As a Christian Bart has really helped me see things from a different perspective. After one of my friends told me to watch the lee strobel movie it’s nice to see things from the other side. I think Bart is after the truth and I really Respect that.
Bart really made be dive into reading the gospel accounts and discovering things for myself. Read horizontally the reports of what the thieves did, what Jesus said on the cross. Amazing.
To summarize Licona: there's enough historical reliability to establish Jesus as a historical figure, itenerate preacher, and that the Bible is reliable on the topic of Jesus as a first century, apocalyptic, self-professed prophetic figure. But the Bible does not provide a shred of evidence that the supernatural claims are literally true. So basically Licona's entire perspective is that Bart is right. Got it.
"If there aren't mistakes, there won't be mistakes." This was the view held by most Evangelicals during the majority of the 20th century. Now they backtrack like Licona and admit many of the problems people like Ehrman and others like myself have found upon an honest reading of the Bible and Church history. We are now accused of becoming unbelievers because we held to an erroneous view of the Bible, a Fundamentalist view. But this is unfair. Biblical criticism has shown the Bible to be an utterly human book. Licona and others will admit as much of it as they can without throwing away their precious faith. But if it looks like and duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. And the NT looks and sounds like a first century document because that's what it is. And I fail to be convinced that it is anything more.
But are they legitimate mistakes if they are non-literal on purpose: as a literary device? And I fail to be concerned if the presentation of Jesus' life is intact: his miracles, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection. And I wonder what possible motivation could the writers have had to preach this stuff when it was utterly dangerous to do so? The threats of martyrdom would be enough to make any person reconsider, 'am I absolutely sure of this? It seems to me there are enough problem pasages in tne gospels for any one determined to justify their non-belief and enough evidence for those who do believe to give a strong rational case for it. I doubt human reason and scholarship alone will completely solve it, which seems to be part of the devine genius. Faith relies ultimately on the Holy Spirt, not the wisdom of man, to paraphrase Paul.
@@shostycellist Your logic is faulty. How can you trust verses that describe this mysterious "HS" when other verses are clearly untrustworthy? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Use your deductive reasoning.
@@shostycellist Faith as in Hebrews 11:1, means believing when you dont have any evidence and also in the face of contradictory evidence. Both are irrational.
Then that makes us unbelievers by default?. Bart doesn't believe, nor do I. God has had his day in court, found guilty of setting us all up and multiple genocides.
Yeah it's one thing to leave out unnecessary details to get to the point, or to only give rough approximations because you don't remember exact phrases. It's another thing to actually change details around, especially just to fit your narrative. That's just manipulation.
I teared up so much over the introduction when Licona said he considers Bart a friend. Beautiful. I desire to care for others in this way, despite our differences
Love your name. Quite courageous considering...May I offer a translation - Daring Doubter (I know it juxtaposes the noun and verb, but...). I love Bart too.
-27 Books -5 Writers -40 Authors -20+ Differents Versions -1000s Of Changes i.e. (Additions And Deletions) -More Contradictions Than Words Are Found In There It Is Beyond Anyone Imagination To Even Think That The Gospels Are Historically Reliable...Talkless Of Believing.
No he isn't... He can't pick a side. Debates he says gospels arent accurate or trustworthy. In lectures he's quoting these same gospels saying "we know Jesus said this". What's so great about that? Are they accurate and quotable or aren't they?? Bart says, "how can they be both? ", but seems to think they are both. Guess it depends who's paying his fee?
Bart laid a very simple cases which didnt assume further doubt. Really straightforward and easy to understand. Licona on the other hand...what was he talking about again?
Yet if you watch Bart's lectures he thinks the gospels ARE accurate because he says things like "in matthew here we KNOW Jesus said this". Strange he calls them inaccurate, unreliable, how did they happen here but states they are reliable and accurate at other times. Everyone seems to ignore this.
@@zamiel3 no, he states what the bible says he said - not that he thinks they were the actual words he spoke necessarily. But if you are going to debate you have to frame your arguments within what your opponent and people in the audience have in view.
41:53 - I like this point. Here is another one that might hit home with some married or previously married people. Wedding vows. Something that should be extremely impactful and memorable. How many people remember exactly what they said? (Assuming they we're _not_ the standard read-from-the-book vows).
Licona's argument: The Gospels are historical accounts, and historical accounts are historical; therefore, the Gospels are historical accounts. Bart's argument: Don't believe everything you read.
The "over and over and over" bit by Licona made me physically uncomfortable, for a moment I hated this guy. I liked Ehrman's jab on this: "I don't have the time", as if he will never have enough time to explain how unreliable the gospels are when Licona can spend 10% of his opening argument repeating the same word. Not to mention that the "over and over" bit isn't backed by anything in the bible i.e. made up.
I skipped ahead when he made the cringeworthy guys-and-girls stereotype thing at the beginning, and ended up in the over-and-over-and-over bit. I’m now just skipping to Bart.
Bart thinks they are pretty accurate when he is quoting them in lectures saying "we know Jesus said this" when referring to the same gospels he dismissed here.
@@zamiel3 where does he say he "Knows" Jesus said XYZ? There is a difference between him quoting what the bible says Jesus said, and actually stating he did utter those words. Bart has often said how do we know? The disciples were not highly educated or maybe not even educated at all so who was writing this stuff down?
Dr Licona makes excuses for inaccuracies he can live with by claiming that's how people wrote back then-but _we_ don't live back then, we live _now_ and value _facts_ .
Bart doesn't seem to mind it when he is getting paid to do a lecture and quotes these gospels he's calling inaccurate...saying things like "we know this is what Jesus said". How do people not catch this?
I dont agree with Erhman, but I like him. I have seen several of these debates and no one comes close to holding ground with Erhman. He too knowledgeable and swift on his feet.
Exactly what makes the 4 gospels authoritative over the other 40+ gosples such as the Gospel of Marry, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of basilides. I mean it's not like we know who wrote any of these documents, it's not like we can prove any of them were deciples of Jesus, they all contradict each other in some way. So what Makes Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John more authoritative than Mary, Thomas, or Barnabas. Sure some Gospels were written earlier than others, and sure some fit the agenda of Christianity(while others don't), but all of them are written anonymously, so what makes one Gospel better than the other?
I just can't understand how can one follow Ehrman's crushing statements! I mean, everytime he speaks, when he finishes, the right thing to do should be to end the debate!
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are having a meeting with their agent about their books that have been offered for publication. The agent has compared the four books and has a query... "So Matthew, you wrote that two women named Mary discover the empty tomb after the Angel moved the stone away from the entrance, but Mark, in your version, three women go to the tomb and find a young man inside the tomb. Luke, you claim several people visited the empty tomb and there were two angels standing nearby and finally, John, you say that only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw nobody and runs away to tell the disciples. Now, come on guys, this is the most important part of the story and we have four conflicting versions ! Please, reconsider what actually happened. We can't have contradictions ! "
Tells us they did not "conspire" to create a new movement as many seemingly like to claim...it can be argued that a more uniform structure of events recorded in the Gospels would not work in favor of the Gospels...
In love with a guy that says the gospels are inaccurate, incorrect, didnt happen in this debate.... then gives a lecture and quotes these same gospels as "we know Jesus said this". Bart says here "how can they be both?"... yet they are both when it suits his audience.
It is often said that Greek of Matthew 5:2 clearly indicates that the Sermon in the Mount is a condensation of Jesus's teaching over time by putting the verb for "taught" in a form that indicates habitual action. Barclay makes a big point of this. I'm a little surprised it wasn't mentioned in passing. But anyway, I'll soon find out what happens in Part Two.
Why did Mr. Licona agree to debate this topic when he evidently wanted to debate a different one, i.e. whether the Gospels are historically reliable RELATIVE to their era? These are not the same question.
It is all fine and good that these apologists come up with possible reasons there are discrepancies in the gospels but they seem to forget they are arguing that Jesus is a god. Why would a god allow the story to be recorded wrong? The apologists are acting like Jesus is merely a man and not a god. I would agree with them on that point.
Is Dr. Ehrman saying that if a book or its contents of the book is not historically accurate as being synonymous that a book or its contents of the book is not truth?
Trump would definitely not be totally unexpected. Not necessarily the educated choice. But with personality politics plaguing the American social and political system, there have been many examples of celebrity politicians. They include Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Springer, Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura etc. www.imdb.com/list/ls000025899/ Those candidates and the elected are also in the media, and are expected to debate and perform personality politics on media platforms- especially television over the 20th-21st century.
Elvis died 41 years ago. If people, just now, only started to write and record the stories of his life, how suspect, and strange, would that be? How is that any different than the late, first century writings on Jesus? Or, consider this. If you threaten me, and my children, with eternal damnation, in “Hell”, your story better be 110% accurate, and not the glossed over “man-version”, Mike speaks of.
OMFG--- Bart this is the first time I heard you hit the Census in Luke, fantastic, good night EW Bullinger and VP Wirwille!! If I recall correctly; R.B. Thieme followed Bullangers teaching about the calendars too.
One of the best things to come out of these debates is that people are able to hear how the bible at best is a highly fallible endeavor by biased worshippers of Jesus with ideas, tools and abilities typical of that time. Not the infallible word of a god. Michael Licona demonstrates wonderfully that its just the same as someone recalling serving three years in Vietnam war today... a war they worked hard in studying maps and the missions over and over and over every day ...But then forgetting when and where they were for the most critical missions, where they were when their leader was captured and killed before their eyes, or whether they stayed or went many miles away afterwards, and where they met their leader after he escaped ... Yeah right!! It doesn't pass the smell test for me. Smells of B.S. the same way the fictional story of Robin Hood has hundreds of details but is just a story.
I see it quite the opposite. The more I study the issue, I am amazed how it happened, was recorded and more importantly preserved. The approach of critics such Ehrman is that he is the ultimate arbiter of truth based on his own speculations instead of letting the facts speak for themselves in their historical cultural context.
But you don't know for sure how it happened, what stories are allegory, what stories are parables, what stories were made up and wedged in to fulfil OT prophesies, you don't even know for sure that Jesus existed, and yet I was told as a young boy that if I didn't believe this story I would burn in agony forever. These books describe (badly) the waffling of an ancient cult. Freedom from religion feels so good. No need to believe this shite.
@@2007munday more amazed? answer the basic questions first. how many years was the first New TEstament book written after the crucifixion? 12 years? so the story in Matthew 4, where Jesus was tempted by Satan and no one was there how was THAT recorded?
@@andeez4663 @ Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness. This is what the Bible itself says. You can believe it or you can choose not to. Neither affects the validity of the Bible. There are prophesies in the Bible that have been fulfilled in this century and people argue with their own facts ignoring the facts that they can really prove.
The idea that future historians might have better ways of assessing today's documents and records surely means that we should always use the best methods to determine accuracy. If in the future we have those better methods, we will use them to ascertain which records are not to be trusted. We will not be satisfied by using the methods of 2020, but of the day.
Mike, I appreciated you bringing the facts and your honesty to them. Sometimes I think evangelicals wind all over the place. I have a strong faith in Christ and believe Jesus was the Son of God. I do have a tough time signing such a stringent statement of faith that includes the extreme inerrancy of the Bible. My definition isn't at that level, nor do I think it should be. . . . that doesn't mean that the main story didn't happen.
It seems like Licona just wants to set the goalposts in exactly the place for him to be right. He doesn't want to answer unless he changes the question.
Not a lot of Jews were in Palestine after being decimated in 70 C.E... Nazareth was a one horse town, it was small as shit, i'm not surprised no one could find it for a while.
You think an omnipotent being trying to deliver his most important message to the children he supposedly loves would have had the foresight to record & accurately pass on that message. You know, instead of leaving to transcribe decades later by bias, anonymous people in a different language. God can carve stone tablets, but is fine with imperfect, flawed beings being his ghost writer. Makes perfect sense.
utubepunk: The Gospels may have their differences, and may have their errors, which come mostly from transcription, but they have for centuries accomplished exactly what God intended.
Maybe he was still pissy about the first set being broken and the second set lost (heavy sigh) humans. "If you can't take care of your stuff, I'm not replacing it again." This time write down yourself...to a bunch of illiterate...Gods plan.
There is a bit of irony in that Ehrman points to Mark 14 to highlight the apparent contradiction because of the narrative that follows later in the chapter: _[Mar __14:12__, 55-59 NLT] (12) On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go to prepare the Passover meal for you?" ... (55) Inside, the leading priests and the entire high council were trying to find evidence against Jesus, so they could put him to death. But they couldn't find any. (56) Many false witnesses spoke against him, but they contradicted each other. (57) Finally, some men stood up and gave this false testimony: (58) "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this Temple made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, made without human hands.'" (59) But even then they didn't get their stories straight!_ IE: Mark is discounting the testimony of Jewish leaders as "false witnesses" because they could not get their story straight! So maybe Marcion was right? Marcion's canon, possibly the first Christian canon ever compiled, consisted of eleven books: a gospel consisting of ten sections drawn from the Gospel of Luke; and ten Pauline epistles. Maybe Luke's intro was referring to the other gospels?: _[Luk 1:1-4 NLT] (1) Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. (2) They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. (3) Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, (4) so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught._ Paul also says that if the apostles are not accurate then they are false witnesses: _[1Co __15:12__, 14-15 NASB] (12) Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ... (14) and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. (15) _*_Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised._* In addition, Jesus is quoted by John as arguing that there is no way that his hearers will (or presumably, should) believe what he says about the things they cannot verify unless they believe him when he speaks of things that they are able to verify: _[Jhn __3:12__ NASB] (12) "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?_ So if we are going to claim divine inspiration and infallibility for the Catholic and or Protestant canon and yet admit that the things reported are knowingly of unknowingly misrepresented, then Houston, we have a problem. It seems we either need to accept Marcion's or some other briefer canon or say that the apparent contradictions are not actual contradictions but alas for not yet discovered reasons (like maybe better manuscripts surfacing in the future). As the man said, "If there aren't mistakes, there won't be mistakes".
The Saviour and Lord idea has revolutionized the treatment of drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling addiction, overeating and many other sins and character defects through the 12 step program. Looks like Matthew got it right, "Behold a Saviour has been born, his name is Christ the Lord."' Grateful with tears for what the Lord has done for me!!!
Licona's opening was going to be "black guys drive a drive car like this... but white guys they drive a car like this" but he scrapped it at the last minute.
Licona lost this debate in the opening minutes by making an enormous assumption that men back then thought the way men do today and without providing any evidence to back it up. The idea that the thought process back then was the same as it is now can, in no way, be proven or demonstrated. On top of this, the way people (not just men) make slight alterations to a story is called, "bending the truth". It happens all the time so as to, maybe, make something look better than it actually was, for instance.
Do you really think that Jesus could go around calling himself God and avoid being stoned by his listeners? Not even remotely likely. John has simply made it up.
Whether you believe the gospel stories of Jesus of Nazareth or not one fact is certain. He was and is the most important historical figure in history not just in the West but in the entire World.
Dr. Bart, I really appreciate what you have to say. I can relate with you on some of your schooling. I attended Moody Bible Institute for a year (before transferring to a Christian School in Glasgow, Scotland). My brother attended Wheaton. Then rather than attending Princeton, my sister obtained her Master's from Oxford University in England. I was / am a very "normal" MBI student, meaning not diving into the supernatural. At age 25, 18 years ago I recall praying for a girl that was abnormally stressed. She was worried if she was doing God's will. I briefly put my hand on her shoulder and said "in Jesus name...." Immediately when I said the name of Jesus a ball larger than a baseball and smaller than a softball started zig zagging very abnormally around her back. The ball then went to her shoulder and her shoulder started coming in and out of the socket. To this day that was the only dislocated shoulder I have ever seen. Her shoulder did pop back in as the "ball" moved back to her back. It freaked me out thoroughly and although I was at a traffic light (we were in the car) (actually my small truck (gotta keep every fact straight :) )), I wanted to run out of the car. I immediately drove her 15 houses up to a spiritual professor I felt was better suited to handle someone like her. The girl wasn't in pain or didn't transform into a zombie. She just smiled and said these weird things would happen to her. Although it was 18 years ago, I don't believe I will forget it 20 years or even 40 years from now. I appreciate everything Dr. Bart, but I think you are missing out on the Creator and the Savior. There is power in Jesus name. The bible says a type of demon can only come out with prayer and fasting. I try to remember the girl in prayer. I have had several supernatural occurrences that I think are clearly beyond the natural. Have a blessed night.
You are unclean because you LOVE another. Isaiah 64:6-7; And we are all become as one that is 'unclean', and all our righteousnesses are as a 'polluted garment'; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, takes away. And there is none that calls upon thy name, that stirs up himself to take hold of you; for you have hid your face from us, and hast consumed us by means of our iniquities. (you follow another Lord, the true LORD is YaH o' VaH).
44:05-49:36 This was pretty amateurish my dear Professor Bart! I can play the same game too What evidence do we have that The 4 accounts (by Seneca, Dio Cassius, Plutarch, and Suotunious) on the Death of Caesar are accurate? You can read the stories yourself. two of those accounts place his assassination in a different places. Make a list of everything that happens in both and then compare your list, THINK FOR YOURSELF. You will find that there are stunning differences. In fact, there are discrepancies. I can name some: * Who were the List of conspirators? (Well, it depends on which accounts you read). * where was Julius Caesar when he was assassinated ? (well, it depends which on accounts you read). * was Cicero part of the conspirators? (well, it depends on which accounts you read). * Did Caesar rise in the temple? Cassius Dio says no, Suetonius says Yes. (Well, it depends of which accounts you read.) * Was Caesar going to invade the Parthian Empire before he died? (Well, it depends on which accounts you read) I can play this funny game all day! This is what happens when you do bad scholarship, Professor Bart.
No, this is GOOD scholarship! This is why anyone with a reasonably rational mind and sufficient knowledge would not consider these events to be actual fact solid enough to base anything more important than future fiction upon.
kkgauthier then we can also doubt the that Caesar existed, or was assassinated on Historical grounds. Whatever standard you apply to one account you also have to apply it to all the others. Caesar crossing the rubicon river can also be considered fictional.
I more believe from writer of Bible Who lives in 1st Century, the same time with Jesus Christ than Prof Bart who learned in 21st Century. What do you think?
Licona starts the discussion in "William Lane Craig style" by trying to put up "first, second and so forth contemptions..." in order to steer the discussion his way, assuming the opponent has to address Licona's bullet points in his own speech rather than have his own points. If Ehrman does not address every single one of Licona's points, Licona declares himself winner. Just like William Lane Craig so often did. I always thought this is a very unfair way to start a discussion. This whole over-regulated format of those discussions is difficult for a true exchange of opinions or facts.
Dr. Ehrman, how do you account for discrepancies between stories / verses of common present day versions of the Bible against the Codex Sinaiticus? The story of the adulterous woman is not found in the Codex Sinaiticus, yet it is found in present day versions of the Bible, namely in the KJV. Isn't this a fabrication that was added by scribes later on? If so, what else has been added? How can we be sure that parts of the Codex Sinaiticus itself aren't added? How can we be sure that the Bible itself is a reliable source of information?
Why did god think that anonymous gospels written decades later were the best way to convey his most important message to humanity? Why not have Jesus himself write his own biography prior to his cloudy, low visibility departure to heaven?
But why are they debating this? I think many apologists argue for the truth of what they believe on the basis that the gospels were historically accurate but even the guy who is arguing that they are is saying that they got the gist of it. Based on that, it's still prudent to doubt that Jesus resurrected and performed miracles and was born of a virgin and all that. Extraordinary claims like that should require pretty damn good evidence. Also yes, as Ehrman points out, the opening statement is not the time to rebut things. Both debaters get an opening statement, then the first round of rebuttals the next time around. A very important detail to keep in mind when watching debates.
28:22 - Absolutely wrong! This is supposed to be *the* word of God. If he can't even do something so simple as getting his story straight, why should I think what he says is true (this already assumes a god exists - which is problematic for other reasons). If Nabeel Qureshi writes three more books in which he tells stories that contradict he previous telling of events, it would lessen our confidence about the mundane story of his life. Not too surprising, people do that, but it shouldn't even happen since he ALREADY had a written record of events. When the Bible, which is supposed to be divine, does it - it makes those *serious* claims laughable.
Silhouette by definition, God’s words have to correct to be true. Absly agree with u. N that is a good analysis from u. But see here we have the Qur’an n we say there is not a single letter of error; not a word! That is the challenge For any holly book that claim it’s from the Almighty Allah sw.
Here is how you figure out how much people tried to bury themselves in ignorance while attempting to help beliefs.. common sense, if the story was taught over and over and over as he claims, why was he titled "sermon on the mount" that's indicative of the fact that it happened as a special teaching at a particular location, otherwise you have to say that he was doing the same teaching over and over at the same place. But it didnt appear so according to the scripture. The killer point for me was the account of his birth, and how far they contradicted. I never saw that till now. One month back in Nazareth, another years in Egypt before returning to Nazareth, and under different governments. How is Jesus birth so important, but the account so undocumented accurately?
I believe it is because none or the writers of the books were there at the time of birth of Jesus, so their accounts had to have been pieced up from others who were closer to Jesus at that time. Just try to piece up and document an event that happened some years ago like the 9/11 without referring to any electronic or written media - just use oral witnesses. I promise you will have the time of your life, but it will not negate the fact that 9/11 did happen. Blessings.
I find it interesting that he used the "guy story" as an example of a story that is supposedly not caring about details, yet the debate is literally two guys debating for over an hour using lots of details
"However, numerous alternatives to error have been proposed, and the matter is far from settled." Shamefully weak. We're just supposed to take his word for it that somebody somewhere has a better explanation?
Hold up. Did Mike seriously say "We know several of the people mentioned in the Gospels actually existed in the period in which they're situated," start a list with agreed upon historical figures, and then slip in "Jesus, John the Baptist, and James"? Also, he then went on to say in his rebuttal that his mentions of criteria for historical reliability of documents went unchallenged. Bro, it was Bart's opening statement. You're not supposed to challenge your opponent's position until the rebuttal period...which he hadn't had the opportunity to do yet.
Sorry but Licona opening statement is unbelievable to me. Just because a story is embarrassing doesn't mean its true. I can make up a completely false and embarrassing story about myself. Changing the order of events and combining multiple events makes the resulting story historically inaccurate. We don't know who wrote the gospels so we have no way of knowingly what sources they used. Hell, even knowing who wrote it doesn't help us know what sources they used. Historical fiction also has real Historical information. He also pointed out several things that are historically inaccurate yet is arguing that the books are accurate, no inaccurates cast doubt on everything else.
Embarassing that author didn't say about date when jesus would come back? Isn't mentioning strict dates and then see that nothing happens is much, much more embarassing?
The Bible described you as SCOFFER, 2 PETER 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
Jesus prophesized the Kingdom of God on Earth during the lifetimes of the disciples (see verses later). Jesus prophesy failed. Jesus was wrong. So.....his superstitious followers had to somehow make sense of it all...they had to fix the failure. The tenants of christianity: atonement of sin by jesus sacrifice and resurrection, the idea of heaven hell & souls and the belief in jesus as a divine god was created by many followers, apostles and church leaders. - - it took decades. The gospels are the result. Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Mathew 19:28-29 Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Bart’s argument is most valid, in that it best explains what likely happened and what can be historically true. Licona just assumes that “the over and over and over again-practice” is a good argument. Unfortunatly this does not prove the words of JC having been kept intact, or that he could have said them. Liconas idéa is more like a preconceived idea, because it assumes that what is told in the Gospels really happened. Even if any of the words in the Gospeltext really was told by JC, they may not have been repeated again. That is, even if something like it could have been said by him in real life, it is still not an historical proof of the words said by JC. Therefore, it is more likely that the whole text was made later, perfected, advanced and done by the author, wishing to tell a story about what JC had said. If the text is a decription of a certain speech that JC really said once, repeated or not repeated again, it is more likely that what the disciples once heard him say, was shorter and more simple. Also, if it is a developed text-description of what JC once could have touched on, and someone later was trying to figure out what JC really said, whatever was added by the author, still makes it impossible to prove it’s a true story at all.
Why does Dr. Licona treat these interactions like church lectures? I try to find ways to listen to Dr. Licona and others like him without bias but it is really difficult when you feel like you are in Sunday church services.
When are apologists going to throw away the fallacious "circular" argument tool from their worn and ill-fitting tool belts? It's like a mantra: "If I say it enough they'll start to believe it."
Licona's "girl version" bit is embarrassing. But if "girls" are better at asking for and retelling story details, maybe god should've had women write the gospels.
the funny part in the genealogy of Jesus is that God is dictating the genealogy of his son and he forgot to mention himself in the end, completely fake and fairy tales
Would someone tell Dr. Licona that the idea of a debate is to counter your opponent's arguments?? I disagree with Ehrman on his conclusions as I believe in the reliability of the Bible. However, I do give him credit that he is extremely knowledgeable with a great memory and well prepared to defend and counter his position. Licona was a let down and should have done a lot better. There are books and plenty of articles online that well refute Ehrman. If any evangelicals start to have big doubts after hearing Ehrman, believe me that there are perfectly good answers to his arguments and don't worry!!! Just internet search "refuting Bart Ehrman" and you will find it.
OK - explain how Jesus was born at the time of the census under quinirius and then a few days later escaping the murder of the innocents . Herod the great died 4BC and Quinirius became governor in CE6 - so was Jesus 9 at the time of the census?
The apologist just assumes gods and books are the perfect match... No one dares to wonder why a CREATOR would ever need a human INVENTION called "book" to use for communication, being infinitely more capable than humans and able to create the perfect social media for such important matters...
Dr. Licona... Dr. William Lane Craig called & he wants his dishonest debate tactic back. You know, the one where you criticize your opponent's opening statement for not addressing points made in YOUR opening statements. You know that's not the purpose of opening statements.
utubepunk I noticed that too, that kind of thing drives me insane. The other related thing he did that drove me nuts was trying to Define all the terms in one particular way as if his definitions were the only ones the audience should recognize and any deviation is not okay. Sorry bud just cuz you go first doesn't mean you get to control the definitions of the night.
I m 24 min into the video, and I can sense how Licona's opening remarks / arguments are so based on emotional one rather than intellectual/critical one. and how annoying he seems when saying "over and over" over and over again repetitively . :)
Making so much effort to prop up something that is clearly man made, seems like such a waste of time and fighting the current that is taking humanity toward a higher state.
Paul Morgan no no this is ignorance brother , he certainly existed , every serious scholar agrees , we’ve got too many citations to withdraw , for an atheist to deny jesus existence, is like a theist denying micro evolution ( and im a theist )
Quoting Licona's own words, it never ceases to amaze how apologists tell the same fairy tale, over and over and over and over and over and over without one shred of credible evidence that anything they have referenced as historic ever happened. In the real world, that's called a con man.
I AM Jewish. The Holy Spiritual Presence of The Holy GOD of Israel leaped and jumped within me many times for the Whole House of Israel, the Land of Israel, The Torah, and The Tenak. But NEVER has it leaped and jumped for the Christians, Catholics, or the new testament, so if The Holy GOD of Israel does NOT approve or even recognize the Christians, Catholics, or the new testament, then why should the Jews?
It's supposed to be written by God Almighty..inspired men overtaken by y. God to write hi books. It should be accurate no matter when it was written. We aren't talking about just literature a convention of men. We are tal!omg about communication from God, who is supposed to know the end from the beginning and all phases in between. This book is obviously not written by God via the inspiration of the. Holy Spirit to anonymous scribes. This turns my stomach. All of th questions I asked as a child about these things and things like it...don't question God's word! How are you! Don't ask questions like that. This book wasn't written by God cannot be God Almighty 's words with these gaping contradictions.
Dr Bart argues here that Jesus Christ claimed His Divinity and he brought the "I AM" phrase as a proof of it, that it was the name of God in the Old Testament. In his debate with Peter J Williams in the Unbelievable channel, he argued that the "I AM" doesn't make Jesus Christ Divine, because even the blind man in John 9:9 said "I AM" that's "EGO EIMI." How is that you use the same phrase to attack and to defend your view on different occasions? This is not HONESTY.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Christian Bart has really helped me see things from a different perspective. After one of my friends told me to watch the lee strobel movie it’s nice to see things from the other side. I think Bart is after the truth and I really
Respect that.
Having said that do you think that the new testament is historically reliable
Always inspiring to hear Bart Ehrman ! Such great understanding and ability to express himself objectively and with tremendous authority. THANK YOU !!
bible clearly is a corrupted man made book mixed in with Jesus;s teachings the Quran fixed it up!
Bart really made be dive into reading the gospel accounts and discovering things for myself. Read horizontally the reports of what the thieves did, what Jesus said on the cross. Amazing.
To summarize Licona: there's enough historical reliability to establish Jesus as a historical figure, itenerate preacher, and that the Bible is reliable on the topic of Jesus as a first century, apocalyptic, self-professed prophetic figure. But the Bible does not provide a shred of evidence that the supernatural claims are literally true. So basically Licona's entire perspective is that Bart is right. Got it.
Yeah, he does actually, he performed all those miracles! He said: “I and My Father are one.”? (John 10:30-33)
"If there aren't mistakes, there won't be mistakes." This was the view held by most Evangelicals during the majority of the 20th century. Now they backtrack like Licona and admit many of the problems people like Ehrman and others like myself have found upon an honest reading of the Bible and Church history. We are now accused of becoming unbelievers because we held to an erroneous view of the Bible, a Fundamentalist view. But this is unfair. Biblical criticism has shown the Bible to be an utterly human book. Licona and others will admit as much of it as they can without throwing away their precious faith. But if it looks like and duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. And the NT looks and sounds like a first century document because that's what it is. And I fail to be convinced that it is anything more.
But are they legitimate mistakes if they are non-literal on purpose: as a literary device? And I fail to be concerned if the presentation of Jesus' life is intact: his miracles, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection. And I wonder what possible motivation could the writers have had to preach this stuff when it was utterly dangerous to do so? The threats of martyrdom would be enough to make any person reconsider, 'am I absolutely sure of this? It seems to me there are enough problem pasages in tne gospels for any one determined to justify their non-belief and enough evidence for those who do believe to give a strong rational case for it. I doubt human reason and scholarship alone will completely solve it, which seems to be part of the devine genius. Faith relies ultimately on the Holy Spirt, not the wisdom of man, to paraphrase Paul.
@@shostycellist Your logic is faulty. How can you trust verses that describe this mysterious "HS" when other verses are clearly untrustworthy? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Use your deductive reasoning.
@@shostycellist Faith as in Hebrews 11:1, means believing when you dont have any evidence and also in the face of contradictory evidence. Both are irrational.
And that would be the book duck 'kind'. So there.
Then that makes us unbelievers by default?. Bart doesn't believe, nor do I. God has had his day in court, found guilty of setting us all up and multiple genocides.
Changing details adds clarity?
Yeah it's one thing to leave out unnecessary details to get to the point, or to only give rough approximations because you don't remember exact phrases. It's another thing to actually change details around, especially just to fit your narrative. That's just manipulation.
Licona really had no reason to say _over_ so many times
Professor Bart D. Ehrman Sir thank you very much for sharing.
I teared up so much over the introduction when Licona said he considers Bart a friend. Beautiful. I desire to care for others in this way, despite our differences
Thank you Bart! :)
Great stuff! :)
Love your name. Quite courageous considering...May I offer a translation - Daring Doubter (I know it juxtaposes the noun and verb, but...). I love Bart too.
-27 Books
-5 Writers
-40 Authors
-20+ Differents Versions
-1000s Of Changes i.e. (Additions And Deletions)
-More Contradictions Than Words Are Found In There
It Is Beyond Anyone Imagination To Even Think That The Gospels Are Historically Reliable...Talkless Of Believing.
Can you explain me the 5 writers but 40 authors claim?
The number of authors are probably highly debatable.
@@DingoTheDemon no not really
True
Bart is great.
No he isn't... He can't pick a side. Debates he says gospels arent accurate or trustworthy. In lectures he's quoting these same gospels saying "we know Jesus said this". What's so great about that? Are they accurate and quotable or aren't they?? Bart says, "how can they be both? ", but seems to think they are both. Guess it depends who's paying his fee?
at 55:55 did licona just say that it was ehrman's responsibility to disprove licona's assumptions?
Cause he’s an idiot who thinks the accounts of psychics prove the supernatural without being able to demonstrate anyone is actually psychic.
Bart laid a very simple cases which didnt assume further doubt. Really straightforward and easy to understand. Licona on the other hand...what was he talking about again?
Yet if you watch Bart's lectures he thinks the gospels ARE accurate because he says things like "in matthew here we KNOW Jesus said this". Strange he calls them inaccurate, unreliable, how did they happen here but states they are reliable and accurate at other times. Everyone seems to ignore this.
@@zamiel3 no, he states what the bible says he said - not that he thinks they were the actual words he spoke necessarily. But if you are going to debate you have to frame your arguments within what your opponent and people in the audience have in view.
Thank God for Bart, shining a light on the delusion. If we are to get real value out of the teachings, we need to stop lying to ourselves.
@Paul Morgan
Jesus existance is in threat!
41:53 - I like this point. Here is another one that might hit home with some married or previously married people. Wedding vows. Something that should be extremely impactful and memorable. How many people remember exactly what they said? (Assuming they we're _not_ the standard read-from-the-book vows).
10:00 skip the intro....
29:46 skip the preaching....
Licona's argument: The Gospels are historical accounts, and historical accounts are historical; therefore, the Gospels are historical accounts.
Bart's argument: Don't believe everything you read.
The "over and over and over" bit by Licona made me physically uncomfortable, for a moment I hated this guy. I liked Ehrman's jab on this: "I don't have the time", as if he will never have enough time to explain how unreliable the gospels are when Licona can spend 10% of his opening argument repeating the same word. Not to mention that the "over and over" bit isn't backed by anything in the bible i.e. made up.
I skipped ahead when he made the cringeworthy guys-and-girls stereotype thing at the beginning, and ended up in the over-and-over-and-over bit. I’m now just skipping to Bart.
That was to make a point but ok....jeez
@@Correctrix cool! Great mindset to go into a debate!
Bart thinks they are pretty accurate when he is quoting them in lectures saying "we know Jesus said this" when referring to the same gospels he dismissed here.
@@zamiel3 where does he say he "Knows" Jesus said XYZ? There is a difference between him quoting what the bible says Jesus said, and actually stating he did utter those words. Bart has often said how do we know? The disciples were not highly educated or maybe not even educated at all so who was writing this stuff down?
Dr Licona makes excuses for inaccuracies he can live with by claiming that's how people wrote back then-but _we_ don't live back then, we live _now_ and value _facts_ .
Even if it is the word of God?
Bart doesn't seem to mind it when he is getting paid to do a lecture and quotes these gospels he's calling inaccurate...saying things like "we know this is what Jesus said". How do people not catch this?
@@henrytheinnocentviii7871 the bible clearly is a corrupted man made book mixed in with Jesus;s teachings the Quran fixed it up!
Not sure that Licona opening with gender stereotypes was gonna win the crowd.
Yeah pro-tip for Dr. Licona, instead of "women" vs. "men", it would probably be a really good idea to talk about "some people" and "other people"
John Williams I haven't watched this yet, but I'm just asking myself what does that have to do with the topic of the debate.
@Charles D Is it true, though? That's the problem. Not their "feelings".
And on, and on, and on, and on.. Sweet lord.
@Phobos Anomaly Atheists don't believe gender is biological.
I dont agree with Erhman, but I like him. I have seen several of these debates and no one comes close to holding ground with Erhman. He too knowledgeable and swift on his feet.
Licona got knocked out by Ehrman!
Antoine Mason .. I Agree .. Without mercy or lubrication Lol
@Mechanicles X Gay isn't cool.
Ehrman floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee!
I was almost embarrassed for him then I remembered his position is ridiculous
St. John#5 Faith Church when you have to defend the bible, you are handicapped already. 😂
Exactly what makes the 4 gospels authoritative over the other 40+ gosples such as the Gospel of Marry, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of basilides. I mean it's not like we know who wrote any of these documents, it's not like we can prove any of them were deciples of Jesus, they all contradict each other in some way. So what Makes Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John more authoritative than Mary, Thomas, or Barnabas. Sure some Gospels were written earlier than others, and sure some fit the agenda of Christianity(while others don't), but all of them are written anonymously, so what makes one Gospel better than the other?
The Zombies of Matthew .. Lol
I just can't understand how can one follow Ehrman's crushing statements! I mean, everytime he speaks, when he finishes, the right thing to do should be to end the debate!
great job. if a person has faith they should be committed to the truth
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are having a meeting with their agent about their books that have been offered for publication. The agent has compared the four books and has a query...
"So Matthew, you wrote that two women named Mary discover the empty tomb after the Angel moved the stone away from the entrance, but Mark, in your version, three women go to the tomb and find a young man inside the tomb. Luke, you claim several people visited the empty tomb and there were two angels standing nearby and finally, John, you say that only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw nobody and runs away to tell the disciples.
Now, come on guys, this is the most important part of the story and we have four conflicting versions ! Please, reconsider what actually happened. We can't have contradictions ! "
Tells us they did not "conspire" to create a new movement as many seemingly like to claim...it can be argued that a more uniform structure of events recorded in the Gospels would not work in favor of the Gospels...
@NEW BORN CREATION
Yes....
Tomb was empty...
Wow!!! I think that I'm love with Ehrman. So much here that should be applied to many other questions.
In love with a guy that says the gospels are inaccurate, incorrect, didnt happen in this debate.... then gives a lecture and quotes these same gospels as "we know Jesus said this". Bart says here "how can they be both?"... yet they are both when it suits his audience.
It is often said that Greek of Matthew 5:2 clearly indicates that the Sermon in the Mount is a condensation of Jesus's teaching over time by putting the verb for "taught" in a form that indicates habitual action. Barclay makes a big point of this. I'm a little surprised it wasn't mentioned in passing. But anyway, I'll soon find out what happens in Part Two.
Why did Mr. Licona agree to debate this topic when he evidently wanted to debate a different one, i.e. whether the Gospels are historically reliable RELATIVE to their era? These are not the same question.
It is all fine and good that these apologists come up with possible reasons there are discrepancies in the gospels but they seem to forget they are arguing that Jesus is a god. Why would a god allow the story to be recorded wrong? The apologists are acting like Jesus is merely a man and not a god. I would agree with them on that point.
Is Dr. Ehrman saying that if a book or its contents of the book is not historically accurate as being synonymous that a book or its contents of the book is not truth?
Evidence vs Belief
Did that intro guy forget that a president in the 80s was a Hollywood star?
but he had political experience. He was still a stinking pile of human filth
Trump would definitely not be totally unexpected. Not necessarily the educated choice. But with personality politics plaguing the American social and political system, there have been many examples of celebrity politicians. They include Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Springer, Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura etc.
www.imdb.com/list/ls000025899/
Those candidates and the elected are also in the media, and are expected to debate and perform personality politics on media platforms- especially television over the 20th-21st century.
william mac haha
Skeptic Psychologist it's a circus!
Elvis died 41 years ago. If people, just now, only started to write and record the stories of his life, how suspect, and strange, would that be? How is that any different than the late, first century writings on Jesus?
Or, consider this. If you threaten me, and my children, with eternal damnation, in “Hell”, your story better be 110% accurate, and not the glossed over “man-version”, Mike speaks of.
Not only this, but in antiquity it was common to ascribe miracles to people, more so than today.
OMFG--- Bart this is the first time I heard you hit the Census in Luke, fantastic, good night EW Bullinger and VP Wirwille!! If I recall correctly; R.B. Thieme followed Bullangers teaching about the calendars too.
But he doesn't know what he's talking about.
One of the best things to come out of these debates is that people are able to hear how the bible at best is a highly fallible endeavor by biased worshippers of Jesus with ideas, tools and abilities typical of that time. Not the infallible word of a god. Michael Licona demonstrates wonderfully that its just the same as someone recalling serving three years in Vietnam war today... a war they worked hard in studying maps and the missions over and over and over every day ...But then forgetting when and where they were for the most critical missions, where they were when their leader was captured and killed before their eyes, or whether they stayed or went many miles away afterwards, and where they met their leader after he escaped ... Yeah right!! It doesn't pass the smell test for me. Smells of B.S. the same way the fictional story of Robin Hood has hundreds of details but is just a story.
I see it quite the opposite. The more I study the issue, I am amazed how it happened, was recorded and more importantly preserved. The approach of critics such Ehrman is that he is the ultimate arbiter of truth based on his own speculations instead of letting the facts speak for themselves in their historical cultural context.
But you don't know for sure how it happened, what stories are allegory, what stories are parables, what stories were made up and wedged in to fulfil OT prophesies, you don't even know for sure that Jesus existed, and yet I was told as a young boy that if I didn't believe this story I would burn in agony forever. These books describe (badly) the waffling of an ancient cult. Freedom from religion feels so good. No need to believe this shite.
@@2007munday more amazed? answer the basic questions first. how many years was the first New TEstament book written after the crucifixion? 12 years? so the story in Matthew 4, where Jesus was tempted by Satan and no one was there how was THAT recorded?
@@andeez4663
@ Timothy 3: 16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness.
This is what the Bible itself says. You can believe it or you can choose not to. Neither affects the validity of the Bible. There are prophesies in the Bible that have been fulfilled in this century and people argue with their own facts ignoring the facts that they can really prove.
@@AXELRAPUNZEL exactly!
Licona just admitted the bible isn't perfect.
The idea that future historians might have better ways of assessing today's documents and records surely means that we should always use the best methods to determine accuracy. If in the future we have those better methods, we will use them to ascertain which records are not to be trusted. We will not be satisfied by using the methods of 2020, but of the day.
Mike, I appreciated you bringing the facts and your honesty to them. Sometimes I think evangelicals wind all over the place. I have a strong faith in Christ and believe Jesus was the Son of God. I do have a tough time signing such a stringent statement of faith that includes the extreme inerrancy of the Bible. My definition isn't at that level, nor do I think it should be. . . . that doesn't mean that the main story didn't happen.
It seems like Licona just wants to set the goalposts in exactly the place for him to be right. He doesn't want to answer unless he changes the question.
How is nazareth real place in the time of jesus when it was foundef in 2-4th century?
Archaeologists claim to find 1st Nazareth dwelling from Jesus' time th-cam.com/video/AJvbwNjceu4/w-d-xo.html
Not a lot of Jews were in Palestine after being decimated in 70 C.E... Nazareth was a one horse town, it was small as shit, i'm not surprised no one could find it for a while.
Ted Archer ...it was a mackerel.......I mean a miracle.....now, send me ten doll-a!
The Nazareth thing..its been settled for SOOO LONG
Modern archeologists agree that the only thing there at the time of the birth of the presumed Jesus, was a well used by caravans.
Mr. Ehrman you are awesome.
You think an omnipotent being trying to deliver his most important message to the children he supposedly loves would have had the foresight to record & accurately pass on that message. You know, instead of leaving to transcribe decades later by bias, anonymous people in a different language.
God can carve stone tablets, but is fine with imperfect, flawed beings being his ghost writer. Makes perfect sense.
utubepunk:
The Gospels may have their differences, and may have their errors, which come mostly from transcription, but they have for centuries accomplished exactly what God intended.
Like the mass persecution of the Jews?!?!
Maybe he was still pissy about the first set being broken and the second set lost (heavy sigh) humans. "If you can't take care of your stuff, I'm not replacing it again." This time write down yourself...to a bunch of illiterate...Gods plan.
Defending inerrancy of the New Testament = defending the impossible.
There is a bit of irony in that Ehrman points to Mark 14 to highlight the apparent contradiction because of the narrative that follows later in the chapter:
_[Mar __14:12__, 55-59 NLT] (12) On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go to prepare the Passover meal for you?" ... (55) Inside, the leading priests and the entire high council were trying to find evidence against Jesus, so they could put him to death. But they couldn't find any. (56) Many false witnesses spoke against him, but they contradicted each other. (57) Finally, some men stood up and gave this false testimony: (58) "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this Temple made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, made without human hands.'" (59) But even then they didn't get their stories straight!_
IE: Mark is discounting the testimony of Jewish leaders as "false witnesses" because they could not get their story straight! So maybe Marcion was right? Marcion's canon, possibly the first Christian canon ever compiled, consisted of eleven books: a gospel consisting of ten sections drawn from the Gospel of Luke; and ten Pauline epistles. Maybe Luke's intro was referring to the other gospels?:
_[Luk 1:1-4 NLT] (1) Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. (2) They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. (3) Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, (4) so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught._
Paul also says that if the apostles are not accurate then they are false witnesses:
_[1Co __15:12__, 14-15 NASB] (12) Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ... (14) and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. (15) _*_Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised._*
In addition, Jesus is quoted by John as arguing that there is no way that his hearers will (or presumably, should) believe what he says about the things they cannot verify unless they believe him when he speaks of things that they are able to verify:
_[Jhn __3:12__ NASB] (12) "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?_
So if we are going to claim divine inspiration and infallibility for the Catholic and or Protestant canon and yet admit that the things reported are knowingly of unknowingly misrepresented, then Houston, we have a problem. It seems we either need to accept Marcion's or some other briefer canon or say that the apparent contradictions are not actual contradictions but alas for not yet discovered reasons (like maybe better manuscripts surfacing in the future).
As the man said, "If there aren't mistakes, there won't be mistakes".
The Saviour and Lord idea has revolutionized the treatment of drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling addiction, overeating and many other sins and character defects through the 12 step program. Looks like Matthew got it right, "Behold a Saviour has been born, his name is Christ the Lord."' Grateful with tears for what the Lord has done for me!!!
Licona's opening was going to be "black guys drive a drive car like this... but white guys they drive a car like this" but he scrapped it at the last minute.
Licona lost this debate in the opening minutes by making an enormous assumption that men back then thought the way men do today and without providing any evidence to back it up. The idea that the thought process back then was the same as it is now can, in no way, be proven or demonstrated. On top of this, the way people (not just men) make slight alterations to a story is called, "bending the truth". It happens all the time so as to, maybe, make something look better than it actually was, for instance.
There is no mention of lamb being eaten at the last supper.
Do you really think that Jesus could go around calling himself God and avoid being stoned by his listeners? Not even remotely likely. John has simply made it up.
Whether you believe the gospel stories of Jesus of Nazareth or not one fact is certain. He was and is the most important historical figure in history not just in the West but in the entire World.
Mike Licona, we are not comparing men to men here. We are supposed to be looking a communication from.God!
Do yourself a favor: skip to 10:00
But but licona an emblessment or error over and over and over again is still and emblessment and error
Dr. Bart, I really appreciate what you have to say. I can relate with you on some of your schooling. I attended Moody Bible Institute for a year (before transferring to a Christian School in Glasgow, Scotland). My brother attended Wheaton. Then rather than attending Princeton, my sister obtained her Master's from Oxford University in England. I was / am a very "normal" MBI student, meaning not diving into the supernatural. At age 25, 18 years ago I recall praying for a girl that was abnormally stressed. She was worried if she was doing God's will. I briefly put my hand on her shoulder and said "in Jesus name...." Immediately when I said the name of Jesus a ball larger than a baseball and smaller than a softball started zig zagging very abnormally around her back. The ball then went to her shoulder and her shoulder started coming in and out of the socket. To this day that was the only dislocated shoulder I have ever seen. Her shoulder did pop back in as the "ball" moved back to her back. It freaked me out thoroughly and although I was at a traffic light (we were in the car) (actually my small truck (gotta keep every fact straight :) )), I wanted to run out of the car. I immediately drove her 15 houses up to a spiritual professor I felt was better suited to handle someone like her. The girl wasn't in pain or didn't transform into a zombie. She just smiled and said these weird things would happen to her. Although it was 18 years ago, I don't believe I will forget it 20 years or even 40 years from now. I appreciate everything Dr. Bart, but I think you are missing out on the Creator and the Savior. There is power in Jesus name. The bible says a type of demon can only come out with prayer and fasting. I try to remember the girl in prayer.
I have had several supernatural occurrences that I think are clearly beyond the natural.
Have a blessed night.
You are unclean because you LOVE another. Isaiah 64:6-7; And we are all become as one that is 'unclean', and all our righteousnesses are as a 'polluted garment'; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, takes away. And there is none that calls upon thy name, that stirs up himself to take hold of you; for you have hid your face from us, and hast consumed us by means of our iniquities. (you follow another Lord, the true LORD is YaH o' VaH).
Bart always wins against these pagans
Nabeel now in the grave get punished by the Angel of Grave
walking dead the Jerusalem edition is coming soon on netflix .
44:05-49:36
This was pretty amateurish my dear Professor Bart!
I can play the same game too
What evidence do we have that The 4 accounts (by Seneca, Dio Cassius, Plutarch, and Suotunious) on the Death of Caesar are accurate?
You can read the stories yourself.
two of those accounts place his assassination in a different places.
Make a list of everything that happens in both and then compare your list, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
You will find that there are stunning differences. In fact, there are discrepancies.
I can name some:
* Who were the List of conspirators? (Well, it depends on which accounts you read).
* where was Julius Caesar when he was assassinated ? (well, it depends which on accounts you read).
* was Cicero part of the conspirators? (well, it depends on which accounts you read).
* Did Caesar rise in the temple? Cassius Dio says no, Suetonius says Yes. (Well, it depends of which accounts you read.)
* Was Caesar going to invade the Parthian Empire before he died? (Well, it depends on which accounts you read)
I can play this funny game all day!
This is what happens when you do bad scholarship, Professor Bart.
No, this is GOOD scholarship! This is why anyone with a reasonably rational mind and sufficient knowledge would not consider these events to be actual fact solid enough to base anything more important than future fiction upon.
kkgauthier then we can also doubt the that Caesar existed, or was assassinated on Historical grounds.
Whatever standard you apply to one account you also have to apply it to all the others.
Caesar crossing the rubicon river can also be considered fictional.
I more believe from writer of Bible Who lives in 1st Century, the same time with Jesus Christ than Prof Bart who learned in 21st Century. What do you think?
Licona starts the discussion in "William Lane Craig style" by trying to put up "first, second and so forth contemptions..." in order to steer the discussion his way, assuming the opponent has to address Licona's bullet points in his own speech rather than have his own points. If Ehrman does not address every single one of Licona's points, Licona declares himself winner. Just like William Lane Craig so often did. I always thought this is a very unfair way to start a discussion. This whole over-regulated format of those discussions is difficult for a true exchange of opinions or facts.
And still he lost so his tactic didn't work.
Dr. Ehrman, how do you account for discrepancies between stories / verses of common present day versions of the Bible against the Codex Sinaiticus? The story of the adulterous woman is not found in the Codex Sinaiticus, yet it is found in present day versions of the Bible, namely in the KJV. Isn't this a fabrication that was added by scribes later on? If so, what else has been added? How can we be sure that parts of the Codex Sinaiticus itself aren't added? How can we be sure that the Bible itself is a reliable source of information?
Why did god think that anonymous gospels written decades later were the best way to convey his most important message to humanity? Why not have Jesus himself write his own biography prior to his cloudy, low visibility departure to heaven?
But why are they debating this? I think many apologists argue for the truth of what they believe on the basis that the gospels were historically accurate but even the guy who is arguing that they are is saying that they got the gist of it. Based on that, it's still prudent to doubt that Jesus resurrected and performed miracles and was born of a virgin and all that. Extraordinary claims like that should require pretty damn good evidence.
Also yes, as Ehrman points out, the opening statement is not the time to rebut things. Both debaters get an opening statement, then the first round of rebuttals the next time around. A very important detail to keep in mind when watching debates.
28:22 - Absolutely wrong! This is supposed to be *the* word of God. If he can't even do something so simple as getting his story straight, why should I think what he says is true (this already assumes a god exists - which is problematic for other reasons).
If Nabeel Qureshi writes three more books in which he tells stories that contradict he previous telling of events, it would lessen our confidence about the mundane story of his life. Not too surprising, people do that, but it shouldn't even happen since he ALREADY had a written record of events. When the Bible, which is supposed to be divine, does it - it makes those *serious* claims laughable.
Silhouette by definition, God’s words have to correct to be true. Absly agree with u. N that is a good analysis from u. But see here we have the Qur’an n we say there is not a single letter of error; not a word! That is the challenge
For any holly book that claim it’s from the Almighty Allah sw.
Here is how you figure out how much people tried to bury themselves in ignorance while attempting to help beliefs.. common sense, if the story was taught over and over and over as he claims, why was he titled "sermon on the mount" that's indicative of the fact that it happened as a special teaching at a particular location, otherwise you have to say that he was doing the same teaching over and over at the same place. But it didnt appear so according to the scripture. The killer point for me was the account of his birth, and how far they contradicted. I never saw that till now. One month back in Nazareth, another years in Egypt before returning to Nazareth, and under different governments. How is Jesus birth so important, but the account so undocumented accurately?
I believe it is because none or the writers of the books were there at the time of birth of Jesus, so their accounts had to have been pieced up from others who were closer to Jesus at that time. Just try to piece up and document an event that happened some years ago like the 9/11 without referring to any electronic or written media - just use oral witnesses. I promise you will have the time of your life, but it will not negate the fact that 9/11 did happen. Blessings.
As soon as Bart starts to give his speech, there was an awkward silent.. or is it just me?
😆
Thank you Bart .....good explanations.
yes us men like to change little details of stories - great point mike lol /s
I find it interesting that he used the "guy story" as an example of a story that is supposedly not caring about details, yet the debate is literally two guys debating for over an hour using lots of details
Dr Licona nails it @ 1:02:22
And over and over. Argggg! We get it!
"However, numerous alternatives to error have been proposed, and the matter is far from settled."
Shamefully weak. We're just supposed to take his word for it that somebody somewhere has a better explanation?
Hold up. Did Mike seriously say "We know several of the people mentioned in the Gospels actually existed in the period in which they're situated," start a list with agreed upon historical figures, and then slip in "Jesus, John the Baptist, and James"?
Also, he then went on to say in his rebuttal that his mentions of criteria for historical reliability of documents went unchallenged. Bro, it was Bart's opening statement. You're not supposed to challenge your opponent's position until the rebuttal period...which he hadn't had the opportunity to do yet.
Sorry but Licona opening statement is unbelievable to me. Just because a story is embarrassing doesn't mean its true. I can make up a completely false and embarrassing story about myself. Changing the order of events and combining multiple events makes the resulting story historically inaccurate. We don't know who wrote the gospels so we have no way of knowingly what sources they used. Hell, even knowing who wrote it doesn't help us know what sources they used. Historical fiction also has real Historical information. He also pointed out several things that are historically inaccurate yet is arguing that the books are accurate, no inaccurates cast doubt on everything else.
.......over and over and over and over....and over. -Mike Licona
Embarassing that author didn't say about date when jesus would come back? Isn't mentioning strict dates and then see that nothing happens is much, much more embarassing?
The Bible described you as SCOFFER,
2 PETER 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
The Author of this text is the 'SCOFFER.'
abukid Jesus thought the End would be in his life. So did Paul. Looks like they're wrong. I scoff based on good evidence.
Jesus prophesized the Kingdom of God on Earth during the lifetimes of the disciples (see verses later).
Jesus prophesy failed. Jesus was wrong. So.....his superstitious followers had to somehow make sense of it all...they had to fix the failure. The tenants of christianity: atonement of sin by jesus sacrifice and resurrection, the idea of heaven hell & souls and the belief in jesus as a divine god was created by many followers, apostles and church leaders. - - it took decades. The gospels are the result.
Mark 9:1
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Mark 13:30
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Mathew 19:28-29
Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Ted Archer Jesus didn’t exist
Bart’s argument is most valid, in that it best explains what likely happened and what can be historically true. Licona just assumes that “the over and over and over again-practice” is a good argument. Unfortunatly this does not prove the words of JC having been kept intact, or that he could have said them. Liconas idéa is more like a preconceived idea, because it assumes that what is told in the Gospels really happened.
Even if any of the words in the Gospeltext really was told by JC, they may not have been repeated again. That is, even if something like it could have been said by him in real life, it is still not an historical proof of the words said by JC. Therefore, it is more likely that the whole text was made later, perfected, advanced and done by the author, wishing to tell a story about what JC had said.
If the text is a decription of a certain speech that JC really said once, repeated or not repeated again, it is more likely that what the disciples once heard him say, was shorter and more simple. Also, if it is a developed text-description of what JC once could have touched on, and someone later was trying to figure out what JC really said, whatever was added by the author, still makes it impossible to prove it’s a true story at all.
Why does Dr. Licona treat these interactions like church lectures? I try to find ways to listen to Dr. Licona and others like him without bias but it is really difficult when you feel like you are in Sunday church services.
Over and over and over and over and over
When are apologists going to throw away the fallacious "circular" argument tool from their worn and ill-fitting tool belts? It's like a mantra: "If I say it enough they'll start to believe it."
At least now they accept that bible is written by ordinary men and not by divine inspiration
Licona's "girl version" bit is embarrassing. But if "girls" are better at asking for and retelling story details, maybe god should've had women write the gospels.
Plot twist: women actually did.
That would be a most interesting discovery
This moderator is a professor?
the funny part in the genealogy of Jesus is that God is dictating the genealogy of his son and he forgot to mention himself in the end, completely fake and fairy tales
Fouzi Akhyaar
Never thought this point.
Would someone tell Dr. Licona that the idea of a debate is to counter your opponent's arguments??
I disagree with Ehrman on his conclusions as I believe in the reliability of the Bible. However, I do give him credit that he is extremely knowledgeable with a great memory and well prepared to defend and counter his position. Licona was a let down and should have done a lot better. There are books and plenty of articles online that well refute Ehrman.
If any evangelicals start to have big doubts after hearing Ehrman, believe me that there are perfectly good answers to his arguments and don't worry!!! Just internet search "refuting Bart Ehrman" and you will find it.
OK - explain how Jesus was born at the time of the census under quinirius and then a few days later escaping the murder of the innocents .
Herod the great died 4BC and Quinirius became governor in CE6 - so was Jesus 9 at the time of the census?
The apologist just assumes gods and books are the perfect match...
No one dares to wonder why a CREATOR would ever need a human INVENTION called "book" to use for communication, being infinitely more capable than humans and able to create the perfect social media for such important matters...
Dr. Licona... Dr. William Lane Craig called & he wants his dishonest debate tactic back. You know, the one where you criticize your opponent's opening statement for not addressing points made in YOUR opening statements. You know that's not the purpose of opening statements.
utubepunk I noticed that too, that kind of thing drives me insane. The other related thing he did that drove me nuts was trying to Define all the terms in one particular way as if his definitions were the only ones the audience should recognize and any deviation is not okay.
Sorry bud just cuz you go first doesn't mean you get to control the definitions of the night.
Yeah, Dillahunty already called Licona out on that during their debate.
I m 24 min into the video, and I can sense how Licona's opening remarks / arguments are so based on emotional one rather than intellectual/critical one. and how annoying he seems when saying "over and over" over and over again repetitively . :)
Making so much effort to prop up something that is clearly man made, seems like such a waste of time and fighting the current that is taking humanity toward a higher state.
Paul Morgan no no this is ignorance brother , he certainly existed , every serious scholar agrees , we’ve got too many citations to withdraw , for an atheist to deny jesus existence, is like a theist denying micro evolution ( and im a theist )
@@ismailkraimi5796 ??
Quoting Licona's own words, it never ceases to amaze how apologists tell the same fairy tale, over and over and over and over and over and over without one shred of credible evidence that
anything they have referenced as historic ever happened. In the real world, that's called a con man.
If the bible is accurate, then Shakespeare is a historian! WTF?
I AM Jewish. The Holy Spiritual Presence of The Holy GOD of Israel leaped and jumped within me many times for the Whole House of Israel, the Land of Israel, The Torah, and The Tenak. But NEVER has it leaped and jumped for the Christians, Catholics, or the new testament, so if The Holy GOD of Israel does NOT approve or even recognize the Christians, Catholics, or the new testament, then why should the Jews?
Doubting Bart!
"It depends which Bart you're listening to."
We get Mike's joke, but audience on the day didn't. The one time I was laughing with him, not at him.
It's supposed to be written by God Almighty..inspired men overtaken by y. God to write hi books. It should be accurate no matter when it was written. We aren't talking about just literature a convention of men. We are tal!omg about communication from God, who is supposed to know the end from the beginning and all phases in between. This book is obviously not written by God via the inspiration of the. Holy Spirit to anonymous scribes.
This turns my stomach. All of th questions I asked as a child about these things and things like it...don't question God's word! How are you! Don't ask questions like that.
This book wasn't written by God cannot be God Almighty 's words with these gaping contradictions.
I'm surprised Mike admitted that John changed Jesus' time of death
Dr Bart argues here that Jesus Christ claimed His Divinity and he brought the "I AM" phrase as a proof of it, that it was the name of God in the Old Testament. In his debate with Peter J Williams in the Unbelievable channel, he argued that the "I AM" doesn't make Jesus Christ Divine, because even the blind man in John 9:9 said "I AM" that's "EGO EIMI." How is that you use the same phrase to attack and to defend your view on different occasions? This is not HONESTY.
Please, Dear Mr Bart Ehrman. Do make a complete mistakes in the Bible. I will buy it for sure
Shame on you how dare you say that to Allah's previous books you are not a Muslim and I'm not your brother may Allah swt guide you
This guy just wants to argue for a gist. He already lost