@@mustang8206 Yeah, the less a moderator needs to intervene the better the debate is going. You get a lot more out of a conversation than a formal debate imo.
Seems more like the young guy was too shy. I thought the cross examination could have used some due diligence on the mediators part; they weren't following the Q and A format faithfully, with Bart becoming the questioner well before being given the floor to do so. The thing that really bothered me though was that they were addressing the thesis in such different ways and ended up talking past each other. Would have preferred a more precise query so there wasn't a different standard on each side. 'Reliability' needed to be qualified.
I think it’s actually legitimately commendable that Licona posts debates like this one in which - I’d argue - he doesn’t have a particularly strong showing. And also respectable that he freely allows comments on the videos
@@ Ehrman: "..king Herod died in the year 4 BCE" This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a scholar at face value, however expert or well meaning, neither pro nor con, neither a consensus without fact checking as much as possible with a close eye on original texts and languages or as close as possible, and with an open mind. To state the obvious: the bible nor Josephus says Herod died in 4 BCE. This date is inferred from Josephus saying that Herod died soon after a lunar eclipse before the spring Passover like the one in 4 BCE. What many don't realize is that there was another eclipse in 1 BCE -- a total lunar eclipse unlike the traditional partial one -- and it allows enough time for all the events surrounding Herod's funeral to fit perfectly unlike the problematic 4 BCE date. I've also verified this eclipse with professional astronomy software myself. The popular view of Herod's death in 4 BCE does not account for all the facts we have from the historical record. However, some of the latest published scholarship shows that when other pieces of evidence typically overlooked is carefully considered it rather points to Herod having died in 1 BCE. Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29(29) FREE ONLINE This new time frame fits the events like a glove from an historical, astronomical, and biblical point of view, unlike the traditional time frame. It fixes problems like a good solution to a problem is supposed to. The old time frame creates unnecessary problems critics capitalize on (a frequent 'pattern' I have come across for 15 years studying the scriptures). With the new date of Herod's death, scholars like the late Ernest L. Martin were able to find the (wandering) star of Bethlehem and it fits the descriptions of Matthew to a tee, not to mention other surrounding details provided by Luke, and more astronomical signs mentioned in Revelation 12.1-2 while also providing deeper Christian/Jewish fulfillment to the festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah and even rabbinic expectations (see the last link below). The new date of Herod's death (1 BCE) is like a new key that opens an old chest nobody could open before with an old key, and now new amazing treasures are revealed but many people still insist the old key is the best one and are keeping the treasure chest locked and the treasures hidden from the world. This is very sad. Further reading on the blog linked atop my channel (openthematrixDOTwordpressDOTcom)
@@AllOtherNamesUsed You are hilarious - you stated " This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a scholar at face value" and then do EXACTLY the same thing yourself! And this person would be the evangelical PASTOR Steinmann, Andrew E. yes? ......at least Bart is an agnostic and not biased towards the subject matter. It also still doesnt explain Quinirius starting his governorship of Syria in CE6 does it even with this new date? unless you are going to again try and say he was governor twice but that isn't backed up by the evidence. Whats more likely , the history books are correct or christian apologist try to shorted the gap to muddy the history ? one has an agenda , one doesnt
@@AllOtherNamesUsed it matters not because even if you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong and that he died 1 BC....... it STILL doesn't account for how Jesus was born when Quinirius was governor of Syria as he started that regime in CE6. Thats the point Bart is making
Already disagree with Mike since I am a woman and I really prefer getting to the bottom line. Ask my husband about his pet project, and you will get hours of details.
Those ppl who quote details about the afterlife don't even know they're all from fictional books hundreds/thousands of years later. Religious stpdity knows no bounds.
With the Bible being the type of book that it is, it's either completely true, or completely false. There is no gray area where you get to pick and choose your verses.
@@FOHguyConsidering it's a collection of stories over years and years with different authors and also people trying to forge their own manuscript alongside all of it leaves WAY more room for era then they're is actually. That's why it hasn't been put away yet, scholars and historians y'know, even more if it ends up not true at all, it's a miracle how it's as consistent as it is
Loved both speakers here. While I might be a biased atheist, I’m born-again when it comes to healthy intellectual discussion. These online debates and discussions have given me so much great information, but more importantly, they’ve taught me how to talk about these issues with greater respect for those who disagree. That wasn’t always the case, and for that, I’m dare I say…”blessed?” Thanks for posting!
@@sunvalleydrivemusicWell...I dont know...Many still believe NDE is "just "a brain process even when people born blind can see everything around in NDE.We have to accept that teaching in all Schools, Universities,all over..Who need more patience?
A funny thing to notice is that Licona even acknowledges that there were no zombies. It's just a literary effect. However how do you know then that e.g. the Jesus walking on the water scene isn't fiction as well?
@@TenTonNuke Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I always thought we should've had Easter Zombies when I read that part. Why a Bunny? Zombies are more cool.
@J H I think he was saying that since it's only one gospel that mentions that, and isn't clear if it's apocalyptic, the other things that are historically verifiable, and mentioned in at least two gospels would be something witnessed for sure.
“Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.” Luke 1:1-2 NET. 01:26:00
The gospels were made up by human beings, not revealed by a god. Ergo: the mythological jesus never existed, this then means that the qur'an is also human-made (because it repeats the same jesus-myth) ;-)
Chris Law The gospels are not eyewitness accounts . They were written between 4 and 7 decades after the supposed death of Jesus so you would certainly need a huge amount of faith to think any of it were true.
Licona only had one argument and he kept referring to it like it was a “gospel truth”. He wasn’t conversational at all and came off wooden. Bart’s patience was astounding during the question period.
@@Murcans-worship-felons it’s just like when people experience demons.. you can’t scientifically prove it but if there is enough corroborated data & claims.. it’s proved to be true. Jesus’ resurrection is supported by many claims. And I’m definitely trash without God that’s for sure.
0:55 Intro by a student 4:05 Another Intro by Moderator Brian Swain 10:56 Mike Licona 30:43 Bart Ehrman 51:30 Mike - second round 1:04:20 Bart - second round 1:16:45 Mike - third round (repeats the second round) 1:25:12 Bart - third round (differences in the gospels) 1:34:01 Moderator under crossfire :) 1:34:37 Mike shoots - secretary argument 1:36:20 Bart responds and shoots back - not a single translating secretary 1:39:39 1:42:03 Poor Moderator :) 1:42:52 Says a word :))) please 1:43:00 Bart shoots - Mike Responds and he believes in Zombies :)) just joking. 1:45:43 Mike accepts contradictions and mistakes in the Bible 1:47:47 Mike responds with time compression. Bart shoots, no a place compression? Who is right - Luke or John? 1:48:45 Mike accepts potential errors 1:48:50 Bart asks: How many inaccurate instances? 1:48:55 Mike responds: wife argument :)) 1:49:21 Bart - map argument and are the Gospels reliable? Mike responds: they are not a map - biographies. 1:49:53 MODERATOR ROCKS HERE
1:50:20 Closing statement by Mike (summary of second round plus a mini sermon) 1:55:03 Closing statement by Bart - Gospel authors are anonymous 1:56:36 Blog advertisement (which I didn't like it being promoted so long) 1:58:00 Not interested in changing your personal religious views 2:00:42 Moderator - Final Portion - Questions from audience 2:01:30 Question to Mike - historical evidence of scribal tampering that became canon? (aka any added bits into the bible?) 2:03:01 Question to Bart - your view on miracles? It's a matter of faith 2:06:20 Question to Mike - reference for divinity of Jesus in other Gospels? 2:09:40 Question to Bart - Historical plausibility of crucifixion 2:13:50 Question to Mike - Nicodemus' Conversation with Jesus. Born again thing? 2:16:32 The only woman that spoke on this debate up to this minute (definitely not many women are interested in this debate :) - Question to Mike: Are you throwing the baby with bathwater :) Start and claims of the early church - visions of disciples 2:21:13 Question to Mike: How did Jesus view the Hebrew Old Testament? 2:23:38 Question to Bart: Crucifixion 2:25:08 to be continued...
Having met Mike before he is a very nice guy and I respect his ability to have a civil & friendly debate. Having said that I don’t think he makes very convincing points and would say Ehrman won fairly effortlessly.
My question for Licona is: How do we determine which miracles in the Gospels are actual history, and which one are just artistic additions (like the zombie incident)? He already admitted the zombies were artistic, despite being described as a miracle (which could easily be interpreted as "real" if it weren't for how crazy it was). So doesn't that call all the other miracles into question? What criteria is he using to determine that the other miracles are accurate once we have concluded at least one is not? And shouldn't we approach the other claims with much more skepticism once one has already been deemed false?
That's what scholars like Ehrman do for a living. Basically analyze and study the NT and related documents. Typically they work with the oldest actual manuscript copies.
Yes, you are correct. Christians never have an answer for the people who rose from the grave at the resurrection. Also, it took 1500 years to write the bible, so why did it take only 7 days to do the creation?
@Miles Doyle Seriously? You expect me to read all that? If you're going to get your message out there you're going to have to learn how to be succinct.
You guys are both highly intelligent and listening to you exchanging opinions and ideas is always extremely enjoyable and enlightening. Been following to you both since your first debate and its a priviledge to be able to see you sharing the podium once again.
The problem with Ehrman is he's using tired old scholarship that's been corrected for about a decade now, namely that Herod died in 3 BCE and resorts to speculative conspiracy theories like Luke and the others lied about where Christ was born for religious reasons. Why no one calls him out on this is amazing to me. _Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29(29)_ PDF FREE ONLINE We have better data now that fits 1 BCE clearing up unnecessary problems that the problematic traditional dates bring. Plugging in the new date allows us to identify the star of Bethlehem and track what it was doing in the sky with astronomical software which Matthew describes perfectly and fitting in with Luke's account and even the astronomical information John provides in Rev 12.1-2. The new timeline answers many lingering problems just as you would expect from an accurate solution. The 3 BCE date on the other hand causes problems, and again we don't have to clutch at unfounded conspiracy theories. I give more info in my posts on this board. Ehrman is either ignorant or something else like playing to the media bia$ Peace in Yeshua (openthematrix*wordpress*com)
@@AllOtherNamesUsed bart spews verbal clickbait for people who desperately want christianity to be false. he is in a very small minority on many of his views listed here.
@@AllOtherNamesUsed Just because you have an article doesn't mean it debunks the consensus or corrects the date. That's not how scholarship works, the consensus is still that Herod died in 4 BCE.
@@somniumisdreaming I'm talking about in academic, unchristian circles. The way he talks about corruption of the new testament is misleading, he writes books about "misquoting Jesus", but most textual critics and in fact Erhman himself (in his debate with James White) admits that we are just tinkering with the text and that we have the vast majority of it uncorrupted.
U missed the point Bart is applying how we write now and saying the people in the past should write and record how we write and record. That was liconas point
@@r.a.panimefan2109 you missed the point. Something is either accurate or inaccurate, it reflects what actually happened or it does not, it is the only question of interest. Not whether or not it gets a passing grade compared to other ancient near east histories.
@@AS-sn5gfagreed. The map example which Bart gave is the clearest for me. To say, yeah but the map makers at the times did their best for map makers at the time, doesn’t make it an accurate map. Then we have 4 maps for the same region, that contradict each other. One or none of them can be accurate, but not all.
No divine claims outside John?... the same kind of story is in Mark 2, with forgiving sins... and Mark was the first Gospel written very closely after Jesus' death
The map analogy pretty much sums up the two sides of the debate. E: Can I use it to navigate from point A to point B? L: They didn't have satellites back then but they're the best maps that could be produced.
The best of a bad group of things doesn’t mean it’s good. I fully agree that the New Testament is the best attested ancient document in history. But even though it is the best, it is still poor, in that we actually have very few 1st century copies and so many manuscript variations among all copies that it truly is difficult to reconstruct the original with 100% accuracy. I agree that we probably have a 99% idea of what the original authors wrote (assuming the earliest copies we have weren’t already changed by the time they were copied). But just the fact that we have better records for Jesus than Julius Caesar (or Alex the Great), doesn’t mean we have *good* records. The best of a bad set of maps does not imply a good map.
I think the map analogy is kind of interesting. Maybe a town name on the map is misspelled; Maybe a river has a few meanders that the map doesn’t. But if the map gets you where you need to go, and has the essentials right, what’s the problem with a few errors? Old maps of the Americas look odd, but they’ve got the general layout right. I feel like that’s what we’ve got in the gospels; Not an exact, bedrock recounting of events, but a reconstruction of the general truth of the events.
@@brebeaa what's your proof the map gets you where you need to go? The gospel writers don't even agree on the names of the twelve disciples. Seems like a key point. Much more important: does Jesus say divorce is okay or not? In Matthew he says under no circumstances. Other places he says there are exceptions for infidelity. The map gets you lost on many key points
@@brebeaa Most crucial for Christians, why does Mark end with an empty tomb, not anything about a resurrection? It being the earliest gospel, why did it leave out this key detail? And yes, a quick line was added about it, but by a later editor, presumably worried about this startling omission.
@@darrenkeast1543 Remember, Paul’s letters predate the Gospels, and the Resurrection is front and center in his writings. Mark’s aim, funnily enough, might not have been to retell the resurrection, but to shed more light on Jesus’ life, aspects of which may have been less discussed, and early Christians wanted to know more about. It seems odd to us leaving out the resurrection, and it obviously did to later Christians as well, thus the added ending to Mark.
I haven't finished the whole debate yet but I think it's hard when they both have different opinions on "reliable", I don't think a typo makes a text unreliable, but I would also like to gather all the parts that Ehrman consider to be "reliable" and see what is the story it tells.
I wouldnt even bother reading Nabeel Qureshi's biography after listening to Mike @1:17:59 . Not only did he say his book in not historically accurate, but he has proven Nabeel to be a liar.
Nabeel was a liar, he said he was a Muslim before converting to Christianity, he wasn't, he was Ahmadi/Qadiani (a cult that branched out of Islam in the 19th century)
This was a great debate, both people very knowledgeable, but Mike goes through all kinds of mental acrobatics to try to explain all the contradictions!
He seems to think that these were acceptable literary differences for Greco-Roman biographies written around the time. Were there any other mental acrobatics?
Good video, informative from both sides. Mildly disappointing that more time wasn't spent directly on the heart of each other's objections, but I still learned a few things.
Mike, I would love to ask you a question. Of your 6 criteria you present, the first is that the authors intended to write an accurate historical account of the gospels. You also repeatedly acknowledge that there are many passages in the gospels that are not supposed to be read as if they were written as an accurate historical account of events. How do you determine which parts are intended to be read as an account of the events and which parts are not?
If they read the gospels side by side and not start to finish they would be shocked at the differences in the stories, and acts account too. Don't believe it? Try it
He just finagles around it and formulates it to make sense to him and speaks in hypotheticals. Any way you can cling to this ridiculous religion. Absolute joke. It’s downright scary that people actually believe in this stuff. Just shows how far we really are from being advanced and ready for real change and progress as a species
@@smoothtwh No sir, not in this particular case where this word is supposed to be from a supernatural deity. You can't have it both ways. Either this came from God or man. If from a god, then there shouldn't be all these different perspectives. There should be only ONE perspective and all of it should be the same. If it were derived purely from man then that would be an acceptable argument
Christian position: we can explain away, one by one, all those thousands of discrepancies, together with the moral and scientific fallacies in the Bible. But the Bible is nevertheless inerrant and the true word of God. ML's statements about Matthew 27:52 that ends at around 1:45:00 best represents this stance: the zombies didn't happen, but the Gospel is still accurate. In my opinion, people who allow themselves to be driven by such reasoning (or lack thereof) have serious problems with their understanding of what truth means and how to understand the world around us and, more important probably, inside ourselves.
That's unnecessary and just gratuitous . People are very very kind up in this. Their lives are dedicated above anything. They are GOOD people for the most part. They have been told the Book has no discrepancies since they are in baby bible class over nd over until they go to college and then most still believe it if they go to parochial schools. Be nicer man. Their lives are all about this.
@@ramigilneas9274 Well, Christianity is the religion with the best evidence. What evidence ????? You may have Faith, But NOT Facts In the sixties I was hoping that religion would whither away with all the Scientific knowledge we have today, that they didn't have millennia ago But the again there are those Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Jeremiah 5:21 KJV
I think I see what's going on here. Licona seemed only interested in debating whether the gospel writers were at fault or culpable for the appearance of errors in the gospels, rather than talking about the actual reliability of the content of the gospels in relation to what actually happened. Personally I don't care whether they were following methodologies that were accepted in their day or not. That's not what the debate was about - yet Licona seemed convinced it was. If they were following methodologies that are today known to lead to historical inaccuracies - then yeah that's a big problem! A simple thought experiment will show the error. Suppose the ancient world had methodologies that allowed falsehoods to be written as though they were fact. I'm not claiming this was the case but I'm simply using a contrived fictional example to demonstrate the point. By following such methodologies, a writer could portray a series of events, none of which occurred at all, and yet still be classified as "adhering strictly to the best standard of historical method for their time". But was their writing accurate according to what actually happened? no. Conversely they could have written a 100% historically accurate account that was graded poorly in their day for not adhering to their broken standards. It absolutely matters TO US whether the events really happened as described, and it absolutely doesn't matter what the ancient standard of historiography was! The second point I found really strange was that in the back and forth questioning, Licona seemed to keep asking Ehrman for evidence AGAINST his (Licona's) views, as if his (Licona's) opinion was somehow true by default (simply because he found it "plausible"). Ehrman was not using an argument from silence to say something didn't happen - he was using the silence to show that the evidence Licona's claim required was missing! A claim is only as good as the evidence it is based on. You don't get to assume things and then say that because no one can prove it false, or because there is no evidence to the contrary, therefore it may as well be true. I don't care how plausible you think it is. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Meanwhile an argument from silence is perfectly valid if silence is not what we should reasonably expect. Licona seemed to fail basic logic on several occasions here, which was quite disappointing. Sorry to be all one-sided, but I've heard plenty from Ehrman before and he pretty much stuck to his usual points here. He was a lot more consistent and didn't do any awkward dance when asked direct questions about errors in the Bible...sorry. Yes I'm biased but I offer the above to help people see what I felt were two massive issues with the debate.
it's actually kind of impressive to watch Christians "spin" versus in the bible to say whatever it is that they want it to say. Starting around 1:44:50. Also, how can someone think that something did not happen but also say that the same thing is also accurate??
GavinN As a Christian theist, I am thoroughly disgusted with Mike's game playing... The plain text provides the obvious data and shows that The Bible is historically inaccurate internally. Mike just looks at it and says no, it is accurate using various flip flam self-serving types of arguments - Which are solely the product of his own fantasy. No wonder Trump and televangelists can grift off of religious people...😖
Bart was sprinting to say everything within the time limit. Mike had so much time and so little to say, he rehashed constantly to pad his time, and wasted literal minutes saying one word. They both had the same amount of time, but Bart said so much more. It really says something about the content of their respective messages that Mike needed to burn time and Bart had to carefully manage his.
You know, debates are a funny thing. As someone who has spent the last two decades engaged in written debates with people across the spectrum, from laypeople to academics, I find it rather easy to separate the question of who won a debate from the question of who had the better case or argument. A couple days ago, I watched a debate on the same topic between Ehrman and Peter Williams and I would say that Ehrman pretty clearly won that debate, in spite of the fact that I think Peter had the better case. The problem was that he failed to present it in its strongest form and failed rather spectacularly in effectively calling out all of Ehrman's bad and misleading arguments (some of which I pointed out in my comments on that debate). The reason I mention this is to say that if I thought Ehrman actually won this debate, I would have no problem saying it, even though I'm closer to Mike's position than Ehrman's. But in my view, Ehrman didn't win this debate. If I had to declare a winner I'd give it to Licona by a narrow margin. Licona could have won it by a larger margin if he had been more effective in pointing out Ehrman's bad arguments and done a better job of explaining why his framework for judging historical reliability in the context of scripture was a more reasonable one than Ehrman's. He didn't do a _bad_ job of explaining why his framework was the right one, but I think he missed several opportunities to make the point more forcefully and to point out how Ehrman was misrepresenting the import of certain differences and holding contradictory positions. I tend to think that the people who know less about the subject matter and who are less familiar with the rhetorical dynamics of debate are the ones who are more likely to be impressed with Ehrman's presentation and more critical of Licona's. I understand why that it is, but I'd say they're mistaken. If someone believes Ehrman narrowly edged out Licona then I'd shrug my shoulders at that (even though I score it the other way around), but if someone thinks that Ehrman "destroyed" Licona ... well, I guess this _is_ youtube.
@@chad969 - Well, I think that depends on what you mean by "contradictions". Ehrman has a squishy and inconsistent definition of "contradiction". Sometimes he accurately acknowledges that an actual contradiction between sources consists of one claiming A and the other claiming Not-A in the same sense. However, at other times, when it suits him, he tries to get away with claiming a contradiction consists of one source claiming A and the other claiming B, even when A and B can be sensibly harmonized. And sometimes he properly acknowledges the first definition but then improperly cites examples that actually fall under the second definition. People don't really tend to point to legitimate examples of the Bible claiming both A and Not-A _in the same sense_ but I would say that we definitely find examples of one source claiming A and the other claiming B where A and B can be harmonized. But with that having been said, we come to the more interesting question of whether or not there are cases of A and B where they _cannot_ be harmonized. I would say we probably have some of _these_ cases, but even if we _do_ have such cases, this is where we get into the importance of the point that Licona drew out about the literary conventions of the day and which Ehrman wrongly tried to dismiss. As Licona pointed out, the literary and narrative conventions of the 1st century were not the same as those of scientific historical writings in the 21st century (though we still make use of some similar conventions in more informal contexts), and determinations of "accuracy" were based on what it was that the author was intending to record and convey. Again, as Licona pointed out, it was not unusual for authors to rearrange the order of certain events to draw out themes, or to condense timelines, or combine multiple similar events into one. These conventions would not necessarily have rendered the narrative "inaccurate" unless the author's purpose was specifically to accurately convey _those_ aspects of the narrative. But if the author's intent was merely to accurately record and convey the _content_ of the events and the dialog they were writing about so their readers had an accurate record of the messages conveyed and their import, then a precisely accurate recounting of the mechanical details surrounding the matters of primary interest would not have been considered vital to judging the account as "accurate". In other words, other people who were actually aware of those precise details and read the author's narrative employing the conventions of their time would not have said, "Hey, this thing is totally inaccurate! You fraud!" The implication of the above is that we can find multiple accounts of a single event or set of events in the Bible that appear to be in tension with each other in some of their details, and they may genuinely be, but what we're usually seeing in these cases are simply examples of the conventions mentioned above. For example, one writer might give a detailed and technically accurate recounting of multiple events, in multiple locations, spanning over an extended period of time, because his purpose and intent is to make a record of all those comings and goings _along with_ the content and import of the events. Another writer, however, might recount the same series of events where his intent is more focused on their content and meaning rather than their location and time-span, so he may employ the conventions of his day and condense the timeline, the locations and even the number of events themselves to more expeditiously convey their content and import. The end result will be two accounts of the same events that differ in their logistical details, and sometimes markedly so, and yet they do not properly constitute contradictions in the sense that critics intend and would not have been considered contradictory in their own time. Attempting to label them as contradictory or "inaccurate" as Ehrman does is misleading because it judges them not _just_ by 21st century _standards_, but by the _intent_ of 21st century scientific historical chronicling, which Ehrman admits he is doing. But acting as a purely scientific historical chronicle was not the purpose of the Bible, and the very exacting sort of detail associated with that kind of scientific work simply was not necessary to the Bible's purpose in most cases ... and certainly not in _every_ case. Of course, that's not to say that the Bible never gets into that kind of territory. Rather, my point is that if one account of events _does_ approach that territory and another account makes use of the literary conventions of the day to convey the meaning of those events in a different way or to draw out a different theme, that doesn't mean the two accounts legitimately contradict each other. We might say that one of the accounts is technically inaccurate with respect to the logistics, but that wouldn't mean that that account was _in error_ or that it was "inaccurate" in the broader and more meaningful context of its actual intent. So to come back to your original question, no, I don't personally think there are contradictions in the NT in the sense that critics mean because of all the ones that I've seen people try to cite over the years, I just haven't found them convincing. They always tend to be examples of 'both A and B' where either A and B can be reasonably harmonized or are simply the result of one writer employing common literary conventions that the other is not. More rarely they may point out a likely scribal error in a number. And in some cases they may cite what they genuinely think are examples of 'both A and Not-A' but the statements they cite are not _in the same sense_ and so aren't really contradictions after all. Take care
@@hekskey Would you be up for a friendly discussion about this topic over Skype or google hangouts? If not that's totally fine, I'm happy to respond here in the comments. I just kind of prefer live conversation
@@chad969 - Hi Chad. My schedule is too all over the place right now for a live conversation on this ... especially because 20 years of discussing this (and a bunch of other) stuff tells me that any serious discussion on these topics ends up being extensive. If you want to have the conversation in writing in a place more conducive to in-depth discussion I can set up a sub-forum on my site (private or public, whichever you prefer) and then we can each contribute as we have time. But I want to be up-front about the fact that I'm really pressed for time right now between multiple projects, so I can't guarantee how much time I would have to dedicate to the discussion over the next few months. Take care
Wonderful debate! Dr. Licona’s argument for a “gist” of what happened isn’t convincing. A gist isn’t reliable evidence to support a case for Jesus’s resurrection; after all, that is the central issue here regarding the historicity of the gospels. That event is the only thing that matters in Christianity, if Christ didn’t rise from the dead, your faith is in vain. I think this is why the historicity of the gospels is crucial to the faith. Dr. Ehrman makes a clear and concise case that we cannot claim the gospels as historical; if there are embellishments, what other events could be embellished? Both gentlemen are obviously well versed in this subject and I enjoyed learning from them.
This is obviously not a debate about the resurrection, I hope you are just joking that it is the only important thing that the Gospels and Christianity deal with, also I have seen from Ehrman that he only deals with some petty contradictions that may not be contradictions and has some extreme skepticism that is clearly wrong.
@kenandzafic3948 Indeed. Ehrman wants to take revenge on God who seemingly, cannot prevent pain and suffering. And let's rip at every opportunity to push his case. For example, his assumptions on oral transmission are wrong! People before printing press, had developed a strong memory for remembering long sequences of events. Rather like mental arithmetic was powerful before the advent of calculators!
Seems as though, Licona literally uploaded an example of "Trolling" It's as if he knows he is trying to lose the debate. Just to tell us later, that it was his plan to say the opposite of what makes sense, just to test for gullible people.
Wow, all love and respect to Bart and Mike for this! That rapid fire portion was excellent! The fact Bart kept repeating his questions rather than engaging with Mike’s answers was really interesting since Bart was so much better rhetorically throughout the debate. It was a missed opportunity to push Mike on his answers…yet he didn’t and it showed the deeper thinker on said nuances, at least through this interaction, was Licona. Again, massive respect to both of you! Keep pushing each other to be the best scholars you can be! :)
@Ruben O. Ehrman has an easier position. Simply raise skepticism. Being an armchair critic is so frustrating to listen to so many dubious claims from Ehrman go unanswered.
@@simaoluis9443 I think the point here is, there are many who repeatedly address his and other claims. See Habermas on essentials list. Reasons to Believe, so many more. What I see over time, is Bart tends to just like was commented above, claim extreme skepticism, (extreme because there's basically NO give) ALL or Nothing, is what Bart seems to be looking for. I don't know if an actual encounter with the risen 'zombie' Jesus would make him bow a knee. Bart knows there are reasonable explanations to his questions, yet finds more and more questions, and seems to push reasonable possibilities aside. That's an option and an example of our free will ❤️
2:28:53 Prof. Ehrman basically denies that Paul could have spoken in Aramaic to the Apostles Acts 22:1-2 has Paul communicating to his fellow Aramaic speaking Jews in Aramaic: 1“Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you.” 2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said, This is the textual parallel evidence: Acts 22:2. προσεφώνει: only in Luke and Paul, except Matthew 11:16, cf. Matthew 6:13; Matt 7:32; Matthew 13:12; Matthew 23:20, Matthew 21:40, see Friedrich, p. 29, for the frequency of other compounds of φωνεῖν in Luke.-μᾶλλον παρ. ἡσυχ: the phrase is used similarly in Plut., Coriol., 18, Dion Hal., ii., 32, and LXX, Job 34:29; on the fondness of St. Luke for σιγή, σιγᾶν, ἡσυχάζειν, and the characteristic way in which silence results from his words and speeches, or before or during the speech, see Friedrich, p. 26, cf. Luke 14:4; Luke 15:26, Acts 11:18; Acts 15:12, Acts 12:17; Acts 21:40, and for ἡσυχάζειν, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, Luke 14:4, Acts 11:18; Acts 21:14, so too παρέχειν with accusative of the thing offered by any one, Acts 19:24, Acts 28:2 (Acts 16:16). The verb is used only in Matthew 26:10, and parallel, Mark 14:6, except in Luke and Paul, Luke 6:29; Luke 7:4; Luke 11:7; Luke 18:5, Acts 16:16; Acts 17:31, and as above, and five times in St. Paul’s Epistles. Paul speaking Aramaic is a relative certain event, and most scholars agree with this and Dr. Ehrman knows it. I am sorry Dr. Ehrman, one of my favorite professor but you fell short yet again here.
It is refreshing to see a debate, especially one on a divisive topic, be conducted civilly and talking “with” each other and not “at” each other. I think people will say the victor is whoever they most identify with. It is debates like this that give me hope that we as a society can have differing and very strong ideas but we can legitimately talk about them together
1:37:48 There is nothing wrong with Bart's question(s) here. It is not "a complex question" in the informal fallacy sense. It is an annoying "Yes" or "No" type question....the kind that politicians hate. Where the person answering gives an answer..... but refuses to use the word "Yes" or "No" and then actually believes they have answered. This is a problem. Ask any attorney whos done depositions. "Is it the case that the New Testament has errors? Yes or No?" Even if Bart doesn't like or understand Mike's explanation after Mike gives a "Yes" or "No" answer, Mike himself knows his own reasons for his "Yes" or "No" answer. However, after this many years of professional work on the topic, he just won't answer this "Yes" or "No" question with a "Yes" or "No" answer. BTW, Bart didn't add anything to the original question till Mike balked on answering it (rewind the tape...as they used to say). Maps, etc. have no bearing on Bart's initial question (which was simple and direct). The closest conclusion we have from Mike here is (in the context of this being his life's work) is "I don't know." The same incident happened in his debate with Richard Howe (almost cut and paste) when he was pressed on the same "Yes" or "No" question. If you watch that debate, Mike answers with everything but a "Yes" or "No" (on same basic topic) . I wish Mike would be more forthright (not here...but on the debate platform) and give a solid "Yes" or "No" answer to this answerable "Yes" or "No" question. His current answer (unless he's changed and I don't know it) sounds too much like Bill Clinton answering a "Yes" or "No" question from Ken Starr
@@sonnyfleming904 Cool! So for attorneys doing depositions, are they seeking the objective Truth when asking said questions? :) NOTE: I have more to say, but I want to start slow if thats ok with you.
It's amazing how Licona is able to complete the entire debate without conveying a single thought or statement that would convince a reasonable person of the truth of anything he says.
I agree. Not just in debates. Even in his sermons to his congregations, he would supposedly present evidences for his arguments but end up not giving a single convincing proof. He would just go round and round the topic.
Michael Lacona completely biffs in his response regarding Bart's opening statement Bart's opening statement is not meant to challenge anything of michael's opening statement I'm really surprised that Michael doesn't understand one of the most basic elements of debate.
I’m a reasonable person who seeks truth, and I fail to see how Mike Licona didn’t contribute anything relevant to the debate. At best, both debaters gave probability arguments in regards to the New Testament
Can’t have it both ways theists, either it’s the perfect Word of God and should be judged as such, with an expectation of perfection, OR it’s just another translated historical document and should be judged that way, same as any other ancient religious text, interesting for its historical significance but not to be taken seriously regarding its fantastic claims. So which is it??
Mike's arguments are based on What If...and then he spins his fantasies. Bart, on the other hand, deals with What Is...and then presents evidence. Mike lives in a fantasy world of his own making.
He was raised in this from the cradle. He knows nothing but this. He didn't create this in his head...it was put there and he can't help it UNTIL he can help it. His parents before him can't help it. Be nice to people.
What do you expect from people that follow or believe a faith that a god create its own creation then incarnate come down to earth to sacrifice him for his own creations
Perhaps this is simply a lack of comprehension on my part, which may be remedied by further study of Licona’s work, but I don’t understand how Licona’s concession that John did “theologize history” (my words) by placing Jesus’ death on the day of the Passover isn’t a concession that the Gospels (at least John) aren’t historically reliable. It follows from this concession that one or both of the Synoptics and John present an incorrect picture of when Jesus actually died. Therefore, the Gospels do not provide a historically reliable account of Jesus’ death.
His argument is that historians from the 1st Century CE often manipulated various parts of the biographies they wrote. And that this was widely know and accepted by their audiences. Since the gospels come from the same era we should not expect them to match our standard of biography and history.
@@aspektx Which is precisely why we cannot accept the Gospels as historically accurate. Licona is making Ehrman's point for him. The Gospels were written by men who took liberties with the material. By definition then, they are not accurate. The fact that the practice was accepted at the time is irrelevant.
@@kylerichardson1242 I was not attempting to say that they were reliable. This was simply an historical insight that I found interesting. What I posted does not suggest that they are reliable. Unless someone were to read into it they're personal fears or concerns.
Most people reasonably question resurrection, but I question God dying in the first place. "No claims of being God until 65 years later...". That was all I needed to hear. All made up. 1:14:25
So Licona's argument apparently is, "Nobody in those days could write history accurately, so, because the gospels are inaccurate, like histories in those days, we should trust them". Sorry guy. That's pathetic.
Very courageous of Mike Licona to post this debate. But VERY courageous of him. Dr Bart knowledge is impressive and had no opponent on the other side this time around.
Mike makes the mistake most apologist do! They confuse "Not conclusively disproven" with "probable". Nobody cares if you can find 1 million excuses why evidence is not sufficient. Evidence is still not sufficient. Nice debate thought.
The egregious error here is economy. What's implausible about John hiring a scribe to write the Gospel which sharply deviates from the synoptics?!? The injection of such a proposition violates economy. Why should we make such a proposition in the first place? It's simply desperate apologetics masquerading as scholarship.
Evidence is not sufficient for Mike Licona because he can't bring himself to admit that his entire life's work and mission has been based on a lie. So he tries frantically to convince himself that the Resurrection of Jesus happened at least - so that he can say to himself: "No matter what else in the Bible is false, if I can hold onto that, then my faith is not in vain!" And I bet his stupid and blatantly deceptive friend William Craig has to keep REASSURING Licona of the so-called "historical" evidence for Jesus's resurrection. I wonder whether the same ludicrous methods that William Craig and Mike Licona use would convince them that Joan of Arc was physically visited by St. Catherine and St. Margaret and the Archangel Michael, or that Bernadette of Soubiros saw the Virgin Mary. Mike ADMITTED once that he could not accept Catholic apparitions, but of course everyone is supposed to believe the Resurrected Jesus apparition. They are just self-serving hypocritical liars who conveniently pick what advances their own position of power in their communities, while dismissing everything else as unimportant or irrelevant.
I've never read a book about the Holocaust, written 40+ years after Holocaust recording detailed dialogues in different language when they were not eye witnesses. That my friend is the litmus test to the Gospels. Any person who wrote something about the Holocaust the way I just described would be told they're making it up. Yet the Gospels get treated differently. Why?
@Pete Kondolios BTW - has anyone considered that the snake in the fable 1) doesnt has neither vocal chords to speak nor ears to hear the replies 2) actually told the truth as Adam and Eve was told by God if they ate from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil they would surely die, i.e. right then, but they didnt ........
@Pete Kondolios you just assume and assert that such a being exist, when in reality there is literally no evidence that they do , just some fables written by people who didnt know where the sun went at night? And if the devil really exist and would be the one person who would know exactly gods maximal power first hand, but spookily just doesnt care, he basically tweaks gods nose every second of the day by inflicting terrible sorrow and evil across the globe. Either God can't do anything to stop him or we must deduce that he likes what is going on. so which is it? God is either not omnipotent or is callous? He also knows in advance that evil will the carried out as he is apparently omniscient so its even worse ..........so when you hear on the news about a little girl abducted , raped and casually drowned , please be aware, under YOUR theology god knows it will happen and did nothing. Again, this is not my theology, it's yours.
@Pete Kondolios ahhh so it was that 6 year old girl free will that so was raped ? Got it.....makes sense now . God knew she was would be abducted , knew she would would tied up, various video cameras angles would be meticulously organised and his revolting chums around the world will pay to watch as all sorts of debauchery goes on for hours , until its finally over and no-one has heard her screams , her pleading , sometimes to god , for it to stop.......but nothing . Then she is driven to secluded place and held under water until dead , but hey, its all good , because she had free will? Thats a sick proposition that you have been fed, to have a ready made solution that defects any criticism of god back onto us, without actually thinking it through. So next time to hear about something truly evil going on, such as I describe above, why not go round to the parents, tell them it was all her fault and see where your free will argument gets you
@Pete Kondolios ...I was waiting on that Free WILL bullcrap! There it goes. Of course it's man's fault and man's FREE WILL to do it. We naturally have free will...duh! Stop chasing this around the bush and answer the damn question! Either god had the ability to stop it or he didn't. Which is it?
@Pete Kondolios Then the god character is an asshole. Plain and simple. Luckily for us, we have no good reason to believe that such an awful entity exists. That is all...as you were.
Bart’s work made me a Christian because he doesn’t disagree with what we believe honestly he just reverts to hyper skepticism. And remember, Bart is a non believer not because of Biblical issues rather the problem of suffering/evil
The problem of evil is a Biblical issue. Predestination is a Biblical issue. The problem of slavery both indenture and non-indenture. Christians are hyper skeptical of other religious experiences. William Lane Craig has constantly said that what Muslims or Mormons believe to be their conception of being moved by the Spirit is demonic. Christians play by double standards and look away when things get hard.
I don't know where Bart is getting that Jesus was in shock and that Jesus didn't know what was going on when he ended up being crucified. “From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!” Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” Matthew 16:21-22, 24 NET. “Then Jesus began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke openly about this. So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. Then Jesus called the crowd, along with his disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” Mark 8:31-32, 34 NET. “saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to them all, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.” Luke 9:22-23 NET 01:32:00 Also, seems to me Jesus quotes from Psalm 22 because he is showing how this entire thing was already written about and that he was fulfilling the scripture: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? I groan in prayer, but help seems far away. All who see me taunt me; they mock me and shake their heads. They say, “Commit yourself to the Lord! Let the Lord rescue him! Let the Lord deliver him, for he delights in him.” Many bulls surround me; powerful bulls of Bashan hem me in. They open their mouths to devour me like a roaring lion that rips its prey. My strength drains away like water; all my bones are dislocated; my heart is like wax; it melts away inside me. The roof of my mouth is as dry as a piece of pottery; my tongue sticks to my gums. You set me in the dust of death. Yes, wild dogs surround me - a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet. I can count all my bones; my enemies are gloating over me in triumph. They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments.” Psalms 22:1, 7-8, 12-18 NET bible.com/bible/107/psa.22.1-18.NET (And I think Bart understands this…how could he miss it and why didn’t Mike hit on this particularly either)
@Mike Licona Came back after 2 month, rewatched it 5 times, I still don't get it. What is your point? That the OT-writers made stuff up but then didn't really? Because your explanation for why it's accurate is exactly why it's inaccurate...
Excellent debate by both scholars. I'm well familiar with Professor Bart Ehrman's books where he presents very interesting points about the contradictions among the gospels. He's not the first individual to bring these inconsistencies out in the open, and I personally find it liberating when I accept them as such instead of trying to justify them through improbable assumptions. After all, the power of the gospel of Jesus is not dependent upon the historical accuracy of the Bible, but its ability to change lives as it still does today.
If the gospel of Jesus is historically inaccurate and can be shown as such, it has no more ability to change lives than does Mother Goose. What you would be left with is an account of someone (who may or may not of existed) who told his followers to be nice to one another. Good advice, but hardly inspirational.
Interesting. I've only read Licona's books, and found the comparisons he made between the differences in the gospels and differences between recounting the same events in Plutarch's lives. He's very long winded, but I do like the evidence he gives.
People who red the Koran will exactly understand what Bart Ehrman is talking about. Allah the allmighty says in his last revelation. "So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (Holy Koran 5/13)
@@gottfriedhimmel3150 The Koran says Jesus never died on the cross, that event was corroborated by Cornelius Tacitus, called Rome's greatest historian.
@@paulcorrea1613and What'd you expect historians to end a biography with? He left without a trace? How many biographies did you know ending that way? Zero. That's say that of course, but read their accounts, you'll know they're all confused
I completely agree. Shows that all the historians have a personal bias. And in the end it's mostly opinion. Thats why i rather call this a discussion. Cause in the end the audience side with who they think has the better opinion.
I totally agree! People will try to tear Mike apart but his points demolish Bart! Bart makes the gross error of holding ancient literature (inspired by God nonetheless) to a 21st court transcript standard. That makes NO Sense!
Interesting thought. I like that. I would agree, because Ehrman does reference something different when talking about 'reliable' and Licona continually returns back to 'we aren't comparing apples and oranges.'
"This debate isn't really a debate." *True, 'slaughter; is more appropriate. Poor Mike.* "They just have two different definitions of "historically reliable"." *Yes, one rational and one irrational. Poor Mike.*
I pity Mike Licona. Despite all the evidence stacked against his worldview, he stubbornly and willfully refuses to accept them and tries so hard to rationalize his little doctrinal box, which is a man-made belief system inherited from 2nd-3rd century church fathers. Mike Licona and other apologists remind me of this verse in the gospel of John 12: 42 Nevertheless, many of the leaders believed in Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. 43For they loved praise from men more than praise from God. 99% of evangelicals are ignorant of all this stuff, and the minority like Licona and other apologists, despite knowing all these, they cannot admit they are true, because that means they will have to forfeit their little evangelical friend circle and get labeled as heretic by their evangelical friends.
@Miles Doyle you can quote the Scripture anytime you want , but I can guarantee you. no matter how much you pray, how many bible studies you attend, how many worship songs you sing, how many sermons you listen to, it won't prevent people from being born with down syndrome and neurofibromatosis, it won't prevent Mexican cartels from dismembering people, it won't prevent racist people from hating, bullying, marginalizing other people, it won't prevent bullying and suicide, it won't prevent komodo dragon from eating deer alive, it won't prevent rape, murder. You can quote the Scripture all you want and quote something fancy from John Piper, CS Lewis or Tim Keller, but none of that does anything to alleviate the suffering and the pain of this world. majority of American Christians are privileged middle class people who never have to wrestle with poverty, racism, war, and they just go to the same spot once a week, sitting in a pew and just passively listening to the same guy talk for an hour or two, then just scurry back to the parking lot full of luxury cars without bothering to get to know each other. maybe once a week they gather and have some potluck and pray over their first world problems like "my gf broke up with me", and discussing childish things like "is having sex before marriage a sin", "is voting for Democratic party against God's will". what's the point of discussing a few verses with people that look just like you, think just like you, and talk just like you, while doing nothing for homelessness or orphans. that's 99% of evangelical Christians for you. If there is a being more malevolent and sinister than Hitler, Stalin, or Kim Jong Un, that would be the creator of this world. I agree with Marcion that whoever created life on earth isn't worthy of being called god. demiurge is a more fitting title. There might be a transcendent god who created the entire universe, but I don't think that being is the same as the being that created life on earth, because I've never seen an engineer or a story writer as mediocre as the creator of life on earth. I hope the day comes when people start using the word "demiurge" to describe god more often, because he is not worthy of being called god for all the suffering and pain he caused upon this world. Likewise, I hope that Gnostics and Marcionites are right that there is a transcendent god other than the one that created this shit show of a planet. because the demiurge that created this mediocre planet deserves a much greater punishment than any war criminals throughout human history.
@@mattsmith6845 I know that comment above sort of stung a bit but try not to take it so personal. Insults won't help Mike Licona's arguments become any more valid. Sorry but it is what it is.
IamVickie Neither will conjecture prove Licona wrong. Your comment lacks substance and yet you pretend to know the truth above a highly intelligent scholar like Licona. Ehrman and Licona respect each other and each other’s views. Stop being an ass.
And how many times did you have to read it and study it before you were able to recite it 100% accurately ( and I would question if you can actually do it 100% correctly today). The point raised that the sermon was likely to have been a one off diatribe, and the last supper certainly was......there were no archavists recording what was said so tthe probabillity of either one being repeated verbatum is virtually impossible
Here is my biggest issue with Bart. He brings up the resurrection, says read the gospels for yourself, and then he goes to explain where things don't match up, but he contradicts the scripture. Instead of explaining how the gospels line up in a non-contradictory narrative, he totally throws things around. At the end of Luke, it is not saying that the disciples remained in Jerusalem and never left. It wasn't until Jesus was preparing to ascend that he told them to stay in the city until... He then proceeds to take them out of the city, as far as Bethany, and then ascends. Is this not a violation of what Jesus said, unless Jesus did not say what Bart says He said. I mean, after the resurrection, two of the disciples dared to leave the city. They then were walking with some person outside of the city, and later, while outside of the city, found out it was Jesus. Jesus never once asked them what they were doing outside of Jerusalem. Mark mentions these two in passing. There is no contradiction here, just different views of the same period of time. Nothing to see here. (Unless you want to fabricate something.) For the crucifixion, John as well as the other authors say Jesus was crucified and buried on a Friday, the day before Sabbath. In John, the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to help hasten the death of those being crucified and take them down so they wouldn't remain on the crosses on the Sabbath. That would place the crucifixion on a Friday. I do have questions as to exactly when the seder was supposed to happen, and did Jesus and His disciples observe the feast early? On Jesus birth, Luke omitted Jesus great adventure after going to Jerusalem, and jumped straight to Nazareth. Going by what Mike says, this is apparently something historical biographers/historians of the era did. Since both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus ended up in Nazareth, does this omission mean contradiction, or just leaving something out because it isn't part of what Luke wanted to cover in his book? (Matthew did a pretty good job of covering it.) There is a lot more then Bart was saying, and I'm surprised that Mike did not do a better job of showing there is no actual contradiction, just different authors with different audiences and intention in covering what they cover. John was written to a Jewish audience.
I agree with you. There is a lot one can say here, although Dr. Ehrman is very educated and his research is thorough, his approach is a post Enlightened approach of higher criticism of the scriptural narratives - nothing wrong or new with this approach, he does a very good job at showing supposed inconsistencies. But, are they real inconsistencies or apparent? I have taught history for years and there are scholars who have shown otherwise. I graduated with an M.A. in theological studies in 2004 from a seminary in reformed theology. There are many scholars and a lot of resources which take Dr. Licona's approach. I understood where Licona was coming from, I would not want to take his place. I would have to listen to the debate again in a new light, but I understood what he was saying. I was wishing he would go into more detail but Ehrman came ready with so much to the contrary that I didn't feel Licona was really really ready to take him on, but he did state his position and defended it. We live in a very skeptical age and unless one is aware that his approach a modern one, which extrapolates modern skepticism back, subjecting it to modern literary criticism, it will be easy to agree with him. I have heard him say things when being interviewed by others, I shake my head at some things he says - you can't always take this approach to everything in the biblical narratives.
😅😅😅 So you take your own time to contradict yourself, in order to disprove a scholar, it's embarrassing. Just do what he says, and see if you'll not see clear contradictions, anyways, you won't, because you're smoothly Ok with God's word being inaccurate, you believe it anyway
@@ralphjansen3563 that’s what the essence of the debate is about, because some part of the Bible isn’t God’s words, God Almighty doesn’t makes mistakes, he never forgets, so if a book claiming to be from God, and then has mistakes, you know definitely it’s not from God, but it’s men, who are writing these words claiming it’s from God, many have done this, and the Bible isn’t free from it, just few examples of errors in the bible Jesus’s alleged crucifixion, in John gospel it’s the day before the Passover meal, in Luke it’s the day after, of course God doesn’t make such mistake, He’ll accurately report the exact day, also, in 1 Timothy, God is said to be immortal, but Christians like Paul told us God became man and died. There are lots and lots of mistakes of even higher degree than these, listen to the debate to get some verses that shows clear contradiction, so if a book has mistakes claiming to be from God, you don’t expect us to believe it’s, then you’re blaspheming against God, I would rather posit that it’s from men, heresies, liars claiming to convey God’s words
@@morrisallensheriff5241 You show a lack of understanding of some things. God became a man, however, if you study what that means, Jesus was both God and man, both human and divine natures, both the Great High Priest, and the sacrifice in one body. God did not die. The flesh, the humanity of Christ bore our sin in sacrifice, and God, the divine nature, the High Priest, sanctified the sacrifice on the cross. SO while the flesh died, the spirit was alive, according to Peter. God did not die. When you start second guessing God, and believing that He is incapable of preserving for us His word, that is when you start making mistakes. As James White has said, the basic message that exists behind the words in scripture, the true message of God that exists beyond the words, yet through the words, remains unchanged. God's word has been preserved.
I love how, Licona's statement of rebuttal after listening to Erhman's cogent and persuasive argument, is that he had, in fact, only been arguing that the gospels give a "gist" of what happens - as was considered acceptable by ancient historians. Okay Mr L - you got your "gist" - now tell me how that doesn't equate to you being wrong, and Erhman being right? This is the difference between these two: Licona argues from comparisons (mostly either dubious or irrelevant) and uses circular reasoning where he begins with his conclusion and works backwards and never gives us any specific examples from the Gospels to back up his claims. He is also - possibly - deliberately disingenuous -- for example when he speaks of how events stay with us because they evoke powerful emotions (he uses a battle in Vietnam as an example) he uses this idea to show how Jesus's teachings would have been easy for the disciples to remember - BUT - he evades the problem - given how much greater the effect would have been - of why the Gospels don't tally on far more emotional events such as Jesus's death and resurrection - and the zombies. Erhman argues using concrete examples that can be checked by anyone, and his style is far clearer and easier to follow; Erhman's job is, of course, far easier because he is correct.
Licona is asking "What do we mean by reliable?" & goes on to say that the reliability of the Gospels have to be judged according by the literary standards on their own time. In order to do this, the reader must recognize that biographers of the era used literary devices (such as time compression, as he mentions in the debate). To say Licona gives no examples of such devices is false. He cites Plutach, the Book of Acts, etc. He also wrote an entire book on the subject. When people like you claim his gives no examples to defend their views, despite the fact they very obviously do, it makes me think you're as devoted to beginning with your conclusion (the apologist is obviously wrong or dishonest) as you claim Licona is to his. Maybe you don't buy Licona's arguments. That's fine. They're up for debate & refutation, as are any applogetical arguments-Christian or atheist. But at least have the charity & good sense to hear out the arguments before setting out to refute them, or else you're simply knocking over strawmen, an awful exercise Christians & atheists alike ought to abhor.
@@hewhay8464 None. But what does that matter? As Chesterton said, I can exercise the "right of the amateur" to make what sense I can of the evidence the experts put forward. Guys like Ehrman are experts in Biblical languages & textual criticism, but not in historiography or philosophy or theology or psychology, etc. It's my intellectual right & duty, degree in hand or not, to do my best to separate the wheat from the chaff in Ehrman's arguments. Simply having a degree in something doesn't make you right.
@@motivesofcredibility3788 Licona does make his argument about how we should understand the gospels in the same sense as we undestand the ancient sources but I'm not sure how much we can give him credit for that argument. He sets up a very blatant strawman by his suggestion that because historians trust Plutarch they should trust the gospels on the same basis. Even if that was true, Historians don't accept any supernatural claims from authors like Plutarch. However, it's also not true that historians trust Plutarch or really any source completely. If you read any moderately serious history book, the author is going to be doubting and interpreting the sources. Licona knows this. Licona doesn't get credit for acting like he doesn't.
While given my name I clearly am not a proponent of biblical accuracy or authority, I sincerely respect and commend you for allowing discussion via comments and posting this debate in which you, to be frank, did not compete well. More religious leaders need to have clarity and allow discourse and contention (peacefully of course), and I can respect this greatly. Having attempted discussions with people like Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ken Ham, and the like, I greatly appreciate the openness and honesty here. You clearly believe, yet you welcome opposing opinions. Thank you. If all believers were this open and honest, and this welcoming of peaceful discussion, I would have almost no issues with religion.
1:22:01 Mike asks how many errors would it take to consider the gospels unreliable. well I'd argue that 1 error is enough. He then asks that if your wife makes 1 mistake would that make her unreliable. well my salvation doesn't depend on my wife and she never claimed to be divine, her 1 error costs me nothing while the gospels error might cost me everything. It's an illogical comparison.
Why would 1 error cost you your salvation? It's not like thats where the error (if any) is at. The Bible didnt literally come down from heaven absolutely 100% perfect. It was written by humans with inspiration from God.
@@TheMrpalid Your response is totally irrelevant to my comment. Has nothing to do with "helping me sleep at night." I am just pointing out that one error is not a problem. The only people who think that are people with fundamentalist mindsets who think inerrancy means 0 errors in any way whatsoever.
I just watched this debate after watching Liconas debate with Matt Dillahunty, and I gotta say, I'm amazed that this supposed supreme creator and ruler of the universe continues to let Licona speak on his behalf without intervening. This was garbage. A complete waste of time. An embarrassment. I haven't seen a one sided whooping this bad in years. I humbly suggest that if Licona wants more people to become christians, he should stop participating in these so-called debates immediately!!
The authors captured the "gist" of things, although the "gist" is inaccurate? God can't get the "gist" of things correct? This cannot be holy scripture inspired by God, God is not a liar.
As soon as he said Jesus taught the same thing over and over like a broken record he lost me! This is not what the Scriptures say! This is an assumption that he shoehorned into history. It is a vital flaw in his argument.
John wrote his Gospel last and even though he was "an unlearned fisherman"...he would have had about 60 years to learn to write Greek, or I don't understand Ehrman's rejection of a scribe either. Two perfectly reasonable options... neither one even requires the supernatural.
@@r.a.panimefan2109 indeed. My favorite Erhman quote is when he debates/discusses the Bible with Mohammed Hijib. Despite making his fortune off attacking the Bible, he clearly states that the reason that he (Erhman) isn't a Christian isn't because of the textual deviants in the Bible manuscripts but because there is pain in the world. After a career of attacking Christianity and the Bible, his basic reason for rejecting Jesus is the same as any other atheist. That kinda blew my mind
@lovesickforone ya. And I think all people have the question. At some point. It's how we finally decide A few months ago. I went to see if some of my questions were echoed. And I was actually shocked atheists all of em have it. When I was a kid. It did bug me why Why. Why pit us in a situation we couldn't possibly win. I took a big risk listening to erhman. And as a human No human wants evil. Monsters do. Erhman I think is proly the world's most dangerous athiest. Next to Dawkins. He knows enouph scripture. He knows his history. But becuase he doesn't believe scripture can't ever make sense. To him. Me I was confused as a kid. I dusted it off and looked at it... and u refuse to be in dark or confused Almost all of his Bible plot holes(lol) Are simply becuase he refuses to believe Jesus. So he can't see the sep between o.t. and n.t. I've noticed athiests seem to align to hebrew roots. In a word almost flip side of coin way H roots tends to posit christ changed nothing. Athiests becuase they can't see christ as messiah therefore see n.t. as contradictive. They cant recognize the redemption. And there fore call it contradiction. Other things. Like flat earth views of antiquity jews. So. Persecution illocution i.p. has great vid.. Others like the big bath that doesn't equal pie... really they said build a basin. Did it need to be a perfect circle
@lovesickforone that was a little long may be confused. Thoughts are a bit scattered there. Essentially The why evil. I think it is honestly a question we wonder at some point. Inspiringphilosophy he made me think it like this. Let's say god knew all possible future. Which he would. Now if he wants us to have free will we have to be able to commit sin. So i.p. said this would have been only possibility of free will if we had the capacity of wrong. And after the dangerous ermhan I sat there going I dont want to be a atheist I know christ is light. And I refuse to be in dark. I refuse to not believe. I may wonder I may ask why. ... what fun would it be if the answers were easy. I'll have fun asking the lord for answers. Another thing atheists go on about Is they see god as the lier in eden. God didnt lie. He said surely die(the hebrew means u will surely die. As in it will happen. The other is they see the enemy as truth. Why becuase the snakes (lie was laced with truth) He said god lied to Adam and eve( that was a lie) That was what gave the serpent a opening. Then he gave a truth about the tree being knowledge of good and evil.. In other words a sweet truth with a deadly lie under the surface. But due to the way eve took gods warning made it seem as if he lied. U can't lie without utilizing twisted half truth. The other thing ull notice is most athiests read bible in the most fundamental way. I.e. young earth Most atheists read bible as preaching young earth and flat earth. In fact several young people left christianity after being in a church reading it that way. Then they get out and get the rest of the facts yec tend to think is fake... And down the tube we go. Christ said not to argue about genealogy. Isn't that what the debate between yec. Oec is a argument about geneologys...
The last 5 minute wrap up from both hit the nail in the head. As a former member of a high control cult I can say details matter. Lacona says on the death bed those things won't matter. I disagree. Many in the former cult I was in have their death beds way to early because details and the idea the Bible means way more then it dies. I speak of denying medical interventions deemed unbiblical. And Bart brings out accurate information is important. people spend their lives as martyrs , willing to die for what it contains.
1:01:52 So according to Licona, Mathew 27:52 was just some "Special Effects" that Mathew added to spice things up. If you want to keep your faith in the Bible as the word-for-word instruction for your life, then avoid this guy!
Mike Licona - the guy who lost his old job for explaining why the gospels are not historically reliable - tries to keep his new job by pretending he doesn't know that.
The gospels probably were not even trying to be historically reliable. They were trying to be religious documents of faith. Therefore the whole debate here is pointless. The premise of the debate is false. Why argue if the author did something that he never intended to do?
I'm an atheist and I think that Licona won the debate. Most comments think that Bart "destroyed" him, yet these people, I'm sorry to say, are not very intelligent and got distracted by his show, he laughed, walked around, raised his voice, whereas Licona remained stiff, calm, quiet. These stupid people interpreted these signs as weakness. When it comes to the points, Licona clearly won. Bart pretty much said "there are errors, therefore it's not accurate". Someone should explain to mr. Bart that almost nothing is 100% accurate, just look at CNN nowadays, we have cameras, phones etc yet almost all they say it's a lie. And, another huge fact that Bart ignored: those eyewitnesses, I repeat, eyewitnesses, went on to getting killed for what they SAW. That's a very big evidence. People die for their ideas and beliefs all the time, but nobody in history died for something they saw if they weren't absolutely sure of what they saw.
@@__-bc4bsWow! you arrive at this conclusion all by yourself? What IDIOTIC NON-SENSE. Ehrman is NOT ARGUING SUBJECTIVELY. That is the point! The only "bozo" in this conversation IS YOU.
@ Olli-Pekka Lindgren Knowing so much doesn't hurt :), and he is very good at presenting his knowledge. His lectures and discussions are always a treat.
@Pete Kondolios Also, the contradictions he mentions aren't actually contradictions. Well, they can be if you totally misrepresent what was written, but I suppose one is supposed to do that in a debate when one is determined to win points by any means necessary. Just in passing, when does John say Jesus was crucified? On a Friday. When do Matthew, Mark, and Luke say Jesus was crucified? On a Friday. How is this two different times? That was very weak and disingenuous. Mike needed to hit harder on the actual presentation by Bart, instead of repeating everything he had already said.
@Pete Kondolios The ones he mentioned I buried a long time ago, and it wasn't even difficult. (Which is why I am surprised he doesn't know. I'm no academic scholar, just did some simple research.) If you look at the gospels as parallels to the same story, there is not real contradiction. One would expect variation if you have different authorse with different intents, writing to different audiences who had various points of views. (the Jews have Mosaic laws and traditions while everyone else...doesn't. That would affect how things are recorded and written I believe.)
What impacted me the most was how readily Mr Lacona admitted to the errors in the gospels and dismissed them as insignificant. This is extremely significant, considering most Christians believe the Bible is inerrant
No, "most Christians" don't believe that. Evangelicals do. I studied theology and never came across a single student or professor who believed in biblical inerrancy.
@@MrSeedi76 Then it seems like Evangelicals are setting up a lot of people to have their faith shipwrecked. I was raised going to an Evangelical church, and I was always taught that the Bible is 100% inerrant and there are no errors or contradictions. A lot of my faith has hinged on this concept. Yet now that I am researching for myself and finding all these contradictions, it's taking a real toll on my faith. I can't help but feel that maybe this wouldn't have been as big a deal for me, if I had been raised in a different Christian faith tradition that doesn't prioritize inerrancy. Ugh.
@@billyb7465 Licona focuses on the literary devices used in the ancient world which were acceptable at the time and shouldn't diminish the spiritual impact of the text or even its inspiration. He also believes that the resurrection is historical based on the accounts we have. J. Warner Wallace actually came to faith partially because there were differences in the gospels. His point is that eyewitnesses often do have differing testimonies, and this is how we know they didn't collaborate and make everything up.
yes it matters, because there is a claimed that the sources of the text is from god, by the findings of bart ehrman it proves that the text is not from god, god cannot make mistake or errors or contradiction..
@@tingnannatinnangmalaman9454 i don't think it has contradicting events, you have specify them and i have to validate them. It may have errors, which are mostly copyist errors which is very natural. That doesn't make it not God's word or inspired by God.
This is got to be one of the best debates I’ve ever watched. Both had great points, I’ll probably have to listen a few more times to fully understand. The clear winner , I’m not sure but I think they both are winners.
I LOVE that they just let you two go at it with little to no moderating. Two PhDs on stage does not need a baby sitter. Fantastic debate!
Sadly most PhD debates do need one
@@mustang8206 Yeah, the less a moderator needs to intervene the better the debate is going. You get a lot more out of a conversation than a formal debate imo.
It probably helps that they are friends also. Licona has even done guest host blogs on Ehrman's blog.
Seems more like the young guy was too shy. I thought the cross examination could have used some due diligence on the mediators part; they weren't following the Q and A format faithfully, with Bart becoming the questioner well before being given the floor to do so.
The thing that really bothered me though was that they were addressing the thesis in such different ways and ended up talking past each other. Would have preferred a more precise query so there wasn't a different standard on each side. 'Reliability' needed to be qualified.
@@psychee1 WRONG.
I think it’s actually legitimately commendable that Licona posts debates like this one in which - I’d argue - he doesn’t have a particularly strong showing. And also respectable that he freely allows comments on the videos
Licona won. That's why he posted it.
He probably thinks he won. Nutjobs generally do.
Whenever comments are disabled, distrust the source of the video. So yes, props for that.
Wow! Ehrman clobbers another assertion spewing apologist. This was worse than the beating Ehrman handed out to Big Bill Craig.
I absolutely agree. Kudos to Lacona for taking his beat down with dignity.
11:00 That's when the debate starts. Just in case you want to skip to it.
@@ Ehrman: "..king Herod died in the year 4 BCE"
This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a
scholar at face value, however expert or well meaning, neither pro nor
con, neither a consensus without fact checking as much as possible with a
close eye on original texts and languages or as close as possible, and
with an open mind.
To state the obvious: the bible nor Josephus says Herod died in 4 BCE.
This date is inferred from Josephus saying that Herod died soon after a
lunar eclipse before the spring Passover like the one in 4 BCE.
What many don't realize is that there was another eclipse in 1 BCE -- a
total lunar eclipse unlike the traditional partial one -- and it allows
enough time for all the events surrounding Herod's funeral to fit
perfectly unlike the problematic 4 BCE date. I've also verified this
eclipse with professional astronomy software myself.
The popular view of Herod's death in 4 BCE does not account for all the
facts we have from the historical record. However, some of the latest
published scholarship shows that when other pieces of evidence typically
overlooked is carefully considered it rather points to Herod having
died in 1 BCE.
Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?"
Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29(29)
FREE ONLINE
This new time frame fits the events like a glove from an historical,
astronomical, and biblical point of view, unlike the traditional time
frame. It fixes problems like a good solution to a problem is supposed
to. The old time frame creates unnecessary problems critics capitalize
on (a frequent 'pattern' I have come across for 15 years studying the
scriptures).
With the new date of Herod's death, scholars like the late Ernest L.
Martin were able to find the (wandering) star of Bethlehem and it fits
the descriptions of Matthew to a tee, not to mention other surrounding
details provided by Luke, and more astronomical signs mentioned in
Revelation 12.1-2 while also providing deeper Christian/Jewish
fulfillment to the festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah and even
rabbinic expectations (see the last link below).
The new date of Herod's death (1 BCE) is like a new key that opens an
old chest nobody could open before with an old key, and now new amazing
treasures are revealed but many people still insist the old key is the
best one and are keeping the treasure chest locked and the treasures
hidden from the world. This is very sad.
Further reading on the blog linked atop my channel (openthematrixDOTwordpressDOTcom)
@@AllOtherNamesUsed You are hilarious - you stated " This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a scholar at face value" and then do EXACTLY the same thing yourself!
And this person would be the evangelical PASTOR Steinmann, Andrew E. yes?
......at least Bart is an agnostic and not biased towards the subject matter.
It also still doesnt explain Quinirius starting his governorship of Syria in CE6 does it even with this new date? unless you are going to again try and say he was governor twice but that isn't backed up by the evidence.
Whats more likely , the history books are correct or christian apologist try to shorted the gap to muddy the history ? one has an agenda , one doesnt
@@AllOtherNamesUsedharold was long dead prior to josephus birth and the BCE/CE wasn't established until the 1600s
@@AllOtherNamesUsed it matters not because even if you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong and that he died 1 BC....... it STILL doesn't account for how Jesus was born when Quinirius was governor of Syria as he started that regime in CE6. Thats the point Bart is making
Ty
Already disagree with Mike since I am a woman and I really prefer getting to the bottom line. Ask my husband about his pet project, and you will get hours of details.
Those ppl who quote details about the afterlife don't even know they're all from fictional books hundreds/thousands of years later.
Religious stpdity knows no bounds.
Yes, for Licona, women are more interested in what clothes Pontius Pilate was wearing!
😂😂😂. Sure
He was generalizing. His point stands even if you are a midwit.
The mental gymnastics apologists resort to to not admit that Bible has errors is both frustrating and intellectually dishonest.
How was Licona intellectually dishonest? :)
With the Bible being the type of book that it is, it's either completely true, or completely false. There is no gray area where you get to pick and choose your verses.
@@FOHguyConsidering it's a collection of stories over years and years with different authors and also people trying to forge their own manuscript alongside all of it leaves WAY more room for era then they're is actually.
That's why it hasn't been put away yet, scholars and historians y'know, even more if it ends up not true at all, it's a miracle how it's as consistent as it is
@@FOHguysure there is😅
Loved both speakers here. While I might be a biased atheist, I’m born-again when it comes to healthy intellectual discussion. These online debates and discussions have given me so much great information, but more importantly, they’ve taught me how to talk about these issues with greater respect for those who disagree. That wasn’t always the case, and for that, I’m dare I say…”blessed?” Thanks for posting!
It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, I say that from my own experiences.
More patience with believers actually.
@@sunvalleydrivemusicWell...I dont know...Many still believe NDE is "just "a brain process even when people born blind can see everything around in NDE.We have to accept that teaching in all Schools, Universities,all over..Who need more patience?
@@cristianpopescu78 I prefer to to see the evidence personally.
@@sunvalleydrivemusic Good luck!
Veridical perception in NDE
A funny thing to notice is that Licona even acknowledges that there were no zombies. It's just a literary effect. However how do you know then that e.g. the Jesus walking on the water scene isn't fiction as well?
If different gospels give the overall same thing, that is fact.
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973 that is some serious reaching
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973 So you're saying Elvis is still alive, Bigfoot exists, and aliens are abducting people?
@@TenTonNuke Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I always thought we should've had Easter Zombies when I read that part. Why a Bunny? Zombies are more cool.
@J H I think he was saying that since it's only one gospel that mentions that, and isn't clear if it's apocalyptic, the other things that are historically verifiable, and mentioned in at least two gospels would be something witnessed for sure.
“Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.”
Luke 1:1-2 NET. 01:26:00
Really good debate by 2 respected scholars. I’m a Muslim but I still respect both perspectives. I learnt a lot from this debate. Thanks for uploading.
Accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour or you will pay for your sins in Hell.
The gospels were made up by human beings, not revealed by a god. Ergo: the mythological jesus never existed, this then means that the qur'an is also human-made (because it repeats the same jesus-myth) ;-)
Mr tee And how do you know this ? Do you have friends there ? And is there an entrance fee ?
Chris Law So how do you know any of it is true ?
Chris Law The gospels are not eyewitness accounts . They were written between 4 and 7 decades after the supposed death of Jesus so you would certainly need a huge amount of faith to think any of it were true.
Licona only had one argument and he kept referring to it like it was a “gospel truth”. He wasn’t conversational at all and came off wooden. Bart’s patience was astounding during the question period.
Bart can’t put two & two together & he is completely missing the point.
@@vanessadesire7 sixth extinction dude. You’re not as special as you might like to think. No empirical evidence.
@@Murcans-worship-felons it’s just like when people experience demons.. you can’t scientifically prove it but if there is enough corroborated data & claims.. it’s proved to be true. Jesus’ resurrection is supported by many claims. And I’m definitely trash without God that’s for sure.
@@vanessadesire7 belief and opinion are not facts.
@@Murcans-worship-felons Do you have a belief in anything?
0:55 Intro by a student
4:05 Another Intro by Moderator Brian Swain
10:56 Mike Licona
30:43 Bart Ehrman
51:30 Mike - second round
1:04:20 Bart - second round
1:16:45 Mike - third round (repeats the second round)
1:25:12 Bart - third round (differences in the gospels)
1:34:01 Moderator under crossfire :)
1:34:37 Mike shoots - secretary argument
1:36:20 Bart responds and shoots back - not a single translating secretary 1:39:39
1:42:03 Poor Moderator :) 1:42:52 Says a word :))) please
1:43:00 Bart shoots - Mike Responds and he believes in Zombies :)) just joking.
1:45:43 Mike accepts contradictions and mistakes in the Bible
1:47:47 Mike responds with time compression. Bart shoots, no a place compression? Who is right - Luke or John?
1:48:45 Mike accepts potential errors
1:48:50 Bart asks: How many inaccurate instances?
1:48:55 Mike responds: wife argument :))
1:49:21 Bart - map argument and are the Gospels reliable? Mike responds: they are not a map - biographies.
1:49:53 MODERATOR ROCKS HERE
1:50:20 Closing statement by Mike (summary of second round plus a mini sermon)
1:55:03 Closing statement by Bart - Gospel authors are anonymous 1:56:36 Blog advertisement (which I didn't like it being promoted so long) 1:58:00 Not interested in changing your personal religious views
2:00:42 Moderator - Final Portion - Questions from audience
2:01:30 Question to Mike - historical evidence of scribal tampering that became canon? (aka any added bits into the bible?)
2:03:01 Question to Bart - your view on miracles? It's a matter of faith
2:06:20 Question to Mike - reference for divinity of Jesus in other Gospels?
2:09:40 Question to Bart - Historical plausibility of crucifixion
2:13:50 Question to Mike - Nicodemus' Conversation with Jesus. Born again thing?
2:16:32 The only woman that spoke on this debate up to this minute (definitely not many women are interested in this debate :) - Question to Mike: Are you throwing the baby with bathwater :)
Start and claims of the early church - visions of disciples
2:21:13 Question to Mike: How did Jesus view the Hebrew Old Testament?
2:23:38 Question to Bart: Crucifixion
2:25:08
to be continued...
wildly corrupted timestamp labels
@@coryc1904 Any corrections are welcome.
Very relatable timestamp labels
How many decades after the events were the timestamps authored? (Jk...)
Why would Lincona post this on his channel? His answers to Bart’s questions, including the zombies, make him look like a embarrassing, dishonest fool.
I think he is a wonderful human being, it's just his religion that gets in the way... But he is not like Habermas and others.
Having met Mike before he is a very nice guy and I respect his ability to have a civil & friendly debate. Having said that I don’t think he makes very convincing points and would say Ehrman won fairly effortlessly.
The truth always wins out!
His whole position was just embarrassingly bad.
No, Mike Licona won
My question for Licona is: How do we determine which miracles in the Gospels are actual history, and which one are just artistic additions (like the zombie incident)? He already admitted the zombies were artistic, despite being described as a miracle (which could easily be interpreted as "real" if it weren't for how crazy it was). So doesn't that call all the other miracles into question? What criteria is he using to determine that the other miracles are accurate once we have concluded at least one is not? And shouldn't we approach the other claims with much more skepticism once one has already been deemed false?
That's what scholars like Ehrman do for a living. Basically analyze and study the NT and related documents. Typically they work with the oldest actual manuscript copies.
Yes, you are correct. Christians never have an answer for the people who rose from the grave at the resurrection. Also, it took 1500 years to write the bible, so why did it take only 7 days to do the creation?
@Miles Doyle : Diarrhea of the mouth, much?
@Miles Doyle : No one is reading your long posts. Try to be more concise.
@Miles Doyle
Seriously? You expect me to read all that?
If you're going to get your message out there you're going to have to learn how to be succinct.
You guys are both highly intelligent and listening to you exchanging opinions and ideas is always extremely enjoyable and enlightening. Been following to you both since your first debate and its a priviledge to be able to see you sharing the podium once again.
The problem with Ehrman is he's using tired old scholarship that's been corrected for about a decade now, namely that Herod died in 3 BCE and resorts to speculative conspiracy theories like Luke and the others lied about where Christ was born for religious reasons. Why no one calls him out on this is amazing to me.
_Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29(29)_
PDF FREE ONLINE
We have better data now that fits 1 BCE clearing up unnecessary problems that the problematic traditional dates bring. Plugging in the new date allows us to identify the star of Bethlehem and track what it was doing in the sky with astronomical software which Matthew describes perfectly and fitting in with Luke's account and even the astronomical information John provides in Rev 12.1-2. The new timeline answers many lingering problems just as you would expect from an accurate solution. The 3 BCE date on the other hand causes problems, and again we don't have to clutch at unfounded conspiracy theories. I give more info in my posts on this board.
Ehrman is either ignorant or something else like playing to the media bia$
Peace in Yeshua
(openthematrix*wordpress*com)
@@AllOtherNamesUsed bart spews verbal clickbait for people who desperately want christianity to be false. he is in a very small minority on many of his views listed here.
@@AllOtherNamesUsed Just because you have an article doesn't mean it debunks the consensus or corrects the date. That's not how scholarship works, the consensus is still that Herod died in 4 BCE.
@@Xenotypic He isn't, especially in academic circles. Don't lie it's unchristian.
@@somniumisdreaming I'm talking about in academic, unchristian circles. The way he talks about corruption of the new testament is misleading, he writes books about "misquoting Jesus", but most textual critics and in fact Erhman himself (in his debate with James White) admits that we are just tinkering with the text and that we have the vast majority of it uncorrupted.
Thanks for uploading this, it was really enjoyable to learn more.
Great Debate by two scholar. Thank you for uploading videos. Respect from Indonesia 🙏🙏🙏
".....and over and over and over and over....." omg I almost threw my phone away every freaking time he did that.
And Bart says copies and copies and copies of copies........
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 Amee Medo I feel you
I could listen to it over and over and over and over again. ;-)
He’s just passionate
over and over and over and over and over and over again. I wonder if I can get commission from the cell phone manufacturers. ;-)
After seeing this debate, I am not sure if Mr. Licona understands what "Historically Reliable" means.
U missed the point
Bart is applying how we write now and saying the people in the past should write and record how we write and record.
That was liconas point
@@r.a.panimefan2109 you missed the point. Something is either accurate or inaccurate, it reflects what actually happened or it does not, it is the only question of interest. Not whether or not it gets a passing grade compared to other ancient near east histories.
@@AS-sn5gfagreed. The map example which Bart gave is the clearest for me. To say, yeah but the map makers at the times did their best for map makers at the time, doesn’t make it an accurate map. Then we have 4 maps for the same region, that contradict each other. One or none of them can be accurate, but not all.
I was gonna punch my iPad if that guy said "over" one more time
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂👏👏👏👏👍👍👍👍 I was getting irritated by his I and over and over and over.....
Bet you anything that even Jesus is irritated at that fella Mike ;-)
I was getting sick with "over over & Over 😀😀😀😀
I got so pissed
Over.
No divine claims outside John?... the same kind of story is in Mark 2, with forgiving sins... and Mark was the first Gospel written very closely after Jesus' death
The map analogy pretty much sums up the two sides of the debate.
E: Can I use it to navigate from point A to point B?
L: They didn't have satellites back then but they're the best maps that could be produced.
The best of a bad group of things doesn’t mean it’s good. I fully agree that the New Testament is the best attested ancient document in history. But even though it is the best, it is still poor, in that we actually have very few 1st century copies and so many manuscript variations among all copies that it truly is difficult to reconstruct the original with 100% accuracy.
I agree that we probably have a 99% idea of what the original authors wrote (assuming the earliest copies we have weren’t already changed by the time they were copied). But just the fact that we have better records for Jesus than Julius Caesar (or Alex the Great), doesn’t mean we have *good* records. The best of a bad set of maps does not imply a good map.
I think the map analogy is kind of interesting. Maybe a town name on the map is misspelled; Maybe a river has a few meanders that the map doesn’t. But if the map gets you where you need to go, and has the essentials right, what’s the problem with a few errors? Old maps of the Americas look odd, but they’ve got the general layout right. I feel like that’s what we’ve got in the gospels; Not an exact, bedrock recounting of events, but a reconstruction of the general truth of the events.
@@brebeaa what's your proof the map gets you where you need to go? The gospel writers don't even agree on the names of the twelve disciples. Seems like a key point. Much more important: does Jesus say divorce is okay or not? In Matthew he says under no circumstances. Other places he says there are exceptions for infidelity. The map gets you lost on many key points
@@brebeaa Most crucial for Christians, why does Mark end with an empty tomb, not anything about a resurrection? It being the earliest gospel, why did it leave out this key detail? And yes, a quick line was added about it, but by a later editor, presumably worried about this startling omission.
@@darrenkeast1543 Remember, Paul’s letters predate the Gospels, and the Resurrection is front and center in his writings. Mark’s aim, funnily enough, might not have been to retell the resurrection, but to shed more light on Jesus’ life, aspects of which may have been less discussed, and early Christians wanted to know more about. It seems odd to us leaving out the resurrection, and it obviously did to later Christians as well, thus the added ending to Mark.
Click 2:33:10 then wait 2 seconds for the video to end. Then restart (re-watch) the video and all the ads will disappear. 👍🏼
I haven't finished the whole debate yet but I think it's hard when they both have different opinions on "reliable", I don't think a typo makes a text unreliable, but I would also like to gather all the parts that Ehrman consider to be "reliable" and see what is the story it tells.
Except Ehrman didn't claim a typo made the Bible historically inaccurate.
Nice straw man.
The best moderator I've ever heard in my entire life!
I wouldnt even bother reading Nabeel Qureshi's biography after listening to Mike @1:17:59 . Not only did he say his book in not historically accurate, but he has proven Nabeel to be a liar.
Exactly LOL
Nabeel was a liar, he said he was a Muslim before converting to Christianity, he wasn't, he was Ahmadi/Qadiani (a cult that branched out of Islam in the 19th century)
Seems like Ehrman is honest and straightforward. Licona is a lot of double talk and misdirection.
Literal truth vs "Metaphysical truth".
And ppl said "Religion is the foundation and motivation of science" *facepalm*
In 2000 years, when future historians think we wrote inaccurate biographies, they'll be right.
speak for yourself. lol what are you even talking about?
@@coryc1904 You don’t understand what he’s talking about?
speak for yourself x2
Beautiful statement. Showing the hard difference between wrong and inaccurate :D
Philosophically constructed narratives (in various genre's including 'History' are foundations of world view control.
This was a great debate, both people very knowledgeable, but Mike goes through all kinds of mental acrobatics to try to explain all the contradictions!
*#ONEMESSAGEFOUNDATION*
*HERE IS THE REAL ANSWER QURAN VERSES BIBLE (WHICH CONTAINS ERRORS)*
@@alphaandomega567 BOTH.
That's what happens when you go into debates trying to defend your faith rather than being honest.
He seems to think that these were acceptable literary differences for Greco-Roman biographies written around the time. Were there any other mental acrobatics?
Good video, informative from both sides. Mildly disappointing that more time wasn't spent directly on the heart of each other's objections, but I still learned a few things.
Mike, I would love to ask you a question.
Of your 6 criteria you present, the first is that the authors intended to write an accurate historical account of the gospels. You also repeatedly acknowledge that there are many passages in the gospels that are not supposed to be read as if they were written as an accurate historical account of events.
How do you determine which parts are intended to be read as an account of the events and which parts are not?
Through literary analysis. It's in his book. How else?
If they read the gospels side by side and not start to finish they would be shocked at the differences in the stories, and acts account too. Don't believe it? Try it
He just finagles around it and formulates it to make sense to him and speaks in hypotheticals. Any way you can cling to this ridiculous religion. Absolute joke. It’s downright scary that people actually believe in this stuff. Just shows how far we really are from being advanced and ready for real change and progress as a species
@@anitahyche1
Everyone tells a story from their own perspective. So this can explain differences.
@@smoothtwh No sir, not in this particular case where this word is supposed to be from a supernatural deity. You can't have it both ways. Either this came from God or man. If from a god, then there shouldn't be all these different perspectives. There should be only ONE perspective and all of it should be the same. If it were derived purely from man then that would be an acceptable argument
Christian position: we can explain away, one by one, all those thousands of discrepancies, together with the moral and scientific fallacies in the Bible. But the Bible is nevertheless inerrant and the true word of God.
ML's statements about Matthew 27:52 that ends at around 1:45:00 best represents this stance: the zombies didn't happen, but the Gospel is still accurate. In my opinion, people who allow themselves to be driven by such reasoning (or lack thereof) have serious problems with their understanding of what truth means and how to understand the world around us and, more important probably, inside ourselves.
That's unnecessary and just gratuitous . People are very very kind up in this. Their lives are dedicated above anything. They are GOOD people for the most part. They have been told the Book has no discrepancies since they are in baby bible class over nd over until they go to college and then most still believe it if they go to parochial schools. Be nicer man. Their lives are all about this.
Response video to Bart Ehrman's Luke 2 comments th-cam.com/video/MyTvr5x5eHc/w-d-xo.html
Rajagopalan Chandu
Well, Christianity is the religion with the best evidence.
If Christianity fails then all other religions also fail.
@@ramigilneas9274
Well, Christianity is the religion with the best evidence.
What evidence ?????
You may have Faith, But NOT Facts
In the sixties I was hoping that religion would whither away
with all the Scientific knowledge we have today, that they didn't have millennia ago
But the again there are those
Hear now this,
O foolish people, and without understanding;
which have eyes, and see not;
which have ears, and hear not:
Jeremiah 5:21
KJV
Rami Gilneas christianity has the worst logic and reasoning no offence, Judaism and Islam, specifically Islam make a lot more sense
I find the quote that Licona mentions at the end quite revealing, as it shows his true motivation for believing in the Bible: a fear of death.
That it is quite "reasonable" and "fair" to infer someone's motives for a particular religion based on quotes alone, I am delighted.
I also found the plug for Ehrman's blog fascinating...
This is most definitely the best debate I have ever seen. I have never seen anyone debate as well as Bart has, bravo 🙌
The other guys clearly gay.
The best is Bart vs Daniel Wallace
I think would like to see Daniel Wallace vs Barth
weird, i thought almost the exact opposite...
@@daniellybeck8203 probably because you’re a closed minded Christian who only listens to what he wants to. That’s why your ilk are so absolutely dumb.
I think I see what's going on here. Licona seemed only interested in debating whether the gospel writers were at fault or culpable for the appearance of errors in the gospels, rather than talking about the actual reliability of the content of the gospels in relation to what actually happened. Personally I don't care whether they were following methodologies that were accepted in their day or not. That's not what the debate was about - yet Licona seemed convinced it was. If they were following methodologies that are today known to lead to historical inaccuracies - then yeah that's a big problem!
A simple thought experiment will show the error. Suppose the ancient world had methodologies that allowed falsehoods to be written as though they were fact. I'm not claiming this was the case but I'm simply using a contrived fictional example to demonstrate the point. By following such methodologies, a writer could portray a series of events, none of which occurred at all, and yet still be classified as "adhering strictly to the best standard of historical method for their time". But was their writing accurate according to what actually happened? no. Conversely they could have written a 100% historically accurate account that was graded poorly in their day for not adhering to their broken standards. It absolutely matters TO US whether the events really happened as described, and it absolutely doesn't matter what the ancient standard of historiography was!
The second point I found really strange was that in the back and forth questioning, Licona seemed to keep asking Ehrman for evidence AGAINST his (Licona's) views, as if his (Licona's) opinion was somehow true by default (simply because he found it "plausible"). Ehrman was not using an argument from silence to say something didn't happen - he was using the silence to show that the evidence Licona's claim required was missing! A claim is only as good as the evidence it is based on. You don't get to assume things and then say that because no one can prove it false, or because there is no evidence to the contrary, therefore it may as well be true. I don't care how plausible you think it is. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Meanwhile an argument from silence is perfectly valid if silence is not what we should reasonably expect. Licona seemed to fail basic logic on several occasions here, which was quite disappointing. Sorry to be all one-sided, but I've heard plenty from Ehrman before and he pretty much stuck to his usual points here. He was a lot more consistent and didn't do any awkward dance when asked direct questions about errors in the Bible...sorry. Yes I'm biased but I offer the above to help people see what I felt were two massive issues with the debate.
it's actually kind of impressive to watch Christians "spin" versus in the bible to say whatever it is that they want it to say. Starting around 1:44:50. Also, how can someone think that something did not happen but also say that the same thing is also accurate??
GavinN
As a Christian theist, I am thoroughly disgusted with Mike's game playing...
The plain text provides the obvious data and shows that The Bible is historically inaccurate internally. Mike just looks at it and says no, it is accurate using various flip flam self-serving types of arguments - Which are solely the product of his own fantasy.
No wonder Trump and televangelists can grift off of religious people...😖
Debate starts at 11:32
You’re welcome
Bart was sprinting to say everything within the time limit. Mike had so much time and so little to say, he rehashed constantly to pad his time, and wasted literal minutes saying one word. They both had the same amount of time, but Bart said so much more. It really says something about the content of their respective messages that Mike needed to burn time and Bart had to carefully manage his.
You know, debates are a funny thing. As someone who has spent the last two decades engaged in written debates with people across the spectrum, from laypeople to academics, I find it rather easy to separate the question of who won a debate from the question of who had the better case or argument. A couple days ago, I watched a debate on the same topic between Ehrman and Peter Williams and I would say that Ehrman pretty clearly won that debate, in spite of the fact that I think Peter had the better case. The problem was that he failed to present it in its strongest form and failed rather spectacularly in effectively calling out all of Ehrman's bad and misleading arguments (some of which I pointed out in my comments on that debate). The reason I mention this is to say that if I thought Ehrman actually won this debate, I would have no problem saying it, even though I'm closer to Mike's position than Ehrman's. But in my view, Ehrman didn't win this debate. If I had to declare a winner I'd give it to Licona by a narrow margin. Licona could have won it by a larger margin if he had been more effective in pointing out Ehrman's bad arguments and done a better job of explaining why his framework for judging historical reliability in the context of scripture was a more reasonable one than Ehrman's. He didn't do a _bad_ job of explaining why his framework was the right one, but I think he missed several opportunities to make the point more forcefully and to point out how Ehrman was misrepresenting the import of certain differences and holding contradictory positions. I tend to think that the people who know less about the subject matter and who are less familiar with the rhetorical dynamics of debate are the ones who are more likely to be impressed with Ehrman's presentation and more critical of Licona's. I understand why that it is, but I'd say they're mistaken. If someone believes Ehrman narrowly edged out Licona then I'd shrug my shoulders at that (even though I score it the other way around), but if someone thinks that Ehrman "destroyed" Licona ... well, I guess this _is_ youtube.
Interesting assessment. So do you agree with Peter Williams that there are no contradictions in the new testament?
@@chad969 - Well, I think that depends on what you mean by "contradictions". Ehrman has a squishy and inconsistent definition of "contradiction". Sometimes he accurately acknowledges that an actual contradiction between sources consists of one claiming A and the other claiming Not-A in the same sense. However, at other times, when it suits him, he tries to get away with claiming a contradiction consists of one source claiming A and the other claiming B, even when A and B can be sensibly harmonized. And sometimes he properly acknowledges the first definition but then improperly cites examples that actually fall under the second definition.
People don't really tend to point to legitimate examples of the Bible claiming both A and Not-A _in the same sense_ but I would say that we definitely find examples of one source claiming A and the other claiming B where A and B can be harmonized. But with that having been said, we come to the more interesting question of whether or not there are cases of A and B where they _cannot_ be harmonized. I would say we probably have some of _these_ cases, but even if we _do_ have such cases, this is where we get into the importance of the point that Licona drew out about the literary conventions of the day and which Ehrman wrongly tried to dismiss.
As Licona pointed out, the literary and narrative conventions of the 1st century were not the same as those of scientific historical writings in the 21st century (though we still make use of some similar conventions in more informal contexts), and determinations of "accuracy" were based on what it was that the author was intending to record and convey. Again, as Licona pointed out, it was not unusual for authors to rearrange the order of certain events to draw out themes, or to condense timelines, or combine multiple similar events into one. These conventions would not necessarily have rendered the narrative "inaccurate" unless the author's purpose was specifically to accurately convey _those_ aspects of the narrative. But if the author's intent was merely to accurately record and convey the _content_ of the events and the dialog they were writing about so their readers had an accurate record of the messages conveyed and their import, then a precisely accurate recounting of the mechanical details surrounding the matters of primary interest would not have been considered vital to judging the account as "accurate". In other words, other people who were actually aware of those precise details and read the author's narrative employing the conventions of their time would not have said, "Hey, this thing is totally inaccurate! You fraud!"
The implication of the above is that we can find multiple accounts of a single event or set of events in the Bible that appear to be in tension with each other in some of their details, and they may genuinely be, but what we're usually seeing in these cases are simply examples of the conventions mentioned above. For example, one writer might give a detailed and technically accurate recounting of multiple events, in multiple locations, spanning over an extended period of time, because his purpose and intent is to make a record of all those comings and goings _along with_ the content and import of the events. Another writer, however, might recount the same series of events where his intent is more focused on their content and meaning rather than their location and time-span, so he may employ the conventions of his day and condense the timeline, the locations and even the number of events themselves to more expeditiously convey their content and import. The end result will be two accounts of the same events that differ in their logistical details, and sometimes markedly so, and yet they do not properly constitute contradictions in the sense that critics intend and would not have been considered contradictory in their own time. Attempting to label them as contradictory or "inaccurate" as Ehrman does is misleading because it judges them not _just_ by 21st century _standards_, but by the _intent_ of 21st century scientific historical chronicling, which Ehrman admits he is doing. But acting as a purely scientific historical chronicle was not the purpose of the Bible, and the very exacting sort of detail associated with that kind of scientific work simply was not necessary to the Bible's purpose in most cases ... and certainly not in _every_ case. Of course, that's not to say that the Bible never gets into that kind of territory. Rather, my point is that if one account of events _does_ approach that territory and another account makes use of the literary conventions of the day to convey the meaning of those events in a different way or to draw out a different theme, that doesn't mean the two accounts legitimately contradict each other. We might say that one of the accounts is technically inaccurate with respect to the logistics, but that wouldn't mean that that account was _in error_ or that it was "inaccurate" in the broader and more meaningful context of its actual intent.
So to come back to your original question, no, I don't personally think there are contradictions in the NT in the sense that critics mean because of all the ones that I've seen people try to cite over the years, I just haven't found them convincing. They always tend to be examples of 'both A and B' where either A and B can be reasonably harmonized or are simply the result of one writer employing common literary conventions that the other is not. More rarely they may point out a likely scribal error in a number. And in some cases they may cite what they genuinely think are examples of 'both A and Not-A' but the statements they cite are not _in the same sense_ and so aren't really contradictions after all.
Take care
@@hekskey Would you be up for a friendly discussion about this topic over Skype or google hangouts? If not that's totally fine, I'm happy to respond here in the comments. I just kind of prefer live conversation
@@chad969 - Hi Chad. My schedule is too all over the place right now for a live conversation on this ... especially because 20 years of discussing this (and a bunch of other) stuff tells me that any serious discussion on these topics ends up being extensive. If you want to have the conversation in writing in a place more conducive to in-depth discussion I can set up a sub-forum on my site (private or public, whichever you prefer) and then we can each contribute as we have time. But I want to be up-front about the fact that I'm really pressed for time right now between multiple projects, so I can't guarantee how much time I would have to dedicate to the discussion over the next few months.
Take care
@@hekskey Okay that sounds good. You can make the forum public if you wan't, makes no difference to me. What's your website?
Wonderful debate! Dr. Licona’s argument for a “gist” of what happened isn’t convincing. A gist isn’t reliable evidence to support a case for Jesus’s resurrection; after all, that is the central issue here regarding the historicity of the gospels. That event is the only thing that matters in Christianity, if Christ didn’t rise from the dead, your faith is in vain. I think this is why the historicity of the gospels is crucial to the faith. Dr. Ehrman makes a clear and concise case that we cannot claim the gospels as historical; if there are embellishments, what other events could be embellished? Both gentlemen are obviously well versed in this subject and I enjoyed learning from them.
Spot on!
This is obviously not a debate about the resurrection, I hope you are just joking that it is the only important thing that the Gospels and Christianity deal with, also I have seen from Ehrman that he only deals with some petty contradictions that may not be contradictions and has some extreme skepticism that is clearly wrong.
@kenandzafic3948 Indeed. Ehrman wants to take revenge on God who seemingly, cannot prevent pain and suffering. And let's rip at every opportunity to push his case. For example, his assumptions on oral transmission are wrong! People before printing press, had developed a strong memory for remembering long sequences of events. Rather like mental arithmetic was powerful before the advent of calculators!
Seems as though, Licona literally uploaded an example of "Trolling" It's as if he knows he is trying to lose the debate. Just to tell us later, that it was his plan to say the opposite of what makes sense, just to test for gullible people.
Wow, all love and respect to Bart and Mike for this!
That rapid fire portion was excellent! The fact Bart kept repeating his questions rather than engaging with Mike’s answers was really interesting since Bart was so much better rhetorically throughout the debate. It was a missed opportunity to push Mike on his answers…yet he didn’t and it showed the deeper thinker on said nuances, at least through this interaction, was Licona.
Again, massive respect to both of you! Keep pushing each other to be the best scholars you can be! :)
I love debates at this level. It shows who is portraying facts and who is not.
I don't think you are being fair to Ehrman. I thought he presented many facts.
@Ruben O. Ehrman has an easier position. Simply raise skepticism. Being an armchair critic is so frustrating to listen to so many dubious claims from Ehrman go unanswered.
@@markrutledge5855 you can address the claims
@@simaoluis9443 I think the point here is, there are many who repeatedly address his and other claims.
See Habermas on essentials list.
Reasons to Believe, so many more.
What I see over time, is Bart tends to just like was commented above, claim extreme skepticism, (extreme because there's basically NO give) ALL or Nothing, is what Bart seems to be looking for.
I don't know if an actual encounter with the risen 'zombie' Jesus would make him bow a knee.
Bart knows there are reasonable explanations to his questions, yet finds more and more questions, and seems to push reasonable possibilities aside.
That's an option and an example of our free will ❤️
@Ruben O. I don't think so. I think Licona summed it up nicely, with I'm not convinced by Bart's objections.
2:28:53 Prof. Ehrman basically denies that Paul could have spoken in Aramaic to the Apostles
Acts 22:1-2 has Paul communicating to his fellow Aramaic speaking Jews in Aramaic:
1“Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you.”
2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said,
This is the textual parallel evidence:
Acts 22:2. προσεφώνει: only in Luke and Paul, except Matthew 11:16, cf. Matthew 6:13; Matt 7:32; Matthew 13:12; Matthew 23:20, Matthew 21:40, see Friedrich, p. 29, for the frequency of other compounds of φωνεῖν in Luke.-μᾶλλον παρ. ἡσυχ: the phrase is used similarly in Plut., Coriol., 18, Dion Hal., ii., 32, and LXX, Job 34:29; on the fondness of St. Luke for σιγή, σιγᾶν, ἡσυχάζειν, and the characteristic way in which silence results from his words and speeches, or before or during the speech, see Friedrich, p. 26, cf. Luke 14:4; Luke 15:26, Acts 11:18; Acts 15:12, Acts 12:17; Acts 21:40, and for ἡσυχάζειν, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, Luke 14:4, Acts 11:18; Acts 21:14, so too παρέχειν with accusative of the thing offered by any one, Acts 19:24, Acts 28:2 (Acts 16:16). The verb is used only in Matthew 26:10, and parallel, Mark 14:6, except in Luke and Paul, Luke 6:29; Luke 7:4; Luke 11:7; Luke 18:5, Acts 16:16; Acts 17:31, and as above, and five times in St. Paul’s Epistles.
Paul speaking Aramaic is a relative certain event, and most scholars agree with this and Dr. Ehrman knows it.
I am sorry Dr. Ehrman, one of my favorite professor but you fell short yet again here.
It is refreshing to see a debate, especially one on a divisive topic, be conducted civilly and talking “with” each other and not “at” each other. I think people will say the victor is whoever they most identify with. It is debates like this that give me hope that we as a society can have differing and very strong ideas but we can legitimately talk about them together
1:37:48 There is nothing wrong with Bart's question(s) here. It is not "a complex question" in the informal fallacy sense. It is an annoying "Yes" or "No" type question....the kind that politicians hate. Where the person answering gives an answer..... but refuses to use the word "Yes" or "No" and then actually believes they have answered. This is a problem. Ask any attorney whos done depositions.
"Is it the case that the New Testament has errors? Yes or No?"
Even if Bart doesn't like or understand Mike's explanation after Mike gives a "Yes" or "No" answer, Mike himself knows his own reasons for his "Yes" or "No" answer. However, after this many years of professional work on the topic, he just won't answer this "Yes" or "No" question with a "Yes" or "No" answer.
BTW, Bart didn't add anything to the original question till Mike balked on answering it (rewind the tape...as they used to say). Maps, etc. have no bearing on Bart's initial question (which was simple and direct). The closest conclusion we have from Mike here is (in the context of this being his life's work) is "I don't know." The same incident happened in his debate with Richard Howe (almost cut and paste) when he was pressed on the same "Yes" or "No" question. If you watch that debate, Mike answers with everything but a "Yes" or "No" (on same basic topic) .
I wish Mike would be more forthright (not here...but on the debate platform) and give a solid "Yes" or "No" answer to this answerable "Yes" or "No" question. His current answer (unless he's changed and I don't know it) sounds too much like Bill Clinton answering a "Yes" or "No" question from Ken Starr
Hey, I’ve got some legal experience, so can I ask you a question on your first objection? :)
Sure.
@@sonnyfleming904
Cool! So for attorneys doing depositions, are they seeking the objective Truth when asking said questions? :)
NOTE: I have more to say, but I want to start slow if thats ok with you.
Debate actually starts at 17:00
37:21 quite an impressive wingspan.
It's amazing how Licona is able to complete the entire debate without conveying a single thought or statement that would convince a reasonable person of the truth of anything he says.
I agree. Not just in debates. Even in his sermons to his congregations, he would supposedly present evidences for his arguments but end up not giving a single convincing proof. He would just go round and round the topic.
Welcome to the wonderful world of evangelical apologetics....😢😖😢
Michael Lacona completely biffs in his response regarding Bart's opening statement Bart's opening statement is not meant to challenge anything of michael's opening statement I'm really surprised that Michael doesn't understand one of the most basic elements of debate.
I’m a reasonable person who seeks truth, and I fail to see how Mike Licona didn’t contribute anything relevant to the debate. At best, both debaters gave probability arguments in regards to the New Testament
@@thetannernation
What was one thing that you found to be particularly relevant provided by Licona?
I came here because VerbumVeritatis channel talk about it on his channel...😁
Christ for Indonesia😇
Yes, let's make sure we don't hurt the feelings of ancient historians and writers
Can’t have it both ways theists, either it’s the perfect Word of God and should be judged as such, with an expectation of perfection, OR it’s just another translated historical document and should be judged that way, same as any other ancient religious text, interesting for its historical significance but not to be taken seriously regarding its fantastic claims. So which is it??
Mike's arguments are based on What If...and then he spins his fantasies. Bart, on the other hand, deals with What Is...and then presents evidence. Mike lives in a fantasy world of his own making.
He was raised in this from the cradle. He knows nothing but this. He didn't create this in his head...it was put there and he can't help it UNTIL he can help it. His parents before him can't help it. Be nice to people.
Then you debate him if your so smart
What do you expect from people that follow or believe a faith that a god create its own creation then incarnate come down to earth to sacrifice him for his own creations
@@anitahyche1 So was Bart and he read his way to a different view.
He looked like a moran never answering anything, debating him seems pointless
Perhaps this is simply a lack of comprehension on my part, which may be remedied by further study of Licona’s work, but I don’t understand how Licona’s concession that John did “theologize history” (my words) by placing Jesus’ death on the day of the Passover isn’t a concession that the Gospels (at least John) aren’t historically reliable. It follows from this concession that one or both of the Synoptics and John present an incorrect picture of when Jesus actually died. Therefore, the Gospels do not provide a historically reliable account of Jesus’ death.
His argument is that historians from the 1st Century CE often manipulated various parts of the biographies they wrote. And that this was widely know and accepted by their audiences.
Since the gospels come from the same era we should not expect them to match our standard of biography and history.
@@aspektx Which is precisely why we cannot accept the Gospels as historically accurate. Licona is making Ehrman's point for him. The Gospels were written by men who took liberties with the material. By definition then, they are not accurate. The fact that the practice was accepted at the time is irrelevant.
@@kylerichardson1242
I was not attempting to say that they were reliable.
This was simply an historical insight that I found interesting.
What I posted does not suggest that they are reliable. Unless someone were to read into it they're personal fears or concerns.
@@aspektx Oh, my bad. Licona's argukent is that they are reliable. I thought you were supporting that. Sorry!
the Gospels are not history. OBTW, there are many more than 4 extant. They are designed to sell.
Most people reasonably question resurrection, but I question God dying in the first place.
"No claims of being God until 65 years later...". That was all I needed to hear. All made up. 1:14:25
and it just gets worse the more you know...it's a fantasy book based on a handful of probably real people.
So Licona's argument apparently is, "Nobody in those days could write history accurately, so, because the gospels are inaccurate, like histories in those days, we should trust them". Sorry guy. That's pathetic.
strawman
that's not how history works go back to high school
That IS Licona's entire argument. He gives thensame nonsense answer over and over and over and over and ........
Not to mention on the crossfire part, mike was firm on "compressing" stuff but in the end we all know that is not accurate
Very courageous of Mike Licona to post this debate. But VERY courageous of him. Dr Bart knowledge is impressive and had no opponent on the other side this time around.
He didn't do that
@@renjurichard Do what? Bart or Mike?
Mike makes the mistake most apologist do! They confuse "Not conclusively disproven" with "probable".
Nobody cares if you can find 1 million excuses why evidence is not sufficient. Evidence is still not sufficient.
Nice debate thought.
The egregious error here is economy. What's implausible about John hiring a scribe to write the Gospel which sharply deviates from the synoptics?!? The injection of such a proposition violates economy. Why should we make such a proposition in the first place? It's simply desperate apologetics masquerading as scholarship.
Evidence is not sufficient for Mike Licona because he can't bring himself to admit that his entire life's work and mission has been based on a lie. So he tries frantically to convince himself that the Resurrection of Jesus happened at least - so that he can say to himself: "No matter what else in the Bible is false, if I can hold onto that, then my faith is not in vain!" And I bet his stupid and blatantly deceptive friend William Craig has to keep REASSURING Licona of the so-called "historical" evidence for Jesus's resurrection. I wonder whether the same ludicrous methods that William Craig and Mike Licona use would convince them that Joan of Arc was physically visited by St. Catherine and St. Margaret and the Archangel Michael, or that Bernadette of Soubiros saw the Virgin Mary. Mike ADMITTED once that he could not accept Catholic apparitions, but of course everyone is supposed to believe the Resurrected Jesus apparition. They are just self-serving hypocritical liars who conveniently pick what advances their own position of power in their communities, while dismissing everything else as unimportant or irrelevant.
I've never read a book about the Holocaust, written 40+ years after Holocaust recording detailed dialogues in different language when they were not eye witnesses.
That my friend is the litmus test to the Gospels. Any person who wrote something about the Holocaust the way I just described would be told they're making it up. Yet the Gospels get treated differently. Why?
Bart is, actually brilliant!!
@Pete Kondolios BTW - has anyone considered that the snake in the fable
1) doesnt has neither vocal chords to speak nor ears to hear the replies
2) actually told the truth as Adam and Eve was told by God if they ate from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil they would surely die, i.e. right then, but they didnt ........
@Pete Kondolios you just assume and assert that such a being exist, when in reality there is literally no evidence that they do , just some fables written by people who didnt know where the sun went at night?
And if the devil really exist and would be the one person who would know exactly gods maximal power first hand, but spookily just doesnt care, he basically tweaks gods nose every second of the day by inflicting terrible sorrow and evil across the globe.
Either God can't do anything to stop him or we must deduce that he likes what is going on. so which is it? God is either not omnipotent or is callous?
He also knows in advance that evil will the carried out as he is apparently omniscient so its even worse ..........so when you hear on the news about a little girl abducted , raped and casually drowned , please be aware, under YOUR theology god knows it will happen and did nothing.
Again, this is not my theology, it's yours.
@Pete Kondolios ahhh so it was that 6 year old girl free will that so was raped ? Got it.....makes sense now .
God knew she was would be abducted , knew she would would tied up, various video cameras angles would be meticulously organised and his revolting chums around the world will pay to watch as all sorts of debauchery goes on for hours , until its finally over and no-one has heard her screams , her pleading , sometimes to god , for it to stop.......but nothing . Then she is driven to secluded place and held under water until dead , but hey, its all good , because she had free will?
Thats a sick proposition that you have been fed, to have a ready made solution that defects any criticism of god back onto us, without actually thinking it through.
So next time to hear about something truly evil going on, such as I describe above, why not go round to the parents, tell them it was all her fault and see where your free will argument gets you
@Pete Kondolios ...I was waiting on that Free WILL bullcrap! There it goes. Of course it's man's fault and man's FREE WILL to do it. We naturally have free will...duh! Stop chasing this around the bush and answer the damn question! Either god had the ability to stop it or he didn't. Which is it?
@Pete Kondolios Then the god character is an asshole. Plain and simple. Luckily for us, we have no good reason to believe that such an awful entity exists. That is all...as you were.
Bart’s work made me a Christian because he doesn’t disagree with what we believe honestly he just reverts to hyper skepticism. And remember, Bart is a non believer not because of Biblical issues rather the problem of suffering/evil
There seem to be more people today who deconvert rather than become Christians. Amazingly, you did it because of Bart.
Really? That’s great to hear actually
The problem of evil is a Biblical issue. Predestination is a Biblical issue. The problem of slavery both indenture and non-indenture. Christians are hyper skeptical of other religious experiences. William Lane Craig has constantly said that what Muslims or Mormons believe to be their conception of being moved by the Spirit is demonic. Christians play by double standards and look away when things get hard.
Its GOOD to be skeptical and not gullible as is demanded in Hebrews 1:1
He is a non believer because he thinks that all ancient copies must be perfectly copied.
Now I know why they are called apologist. Lucona keeps apologizing for mistakes in the bible
I don't know where Bart is getting that Jesus was in shock and that Jesus didn't know what was going on when he ended up being crucified. “From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!” Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”
Matthew 16:21-22, 24 NET. “Then Jesus began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke openly about this. So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. Then Jesus called the crowd, along with his disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”
Mark 8:31-32, 34 NET. “saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Then he said to them all, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.”
Luke 9:22-23 NET 01:32:00
Also, seems to me Jesus quotes from Psalm 22 because he is showing how this entire thing was already written about and that he was fulfilling the scripture:
“My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? I groan in prayer, but help seems far away. All who see me taunt me; they mock me and shake their heads. They say, “Commit yourself to the Lord! Let the Lord rescue him! Let the Lord deliver him, for he delights in him.” Many bulls surround me; powerful bulls of Bashan hem me in. They open their mouths to devour me like a roaring lion that rips its prey. My strength drains away like water; all my bones are dislocated; my heart is like wax; it melts away inside me. The roof of my mouth is as dry as a piece of pottery; my tongue sticks to my gums. You set me in the dust of death. Yes, wild dogs surround me - a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet. I can count all my bones; my enemies are gloating over me in triumph. They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments.”
Psalms 22:1, 7-8, 12-18 NET
bible.com/bible/107/psa.22.1-18.NET
(And I think Bart understands this…how could he miss it and why didn’t Mike hit on this particularly either)
I watched 1:44:00 3 times now and still don't get it. What's Licona's point here? Is he actually arguing that literal zombies are a metaphor?
@Mike Licona Came back after 2 month, rewatched it 5 times, I still don't get it. What is your point? That the OT-writers made stuff up but then didn't really? Because your explanation for why it's accurate is exactly why it's inaccurate...
@@malchir4036I’ll help you, his argument is “metaphor tho”
@@SatanFollower1 Metaphor for what? That's the thing, metaphors still have to have a referent.
@@malchir4036 dawg don’t take it literally it’s just a metaphor 🔥
Excellent debate by both scholars. I'm well familiar with Professor Bart Ehrman's books where he presents very interesting points about the contradictions among the gospels. He's not the first individual to bring these inconsistencies out in the open, and I personally find it liberating when I accept them as such instead of trying to justify them through improbable assumptions. After all, the power of the gospel of Jesus is not dependent upon the historical accuracy of the Bible, but its ability to change lives as it still does today.
They are both master debaters.
If the gospel of Jesus is historically inaccurate and can be shown as such, it has no more ability to change lives than does Mother Goose. What you would be left with is an account of someone (who may or may not of existed) who told his followers to be nice to one another. Good advice, but hardly inspirational.
Interesting. I've only read Licona's books, and found the comparisons he made between the differences in the gospels and differences between recounting the same events in Plutarch's lives. He's very long winded, but I do like the evidence he gives.
People who red the Koran will exactly understand what Bart Ehrman is talking about. Allah the allmighty says in his last revelation.
"So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (Holy Koran 5/13)
Gerhard Löwenherz Too bad the Quran is more factually inaccurate than the Bible.
@CMK Shovv me vvhere. I converted to islam allmost 10 years agoe and since years i vvas looking for mistakes or contradictions but i never found some.
@@gottfriedhimmel3150 The Koran says Jesus never died on the cross, that event was corroborated by Cornelius Tacitus, called Rome's greatest historian.
@@paulcorrea1613and What'd you expect historians to end a biography with? He left without a trace? How many biographies did you know ending that way? Zero. That's say that of course, but read their accounts, you'll know they're all confused
I’m personally a believer in Jesus Christ; however, both speakers had great points and incredible rebuttals! So awesome to listen to these guys.
This debate isn't really a debate. They just have two different definitions of "historically reliable".
I completely agree. Shows that all the historians have a personal bias. And in the end it's mostly opinion. Thats why i rather call this a discussion. Cause in the end the audience side with who they think has the better opinion.
Lol, it is a debate. Erhman has facts, were as every other christian debater has opinions.
I totally agree! People will try to tear Mike apart but his points demolish Bart! Bart makes the gross error of holding ancient literature (inspired by God nonetheless) to a 21st court transcript standard. That makes NO Sense!
Interesting thought. I like that. I would agree, because Ehrman does reference something different when talking about 'reliable' and Licona continually returns back to 'we aren't comparing apples and oranges.'
"This debate isn't really a debate."
*True, 'slaughter; is more appropriate. Poor Mike.*
"They just have two different definitions of "historically reliable"."
*Yes, one rational and one irrational. Poor Mike.*
I pity Mike Licona. Despite all the evidence stacked against his worldview, he stubbornly and willfully refuses to accept them and tries so hard to rationalize his little doctrinal box, which is a man-made belief system inherited from 2nd-3rd century church fathers. Mike Licona and other apologists remind me of this verse in the gospel of John 12:
42 Nevertheless, many of the leaders believed in Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. 43For they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
99% of evangelicals are ignorant of all this stuff, and the minority like Licona and other apologists, despite knowing all these, they cannot admit they are true, because that means they will have to forfeit their little evangelical friend circle and get labeled as heretic by their evangelical friends.
Quid est veritas ? Ioannis 18:38
@Miles Doyle you can quote the Scripture anytime you want , but I can guarantee you. no matter how much you pray, how many bible studies you attend, how many worship songs you sing, how many sermons you listen to, it won't prevent people from being born with down syndrome and neurofibromatosis, it won't prevent Mexican cartels from dismembering people, it won't prevent racist people from hating, bullying, marginalizing other people, it won't prevent bullying and suicide, it won't prevent komodo dragon from eating deer alive, it won't prevent rape, murder.
You can quote the Scripture all you want and quote something fancy from John Piper, CS Lewis or Tim Keller, but none of that does anything to alleviate the suffering and the pain of this world.
majority of American Christians are privileged middle class people who never have to wrestle with poverty, racism, war, and they just go to the same spot once a week, sitting in a pew and just passively listening to the same guy talk for an hour or two, then just scurry back to the parking lot full of luxury cars without bothering to get to know each other. maybe once a week they gather and have some potluck and pray over their first world problems like "my gf broke up with me", and discussing childish things like "is having sex before marriage a sin", "is voting for Democratic party against God's will". what's the point of discussing a few verses with people that look just like you, think just like you, and talk just like you, while doing nothing for homelessness or orphans. that's 99% of evangelical Christians for you.
If there is a being more malevolent and sinister than Hitler, Stalin, or Kim Jong Un, that would be the creator of this world.
I agree with Marcion that whoever created life on earth isn't worthy of being called god. demiurge is a more fitting title.
There might be a transcendent god who created the entire universe, but I don't think that being is the same as the being that created life on earth, because I've never seen an engineer or a story writer as mediocre as the creator of life on earth.
I hope the day comes when people start using the word "demiurge" to describe god more often, because he is not worthy of being called god for all the suffering and pain he caused upon this world.
Likewise, I hope that Gnostics and Marcionites are right that there is a transcendent god other than the one that created this shit show of a planet. because the demiurge that created this mediocre planet deserves a much greater punishment than any war criminals throughout human history.
I have my sympathies for mike licona..he fails miserably
The prefect organism.
Stay in your little echo chamber, child.
@@mattsmith6845 I know that comment above sort of stung a bit but try not to take it so personal. Insults won't help Mike Licona's arguments become any more valid. Sorry but it is what it is.
IamVickie Neither will conjecture prove Licona wrong. Your comment lacks substance and yet you pretend to know the truth above a highly intelligent scholar like Licona. Ehrman and Licona respect each other and each other’s views. Stop being an ass.
@@BRNRDNCK HaHaHa! Highly intelligent or highly indoctrinated?
I have the entire sermon on the mount memorized and I recite it every day. Why couldn't the eye witnesses of Jesus' sermon memorize them? 42:44
And how many times did you have to read it and study it before you were able to recite it 100% accurately ( and I would question if you can actually do it 100% correctly today). The point raised that the sermon was likely to have been a one off diatribe, and the last supper certainly was......there were no archavists recording what was said so tthe probabillity of either one being repeated verbatum is virtually impossible
He's lying, he hasn't memorized anything, saying something online doesn't mean he's right, he's a big liar@@iainrendle7989
Here is my biggest issue with Bart. He brings up the resurrection, says read the gospels for yourself, and then he goes to explain where things don't match up, but he contradicts the scripture. Instead of explaining how the gospels line up in a non-contradictory narrative, he totally throws things around. At the end of Luke, it is not saying that the disciples remained in Jerusalem and never left. It wasn't until Jesus was preparing to ascend that he told them to stay in the city until... He then proceeds to take them out of the city, as far as Bethany, and then ascends. Is this not a violation of what Jesus said, unless Jesus did not say what Bart says He said. I mean, after the resurrection, two of the disciples dared to leave the city. They then were walking with some person outside of the city, and later, while outside of the city, found out it was Jesus. Jesus never once asked them what they were doing outside of Jerusalem. Mark mentions these two in passing. There is no contradiction here, just different views of the same period of time. Nothing to see here. (Unless you want to fabricate something.)
For the crucifixion, John as well as the other authors say Jesus was crucified and buried on a Friday, the day before Sabbath. In John, the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to help hasten the death of those being crucified and take them down so they wouldn't remain on the crosses on the Sabbath. That would place the crucifixion on a Friday. I do have questions as to exactly when the seder was supposed to happen, and did Jesus and His disciples observe the feast early?
On Jesus birth, Luke omitted Jesus great adventure after going to Jerusalem, and jumped straight to Nazareth. Going by what Mike says, this is apparently something historical biographers/historians of the era did. Since both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus ended up in Nazareth, does this omission mean contradiction, or just leaving something out because it isn't part of what Luke wanted to cover in his book? (Matthew did a pretty good job of covering it.)
There is a lot more then Bart was saying, and I'm surprised that Mike did not do a better job of showing there is no actual contradiction, just different authors with different audiences and intention in covering what they cover. John was written to a Jewish audience.
I agree with you. There is a lot one can say here, although Dr. Ehrman is very educated and his research is thorough, his approach is a post Enlightened approach of higher criticism of the scriptural narratives - nothing wrong or new with this approach, he does a very good job at showing supposed inconsistencies. But, are they real inconsistencies or apparent? I have taught history for years and there are scholars who have shown otherwise. I graduated with an M.A. in theological studies in 2004 from a seminary in reformed theology. There are many scholars and a lot of resources which take Dr. Licona's approach. I understood where Licona was coming from, I would not want to take his place. I would have to listen to the debate again in a new light, but I understood what he was saying. I was wishing he would go into more detail but Ehrman came ready with so much to the contrary that I didn't feel Licona was really really ready to take him on, but he did state his position and defended it. We live in a very skeptical age and unless one is aware that his approach a modern one, which extrapolates modern skepticism back, subjecting it to modern literary criticism, it will be easy to agree with him. I have heard him say things when being interviewed by others, I shake my head at some things he says - you can't always take this approach to everything in the biblical narratives.
😅😅😅
So you take your own time to contradict yourself, in order to disprove a scholar, it's embarrassing. Just do what he says, and see if you'll not see clear contradictions, anyways, you won't, because you're smoothly Ok with God's word being inaccurate, you believe it anyway
@@morrisallensheriff5241 If God's word is inaccurate, there is no salvation in this world.
@@ralphjansen3563 that’s what the essence of the debate is about, because some part of the Bible isn’t God’s words, God Almighty doesn’t makes mistakes, he never forgets, so if a book claiming to be from God, and then has mistakes, you know definitely it’s not from God, but it’s men, who are writing these words claiming it’s from God, many have done this, and the Bible isn’t free from it, just few examples of errors in the bible
Jesus’s alleged crucifixion, in John gospel it’s the day before the Passover meal, in Luke it’s the day after, of course God doesn’t make such mistake, He’ll accurately report the exact day, also, in 1 Timothy, God is said to be immortal, but Christians like Paul told us God became man and died. There are lots and lots of mistakes of even higher degree than these, listen to the debate to get some verses that shows clear contradiction, so if a book has mistakes claiming to be from God, you don’t expect us to believe it’s, then you’re blaspheming against God, I would rather posit that it’s from men, heresies, liars claiming to convey God’s words
@@morrisallensheriff5241 You show a lack of understanding of some things. God became a man, however, if you study what that means, Jesus was both God and man, both human and divine natures, both the Great High Priest, and the sacrifice in one body. God did not die. The flesh, the humanity of Christ bore our sin in sacrifice, and God, the divine nature, the High Priest, sanctified the sacrifice on the cross. SO while the flesh died, the spirit was alive, according to Peter. God did not die. When you start second guessing God, and believing that He is incapable of preserving for us His word, that is when you start making mistakes. As James White has said, the basic message that exists behind the words in scripture, the true message of God that exists beyond the words, yet through the words, remains unchanged. God's word has been preserved.
I love how, Licona's statement of rebuttal after listening to Erhman's cogent and persuasive argument, is that he had, in fact, only been arguing that the gospels give a "gist" of what happens - as was considered acceptable by ancient historians. Okay Mr L - you got your "gist" - now tell me how that doesn't equate to you being wrong, and Erhman being right?
This is the difference between these two: Licona argues from comparisons (mostly either dubious or irrelevant) and uses circular reasoning where he begins with his conclusion and works backwards and never gives us any specific examples from the Gospels to back up his claims. He is also - possibly - deliberately disingenuous -- for example when he speaks of how events stay with us because they evoke powerful emotions (he uses a battle in Vietnam as an example) he uses this idea to show how Jesus's teachings would have been easy for the disciples to remember - BUT - he evades the problem - given how much greater the effect would have been - of why the Gospels don't tally on far more emotional events such as Jesus's death and resurrection - and the zombies.
Erhman argues using concrete examples that can be checked by anyone, and his style is far clearer and easier to follow; Erhman's job is, of course, far easier because he is correct.
Licona is asking "What do we mean by reliable?" & goes on to say that the reliability of the Gospels have to be judged according by the literary standards on their own time. In order to do this, the reader must recognize that biographers of the era used literary devices (such as time compression, as he mentions in the debate). To say Licona gives no examples of such devices is false. He cites Plutach, the Book of Acts, etc. He also wrote an entire book on the subject. When people like you claim his gives no examples to defend their views, despite the fact they very obviously do, it makes me think you're as devoted to beginning with your conclusion (the apologist is obviously wrong or dishonest) as you claim Licona is to his. Maybe you don't buy Licona's arguments. That's fine. They're up for debate & refutation, as are any applogetical arguments-Christian or atheist. But at least have the charity & good sense to hear out the arguments before setting out to refute them, or else you're simply knocking over strawmen, an awful exercise Christians & atheists alike ought to abhor.
What kind of degree you have ??
@@hewhay8464 None. But what does that matter? As Chesterton said, I can exercise the "right of the amateur" to make what sense I can of the evidence the experts put forward. Guys like Ehrman are experts in Biblical languages & textual criticism, but not in historiography or philosophy or theology or psychology, etc. It's my intellectual right & duty, degree in hand or not, to do my best to separate the wheat from the chaff in Ehrman's arguments. Simply having a degree in something doesn't make you right.
@@motivesofcredibility3788 Licona does make his argument about how we should understand the gospels in the same sense as we undestand the ancient sources but I'm not sure how much we can give him credit for that argument. He sets up a very blatant strawman by his suggestion that because historians trust Plutarch they should trust the gospels on the same basis. Even if that was true, Historians don't accept any supernatural claims from authors like Plutarch. However, it's also not true that historians trust Plutarch or really any source completely. If you read any moderately serious history book, the author is going to be doubting and interpreting the sources. Licona knows this. Licona doesn't get credit for acting like he doesn't.
1:19:17 It almost felt like Licona was doing a parody of himself at that point.
While given my name I clearly am not a proponent of biblical accuracy or authority, I sincerely respect and commend you for allowing discussion via comments and posting this debate in which you, to be frank, did not compete well. More religious leaders need to have clarity and allow discourse and contention (peacefully of course), and I can respect this greatly. Having attempted discussions with people like Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ken Ham, and the like, I greatly appreciate the openness and honesty here. You clearly believe, yet you welcome opposing opinions. Thank you. If all believers were this open and honest, and this welcoming of peaceful discussion, I would have almost no issues with religion.
I really think my iPad malfunctioned when I heared the and over*20
Because he had no points to put up.
It's great to see Mike licona and Bart Ehrman together
More like Scooby doo and Bart Ehrman.
@@proculusjulius7035 more like Mike and Bart.
The bible is supposed to be the perfect word of god, if there is just one error it can't be perfect or the Christian god is not perfect.
@@MrEricW2008 How much of the Bible is literally not true?
words of man fully errors
No. The Bible may be full of errors and Jesus could still have risen from the dead.
The word of God will stand when everything else is gone.
You don't understand God used men to write, the error is not on God.
2:25:10 Excellent question from audience to Mike. And Mike's answer unfortunately unsatisfactory to me imo
1:22:01 Mike asks how many errors would it take to consider the gospels unreliable. well I'd argue that 1 error is enough.
He then asks that if your wife makes 1 mistake would that make her unreliable. well my salvation doesn't depend on my wife and she never claimed to be divine, her 1 error costs me nothing while the gospels error might cost me everything. It's an illogical comparison.
Why would 1 error cost you your salvation? It's not like thats where the error (if any) is at. The Bible didnt literally come down from heaven absolutely 100% perfect. It was written by humans with inspiration from God.
Spot on!
@@x-popone6817 sure. If it helps you sleep at night
@@TheMrpalid Your response is totally irrelevant to my comment. Has nothing to do with "helping me sleep at night." I am just pointing out that one error is not a problem. The only people who think that are people with fundamentalist mindsets who think inerrancy means 0 errors in any way whatsoever.
I just watched this debate after watching Liconas debate with Matt Dillahunty, and I gotta say, I'm amazed that this supposed supreme creator and ruler of the universe continues to let Licona speak on his behalf without intervening.
This was garbage. A complete waste of time. An embarrassment. I haven't seen a one sided whooping this bad in years. I humbly suggest that if Licona wants more people to become christians, he should stop participating in these so-called debates immediately!!
LOL.
Edit: to be fair, when you can carry the entire team with your eyes closed, why bother. But even so, good point 😆
The authors captured the "gist" of things, although the "gist" is inaccurate? God can't get the "gist" of things correct? This cannot be holy scripture inspired by God, God is not a liar.
Tracker Who?, The best quote: God is not a Liar!
As soon as he said Jesus taught the same thing over and over like a broken record he lost me!
This is not what the Scriptures say! This is an assumption that he shoehorned into history. It is a vital flaw in his argument.
Licona: "they are not used for navigation". My instinctual answer was: even worse, "millions of people are using them to *navigate their lives*".
I am amazed the Mike Licona does not bury this discussion very, very deep.
Mike must improve his argument style. Bart gave good example and argument, from his depth of wisdom.
I respectfully disagree
Chrise cool, your are entitled to hold your opinion. Keep it up.
John wrote his Gospel last and even though he was "an unlearned fisherman"...he would have had about 60 years to learn to write Greek, or I don't understand Ehrman's rejection of a scribe either.
Two perfectly reasonable options... neither one even requires the supernatural.
Ya. He could have easily asked a scribe.
Bart likes to move the goalposts.
@@r.a.panimefan2109 indeed. My favorite Erhman quote is when he debates/discusses the Bible with Mohammed Hijib.
Despite making his fortune off attacking the Bible, he clearly states that the reason that he (Erhman) isn't a Christian isn't because of the textual deviants in the Bible manuscripts but because there is pain in the world. After a career of attacking Christianity and the Bible, his basic reason for rejecting Jesus is the same as any other atheist. That kinda blew my mind
@lovesickforone ya.
And I think all people have the question.
At some point.
It's how we finally decide
A few months ago. I went to see if some of my questions were echoed.
And I was actually shocked atheists all of em have it.
When I was a kid. It did bug me why
Why.
Why pit us in a situation we couldn't possibly win.
I took a big risk listening to erhman.
And as a human
No human wants evil.
Monsters do.
Erhman I think is proly the world's most dangerous athiest. Next to Dawkins. He knows enouph scripture. He knows his history.
But becuase he doesn't believe scripture can't ever make sense.
To him.
Me I was confused as a kid. I dusted it off and looked at it... and u refuse to be in dark or confused
Almost all of his
Bible plot holes(lol)
Are simply becuase he refuses to believe Jesus.
So he can't see the sep between o.t. and n.t. I've noticed athiests seem to align to hebrew roots.
In a word almost flip side of coin way
H roots tends to posit christ changed nothing.
Athiests becuase they can't see christ as messiah therefore see n.t. as contradictive.
They cant recognize the redemption. And there fore call it contradiction.
Other things. Like flat earth views of antiquity jews.
So. Persecution illocution i.p. has great vid..
Others like the big bath that doesn't equal pie... really they said build a basin.
Did it need to be a perfect circle
@lovesickforone that was a little long may be confused.
Thoughts are a bit scattered there.
Essentially
The why evil. I think it is honestly a question we wonder at some point.
Inspiringphilosophy he made me think it like this.
Let's say god knew all possible future.
Which he would.
Now if he wants us to have free will we have to be able to commit sin.
So i.p. said this would have been only possibility of free will if we had the capacity of wrong.
And after the dangerous ermhan I sat there going I dont want to be a atheist
I know christ is light. And I refuse to be in dark. I refuse to not believe.
I may wonder I may ask why.
... what fun would it be if the answers were easy. I'll have fun asking the lord for answers.
Another thing atheists go on about
Is they see god as the lier in eden.
God didnt lie. He said surely die(the hebrew means u will surely die.
As in it will happen.
The other is they see the enemy as truth.
Why becuase the snakes (lie was laced with truth)
He said god lied to Adam and eve( that was a lie)
That was what gave the serpent a opening.
Then he gave a truth about the tree being knowledge of good and evil..
In other words a sweet truth with a deadly lie under the surface.
But due to the way eve took gods warning made it seem as if he lied.
U can't lie without utilizing twisted half truth.
The other thing ull notice is most athiests read bible in the most fundamental way.
I.e. young earth
Most atheists read bible as preaching young earth and flat earth.
In fact several young people left christianity after being in a church reading it that way.
Then they get out and get the rest of the facts yec tend to think is fake...
And down the tube we go.
Christ said not to argue about genealogy.
Isn't that what the debate between yec. Oec is a argument about geneologys...
The last 5 minute wrap up from both hit the nail in the head. As a former member of a high control cult I can say details matter. Lacona says on the death bed those things won't matter. I disagree. Many in the former cult I was in have their death beds way to early because details and the idea the Bible means way more then it dies. I speak of denying medical interventions deemed unbiblical. And Bart brings out accurate information is important. people spend their lives as martyrs , willing to die for what it contains.
1:01:52
So according to Licona, Mathew 27:52 was just some "Special Effects" that Mathew added to spice things up. If you want to keep your faith in the Bible as the word-for-word instruction for your life, then avoid this guy!
Mike Licona - the guy who lost his old job for explaining why the gospels are not historically reliable - tries to keep his new job by pretending he doesn't know that.
Probably because he doesn't know it.
For the sake of the pay check bro
The gospels probably were not even trying to be historically reliable. They were trying to be religious documents of faith. Therefore the whole debate here is pointless. The premise of the debate is false. Why argue if the author did something that he never intended to do?
I'm an atheist and I think that Licona won the debate. Most comments think that Bart "destroyed" him, yet these people, I'm sorry to say, are not very intelligent and got distracted by his show, he laughed, walked around, raised his voice, whereas Licona remained stiff, calm, quiet. These stupid people interpreted these signs as weakness. When it comes to the points, Licona clearly won. Bart pretty much said "there are errors, therefore it's not accurate". Someone should explain to mr. Bart that almost nothing is 100% accurate, just look at CNN nowadays, we have cameras, phones etc yet almost all they say it's a lie. And, another huge fact that Bart ignored: those eyewitnesses, I repeat, eyewitnesses, went on to getting killed for what they SAW. That's a very big evidence. People die for their ideas and beliefs all the time, but nobody in history died for something they saw if they weren't absolutely sure of what they saw.
Lucio Inncenzo: Well said.
I wouldn´t say that Bart Ehrman is so good, because he knows so much. He's good because he has got common sense.
Nah, Ehrmans speech is totally bozo. Completely oblivious to subjective thinking.
@@__-bc4bsWow! you arrive at this conclusion all by yourself? What IDIOTIC NON-SENSE. Ehrman is NOT ARGUING SUBJECTIVELY. That is the point! The only "bozo" in this conversation IS YOU.
@ Olli-Pekka Lindgren
Knowing so much doesn't hurt :), and he is very good at presenting his knowledge. His lectures and discussions are always a treat.
@Pete Kondolios Also, the contradictions he mentions aren't actually contradictions. Well, they can be if you totally misrepresent what was written, but I suppose one is supposed to do that in a debate when one is determined to win points by any means necessary. Just in passing, when does John say Jesus was crucified? On a Friday. When do Matthew, Mark, and Luke say Jesus was crucified? On a Friday. How is this two different times? That was very weak and disingenuous. Mike needed to hit harder on the actual presentation by Bart, instead of repeating everything he had already said.
@Pete Kondolios The ones he mentioned I buried a long time ago, and it wasn't even difficult. (Which is why I am surprised he doesn't know. I'm no academic scholar, just did some simple research.) If you look at the gospels as parallels to the same story, there is not real contradiction. One would expect variation if you have different authorse with different intents, writing to different audiences who had various points of views. (the Jews have Mosaic laws and traditions while everyone else...doesn't. That would affect how things are recorded and written I believe.)
What impacted me the most was how readily Mr Lacona admitted to the errors in the gospels and dismissed them as insignificant. This is extremely significant, considering most Christians believe the Bible is inerrant
No, "most Christians" don't believe that. Evangelicals do. I studied theology and never came across a single student or professor who believed in biblical inerrancy.
@@MrSeedi76 Then it seems like Evangelicals are setting up a lot of people to have their faith shipwrecked. I was raised going to an Evangelical church, and I was always taught that the Bible is 100% inerrant and there are no errors or contradictions. A lot of my faith has hinged on this concept. Yet now that I am researching for myself and finding all these contradictions, it's taking a real toll on my faith. I can't help but feel that maybe this wouldn't have been as big a deal for me, if I had been raised in a different Christian faith tradition that doesn't prioritize inerrancy. Ugh.
@@billyb7465 Licona focuses on the literary devices used in the ancient world which were acceptable at the time and shouldn't diminish the spiritual impact of the text or even its inspiration. He also believes that the resurrection is historical based on the accounts we have. J. Warner Wallace actually came to faith partially because there were differences in the gospels. His point is that eyewitnesses often do have differing testimonies, and this is how we know they didn't collaborate and make everything up.
I don't understand Mike's "time compression" argument about Luke's resurrection story in Acts, vs. Matthew's resurrection story.
Mr. Licona either has his voice gone or he literally sounds like screech from saved by the bell
Awesome debate! Dr. Brian Swain's hair won without contest!
When considering whether or not a text is historical accurate, does the intent of the author matter?
Nope.
yes it matters, because there is a claimed that the sources of the text is from god, by the findings of bart ehrman it proves that the text is not from god, god cannot make mistake or errors or contradiction..
@@tingnannatinnangmalaman9454 i don't think i have heard anyone say that the gospels were written literally by God.
@@nevin8604 either way..be it inspired by god. or word of god the fact that it has errors and contradicting events it cannot be from God...
@@tingnannatinnangmalaman9454 i don't think it has contradicting events, you have specify them and i have to validate them. It may have errors, which are mostly copyist errors which is very natural.
That doesn't make it not God's word or inspired by God.
This is got to be one of the best debates I’ve ever watched. Both had great points, I’ll probably have to listen a few more times to fully understand. The clear winner , I’m not sure but I think they both are winners.
Really listen to what Bart is saying. The Bible has a serious problem that people are not willing to accept.
Her: are you cheating on me?
Me: I’m just slipping into a different genre of faithfulness
Loool
Honey, Plutarch and even Suetonius were cheating on their wives too. Probably. We can assume. No?
Bruuh