"Dr Ehrman is just collaborating with everyone these days. Can’t wait to see him playable on Smash" Paulogia is not everyone. He has a very good reputation as someone who does the extra mile to research his topics.
@@andreasplosky8516 I meant in the sense that in the last few months, many content creators I follow featured or are to feature Bart Ehrman; with no disrespect to Paul.
@@flowingafterglow629 EXACTLY!! Why don't these atheists understand that and accept the truth of god's love written on their hearts, the truth of the god they _know_ exists, but continue to deny?
@@deepforestfire Inconsistencies? Who found the empty tomb? Who did they tell? Logical fallacies? God impregnated a woman to give birth to himself to sacrifice himself to himself, and during that process thought that he was "forsaking" himself.
I've hugely enjoyed Professor Bart Ehrman's courses on The Great Courses. He seems very fair-minded in his treatment of the Gospels. Very happy to see him on Paulogia.
I have a way! It reminds me there are so few talks of at least an hour that Dr. Ehrman has uploaded and I've watched (almost) all of them at least twice! It's horrible! I hate it! BOO!!!! How am I supposed to get to level 99 on my paladin? By listening to music? Grinding is already mind numbing. I'm an information whore! I need my fix! :p I lied, mostly, I'm grateful for every word Dr. Ehrman says and I love it.
Mike Licona is an excellent example of how a mind gets mangled by theism. The things Licona will say are sometimes so twisted that it is beyond belief.
Yep, I don't think he actually believes, his arguments are so twisted, I think he is scared to let go of what he has believed his whole life, I think he has massive cognitive dissonance, I think he just can't bring himself to let go
Yet Houston Baptist Univ forced him out I think concerning his thoughts on the resurrection sheesh mainstream church is so out of synch with the modern world. 🙄👌🏽
I was able to pass Dr. Ehrman's famous quiz on the first attempt! But...I already had a degree from a bible college, so -- I guess I wouldn't be eligible for freshman class steak dinner.
Bart says "...it depends what you mean by reliable", and then uses the example of a friend who is 90% right. So in his example, I would probably trust them to give me directions. But if I have TWO friends who are 90% right, and they give me somewhat different directions, and those directions involve supernatural claims, my trust level will plummet.
A delight to watch. I love the calls to go ahead and find the discrepancies for yourself, such a good way to encourage someone to question their sources and think critically.
Thank "god" you got away from the young earth creationism debunks and focused on textual criticism. I find the textual criticism series more informative and educational than recollecting my 7th grade education on biology and anthropology!
Sadly, most creationists know less about science than the average seventh grader. Shoutout to everyone still arguing that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics in 2021.
@@caseyspaos448 I have watched countless Ken Ham discussions and I have actually come to the conclusion that he actually genuinely 100% does believe in creationism and biblical literalism without any shred of 'doubt'. If you are looking for a genuine grifter for creationism look no further than Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind and Matt Powell.
Wow. Awesome collaboration. I think it speak volumes about you, your content, and your approach that you get so many people to come on. Keep doing great, Paul!
Maximum respect to Dr Ehrman for showing up to do this video & mazel tov and kudos to for making the kinda of arguments & counter-apologetics that mainline Evangos feel compelled to engage with.
Peter is Mark’s source? In Mark, the disciples are a gullible, slow-to-learn, no-personality group that usually speak as one. They come across as literary props. They are useless except on occasion to duplicate Jesus’ healing.
"Plants". Either in the magician sense of people who are in on the trick and are trying to fool others, or in the sense of green slow-moving things that only live if you breathe a lot of hot air on them and die if you don't water them enough. The disciples in Mark are _plants._
@@inefffable I did not know that word and I am _very_ impressed that I somehow gave you an opportunity to use it to such effect! Well freaking done to you, sir and/or madam!
@@EdwardHowton thank you :) on the flip side, this is the first I've heard of his disciples being plants, which I really like. Esp for the reasons you explained. I always gravitated toward the narratives around Jesus being celestially based (since they likely had an intimate relationship with the clockwork-like movements of our sky), but I really like the thought of his "disciples" being psychoactive plants that led to the spiritual experiences explained. Lol. Take care :)
I swear there was a time when Licona was one of the more reputable apologists and I'd look forward to discussions he'd have with various people. Ever since the debate he had with Dillahunty 5 or so years ago, though, he's been one of the worst. Makes me wonder if he changed or I did.
A way to pursue your wonder: Go back and see Licona’s presentations from before the Dillahunty debate Then you can see if Licona changed or you changed
Totally agree. He did a good job against Ehrman. Still got beat IMO but was at least well prepared. He got destroyed by Dillahunty. Maybe it rattled his confidence??
So what I got from Mike's video is; "because some guy said that someone told him what someone told them a thing that happened to someone else was a thing that happened years prior; and any inconsistencies that occur between the different stories are still accurate as the differences were deliberate. Thousands of years later people who read a thing agree with it and therefore Truth." Is that right; did I capture the "gist" of it?
There's nothing that new testament Scholars can say about the New Testament that can't be said about the Quran. Yet these Christian apologist would never accept that the Quran is true based on their own arguments when presented on behalf of the Quran. (Nor should anyone, the Quran is apparently just as untrue as the Bible in its supernatural claims) I love to see a video where someone listens to Christian apologists claims of why the Bible should be accepted and then present the exact same arguments on behalf of the Quran and get them to explain exactly why their own argument should not be accepted. It would be trivially easy because as far as access to originals and the dates and the authors being eyewitnesses, all of these are easier to verify for the Quran than the Bible.
@@JesusDoctrine I'm sorry but, that's very misguided. Do you know anything about the canon formation of the Bible? Certain texts were added/deleted from the texts based on the opinion of the early church fathers. I understand supernatural claims are difficult, for believers and non believers alike. Yet, history of books are very different. We have no need to degrade the Quran to being merely inspired, since it is the perfect word of Allah. Islamic faith is supported by scripture. Islamic faith comes from an encounter with Allah, sometimes it's by reading the Quran, other times faith is triggered by other means, eg dreams, prayers, the supernatural. God is supernatural, and has preserved the Quran. Sadly too many teachers of the Quran spout more than whats proper, this is not useful. I believe in Allah & the prophet Muhammad, I have found testimonies of Allah in people's lives matches up with the Quran. This confirms the Quran to me, not via textual criticism, but by experience with God. Christians hold to a very different logic, of imperfect preservation (though some do adhere to a literal interpretation - so confusing!). Muslims do not, hence we welcome criticism of the perfect Quran. Try doing the same with Christianity publicly and see the response. Defending the inspiration of the Bible and the Christian's particular viewpoint on any topic is defending God to them. The Quran is the inerrant, perfect word of God. In fact, we even have hadith which confirms the Quran above and beyond what the Christians could ever dream of for Jesus!
@@invisiblegorilla8631 does the Quran agree with the global flood ? Where God kills babies in their mothers womb who hadn't even heard of Mohammad or any Hadiths let alone disobey it. Yes or no?
@@JesusDoctrine When Krishna spoke to me, that's how I knew it was him and not me. That doesn't prove anything. You can't demonstrate it it cannot be investigated. Personal revelation isn't evidence, since people of different faiths claim personal interactions with their gods. This is a fallacy of personal bias. Jesus (whom you'd have to prove first along with god) did not sacrifice. There was no loss or risk involved to him or god. If I sacrifice a goat to you that then resurrects and lives forever, neither I nor the goat incurred nor could've incurred a loss of any kind.
4:00 so... in heaven 1 grape vine = 1 quadrillion gallons of wine. (Minimum) For reference, 6 such vines would yield about as much wine as all the water in the Great Lakes.
@@alexandertownsend3291 _And lo, the Lord said "Gather thine growlers!" And his disciples of Irish, Scottish, and yay, some Italian descent came to the waters that were not quite oceans, and not yet seas, and they partied for 40 days and 40 nights, and though the heads did ache, the Lord was pleased._
Yes they should, but it's unlikely they will: He would throw a stick in the wheel of their faith. The few that have read his work, and debated him weasel around everything he says and go through extreme mental gymnastics to make him sound wrong, and their logically fallacious arguments sound right, as shown here with Mike Licona, and he's not all that bad compared to how insane most of the apologists Bart has debated are.
@@Bob-of-Zoid I’m a Christian. I’ve read some of his books and listened to his debates and lectures. He’s not interested in ‘disproving’ people’s faith. So you’re wrong.
@@andrewwells6323 "He’s not interested in ‘disproving’ people’s faith. So you’re wrong." Indeed. He is only disproving the poor excuses they use for having that faith...
@@andrewwells6323 And history proves that the claims of Christians are riddled with falsehoods, but they persist in their faith anyway. Even if they got the history correct (and they certainly do not) there is the problem that not a single supernatural event has ever been reliably demonstrated as true. And since Christianity draws its authority from supernatural claims, it has nothing to stand on. Ehrman may not overtly claim to be debunking faith but his efforts have precisely that effect.
I can write a story which contradicts itself in such a way that is without error, it just means it is without error of what I wanted, not that it isn't broken XD
"I meant to be the author of confusion, if you read my Quran too it is equally 'without error' also true with my Book of Mormon revelation to Joseph Smith from my sweet angel Moroni, you moronic disbelievers!" ~ Loki after he assassinates his entire family, states he is the only Allah that has ever existed in all of Asgard (which he Created!), and writes all the books that are the center of Bibliolatries pushing goodness pretensions while sneaking in Dark Ageness to this very day.
The gospels is not history or even biographies in the modern sense. Gospel simply means the good news. And there's at least fifty different gospels. Not just the four you find in the Wholly Fables aka the Bible.
The stories about Yeshush are fan fiction. They have been produced by fans to show how see their idol. Surptisingke their idol did exactly why they wanted him to do. Over time the fan fiction grows and gets even more fantastic.
I first spotted the Matthew/Luke train wreck of contradictions on the Nativity and David genealogy back as a kid (early 1960s) ... the dangers of a Sunday school handing me a RSV Bible with cross-references at the bottom. I very much enjoyed Bart's lecture for EWU here in Spokane a few years back, and draw upon all his extensive scholarship regarding the origins of the Christian texts.
Inerrant, Literally meaning incapable of being wrong. One bit of the Bible says Jesus said bring a staff, another bit of the Bible says the literal exact opposite, bring nothing, no staff included. To see Dr. Licona acknowledge such a story and still say that the Bible is incapable of being wrong is astounding to me. If Jesus said take a staff, then the Gospel of Matthew is right, but then the Gospel of Mark is WRONG, and vice a versa. Then, he waves this away by saying Matthew meant to change it? Doc, if the whole point of the gospels is accurately convey what Jesus said, and one of them changed what Jesus said to be opposite, then it is NOT inerrant. Ah Jeez Mr. Ogia, I'd say you're doing the lord's work but clearly that'd be an insult to how carefully and skillfully put together your work is. Keep up the good work sir.
Instead of putting up whatever text they had on those cards I think he should have just drawn a Möbius strip and declared ‘look - this is my argument’.
Whenever you meet someone that believes in biblical inerrancy, ask them why the city of Tyre still exists and brace yourself for Olympics level mental gymnastics.
9:15 lmao. This was good. I remember when I had a belief in God and I would always make excuses and extra assumptions that "felt good," not realizing I was just tricking myself into believing a legendary tale.
@@soulcrewblue5608 Yep. He’s still my fav, but he’s still absolutely wrong. I just think he’s more honest than most. But I realize that that’s not saying much.
Didn’t Lincona miss a step with Papias? We don’t have Papias own writings, just what Eusebius quoted. So really, Eusebius says that Papias said that John the Elder said that Mark said he got his information from Peter. Does he even say that John the Elder told him directly, or that Mark told this to John?
Add to that the fact that Eusebius also states that Papias is basically an _idiot_ ... and I'm truly astounded that Licona chooses to pin the reliability of the gospels on Papias, of all people. 😲
It might be all he had. His low opinion of Papias probably means he is quoting him accurately- if he was going to make something up, the. He’s likely use someone he didn’t think was an idiot, but we still only have Eusebius word for what Papias said
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow I'm curious if theistic evolutionist Ben Stanhope might make an appearance on Ham&AiG news or Evolution Exposed. He wrote a book criticizing AiG's creation museum
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow He has had other, more "liberal" Christians before, like Sy Garte, Joshua Swamidass and Phil Vischer. Still cool to see him expand his cartoon guest-collection with bigger names
When you pulled back to show your green screen studio, that was so wonderfully meta. It was your best trick since showing the projector lights on you during Not Star Wars.
Kudos to Mike Licona - it seems he negotiated a 'Statement of Faith' that allows for 6 candidate mistakes in the Gospels. Most statements would call for termination if even one mistake is acknowledged.
I upgraded my Bart Ehrman Blog membership to Gold when he started posting audio versions of his posts. And, of course, every penny of your membership goes to charity which is why he has the blog to begin with.
@@jonfromtheuk467 that’s an odd response, he’s on all the channels I watch so what position do you think I take on Christians? I watch Bart anytime he’s on.
@@PhullyNo1 I am talking about the amount of 'channels" you are on versus the sheer amount other alternative channels. Try a look at the religion channel for example and see how much oxygen is given to people like scholars like Bart ...... not much!
The best objection against the "historical" hypothesis of the resurrection of Jesus is epistemological and historiographical, right? That is, to show the implausibility of a miraculous event as a "best explanation" and the absence of a philosophy of History by the apologists that justifies why the "supernatural" is admissible in History. What do you think?
Robert M. Price ha said on his Bible Geek podcast that he thinks Licona might come out as an atheist sometime. He's debated him a couple of times and I guess was basing that on private conversations. He wasn't saying Licona already was an atheist, but that he thought he was going in that direction.
When you read a lot of historical documents you realize that the New Testament Gospels have the same level of accuracy as about any other document. However, many Christians don't want to treat the gospels as accurate as every other document from this time period. They want it to be the MOST accurate document ever written by the hands of man because it was INSPIRED by God! And there lies the problem. The Bible has to live up to an impossible standard by its believers.
I like Mike Licona. Often he comes close to actually speaking his mind and admitting that faith based on the 4 gospels side by side is impossible. But he can't make himself do it, yet, for whatever reason. It is a bit sad to see that time and again, because I feel that it's hurting him. Luckily we've got Paulogia and Dr Bart Ehrman to communicate biblical scholarship to the masses. Because the bible is still a very interesting collection of texts and there is much to talk about even for people without faith in its inerrancy or in God.
I would be careful about making claims that the Bible is inerrant because their are probably people who would try to argue against that by giving you a long list of reasons why it isn't. If you want that, then awesome, but if not you might want to specify. It is your call.
Great video as usual, Paul. I do appreciate your choice of Obama for an example instead of Bunker Boy, whom I am very tired of seeing and hearing about.
Of course, there is about half a dozen minor contradictions in the gospels. Like the nativity story, the account of Jesus' trial, the resurrection of Jesus, his ministry itself and finally what happened after the resurrection... Actually, even less than six!
_"They use their sources responsibly"_ They use Mark as a source, but they don't cite Mark as a source. They don't tell us what other sources they are using. They alternate between copying from Mark and straying from Mark, without warning. When they stray from Mark, they don't tell us why. Did they think Mark was inaccurate or incomplete? I can't believe an actual historian would say that the gospels "use their sources responsibly" with a straight face.
_"They use Mark as a source, but they don't cite Mark as a source. They don't tell us what other sources they are using."_ Footnotes hadn't been invented yet.
Alan Garrow has a set of excellent videos explaining his theory that Matthew copied from Mark and Luke, and both copied from the Didache. This theory resolves a lot of problems and does away with the need for Q - basically since Matthew has Luke, Q becomes really small, and the Didache takes its place.
@@johns3927 @Bicameral Mind The gospels weren't intended as histories, and certainly not as academic histories. Sure, it would be helpful for us if they did list their sources, but even today popular histories don't have footnotes.
It is funny how they start off w/ the most "solid" evidence but leave out the plot-holes, when it's for the purpose of evangelism. How intellectually honest, shows lots of trust in their material, and respect for those they are trying to reach. And they wonder why some atheists are angry/frustrated.
When will theists finally realise that "he said that he said that they said..." etc., etc., is *_not_* reliable in the slightest? 🤷 We get it, you desperately want your delusions to be true, believe me, I understand that more than most people, but using this as an argument just ain't gonna cut it... 🤦💥
And sadly for them ... that's all they have. Lot's and lots of hearsay just doesn't make a compelling case for a magical fantasy story with many resurrections of many dead people actually being true.
Wow...you got Dr. Ehrman on your show. Last time I checked*, even Seth Andrews was having the hardest time getting him to come on The Thinking Atheist! I'm impressed! *Granted, it's been 2 or 3 years since I've checked.
I wish the sound quality was better. I only listen to the videos, often with headphones, and it's tough. Not only Ehrmann's voice probably on Skype or Whatsapp, but also Paulogia's.
Great video, but one point of criticism - at about 9:00 when Dr. Ehrman says that Licona said he thinks the Gospels are inerrant, it would have been nice to hear Licona say that rather than hear Ehrman say Licona said it. Just a suggestion for future editing.
Paulogia, when are you going to do a video on gMark v Odyssey? There seems to silence from the academic field on the work of Dr MacDonald - everyone is avoiding him but I think his work cannot be ignored.
There is always, always, so much hyperbole going on with Christian apologists: the NT authors chose their sources "judiciously"; they used their sources "with a great deal of integrity"; "historians have virtually 100% agree"; "good reason . . . gospels are historically reliable biographies", yada yada yada. Lots of statements, declarations, and claims, but an absence of supporting evidence.
Great video. I'm very interested in how the mistakes get quantified, and how many more discrepancies will emerge over time. Admitted errors doesn't sound like "clarity" to me.
I think to be fair, you should give some praise to that evangelical conference mentioned. They actually got a dissenting voice and one that is highly regarded instead of just some hack with suspect credentials. So credit where credit is due I think.
I was considering the size of that thousand on thousand grapevine. Then got to the line about gallons of wine and just imagined grapes the size of Violet Beauregarde after she eats the gum in wonka's factory.
Another problem with Papias's description of Mark: "Papias says that Mark wrote down everything he remembered hearing about Jesus from Peter, but he did not write these things in chronological order. Modern scholars disagree whether the gospel that is known today as the “Gospel of Mark” is supposed to be written entirely in the chronological order of events, but there is no question that the major events that make up the skeleton of the gospel’s narrative are clearly in chronological order. gMark as we know it begins with Jesus’s baptism, his temptation in the desert, the beginning of his ministry in Galilee, and his calling of the first disciples in chapter one. The gospel then describes Jesus’s ministry in chapters two through ten; his final trip to Jerusalem in chapters eleven through thirteen; the Last Supper, his betrayal by Judas Iscariot, his arrest by the Romans, and his trial before the Sanhedrin in chapter fourteen; his trial before Pilate, his crucifixion, and his death in chapter fifteen; and the discovery of the empty tomb in chapter sixteen. These basic narrative elements are clearly in chronological order because they would not make any sense otherwise. For this reason, it would very strange for someone to say that gMark as a whole is not written in chronological order. It would be even stranger to imply, as Papias seemingly does of the gospel supposedly written by Mark of which he speaks, that the author simply wrote stories down as he happened to remember them. We can’t definitively say that Papias cannot possibly have been talking about the gospel we know today as the “Gospel of Mark,” but the discrepancy between Papias’s description and the gospel we know today suggests that Papias was probably talking about a different gospel that has since been lost." talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/09/17/heres-how-we-know-the-canonical-gospels-were-originally-anonymous/
Regarding the "reliability" issue; I think there is a difference in the interpretation of the word *_"reliable."_* Whenever literalist believers say that the gospels are "reliable", they mean that they consider them to be the Word of God, and that any and all apparent discrepancies we feeble humans might perceive are due to our inadequacies. Whenever moderate believers say the gospels are "reliable", they mean that they consider them to be reasonably accurate reports by humans that may contain human errors, but that nevertheless correctly convey the religious "message" or as Dr. Licona says in the clip, the "gist" of what Jesus taught. Whenever unbelievers say the gospels are "unreliable", they mean they consider them as valuable historical documents that in part are verified by external evidence, and in part are not, and that in their internal discrepancies as well as in their external inaccuracies demonstrate that they are human works and cannot be divine in origin.
Okay, so at 2 minutes in, I see a man waaaaaaay too excited about telling me about someone like his friend's sister's ex-boyfriend's dead mother. REO Speedwagon is not role model. I don't understand why people think tertiary sources are reliable.
Yet _Secret Santa_ "game" can bring the same joy as if Santa was literally true. BTW, why do you think over-waiting is not the part of the experience? In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter is saved by patronus thinking it's his father who saved him. The he got back in time and saw himself, remembering that was the moment when his father came and he waited to see him one more time. Then he realized: "No one is coming!!" so he, himself, did something alien to himself, he saved himself by the powers he didn't even know he had. This was a bitter-sweet experience, realizing he was wrong and no one actually came, yet finding out he can surprise himself with this new-found powers. So, why do you think the "neverending waiting" is not, in fact, there for a purpose, for people to, as you said, "grow up", but not to discard Santa and hate him, but to embrace Santa's spirit in a whole new level? To see the true values in life, beyond toys and magical elves and flying rain deers. Beyond material world. After all, "narrow door" is just for the few, everyone else is entering the wrong way believing they're on the right path.
@@rustyclaymore1105 Oh, really? I think you'd hate the end of that thing. You see, The One Ring represents the ego, which you chose to hide behind. Ego has tremendous powers to those who are already powerful, it boosts their confidence and gives them power to inspire others to follow them. But at the end, ego corrupts, it makes you always hunger for more, you become insatiable, you turn into Gollum, two faced, showing one to the world around you you wish to love you, but deep inside you think of your self as better than the others and can't wait to remove that fake warm smile off of your face. So you'd really hate the final part of the story, death of ego. You'd go down with it. Feel free to slip it on your finger to make yourself disappear and make me look like talking to myself. :)
@@rustyclaymore1105 Sword fighting seems trivial to all the other themes in those books/movies. Still don't understand what it has to do with making children happy few days after the shortest day of the year... But ok.
Can I just quickly ask why nobody on either side ever questions the idea that Acts and GLuke have the same author? To me their themes and even date of origin don’t match up, and I’ve no idea why this “same author” thing is never questioned.
About all we can be sure of RE the New Testament is that "Mark," "Mathew," etc. represents (inaccurately) the MIND of some anonymous, ancient scribe(s). We know this because the scribe(s) left behind the work, of which we have only edited copies. We don't know what Jesus said or did, or even if he existed. We only know that someone wrote down what he supposedly said or did. For all we know, Jesus existed only in the mind of the scribe(s). The stories in further writings, embellished by other scribes with vivid imaginations, religious motivations, but no additional good sources of information, existed only in their minds as well.
I always put it this way: When your only evidence for the truth of a religious narrative is the sacred texts of that religion, then there is no reliable evidence. End of story. Textual criticism, comparing one Gospel to the other, etc.- it's all meaningless. If there had been one contemporary non-believer's account of Jesus as a cult leader running around spreading controversial teachings, then getting afoul of the authorities and being crucified for it, then there would be a warrant for saying that he existed. Since we don't have such an account, all there is is speculation about the likelihood of a bunch of cultists making up a narrative of a supernatural founder; and whether that narrative had a purely mythical origin, or whether it was embellished with some details of an early leader's life, was embellished purely creatively to provide verisimilitude, was embellished with details from several people's lives, was embellished progressively over time, whether it had subtractions over time, etc. is undeterminable. At the range of 2000 years, all this is bootless without the emergence of independent documents. There is no warrant for believing that a corresponding real person existed. There may also be no warrant to say that such a person did not exist, but parsimony nevertheless demands that we withhold belief in that character. Even if we granted hypothetically that the Jesus myth originated with a specific cult leader, how could we say that Jesus existed if we have no idea how many points of correspondence there is between the myth and the actual person? My understanding is that almost every single anecdote from the Gospels comes with a reason to doubt that particular item. If we could know all the facts, and the only actual correspondence between the mythical Jesus and the original character was that both of them were religious cult leaders who got crucified, would it be meaningful to say that Jesus existed? Certainly not. If there was one further item of correspondence would it then be meaningful? How about three items? The whole enterprise is feckless. There is insufficient evidence to believe in Jesus Christ as either a divine being or even a real mortal person. Therefore, the proper epistemological stance is Jesus Agnosticism. My own personal intuition, however, leans toward the Mythicist side: I think it is unlikely that any original leader at the root of Christianity resembled Jesus of the Bible enough to meaningfully identify him as such.
Even if there were only 6 discrepancies between the gospels (which is simply not true unless we generously classify them as discrepancies of: the events; the timeline of events; the location of events; what people said; who was alive; and who was present), that wouldn't prove anything apart from good copying from Mark, or an earlier ancestor text. But it's vital to remember that the canonical gospels were selected after much debate from a much larger pool of gospels (at least 14). This filtering process would have rejected the gnostic gospels that were too different, like the Gospel of Thomas.
Paul, how does the gift registry work at Amazon? If someone buys something does it get removed from your list? Just curious... (and watch your mail! LOL)
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr Ehrman is just collaborating with everyone these days. Can’t wait to see him playable on Smash
Or Among Us!
fox only, final destination
Everyone. Is. Here!!!
"Dr Ehrman is just collaborating with everyone these days. Can’t wait to see him playable on Smash"
Paulogia is not everyone.
He has a very good reputation as someone who does the extra mile to research his topics.
@@andreasplosky8516 I meant in the sense that in the last few months, many content creators I follow featured or are to feature Bart Ehrman; with no disrespect to Paul.
I love the "sure the gospels have a bunch of inconsistencies, contradictions, and logical fallacies, but they are still inerrant!" argument.
They are inerrant if you ignore the parts that aren't
@@flowingafterglow629 EXACTLY!! Why don't these atheists understand that and accept the truth of god's love written on their hearts, the truth of the god they _know_ exists, but continue to deny?
Holy shit, the part of my brain that wants to make easy, sustainable money almost believed me there for a second.
What are the inconsistencies and logical fallacies?
@@deepforestfire Inconsistencies? Who found the empty tomb? Who did they tell? Logical fallacies? God impregnated a woman to give birth to himself to sacrifice himself to himself, and during that process thought that he was "forsaking" himself.
That's one important collaboration, Paul, you sure are getting noticed! And thanks to Dr. Ehrman for his time as well!
He's on a tour to support his paid online lecture, but I agree it's a nice collab
I've hugely enjoyed Professor Bart Ehrman's courses on The Great Courses. He seems very fair-minded in his treatment of the Gospels.
Very happy to see him on Paulogia.
His books are pretty fun too.
If you're attending that one, watch this at least before going into it.
th-cam.com/video/GhLOCrGRj2Y/w-d-xo.html
At 12:55 I totally thought he was using clips from LOTR and was so confused. 😂
Flipping amazing.. Bart Ehrman on Paulogia! How can you not love it?
I have a way! It reminds me there are so few talks of at least an hour that Dr. Ehrman has uploaded and I've watched (almost) all of them at least twice! It's horrible! I hate it! BOO!!!! How am I supposed to get to level 99 on my paladin? By listening to music? Grinding is already mind numbing. I'm an information whore! I need my fix! :p
I lied, mostly, I'm grateful for every word Dr. Ehrman says and I love it.
@@stylis666 Have you checked out his recordings for TTC / Great courses? They're all good.
Mike Licona is an excellent example of how a mind gets mangled by theism.
The things Licona will say are sometimes so twisted that it is beyond belief.
Yep, I don't think he actually believes, his arguments are so twisted, I think he is scared to let go of what he has believed his whole life, I think he has massive cognitive dissonance, I think he just can't bring himself to let go
@@nancydenton7496 Oh my god... Habermas is terrible indeed. He is such a hack.
What is the actual history, Andreas?
Yet Houston Baptist Univ forced him out I think concerning his thoughts on the resurrection sheesh mainstream church is so out of synch with the modern world. 🙄👌🏽
@@ARoll925 you may be on to something.
If anyone has earned dinner with Dr. Ehrman, it’s Paul.
I was able to pass Dr. Ehrman's famous quiz on the first attempt! But...I already had a degree from a bible college, so -- I guess I wouldn't be eligible for freshman class steak dinner.
At the infamous Armadillo Grill, of course. They should seriously consider sponsoring Bart at this point with how much advertising he’s done for them.
Facts From a scholar like Bart over a believer with faith something is real. Great vid
Bart says "...it depends what you mean by reliable", and then uses the example of a friend who is 90% right. So in his example, I would probably trust them to give me directions. But if I have TWO friends who are 90% right, and they give me somewhat different directions, and those directions involve supernatural claims, my trust level will plummet.
Sounds like you shoulda been on the same drugs as your friends. At least that way the supernatural would make a little more sense.
"mount on a winged horse and fly 0.00002 parsecs northeast".
I still like the story Jesus goes alone in the garden to pray in private while everyone is asleep and someone recorded every word Jesus says 🤔
Yes. Exactly. This goes to prove that the Bible is a man-made book of fables
No no no.. After Jesus was done praying, he dictated an account of everything he thought & said. Doesn't everyone know this?
@@drlegendre of course as they were all highly educated in Koine Greek - them being fishermen and all that etc
Probably just recorded his thoughts on his phone for posterity.
Love you paulgia, love from namibia
A delight to watch. I love the calls to go ahead and find the discrepancies for yourself, such a good way to encourage someone to question their sources and think critically.
Wow. 2 of my favourite teacher/speakers on the same show. Thank you both.
Great video! Your guest list is growing to become a “who’s who” on these topics.
Thank "god" you got away from the young earth creationism debunks and focused on textual criticism. I find the textual criticism series more informative and educational than recollecting my 7th grade education on biology and anthropology!
Agreed. Ham is an idiot and/or grifter. Bored with debunking his countless absurd claims and logical fallacies
Sadly, most creationists know less about science than the average seventh grader. Shoutout to everyone still arguing that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics in 2021.
@@caseyspaos448 I have watched countless Ken Ham discussions and I have actually come to the conclusion that he actually genuinely 100% does believe in creationism and biblical literalism without any shred of 'doubt'. If you are looking for a genuine grifter for creationism look no further than Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind and Matt Powell.
Bart's avatar is on point. Great collab!
Perhaps Paulogia was a bit generous with the hair, but still an excellent avatar. :)
Wow. Awesome collaboration. I think it speak volumes about you, your content, and your approach that you get so many people to come on. Keep doing great, Paul!
Maximum respect to Dr Ehrman for showing up to do this video & mazel tov and kudos to for making the kinda of arguments & counter-apologetics that mainline Evangos feel compelled to engage with.
Peter is Mark’s source? In Mark, the disciples are a gullible, slow-to-learn, no-personality group that usually speak as one.
They come across as literary props. They are useless except on occasion to duplicate Jesus’ healing.
"Plants". Either in the magician sense of people who are in on the trick and are trying to fool others, or in the sense of green slow-moving things that only live if you breathe a lot of hot air on them and die if you don't water them enough.
The disciples in Mark are _plants._
Mark was peter's terp.
@@EdwardHowton entheogens*
@@inefffable I did not know that word and I am _very_ impressed that I somehow gave you an opportunity to use it to such effect! Well freaking done to you, sir and/or madam!
@@EdwardHowton thank you :) on the flip side, this is the first I've heard of his disciples being plants, which I really like. Esp for the reasons you explained. I always gravitated toward the narratives around Jesus being celestially based (since they likely had an intimate relationship with the clockwork-like movements of our sky), but I really like the thought of his "disciples" being psychoactive plants that led to the spiritual experiences explained. Lol. Take care :)
I swear there was a time when Licona was one of the more reputable apologists and I'd look forward to discussions he'd have with various people. Ever since the debate he had with Dillahunty 5 or so years ago, though, he's been one of the worst. Makes me wonder if he changed or I did.
A way to pursue your wonder:
Go back and see Licona’s presentations from before the Dillahunty debate
Then you can see if Licona changed or you changed
Totally agree. He did a good job against Ehrman. Still got beat IMO but was at least well prepared. He got destroyed by Dillahunty. Maybe it rattled his confidence??
@@Critical_Capybara His debate Matt was absolutely bonkers. He got wrecked! Talking about “flying trash cans“ and stuff just grasping at straws‘s. lol
@@MMAGamblingTips, alright. I’m gunna have to see this now 😂
@@MMAGamblingTips, lmao, the trashcan story isnt even 10 minutes in
Paul you've been killing it with the cartoons , love it man. I've always liked Bart.
Yet another video that reminds me why I always come back to Paul. More along these lines Paul!!!
So what I got from Mike's video is; "because some guy said that someone told him what someone told them a thing that happened to someone else was a thing that happened years prior; and any inconsistencies that occur between the different stories are still accurate as the differences were deliberate. Thousands of years later people who read a thing agree with it and therefore Truth." Is that right; did I capture the "gist" of it?
Sounds about right.
Fucking nailed it. See? Rock solid. Case closed.
No need to oversimplify to make it sound silly.
@@sp1ke0kill3r it serves its purpose as a synopsis
I can shorten it to just three words:
God
There's nothing that new testament Scholars can say about the New Testament that can't be said about the Quran. Yet these Christian apologist would never accept that the Quran is true based on their own arguments when presented on behalf of the Quran. (Nor should anyone, the Quran is apparently just as untrue as the Bible in its supernatural claims)
I love to see a video where someone listens to Christian apologists claims of why the Bible should be accepted and then present the exact same arguments on behalf of the Quran and get them to explain exactly why their own argument should not be accepted.
It would be trivially easy because as far as access to originals and the dates and the authors being eyewitnesses, all of these are easier to verify for the Quran than the Bible.
@@JesusDoctrine
I'm sorry but, that's very misguided. Do you know anything about the canon formation of the Bible? Certain texts were added/deleted from the texts based on the opinion of the early church fathers.
I understand supernatural claims are difficult, for believers and non believers alike. Yet, history of books are very different. We have no need to degrade the Quran to being merely inspired, since it is the perfect word of Allah.
Islamic faith is supported by scripture. Islamic faith comes from an encounter with Allah, sometimes it's by reading the Quran, other times faith is triggered by other means, eg dreams, prayers, the supernatural.
God is supernatural, and has preserved the Quran. Sadly too many teachers of the Quran spout more than whats proper, this is not useful.
I believe in Allah & the prophet Muhammad, I have found testimonies of Allah in people's lives matches up with the Quran. This confirms the Quran to me, not via textual criticism, but by experience with God.
Christians hold to a very different logic, of imperfect preservation (though some do adhere to a literal interpretation - so confusing!). Muslims do not, hence we welcome criticism of the perfect Quran. Try doing the same with Christianity publicly and see the response. Defending the inspiration of the Bible and the Christian's particular viewpoint on any topic is defending God to them.
The Quran is the inerrant, perfect word of God. In fact, we even have hadith which confirms the Quran above and beyond what the Christians could ever dream of for Jesus!
@@invisiblegorilla8631 does the Quran agree with the global flood ? Where God kills babies in their mothers womb who hadn't even heard of Mohammad or any Hadiths let alone disobey it.
Yes or no?
@@jonfromtheuk467 i think he is being sarcastic by replacing the bible with the quran etc
@@JesusDoctrine, how do you know you encounter with God is really an encounter with God? How is your encounter different from what Mormons experience?
@@JesusDoctrine When Krishna spoke to me, that's how I knew it was him and not me. That doesn't prove anything. You can't demonstrate it it cannot be investigated. Personal revelation isn't evidence, since people of different faiths claim personal interactions with their gods. This is a fallacy of personal bias. Jesus (whom you'd have to prove first along with god) did not sacrifice. There was no loss or risk involved to him or god. If I sacrifice a goat to you that then resurrects and lives forever, neither I nor the goat incurred nor could've incurred a loss of any kind.
Bart Ehrman is making the rounds.
I bet it will be successful.
4:00 so... in heaven 1 grape vine = 1 quadrillion gallons of wine. (Minimum)
For reference, 6 such vines would yield about as much wine as all the water in the Great Lakes.
Then the Great Lakes will have earned their title. Lol
@@alexandertownsend3291 _And lo, the Lord said "Gather thine growlers!" And his disciples of Irish, Scottish, and yay, some Italian descent came to the waters that were not quite oceans, and not yet seas, and they partied for 40 days and 40 nights, and though the heads did ache, the Lord was pleased._
So.... its the tree of might?
But seriously, thatd be one dam big grape vine. One single bush would be about the size of russia.
Scored on Dr. Bart! He is such a wealth of information and has a great sense of humour
I really like Bart Ehrman. I think Christians should spend a lot more time listening to and studying his writings.
Yes they should, but it's unlikely they will: He would throw a stick in the wheel of their faith. The few that have read his work, and debated him weasel around everything he says and go through extreme mental gymnastics to make him sound wrong, and their logically fallacious arguments sound right, as shown here with Mike Licona, and he's not all that bad compared to how insane most of the apologists Bart has debated are.
@@Bob-of-Zoid I’m a Christian. I’ve read some of his books and listened to his debates and lectures. He’s not interested in ‘disproving’ people’s faith. So you’re wrong.
@@andrewwells6323 "He’s not interested in ‘disproving’ people’s faith. So you’re wrong."
Indeed. He is only disproving the poor excuses they use for having that faith...
@@con.troller4183 that’s not what he’s attempting to do either. He’s s historian. He’s doing history.
@@andrewwells6323 And history proves that the claims of Christians are riddled with falsehoods, but they persist in their faith anyway.
Even if they got the history correct (and they certainly do not) there is the problem that not a single supernatural event has ever been reliably demonstrated as true.
And since Christianity draws its authority from supernatural claims, it has nothing to stand on.
Ehrman may not overtly claim to be debunking faith but his efforts have precisely that effect.
I can write a story which contradicts itself in such a way that is without error, it just means it is without error of what I wanted, not that it isn't broken XD
"I meant to be the author of confusion, if you read my Quran too it is equally 'without error' also true with my Book of Mormon revelation to Joseph Smith from my sweet angel Moroni, you moronic disbelievers!" ~ Loki after he assassinates his entire family, states he is the only Allah that has ever existed in all of Asgard (which he Created!), and writes all the books that are the center of Bibliolatries pushing goodness pretensions while sneaking in Dark Ageness to this very day.
The gospels is not history or even biographies in the modern sense. Gospel simply means the good news. And there's at least fifty different gospels. Not just the four you find in the Wholly Fables aka the Bible.
the gospel of judas is fun.
To think people who consider such work of fiction to be the word of God are the ones running our countries
The stories about Yeshush are fan fiction. They have been produced by fans to show how see their idol. Surptisingke their idol did exactly why they wanted him to do. Over time the fan fiction grows and gets even more fantastic.
OH MY GOD BART EHRMAN IS ON PAULOGIA THIS IS AMAZING
Showing a scene of lumbering zombies from "The Walking Dead" was
I first spotted the Matthew/Luke train wreck of contradictions on the Nativity and David genealogy back as a kid (early 1960s) ... the dangers of a Sunday school handing me a RSV Bible with cross-references at the bottom. I very much enjoyed Bart's lecture for EWU here in Spokane a few years back, and draw upon all his extensive scholarship regarding the origins of the Christian texts.
Hi, Paul! Hope you're great.
Bart s laughter is infectious!!!
So Supplement is the latest euphemism for Contradict, Mike Licona?
I'm always happy to see a new face immortalized as one of Paul's cartoon avatars.
Inerrant, Literally meaning incapable of being wrong. One bit of the Bible says Jesus said bring a staff, another bit of the Bible says the literal exact opposite, bring nothing, no staff included. To see Dr. Licona acknowledge such a story and still say that the Bible is incapable of being wrong is astounding to me. If Jesus said take a staff, then the Gospel of Matthew is right, but then the Gospel of Mark is WRONG, and vice a versa.
Then, he waves this away by saying Matthew meant to change it? Doc, if the whole point of the gospels is accurately convey what Jesus said, and one of them changed what Jesus said to be opposite, then it is NOT inerrant.
Ah Jeez Mr. Ogia, I'd say you're doing the lord's work but clearly that'd be an insult to how carefully and skillfully put together your work is. Keep up the good work sir.
Instead of putting up whatever text they had on those cards I think he should have just drawn a Möbius strip and declared ‘look - this is my argument’.
Whenever you meet someone that believes in biblical inerrancy, ask them why the city of Tyre still exists and brace yourself for Olympics level mental gymnastics.
@@miskatonic_alumni I've seen em turn into a human pretzel just to maintain the cognitive dissonance.
I’ll be there. Excited for this webinar
9:15 lmao. This was good. I remember when I had a belief in God and I would always make excuses and extra assumptions that "felt good," not realizing I was just tricking myself into believing a legendary tale.
Amazing!! So excited to see Dr Ehrman collabing with you!
I love Bart's delivery style, it's very engaging
Holy shiit! Prof. Ehrman on Paulogica?!? Is it my birthday or something?? What a Most Excellent present !!! Go Team !! 😸❤❤❤
Millions are "astounded" by seemingly miraculous events at magic shows. Not impressive evidence of past "miracles".
Got in early this time! Thanks, Paul.
I loved this. Licona’s my favorite apologist and Ehrman’s just superbly brilliant as always. Fantastic stuff here, many thanks!
''Favourite apologist'' for proving how religion warps rational/honest thinking?
@@soulcrewblue5608 Yep. He’s still my fav, but he’s still absolutely wrong. I just think he’s more honest than most. But I realize that that’s not saying much.
Didn’t Lincona miss a step with Papias? We don’t have Papias own writings, just what Eusebius quoted.
So really, Eusebius says that Papias said that John the Elder said that Mark said he got his information from Peter.
Does he even say that John the Elder told him directly, or that Mark told this to John?
Add to that the fact that Eusebius also states that Papias is basically an _idiot_ ... and I'm truly astounded that Licona chooses to pin the reliability of the gospels on Papias, of all people. 😲
It might be all he had. His low opinion of Papias probably means he is quoting him accurately- if he was going to make something up, the. He’s likely use someone he didn’t think was an idiot, but we still only have Eusebius word for what Papias said
@@Ashamanic - that's a fair point! 🤣
Licona has the choice between Papias or _nothing,_ so Papias it is, even if he knows that Papias is shyte...
Cool that you got Bart Ehrman!
Gotta catch ‘em all, right!
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow I'm curious if theistic evolutionist Ben Stanhope might make an appearance on Ham&AiG news or Evolution Exposed. He wrote a book criticizing AiG's creation museum
@@js1423 I’m not sure how Paulogia chooses his guests, but it’s possible. 😊
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow He has had other, more "liberal" Christians before, like Sy Garte, Joshua Swamidass and Phil Vischer. Still cool to see him expand his cartoon guest-collection with bigger names
When you pulled back to show your green screen studio, that was so wonderfully meta. It was your best trick since showing the projector lights on you during Not Star Wars.
Dr Ehrman on Paulogia - today is a good day!
Thanks for the video :)
Keep the Bart Ehrman content coming. I love his blog.
I know it's off topic but i really really want Bart to debate Carrier on historicity
Kudos to Mike Licona - it seems he negotiated a 'Statement of Faith' that allows for 6 candidate mistakes in the Gospels. Most statements would call for termination if even one mistake is acknowledged.
Awesome job! Thanks Paul and Dr Ehrman!
I upgraded my Bart Ehrman Blog membership to Gold when he started posting audio versions of his posts.
And, of course, every penny of your membership goes to charity which is why he has the blog to begin with.
Man Bart is just on every channel. Pushing hard for that webinar.
It's a wonderful thing
Nothing wrong with that!
yeah, like Christian channels dont own the airwaves and scoop up billions of dollars in donations - get real will you?
@@jonfromtheuk467 that’s an odd response, he’s on all the channels I watch so what position do you think I take on Christians? I watch Bart anytime he’s on.
@@PhullyNo1 I am talking about the amount of 'channels" you are on versus the sheer amount other alternative channels. Try a look at the religion channel for example and see how much oxygen is given to people like scholars like Bart ...... not much!
The best objection against the "historical" hypothesis of the resurrection of Jesus is epistemological and historiographical, right? That is, to show the implausibility of a miraculous event as a "best explanation" and the absence of a philosophy of History by the apologists that justifies why the "supernatural" is admissible in History. What do you think?
just bring me the head of god. no one ever has, no one ever will. all this talk makes me sleepy.
@@HarryNicNicholas I'd settle for an odontological proof - bring me his dental records.
I would just settle for an admission from apologists that they are not doing history and that they are not historians
Fabulous video as usual! And with Dr Ehrman? Nice
Robert M. Price ha said on his Bible Geek podcast that he thinks Licona might come out as an atheist sometime. He's debated him a couple of times and I guess was basing that on private conversations. He wasn't saying Licona already was an atheist, but that he thought he was going in that direction.
I love both of you guys.
When you read a lot of historical documents you realize that the New Testament Gospels have the same level of accuracy as about any other document. However, many Christians don't want to treat the gospels as accurate as every other document from this time period. They want it to be the MOST accurate document ever written by the hands of man because it was INSPIRED by God! And there lies the problem. The Bible has to live up to an impossible standard by its believers.
I like Mike Licona.
Often he comes close to actually speaking his mind and admitting that faith based on the 4 gospels side by side is impossible. But he can't make himself do it, yet, for whatever reason. It is a bit sad to see that time and again, because I feel that it's hurting him.
Luckily we've got Paulogia and Dr Bart Ehrman to communicate biblical scholarship to the masses. Because the bible is still a very interesting collection of texts and there is much to talk about even for people without faith in its inerrancy or in God.
I would be careful about making claims that the Bible is inerrant because their are probably people who would try to argue against that by giving you a long list of reasons why it isn't. If you want that, then awesome, but if not you might want to specify. It is your call.
So he's a dishonest prick then? Like many believers who can't do the honest thing.
Great video as usual, Paul. I do appreciate your choice of Obama for an example instead of Bunker Boy, whom I am very tired of seeing and hearing about.
Awesome I’m a big fan of Dr. Ehrman
Of course, there is about half a dozen minor contradictions in the gospels. Like the nativity story, the account of Jesus' trial, the resurrection of Jesus, his ministry itself and finally what happened after the resurrection... Actually, even less than six!
Bart Ehrman & Paulogia.... I love it!!!
Phenomal crossover, thank you
Hahaha, i love the cartoon Bart. So glad you got him on!
Good old bible study... fitting the evidence to the theory for centuries.
making up "evidence" to fit the theory
@@scambammer6102 also true.
_"They use their sources responsibly"_
They use Mark as a source, but they don't cite Mark as a source. They don't tell us what other sources they are using. They alternate between copying from Mark and straying from Mark, without warning. When they stray from Mark, they don't tell us why. Did they think Mark was inaccurate or incomplete?
I can't believe an actual historian would say that the gospels "use their sources responsibly" with a straight face.
_"They use Mark as a source, but they don't cite Mark as a source. They don't tell us what other sources they are using."_
Footnotes hadn't been invented yet.
@@michaelsommers2356 But giving that information in the text had been invented.
@@michaelsommers2356 But the reliable historians did discuss their sources. The gospels do none of that.
Alan Garrow has a set of excellent videos explaining his theory that Matthew copied from Mark and Luke, and both copied from the Didache. This theory resolves a lot of problems and does away with the need for Q - basically since Matthew has Luke, Q becomes really small, and the Didache takes its place.
@@johns3927 @Bicameral Mind The gospels weren't intended as histories, and certainly not as academic histories. Sure, it would be helpful for us if they did list their sources, but even today popular histories don't have footnotes.
Paul, I think at 17:55 you missed an excellent chance at inserting a short clip from Interstellar about the truth parameters with the robots.
It is funny how they start off w/ the most "solid" evidence but leave out the plot-holes, when it's for the purpose of evangelism. How intellectually honest, shows lots of trust in their material, and respect for those they are trying to reach.
And they wonder why some atheists are angry/frustrated.
I think they know, but just don't care. That is my guess.
Yuge fan of Dr. Ehrman and you Paul
When will theists finally realise that "he said that he said that they said..." etc., etc., is *_not_* reliable in the slightest? 🤷
We get it, you desperately want your delusions to be true, believe me, I understand that more than most people, but using this as an argument just ain't gonna cut it... 🤦💥
And sadly for them ... that's all they have.
Lot's and lots of hearsay just doesn't make a compelling case for a magical fantasy story with many resurrections of many dead people actually being true.
@@pauligrossinoz If only they could see how laughable their excuses actually are, still, gives us stuff to point and laugh at I guess 🙃
Big fan of Bart Ehrman and his books
Wow...you got Dr. Ehrman on your show. Last time I checked*, even Seth Andrews was having the hardest time getting him to come on The Thinking Atheist! I'm impressed!
*Granted, it's been 2 or 3 years since I've checked.
Excellent video as usual!
I wish the sound quality was better. I only listen to the videos, often with headphones, and it's tough. Not only Ehrmann's voice probably on Skype or Whatsapp, but also Paulogia's.
Your drawing of Dr. Bart Ehrman looks like Brad Jones the Cinema Snob.
Great video, but one point of criticism - at about 9:00 when Dr. Ehrman says that Licona said he thinks the Gospels are inerrant, it would have been nice to hear Licona say that rather than hear Ehrman say Licona said it. Just a suggestion for future editing.
Paulogia, when are you going to do a video on gMark v Odyssey? There seems to silence from the academic field on the work of Dr MacDonald - everyone is avoiding him but I think his work cannot be ignored.
Congrats Paul, that’s a big deal! B.E.👍
There is always, always, so much hyperbole going on with Christian apologists: the NT authors chose their sources "judiciously"; they used their sources "with a great deal of integrity"; "historians have virtually 100% agree"; "good reason . . . gospels are historically reliable biographies", yada yada yada. Lots of statements, declarations, and claims, but an absence of supporting evidence.
Well said. Other than Mark we don't really know what sources were used, so how can they have been used "judiciously"?
Great video. I'm very interested in how the mistakes get quantified, and how many more discrepancies will emerge over time. Admitted errors doesn't sound like "clarity" to me.
_"Gospel reliability"_ That must be a number nearing zero.
I calculate it converges upon zero
I think to be fair, you should give some praise to that evangelical conference mentioned. They actually got a dissenting voice and one that is highly regarded instead of just some hack with suspect credentials. So credit where credit is due I think.
Paulogia and Bart Ehrman working together. What else could I ask for? Maybe Viced Rhino?
I was considering the size of that thousand on thousand grapevine. Then got to the line about gallons of wine and just imagined grapes the size of Violet Beauregarde after she eats the gum in wonka's factory.
This is a much better interview than the one with Aron Ra
Another problem with Papias's description of Mark:
"Papias says that Mark wrote down everything he remembered hearing about Jesus from Peter, but he did not write these things in chronological order. Modern scholars disagree whether the gospel that is known today as the “Gospel of Mark” is supposed to be written entirely in the chronological order of events, but there is no question that the major events that make up the skeleton of the gospel’s narrative are clearly in chronological order.
gMark as we know it begins with Jesus’s baptism, his temptation in the desert, the beginning of his ministry in Galilee, and his calling of the first disciples in chapter one. The gospel then describes Jesus’s ministry in chapters two through ten; his final trip to Jerusalem in chapters eleven through thirteen; the Last Supper, his betrayal by Judas Iscariot, his arrest by the Romans, and his trial before the Sanhedrin in chapter fourteen; his trial before Pilate, his crucifixion, and his death in chapter fifteen; and the discovery of the empty tomb in chapter sixteen.
These basic narrative elements are clearly in chronological order because they would not make any sense otherwise. For this reason, it would very strange for someone to say that gMark as a whole is not written in chronological order. It would be even stranger to imply, as Papias seemingly does of the gospel supposedly written by Mark of which he speaks, that the author simply wrote stories down as he happened to remember them.
We can’t definitively say that Papias cannot possibly have been talking about the gospel we know today as the “Gospel of Mark,” but the discrepancy between Papias’s description and the gospel we know today suggests that Papias was probably talking about a different gospel that has since been lost."
talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/09/17/heres-how-we-know-the-canonical-gospels-were-originally-anonymous/
Regarding the "reliability" issue; I think there is a difference in the interpretation of the word *_"reliable."_*
Whenever literalist believers say that the gospels are "reliable", they mean that they consider them to be the Word of God, and that any and all apparent discrepancies we feeble humans might perceive are due to our inadequacies.
Whenever moderate believers say the gospels are "reliable", they mean that they consider them to be reasonably accurate reports by humans that may contain human errors, but that nevertheless correctly convey the religious "message" or as Dr. Licona says in the clip, the "gist" of what Jesus taught.
Whenever unbelievers say the gospels are "unreliable", they mean they consider them as valuable historical documents that in part are verified by external evidence, and in part are not, and that in their internal discrepancies as well as in their external inaccuracies demonstrate that they are human works and cannot be divine in origin.
Did you reference Narnia specifically cause Lewis was also an apologist?
Okay, so at 2 minutes in, I see a man waaaaaaay too excited about telling me about someone like his friend's sister's ex-boyfriend's dead mother. REO Speedwagon is not role model. I don't understand why people think tertiary sources are reliable.
If you understood this comment you are old af! 😂
@@caseyspaos448 Hey I resemble that remark😅
The human race is like a child that has believed in Santa way too long. Now we've been left at home all alone with a box of matches. Time to grow up.
Yet _Secret Santa_ "game" can bring the same joy as if Santa was literally true.
BTW, why do you think over-waiting is not the part of the experience?
In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter is saved by patronus thinking it's his father who saved him. The he got back in time and saw himself, remembering that was the moment when his father came and he waited to see him one more time. Then he realized: "No one is coming!!" so he, himself, did something alien to himself, he saved himself by the powers he didn't even know he had. This was a bitter-sweet experience, realizing he was wrong and no one actually came, yet finding out he can surprise himself with this new-found powers.
So, why do you think the "neverending waiting" is not, in fact, there for a purpose, for people to, as you said, "grow up", but not to discard Santa and hate him, but to embrace Santa's spirit in a whole new level? To see the true values in life, beyond toys and magical elves and flying rain deers. Beyond material world.
After all, "narrow door" is just for the few, everyone else is entering the wrong way believing they're on the right path.
@@ScorpioHR I’m more of a Lord of Rings guy tbh.
@@rustyclaymore1105 Oh, really? I think you'd hate the end of that thing. You see, The One Ring represents the ego, which you chose to hide behind. Ego has tremendous powers to those who are already powerful, it boosts their confidence and gives them power to inspire others to follow them. But at the end, ego corrupts, it makes you always hunger for more, you become insatiable, you turn into Gollum, two faced, showing one to the world around you you wish to love you, but deep inside you think of your self as better than the others and can't wait to remove that fake warm smile off of your face. So you'd really hate the final part of the story, death of ego. You'd go down with it.
Feel free to slip it on your finger to make yourself disappear and make me look like talking to myself. :)
@@ScorpioHR No, I meant the good one with the sword fights ‘n stuff.
@@rustyclaymore1105 Sword fighting seems trivial to all the other themes in those books/movies. Still don't understand what it has to do with making children happy few days after the shortest day of the year... But ok.
Can I just quickly ask why nobody on either side ever questions the idea that Acts and GLuke have the same author? To me their themes and even date of origin don’t match up, and I’ve no idea why this “same author” thing is never questioned.
I can't wait until the Gospel of the Winchesters come out. According to the TV show, Supernatural it should eventually come out.
About all we can be sure of RE the New Testament is that "Mark," "Mathew," etc. represents (inaccurately) the MIND of some anonymous, ancient scribe(s). We know this because the scribe(s) left behind the work, of which we have only edited copies. We don't know what Jesus said or did, or even if he existed. We only know that someone wrote down what he supposedly said or did. For all we know, Jesus existed only in the mind of the scribe(s). The stories in further writings, embellished by other scribes with vivid imaginations, religious motivations, but no additional good sources of information, existed only in their minds as well.
I always put it this way: When your only evidence for the truth of a religious narrative is the sacred texts of that religion, then there is no reliable evidence. End of story. Textual criticism, comparing one Gospel to the other, etc.- it's all meaningless. If there had been one contemporary non-believer's account of Jesus as a cult leader running around spreading controversial teachings, then getting afoul of the authorities and being crucified for it, then there would be a warrant for saying that he existed.
Since we don't have such an account, all there is is speculation about the likelihood of a bunch of cultists making up a narrative of a supernatural founder; and whether that narrative had a purely mythical origin, or whether it was embellished with some details of an early leader's life, was embellished purely creatively to provide verisimilitude, was embellished with details from several people's lives, was embellished progressively over time, whether it had subtractions over time, etc. is undeterminable. At the range of 2000 years, all this is bootless without the emergence of independent documents. There is no warrant for believing that a corresponding real person existed.
There may also be no warrant to say that such a person did not exist, but parsimony nevertheless demands that we withhold belief in that character. Even if we granted hypothetically that the Jesus myth originated with a specific cult leader, how could we say that Jesus existed if we have no idea how many points of correspondence there is between the myth and the actual person? My understanding is that almost every single anecdote from the Gospels comes with a reason to doubt that particular item. If we could know all the facts, and the only actual correspondence between the mythical Jesus and the original character was that both of them were religious cult leaders who got crucified, would it be meaningful to say that Jesus existed? Certainly not. If there was one further item of correspondence would it then be meaningful? How about three items?
The whole enterprise is feckless. There is insufficient evidence to believe in Jesus Christ as either a divine being or even a real mortal person. Therefore, the proper epistemological stance is Jesus Agnosticism. My own personal intuition, however, leans toward the Mythicist side: I think it is unlikely that any original leader at the root of Christianity resembled Jesus of the Bible enough to meaningfully identify him as such.
Even if there were only 6 discrepancies between the gospels (which is simply not true unless we generously classify them as discrepancies of: the events; the timeline of events; the location of events; what people said; who was alive; and who was present), that wouldn't prove anything apart from good copying from Mark, or an earlier ancestor text. But it's vital to remember that the canonical gospels were selected after much debate from a much larger pool of gospels (at least 14). This filtering process would have rejected the gnostic gospels that were too different, like the Gospel of Thomas.
Paul, how does the gift registry work at Amazon? If someone buys something does it get removed from your list? Just curious... (and watch your mail! LOL)