Historian has New Resurrection Evidence? (Dr Bart Ehrman vs Dr Gary Habermas)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 фев 2022
- Expert historian Dr. Gary Habermas recently took to RUclips to unveil some new evidence he found in support of the resurrection of Jesus. However, as he invoked Dr. Bart Ehrman as his authority for several of the claims, we reached out to this friend-of-the-channel to see if the resurrection historian accurately depicted the New Testament authority.
*************
SIGN UP for Bart's "History, Legend, or Myth in Genesis?" Seminar at www.tinyurl.com/BartGen
*************
This Historian has NEW Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
• This Historian has NEW...
Special thanks to @BittyBuddha_
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord 
Наука
Habermas' misrepresentation of Ehrman is a great example of how information transforms in oral re-telling.
Yes, I agree, but that's no reason to believe that what is written about Jesus in the Bible, written by people who never met him but were just simply writing down stories passed verbally for generations is not totally inerrant. (yes, it's sarcasm). Habermas has access to virtually everything Ehrman has said either in his books or his online presence but he still can't get it right.
@@andystokes8702 Now imagine we had 1st century technology and Habermas said this to his students. How many of them would decide to take time and money and travel to find Ehrman and verify if he's being fairly represented. Even with all of the relevant information at our fingertips, how many Christians who watched the original video will see this?
@@kamilgregor Perhaps more pertinent would be how many Christians would want to see it.
@@andystokes8702 exactly
@@kamilgregor that's an excellent question and one I think you should ask Cameron's viewers on the original video, too!
"I've got some brand new evidence that should already be familiar to some of you" has the exact same energy as when a rapper hops onto their very first track and opens up with "you already know who it is"
This is actually a perfect analogy because I just heard a rap song that did exactly this 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
LMAO that’s *exactly* what happens in this song and you just reminded me of it:
ruclips.net/video/vjW8wmF5VWc/видео.html
Unless they continue with “you picked this song, you read who it’s by”
Evidence is both the factual information (noun) AND the presentation of those facts. Feel free to look it up. By Gary's own admission, his talk weighs more heavily on the presentation - unless that's not your cup of tea, and that's OK. 🙂
If this event was so crucial to humanity, why would be so hard to prove? It's borderline unprovable.
Exactly! Why are there only copies of copies and fragments that require high priests to interpret and thousands of flavors of christianity and no originals in Mandarin or English. And lunatics like these two that have to spend their whole lives convincing other people that the storybook is true. It's all ridiculous including arguing with them
@@robertwhite1810 It's also entertaining in a way similar to watching monkey swinging from branches in a zoo.... "Look at that one there, he is so silly"
Borderline? I associate borderline with "close". This isn't.
And for such a HUGE event, it was barely recorded outside of the Gospel. Just like... pretty much the entire story of Jesus. Only people close to Jesus wrote about him and Jesus himself or even the government didn't care about recording history of the man. I'm talking about EYEWITNESSES. There has to be a lot of mental gymnastics to take these supernatural stories seriously.
@@KaiHenningsen In this case you can consider it a form of intellectual honesty; it could be incorrect to say it's totally, 100% unprovable. Saying that it's borderline, in this case, is saying that it's close to unprovable as it's possible to get without crossing that line.
In his 'minimal facts' argument, Habermas demonstrated that he doesn't know what facts are. Now, with his 'new evidence' he demonstrates that he doesn't know what 'new' or 'evidence' are either.
It is all about spinning his narrative in response to the lack of evidence.
@@usmagrad87 It's the only thing one can do when your job is to sell a bad product. You have to bend facts and figures into pretzels to get someone to buy in.
Habermas lives by the creed: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls***"
he can't even remember what his facts are or how many apparently.
LOL
i like that gary habermas is a direct eyewitness of bart ehrman's positions, in the current age of technology and information, and still misconstrues them.
now imagine what a *non-eyewitness* in the *ancient world* might think of someone's positions...
better yet, imagine reading this material 2000 years later and thinking you know *either* person's positions...
Exactly. I keep waiting for some archeologist find some corpolites from a temple where "He" had been preaching and selling the "holy" brown bits for huge amounts of money...after all, they seem to eagerly buy these appologist's sh-t, no problem.
THIS.
💥
And don't forget these were people who had their own positions and beliefs that colored their perceptions and judgments.
And that really does makes it amazingly difficult to figure out what was originally meant by the original authors.
If we had only Habermas book in which Ehrman's positions are shown then we would get it totally wrong.
The thumbnail for this says it all and yet I'm still going to watch and love every moment 😂 Thanks Paulogia for doing what you do best!
Glad you enjoy it!
@@Paulogia This is why I love your channel, the range of guests and pursuit of factual information rather than playing the game where we pretend to know what other people think. The fact you actually manage to drag relevant guests on to your shows not only demonstrates how respected you are but also your attention to detail.
Same lol. I can't wait to "learn" what this "new" "evidence" might be.
Dr. Habermas: "Bart Ehrman, atheist NT scholar agrees that [ X, Y, Z ] shows that this thing I'm telling you about the resurrection is accurate."
Dr. Ehrman: "Nope."
I'm going to sit here holding my breath until Dr. Gary Habermas goes back on that show and corrects his misstatements on Bart Ehrman's positions -- I hope I won't have to hold by breath too long…
@@fred_derf You’ll probably have a better shot of holding your breath until he releases that book he keeps teasing.
Holy fucking strawman, Batman.
Habermas never argued that Erhman agreed with his conclusions. He said that Erhman agrees that the creeds in Paul's letters were formulated during the first 5 years after the crucifixion.
For the 1st point, either Erhman misunderstood Habermas or Paulogia deliberately misrepresented him. Nobody argues that the disciples were preaching the Gospel message on Easter morning. He actually agrees with Habermas that the message was being proclaimed a few months later or even earlier.
For the second point, Erhman questions accepting portions of the Gospel of the Hebrews as historically reliable but not others and equates it to relying on Papias affirming Markan authorship while denying some of Papias' other statements. He accuses Habermas of Special Pleading for not accepting all of the Gospel of Hebrews and all of Papias. That's ironic considering Erhman accepts some parts of the Gospels as historical but not all of them. Is that special pleading? Obviously not, he has reasons for thinking that the other parts aren't reliable. It's the same for Papias and the Gospel of the Hebrews: some of the writings are reliable, others are not.
3. Erhman apparently has taken on a fringe position that defines "pre-Pauline" as "before Paul wrote" rather than "before Paul preached" like literally ever other NT historian defines it as.
In fact, Erhman disagrees with himself, as in a blog post he says that the Romans 1:3-4 creed originates with the original apostles. He also disagrees with the Oxford Companion to the Bible, Gerd Ludeman, and basically everyone else.
4. Erhman agrees with Habermas that Paul was persecuting the Church prior to his conversion.
5. Yes, Erhman famously doesn't think that Jesus being described as doing things that only God can do as meaning that Jesus is actually God. At least that's a little better than Mythicists. But that's Erhman disagreeing about the conclusions drawn from the text, not the date or context of the texts.
Really, the only misrepresentation being done here is Erhman misrepresenting himself and Paulogia misrepresenting Habermas. The rest of the video is just Erhman saying he disagrees with Habermas' conclusions, which everyone already knew.
@@grantgooch5834 Why lie about it? It's crazy how far you will go with your lies.
Habermas: references Bart Ehrman
Paulogia: Brings in Bart Ehrman
Edit: Also wanted add that ppl should watch the debate between Dr. Ehrman & Dr. Justin Bass regarding the divinity of Jesus as
Dr. Ehrman referenced it in the video.
I like how Habermas calls Ehrman a "skeptic" as if that's somehow discrediting. you can tell somebody is not a scholar when they refer to critical methodology as "skepticism." If you're not skeptical, you're not doing it right. Habermas' position is that Christianity should simply be believed with no evidence or methodological justification or else you're stupid, lost or evil.
He's what is called a ‘partisan’.
1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person
especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
That's's definitely how many Christians behave (when converting people and trying to make people believe in Christianity without irrefutable evidence).
Nah, that's not it Ken. He's trying to say the evidence withstands scrutiny. Like this is really good evidence. He just gets it all wrong. My guess is he hasn't read Ehrman or at least not with any care.
@@sp1ke0kill3r Guys like Habermas, WLC, Licona, etc, are not really trying to convince academics or even atheists. They're trying to retain Christians and stop the hemorrhaging of young people from the churches by trying to gaslight them into believing there's any kind of academic case here, and that those who don't take it as history are doing so out of imagined personal animus to Christians, even though the vast majority of critical scholars historically have been and still are Christians. These guys are essentially sales reps for the Jesus brand, not curious interrogators of the evidence.
@@Ken_Scaletta Yes, saving the high-paying, disingenuous Christian empire is mission critical. With so much money being generated, Christianity is the biggest business in the world. All this for a huge fairytale.
This was really great Paul, and Bart; thank you. This happened to me as well. I was raised in the Nazarene church (thanks for the condolences), and was also an adoptee like my brother before me but this was never withheld from us. In fact, our parents explained it to us as soon as we were old enough to understand. They also gave us basics that was in our state adoption records, and is something important for an adopted child; who can truly feel like they have NO ties to their real lineage. I was always told I was French and English. Great, that gave me something. BUT, when he and I were respectively 18, we were allowed to read our adoption records. Turns out they left out a little something from my birth mother's side: Jewish! Well, first I was infuriated and when I demanded an explanation my parents said in exact words: "We didn't want you getting any ideas.". Meaning, nothing contrary to the BS I was raised in! They knew how much I loved learning and education but constantly discouraged me from it bc MY only task was to find a spouse and begin producing offspring!
I said all that to say this: I began visiting the Reform synagogue just a mile down from our church, took Hebrew classes then Old Testament classes in Hebrew and OMG were my eyes "opened" to the awful mistranslation mistakes sadly made by Jewish scribes creating the Septuagint that, IMO, has led to these stories about Joshua's so-called divinity narratives. It wasn't long after that when I stopped denying my inner atheist.
Sorry for the long post, but I had to get it out! 😒🙁
Wow!
That's very interesting. Do you have a blog?
That's a fascinating story! You need your own channel.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 agreed
@@wfemp_4730 No. No blog. Not sure how much good it'd do and I wouldn't nowhere to start looking for a blog site or the best rated blog sites. I haven't posted regular blog since my old MySpace days and it wasn't just about my life just you know stuff. Are you saying, well; are you suggesting I should?
A friend of mine re-converted to Christianity as an almost 30 year old because of Habermas. I'm like...stunned. His arguments are so bad.
@flufflmouse Yeah I don't want to attribute too much motive, but he was raised Mennonite like me (and like Paul) and I kind of wonder if the stress of life just caused him to pivot back to something familiar for structure and comfort.
@@erimgard3128 yeah, it's definitely not good to pretend we know too much about a person's inner motives, but I can't help but notice that trend in so many of the conversion stories I've heard over my whole life (having been raised as a Baptist). It seems very common that people will have their conversion "epiphany" when they hit some kind of difficult patch in their life, or when they become frustrated with the project of finding a meaningful way of using their life. I don't personally think this is a coincidence, that they fall into the warm, welcoming arms of a religious life and community in these moments; and I certainly don't think they do so for any reasons that should be convincing to a skeptic.
Sometimes we can talk to those people, sometimes we can not.
I kinda can't believe how weak the "evidence" is, by his own admission.
Kind of shows that, for most people, converting/deconverting is much more of an emotional choice than a logical choice.
I like how Ehrman has a no-bullshit, facts-only approach to the NT, but still remands tactful despite his bluntness.
Bart Ehrman (in the Paulogia video) is either forgetting or misrepresenting his own views, and the views of the scholarly majority, when it comes to the early christian creeds. From Ehrman's own blog post "Exaltation Christology in an Early Creed", "Scholars have long recognized that Paul [in Romans 1:3-4] is quoting an earlier pre-Pauline tradition here...The short story, then, is that Paul appears to be quoting an established tradition here. Why does it appear to be established and why does Paul quote it? It appears to be established because it has a very primitive view of things, in which Jesus is the earthly messiah descended from David; moreover, the phrase 'spirit of holiness' is not good Greek, but is a Semiticism - that is, a phrase in Greek that is given in the way that it would be given in a semitic language, such as Aramaic - the language of Jesus himself, his followers, and the very earliest Christians in Palestine. This 'creed' may go back to the first Christian followers of Jesus in Palestine. And one other reason it is thought to be an 'established' tradition is that Paul quotes it without calling attention to it, evidently on the assumption that it will be familiar to his readers in Rome (not Palestine! In other words, this is a widely held creedal statement) (btw: Paul indicates that at the time of the writing of this letter, he had never been in Rome - so he didn’t teach the people there this creed. They both knew it independently and Paul surmised his readers would know it)."
Now, he can try and walk back his view by redefining "pre-Pauline" to merely mean before the WRITTEN works of Paul. This is an utterly incoherent definition, since in his very own words, the purpose is to indicate ideas that DID NOT ORIGINATE with Paul, and were ALREADY ESTABLISHED by the time Paul came around. Therefore, "pre-Pauline" should mean before BOTH the WRITTEN and the SPOKEN teachings (preaching) of Paul. On top of this, Bart Ehrman even acknowledges that the creeds came from JESUS'S FIRST CHRISTIAN FOLLOWERS IN PALESTINE. These things considered, it makes no sense to date any of the early creeds post-40 CE.
If Bart Ehrman indeed believes that the creeds were written post-40 CE, he is in a very fringe minority of scholars, for the mainstream view is definitely that they were within years of the crucifixion. Some excerpts:
The Oxford Companion to the Bible: "The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7...certainly not later than [Paul's] visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE"
Gerd Lüdemann: "…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE."
Robert Funk: "…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E"
@@EricTheYounger That does not exclude these Jewish Messianic people from taking the verse in a mystical way.
The verse Rom. 1:3b "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (2 Sam. 7:12) is good evidence for historicity. But 2 Sam. 7:12c "who shall come forth from your body," can mean God made a flesh body from David's semen for Jesus (it was a belief that the male seed contained the whole body). This is a convenient way to fulfill messianic prophecy for a celestial event instead of on Earth.
Please answer two simple multiple choice questions:
In the context of what Paul wrote:
1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? In other words who would find it a crime just for looking like, and believed to be human that's punishable by death?
Philippians 2:7-8
NRSV
"but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross."
YLT
"but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,"
A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
In the context of what Paul wrote:
2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if was made known to them (without a doubt) that killing Jesus would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? In other words who would be against eternal life for humans in that they would not follow through in killing Jesus because it would give said humans a chance at immortality?
Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities); Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8
NRSV
"Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
YLT
"And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;"
A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
Taking these verses all together; We have Jesus not taking equality with the Father, but lowered himsellf taking on a flesh disguise, and ventured where it is a crime punishable by death for being a human. In this same place (Paul does not say where) of being found in human form whoever it is would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them. Whoever it is does not want the gift of immortality for mankind from the Creator. Who best describes killing humans on site, and not wanting eternal life for them?
Jews/Romans: Did they go around enforcing death sentences for the crime of looking like a flesh & blood human? If they were made known with no doubt, and whatever misconceptions they had were corrected of the plan of the Highest God (note: Romans seen their highest God Jupiter & the Jewish God Yahweh as the same deity, but they worshipped it differently)? Would they be for their own destruction, or for their own immortality (a gift from an all loving God)?
Satan: Would Satan attack flesh, and, or kill a human? Would Satan be against humans gaining a chance at immortality?
Note: 1 Cor. 5:5 "5 you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.", & 2 Cor. 12:7bc "7 Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated."
@@bleirdo_dude Your response doesn't seem to be related to what I said. I'm talking about the numerous early creeds that claim the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The vast majority of scholars understand these to be pre-Pauline, in the sense of originating before Paul's teachings (both written and oral). Furthermore, the vast majority of scholars would place these to originate before 40CE, or earlier.
@@EricTheYounger No problem just answer the two simple questions please.
@@EricTheYounger Nope, you are lying as I showed elsewhere
_"They heard these things before Jesus died, but they didn't realize them until he was raised from the dead"_
This should be a huge red flag for Christians: that the "high Christology" and the resurrection was a rationalization by the disciples after his death. "Ah, yes... Jesus was talking about his own resurrection and divinity all along, we just didn't realize it until now... totally. It requires special revelation from God to put the pieces together, you wouldn't understand."
Sounds a whole lot like a combination of Buyer's Remorse and a Sunken Cost Fallacy.
Imagine giving up everything for a guy who claims to be God and then he up and dies on you!
That's a situation ripe for posthoc justifications.
Sounds like Jordan Petersen fans.
No. They didn`t knew because no one was expecting a Mesiah that was going to die under a curse and come back to life some days later. No jew in that time would anticipate something like that would happen. Any resurrection would only occur at the end of times. Even in the Gospels, after His death, it is clear that the disciples thought it was over.
@@pleroforia6140 _"no one was expecting a Mesiah that was going to die under a curse and come back to life"_
Then it sure is strange that Christians think it was a prophesied...
"I meant to do that"
--Jesus dying on the Cross
Don't be disappointed, it is Capturing Christianity after all. No expectations - no disappointment, it's that simple.
I don't know, I set the bar pretty low for CC and he still limbos under it.
@@JosephKano Your words paint a vivid picture. I had to laugh.
This misrepresentation of Ehrman’s words, by someone who knows him, is exactly why the second-hand (100th-hand?) accounts of the gospels are so problematic.
Well said!
This exactly. His point is disproving itself
Who cares? Ehrman has proved to everyone who matters that this is a dead and worthless subject, so why don't we all move on to more worthwhile things (as Bart must surely be doing by now)
@@hj925 9/11 & 1/6 ... Never Forget ! 🎗
Cameron: “I don’t know what he’s talking about” 😂😂
Why would a real God that is alive today, need any "historical evidence" for his existence?!?
While humans cannot produce a living God, "historical evidence" seems exactly the kind of thing humans could have concocted, Joseph Smith.
@Mazinblaster Z Then how did people who didn't know how to read and write understand it and how did it spread among the population if that's the case?
@@Lobsterwithinternet Because when you're illiterate you can't read the bible so there is no need for you to understand it, you just have to accept the word of the preacher because he has read it and understands it (supposedly). The problem for christianity comes in when people can read the source material themselves and they find out how much it differs from what they've been taught.
@@fred_derf Which proves my point.
@@Lobsterwithinternet, writes _"Which proves my point."_
I was answering your question…
@@fred_derf And I was pointing out that people like Habermas claim you need to be a scholar to understand it but do not hold that same standard to rank and file believers and also claim it's different from the mystery religions at the same time.
I’m convinced Gary Habermas voices Peter Griffin. 😂
😂
Nice commercial... 😉👉
Now I can’t unsee that! Ha!
Or maybe Bill Swerski's Super Fans... Da Bears! Like Chris Farley or George Wendt
"What is God's role in this? Obviously, he's rooting for da Bears. Otherwise he wouldn't have put them in Chicago. The question is: now, did God create da Bears and make them superior to all other teams? Or is he simply a huge fan, and Ditka made them superior to all teams?"
Oddly, this new "evidence" seems like little more than a rearrangement of the old "evidence".
"I live in a *new* room after I rearranged the furniture" - type of new. Habermas had an epiphany, runs around shouting "Look what I've found!" and calls this new evidence.
I call it spin. This is just spinning the “evidence” in a slightly new direction.
@@usmagrad87 Reminds me of the old Sit ‘N Spin toys Kenner used to make.
New evidence is a rearrangement of the old evidence ......... except that the old evidence wan't even evidence to start with. It may be a new way of making the argument but it is certainly not new or even old evidence.
In my opinion. It is impossible to find *any evidence whatsoever* for veracity in the content of the thing you're testing the veracity of.
Or am I missing something?
Habermas citing Ehrman in defense of the resurrection is like William Lane Craig citing Hawking to support the Kalam Cosmological non-Argument.
What about Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru ?
Bart Ehrman is so brilliant. I've watched several of his debates and lectures and even a few of his Great Courses Plus lectures. He really knows his stuff.
Agrees but has an extremely annoying laugh
I have an intellectual crush on Dr. Ehrman. Anytime I see him mentioned I rush to watch and listen. My boyfriend is jealous.
@@gowdsake7103 That and the shouting haha. When he's in a debate or giving a talk he's one of those people who think the louder they talk the better their point will get across. Makes him hard to listen to for any length of time. But his work is unparalleled imo.
@@ericpierce3660 I mean, he is a professor at a big university; he probably has to shout quite a bit when he's lecturing in order to be certain that the students in the back of the class can hear his most important points and aren't falling asleep.
@@gibbcharron3469 Yeah, nothing wrong with speaking loudly when necessary, but most professors know how to have a commanding presence and modulate their tone at the same time.
Ehrman would have benefitted from having a voice coach when he was just starting out. Theater actors manage to get their points across to the people seated at the back of their audience without shouting harshly at them.
And in most situations he has a PA system that makes shouting completely unnecessary anyway. He just has an annoying habit that makes him hard to listen to for any length of time.
7:23 I hadn’t thought about the fudged usage of the term pre-Pauline. Thanks, for pointing it out!
The testimony for the Resurrection is impugned right off the bat because Paul uses a "vision" of Jesus as a "resurrection appearance" which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15. This dramatically reduces the quality of evidence because Paul has introduced a type of experience that may have simply been imaginary or mistaken.
A vision is by definition imaginary: "existing only in imagination".
@@roqsteady5290 Right but ancient people believed their visions and dreams were real communications from God. It's hard to get apologists to understand this sometimes.
One of the better Mythicist arguments is that Christians had to claim their Christ was really real and Paul talked to James who had talked to Jesus because everyone can have a vision at any time and talk to Christ and found a new and competing church. If the criteria for authentic religious experience becomes the successors of the god who walked the earth, only, the possibility of new Christian religions is quashed. Maybe James had visions as well, it just needed to be scrubbed from the record.
@@francesconicoletti2547 Yeah, I've always found it interesting that the appearance to Peter and James is never described in the New Testament. This is striking since Paul claims to have met with them and so is the only verified connection we have with those figures. The fact that he does not say his appearance was any different than theirs seems to point in the directions that they had "visions" too. Or it was simply understood that Jesus "appeared" from heaven in some sense. I think in Origen's dialogue with Celsus, he calls the appearance to Peter a "dream." Peter is said to have visions in Acts 10-12.
@@resurrectionnerd I seem to remember a mythicist suggestion (Price?) that the James Paul met wasn’t really Jesus brother and that “brother of the lord” just meant what it would mean today, ie some kind of follower. I’m no expert to say the least, but is there evidence that Jesus even had a brother? In that respect it is interesting that Bart said James converted after Jesus death and you wonder where he was when jesus did all his miracles and raised people from the dead. Even I would have found that somewhat convincing or at least a bit odd.
"How many times can I misrepresent another man in one interview?"
The new bestselling thriller by a master of disingenuous presentations. Critics rave: "I have no idea what he's talking about." - Bart Ehrman, author of "Here's how this shit actually works."
Bart Ehrman is either forgetting or misrepresenting his own past views, and the views of the scholarly majority, when it comes to the early christian creeds. From his blog post "Exaltation Christology in an Early Creed", "Scholars have long recognized that Paul [in Romans 1:3-4] is quoting an earlier pre-Pauline tradition here...This 'creed' may go back to the first Christian followers of Jesus in Palestine. And one other reason it is thought to be an 'established' tradition is that Paul quotes it without calling attention to it, evidently on the assumption that it will be familiar to his readers in Rome (not Palestine! In other words, this is a widely held creedal statement) (btw: Paul indicates that at the time of the writing of this letter, he had never been in Rome - so he didn’t teach the people there this creed. They both knew it independently and Paul surmised his readers would know it)."
Now, he can try and walk back his view by redefining "pre-Pauline" to merely mean before the WRITTEN works of Paul. This is an utterly incoherent definition, since in his very own words, the purpose is to indicate ideas that DID NOT ORIGINATE with Paul, and were ALREADY ESTABLISHED by the time Paul came around. Therefore, "pre-Pauline" should mean before BOTH the WRITTEN and the SPOKEN teachings (preaching) of Paul. On top of this, Bart Ehrman even acknowledges that the creeds came from JESUS'S FIRST CHRISTIAN FOLLOWERS IN PALESTINE. These things considered, it makes no sense to date any of the early creeds post-40 CE.
If Bart Ehrman indeed believes that the creeds were written post-40 CE, he is in a very fringe minority of scholars, for the mainstream view is definitely that they were within years of the crucifixion. Some excerpts:
The Oxford Companion to the Bible: "The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7...certainly not later than [Paul's] visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE"
Gerd Lüdemann: "…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE."
Robert Funk: "…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E"
You wrote the funniest thing I've seen all month, Rich
@@EricTheYounger you are not being honest or you have poor comprehension. I also subscribe to Ehrman's blog. The article you cite isn't referring to the High Christology creed Habermas is talking about from 7:03 in this video. The creed Ehrman thinks started early has Jesus as a man from the Davian line and only being exalted by God subsequent to his death. Ehrman very clearly hasn't backtracked or misrepresented his old post. Try harder and be honest.
@@EricTheYounger I also see you are being untruthful about the dates of the Pauline letters and using quotes that don't even support your claim.
@@stevem7945 The Romans 1:3-4 creed is literally one of the first ones Habermas mentions in the original CC interview, as containing a high early Christology. Therefore, it's very pertinent to this topic and needs to be included in any discussion of the dating of pre-Pauline creeds in general. Ehrman is basically misrepresenting his views because he is using a very unusual definition of the word "pre-Pauline" when it comes to the creeds (merely before Paul's written works). By the sources I listed, the majority of Biblical scholars would date the pre-Pauline creeds to the early 30s CE. I don't see how he can in good faith say that "pre-Pauline" means the 40s CE.
And no, I didn't give all the specific evidence to justify the dating, but that's because I can't fit all the vast amount of scholarly research in a RUclips comment. The fact remains that this is definitely the consensus view...why is the burden of evidence different for this, when Bart Ehrman merely has to say "I don't believe that" and the skeptics accept his views without proof? Nevertheless, here are just a few reasons why most scholars date the creeds early
1) They contain rhetoric/ideas that are not found in any of Paul's other works, indicating that they don't originate either from his writings or his preachings.
2) They contain ideas reminiscent of Messianic Judaism, indicating that they most likely originated in the early Jewish Christianity, before Gentiles were widely included.
3) In all places they are simply given without explanation, indicating that Paul already knew his audience was aware of an established tradition, so they must have significantly predated the epistles.
4) Paul HIMSELF says that he got the information of the creeds when he first met the early fathers in Jerusalem, which would have been 33-35 CE.
It's impossible to justify a post-40 CE date in light of these 4 facts.
New evidence after (almost) two millennia, how exciting!
I owe my atheism to Bart Ehrman after I was scared of hell for not believing in biblical authenticity. He is the best biblical scholar for anyone who has an interest to learn but not from a fundie preacher
The fact that Habermas repeatedly misquotes Ehrman and that Paulogia actually brings Ehrman onto the video to dismantle Habermas’s “new” evidence says a lot about the current state of Christian apologetics. I hope a lot of people find this video.
Thank you for all you do, Paul! The hard work you put into your videos pays off. They’ve been really eye-opening to me in my journey.
If Cameron Bertuzzi was an honest guy, he would like to Paulogia's video on his video.
It's always so interesting to me when people are eager to say "Did you know that Dr. Bart Ehrman, the famous skeptical scholar, said [thing that sounds amazing but is totally not what he said]" when Bart is so active in the community and willing to come around and refute it himself. I know that the kind of people who listen to and take Habermas seriously aren't the type to go looking for or stumble across those refutations, but it's still public and not hard to find! Do the apologists who do this ever see these corrections, and feel embarrassed about making so many mistakes in their attempts to cite him? Or am I giving them too much credit?
It's more the fact a majority of them are not actually looking and just take what people like Habermas say as ‘gospel’.
Got to remember a majority of people watching this aren't looking for answers, but to reaffirm their beliefs.
No, because they follow the "extended" version of Exodus 20:16: "Thou shalt not bear false witness, unless one is attempting to convert another, or selling a book, or explaining to the government why thou hast not paid thy taxes. Then it is totally cool sayeth the Lord."
@@Nymaz Must have glossed over that part where Jesus says to ‘Give onto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and give onto God what is God’s’.
Funny how often that happens.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I've seen people say that that verse only applies to Ceasar. You don't have to pay taxes because it isn't Ceasar that you are paying them to. That's a fun version of taking what the bible says too literally.
C'mon they still bring out Pascal's wager like its some fresh insight. Well, this guy Pascal......
Bart is so fun to listen to, especially when he gets heated in his debates.
When he does that does he remind you at all of the cat from Shrek? Opportunity for Paulogia to insert film clip as comment in the spirit of this show
So, Gary Habermas is more an apologist than a scholar. He is on a mission to prove his faith. Nothing could be less scholarly.
I watched the whole video when it came out, and though I’m just an amateur in religious scriptures, I know enough to realize that what Habermas was saying it was just a bunch of BS. That is pretty sad because we all non-believers are waiting for intelligent people who study these issues to give us factual information so we can believe. Unfortunately none of the “evidences” presented are not only non-believable but ridiculous.
Thanks to Bart Ehrman and Paulogia for the great video!
If presented facts and evidence, that would make you a knower, not a believer. It's time to let go of the fairytale.
Didn't you mean to say "all we non-believers"? Well done for not trying to pretend to be fair or objective though, you are undeniably someone who only wants to hear that they want to hear. Better than the "false flags" eh
@@hj925 Ehrman presents mainstream research. People who do not get that missed out on 200 years og biblical research
Here's the deal. Ehrman has some strange ideas about who Christ is and who the earliest believers thought He was.
Ehrman says that the Apostles very early on, like possibly within a week of the death of Christ, began to preach “the Gospel” as seen in 1 Cor 15:3-7.
I Corinthians 15:3-7
“ For I passed on to you first of all what I also had received, that Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for our sins in accordance with [what] the Scriptures [foretold],
4 That He was buried, that He arose on the third day as the Scriptures foretold,
5 And [also] that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve.
6 Then later He showed Himself to more than five hundred brethren at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, but some have fallen asleep [in death].
7 Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles (the special messengers),”
This is an early creed that most scholars attribute to having been developed within 3 to 5 years after Christ’s death. [Gerd Ludemann, Robert Funk, James Dunn, Michael Goulder, N.T. Wright, A.J.M. Wedderburn] That’s VERY EARLY. Which means that very early on creeds were being developed to teach new believers truths of who Christ was and His purpose for being born in human form, though He was God.
No other sacrifice would satisfy God's standard for justification than His own.
This creed also states Christ was buried, and that He was resurrected the third day and appeared to all the Apostles, as well at 500 brethren. He also appeared to his brother, James. The first evidence that James is a believer is after the Lord’s resurrection, Correct?
Most early believers were illiterate, so having something in writing would be worthless for most of them. A short creed, repeated over and over enabled them to retain in memory the truths of Jesus Christ.
When Ehrman states that Paul, the Apostle, didn’t think Christ was God before taking on human form, he interprets the scripture incorrectly. It’s unbelievable what Ehrman is saying. It’s very clear Christ was God before being born in human form.
Philippians 2:6-10
“ Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [[a]possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not [b]think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped [c]or retained,
7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and [d]rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.
8 And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!
9 Therefore [because He stooped so low] God has highly exalted Him and has [e]freely bestowed on Him the name that is above every name,
10 That in (at) the name of Jesus every knee [f]should (must) bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,”
Possessing all the attributes that make God, God. Essentially, one with God and in the form of God. That means Christ is God. Also see John 1:1 and John 8:58. Philippians 2:6 says He was “equal” with God the Father. [ “did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained”] This equality which Jesus had with the Father, Jesus didn’t think was something to be retained. Christ was equal with the Father. Christ wasn’t “less” than the Father as Ehrman claims. This scripture, itself, refutes Ehrman.
Genesis 1:26
“God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.”
Being made in the image of "God" means being made in "our" image, plural, that is the image of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three are "God", according to the scripture, itself.
Hebrew 1:3
“The Son is the radiance[a] of God’s glory and the exact expression[b] of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins,[c] He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.[d]
Amplified:
“He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the [a]out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God’s] nature, “
Christ is the exact representation of God. IOW, He is God. How anyone could interpret these passages and come up that Christ is something less than God is beyond me. The scriptures, themselves, refute Ehrman’s position that Christ was something less than God.
Ehrman states that angels are in the form of God. No, that is false. Angels are created beings. God isn’t a created being. They are eternal, after their creation, but they aren’t in the form or nature of God, as I've just shown. They don’t possess the full/all attributes of God. They aren't omniscient, or omnipresent either. The scripture states that Christ does possess all the attributes of God. Ehrman is incompetent here. I’m surprised that UNC would allow him to say these things, teach these things.
John 8:57-58
“Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’
58 Jesus replied, ‘I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.’ “
Christ was declaring that He was God, the Great “I AM” from the OT.
Exodus 3:14
“God replied to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.’ “
Ehrman has really messed up. He doesn’t understand the scripture. This has been taught [that Christ is one person of the Trinity and equal to God the Father and the Holy Spirit] since I was born and before. Ehrman claims he never heard this until debating Justin Bass. I have no doubt Moody Institute taught this. Therefore, I don’t believe him. I was taught it over 50 years ago!
. It’s clear right out of the gate that the Apostles believed Him to be God, based upon the creeds.
“Romans 10:9
9 because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord[a] and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. “
Footnotes
a. Romans 10:9 tn Or “the Lord.” The Greek construction, along with the quotation from Joel 2:32 in v. 13 (in which the same “Lord” seems to be in view) suggests that κύριον (kurion) is to be taken as “the Lord,” that is, Yahweh. Cf. D. B. Wallace, “The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object-Complement Construction in the New Testament,” GTJ 6 (1985): 91-112.
Note the above: "(kurion) is to be taken as 'the Lord,' that is, Yahweh." That means "God".
Being the “Son of God” it’s understood you possess the qualities of your Father. IOW, He is fully God by nature, as Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:6, John 8:58, and Gen 1:26 all clearly state. He is equal to the Father, Philippians 2:6.
Philippians 2:6 Amplified
“Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [[a]possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not [b]think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped [c]or retained,”
Hebrews 1:3 says Christ is the exact representation of the nature of God, possessing fully all of the attributes of God. He’s not less, He’s equal, per that verse and Philippians 2:6. This is not new doctrine. Angels do not posses all attributes of God, that make God, God, neither are they an exact representation of God, nor do they possess the exact nature of God. [They aren’t eternal as in have always existed. They are created beings.] Ehrman is simply wrong. I would think a child could understand this.
Look up Dawson Trotman, who founded The Navigators in 1933. He taught the Trinity, One God in three equal persons with different roles to fulfill, and the Navigators today teach the same doctrine. One God in three persons. Billy Graham persuaded Trotman to train his follow up people to disciple those coming to Christ in his crusades. So, Graham and Trotman had the same basic theology. You won’t find a harder, more committed bunch than the Navigators. Read “Hudson Taylor’s Spiritual Secret”. Taylor was a missionary to China starting about 1855. That theology is the same, One God in three persons. Or the Diary of David Brainard, or Charles Spurgeon. New Stuff? Nupe.
Christ is God, a different representation of One God than God the Father, but God nevertheless, possessing all of the attributes of the One Hebrew God. Not less, not more, but equal. He was in the beginning of the creation of the universe, as stated in John 1:1 and Genesis 1:26 and was God. He is the great I AM and has always existed with His Father throughout eternity and will always exist, John 8:58. He had a mission to fulfill by being born as a human being in history, but prior to that He was God, equal to the Father as Philippians 2:6, John 1:1, John 8:58, and Genesis 1:26, make it abundantly clear.
Christ, being God and equal to the Father, humbled Himself, and was born a human being and entered the human race at a point in human history. Then He died by crucifixion. All this according to the eternal plan, known to the Trinity before the creation. Then He was resurrected 3 days later, taught the Apostles for 40 days, then ascended into heaven to sit down at the right hand of the Father. All in accord with the eternal plan.
The new stuff is coming from Ehrman, his own heresies.
I was an eye witness to this ass whoopin!! Paul's face was priceless when Bart answered these claims.
Paul of Tarsus?
Would actually be funny if Dr. Ehrman went back in time and debunked Paul to his face.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Speaking of which, he thinks Paul didnt think Jesus was tetragram* ?
ruclips.net/video/IDeS-9iUzPw/видео.html
Habermas? Haven't watched yet, but I am predicting Habermas just thumps his secret book of evidence that he refuses to publish.
Edit: I was wrong. Will say this though, if his secret stash of data is on par with what he did here he needs to retire and burn his research.
Perhaps it's taking him so long to publish his work because every time his editors check his sources he has to rewrite huge sections of the book… (I can dream…)
@@fred_derf (I assume you are kidding about, but I am still going to answer like you are serious) Perhaps, but his editors/publisher likely don't care about facts since they already work with apologetics books which are factually unsupported in general. So more likely it's not yet published because he knows it will be shredded publicly by thousands of youtube channels on day 1 of it's release. But, if he keeps it under wraps it is essentially unassailable.
@@avi8r66, writes _"I assume you are kidding"_
More like fantasizing… but I agree, your assumption is far more likely.
@@avi8r66 Or maybe he doesn't have any book and is just claiming that is to point to a source no one can actually scrutinize.
Kind of what the Bible was to the masses before being printed in common vernacular.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Quite so.
This was so good!
Big difference between a historian and an apologist.
Lots of academics are apologists, but it might be helpful, for the sake of balance, to know your equivalent academic qualifications. I am not very familiar with him, but I understand that he has, at the very least, an M.A. and a Doctorate and that he is a Professor. How are you doing so far? I might be wrong and you could be a highly qualified something, but my point would be (if you are not so blessed) that Habermas has qualifications consistent with the right to express a view and be respected for it. Trying to dismiss and belittle him just isn't nice. My view is disagree with anyone you like, but play nice Davey
Much of the problem is that people do not understand what constitutes evidence.
Gary Hebermas: Dr. Ehrman basically supports what I am telling you.
Bart Ehrman: No, I don't.
Talk about the ultimate way to fact check a video.
😆
If Gary Habermas is this wrong about the things Bart Ehrman has said, then I don't have high expectations about his scholarship. Of course it might be that Mr Habermas is just getting old. But then somebody should tell him it is time to step down.
19:26 "when an eyewitness goes to court, in the courtroom they get cross examined"
How reliable are the "eyewitnesses" in the Bible? Looking at the story of Christ's tomb, depending on which gospel you read ( Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John) you learn that:
- the number of people to first visit the tomb is 2, 3, at least 5, or only 1
- when they arrived at the tomb it was toward dawn or after sunrise or at early dawn or when it was still dark
- the stone was still in place when they arrived. It was rolled away later or the stone had already been rolled (or taken) away
- an angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb) or no earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb or no earthquake and two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb or no earthquake and two angels are sitting inside the tomb
- the visitors ran to tell the disciples or they said nothing to anyone or they told the eleven and all the rest
When it comes to seeing the resurrected Jesus, his first resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb or it was in the vicinity of Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem) or it was right at the tomb.
As eyewitnesses, I wouldn't trust their story.
I'll never forget watching an episode of John Ankerberg way back in the late 80s, doing his typically deceptive 'apologetics' BS. He literally said this regarding the contradictory empty tomb passages (I still remember it vividly after all these years) - "Don't you see how the sun can be up and it be light outside, and yet the sun not be up and it be dark out at the same time? This is hardly a contradiction." It was, at that time, the most eye-opening revelation of evangelical deceitfulness I had ever seen, although it certainly wasn't the last.
I made a list of 43 sometimes-overlapping items and counting
where the Christian Bible accounts don’t agree.
The simplest way to spot contradictions is to read Matthew 27-28, then read any other biblical account, Mark 15:42-6:8 being one account. 6:9-19 was almost certainly tacked on later
1. Tell me you don't know what "spotlighting" is without telling me you don't know what spotlighting is. The text never says "only X amount of people" the author just mentions who he thinks is necessary to continue the narrative without including everybody. This is a common technique in ancient biography, Plutarch does it all the time.
2. That sounds like a lot of words to say "I don't understand how 'early morning with the sun coming over the horizon, but still kind of dark out' could possibly be a thing."
3. In Mark, Luke, and John the stone is already rolled away when they get there.
In Matthew, it says that the women got up to go to the tomb. Then it describes how the stone was rolled away. Then it describes the angel speaking to the women once they get there. It doesn't say the stone was rolled away once the women were already there.
The other Gospels not mentioning the earthquake doesn't mean there wasn't one. That's a logical fallacy called an Appeal to Ignorance. To not be fallacious, you would have to show that other Gospels must mention the earthquake if had actually happened, but it didn't happen since they didn't. Good luck with that. The obvious reason why it's not mentioned is that the others don't describe how the stone was rolled away.
Matthew says the angel sat on the stone and scared the soldiers standing guard and implies, but doesn't necessitate, that the angel was still outside when the women arrived. Perhaps the Angel went inside the tomb before the women arrived. You would have to show how the Angel being outside the tomb is the only correct interpretation of the passage.
It could also be the case that Matthew condensed the women going into the tomb to see the angels into "the angel outside the tomb just told them." That's also a common ancient biographical technique. The substance is exactly the same, the women went to the tomb and an angel told them what happened. The details of it aren't as important as the overall context. It's also not "lying", it's a common 1st century writing technique that everyone would have understood was a common 1st century writing technique.
None of the texts say "only one angel". See point 1 again. Only the angel that is speaking is mentioned.
One angel being inside the tomb is consistent with 2 angels being inside the tomb, obviously. Two angels appearing in the tomb is consistent with two angels being inside the tomb. The clear and obvious harmonization is that there were two angels inside the tomb.
Maybe try and exercise some critical thinking before posting debunked talking points. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it all as "mental gymnastics" though. But that's just the cognitive dissonance talking.
4. Telling the disciples and telling the eleven and the rest are the same thing.
Nobody with half a brain cell thinks Mark means they literally told nobody what happened considering Mark uses the same words to describe Jesus healing a leper. Jesus tells the man to go to the high priests but say nothing to anyone along the way. Obviously, the women went back and told the disciples what happened but didn't go shouting about it the whole way back.
5. Luke doesn't say the first appearance was on to the men on the road to Emmaus. Assuming so because he doesn't mention the other appearances is an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. Again, you would have to show that Luke must have mentioned them if they occurred, but since he didn't, that they didn't.
The first appearance being at the tomb or close to the tomb is literally the same thing.
Maybe instead of not trusting the eyewitnesses, we shouldn't trust your brain. Anyone thinking over these "objections" for 5 seconds would see that they are all baseless.
@@grantgooch5834 The problem with 3. is the implications of trying to harmonize all accounts as consistent. Even if you assume that all the women were there at the same time, it would be proposterous for each group of angels to proclaim the same brand-new news to shock everyone multiple times at the same time; imagine that while entering the tomb you spot an angel sitting on the right side (pretend there's a completely unindicated time-skip in Matthew where the angel sits on the rock and scares the guards, then the women head into the tomb and see the same angel at one of the other locations) telling you to come and see where Jesus had lain before, while in the same period of time you enter the tomb and see no body of Jesus, then after examining the area two angels appear standing by you without an earthquake, and (as Mary is outside looking in) two angels sitting at the head and feet of where Jesus would have laid, each group telling you the same news that Jesus had risen. At which point do you react to the news with shock? This harmonization is spatiotemporally incoherent. The only solution to solve contradictions like these in the Bible (and there are quite a few) is to do away with semantics (and consequently textual communication itself), or logic, or both, and end up with a literally inconceivable thought that I cannot describe. This is manifestly impossible.
@@grantgooch5834 As you pointed out, the gospel accounts contradict each other. Not all the gospels can be correct. So the question becomes "are any of the gospels correct?".
Wow…
When Habermas, the world’s leading expert, can’t even get his own contemporaries right, how is anyone supposed to trust him with those from two thousand years ago?
Professor Habermas from Liberty University where Jerry Jr. was kicked out. No wonder Gary's not worried about losing his job if he doesn't publish his "amazing" book.
To be fair, his contemporaries can be inconsistent and sometimes not clear enough SHOCK
How can we know that anything written by "Paul" was even factual....but rather just more of the fiction story [as I see them to be] found in the gospels? And even if there was a literal "Paul", why does this one person get a pass on "what he said was true that cannot be verified in any way"? Many people make fantastic claims that others won't believe.
Yup. We don't get to hear any evidence that John EXISTED. Then we have to see if that John claimed to be the brother of Jesus, and what evidence we have for THAT. Because it could STILL be a myth. If that John didn't exist, then it is a myth to claim a meeting happened. Just because there is a real Nixon doesn't make The Watchmen real.
And what evidence is there that Paul MET John? ANY John. We know from the letters that there was a call to that story from John being complete BS. Is THAT the evidence of a meeting?
@@markhackett2302 we take Paul’s word for it because it’s not extraordinary. The founder of Christianity had a brother (called James, not John). It’s not unusual for people to have siblings.
@@jeremypnet And that is ahistorical. "Paul says so" is not history. The claim if it consists of "a man had a brother called Jeshua in Israel", then *A* story is mythical. That is true for thousands of people at the time. Nor was he called James or John at the time. They are anglicised names of made up people. At no point did anyone go by the name John or James.
And that is the entire point. Lots of people had siblings.
Claiming the bible is based on one is mythical. It is a non-claim to claim "a man had a brother", because that is true without the bible, so it is not history to claim there was a real brother who the book was based on BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW ANY SUCH PERSON. You merely know "a man had a brother" BECAUSE it is a non-event.
Was the bible based on a real man because Jesus breathed???
That dude was debating his clan weather to share the game of telephone to the "lesser others" lol. Thats racist fascist etc lol, no they cant play with us the tax game either...lol
@@markhackett2302 Wow, way to quibble over irrelevant details. You're either stupid or being deliberately dishonest.
Obviously their names weren't "James" and "John" because they had Greek and Aramaic names. Those are what their names are transliterated into English.
We know Jesus had a brother named James because Acts tells us, Paul tells us, and Josephus tells us. That's 3 independent sources for a "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ."
We know Paul met James because PAUL tells us himself, lol. In Galatians 1, Paul says he met with Peter and James 3 years after he converted to Christianity. Then he says he met with Peter, James, and John 14 years after that in Galatians 2.
Acts also tells us that Paul was present for Church councils in Jerusalem and that James was the leader of those councils. So Paul also met James on occasions other than the two that he describes.
It is just amazing to me that Jesus' disciples, who had lived intimately with him for three years, who supposedly witnessed all of His miracles, and knew Jesus' message first hand, needed to see the resurrected Jesus in order to believe that Jesus was God / the son of God. If *the fricking apostles* needed that level of evidence to believe Jesus was holy, why should I be expected to just buy into all the claims?
You just answered your own question. They did verify it and wrote about it at a time when their was hostility and great persecution towards Christians. They had no reason to make these things up.
@@jamiehudson3661 -- take the claims of, say, the Mormon Church, or if not them, then pick another -- say Scientology. They have millions of members. Do you accept that as proof that their claims are true and their claims don't need further validation? If the founders verified the claims, that should be good enough for everyone, right?
I can think of many reasons why people believe false things. I'm sure you can too.
@fudgesauce Tell me the circumstances by which these two came about. Also, did they risk their lives? It's been 2000 years, and no one has put Jesus back in the tomb.
@@jamiehudson3661 -- Jamie, have you watched much of this channel's content, or are familiar with Bart Ehrman's work? One of Paul's favorite topics to discuss is that we don't know what happened to most of the apostles. The Roman Empire spanned a huge geographic area encompassing myriad religious groups. For the most part, if you paid your taxes and didn't cause problems for the local governor, you were left alone to your religious practices. There were certainly cases of persecution but it wasn't anything like the degree that I was lead to believe growing up as a Christian.
> "Did they risk their lives"
In the case of the Mormons, absolutely. They ended up in Utah because they were driven from other homesteads. Famously, that is how founder Joseph Smith died. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence
As for the story of the tomb, yeah, you really must be new to Paulogia.
@fudgesauce You still didn't tell me the circumstances behind how the two religions came to be.
We have a pretty good idea of what happened to the disciples. Even if we don't know exactly how they died, we have plenty of information in the Biblical record that tells us of the disciples imprisoned or persecuted. Paul (who was formerly a persecutor of Believer) gives an extensive list of his sufferings for the gospel.
As far as me being new to Paulogia, I have watched plenty of his videos, and he doesn't impress me at all. No, Paulogia has not put Jesus back in the tomb.
19:30 I think playing a movie adaptation of the Damascus road passage as a background to what Ehrman is saying at that specific point is problematic because it makes it seem as if the Damascus road appearance is a description of what Paul himself reported as experiencing. So when Ehrman talks about how eyewitness testimony might not be realiable, the audience might come to the wrong conclusion that what is being showed is what the testimony is in this case and might start thinking (if even unconsciously) in terms of what kind of memory distortions might produce those kinds of testimonies in someone like Paul. But the Damascus road experience is never mentioned in the Pauline epistles. This is very important because Christians (including Habermas) already have a big trouble differentiating between accounts of experiences and experiences themselves (and so they demand explanations of why people had experiences as described in the accounts instead of why we have the accounts).
Correct, and the author of Acts, written decades after Paul died, can't even keep the story straight himself.
@@oscargordon Especially the three different stories about the Damascus road experience.
@@Lobsterwithinternet It's almost like the author was not the traveling companion of Paul like Christians claim.
@@oscargordon That and, even if the story was 100% true, it still makes Paul look like a con artist.
These apologists believe that Jesus is alive and well and relevant and standing over my shoulder, yet to prove his existence they try to talk about what happened 2,000 years ago.
Dead people don't come back to life. PERIOD.
I left the faith when I came to the understanding that "The God of all creation" was first the God of the Hebrews ONLY, and then he favored the believers of the Christ mythology. I figured, if there was more than one god, I could do better, and if there was only one "God", it certainly was not Yahweh or his son. Again...I could do better. Eventually, I did do better. I found the "Human" source for all gods, was also the source of the "one true God." The revelation was, whatever God is,, we created him..
Thanks for the response with Dr Ehrman, Paul. When this video first came out, I actually watched it twice because I was dumbfounded by what Habermas was attributing to Dr Ehrman. I left a comment asking for citations of where Dr Ehrman stated that the creeds were from the early thirties, as I knew he had stated, correctly btw, that there was no evidence to draw that conclusion. I received only one reply, stating that it was a consensus view, so to speak, of scholars that the early dating is correct. I correctly refuted that, as I know that is not the case. Did Gary Habermas REALLY believe that Dr Ehrman wouldn't see him misrepresenting his views?
No, but he's betting none of his audience will care to look it up themselves.
Non. I doubt Habermas realizes he is. It's easy enough to think pre Pauline means before Paul’s conversion, but this just shows that despite being an "expert" in the resurrection, he hasn't bothered studying the primary sources in any critical way. I have some understanding of critical scholarship, but made the same assumption about the meaning of preparing until Ehrman explained it. I just never thought the creed was as early as Habermas wants it to be.
Casey shows that creeds were often added to and rewritten as they were transmitted. His transmission language at the beginning suggests a prepackaged creed, but he clearly added his own stuff and there's some debate on how much Paul contributed to the Corinthian creed.
@@sp1ke0kill3r Literally everybody in the field thinks "Pre-Pauline" means before Paul's conversion, including Erhman according to a 2013 blog post.
Apparently now Erhman has started a new fringe position amongst scholars that "Pre-Pauline" means "before Paul wrote."
@@grantgooch5834 It looks as though in order to read the blog you have to pay for a membership. Is there anyway to get reference to what you are citing without having to pay for a membership to Erhman's blog?
I really hate how Ehrman laughs about everything. It comes across like he’s not taking this seriously. If he hasn’t, then why should I trust his opinion?
I love how Dr Ehrman has been making these seminars! Hope he doesn't stop any time soon.
Sign up to keep 'em going.
@@Paulogia Yep!
He’ll keep doing them if enough people keep showing interest.
@@Paulogia Love the smooth insertion of the commercial for Dr. E. Good work !!
No chance
I was very excited to hear about this new evidence. Then I quickly realized that the New evidence is just the same old evidence
"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again, no, no
Yeah
Meet the new evidence
Same as the old evidence"
or
The evidence is dead, long live the evidence.
@@fred_derf before I clicked and read your reply, I was going to quote the same song. 😁
I just pressed play but feel compelled to share how excited I am. The teaser from MythVision's stream the other day has had me so amped it feels like an early birthday.
Pulling out Bart Ehrman himself to respond is such a boss move lol
Wow, new evidence, I can’t wait 😛
You and me both!
If I were a Christian, I'd be seriously SERIOUSLY pissed off with this - "I've found NEW evidence" -> "My new evidence is a series of existing claims that I'm presenting in a new way".
This feels very deceptive and gross. Epitome of lying for Jesus.
I am a Christian and I am found the title very misleading, but I think that is on the RUclipsr not Dr. Habermas. I also do not find this video represents Dr. Habermas fairly
In LotR, it was clearly written that Frodo has issues with parting with the Ring but with Gollum´s help he prevailed, this clearly all happened, for real, I promise, I can assert that for hours....
I was waiting for this since you mentioned it on Mythvision.
It's finally here!
@@Paulogia Yay !! This presentation was well worth the wait.
The hard work put into it is very much appreciated. Also, the quality and thoughtfulness really shines through !!
When I hear "NEW! Evidence for the " the eyes are already rolling
Its amazing how active Bart and other scholars are on RUclips these days.
Yes, anyone would think that they were seeking the adoration that clearly comes with telling certain people what they are desperate to hear. Mmmmm
_"I have new evidence!"_
Really! AWESOME! I can't wait!
_"Well... its not really new... more like newly organized."_
... .... ... ugh
_"Where'd everyone go?"_
Hello, sir! I’m here courtesy of Creaky Blinder after having watched his stream where you were a guest. Excited to start watching your content.
Perfect use of Phoebe Buffay.
yay!
Yes 👍🏻
"Hey, they believed stuff and somebody wrote it down, so it must be true."
So he can show evidence for early xtians, how does that mean god exists? Yup, it doesn't.
A note from one year later (September 2023): Gary Habermas has just put out a new video claiming that 97% of historians (including Dr. Ehrman) agree that 12 facts prove the historicity of the resurrection. Comments are turned off on his video.
I love it! "Fact check the minimal facts guy". Evidently that door mostly swings one way...
Always has.
new evidence for religion... sounds more like an empty claim based on a reimagining of an already refuted argument..
Eye witness testimony is not just problematic…it’s about the worst kind of evidence there is, it’s the lowest level of evidence . - Neil de Grasse Tyson and Elizabeth Loftus
I love that you got Bart to refute what Gary confused about things that Bart "said". LOL Great work here!
Absolutely embarrassing. This is the best they got?
Yay! New Paulogia video, great way to start the week.
Great video. What we should really start to investigate is why it is that Christians - and people with other faith positions, of course - are so desperate to justify their beliefs that they can be so easily satisfied with so few and such flimsy evidences.
They justify the belief as it is a way to sell books to get payed for speeches and overall get fans and be admired
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Paul CLAIMED to know people who CLAIMED to know Jesus or CLAIMED to be the brother of Jesus, or that some people accepted as being a friend or brother of Jesus. This doesn't mean that Jesus actually existed. It means people say that he did. There have been plenty of people in modern times who claim to actually be Jesus. Should we believe them?
To quote what Ehrman says about the resurrection ... Belief isn't enough to prove something really happened.
Gary's ‘new evidence’ amounts to taking a book and reading it upside down.
Bart Ehrman doesn't even represent himself correctly. Do you know how many contradictive statements I have of his? COUNTLESS! He once said, "The Gospel stories cannot be reconciled with one another" and then shortly after said, "Anything can be reconciled." Let that sink in...
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
He likes to explaining away contradictions in the Bible while at the same time using contradictions himself. It's the irony of all ironies.@@Sxcheschka
Everything is fine. @@gracearmor
Did you change mics? It sounds bigger and closer... honestly good job on the VO.
0:54 "arguably the world's most renowned resurrection scholar"
That's the equivalent of a person being known as arguably the world's most renowned scholar of the King Arthur mythos.
Except scholars of King Arthur know that the Arthur stories are myths with limited historical basis
@@SuprousOxide And with no evidence to support any of the Bible stories about miracles and resurrections, the Bible stories can also be considered myths with limited historical basis ( Herod existed, Pilate existed, some people were crucified, some of the geographical locations on the bible existed or exist... but no historical record of any census at the time of the census mentioned in the Bible, no record of any such census that required the people being counted to return to the land of their ancestor's birth).
For these reasons, the Bible stories can be considered on par with the stories of king Arthur.
@@cnault3244 There are some Biblical scholars that know this, but most are Christians who believe the central miracles are true. And anyone calling themselves a "resurrection scholar" almost assuredly falls in that group.
Excellent video I do enjoy watching most of your content,as well as informative it’s very entertaining.
Great job providing more Ehrman content, the internet could use more of his perspective and knowledge, can’t get enough :)
LOL - is that you Bart?
Great video. Love Dr. Ehrman as well. It was his book "Jesus, Interrupted" that was the final piece of evidence that helped me de-convert. By the final page I was confident I was no longer a Christian. Thank you Dr. Ehrman. ☝️😎👍
Yashua bin Yosef? That dude that was murdered a couple thousand years ago for blasphemy in Palestine? Alive?
Nope. *Still F-ing dead!*
(And I’m being generous with the first part of this comment.)
Nope.
He's alive.
Met him the other day down at the synagogue.
Plays a mean game of Scrabble. 🤓🦞
@@Lobsterwithinternet Have you checked to see whether he hides scrabble tiles in the holes in his hands? Is he also suspiciously good at coin tricks?
@@alisonhill3941 No, he doesn't have holes in his hands. 🙌
But he is pretty good at coin tricks.
Pretty good Mel Brooks impersonation too.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Scrabble eh? Hmmm... I may have to reconsider my viewpoint. Cheers!
I will never understand how people so willingly except what preachers say about how they should live and judge others based on what boils down to an ancient game of telephone, but evidential science is too far fetched to take seriously. Really?
I love how every single argument for the resurrection being a historical fact is "look here's a new way of interpreting facts. Put on your wilful blinders."
The flourish of interviews with national treasure Dr Bart from some of the best skeptics out there is absolutely great! Thanks for this Paul et al. The knowledge transfer is most appreciable.
Thanks for another great video Paulogia and thanks for all you do. Is it just me or does Habermas sound like Peter Griffin from Family Guy?
That's what @BittyBuddha said
@@Paulogia Obviously Dr Habermas really grinds their gears. LOL.
Oh yes the 2000 year old zombie. Life is not a video game, you don't get do-overs.
Maybe the Ascension of Jesus to heaven was just the first instance of Flight Simulator slew mode?
I love how the "new" evidence is just repeating "well people said that there was a resurrection".
At BEST, you could possibly say that these (old) arguments strengthens the claim that Paul isn't the one inventing the resurrection.
What part of that was new again?
Did I miss it?
The first time I compared the original version of an album to a remix I went in just assuming that the remix was a waste because they're both the same thing. I didn't have to change my mind on the matter because listening to both back to back did that for me when I realized how wrong I had been. I can't really see that applying to his "remixed" arguments. Just more of the same "Jesus is Lord because I say so"
To extend your analogy, Habermas's "remix" is a the same album just with the songs in a different order.
Ok, tell me of one religion that doesn't think that their mythology is actually true. Such absolute certainty is the foundation of every theological belief.
It being true or not doesn't seem to matter. As long as you accept it as true.
This is why religious followers are called sheeple. Not the brightest flockers on the farm, and easily fleeced.
Why do people imagine Jesus appearing to over 500 people as some kind of town meeting? Here's how I see it: "Brother Ananias had been drinking heavily that night. In his sleep, he heard the voice of Jesus. The next Sabbath, Paul was visiting their congregation and as he shared his testimony, Ananias felt compelled to share his story. Then the whole congregation was caught in the "me too" spirit and everyone shared an experience of having seen the Lord. After the meeting, Paul realized that wherever he went, he encountered the same thing. He got tired of counting the people and thought "There must be over 500 who say they saw Jesus, so I'll write that down and use it in my sermons. Very convincing".
Or… Paul realized that "If I say 500 people saw the risen jesus it will be very convincing". There is no need for even a single "witness" to exist.
9:44 “and darn it, the Romans killed him!” 😂😂
Mfw the man I sold everything for and followed thinking he was the Messiah gets arrested and horrifically executed
@@swolejeezy2603 Cognitive Dissonance!
At least he doesn't say the Jews killed him. Lol
Please stop blaming the Romans. According to the Gospels, the Jewish authorities were terrified the mob would riot if THEY executed Jesus on a holy day. Solution, have Pilate execute Jesus for them instead. Apparently just waiting to after the Holy Day to stone Jesus for blasphemy wasn't enough. It is funny that Pilate declared Jesus was innocent of any violations of Roman law but was terrified of the exact same mob if he DIDN'T kill Jesus on Party Day. AND Pilate also let a murdering insurrectionist Jew go free as an added bonus! What, it's just a fictional story reenacting a Jewish tradition? Never mind.
@@oscargordon Also, his portrayal here contradicts what other people say about him like Josephus or Philo of Alexandria.
Why does Ehrman say, more than once, that Paul saw Jesus? He saw a vision of Jesus. That is a completely different thing. It's sloppy.
I would guess that it's because fundamentalists don't like calling Paul's vision "seeing Jesus" because it puts the Gospel accounts on the same footing as Paul's vision. Christians want the gospels' resurrection to be a physical body and Paul's to be a vision. Paul being the only eyewitness we have to have seen Jesus flips that narrative on evidence for the resurrection. Christians know that Paul is not a reliable eyewitness for a physically resurrected Jesus or the empty tomb.
It's not so much sloppy as it is more a awkward use of language. If someone believes that visions are real then the distinction between vision of someone and seeing someone is useless.
Cameron just sat there pretending to understand. Im still mad at myself for taking him seriously at one ponit. Habermas arguement being summarised as "For the bible tells me so"
Cameron is to Habermas (and Craig) as what Powell is to Hovind as what Sean McDowell is to Josh McDowell.
(Well, not exactly, but there is a lot of regurgitation involved)
@@oscargr_ Ego stroking?
Lies is all they have. I think at times they really believe their own lies.
"It's not a lie, if YOU believe it" - G.C.
Cameron looks distinctly underwhelmed....
I have been an admirer of Bart E for many years, and have often cited him in discussions with Christians. It pains me to say that I would no longer be comfortable doing so because of Bart's increasingly habitual use of "argument from chortling".
Try maniacal laughter instead. Much more robust.
Habermas is an embarrassment.
Good video and I appreciate your efforts 👌
Thanks Paul. Happy Family Day!
Same to you!
Today, we find that theists have as much an understanding of the word 'new' as they do 'evidence'. 😒
Paul: Jesus!
Aide: Wait, you saw him?
Paul: No... I stubbed my toe!