Peter J Williams vs Bart Ehrman • The story of Jesus: Are the Gospels historically reliable?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ต.ค. 2019
- For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
Agnostic Bible scholar Bart Ehrman and Christian Bible scholar Peter J Williams debate the reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
Episode 3 | Season 2 of The Big Conversation
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 2:
1. Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein: Pt 1 • Alister McGrath & Bret... Pt 2 • Alister McGrath & Bret...
2. Roger Penrose & William Lane Craig • Sir Roger Penrose & Wi...
3. Bart Ehrman & Peter J Williams • Peter J Williams vs Ba...
4. John Lennox & Dave Rubin Pt 1 • Dave Rubin & John Lenn... Pt 2 • PART 2 Dave Rubin & Jo...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
Hope ya'll enjoy this folks. To make sure you don't miss any fresh debates and the bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
If the body was hanging or a few days in the sun and was swaying in the wind before the rope snapped he could of easily ended up on his head and burst open because he was decomposing in the sun
Very weird to think that in only 40 years Bart thinks the story gets so distorted. Not even a life time of one person. Oral tradition isn’t your dad telling you what we saw.
@@robertbethel4341 Who saw the body bursting or whatever?
Rembrandt972 didn’t mean to post under unbelievables thread. So I’ll answer one time as to not ruin his thread.
The gospels don’t tell us who saw his body burst. That’s information collected by Luke. Here is what happened to Judas:
Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Felt remorseful and tried to return the silver. They didn’t accept it so he threw it to the ground. Judas went and hung himself. This is around a holiday and the sabbath so Judas body was hanging for a couple of days in the sun before anyone noticed or anyone cared to take it down. With the holiday, sabbath and commotion of Jesus tomb empty early Sunday they probably didn’t tend to Judas until Monday/Tuesday. Judas body eventually fell down wether the branch or the rope broke it caused him to fall in a way that he appeared head down. He could of been swaying in the tree also from wind and after decomposing for a few days in the sun from hanging his body burst from the fall when it hit the ground. The elders could not keep the 30 pieces of silver since it was blood money so they purchased a field in Judas name since it was his blood money and it became known as the field of blood. That is why in Mathew he records Judas died and the elders bought a field because he was an eye witness. Luke after doing research saw that Judas bought the field because it was purchased in his name. So it is not irreconcilable like Bart says. Mathew was an eye witness and saw Judas killed himself and saw they used the money to buy a field for burial. Luke did research and finding that the field was in Judas name assumed it was bought before his death but it wasn’t. He just didn’t know the full story because he was not an eye witness.
@@robertbethel4341 Bollocks.
Hey Justin, atheist viewer here. Just wanna tell you that I’m very impressed with your unbiased and skillful moderation of these debates. I’ve watched several and never see you show your “team colors” so to speak. I know you’re Christian yourself but you seem like a real lover of truth and healthy debate. Hats off to you.
Bart Erhman is doing a deception clearly here compare : 1:03:43 onwards and what he says about 1:09:15
@@urfriend919 Even if this is the case I don't think that's really an appropriate response to this guy's comment. Should have written this as your own standalone comment. Weird reply.
@@vinchinzo594 I replied here so that all who liked this comment could see it
@@urfriend919 It's very inconsiderate.
@@jestes7 of what
This is SUCH a better conversation than Ehrman's debate with Justin Bass. Peter J Williams is a worthy opponent.
Yeah I came here from that debate... That was such a poor showing from Justin Bass it was honestly embarrassing, this on the other hand is excellent.
Yeah I did the same. This is a very thought out and well done debate. And though I am not convinced by Peter in the least, I do respect his approach and knowledge.
I disagree with him, but we disagree honestly. And I do appreciate how both Bart and the moderator did work to keep to the core relevant features of the discussion.
Same here! The other debate was awful. This one is much better.
lol, lmao
I agree. Justin seemed unable to express himself in a rational, logical way. He MUST be able to think logically since he has a PhD, but I couldn't follow his arguments.
Justin and the people that create the Unbelievable? show... as an atheist, I thank you for being able to create a format where people discuss things rationally and kindly. Justin, you do a fantastic job of moderating.
I always get a smile and sigh of relive when I see him as moderator for a debate, not only is he good at keeping biases in check but he knows how too comprehend both sides and ask good questions and lead the conversation to great places.
R u really truly an atheist tho? U believe that there is no higher power or spiritual realm? I mean life can only come from pre existing life.. so how did life begin without someone creating it? Do u truly believe deep down in ur heart that life spontaneously generated from dirt or “primordial soup” for no apparent reason and without a cause? Even tho science tells us that is impossible? Do u also not believe in science? Bc science surely points to a God. I think science will vanquish atheism someday soon.
@@amandacarmel6084 as an atheist "I don't believe in god " rather than "believe that there's no god ". My stance is that the gods that humanity claim to exist do not have substantial and in some cases, rational evidence. Evidence that can be observed, tested, questioned without the threat of burning in a fiery pit and evidence that can be falsifiable.
In regards to science, if god did in fact create science then he's created the one tool that might just actually disprove his existence. Reason being? There's a lot of pseudoscience in the bible which doesn't comply with the natural laws of science as we know it. Case and point, god is quoted in Leviticus when he's talking about clean and unclean animals, as classifying bats as birds. This isn't true bats are not birds and god who supposedly created them would know better.
@@proculusjulius7035 that’s terrible I’m sorry u have to go through life like this. I can’t imagine living and not experiencing a relationship with God and feeling His presence and knowing He’s there. And seeing evidence of his existence in every aspect of nature it’s overwhelming!! I can’t imagine believing that when I die I will cease to exist. I don’t just believe in God I know He exists bc there’s so much more to life than the “material” there’s a whole other realm out there for u to experience. It’s indescribable unless u experience it yourself. I can’t imagine not being able to look forward to dying and moving into eternity. I’d be terrified of death and would feel like I have no purpose in this life and it’s all just gonna end one day so what’s the point?? We’re all just animals and star dust so why would anyone even care?! There’s so much more to life and love to experience in life. U will never know true love unless u know God, the author of love. What even is love is there’s no God and we’re all just one big accident? Why are things evil or wrong if there is no God? Who’s to say hitler was evil? Who says?? Why is anything beautiful or pure? Everything is meaningless truly without God. There’s no rhyme or reason for existence so why are we even having this conversation
@@amandacarmel6084 why your God though? Why not one of the multitude dreamed up before and after Yahweh? Is it possible that it's the time, place and parents you were born to? That's not good enough reason to believe in the preposterousness of the old and new testaments, think about it.
I'm a muslim, and I enjoyed this discussion. Hope it was longer and delved deeper into the topic. Also, hope all who debate, including myself, are as sincere, gentleman-like and respectful as these two. Great moderation too.
Really amazing conversation. I tend to find Erhman a lot more credible because he's more analytical, but I think it's important to note that he's not saying he's an atheist because of his view of scripture. It's entirely possible to believe in God without thinking the Bible is a historical document.
This video should have far, far more views.
Yep, Bart has said on his blog many times that his work in no way defends atheism, but is more about history and methodology.
@@michaelnelson3652 well sure I agree, he may not intend to defend atheism or anything if the sort, but the argument that the Bible isn’t historical and the resurrection isn’t a true event is at least an obstacle for Christianity, if not incompatible. It may not directly defend/support atheism, but it can certainly raise questions about the religion
Why being a Christian at all if your own holy book is unreliable about the very same things it preaches?
@@jonr9467 It's important to understand the context. Ideas change and develop over time, and religion is the same. For a set of ideas or principles to be valid, doesn't require a text to be accurate in the same way a history book has to be accurate to be of value.
As Michael points out in his comment above, it does raise questions, and that's good. People should question their ethical positions on many things, as well as their religious or cultural beliefs. Whether or not that means they ultimately abandon those beliefs is up to the person, after a period of reflection.
Ehrman is more credible and analytical? Man , you have NO idea! Read Misquoting jesus and his scholarly work he did with his mentor Bruce Metzger in the same frikkin year!!! He contradicts himself a lot in the same year!!! Watch David Wallace vs Bart Ehrman debate
This moderator is the best I’ve ever seen.
Sorry no. The moderator used loaded language on multiple occasions in support of one side over another.
@@AbuYusha01 sorry but you have no evidence and therefore thy opinion has no credibility. But thanks for the comment
@@strive4252 no evidence? He loads up for PJW to give him a scaffolded question that is geared towards generating a response that he would like to hear. He also used language like "you like to rattle off examples of contradictions and disparities in the text..."
Best moderator lol. Just how many debate moderators have you observed?
@@AbuYusha01 That’s better, be sure to give examples and evidence before you attack a comment on TH-cam. I would still like more specification as you have not yet convinced me. In my personal experience as both a religious studies and politics inquisitor I have found that every moderator reveals a bias. Though I watched this video four months ago and barely remember it’s contents, I remember the feeling of refreshment after listening to what I believe was a fair moderator. I was so satisfied by his performance that I left a comment showing my subjective joy at his work. You can subjectively think otherwise, but if you would like objective evidence to show his failures, the burden is on you for concrete specific evidence.
@@strive4252 you just contradicted yourself. It's all good I choose to disagree subjectively. Bye.
Excellent conversation, thank you! I’m an atheist, and I love respectful conversations with theists who don’t straw man their debate partner. That’s my biggest pet peeve.
And aethists never strawman? 😱 They do it all the time! Your bias is clearly evident.
@@kelrogers8480Im an atheist myself but not anti theist, or against religion. To me it cuts both ways and I have seen very confrontational debates and also podcasts which clearly play to a crowd by both atheists and christian apologists. The internet and podcasting / youtubing etc just creates camps and many atheists and Christians play provocateur and attempt to "destroy" the opposition and their arguments while usually just trying to score points with their tribes and hardcore followers. In fairness Justin only invites the more civilised Christians and sceptics onto his show and he keeps it civil and also moderates extremely well and doesnt let his own Christianity overshadow the atheists points or elevate the Christian points. These are very well thought out debates with well chosen debaters who aren't there to score points or "destroy" anyone but to discuss interesting points of view on a deep basis with lots of nuance on both sides. They are very enjoyable, entertaining and thought provoking. I actually have a lot of respect for many of the Christian apologists who come on and debate and many of their arguments are very well constructed, deeply researched and passionately delivered...the same with the sceptics and their points of view. 👍
@@kelrogers8480 where does Ehrman strawman Williams here? Give me a time stamp.
@@drzaius844 if you read my comment properly without projecting, you will see I say it is common for atheists to strawman in debates. I don't accuse Ejrmamn here specifically. It is however std aetheist practice. They are not neutral nor open minded, and thoroughly convinced they're right and everyone else is an idiot!
So why are you here? Still have doubts?
That table is pretty small.
Amen
It keeps the conversation close and intimate 😁
The good ole days before Covid 😁
First thing I noticed when they pulled the cameras back
Report it...it is not covid compliant!!! 😂😂😂😂
I love the subtle tension hovering beneath the surface. Battle is a deep metaphor.
completely agree. you can tell they both wanna toss on the gloves and duke it out
Bart's posture is something to aspire to.
Yeah just interrupt everyone to prop oneself up. Forget basic courtesy that out mothers taught us.
@@shiroganeadventurer1574 hm?
@@EEeE3771 she’s commented several times on this video just complaining about Bart being rude and interrupting. She’s just butt hurt that he laid the smack down in the most cordial way it can be delivered in a debate.
His posture actually worries me. Intellectually it’s good of course but I wonder if he has some back problems from the way he sits
@@chaseray8224He didn’t though. It’s sad when Believers fall away and trust in man’s understanding and not Gods. You have to trust and have faith in God. I know that seems crazy to most. With all that said even in man’s world he didn’t lay a smack down at all in this debate. I wish you the best in your search for truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!
moderator really done great moderator job ...
Not sure. Is this sarcastic?
I agree. He is great.
He's always amazing, underrated channel for sure just because he's a Christian.
Love this convo and channel!
I can’t believe you guys, you spoil me! This is great
This should have been longer! Great discussion :)
There is a pretty simple explanation for Judas's death. In the original Greek the word used in the Acts description that is translated into "headfirst/headlong" in English can also be translated as "swollen/distended"...which makes sense if you consider Matthew describing how Judas died (i.e hanging) vs Luke describing the process of his death (body being swollen & intestines coming apart when the body likely struck the group as no Jew would have touched his dead hanging body in order to avoid missing the Passover festivities). This matches medically-speaking as a body hanging for a few days would start to rot and could break apart with any significant force due to the build up of internal gases via bacterial activity. Further on, it nicely ties up another aspect: It is Luke (author of Acts) who provides the medical breakdown of the after death process, who is the physician and not Matthew.
where do u get the notion from that A) Luke wrote the part and B) he is a physician?
@@wouter2754 The church tradition attributes the Gospel and Acts to Luke. While he himself is never mentioned by name in these bookse, he is thought to be a companion of Paul on his second trip (the text switches in the first person here). Paul mentions him in 3 of his letters, Colossians, 2Timothy and Philemon (in Colossians he says he is a phisycian).
This is what YOU think happenend right?
That was brilliant. Thank you to all involved in producing this debate. It makes a refreshing change to the (unfortunately) usual mudslinging. Subscribed.
Love listening to Bart Erhman and N.T. Wright, please make a debate between them happen!
Read their books.
@@TreBrickley I did. But you can say that with everyone whom they had on this podcast, all of them had books one could read.
@@strynevanzelk4944 Wright would win
@@logans.butler285 I agree; I think his mind is sharper than Bart's.
@@jjroseknows777 judging by most of Bart's debates they need to quickly book Wright, but I don't think he's willing to potentially tarnish his legacy because he will struggle with some of the Christian claims that require one to have faith when logic would be equally supporting.
I'm a follower of Jesus, and I think its safe to say Peter was horribly outmatched and lost this debate. I appreciate Barts candor in admitting that his arguments don't really have much more to do with anything outside of the biblical inerrancy claim. American Christianity is so badly plagued with thumping inerrancy to the point that many of them apply it as gospel, which its not. The bible can have errors and Jesus can still be absolutely everything he said he was. That may muddle epistemology a bit, but thats a different story altogether. I enjoyed this conversation a lot.
Peter doesn't know anything.. he just doesn't want to lose. What a shame
If you don't believe the Bible is God's word and inerrant, then you're not a Christian and you will fall away. You've been deceived by the liars of our time, of which bart is simply one of many. His book the introduction to the new testament, which I took at a secular college, it's full of so many lies, that I did an oral presentation for 30 minutes refuting it. I got a standing ovation from a giant room full of mostly non-Christian people. They wanted to arrange a debate between me and bart, and I said if you can do it go right ahead. Bart's a liar, plain and simple
@@kingjames5527 you just proved my point. the gospel does not include the necessity of believing in biblical inerrancy. Of course a Christian has good reason and ought to believe in inerrancy; it would be foolish to think otherwise, but it is not a prerequisite belief to receiving salvation. As a Christian, I whole heartedly believe the Bible is the word of God without error. The thief on the cross probably didn't, largely because he was likely unfamiliar with Hebrew scripture, but he recognized the authority of Christ and placed his trust in him. Many non-Jewish who did not even know about scripture saw Christ for who he was, and Jesus himself proclaims that their faith it's what saved (heals) them. There's a reason why the bible does not expand the simple gospel message to include the belief in inerrancy. It would behoove you to follow the Bible's lead on this. Again, I believe in inerrancy. And Bart may be everything you say he is. These are not the argument here. The gospel proclamation does not include inerrancy.
Just curious, why did you say you are "a follower of Jesus"?
Why not just say you're Christian or Catholic or Protestant?
I myself, like you, am a follower of Jesus, and refused to call myself Christian.
I totally disagree. I saw Bart making leaps just as often, if not more so than Peter. For instance, Bart says the Judas accounts are irreconcilable because all explanations are implausible. That simply isn’t true. There are explanations that are perfectly plausible. On another case, Bart uses a fallacious argument that Jesus did *say* He was God in certain books, so His divinity must have been a later view. This is silly, obviously. I think Bart has several other very strong arguments where Peter’s faith is clearly coloring his analysis, but I don’t think Peter was soundly defeated.
Though I am a believer, I absolutely love Bart. Over the last year or so, I've absolutely fallen in love with biblical scholarship and Bart has been one of my principal guides. In my (very) humble/ unprofessional opinion, he is one of the finest scholars on the scene today. Great job!!
you say you are a believer , but accept someone who denies the scripture ...there are no 2 sides .
you have to chose a side GOD or satan .
@@lesliematyas1921is accepting reason over myth is satan?😂😂
Aside from great debate, i was equally amazed about the size of the table they choose to make this debate. Didn’t you?
Jesus the carpenter built that table in his workshop in Nazareth.
As a Christian first time seeing Bart Erhman in a debate. This was a great discussion thou. Very insightful and something to think about.
@@TheHaqtivist "Muslims believe that Jesus js a prophet and the promised Messiah" - Muslims believe in Isa the counterfit Jesus of the qu'ran who is merely a prophet. Muslims do not believe in the Historical Jesus of the bible who is the promised Messiah. Also nowhere in the qu'ran does it say why Jesus is the Messiah or what Messiah mean.
"This video proves the islamic christolgy" - firstly there is no christology in Islam and furthermore how did you come to that conclusion based on this video?
@@TheHaqtivist no it doesn't. Islam is a stupid death cult full of one lie after another. You follow a lying false prophet who was a pedophile.
@@Thanos-kp5jr Exactly quite literally the Jesus of the bible is their anti-Christ and their messiah is Christianities anti-Christ and Islams Jesus is the false prophet described in the bible. It's freaky how much Islam took from the bible and reversed it, quite satanic indeed.
what a wonderful discussion. I think there's a big difference between discrepancy and contradiction. I wish we had another hour at least.
Dr. Ehrman himself has pointed this out many many times, in both his books and his speaking engagements/interviews.
The Bible does in fact have both, with the former being _far_ more numerous throughout its developmental history.
@@kvjackal7980 It's almost always contradiction of terms as like words and descriptions can be used to portray totally different context so it almost always ends up being different context so not actual contradiction it just looks like it at face value without bothering to understand it.
I second everyone who said that this conversation was way too short. I could listen for another two hours!
Good hearing these two guys talk this out.
Correction, didn't enjoy a shit listening to the fundamentalist Peter !
@Stefan Urban Please demonstrate how you're smarter than desert people, my anti-Semitic little friend.
Also which old book?
Current year current year current year!
Atheist in USA chiming in to say great discussion and TERRIFIC moderation. Thanks-
I agree. Good moderators are hard to find.
I think Bart is agnostic not atheist.
@@carlanderson2468 Call it what you will. My level of convinced-ness about any supernatural beings is very low, and I think Ehrman says roughly the same. I don't carry out my day as if there is an omniscient being watching me.
@@drumrnva Earth is a conscious living entity do you believe that??? Everything that makes us what we are comes from earth, Iron, dust, sweat that taste like salt water, calcium and that includes consciousness, it to comes from earth.
But you don't see it. Whatever created all existence from the very beginning of whatever time was is god. It's not a male, it's not a female and for more respect, it's not an it.
Earth connects with us consciously but god may have no connection, for all we know, god is the very first atom that expanded the universe therefore we are all connected energy, connected to a god we know nothing about.
@@carlanderson2468 Earth is a "conscious living entity"? How does consciousness come from earth?
A good debate and a very capable and fair and astute moderator IMO
I loved the conversation. Two big brained people talking about Christianity is great.
I’m not sure knowledgeable and big brained are synonyms. Peter certainly is intelligent but he openly admits the circular reasoning of his presuppositions as a basis for his argumentation, and funny thing is you can almost hear the second guessing and wavering in his voice as he does so before the moderator changes the topic. That’s not a very big brained move. Bart remains honestly analytical.
I really enjoyed this discussion. Thanks for the content!
I very much miss Dr. Ehrman - thank you for your work.
Why do you miss him. Isn't he still alive?
@@equinoxproject2284 Yes he is still alive, but I think such debates have not been active lately!
Brilliant from Mr Bart
So coherent and robust
And rude and interrupting.
@@shiroganeadventurer1574 you must not have watched many debates. This is about as cordial as it gets.
Bart is an absolutely brilliant and respectful speaker...
Except that he was refuted so many times. Watch Ehrman v Wallace or Ehrman v Licona.
@איתן ברוך lol… who exactly did he sell out to? He’s an educated thoughtful man snd i LOVE his lectures and the fact that he is true ti his beliefs.
Licona got bodied😂😂@@les2997
Compare Matthew 28 with Mark 16 Luke 24 and John 20. Major differences
Another intelligent, well moderated discussion. As a former fundamentalist Christian that is still fascinated with the topic, I always look forward to the next exploration on this channel. Thank you Justin.
Are you a sophisticated atheist now?
Ignore 20july1944. He's a well known troll in the Unbelievable comment sections.
@@timediverx I'm just eager for scientific discussions about God's existence with anyone who knows enough science for an intelligent discussion.
You didn't do well when we chatted.
@@20july1944 No you aren't 😉 and I never argued any science with you.
@Christian Slayer My cosmology requires God.
What is your cosmology that does NOT require God?
Do you think there was a big bang? I do.
A good exchange. One needs to know one's stuff before coming up against Bart Ehrman, I have to say. Impeccable scholarship.
Bart Ehrman is not only an excellent bible scholar,he's also an excellent analytical person.
Can you also see that the exercise of his brilliant mind brings him into spiritual limbo because the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. Analysis of words vs subjective experience of the eternal life of and in Christ.
I agree I think he was great work in the field in Texell criticism and the historical Jesus especially historical Jesus, but not when it comes to Christian theology, I think his understanding Christian theology is quite bad especially his theory of how Jesus became God it’s not good.
I am not of the same opinion. Please read my statement. His arguments are in no way proofs. He carries himself as more pragmatic but, is merely creating a preferential argument.
If one thinks that repeating 50 year old theories about the gospels that have been utterly debunked dozen times over is "excellent" then yes, I guess Ehrman is excellent.
I mean honestly - this is all first semester stuff when studying theology. I know because I had to read those books, too 😊.
Or we could applaud Christ-followers in the January 6 ,2021, fascist coup in U.S.; I think God says nothing about 'Faith' but 613 statements about 'Doing'.@@jimhealy4890
This is so great, and inspiring. Will pass it on Justin.
And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.
Joshua 14:15 KJV
55:15 Justin Brierley’s face accurately captures my feelings about Peter Williams’ argument
So sour
Lol
@@spellboundty Look of trying to work out what's just been said, not that he doesn't believe it! He's my brother.
LOL
Lol
Really good debate host/ umpire. Does such an excellent job of summerarisng things too.
It was a delight to listen to all 3 of you.
"To reconcile it, you have to come up with a completely implausible scenario." - Ehrman
Ehrman is a genius
Or change your perspective
@@sagebias2251 it’s perfectly conceivable that a hanging gone wrong could end with disembowelment.
@@sagebias2251 apparently Ehrman is now an expert on the history of hangings. No doubt he has spent 5-10 years reading all of the “scholarly” literature on the “physics” of hangings; and all the “authorities” agree that hangings never result in unexpected injuries,…
@@josephstrauch8116 Was he hung over a set of spikes or something? How could you fall headfirst? Why didn't the Bible authors mention this?
What is wrong with thinking one of the bible authors heard a different account of the death?
this man Bart Ehrman is more logical and looking intelligent and has good argument and knowledge
Bart Ehrman is not to bright when it comes to the Bible, im a nobody and i would destroy him in a debate...He says that Jesus never said he is God..well if ur God in human form, would u tell anyone ur really God? ofcourse not, no one would believe you, so what would u do to infront of people to have them figure out who u are? hmmm i dont know maybe for starters ill go to someones funeral and raise that person , u cant argue with that kind of miracle ..and also all humans sin, but if u was God in human form would u ever sin once? would u ever break any of ur own commandments? well did Jesus ever sin? duuuhhhhhh
@@freddytorres4573 i agree with bart that jesus was not God what he did was power pf faith as jesus said if u have a little faith and say to a tree to walk it will if a tree starts walking on ones order will he be a God???? and yes a God has many more attributes and power and glory he can say every thing openly without any fear whether people believe or not first of all u should learn the definition of miracle that is impossibility of happening of something simply and so many prophets performed miracles like as u know moses Pbuh performed more than this when he hit his stick on the ground and divided the sea into 2 parts and made a way for his people this is impossible to think even ! did not moses also raised the dead person after 3 days of his death was he God???or silently trying to prove himself God??? as bible say Moses was God to pharoh ! and all prophets do not committed sins just a very much little error bcz of human nature if God commit sin there is no problem bcz no one can punish him these things are not sufficient to prove a man to be a god first learn who is God His attributes His power His glory His Grace then go ahead
freddy torres freddy torres but you do realize you’re projecting your own thought processes onto why Jesus wouldn’t say he was god? The question wasn’t “what could be the reason Jesus didn’t say he was god” but if there were ever any kind of record saying that he confirmed that. At any rate, it would only be beneficial for Jesus to say he was god because people believed that even demons could do miracles, so wouldn’t it be good to clear things up so there wouldn’t be a chance of misattribution? His whole ministry counted on whether or not he was god sent to earth to cleanse people from their sins, so why wouldn’t he proclaim this? And not even to his disciples? Also in other writings Jesus is portrayed to kill the people that opposed him during his childhood, so was he actually totally free of sin?
@Papito Rey JESUS is GOD....AND KING OF UNIVERSE.
Papito Rey hey your ignorance is showing. Read the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and get back to me
I like these two. Both have their pros and cons. That is the way the knowledge can be moved on.
As a Christian, I agree wholeheartedly. This was just a great discussion as a whole.
@@TheHaqtivist
Saying Jesus is the Messiah is to claim his deity.
@@ombandajeanpaul7117 the messiah was never meant to be “divine” the Hebrew Bible is pretty clear on that. This is why Jews struggle to see Jesus as that figure.
@@izrealtruefelicis3309
Either they are in bad faith or they are unable to read and understand what is written.
The MESSIAH (Psalm 110:1-5) is the Lord (Adonaï) of king David. The same is sitting at the right hand of Adonaï Yahweh.
The SON of Man that Jesus is referring to is a divine Figure as he is worshipped (PELACH) by all the nations and all people (Daniel7:13-14).
PELACH is used 10 times in the Bible and it is used to mean ''Worship'', ''Serve God'' or ''achieve a service to God uniquely ".
This Word is used in Daniel 7:13-14 in relation to the Son of Man.
@@izrealtruefelicis3309I have read a few Jewish scholars who wrote books about Jesus and from what I remember it was rather that the messiah was expected to be a political leader supposed to bring peace to the world not to be crucified. Not so much the question of his divine nature (which they wouldn't accept of course).
I once read that a lot of the misunderstanding between ancient Israelite religion and Christianity comes from the process of "hellenization", the Greek influence that led to the problem that the metaphorical thinking was translated to the ontological thinking of the Greek philosophy which already began BC. So "son of man" became ontological and not metaphorical. It might be a oversimplification but it does explain some of the problems.
Petter: "I never tried to claim I'm doing history"
Debate about the historicity of the gospels. Smh eye roll.
53:00
He’s not acting as a historian. He’s just a theologian. That seems like a semantic issue. He’s claiming his focus isn’t history.
I’m watching this video for the third time and am only now noticing how tense things were between Peter and Bart at the beginning. You can see it on their faces.
Greetings from Santiago, Chile! In the midst of very violent protests and fear, I am thankful that this conversation helps me to relax for a while....
What's going on there? I just heared something on the fly but didn't have time to read further into it.
@@user-bq3eo1xh2n It's hard to explain, even to me living it. It seems that there are two different groups of social movements. On the one hand, there are those who got tired of the level of social injustice in Chile. You really wouldn't believe it, but it is shameful. It all exploded last week, when the authorities decided to raise the subway fare (which was already very high). When complaints began, the secretary of economy said that people should just wake up even erlier (fares are cheaper early in the morning). That was the last abuse in a long chain of abuses, so protests rose up. But on the other hand, there are groups of barbarians that always appear during protests and destroy, burn or stone whatever they can. Chilean authorities have long tolerated those behaviors, I think because we are all a little traumatized by the dictatorship we endured, so it is hard for us to see police officers instituting order. But never before had we seen such level of destruction. Stores and many of the subways lines were destroyed. For example, I tried to go to work yesterday and it took me 3 hours to get there, plus 2 and a half to return home. Of course, it is all much more complex than what I have written... I just hope we get back to normal life and that our authorities are smart enough.... I doubt that last comment though...
@@simonlealbarria6550 Thanks for your elaboration and your time. I read some years ago several journal papers on the dictatorship and the Chicago Boys since I studied Economics. It's one thing to read about those things theoretically and another thing to hear it from someone who lives and perceives it.
I hope all the best, my friend. I believe that everything can be overcome if be believe in God and follow his Messiah, no matter if we are dealing with a Pinochet or some other politicians who continue his legacy and that of the Chicago Boys with other means and make the live of people hard. God bless you.
@@simonlealbarria6550 wena, un chileno aquí! Saludos desde Chile 😉
@@simonlealbarria6550 yo escucho estos videos mientras hago algo de aseo 🤣
EDIT: timestamp 1:22:20
Bart: "I can come up with a hundred examples [of irreconcilable contradictions in the bible]"
Petter: "Well, you can come up with other examples..."; Bart "But you didn't address them in your book!"
Petter: "Well, it is a short book" 0.o'
That sounds convenient...
Gréât quote
Does anyone see that Bart is rudely not giving Peter basic courtesy to finish what he was saying?
Does anyone see that Bart is rudely not giving Peter basic courtesy to finish what he was saying?
Wait, you do realize that "it's a short book" is NOT all he's pointing out right? He could have gone through so many valid points but Bart already cut him off. And repeatedly at that. We can't discredit someone without allowing them to give their side of the story. But that's what happened here because nga Bart was acting very rude, cutting Peter off every time. Is that a fair debate? I thinks not.
@@shiroganeadventurer1574 Come on, it was cross examination time. By that point they had plenty of time of their own to get their arguments across. Peter also interrupted Bart at other moments and that is ok, because they were engaging in a back and forth. There is no point in letting someone continue with long argument if you have an issue with the premises, for example. Or if the person committed an error, it is useful to correct it promptly.
It is not rude, it is common in conversations. It would be different if it was during opening statements or rebuttals.
In this particular moment, Peter was trying to squirm and stutter his way out of answering Bart's questions. So he was pressing Peter, that's all.
Thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.
Great moderating! Impressive
What a great discussion.
Bart is a great scholar that looks at NT from an academic point view detached from bias and brings real questions that requires honest reflections.
Thank k you Bart.
Detached from bias? Pffffft. Bias exists in every man on this planet. Ehrman is just as invested as the bloke sitting opposite him (and quite a bit richer thanks to his bias).
Yeaa he wants the bible to fit his logic only 🙄
thanks bart. convey the truth and falsehood of the bible. grateful you are an atheist or agnostic, if you are a muslim, surely the christians will criticize more severely. as usual
@@sembarangan7091 Surely, you should welcome criticism. Iron sharpens iron - don't be afraid of criticism...
@@killablooz maybe he can make more money as a secular scholar but Bart Ehrman was a Christian when he started his field of study
This was amazing! I’m going through some debates on this channel since I’ve failed to watch them so far. Loving the content 😃.
@Kuffar Legion this is demonstrably wrong...
@Kuffar Legion ok I didn't know that
@Kuffar Legion Deletes Atheist comments that are vile and mean-spirited, or contain common village Atheist memes and slogans
@Kuffar Legion Probably because of people like you. Many are family friendly channels that don't want kids being exposed to swearing and mean-spirited rhetoric from tribal village-Atheists who don't come in good faith.
If you're gonna claim they're trying to keep their audiences "brainwashed", you're gonna have to provide some evidence for that
@Kuffar Legion How did you get that out anything l said?
Excellent debate and moderator
Being muslim. Great moderation by host. I mean he is involved and concluding each remark spot on. Well both scholars desrve respect. Bart ofcourse had much weight in his argument.
Absolutely wonderful talk. Tyvm for this.
@@TheHaqtivist disproving one religion does not prove another.
The alarming thing for me when watching this is how easy Bart dismantled Peter views on a number of occasions. Furthermore, Peter seemed rattled and unable to articulate a clear, convincing and sound argument. Meanwhile, Bart effortlessly spoke with conviction on his viewpoint.
Additionally, it's a credit to Bart to be so transparent about his views on Christianity given that religion thrives of predicating fear to validate its claims.
Did you even watch the video? Bart was bumbling back and forth while Peter was tripping him up constantly
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Bro I'm a Christian and even I can see Bart was destroying Peter. Just look at Peter's body language and how many times he crosses his arms to defend seld sooth himself, and how often he struggles to make a point.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Really not the case! And I'm coming from a similar place to Peter.
I think you’re mistaking calm eloquence for strong argumentation and the occasional fumbling nervous answering as weak argumentation. If you would read the transcript you’d probably find Bart constantly evading direct arguments to come back with a tangential point. Strong rhetoric competence, which may even win you the debate for audience / entertainment point of view. But I think he presented very weak arguments against the historic veracity of scripture.
You know I am hearing subtle thumps during the broadcast and I keep taking off my headphones thinking it is the people up stairs doing exercise or something and every time I take off my headphones it stops. So, now I think it's in the recording every time one of them bumps the table the mics pick it up.
Maybe they were kicking each other under the table 😂.
Regarding the accuracy of cultural data within oral stories, I thought of an interesting analogy. The Iliad was written around the late 8th century BCE, but it is based on a long oral tradition. The story itself probably dates back to the Mycenaean era, centuries earlier, and yet it manages to describe quite accurately cultural aspects of that era (like weapons, chariots etc.), confirmed by archaeological evidence. However no-one gives credence to the role played by, or the very existence of the Greek Pantheon, like Aphrodite, Zeus or Athena.
difference is however the gospels were written decades after the events or stories, while the Iliad was written centuries after (although I know that isnt the point you are trying to make)
@@mamelu711the quoran was written decacdes after Muhammad's death. Do you believe he split the moon into two?
Yes it's all true, but the crucial point is that the faith in these gods was real and there is a strong possibility of real living beings in the far past of Greek civilization. Maybe people with special abilities, or because of their beneficial works to humanity became divine entities. That's the essence of this debate : when so many people believe in the existence of Jesus then it's not legitimate enough to say you can prove the falsehood of writings even if you almost feel confident for the evidence because many times before (including the Trojan war, for example before Evans the official history culture thought it was a fairytale) science proved wrong or when you read that Homer wrote in the 7 or 8 century B. C. that is wrong! Nobody really knows when Homer lived. If you focus in the ancient names of the cities he gives (these cities where already under the water in 8 cent. BC) or when he says that the island of Faros is 5 days shipping trip to the port of the later Alexandria (in the years of Roman occupation the distance was 150 meters so in nowadays it absorbed with the main land) its clear that maybe he is much more older writer. And also every time i had to look myself into a matter or subject i often find that the official story around are full of contradictions and lies!
Wow, Peter can't handle actually addressing the real issues!!
Thanks for this great discussion! Loving it!
@Modern-Day Debate ayyyy
Quite a step up from the silly Tom Jump discussions. Laser brains not laser eyes.
All debates should be like that.
@@bomb1232: Ditto that!
1:27:50 does anyone have a confirmation on who was right, Bart Ehrman or Peter WIlliams? Seems like this one should be easy to check IF you have access to the book.
Top notch conversation for sure
Bart is just fantastic here
As always
What I gather from your comment, I think it implies that you think that the Gospels are not accurate? If so, who do you think that Jesus of Nazareth is?
@@patrickoconnor8192 I think parts of the Gospels are demonstrably inaccurate, I have no idea who Jesus of Nazareth was, if he did in fact exist
Simon O'Dowd But the majority of historians do not doubt that Jesus existed, including Bart Ehrman.
@@patrickoconnor8192 okay, my position is not that he didn't exist, I have no way of confirming that he did in fact exist, it is an "I don't know".
My position is that the Gospels are not historically reliable, that is irrelevant to whether Jesus existed or not.
As a Christian who has rejected fundamentalism for a fuller faith in Jesus and not in the box I believe he must fill, I appreciate Bart Ehrmen’s scholarship on this. For those who’s faith may be shaken by Ehrmen’s comments, listen to the “Ask NT Wright Anyting” podcast on the Infallibility of Scripture. Ehrmen said he was a Christian for many years still after learning all of this stuff, but what really took him from his faith was theodicy, or the problem of evil.
I didn't know this about Bart. That's interesting. I always thought he turned from the faith after further study of the NT
Also thanks for the headsup on NT Wrights podcast episode
@@orangecountyrealtor Bart turned away from Christianity because it fails to explain why there is so much suffering in the world. He covers this topic in his book, God's Problem.
@@clinchleatherwood1012 That is so very odd as no one is a Christian because such reasons like it just makes sense or even that it's true. It's because of personally knowing Jesus. So such people that so easily claim to lose their "faith" makes me wonder if they ever knew Jesus to start with and this "faith" of theirs if it was just their own or from Jesus like it's supposed to be. We have faith from not ourselves but from Jesus because we know him. He is the source. To deny the tangible reality of Jesus a Christian has because of a theological issue one might have is unfathomable to me. Makes me question if Christ was ever part of someones Christianity.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep that's something you'll need to take up with Bart. But, a lot of us find it "so very odd" that people will blindly follow something that they don't care if it "makes sense" or "even that it's true" and who claim to know someone who's been dead for 2000 years, never met and never spoken to. (You can claim you've spoken to and met Jesus but if you can't prove it is merely a claim). Not everyone's brain functions like that. Like me, I need facts or I will not accept it as true. Peace be with you!
@@clinchleatherwood1012 I can help it make sense for you. Christianity is indeed an evidence based and not blind faith.
Faith is the product of truth, and truth is ultimately a person Jesus Christ who said I am the truth. Faith not from truth is blind faith, an aberration of the fundamental concept of faith which unfortunately has been popularized as the standard definition which is absurd.
Paul wrote test everything and hold fast to that which is true. Being a Christian isn't about blind faith. Hebrews 11:1 Paul wrote the Greek "hupostasis." It means an internal unseen tangible substance of assurance, of the person of Jesus he gives as an "elegchos" which basically means like a clinical evidence like given in a court of law. It is the most important evidence one can have to give ones life to Jesus. Ultimately nothing else is or can be sufficient. Jesus, God could appear infront of you right now and do miracles and that wouldn't be enough for you or anyone to give their lives truly to him. It wasn't enough for the disciples. All the disciples denied Jesus on the cross. All the miracles and evidence Jesus was God like walking on water raising the dead, hearing God from heaven speak and say this is my Son was not enough. So why would it be enough for you? It wouldn't. Christianity should have died on the cross with Jesus. But Pentecost happened. God the Holy Spirit came and his promise is to reveal Jesus and make him real to you. That is when all the disciples would rather give their lives for Jesus than deny him, hundreds of thousands would die as martyrs in the Colosseum than deny Jesus who was then made real to them more real than walking on water or raising the dead infront of them in person.
Just a reminder the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species.
The New Testament shows with the physician Luke telling that they knew and understood and had the same objections we do today that a miracle goes against the laws of nature and addressed it with the story of Zechariah that a God that created it all with those laws of nature and intervene into them. To assume miracles can't happen is to wrongly assume this universe is a closed system, science does not tell us that.
You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you use to argue with.
So there is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God, and there is only one ultimate type of truth that you or anyone can accept to not just belief of God but accept and give your life to him and know him, and that's from him giving that evidence personally as he promises and does for all those that seek him.
Thanks Bart!
I find Bart Ehrman's whole argument over 'reconciling' differences in the Judas Iscariot death story totally absurd. He's nit picking over relatively minor details and ignoring the far greater similarities. If one story had said that Judas died and another had said he lived to a ripe old age, THEN you'd have an irreconcilable difference, but the exact precise details of 'how' he died are trivial. The most likely explanation for the differences is simply that different witnesses observed different stages, or themselves heard slightly different accounts. The notion that the entire Gospels can be dismissed because of these trivial differences is absurd.
Peter can't answer definitively Ehrman's simple question: Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Peter obviously does. Thus Peter is disingenuous, and hypocritical. He need say yes and be done with it. Ultimately, imo, he sounds confused, uncertain about his position.
I would rather see someone like James white having a discussion w Bart
Yes he really showed how dishonest religion can be but not answering that at least there are errors but I still have faith At the least
@@chrislanglois3598 The serious problem with literal interpretation of Scripture is that it neglects and suppresses all truthful understanding of what the authors were saying to their specific communities at specific moments in their history. Literal interpretation also seriously denies the many errors obviously made over millennia through redaction and transcription.
Yep thats the impression i got as well.
Christians don't like direct questions.
Here at ~19:15 Bart points out he believes Jesus actually did predict the fall of Jerusalem.
A much better "debate" than the one Bart did with Justin Bass. I admire Peter's contribution and personality.
Even if I may not agree with everything Ehrman writes about, he's an admirable scholar and much more intelligent than most evangelical scholars
Yup. If only the bible is as reliable as the most unreliable hadith category, it will be a much more reliable source of information than it is currently
One thing is clear from this discussion: Peter can’t separate his scholarly research from his faith-based bias.
Yes I agree, and I'm the same way - it's based on faith, and I believe the Gospels to be true.
@@soulosxpiotov7280I wouldn’t be bragging about that.
@@grimknight1452 anything gift given by God's grace cannot be bragged about.
25 minutes in. This is one of the better handled and informed PooTube vids any of them have participated in. Both are educated and make there points on ' real ' agreements and disagreements of scholarship and or vs beliefs.
Good stuff
And
Good work.
yes it was a polite discussion but - Peter seems completely oblivious of any scholarship
I don't share many of Justin's beliefs, but I think he is also a huge factor in why discussions on his prog seem to go so well.
Great moderator
Bart is always the fairest and most rational, he's balanced and generally polite.
He constantly interrupted and changed the subject before Peter had a chance to respond.
Interesting to hear that BE didn’t lose his faith due his his scholarly work. I missed the previous episode where he discussed this. I will get round to watching it. In the meantime I would appreciate if someone could up date me 😊
It wasn't the contradictions that finally broke the camels back re his faith - it was the realisation that an "all loving god" simply couldn't exist whilst there was so much suffering in the world, the tsunamis , rape, babies with cancer, poverty, hunger etc etc so he now identifies as an agnostic atheist.
@@jonfromtheuk467 thanks 👍
@@Ogdensnutgoneflake78 I wasn't going to reply at first given your name ........I'm a season ticket holder at St Marys -LOL
@@jonfromtheuk467 haha well I’m glad you did so thank you. My best mate is a Saints fan. I don’t buy into the hate part of it all
@@Ogdensnutgoneflake78 me neither - jesting is fine , hate/violence is pathetic and despicable.
Love Dr. Ehrman. His blog is a wealth of scholarly research and thought on the Early Church.
What about his mentor, Bruce Metzger, who’s reached the opposite conclusion? Ehrman is known to make claims that are conjecture, hyperbole, or downright dishonest, but confirmation bias guarantees him a large fan base, none-the-less.
@@juanventer5145 Okay, let's call them anonymous. Who cares? My life doesn't depend on it. Those are just interesting historical dilemmas. You guys claim the Bible is inspired and infallible and our eternal destinies rely on it. Yet we don't know who wrote it. We just have traditions of later Christians telling us who did. Yet you guys reject their other traditions such as baptismal regeneration. No early Church father rejected this doctrine.
@@retrograd332 That might work on an impressionable little child. Don't try such abusive scare tactics with me. Where is your evidence of hell and heaven and Yahweh and Jesus?
You guys are great at making such outrageous and frightening claims to scare people. And when you try to reason with them you fail.
Face it. You believe by faith alone and the evidence is secondary. Only used to prop up the faith.
@@juanventer5145 I asked Ehrman about this once. It was one of the big questions for me. He showed me that other Christian groups also claimed to know the Apostles.
@@juanventer5145 We know that Thomas went to India? Do we? How?
Certain Gnostic groups claimed Apostolic Succession.
I'm with Peter .
Regarding the different accounts of Judas's death and Mr. Williams's effort to reconcile them. He suggested that perhaps Judas was hung and the rope snapped and he then fell headlong and his intestines burst out.
As implausible as this sounds there is a bigger problem. If Judas hung himself why would one account leave the hanging part out? Why would you talk about the result of the hanging without mentioning the hanging itself?
Quite telling how Peter Williams' response to the contradictions is always that there are ways to explain all of them but when pressed to provide one he fails miserably.
I am still waiting for a contradiction that is a game changer......in other words, one that MATTERS
@AnarchoRepublican exactly, because it's strikes me as much ado about nothing
@Daniel Paulson yes, there is a world beyond our wildest aspirations, and it has been revealed BY the bible.
@Daniel Paulson you don't get grandfathered into the Kingdom. You have to enter it yourself.
If you think you were limited by it, you were not in it. It has no limits.
@Daniel Paulson say what? come again? you aren't making sense. Sorry, I really want to understand what you are saying. Can you rephrase it please?
This got more heated than I expected
great debate. People are so courageous to go up against Bart Ehrman.
You really need to have at least a 2 hour format. Regardless, great conversation. Thanks.
The debate shows only one obvious truth-one chap is more knowledgeable and is able to put forward his argument better!
@sue badunas You do realize that if it were demonstrated TODAY we'd have some precedent that we can then use to go back and analyze EVERY mythology right?
@sue badunas I think youve misunderstood my point. My point is not that "these things cant happen", my point is that we have ZERO good reasons to accept certain things that we do not have a precedent for.
For example, before the discovery of bacteria, it would be unreasonable to believe that microscopic organisms exist that are in and around the environment as well as inside the bodies of other organisms and that these microscopic organisms interfere with biological processes which causes the other organisms to become ill.
Once this was proposed, TESTED, AND DEMONSTRATED, it then became reasonable to interact with the world with this understanding.
@@whatwecalllife7034 I think you should watch the John Lennox talks.
@@oprophetisfake9482
Yeah, most of John Lennox arguments is just him admitting that he desperately wants Christianity to be true and that he would be very sad if it wasn’t.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 No. Most of John Lennox is him talking about evidence that unguided evolution and even the beginning of life by pure chance in the time since the scientifically estimated time since the big bang is scientifically untenable. What is sad is that you are still trying to pass the same argument from 70 years ago. Very very sad.
I love this channel. Thank you for setting up this discussion!
It's not a discussion It's a debate!
I'm here because the Justin Bass debate ran me off.... and the comments made me feel like I won't be running again.
I'm obviously blaming Mr. Bass.😂
I think this is a terrific show.
A constructive debate Big Issues we face in trying to make sense of the world
Wonderful discussion
Thank you
Cheers from Sydney, Australia!
Paul
I love this moderator conducting the debate, he’s so pleasant and fair minded.
As far as I'm concerned, the most important point made during this discussion was when Dr. Ehrman highlighted that some do research to confirm their preexisting beliefs while others do research (with an open mind) to decide what they ought to believe. We all should all aspire to the latter group.
Why do you think Ehrman is somehow in the latter group?
@@thejdogcool Firstly he has said so, not only in this video but on numerous other occasions by highlighting that the right way to do science/history is by utilizing available facts and interpreting them without special pleading. On a more personal level, I find the views of people who have converted to or de-converted from a given religion to be more credible than those who simply believe what they were thought as a child.
@@vbilgutay1 Ehrman is objective because "he has said so". Got it. You sure showed me.
@@thejdogcool Who said anything about Ehrman being objective? He is being subjective but using facts and logic in the process. On the other hand Williams is also being subjective but using his faith and dogma. I guess you'r a fan of faith and dogma, I got it too.
Bart is smashing it!
Yes! He is
Awesome!
Thanks for hosting this debate. It's always a pleasure to listen to Bart Ehrman.
This is the real Bart in the intellectual sense. In contrast, he is totally different when speaking in the pop culture sense. I enjoy the scholarly Bart rather than the pop culture Bart. If you read some his academic work you will see what I mean.
I am a Christian but im ngl i find barts argument way better and feel peter was almost dodging arguments there , what bart said at the end there when we quotes agustine m ‘all truth is Gods truth’ , very underrated and helpful view imo
I feel like they missed the primary point on the naming of the field of blood. Yes, you can potentially say there was a hanged man and that somehow he fell head first and lost his guts. It's a stretch, but it could technically happen. What seems to me to be the irreconcilable part is the cause of the naming of the field. Was it named 'the field of blood' because it was bought with Judas' blood money, or because that's where his blood was spilt? I am surprised this was not the point of contention Bart pressed on.
Also who purchased the field
@@Lala-me6no The field was purchased with Judas's money so was technically his. But really it's just a distraction from the main point of the story. There are different ways of seeing the same event.
Well and that also in each story different people bought the field
Even though I'm a Christian, I have to say that Peter was on the backfoot in every way. One has to know when to make concessions in order to maintain credibility. Peter felt compelled to answer Bart's criticism without making the necessary concessions where they are due. Instead, he should've conceded where necessary and rather gone on to state why, not withstanding the outstanding issues that he had to concede, he still believes in the historical reliability of the Gospels.
You've just described professional apologetics to a T
That's a very great observation I think all Christian apologists should read this comment we all do this
Bart Ehrman (as most atheists) is doing the same though when he doesnt allow for the possibility of the supernatural...
@@Enwabi Bart doesn't reject the possibility of the supernatural. He brings up the fact that miracles were commonly recorded in ancient texts; indeed, miracles of healing and breaking the rules of physics are found in every major human tradition. Bart simply asks 'given everything we know, what is the most likely scenario?' If our issue with this approach is that it tends to disregard the impact of miracles, then we ought to look to God for an answer. God is the one who chooses not to make these miracles common every day. God dictates a skeptical approach by virtue of his lack of direct influence in our world, and the fact that the only times miracles have occurred we have all heard about them as hearsay; if not from people who were decades and cultures distant from the actual events. This results in the fact that nothing Biblical is truly proveable (i.e. if God wished, he could prove it all to everyone right now; it's God's choice to leave the possibility of doubt). Perhaps God will one day decide to prove it to us in a satisfying way. Until then, if God is intentionally sending people to hell for being skeptical, that's 100% on God. After all, every single thing is dictated by God including who I am and every moment of my human experience that leads to me being a believer or skeptic. If am born Hindu, this must also be God's will, no?
@@sethjshapirowhat we know is a verifiable miracle story of the death and resurrection of Jesus based on 1st and 3rd party eyewitness accounts (christian en non christian) of which we have around 6000 manuscripts. Even Bart acknowledges the fact that Jesus died and that the eyewitnesses saw him alive. But because he rules out miracles, he rules out the resurrection. Tell me what is more plausible? Eyewitnesses actually seeing Jesus alive or mass hallucination? Also remember that these witnesses were willing to die and endure torture for what they SAW (not what the heared second hand)....
Btw jews and christians don't believe in predestination...that's a muslim thing.
And a miracle wouldn't be called a miracle if happend every day right? It would hardly be evidence of God if it did happen every day
This debate DEVOLVED into majority jargon and arguing over semantics. I find it much more productive when we hear examples of discrepancies rather than the process of how we reached those discrepancies. Judas was a good one but they didn’t go into any others except when Ehrman brought up Peter walking on water and didn’t claim to be GOD.
Well said. Also, they just went from right to left, left to right, barely staying on topic etc. These kind of debates barely get to the heart of the actual topic.
Peter walking on water was not “initiated nor empowered” by himself. Hence there’s no way he could claim to be god on that basis. Bart’s argument regarding that was weak. You cannot compare Peter walking on water to Jesus walking on water. The two were totally different.
Hence, Jesus’ divinity following His walk on water cannot be compared to Peter who couldn’t even complete the water-walk on his own
Thanks
What difference does it make if it's true or not. Does it make a positive contribution to one's life? Or to society? What does history say about the positive effects of religion?
Ehrman is spot on in saying different details (1 vs. 2 angels) are not an indication of inaccurate retellings of a story. The problem is whether there are irreconcileable differences and how many and how imporant are they are to the events. But then irreconcileable bears a lot of weight and will not be so easy to demonstrate in many circumstances. His example of Judas’ demise is a worthy candidate
What Ehrman is not spot on about though is the relevance of the irreconcilable claims. It is outright admitted in the Catholic bible in the comments that the accounts don't align perfectly, and that there are various historical doubts regarding who wrote what. Peter hasn't studied his Catholicism strongly enough, Catholics are not required to believe the bible is inerrant in all ways, just in the things that are relevant to salvation. The fact that Judas killed himself is present in both gospels, regardless of how it happened. It has literally no importance of how it happened to anything of relevance in the bible message, it's just trivia. If anything, it helps to establish the independence of the gospels. So no, it's not a worthy candidate, it's an absolutely terrible example that works against his case.
@@Pietrosavr I think it's actually good evidence in a way for the accuracy of the bible in this account of Judas we see unlike the accounts of Jesus and others this one of Judas is second hand, no one was there when he did it so the accounts not perfectly lining up show exactly what could be expected to be said minor differences. This is a good evidence that the Gospels weren't made up. One could argue it was almost put there for a reason.
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep Yeah, you know, no one is purely rational and a purely rational debate doesn't exist, it's just that most scientists don't realise that. It's a fact that there are a million religions, but one person could take that fact and say that therefore I won't believe in any of them and another will say that they hope they will find the right one. The problem is not with the evidence but with your attitude towards it, are you going to be sceptical or hopeful. This is not related with science and knowledge but with life. Sometimes you have to be hopeful even in the face of small odds, like when trying to save your child from a burning building that might collapse. This is about subjectivity and not objectivity, with pure scepticism no one would try and fail a thousand times to invent anything, no countries would exist.
If you are purposely sceptical of religion, first of all, the more intelligent you are the more likely you are too affirm your bias and never believe, and secondly, you end up with nothing. Scepticism is a stopping measure, it generates nothing, you need faith and hope in the first place to move your forward, and then scepticism to trim the edges.
@@PietrosavrNot trying to dispute or dishonor the beliefs of Catholicism. With that said, I wonder if Ehrman’s point was that Luke and Acts are written by the same author, and have totally different stories about Judas. Not to say it’s imperative to the faith, but I wonder if that was the point.
One guy has had his foot in both camps and approached the subject with an open mind. The other has been in one camp all his life and will never change from his presupposition. Which one is more intellectually honest?
Bart left the faith cause he had an issue with suffering and how the Biblical God sees it. But that is pretty much every unbelieving man that believes that God must be his genie. I have seen many children throwing a tantrum and their parents are not just non-plussed but perhaps a little critical following such event. Jesus suffers just like us because of evil men. However He fully trusts God in his suffering unlike Bart. Just like children should when things go wrong or when they get told 'No'. God is worthy of worship not me.
@Niko Bellic pretty sure suffering was what I heard. Spelling mistakes sounds very trivial as it is clear that men were used to write/copy the manuscripts by God and therefore small mistakes were made. What is amazing is that for those who seek, the message of the Bible remains intact throughout the millennia ...
@Niko Bellic I don't think of Bart as a reliable trustworthy man as none of us truly are anyway. So whatever he says against Christ"s testimony would be flawed (Heb 1:1). As for the Bible being inerrant, well, it takes a special kind of stupid to think that the message is not inerrant (2 Tim 3:16-17). The fact that men were involved makes it pretty impossible for mistakes not to creep in but what is amazing is that the message never wavered. Little mistakes that can be easily explained... Most of his arguments therefore fail.
@Niko Bellic : It's not just "spelling errors". It's the fact that there are many textual errors, insertions and deletions in the bible, as it currently exists, and the earliest manuscripts which we still have.
We don't know what the original authors said and we don't even know who the original authors were for the gospels.
And then there are the myriad contradictions...
@Niko Bellic : I've read several of his books. But I never claimed, unlike you, that he abandoned Christianity because of"spelling errors". There were several factors. Some of which I pointed out.
Williams says y'know constantly. My mom used to say "NO I DONT KNOW, TELL ME" That cured me of that pronto.
Look at the historic picture of people becoming Christian. Dr. Ehrman could say, "If Jesus really said these things AND then also healed and performed miracles as it states, surely everyone within 1000 miles would have praised God and become believers."
If the narrative is ultimately theologically false, and the writer is placing lies, whether as a first source or otherwise, you might think more grandiose claims would have been added to the text. And that the less flattering details would have been kept out. Because if the writer is adding hyperbole from witnesses who developed Jesus into God we might expect more unbelievable grandiose claims. Similar to what we see in those writings which indeed came later and were rejected early on by the leaders in the church.
Bart's argument can be thought through to substantiate some other ideas which points to the gospels reliability and historicity through the common historian's criteria. Such as examining motivations, embarrassment, and the seemingly contradictory nature of details in the various gospels.