The Gospels are written accounts of folk stories that the authors heard. They are not witness testimonies
From a Bayesian perspective, Jimmy makes a solid case for reliability. Bart's notion of reliability comes off as subjective in contrast. Sadly Jimmy didn't have time to sketch the two houses case.
So they have 2 houses one in Nazereth and one in Bethlehem but there is no room at the Inn and she gives birth in a barn 🤪😂😍🤣🤣🤣
@trump bellend I think it is a minor point..?
People seem to want it to flow like a just so story rather than being real life. The complaint is like "you wrote the story down wrong because you didn't explain this thing I don't understand". We don't know why, but there are a dozen of plausible reasons why -
He might have rented it out and simply couldn't for the tenants to leave.
It might have not been suitable for them staying in in general - eg it was small, filled up with materials and tools and just didn't have a bed.
It may have been a distance away and they didn't want to travel further at night.
The midwife Joseph was using in town was close to the inn and they couldn't travel to his house for some reason.
Real life is messy.
My parents put their cat in a pet hotel when they went on vacation. Several of their pets stayed at home - the cat was new and not getting along with the others. The cat freaked at the pet hotel and I had to go get him, but the cat couldn't go back to their house and I was leaving town so we had to go find another pet sitter for a weekend - somebody skeptically scrutinizing an account that included my parents hired a stranger to watch their cat while the other pets stayed home in 2000 years might scoff.
Real life is messy.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You can’t use “life is messy” when scripture doesn’t make sense, but then you’re certain about something use the opposite premise.
@Nahmanides Scripture is clear about what it's clear about. Ascriptural events, the wider context of scriptiral events can be debated within the confines of history and the text. That's not having your cake and eating it too, that's understanding the limitations of what can be known and what can't be known for certain.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 Scripture isn’t really clear about anything though. There are probably 10 separate interpretative traditions for each piece of scripture.
We as humans extrapolate information based upon many different variables.
The way you or I interpret a specific chapter or verse is vastly different than a 2nd century Jew or 6th century Monophysite.
I’ve studied rabbinical interpretive tradition ,early Christian interpretative tradition, and both Jewish and Christian early modern interpretive tradition and what I’ve realized is that all of them, while having some shared underpinnings, extrapolate different verses largely based upon the cultural climate they live in. None of us were alive or spoke to the authors of ANY scripture, so we’re all basically guessing as to what they actually meant.
Ultimately, we all see what we want to see. And especially now 20 centuries later, most Christian’s view the Bible from the point of view of long established scriptural traditions, often times erroneously established.
Bart Ehrman loses all credibility when he begins his speech at 6:35 with the statement that there are no other sources for the virgin birth outside of the new testament .. Has this man ever read the bible? When there are hundreds of prophecies in the old testament of Jesus and his ministry. Not the least of these is this: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14
A prophecy or prediction made centuries before an event is not the same as an historical source which purports that an event took place.
That was a mistranslation, it originally meant young woman, not virgin. Look it up. Ehrman is one of the worlds top scholars on the Bibe, he studies it in Hebrew and Greek. Peace.
Like a half meeped Svollard : whooo! whooo!
🤪😜🐒🧦
@@joecheffo5942 It's not a mistranslation. It's from the Septuagint, one of the earliest witnesses and texts used by the Apostles themselves. Ehrman is a joke, do you really think he's smarter than a 2000 year old Church? Not even close. The Church Fathers are unanimous and in agreement, modern Bible scholars have nothing but theories to offer.
@@Justin-kn6dp The church is a RELIGION. They always say they are right, all religions do the. The Septuigent has absolute verified mistakes but religion cant admit it. Virgins cant give birth its ridiculous snd gross like the Greek gods having sex with people and other myths. Tell me one scientist that thinks a virgin can have a baby, no human semen. Are you kidding me? If we know anything we know that.
The Hebrew word means young women. Why couldnt Joseph be the dad. Wasnt that her husband? Or she just told him an angel made her pregnant and he believed that?
2000 year old church did back track on many things and we know there have been additions and deletions. The word hell NEVER appears in original greek or he rew scriptures. Just made up by KJV bible. Made up, period. Word Hel is name of a Norse goddess. Eternal torment idea comes from Greeks and Plato. It was “from dust you came and dust you shall return”. Soul idea came from Plato.
This is the only opponent of Bart that I've come across to actually respect Bart. Almost all Bart's opponents before this debate are trash, talks trash to Bart, etc..
Hoping next time for a dialogue between Bart and Akin, in a podcast! That would be fun! 💯💯
Although not a formal debate, his discussion(s) with Peter J Williams is pretty good to watch, it looks like they think highly of each other even when they disagree.
Jimmy’s entire argument is an exercise in “moving the goalpost.” Only by redefining what any normal person would call “reliable“ does hw argue that the gospels are “reliable.” It reminds me of claiming that you are “faithful“ to your spouse by arguing that if you were faithful 51% of the time, you were faithful.
My friend, he makes a very good case for their historical reliability
@@foodforthought8308 Indeed.
If you don't think the Gospels are reliable...
Do you not believe in Alexander the Great or Hannibal?
You deny history, your like a flat earther who denies science
@@Christi_Bellator First of all it’s “you’re” not “your.” Secondly, While there is that business about crossing the alps with elephants, neither Alexander the Great nor Hannibal are claimed to have risen from the dead, or did any other nifty magic tricks that defy credulity. I think Hannibal once did a keen “pick a card, any card” bit at a party, but never cured a leper or sent a demon into a pig.
@@damnbigfish So the Gospels are not reliable because of your biases?
At 1:16:25 Ehrman wrongly states that "Jesus stayed with them for 40 days in Jerusalem." The verse actually says "To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God', nothing about location. Verse 4 has the order not to depart from Jerusalem which makes obvious sense in the context: 'Stay here now because the Spirit will come to Jerusalem.' Ehrman also misrepresents Mark as showing that Jesus was "surprised" by his crucifixion ('Eloi Eloi etc) when it is clear from Mark 8.31-32 and 10.45 that Jesus fully expected to die. Ehrman's strengths are as a textual critic, not as an interpreter of the theology of each of the evangelists.
1:23:58... and the job of the apologists is to make everything work backwards to confirm their beliefs
In the first part or 40 minutes of the debate Jimmy already made 5 fallacies: cherry-picking fallacy,
Straw man , fallacy of relative privation, red herring, appeal to authority, bandwaggon, and hasty generalization.
Jimmy Akin did his homework with a capital "H" and being able to refer the audience to his website for further information on points he made and especially points he didn't have time to go into was really rhetorically effective. He made very effective use of his closing statement by saying, "I won." And I thought that Bart Ehrman got a bit lazy on this one. He was prepared as a scholar but not a debater. Maybe the other people he debates are not as well prepared as Jimmy Akin.
And that is a shame, because I think he had better arguments he could have used. Akin did well by claiming that on the major, medium and minor points, the New Testament had shown itself to be historically accurate--by Ehrman's own account. The problem is that he left out the really key points of the story. Ehrman has written a book arguing that the outline of the life and earthly career of Jesus is probably accurately depicted in the gospels. But the key issue for Christians is, what did he teach? What did he claim to be? Do the gospels support the claim that he claimed to be the son of God or God himself? If so, then Christianity is vindicated, at least for those who accept the claim as according with reality. If he doesn't claim this in the gospels, then the theological foundation of most Christianities is in trouble.
Ehrman points out in his opening statement that the synoptic gospels present a Jesus whose teachings focus on God and preparing for the imminent judgement. The gospel of John, by contrast, presents a Jesus whose teachings focus on himself as the son of God and God himself. This is really the crux of the issue, and Ehrman should have hammered on this point over and over. As he said in his opening statement, if Jesus' message was the one conveyed in John, you would think it would come up in the synoptics. If Jesus taught that he was God ("he who as seen me as seen the Father"), how could this core teaching be completely absent in 3 of the 4 gospels? Akin and one or two of the questioners said in response, basically, if you squint and look hard, you can sort of see something like that in the synoptics as well. Not convincing. Ehrman said, but did not emphasize specifically enough, that, in the key points, the ones most important to Christians, the gospels were formed by different theological positions, not by historical events. The theology of John is very hard to reconcile with the theologies of Mark, Matthew and Luke. As Erhman pointed out, they can't all be right on this point. And this point matters a lot more than questions of where Jesus was born, where he preached, how he acted during his execution, and who saw him after his death, and when, and where.
Mr Akin did say Jesus was on the 'low' with the 'I am God' thing. Making those direct claims among staunch monotheists was to put an end to a Divine Mission yet completed. He mentioned stoning as mob justice in those parts. Jesus always spoke wisely, metaphorically, and, at times, enigmatically.
Yours is a claim about Jesus' rhetorical strategy in representing himself. How would we know how Jesus represented himself? By reading the gospels. And Ehrman's point is that the gospels contradict one another in this respect, with the strongest differences being those between the synoptics and John. If Jesus downplayed his divinity, why does John not downplay his divinity? Ehrman's answer is that the gospels are human creations with distinct theological agendas that came more from their authors and the communities they were writing for and less from Jesus himself. If this is so, we don't actually know much with certainty about what Jesus taught or what kind of rhetorical strategies he employed. @@MrResearcher122
@@ekhelmekhelIsn't it quite clear from your own outline? Jesus downplayed his divinity during his early ministry for it was not 'his time' but that is not the same as denying it. Indeed in key moments even in the synoptics he let it shine through clearly, esp in the lead up to the passion and after the resurrection. If the agenda of the synoptic writers is to give an exegesis of Jesus' teachings and ministry to young but faithful communities, why should they preach to the choir?
John's on the other hand, coming later on, was written to combat insidious emerging heresies so it makes sense that he should amplify those aspects of Jesus teachings that assert his divinity of which there are quite many.
I'm not even sure what the controversy is or how a strong point of contention can be built on the fact that different writers had different audiences and agendas. Your misgivings sound contrived.
It seems to me that you are confusing two different time frames: the progression of the ministry of Jesus and the progression of the writing of the gospels. If we assume that Jesus worked up to the fullness of his message and that the fullness of his message was that he was God, the we would expect his message to develop over the course of the narratives of his ministry in the various gospels. In all four gospels, we would expect an early focus on God and a later focus on Jesus as God. After all, all four were clearly written after Jesus' death and his completion of his mission and message, whatever that was This is not what we find. We find three narratives of his ministry that convey the first message: focus on God and an imminent apocalypse, and one that conveys the second message, Jesus as God Himself.
How do we explain this? If I were a certain kind of Christian, I suppose I would start with the the conclusion that the four gospels can be harmonized and look for a way to show that they all converge on John's message, given the centrality of the doctrine of the trinity to most (though not all) Christians today.
But I am not, and I am persuaded by the conclusion of Ehrman and other scholars of the gospels, both Christian and non-Christian, that the gospels are human documents written by different authors from different Christian communities with different theologies and christologies. Given the differences in their messages, the four gospels can't all be correct. Which of them correctly portrays the nature and message of Jesus? Do any of them accurately convey the nature and message of Jesus? To what authority would we appeal to adjudicate between them? I don't see what is contrived about this. @@mandatumnovum7127
@@ekhelmekhel I'm not sure you are getting my point. The issue isn't the 'progression' of the story but the agenda.
You do realize, don't you, that the written gospels were not the primary vehicle for evangelization or exegesis in the early christian communities but complementary to preaching of the gospel message. It's not like the writers sat down and said let's publish a comprehensive, authoritative manual for everyone, so we must have the same flow and content! Communities already developed and their beliefs were already fairly well established ever before the first evangelists put paper to pen. Thus, a community that fully believes that Jesus is God does not need an extensive demonstration of the fact. They may have needed a clarification of key events from eyewitnesses and perhaps emphasis on certain doctrines which the evangelist sought to supply. On the other hand a different community ravaged by doubt due to insidious heresies would need a completely different approach. Thus the demand for thematic uniformity is superfluous and ahistorical and the conclusion that some are 'wrong' simply because they chose to focus on different aspects of such a huge subject verges on the illogical. It's also simply non-sequitur that they therefore must cater to different Christologies.
Furthermore, like Bart, you must certainly be aware that there were very many stories written about Jesus beyond the four gospels. What makes the 4 authoritative was that they were selected by the faith community of being representative of their understanding of the Christian message. In this light, this particular objection becomes even more absurd and it clearly punctures the idea of different Christologies.
1:36:58 Lol, no Jimmy, sorry, but the telephone game has the same results when being played by adults as it does with children. They even did it on that Ellen game show. You can try it at parties with your friends and see for yourself how much one sentence can change in just a few minutes. Accumulate those random errors over a period of years, and then decades, and it’d be ridiculous to claim that telling stories orally would NOT contain any changes over time. Not to mention, it’s incredibly naive and assumptive to think everyone who told the story orally through decades had not only a perfect memory, but was always sober when telling the story.
Historical reliability is fact
Supernatural inerrancy is faith
They are historically partially unreliable that’s a fact for sure
You can’t have stark contradictions and also claim reliability
yep
Your existence proves you wrong.
One interesting point where I believe Bart seems inconsistent is at 1:48:32 in this video. The discussion is about Mark 14 and Jesus' quotation of Daniel 7 (Son of Man coming on the clouds). In this video, Bart states that Jesus isn't talking about himself. However, in an earlier debate a couple of years ago with Michael Bird , Bart concedes that Jesus is in some sense making a divine claim about himself. For some reason now Bart thinks that Jesus isn't referencing himself. In his next debate, someone needs to call him out on this inconsistency. What does Bart actually believe about Mark 14? Bart's debate with Bird can be found at th-cam.com/video/RtkeNuCwinc/w-d-xo.html. Pay attention at the 1 hour and 52 min mark.
Because he is intellectually dishonest. Mark has many versus of Jesus predicting his death, and reason for it. Bart is just dishonest.
th-cam.com/video/RtkeNuCwinc/w-d-xo.html (SAME TOPIC, TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS FROM BART?) th-cam.com/video/Zn7lmu0pek0/w-d-xo.html
Indeed. There is no doubt that Jesus believes himself to be Daniel's Son of Man but Ehrman has tried, and failed, to argue against that because he knows full well that Daniel's son of man is a divine/human figure.
Bart is a scholar who is constantly working and updating his information to reflect the current research. He’s not beholden to a single idea just because it’s older-he’s not a religous zealot, in other words.
@@gobot90 Thanks for your statement. I agree, Bart is most definitely a scholar. He's been a scholar for over 30 years in this field on New Testament studies. That's why I'm perplexed. This passage in Mark 14:62 is universally accepted as Jesus signaling himself as the Son of Man. Jesus alludes to himself as the Son of Man many times before Mark 14. I actually think Bart is correct in his assessment with Michael Bird from a few years back. To me, in my humble opinion he is trying to deflect Akin's argument considering Jesus as a divine being. If pressed more on that, I think he would agree that Mark is trying to convey that Jesus is the Son of Man.
1:25:18 Wow, if only you honored this on your end, or if Bart had the gall to interrupt you in this way. I would have loved to hear more of Bart's questions instead of hearing you hucksterishly advocate your website dedicated to debunking him. You should have been debunking him here, but it's much easier to hit a baseball on a tee isn't it?
Time limitations.
1:34:40-1:34:18 Bart is stuck in the loop of one person to another. He forgets it's a "community" that all heard it and then weekly/daily gathered to repeat the stories. As Jimmy says it's not a telephone game.
Bart: "I am not here to disabuse anyone of their faith...I'm here as a historian..." This is the most appropriate disclaimer since most people would consider it an attack on their faith if they are presented with things (no matter how credible) contrary to their beliefs." Although, I'm on Bart's side but I respect Jimmy's position, both did a great job.
🤣 After he said that & things got started I thought, Yes he is. That's exactly why he's here. over the last few years though I've honestly never seen anyone ever get so much so wrong. There's much better people to get opposite opinions from, even anyone else who doesn't believe in God or anyone else who has never picked up a bible ever. Bart is the worst. I've watched videos of literal Satan worshippers who get more right than Bart & they don't piss me off as much as he does, because at least they are honest about what they are doing & you just know. but Bart...It must be all an act, or deliberate... or maybe, dementia.. that one seems right, it fits. for sure. One of these though. It's the only logical explanation for him.. 🤪
@@mr.anonymous5856
It's frankly my view of him, as well.
@@mr.anonymous5856he annoys you because you cant dismiss him as he probably knows alot more about the gospels than 90 percent of the people who blindly follow them
@@mr.anonymous5856 you are one of the saddest and butthurt people i've ever seen. More proof that Bart is right 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I've watched a lot of Bart and Jimmy debates. The respect shown in this one is beyond amazing. It's also one of the best debates taking on Ehrman that I've seen, cause despite being a Catholic, I think he has a lot of great points. This is healthy debate at its best and it gives me more room to look at both sides rather than just believing one side alone
despite being a Catholic, ha...BECUASE he is a Catholic
@@glennlanham6309 read the sentence again. The poster said that despite HIMSELF being a catholic, he thinks Ehrman has some good points.
@@MrSeedi76 got it
Oh, Akin still sneaks in some snarky cheap shots. Ehrman is unfailingly respectful however.
@@glennlanham6309 Please explain that assertion.
Bart really struggles with possibly being wrong, and it appears he thinks he’s figured all this out. therefore no one should enlighten him. Akin is a master of kindness and generosity it leave his opponents speechless
Ummm ... no.
Umm….yes.
Could you possibly be wrong too then?
@@mikedavid6681 who are you asking?
@@believer8793 you
Jimmy’s argument is very heavy on style and weak on substance. Bart Ehrman (and most critical scholars) believe the Gospels are a mixture of both true and false things. Jimmy’s argument is essentially to just list all the true things. Cool. This doesn’t deal with the false things at all.
It’s also full of straw men.
Really appreciate this Debate.
Jimmy is a blessing. Praying for Bart
Well at least you’re not going to do any harm praying for him😂
Yes pray for Bart to keep being correct as he is
🎯 Key Takeaways (by idea) for quick navigation:
02:38 *🎙️ The debate format includes 20-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttals, 10-minute cross-examinations, and audience questions.*
03:38 *📜 Bart Ehrman focuses on the historical reliability of the Gospels, not their theological or religious accuracy.*
05:06 *📚 Ehrman believes the Gospels contain significant historical information about Jesus but also discrepancies that make them unreliable.*
06:28 *🌟 Ehrman critiques the differences in the birth narratives of Jesus between Matthew and Luke, highlighting contradictions regarding Bethlehem and Nazareth.*
15:31 *⚖️ Ehrman discusses discrepancies in the resurrection accounts, citing differences in how the disciples learn about Jesus' resurrection and where they encounter him.*
19:07 *🗣️ Ehrman analyzes Jesus' preaching in the Synoptic Gospels, emphasizing his focus on God's kingdom and repentance rather than his own divine identity.*
21:42 *📜 Jesus' identity in the Gospel of John is emphasized through the "I am" sayings, where he identifies himself as the bread of life, the light of the world, and the resurrection and the life.*
22:25 *📜 Jesus' use of "I am" in the Gospel of John parallels the Old Testament's reference to God's name in Exodus 3, implying a claim to divinity.*
23:22 *📜 Scholars recognize that Matthew, Mark, and Luke draw from earlier sources like Mark, Q, M, and L, none of which depict Jesus explicitly claiming divinity, unlike John.*
26:12 *📜 In the debate, the burden of proof lies on Bart Ehrman to demonstrate the gospels' historical unreliability, not on the believer to prove their reliability.*
28:02 *📜 The Catholic Church's interpretation of inerrancy allows for a more nuanced understanding, distinct from fundamentalist Christianity's literalist view.*
29:23 *📜 Reliability of historical documents is assessed by verifying major, intermediate, and lesser claims rather than demanding absolute inerrancy.*
33:07 *📜 Historical reliability is determined by the accuracy of a document's major, intermediate, and minor claims, rather than requiring perfection.*
36:23 *📜 Bart Ehrman, a skeptic, acknowledges the accuracy of major and intermediate claims in the Gospels regarding Jesus' existence, teachings, and crucifixion.*
39:23 *📜 Bart Ehrman confirms the accuracy of numerous lesser claims in the Gospels regarding Jesus' teachings, actions, and interactions, supporting their historical reliability.*
43:18 *📜 The minor discrepancies pointed out by Bart Ehrman do not challenge the major claims in the Gospels.*
46:17 *🏙️ Bart Ehrman illustrates discrepancies in the Gospels by comparing them to varying descriptions of New York City, highlighting differing details.*
47:28 *📖 Each Gospel presents a unique message, and readers should approach them individually to understand their distinct perspectives.*
49:13 *⚡ Bart Ehrman analyzes the portrayal of Jesus' death in Mark's Gospel, emphasizing Jesus' silence and the centurion's recognition of his divinity.*
50:54 *🌟 Bart Ehrman contrasts Mark and Luke's portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion, highlighting Jesus' interactions and demeanor in each narrative.*
53:59 *📚 Bart Ehrman argues against harmonizing the Gospels, asserting that each author has a unique message that should not be blended together.*
54:47 *💡 Jimmy Aiken provides resources and writing practices to aid in understanding the Gospels' nuances and historical reliability.*
56:02 *📚 Jimmy Aiken suggests further study and understanding of ancient writing practices to comprehend the Gospels accurately.*
01:02:38 *🔄 Jimmy Aiken emphasizes the gist principle in ancient writing, urging readers not to expect modern precision from the Gospels but to focus on their accurate essence.*
01:04:38 *📜 Jimmy Aiken concludes that judged by their intended standards, the Gospels are historically reliable in conveying the essence of Jesus' life and teachings.*
01:05:28 *📖 Bart Ehrman discusses the historicity of events in the Gospels, like the resurrection of Lazarus and Jairus's daughter, suggesting the possibility of people other than Jesus raising the dead.*
01:06:10 *🏘️ Jimmy Akin proposes the idea that Joseph and Mary had homes in both Bethlehem and Nazareth, explaining the differences in the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth.*
01:09:40 *📜 A comparison is drawn between Queen Elizabeth II's multiple lineages from William the Conqueror and the differing genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, suggesting they represent different lines of descent.*
01:14:38 *🔍 Bart Ehrman discusses the discrepancies among the Gospels regarding the disciples' movements after Jesus's resurrection, highlighting John's account as harmonizing the apparent contradictions.*
01:17:16 *📚 Jimmy Akin compares studying the Gospels individually to reading multiple biographies of Abraham Lincoln, emphasizing the importance of piecing together different accounts to understand historical figures accurately.*
01:21:41 *🗂️ Bart Ehrman discusses the organizational methods of the Gospel authors, suggesting that topical organization, such as in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, doesn't necessarily imply events happening all at once.*
01:24:28 *📜 Ancient biographies, like those of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, are known to contain inaccuracies, raising questions about the reliability of the Gospels.*
01:25:09 *🗣️ Debate on whether Matthew, written years after Jesus' ministry, accurately records his teachings hinges on the preservation of Jesus' sayings within the Christian community.*
01:26:32 *📖 Jesus' quote on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is a reference to Psalm 22, suggesting a deeper theological context rather than despair.*
01:28:36 *💬 Ethical teachings attributed to Jesus are considered well preserved due to their memorable nature and circulation within the early Christian community.*
01:29:44 *🎙️ While the genre of the Gospels may differ from modern biographies, the burden of proof lies in demonstrating their accuracy, especially considering the passage of time and potential for variation in oral tradition.*
01:36:27 *📞 Traditional understanding posits that the Gospels were not merely products of a "telephone game" but were based on eyewitness accounts or close sources within the Christian community.*
01:40:37 *🌍 Lack of third-party attestation for events like the "zombie apocalypse" in Matthew 27:53 raises questions about their historical validity, with explanations ranging from local significance to potential natural phenomena.*
01:43:36 *📜 Matthew presents Jesus as having the power to forgive sins, akin to priests in the temple.*
01:45:12 *🌟 Disciples believed Jesus was God early on, but Jesus himself didn't openly claim equality with God in synoptics.*
01:46:47 *📖 High priest saw Jesus' reference to Daniel 7 as blasphemy, a claim to divinity, reflecting the "two powers in heaven" doctrine.*
01:49:17 *📚 Jimmy Akin favors Markan priority in Gospel authorship and leans toward the Wilke hypothesis for Q source material.*
01:53:00 *📖 Bart Ehrman suggests the Gospel writers were more concerned with conveying a message than with historical accuracy.*
01:55:05 *✨ Jimmy Akin takes supernatural claims outside the Christian community seriously but believes Christianity offers superior evidence.*
01:59:57 *💬 Audience context matters in Gospel variations, influencing how messages were conveyed rather than strictly historical accuracy.*
02:01:52 *📜 Mary's influence in Luke's Gospel is evident in the infancy narratives, but she likely wasn't Luke's primary source for the entire Gospel.*
02:02:19 *💡 Luke's chapters 1 and 2 likely based on memories originating from the Virgin Mary.*
02:03:59 *🧠 Faith often attributed as the catalyst for miracles in the Synoptic Gospels, showing belief in Jesus' divine power.*
02:05:32 *🔍 Gospels should be seen as documents of faith, not just historical records, conveying individual messages to their audiences.*
02:09:29 *🎤 A source may be considered historically reliable if many of its major, intermediate, and lesser claims can be verified, despite approximations in ancient writing practices.*
Just read Luke 24-don’t see anything about him saying Jesus only appeared in Jerusalem, only that he indeed appeared in Jerusalem. And to Jimmy’s point, still not a major issue, but can happily fall under an approximation.
I love it when my prejudices jump up and poke me in the eye. I had never seen or heard of Mr. Akin before this. Based upon the thumbnail, I didn't expect much from him. Shame on me. I enjoyed his arguments a lot, and I'm a certified Bartfan®.
Glad to be able to reach across the aisle and make a favorable impression. Incidentally, off stage, Bart and I have gotten alone extremely well. Both very friendly.
@@JimmyAkin Thank you for your kind response. I think I'll enjoy following you.
@@colacurciolaw7745 Thanks! And feedback--from multiple perspectives--is *always* welcome!
I also enjoy it when my prejudices poke me in the eye. I don't know why I enjoy it so much.
Very respectful debate gentlemen and I learned quite a bit! Thank you
Jimmy’s assumption that Joseph had a home in both locations is a perfect example of what believers and apologists do in order to erase contradictions. There is no biblical or historical evidence or suggestion of this theory. He just made it up to make the Gospels work without conflict. That’s not acceptable historical evaluation. There is so much wrong with his approach to reconciling the gospels.
Imagine someone coming up with that explanation if they didn’t have skin in the game - rather than just saying, “Huh, they’re different.”
There is current day situations in the poorest of countries under the same exact conditions. He hey leave their family home to get work in a different city. Many people form third world countries have posted the same in response to Bart’s ridiculous dismissal that it is possible.
@@beorbeorian150 there are many many scenarios that may be possible. That’s not how history is done. There’s no evidence for it. It’s an assumption designed to make the discrepancy go away. He just made it up and then accepted it.
@@FuzzyChesterfield - no - Bart claimed it’s not possible. Many reasons why it is and even likely. Despite guffaws from Bart, his best argument in most cases, he has been proven to be incorrect in his argument that it is not plausible. He claimed it was not plausible, has said the same for decades, scholars, apologist, atheist scholars have all given an exhaustive list of counterpoints but Bart just guffaws like an 18 year old told to clean his room.
@@FuzzyChesterfield a claimed discrepancy that is no discrepancy at all. An unfounded claim by Bart , the burden of proof is on him. That is the agreement he had going into the debate.
Very interesting debate. I think the most important point is brought up by Bart at around the 1:59:00 mark were he states the difference is between what is religiously accurate and what is historically accurate. Jimmy seems unable to decipher the difference between the two.
Dr. Brant Pitre has some devastating stuff on how the Gospels were NEVER anonymous
let hear em then. waiting for a debate with bart so brant can get destroyed
So they all just happened to title them Gospel according to me without even explaining who they were and no one identifies them as such until Papias?
@@tomasrocha6139 read the Book. I won't follow this ridiculous line of reasoning.
@@mrnarason Wallace points out that even as anonymous books, they carried enough internal weight to be accepted as reliable. Conversely, the 2nd century gospels like Thomas Mary and Peter were not anonymous but were spurious and had unreliable material. So, how important is anonymity in reality? LOL.
When people comment against the plain consensus of scholarship with pithy remarks like, "destroyed" I laugh.
I'm not saying the consensus is always right and eill always hold but I will say that there is a reason your view is not the consensus and for good reason...
The gospels are anonymous by definition because they don't claim authorship lol.
Such a silly argument.
Again when you lower your mental standards to accept such strange claims, you lose the ability to say anything about other religions.
First of all: thank you for this factual and respectful debate! I personally am with Bart, I feel that the differences Bart mentions are major and cannot be correct at the same time.
Bart had no rejoinder to the genealogy hypothesis. It’s possible so therefore there was no gotcha moment.
As has been said by at least one scholar, bible stories are all true, and some of them happened.
@@johnriley5499 No scholar who is also an ideologue can ever be intellectually honest.
@@highroller-jq3ix and there are ideologues of all stripes.
@@johnriley5499 And none of them can be intellectually honest. Thanks for affirming the patently and simplistically obvious.
To many props by Akin, including the hat.
In reference to Barts claim that people wouldnt remember the sermon on the mount, and says well can you recite Obama's inaugural adress, no, but I bet many people could recite Martin Luther's I have a Dream speech word for word decades and decades later, this was a high impact speech it is not at all crazy to say Paul remembered the sermon on the mount 30 years later
what a great debate. PLEASE do another one
Jimi Akin's main thesis was that he could list 11 "Major", 23 "Intermediate", and 30 "Minor" gospel claims that Bart Ehrman agreed with.
BUT ... if you look closely at what these claims are, then not one of them are central to Christian theology. i.e. they are ALL very minor claims. Every last one of them.
AND... if you look at the issues Bart raised, they were ALL on issues central to Christian theology. For instance do you seriously think Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul and the other NT authors ALL simply forgot to mention that Jesus repeatedly told everyone HE IS GOD (as claimed by John throughout his gospel)? Seriously? It simply slipped their mind? If the issues Bart raised failed to give you pause to seriously reflect then I'd suggest that is evidence of closed-mindedness.
‘Not one of them is central to Christian theology.’
What? The claim ‘Jesus existed’ isn’t central to Christian theology?
@@boxingboxingboxing99 Exactly. A Jewish preacher existing, being considered rebellious and being crucified was a regular, mundane event in Israel 2,000 years ago. The fact that any of these preachers 'existed' is meaningless trivia.
Christianity is obviously centred solely on the claim that a man (Jesus) was GOD!!! Which is why the No. 1 key issue is the contradiction between John's account that Jesus openly and repeatedly preached to everyone that he was God VERSUS the total absence of this claim in all the other gospels, Paul's writings, and every other book in the bible. They simply forgot to mention Jesus said he was God??? Really?
Only if you don't read the Bible and fail to understand it if you do so, would you fail to see Jesus claiming to be God, no offense.
@@KaycCal No. John's Jesus continually, unambiguously, and openly claims to be god, telling everyone this, without fear or reservation... unlike Matthew's Jesus, and unlike Mark's Jesus, and unlike Luke's Jesus, and unlike Paul's Jesus.
None of these other authors had Jesus claiming to be god. Do you think ALL of these other gospel writers and Paul simply forgot to mention this little tidbit... the most fundamental "fact" in modern Christian dogma???
@@canwelook Again, only someone uneducated in the subject, wilfully ignorant or someone deceitful would say that Jesus never claimed to be God, outside of Luke or just in general.
Mark 14:61-62
John 10:30
2 Peter 1:1
Hebrews 1:8
Matthew 2:11
Matthew 14:33
John 9:38
1 John 2:2
2 Corinthians 5:21
Etc etc etc
I literally just copy pasted some of the most "famous" passage which infer His Godhood.
Now, again, only someone who is uninformed on the jewish traditions, or the significance of the titles like for example "Son of Man", or someone unfamiliar of who can forgive sin, would then dismiss some of those passages.
So again, be an atheist for all I care, live your life however you want, but don't make such a stupid argument that Jesus never claimed to be God or that others didn't acknowledge Him to be God without Him rebuking them. Don't be that kind of atheist. Be the one that is honest with his disagreement.
When asked to explain why the birth place of Jesus is different in the gospels, Jimmy said Joseph and Mary, against all odds, may have had multiple residences and thus both gospels are correct. The mind boggles.
I know right. Owning two residences is literally impossible. Nobody in history has ever done that.
The mind boggles.
@@david52875 Fair point. The problem with his proposition though is that having multiple residences doesn’t seem to be a common practice in the Bible and he’s only suggesting it here to fix an apparent contradiction.
Both have him being born in Bethlehem.
In the paternal line, one cannot descend from two different forefathers. Both genealogical lines contradict each other, and there is no way to connect them.
If Joseph had a house to live in in Bethlehem and Nazareth, why did they have to stay in the stable of an inn in Luke?
Aiken doesn't know the difference between an explanation that sounds good and one that actually explains something. It isn't enough to point to literary practices as an explanation unless you can show this is what the author is doing. I may leave out details because I want to shorten a story or because I don't know them, don't think they're true or have some other objection. Aiken simply assumes the explanation that confirms his thinking.
There are all sorts of current literary practices that go unused by writers for various reasons. So if we want to show. Matthew is leaving something out because he wants to shorten the story, we need to ask if Matthew's account is actually shorter and are there other examples of this in Matthew's work. So, we could compare Matthew with Mark and see if this explanation holds up
Excellent point.
I think you misunderstand what Jimmy is arguing. He’s simply showing that these supposed contradictions are not necessarily contradictions, not that they are definitively NOT contradictions. Bart even agrees these are valid ways to understand the writing styles of ancient authors.
You're misunderstanding Jimmy.
@@tommore3263 Ah! ... Jimmy doesn't like misunderstanding. Jimmy and misunderstanding kinda clash.
@@lucas____________ What makes you think I misunderstand?
Matthew 27 is a huge problem ... Jimmy has no issues with the graves opening and the dead saints marching around ... Mark, Luke and John make no mention of it or anybody else in history ... It seems resurrection was a banality of the 1st century ... At that actual moment the people of Jerusalem were not aware yet of the resurrection of Jesus so I would imagine dead people walking around would have been quite troubling and astonishing.