How Bart Ehrman Exploits His Audience's Ignorance
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ต.ค. 2024
- Bart Ehrman often exploits his audience's ignorance. He tends to choose the most problematic readings of texts and presents them as though they are just as valid as any other interpretation. Furthermore, he doesn't inform his audience about the scholarly debate surrounding the information he provides, making his presentations come across as biased and one-sided. Don't be duped!
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...
Misread the thumbnail as "How Batman Exploits His Audience's Ignorance" kinda disappointed tbh.
???????????????¿??‽
I mean he's caught the joker, like, 80 times and hands him over to the cops knowing full well he'll be out by the weekend again...
And that's the best superhero apparently..
@@rexcatston8412 Tbf the problem isn't that batman wont just finally rid Gotham of the joker forever but that he's never gotten the death sentence or just shot by anyone the moment he's arrested or seen.
Batman's no kill rule wouldnt be so bad if his villains weren't so over the top to one up their previous record. Nobody would care if Joker wasnt blowing up orphanages and gassing the elderly ever other week over just robbing banks.
Are you guys really talking about batman right now ? 😂😂😂
@@ErinyHany-ve9lp yes
The more I examine the most highly regarded intellectual atheists, the more I understand what Paul meant when he said “claiming themselves to be wise, they became fools”
Right 😂🤣😂
How do, what’s a foolish thing you’ve heard?
Yeah. Paul was a master at keeping people in the cult.
Atheist ARN’T the ones who believe in a magical sky wizard who needed the blood sacrifice of himself to “forgive” all of mankind for a crime done by a dirt man and his rib wife 6000 years ago. 🤥
@adamcosper3308
Your comment supports @jeromydickie82’s point. You offered a positive claim without a substantive argument. In other words, you posted your opinion and nothing more.😉
"Babe wake up, new testify video smoking Bart Erhmen again."
I think Bart Erdman was smoking something when he wrote his comments. Testify is just that sane friend in the room trying to get him to put down the weeds which are choking him out.
@@henryflores1164 HOW DID BOTH OF YOU SPELL HIS NAME WRONG😭😭
@@heyhobo2143
Clearly the "Holy Spirit" kills brain cells.
@@johnwillsea6600 Nah Bart is speaking the truth there's no such thing as god. He's a Cannanite god.
Testify is really going after Ehrman and taking him to task and I’m all for it lol
The fact Ehrman frames "the truth" differently to academics and lay people says everything.
@@coolmuso6108 of course you're here for it. Got to maintain your fragile faith somehow.
@@adamcosper3308 Yeah, Christians are going to lose sleep because we were waiting for your saviour Ehrman to come and set the record straight after 2000 years lol
@@coolmuso6108 It's all projection with you. I'm an atheist. I didn't have a "savior." That's your kink.
@@coolmuso6108Fr. Christians just were completely unaware of these "contradictions" for 2000 years until the great Bart Ehrman came along and revealed them to us unenlightened theists
Erman sold a book to tell us that Peter didn't write his letters himself.
Something Peter already told us for free in 1 Peter. 😂 😂 😂
he writes so many books about nothing it really reduces his credibility. at this point he really is just exploiting his audience ignorance to sell more books.
@@FPVMike It's hilarious how dishonest he is and how gullible his fanbase is.
Peter was an illiterate Aramaic-speaking fisherman if you think he authored epistles that show knowledge of Greek rhetoric and philosophy I've got a bridge to sell you. And no there's no trace of any illiterate fishermen in history dictating epistles to be written in another language that show great knowledge of Greek philosophy and rhetoric
@@tomasrocha6139 Evidently, you've been sold the bridge yourself. 😂 😂 😂
1 Peter 5
12 *By Silvanus* *our faithful brother as I consider him I have written to you briefly* exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.
@@FromValkyrie If you knew Greek like Ehrman you'd know that means Silvanus was the courier not the writer
Of Course he does, If had to Admit to the Truth.. He wouldn't make tons of money like he does now
AND he would end up being a Nobody AND Blacklisted by his Peers.
He's No different than a Judas.
Facts.
It's so much easier to make money off of Christians.
I remember seeing Ehrman debate Jimmy Akin. (Akin wiped the floor with him, wasn't even close). In that debate, Ehrman tried to make the case that in Mark's account of the Passion Narrative, Jesus didn't know what was happening and was crying out to God asking why he had been forsaken. I remember getting mad at him thinking "Oh come on Bart, I KNOW that you know better than that." Not only is Jesus clearly calling back to psalm 22 with his crying out, but that's not the worst of it. To argue this you'd have to willingly ignore the MULTIPLE times Jesus says that he's going to die just in Mark without the other Gospels
@@SuperBossGiovanni Psalm 22 is a prayer by a sufferer. It's not a prophecy in any way shape or form.
@tomasrocha6139 It's called a Christophony. It has multiple meanings. Just like the exodus and Christ's death on the Cross can be said to have freed God's people. The FACT is that Jesus was ABSOLUTELY calling back yo pslam 22 on purpose
Funny, I watched the debate and I wasn't impressed by Jimmy Akin. In fact looking at the comments of the debate on his channel most of those who watched it weren't impressed with Jimmy Akin.
I’m a doctor too. And I say, Ehrman is wrong.
Hah. Checkmate.
I have always understood Mark's statement to mean that the women did not stop and tell anyone else about what they experienced in route to the apostles.
It's really not rocket science is it? But people will see "contradictions" when they want to serve anything other than God.
Exactly as in Mark 1:44.
Blasphemy
I love ignoring the gospel as a whole and nitpicking verses to create inconsistency
Which is why Greg Koukl says, "Never read a Bible verse!"
I swear at this points Muslims take Sheikh Bart Erhman more seriously than atheists do
Bart Ehrman again? Go figure.
Do skeptics still take him seriously?
Muslims definitely do.
Yup. Reddit “geniuses” love him.
@@matthewtheron2505they don’t like what he says about Islam 😂
@@MrJonny0 Lol it's funny because for some of them, his their go-to scholar.
I love the smell of Bart Ehrman's arguments being roasted in the morning.
.... Of only they were. They're not. Testify is making up "arguments" out of minor points Bart has maybe mentioned in the past. No one cares about marks ending or the voice. Testify is a chicken. Don't believe him that these are actual things people are debating. Watch an actual video of bart going through contradictions and you'll never hear him mention these. I've read his books and watched hours of his videos. And I'm more appreciative of Jesus now and more able to see how churches have twisted scripture. He's a godsend.
The silence of the women was clearly just as they were leaving the tomb. It makes no sense based on the ending of Mark, that the women never told anybody about the empty tomb and angels; they were clearly on the way to tell the disciples and during that time they didn't stop and tell anyone. Anybody arguing otherwise is either being dishonest or allowing their biases to obfuscate the reality of the passage.
There is no form of argumentation in your comment, rather an assertion that the women did obey the command given by the “young man” at the tomb because “reasons”. And anyone else who disagrees with you is either dishonest or biased.
@@MrMortal_Ra It is very clear based off the reading that the women didn't tell anyone as they were leaving. The Scripture never says they never told anyone, and yes, if you disagree it's probably because either you haven't read the passages in context or you're biased. Go ahead, read Mark 16:7-8 and tell me that Mark was saying that the women kept silent their entire lives, never telling a soul. You and I both know that's not how the verses read.
1)The angels informed the women of the resurrection
2) They commanded them to tell the disciples
3) As the women fled the area (to obey the command of the angels to tell the disciples) they didn't tell anyone because they were afraid.
It's that simple.
These two passages are so obvious that my faith grows by the fact that these are the depths that skeptics have to shrink to in order to "disprove" the Gospel accounts. How anyone can read Mark 16:7-8 and conclude that the women literally told nobody their entire lives and kept a vow of silence, is beyond me. The silence the women kept was obviously as they were leaving/fleeing, as the verses literally say.
I think I could see it either way If I ONLY had the short ending of mark and believed there wasn’t more to it. I am definitely biased against scholarship though-I am still holding out hope for the long version of mark 😂
@@MrMortal_Ra On the one hand you say this passage is unclear, yet on the other hand you insist Mark disagrees with James Marshel. Which is it? Context shows what is being discussed: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." A straight forward reading reveals that their trembling and silence coincided with their fleeing. When the fleeing stopped, so did the trembling and silence. The acts are interconnected. It's not that hard to figure out. People don't perpetually tremble and remain silent.
@@hermanwooster8944 The structure of Mark 16:8 does not suggest a transition or reversal of the women's silence. There is no conjunction or phrase indicating that their silence was temporary or conditional, which weakens the argument that they eventually spoke when they reached the disciples. The double negative construction "οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν" (they said nothing to anyone) is emphatic in Greek, stressing the totality of their silence. The verse doesn’t just describe an action; it makes a statement about the women's state of mind and their complete lack of communication. The phrasing and tense suggest a state of continued silence, not just a temporary or momentary action.
“On the one hand you say this passage is unclear” I didn’t say it was “unclear” i said it wasn’t as clear as OP was presenting it as, OP seemingly acted as if the disputes over 16:8 was essentially pointless since it was “so obvious” and clear”. Oversimplifying the matter as something as clear as sunshine. That’s not the case since then there wouldn’t be much dispute amongst New Testament scholars on the topic. Not that the passage was “unclear” “unclear”. “insist Mark disagrees with James Marshel” I wasn’t responding to James, I was responding to the OP of this comment thread.
Bad Bart became an "unbeliever" when he divorced his faithful Christian wife and went after another woman who he "married". There is always SIN in the background of people like Ehrman.
Arguing with Bad Bart will get you nothing as his SIN needs to be dealt with.
That’s actually really sad. His “personal reasons” for leaving Christianity I guess have a name. :(
Testifys videos are great for believers who need help or skeptics but yeah Bart definitely needs to work out his repentance
Seems shallow to cut down an academics work and disagreements with your faith because they did something “sinful”
@@dingdingdingding5544 It Might surprise you that this is often the case as it does influence their "academic work."
@@dingdingdingding5544if you had a better understanding of the full implications and seriousness of sin, you wouldn't see it as shallow.
Mark 16:8 cannot be the end of the text. Ehrman rarely engages in any analysis of the Greek language. Ending a sentence in "gar" isn't just rare. It happens only a handful of times in the entire corpus of Greek writing, with extant examples coming hundreds of years before the writing of Mark. It does happen in the Septuagint, but that is a translation which results in some sentences being structured weirdly in Greek to maintain an original structure. The last sentence of Mark 16:8 is, standing alone, bad Greek. Had the author meant to convey the meaning captured in 16:8, he almost certainly would have used a participial phrase ("and being afraid they spoke to no one"), not a separate sentence ended in gar/for.
Even if Mark 16:8 was the original ending, it does not necessarily follow that another edition containing the longer ending couldn’t have been composed later with Peter’s authorization.
Here is why that might be the case. Ireneaus, a bishop, writing in about A.D. 180 in Gaul (France), quoted Mark 16:19 and attributed it to Mark. See Adversus Haeresies (“Against Heresies”), Book Three, 10:5-6.
Irenaeus’ testimony is particularly weighty, since, besides being a major church leader, he shows awareness and access to multiple copies of the New Testament from various areas he resided in. For example, in his commentary on the book of Revelation he writes of “the ancient and approved copies” of New Testament material (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book Five, chapter 8)
Inasmuch as Irenaeus wrote in the late 100’s it is probable that the longer version of Mark’s Gospel manuscript, which was “ancient” to him, would likely be very genealogically close to the original autographs.
I view variant editions containing different endings in Mark’s Gospel as somewhat analogous to the Beatles’ album “Rubber Soul” which has different songs recorded, depending on which side of the pond the record was recorded & produced.
I have other thoughts expressed in my apologetic journey series on my TH-cam channel, under the series “Tasting History, Savoring Faith.”
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111 I think that the additional ending of John probably reflects someone adding a version of the proper ending of Mark to the wrong text. That's because John 21 is so Peter-centric, and because John 21 would explain how Jesus revealed himself after the women told no one. It also would reflect a desire to emphasize Peter as the disciples to whom Jesus revealed himself.
@@andrelegeant88 The final version of the Gospel of John was likely an edited group project. The external evidence for this is that the second century Muratorian canon says that the John's Gospel was reviewed by others. This likely involved witnesses (e.g. Andrew, etc.) and relatives of Jesus, who lived till Trajan's rule. Those Muratorian canon notes were likely testimony based. So, that's like us older folks having heard eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust.
The translated Greek would be
"And having gone out, they fled from the tomb. Had seized for them trembling and amazement, and to none nothing they spoke; they were afraid for."
With the right grammar both words "for" move to the front of the sentence:
"So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."
So there is nothing wrong with both sentences and no "for" which is unaccounted for or pointing to the start of some "missing" sentence.
@@KasperKatje Ancient Greek uses enclitics to express how sentences relate to one another. Enclitics always come in the second position and, in extant literature, they don't end sentences, either, outside a truly tiny number of instances hundreds of years before Mark was written. "For" in this case means "because" in modern English, and the word for it, "gar," is an enclitics similar to men, de, etc. To express the idea conveyed in the extant version of Mark 16:8, it would be unnatural to end on "gar". The explanation that the women were afraid would be conveyed in a participial phrase in the prior sentence. The author of Mark generally shows good command of Greek (unlike, say, the author of Revelation, whose Greek is very poor and who might make this kind of error). At the very least, Mark 16:8 should have a redundant object following "gar," like "touton" (this thing) or "auton" (him).
I would argue that even a plain reading of Mark 16:8 doesn’t imply that the women would never speak to anyone. They didn’t speak to anyone as a result of their astonishment and fear at the appearance of the angels, but this is a momentary experience as the gospel says not a permanent change of state.
It’s like if I said I was watching a scary movie and fear overcame me and I would not open my eyes to look. The closing of the eyes is contingent on the experience of fear, it would be silly to interpret this as saying I would go on to spend the rest of my life with my eyes closed.
The same phrase is in Mark 1:44. The leper didn't tell anyone, but he must have told the priest. Likewise, the women didn't tell anyone, until they told the Apostles.
Yeah that is still speculation on your part. Your are simply implying that they eventually told some but we do know for fact if they did
I’m surprised anyone is even willing to trust Ehrman’s word anymore
@@TheTemplar168 I'm surprise anyone has ever trusted the bible of Christian apologists
@@tomasrocha6139that’s the best comeback you‘ve got? I’m disappointed.
@@TheTemplar168 well it would be nice to know which biblical scholars disagree with Bart Ehrman and not just apologists who had to sign a statement of faith in order to get their degrees.
The simple fact is, if they said nothing to no one, how did mark learn? They must have told him.
In Mark 1:44, Jesus says "say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest..."
Obviously the guy had to tell the priest what happened. Jesus only meant 'don't stop along the way."
That implies that the women in ch 16 didn't stop to tell anyone, but went straight to the disciples to give them the message.
And this is avery good point that is often brought up, how did Mark know that they didn't tell anyone. It reads like fiction to me.
The problem with Bart Ehrman is that although he may know the New Testament really well, that doesn’t mean his interpretations are always rational or reasonable. To be fair, he is more rational and reasonable than many atheists are, which makes him more convincing to a lot of people. Of course, even if Bart were right in his interpretations, many of his conclusions would not follow. He says Biblical contradictions disprove the credibility of the New Testament, but most historical biographies have contradictions, especially if you compare them to other biographies about the same topic. That doesn’t mean the bulk of what they say isn’t true. No historical document could stand up to such scrutiny. He seems to have an all or nothing approach, which is the position a fundamentalist would have.
@@batman5224 the problem with the new testament is exactly that, it's open to interpretation, hence thousands of denominations. You'd think the creator of the universe could at least be clear?
@@antonjoubert6980 Then your comment is open to interpretation too, so I think it means "The Bible is true."
@@antonjoubert6980lots of scientific evidence is open to interpetation, hence thousands of theories. Guess science doesn't exist, you'd think it would be more clear 🫠
@@logicianbones nice, check mate atheists! 🤡
@@logicianbonesand since your comment is up to interpretation too, and something about the way you put “The Bible is true” in quotation marks seems to hint that you don’t actually hold that opinion to be true.
Bart Errorman is the poster child for what I refer to as the "Horus Maneuver", named for LutheranSatire's Horus Ruins Christmas video. The "Horus Maneuver" is performed by making wild claims without evidence, and relying on your audience being too unfamiliar with them to know how easily debunked those claims are, walking back those claims the absolute bare minimum amount when someone who actually knows what they're talking about gives pushback, and declaring victory the moment they don't have the proper refutation and citation on hand. Can also be thought of as a sub-category of the "Gish Gallop".
I like it. Stolen.
@@bc4yt You want it? It's yours, my friend.
@@PeterBoggs ❤️
@@PeterBoggs You're wrong Ehrman doesn't claim Jesus is a rehash of Horus or anything like that.
@@tomasrocha6139 Next you're gonna say you're not making a strawman argument because you didn't literally construct an effigy and fill it with straw. It's not like I gave a full definition of the term after naming it or anything.
They didn't tell anyone, yet we know it because it was written down. Not by the women but by a disciple/scribe.
Yeah. They didn't keep quiet.
Yeah, I would have assumed that would have been obvious to anyone. So Bart must have been self lobotomizing to miss that.
Imagine taking a thing being 'written down' as concrete evidence for it transpiring. Oof.
@@thecivilmerc9898
Imagine using a strawman to defend your ignorance.
Bart is very educated on the Bible and has read it in the original Greek and as a recovering evangelical has a very good understanding of original intent .
He does not, if he allows this sort of behaviour to go under the radar. And if he has actually read the Bible in the original Greek? I have, and it strengthened my belief in God. He has even admitted that the English version and the original Greek text of the Bible is almost 100% accurate in translation. He exploits the ignorance of his viewers by abusing his authority: your statement implies you trust him (a faith-based position, may I not-so-subtly add), but that simultaneously strengthens the argument that he exploits the ignorance of his fans. You have appealed to authority, which is fallacious reasoning.
2 Timothy 3.13 pretty much sums it up: "Evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
Seems like the first point you’re making is asking us to believe speculation of what the text would have said had it continued vs what it did say and we can all see. Considering there’s enough arguments about what text does say, it’s extremely suspect to ask us to invent new sections in order to deal with a contradiction.
I tend to suspect that Mark was martyred before he could finish it. The church group helping him probably inserted the ending that the book does have now.
You see.. the abruptness in the story line does lend itself to a chapter ending that would have been solved if Mark had the time to advance the events.
I never thought of that... I guess people don't write entire books start to finish in one sitting, you write sections and take your time. Whether he didn't finish it or it just got lost, it doesn't even begin to damage the credibility of the document
I don't think that's the case. I think the longer ending is original. The entire case of the longer ending being added later is based on 2 manuscripts fro. The alexandrean line of manuscripts and thats it.
They try to make the argument more substantial by appealing to the fact they are the earliest complete manuscripts we have. Which is true. And that does deserve some evidential weight, but a key factor on determine original readings against variants that develop over time is to see how geographically isolated a given reading is.
If a reading only appears in a certian area of the world, or only appears in one specific textual family, and all the others say something different but unanimously agree with eachother, then it becomes extremely Likly that the one geographically isolated reading is the variant, and not thr original. And this is the case for the longer ending of mark being absent. Every other textual tradition, and family across the ancient world has it In the text, it is only two alexandrean manuscripts that lack it, and later alexandrean manuscripts adopted it back on, probably because they realized it was an aberration due to the rest of the textual family's across the world having it.
And as a smoking gun cherry on top we have an extra biblical quote of the longer ending of mark thag we know predates said two alexandrean manuscripts in question, so we know that it could not have developed after these two manuscripts were written. It already existed, so the question is not why do other later manuscripts have the longer ending,it is why do these two lack the longer ending when all others have it, and we know it existed and was circulated before them.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 The smoking gun is an absence of evidence argument.
Your upload schedule is something most TH-camrs only dream of. The Spirit has absolutely blessed you with a gift for defending the faith. Keep up the good work brother.
I think the speaker on this video is saying that there are contradictions in the NT, but Ehrman is choosing the wrong ones for some reason. He does not deny the contradictions exist, but somehow he says they are not a big deal. This video does not make a lot of sense to me. Ehrman is wrong because he points out actual contradictions for some reason.
Bart Ehrman is making Christians think for the first time.
Good for him!
He's trying to at least, from these comments though it's apparent more Christians would rather just conduct character attacks rather than actually look at all of the contradictions in their own bibles that Ehrman points out. You don't have to believe an atheist scholar to read the gospel accounts horizontally and see how they don't line up, this isn't rocket science.
@@homebug22 "...though it's apparent more Christians would rather just conduct character attacks rather than actually look at all of the contradictions in their own bibles that Ehrman points out." Nah, they're just scared of going to hell. They'd rather sit on a cloud strumming some huge harp and singing "Alleluia" ad infinitum.... 😆
The conservative Christian scholar Bruce Metzger was Ehrman's teacher. Today, Ehrman is still very complimentary towards him and thanks him for his support. Maybe you should think a bit more before you post your lame zingers...
@@furrybear57 if Christians were just scared of going to hell they'd be glad to see the bible be false. but it isn't; all the contradictions i've seen are easily explainable(quick search on the internet shows great explanations.
@@homebug22 all the parts where at the surface level it seems like they don't line up can easily be explained
My brother I love how your channel is finally growing again after a brief period of stagnation, I’ve learnt a lot from you Eric when I just came to faith, God Bless you keep spreading the Gospel.
Whats happening at Jesus baptism is one of the following
1. God said both statements
2. When God said " this is my beloved son" he was talking to Jesus so theologically he did say " you are my beloved son"
3. The people heard " This is" but Jesus heard " you are" similar to Pauls conversion where only he could hear Jesus voice but his companions couldnt
Dr Ehrman has his brand and he makes a good living off of it. He's not going to let intellectual honesty get in his way.
@@mikesarno7973 🤣 You've just described Christian apologists
For example?
Pointing out 3 weaker examples doesn’t actually do much to show that there aren’t many contradictions in the New Testament. And the Old Testament is literally a mess of contradictions that are completely irreconcilable.
Wow the examples you gave of irreconcilable contradictions were so powerful
@TestifyApologetics you yourself admit in your video there are larger and tougher contradictions. And with how unconvincing your arguments for these supposedly easy contradtictions are, I hope you step up your game for the rest
@@TestifyApologetics How did Judas die? Who bought the field?
Thanks To Christian ✝️ Prince 🤴 I can't take Bart Earmon seriously 😂
I recently bought two of Ehrman's books ("Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus Interrupted") and plan to read them both within the next couple of months (currently reading about the creationism/evolution conflict). It's good to know that there is more than one side to many of Ehrman's claims before diving into his work.
Pity you had to pay for his garbage. A lot of his points rest on his abysmal theology manufacturing contradictions and issues.
For example, I seem to recall him suggesting that 1st and 2nd Peter are not written by the same author, because they contain a theological contradiction.
That contradiction doesn't exist except in the minds of people who don't know what they're talking about, and when it comes to theology, he frequently doesn't know what he's talking about.
@@bc4yt
The reason why he states they are written by different authors is because the Greek in the former is more refined and graceful while the other one is written in a different style.
Another reason is because of the difference in outlook of Christ's return.
One gives the impression that the return of Christ is imminent.
The other tries to explain why this imminent return appears to not be so imminent after all.
It was not uncommon for people to claim to be someone else when writing things.
Event references in 2 Peter gives the impression that this writing occurred after Peter, compared to 1 Peter.
6:28 In other words, don't buy any of Ehrman's books.
When you admit the ending of Mark is not authentic you’ve lost the plot.
Would be interesting to have Bart Ehrman be able to refute each of your points in real time. It’s easy to dunk on someone’s arguments when you get to frame the entire narrative.
You said in your intro that "Some contradictions in the bible are tough to explain" DO YOU MEAN YOU AGREE THAT YOUR BIBLE HAS CONTRADICTIONS?😳😳😳😳
OH MY GOSH WHAT AN ADMISSION ATHEISM MUST BE THE TRUTH
@TeatifyApologetics if it has comtradictions It cant be infalliable. If its not infalliable how do you know what parts are true and what parts are false, i assume you are not so indorctinated to beleive in the global flood, so was noah real? And if not, then further and further back, were cain and able real? How about Adam and Eve?
Bart Erhman read the DaVinci code and a light bulb 💡 went off in his head. He can wrote popular books 📚 to cater to a very secular audience with extreme scholarly opinions and make a ton of money off it.
except he didn't and from what I've learned from listening to him is that he doesn't really like the DaVinci code.
@jameslay1489 He can cite a ton of history but he can definitely twist a ton of scripture to reach a distorted conclusions. I can illustrate case very strong case in point if necessary just to prove how disingenuous he is.
@@jonathandutra4831 yet christians twist a ton of scripture to reach distorted conclusion, which is why there are so many christian sects that don't agree with each other.
@@jonathandutra4831 I've seen christians twist a ton of scripture in order to come to distorted conclusions, it's why there are thousands of different christians sects that don't agree with each other.
@jameslay1489 Correct but Bart should be held to a higher standard since he is a biblical scholar. I just wanted to put that out there for his cult-like fan base that thinks everything he says is 100%. Proceed with caution ⚠️ with him because 50% of what he states is true the other 50% is Dishonest.
Many are looking for reasons not to believe and Bart provides them the material from a "scholar" they can hang their hat on. I would not want to be Bart in the next life.
I recall a video by Ehrman where he claimed that the explanation for Jesus' silence before Pontius Pilate , in Mark's gospel was that he (Jesus) was in shock and didn't understand what was going on. From that moment on I realised that I didn't need to take Ehrman seriously. It's a shame though, all that in depth study over decades completely wasted.
I don’t follow Bart Ehrman & haven’t read any of his books so I only learn about him in videos like this or when he was in history channel documentaries. The thing I always think of first when I hear his name is an article about his Instagram or Twitter X posts a day or two before Christmas.🎄 He talked about how he misses the love he used to feel from Jesus at Christmas. He made sure to confirm that he is still an atheist, but commented about how empty & lonely Christmas is without Jesus. It reeked of heartbreak & emptiness. I always felt he may have been having some doubts about his atheism & was looking for atheist support like Christians do sometimes when we are really going through it. If he ever wanted to return to the Church, he’d have to go from being an academic celebrity to a pariah in elite circles. Here’s hoping anyone who reads this will pray for him. 💒
That was a truly kind post. As another deconvert, I absolutely do miss the wonderful story of grace, eternal salvation and the love and companionship of God. Sadly for me, and Bart, that doesn't make it true or change what we believe based on the facts that we now know.
Most of the comments here are unkind and unempathetic. Bart, like most deconverted Christians are stating what they are convinced is true. The nefarious inferences and honestly childish accusations @TestifyApologetics makes about lying, deceiving, tricking etc. are unwarranted. No one maintains a position like his in academia with such behavior, whether in academic journals or popular press. It is telling that such accusations don't come from the academic community, but from backwaters like the comment section of this youtube channel.
@@truncated7644 I agree some of these posts are unkind and not empathetic, but Bart Ehrman does not hold academic integrity and his conclusions are very surface-level. I am baffled with some of Ehrman's conclusions regarding the Gospels and New Testmanet writings at times. Some are very obvious mistakes, and some are truly him cherry-picking. I have watched Testify for a while now because my brother became an atheist and follows Ehrman on a lot of what he says, but Ehrman's logic is fallacious and he will at times rely on half-truths.
I pray you come back to the faith, you should read A Case For Jesus by Brant J. Pitre, he thoroughly debunks many skeptical arguments including some of Ehrman's. I am not suggesting many ex-Christians will only leave the faith for intellectual reasons, but more likely it is out of a response of not comprehending how God works through suffering and evil, similar to Ehrman. You should also read If God Is Good by Randy Alcorn to understand how God works through evil, loss, and suffering. In many other cases, some ex-Christians just got tired of following God and wanted to go down their own path and reject him out of volition, not intellect or emotional reasons, those situations tend to be the hardest for family members to watch like myself, as I know some of my brother's issue is simply turning away from God because there are things in the Bible he doesn't agree with, not out of existential/emotional suffering.
I was where my brother is now, but about 8 to 10 years ago, but I realized God was still there even in His "silence", and that He did direct a purpose out of my suffering that I just wasn't aware of at the time.
I mean all of this sincerely, you are still loved by God, and he wants your heart to be changed, which He can do for you and see you turn back to Him, but only you could allow yourself to humbly invite Him in.
@@coltonstevens4339 Thanks for the kind thoughts. Unfortunately, you lost me as soon as you said Bart doesn't have academic integrity and his work is surface-level. It is a complete misunderstanding of how academics succeed in their careers in fields that rely on actual data (unlike, say some social sciences like diversity studies). Assuming there is some conspiracy amongst scholars to reward shoddy work and intentionally misinterpret historical texts and data is a claim without evidence, but with enormous evidence to the contrary.
What exactly have you read of Ehrman's work, or for that matter, other critical scholars? Name one logical fallacy or half truth. What @TestifyApologetics is feeding you are words and conclusions Bart has not made. Just ask him on his blog.
@@truncated7644 BART routinely speaks out of both sides of his mouth. One side being his books to the layman, the other his academic articles. He pulls out, through emphasis, in popular books what he doesn’t in academic writings. Many scholars have pointed this out and respond to the claims he makes to the masses. When I saw the incongruency between “The Text of the New Testament” and his lay book “Misquoting Jesus” (published the same year, 2005) I realized that Bart had been stringing me along, and am very glad that I had read both to understand exactly how he had been manipulating myself and the lay masses. I would challenge you to start looking at the debates and articles written, by academic scholars, that directly engage with Barts work. You will see that it is strictly towards his public works for good reason.
@@jeraldmitchell6409 Bart has said on his podcast that he doesn't think he takes a position in his popular works that contradicts his academic work. I am not claiming to know if he is correct about that, but I would like to see an example.
To state the obvious, his popular books are written differently (arguments aren't as technical, citations are mostly omitted, etc.)
Is it two-faced to write somewhat neutral and factual textbooks and then, based on that information, to form opinions and express them in popular books?
Obviously them not saying anything means they went straight to the disciples and spoke to them. It's like when you go to the doctor and don't discuss the visit with anyone except your household once you get home
If the bible was perfect it would be impossible to misread it.
@@rowbot5555 that's stupid. The imperfection of man doesn't discredit the perfect of the Bible. That's like saying numbers are flawed because you suck at math
Metzger also said, concerning one anomaly in Mark, that Mark probably just made a mistake. Mark being a two-legged creature like us.
Ehrman's position is the more scientific and rigorous. It becomes speculative to make a bunch of assumptions in order to patch up inconsistencies. I think that in order to understand or properly engage with Ehrman's works you need to detach yourself from faith. That is impossible for anyone with a fundamentalist perspective, so it's better just to ignore him if that is your position.
NPC Bart Ehrman always cracks me up
Ehrman is talking about the text we have. Your counter to that is speculation that there is some more that was intended to be written but wasn't, or more that hasn't reached us. Speculation doesn't get you round the fact that the text we have is contradictory on this point. If we're supposed to know about some text we don't have, God should have done a better job of preserving it for us.
You can say Ehrman chooses what he tells you because he has an agenda, but this applies to pretty much all Christians I have ever come across.
The only experience I have with this guy is that he was obligated to admit that the Book of Mormon had more and better documented witnesses than the bible.
If even the harshest critic is unwillingly obligated to believe that, what does that say about the BoM?
If i am not wrong bart wrote in his book that jesus did not claim himself to be god and in other interview he said jesus claimed to be god. He wrote a book earned millions and said that the main premise of the book is false. I think he is doing it for money and fame
As a Christian, I actually think that the view that the original ending of Mark is lost causes more problems than the view that I heard years ago, namely that Mark purposefully ends his Gospel abruptly here for “dramatic effect” for his original audience. Possible reasons could be to pique their curiosity to learn more about what happened. Obviously they were Christians so they knew the women eventually told someone or no one would know the story in their day.
Also, Mark mentioned the empty tomb so they knew there was more to the story, almost like a modern day cliffhanger. Another possible reason is that it is an invitation for the audience to continue the story by sharing the good news with others. If the original hearers were facing persecution for example, then Mark is almost issuing a challenge by asking the audience, “What are you going to do about this? Are you going to be afraid and tell no one, or are you going to share this news even in the midst of persecution and uncertainty?” I hold this view loosely though and can be persuaded otherwise.
I think you can’t say he is exploiting people’s ignorance if he’s actively promoting a book that disagrees with him. It’s a highly niche scholarly argument about the possibility more text was supposed to exist.
He would only be misleading people if he said “this is the scholarly consensus” but he’s writing books putting his own views forward, like you are with your videos.
Even though I'm an atheist, I agree with you. We shouldn't cherry pick whatever we already agree with. That's called confirmation bias.
Great video mate 👍🏻
I clicked on this video because im an atheist and didnt want to echo chamber myself but the reasoning here is halarious, the christian scholars are basically saying "The short ending of mark doesnt make sense if its a true story, so we should assume that it wasnt the ending, and heres what it would have been like"
Aka, doing the long ending of mark over again.
He has to keep up the misinformation or else he’ll never sell another book again. It’s all about the money.
I firmly believe there is something way more sinister at work here. Otherwise he wouldn't get that much attention. Let's remember that there is a very powerful entity interested in spreading false narratives and leading people away from the Truth.
@@robertd9965 oh no that’s absolutely possible, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s more likely to me that Bart’s just trying to sell more books (still morally reprehensible) than the devil directly using him to lead people away from the Church. But in a passive sort of way yes, this has its origin in the devil because that’s where sinful desires come from, like the desire for money.
he knows his audience isnt going to go fact checking. hes just flogging books to maintain an income at this point.
@@jaycefields756 🤣 You've just described Christian apologists perfectly
@@tomasrocha6139"no you" wow great comeback
Keep exposing this liar and charlatan. Thank you for all that you do, brother 🙏
Wait so you’re saying these contradictions could be resolved if we just found the missing bits or just cut out the bits we don’t like?
So it would seem. So it would seem.
Don't blindly follow the "scholarly consensus" that says we should prefer a tiny minority of older manuscripts over the vast overwhelming majority of all the evidence. Older does not always equal better. The vast majority of scribal errors are to remove something or put it in the wrong place, almost never to deliberately add something. That's just not what they did.
Skepticism of the gospels has likely become more lucrative. Since he's selling books, he needs good material. I saw a video of him casually explaining a "contradiction" in Luke and Matthew's account of Jesus' circumcision and his flight to Egypt with his family. Ehrman crunches this down to like a week or two weeks. Since there was no timeline given it's entirely plausible that Jesus was born in a manger, was taken to Jerusalem to be circumcised 8 days later, was later visited by the magi when he lived in a HOUSE, and then fled to Egypt sometime after since Herod was attempting to kill all the infants 2 years old and younger. Obviously, between one day and close to years had passed since Herod had heard from the magi about the birth of the messiah.
I find Erman to be a bit dishonest, at first I considered him a prominent scholar, but once I saw a video of him saying that Luke 1:35, the conception of Jesus, was sexual... wt.f I said , i think he knows that he is an important figure for atheistic and muslims too,it is all a business , well at the end we all seek for our profit benefit .
Metzgar cannot conclude that Mark didn't intend to end the gospel there, nor that there is a missing ending, because we have no evidence that such is the case. Feel free to agree with the view that lacks evidence but gives your notion credence, but that's not how scholarship works.
In your second example of Bart 's "exploits", this is itself very cherry-picked. Bart makes it clear that the Psalms reference is not the most popular reading, it's from the oldest found manuscript. You don't even attempt to address the discrepancy between the other two verses that are clearly saying different things, skip over that completely to point out that Bart is using an unpopular manuscript, which he admits is the case.
I'm not sure what this video has added to the dialog other than "be wary of Bart's arguments". You've shed no light on the actual contradictions you've cited, except to say that they aren't contradictions, even though they are.
Ehrman has made of career out of sensational claims that crumble under scrutiny. Thankfully for him, him and his audience moves on to his next big promise by the time they do.
Obviously the women at the tomb told someone, because the story was recorded. It has to mean they didn't say anything right away, or only told carefully selected, trustworthy people, or both. This is on the level of "aha, mustard isn't botanically a tree! Checkmate Christians!"
Personally I think Mark told the story exactly as he wanted to. But there's plenty of room for disagreement.
What's wrong when a mentor and student disagree?
it’s wrong because he suppresses the other views
“Mark has a low Christology!”
Meanwhile, the first chapter of Mark literally fulfilling the OT prophecy of Isaiah 40:3.
It isn’t only the New Testament or the Gospel of Mark which says Jesus is God but literally the Old Testament says Jesus is God i.e., the Angel of the LORD.
I love the way they have to resort to bad theology to pick the gospels apart 😂
@@bc4yt “There’s no proof!” = I don’t understand the slightest thing
@@Christisrisen37 "well duh, God isn't real and I hate him! But I'm an honset truth seeker and if there was ANY proof of god I would totally accept him but you believe in skydaddy lmao god of OT bad oh and BTW god loves abortions because of like numbers 5 or something"
@@Christisrisen37 Ehrman does not say that Mark has a low Christology. He says all Gospel writers think Jesus is God in some sense.
How does Isaiah 40:3 show that jesus is god and equal to the god of old testament ?
I will never get tired of the Bart Ehrman NPC soyjak
Erm, actually it's a wojak, not a soyjak
To the athiests who are investigating Christianity, there are a lot of scholars; a lot of which are bad and try to reinvent the wheel. Christianity has a long a complex history, its best to listen to both sides of the discussion and leave your biases at the door. Id avoid most modern scholarship, and stick to serious academics/ studying it for yourself if you want to actually study this properly.
I agree, having done a theolgy degree, ive found that although bart ehrman has some points i feel his overall argument is quite week. Its stretched thin and told look it fits.
I find nt write, to express this good. The problem with erman is he basically just says his view is the only view, which actually when you reqd the gospels its hard to stick to one reading of a text
What do you expect from a book that is not a book but a collections of books written by at least 40 different authors in different lands and in some cases many years apart. That’s one reason that there are an estimated 45,000+ denominations worldwide. That shows that the Bible is negotiable. There will always be someone who doesn’t share the same interpretations as you. In the long run all you can do is go with reasonates with you. I’m leaning towards it being a very local history book.
These videos are not only educational, but engaging! Keep up the great vids!❤
Welcome to all truth and fact deniers.
Is Bart woefully deceived or intentionally deceptive? Both.
God bless ❤
It’s even simpler. “I was scared so I didnt tell anyone” doesnt ever mean *FOREVER*
Ehrman is less biased and click bait than this TH-camr either way.
Is there anything in this video that seems like OP misrepresented Ehrman to you?
@Testify, when you say stuff like that they're many scholars who disagree with Mr. Erman, it would be nice to cite those who disagree, and cite things a lot in general to help your audience to see and judge for themselves.
As a prominent scholar in classical meme apologetics, I can confirm that Bart Ehrman's claims are indeed erroneous.
Bart Ehrman is about as credible as Bart Simpson.
And The Bible is about as credible as the Beano.
@@davepugh2519 false
"The long ending of mark isnt real, but the short ending doesnt make sense if its a true story, so we need to make up our own long ending to make sense of it"
At this point a Ph.d can't even be trusting
I watched part of one of his presentations on Winger's video. It was argument after argument from silence.
I've read 4 of Barts books. Watched hours of his videos online. And I've never heard him push that Mark thing or the voice thing as a huge contradiction. Ever. They are tiny. That's a lousy, simple argument. Why don't you attempt to argue against an actual one? Like he tells them to go to Galilea but in other gospel says go to Jerusalem? Or Luke dating Jesus birth to 6AD and Matthew dating to to 4BC earliest as that's when Herod died? Or how 3 gospels say Jesus died on passover but John says it was the day before? You know.... Real ones. Or can you only handle fake contradictions you're pretending people care about? You are taking advantage of your viewers by arguing something no one cares about to seem smarter when those are nothing compared to the loads of actual contradictions both religious and non-religious scholars have known about for centuries. Only those who freak out about issues and demand there be no errors in the Bible can't handle Bart's books. (P.S. I'm grateful to Bart. His books helped me and others see past the indoctrination of the Churches we were in and appreciate the real Jesus.)
I'm a brand new Christian and "I" Can crush all of his arguments. That's how weak they truly are. He wanted a way to leave his faith and he found it. Now he wants everyone else to join him.
I love how the npc drawing of Bart Ehrman look just like him 😅
Dear Sir-I am so sorry to disturb you. I only wished to take the opportunity to thank you for your splendid apologetic material, which truly is amongst the best I have seen on TH-cam. If I may ask, with regard to St John Chapter 3, what is your perspective upon verses 16-21? I only ask due to the fact that certain biblical editions state that these words are not spoken by Christ, ending the quotation at verse 15, and I must confess that this has been puzzling me. Any advice would be immensely welcome. Thank you once again, and God love you.
Bart's audience has not been referred to as sheep but those who are led around by their faith by the man behind the altar are in fact referred to as sheep.
So who's leading who around by their gullibility again?
Honestly came here expecting a really honest attempt at debunking some of Bart's claims but telling people Bart was wrong based on a hypothesis from scholars that Mark didn't end it there and finishing Mark's gospel text for him is the peak of intellectual dishonesty. Or it is just good apologetics.
Watch the other videos for that. This one just his credibility not addressing those facts. The other videos go into that if you are interested.
So, BE points out precisely how Mark ends, but speculation by others on how it could have or should have ended make him the agenda pusher. Do I have that right?
@Testify. Great points about Errorman and how he tries to take advantage of the ignorance of his audience. I've noted this as well in my videos.
Dr. Metzger is a believer and naturally that will colour his views, especially his views that are unsupported by the text. Dr. Ehrman is just saying "Look, we don't have a different ending to Mark. Whether there was one or not is total speculation, as well as what it might say if it did exist". That's a completely valid criticism.
The whole point of HAVING teachers teach students in the first place is so that the students will surpass the teachers, otherwise we wouldn't make any progress. Dr. Ehrman has a better view than Dr. Metzger, precisely because Dr. Metzger did a good job training Dr. Ehrman.
Well said. Totally agree.
But being a non-believer won't color barts?
@@jacobmarkell2568 being a believer has nothing to do in terms of academic approach. If one is trying to approach the Bible theologically, then their belief comes into play.
@@jacobmarkell2568 This really needs a long discussion, but quite simply, they aren't comparable. With religion, you're told the answer was already figured out thousands of years ago, and your job(when working somewhere with signed statement of faith), family, friend group, afterlife, connection to objective morality (and I can go on) all hinges on whether or not you support the solutions required by your dogma.
As a non-believer, it's not like you're starting with a presupposition that miracles or Christianity is necessarily false, you're just not jumping to the conclusion absent evidence. Other than that, you're free to explore literally every option available, and you're able to change up your views in a split second if there is new data that challenges your existing view. If the data actually supported it, almost all the non-believers would start believing if they found a good reason.
The two sides simply aren't comparable on the topic of bias.
Relying on Ehrman for apologetics is like learning Conservative ideology from Rachel Maddow or Liberal ideology from Sean Hannity. You deserve to be deluded if you trust him.
You deserve to be deluded if you’re more persuaded by arguments from a particular New Testament scholar? What does this even mean?
@coanwilliams You know exactly what it means. Ehrman only supplies information that will ostensibly support his position and skews it to fit his purposes. He takes points that are almost universally rejected and presents them to his unaware followers as if they are canonized among Biblical scholars. His method of argument is a chimera of logical fallacies that a college freshman in his first semester of Logic and Debate could dismantle. Please study the Gospel for yourself. Don't allow someone else to cause you to botch up the most important decision that you will ever make.
@@Just_a_Reflection You’re describing how confirmation bias works pretty well, but I don’t think you’re seeing how your comments on Ehrman fit into that category just as well. It’s perfectly reasonable for someone to take Ehrman seriously as a New Testament scholar and engage his work in good faith, whether they ultimately disagree with his positions or not.
@coanwilliams I see your point, and it is valid. As someone who was anti-theist while taking seminary classes, I can understand some of Ehrman's positions as well. I don't respect his opinions, however, because he knowingly tells half truths and misrepresents topics by giving information out of context. He skews information to fit his agenda. That is not acting in good faith. I am not claiming any moral superiority, but I always maintained intellectual integrity by staying open-minded. In my attempt to deconstruct the Christian doctrine, I found that once you understand what Christianity is, the evidence for its authenticity is overwhelming.
Mmmmm... Who to believe? A scholar fluent in ancient greek and Aramaic, or a TH-camr?
There are two types of bart erhmans, the scholar bart and the author bart. The scholar version of him is very timid, scare and unsure when faced with facts. The author version of him writes wild fantasies of Jesus and has no credibility.
Most theologians are people of faith, it is just expected for prof. Ehrman not to be on the same boat with the majority of scholars.
0:54 lol Bart literally commits logical fallacy
@@BornAgainBrother isn’t attacking the person and not the argument also a fallacy? I see a lot of hate in the comments. Bart never attacks anybody’s beliefs.
@@dvdrtrgn Yes, it would be an ad hominem (to the person) attack, though less severe than a Straw-Man, Ad Hoc, or False Dichotomy fallacies, it still proves a fault in honest logical argument, and I don’t condone others behavior in the comments here, but it is worth noting that Bart either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or isn’t intellectually honest
(i gravitate toward the latter argument, personally)
The fallacy in question that Bart committed is a false dichotomy btw
"Older manuscripts" is just code for the Alexandrian texts, which we only have 4. The Textus Receptus (Received Text) is based on the Byzantine manuscripts, which number over 6,000. The Amexandrian texts are generally unreliable copies with numerous mistakes, omissions, and substitutions, but they are the sole bases of "textual criticism" against the complete and consistent 6,000+ manuscripts we have from the Byzantines. 4 impeached witnesses should not be believed above 6,000+ trustworthy ones.
I do not post this as a way to garner more understanding, and not as an insult or anything else. I am a poor Christian man, and find the Bible hard to read and understand and need extra sourced to help me understand it. But this is a burning question I have recently.
I come here seeking help with a question of faith and pray that someone has proper guidence. Is Paul a legitimate source on the lord, or did he co-opt the words of Jesus for himself? I have seen strong arguments that Paul not only contradicts Christ, but also is possibly one of the false teachers that Christ warned us about. So my question is Paul to be trusted and is there anything that truley validates his claims other than just Paul's word?
Paul is accepted as a apostle by the other apostles. II Peter 3:16 actually recommends that people reads Paul letters and recognize them as scripture.
Jesus trusted the apostles to spread the gospels to the people, and the apostles trusted Paul, seeing him as one of them.
Also, for the entirety of early Christianity, Paul's authority was undisputed. Only centuries latter, especially from the Muslim world, that people began questioning Paul.
Mark never finish his Gospel, if you read the tradition of the church will figure why.
Come on, tell us why, don't leave us hanging.
@@MorrisJohn-vo2vn he was murdered, just like all the others. With the exception of John
Ehrman is like because there are contradictions in "The war on Gaul" of Julius Cesar, then that war never happened.
More like Bart D. Errorman
I always use the Faustus Argument as a test on scholar's integrity. If I hear somebody espouse the Faustus Argument, I conclude as Augustine did: either they are a.) ignorant, or b.) deceptive. When scholars like Bart Ehrman use the Faustus Argument (and he does), I have good reason to assume he's not ignorant.