yes because knowing he existed doesnt directly make you want to believe in his fake prophecy, fortified with no miracles, compared to the milllions of shocking miracles that Jesus has done, which makes it hard for you not to believe in his teachings if you know that his existence is a fact
Even if Jesus did exist that doesn't mean he was the Messiah. In fact Judaism had defined views of the Messiah and will argue that Jesus never fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah to come. An example: Jews believed the Messiah would come and bring world wide peace. Well, we can look on the news and see daily this hasn't happened yet. The Jews had no concept of a "second coming"...so they expected it to happen the FIRST time. Read some of the prophecies the NT uses to defend the Messiahship of Jesus e.g. Matthew 2:15 "out of Egypt have I called my Son" referring to Jesus... but in the Tanakh in Hoseal 11:1 ISRAEL is the son Yahweh called out of Egypt not Jesus, not a Messiah. So prophecies drawn from the Tanakh are taken out of context and applied to Jesus.
Jesus is Messiah, Jews believe if Jesus died, so he couldn't fulfilled the prophecies, but you know what, actually Jesus still alive. just if they don't try to kill Jesus, perhaps they would saw the prophecies.
Bart Erhman is the epitome of objectivity. He has been on both ends of the aisle, and manages to keep from flying into an extreme while using scholarly rigor. Such a breath of fresh air.
Bart is very even keeled, yes, but Matt Dillahunty, who is now a pretty aggressive atheist, ALSO used to be super-duper Christian and studied to be a- pastor? Minister? I forget that particular detail.
Bart Erhman views on the historicity of Jesus is well within the scholarly consensus. The scholarly consensus believe Jesus existed, the scholarly consensus also believe most of the miracles Jesus performed was largely fictitious. Therefore the scholarly consensus is the epitome of objectivity. Most of the proponents of Jesus mythicism like Robert Price are mainly "fringe" scholars
Excellent debate. It seems that Dr. Price doesn't really understand Ehrman's arguments, though. He has a tendency to argue against points that Ehrman isn't making, while avoiding arguments that he is making.
In 1986 I head the great privilege of being a volunteer at the Kibbutz Ashdod Yaaquov - the Mehad variety. Some volunteers were on a rented boat near the shore of Lake Kinneret known to Christians as the Sea of Galilee. I was at the shore on a very calm day and they called to me to get into the boat. I stepped out on the water and worked my way on the rocks that were just submerged below the surface of the water. Watch out! my friend yelled: "Don't step there; the rocks are over here". So I changed by foot step strategy and arrived at the boat safely without falling in. Later it occurred to me that if someone had taken a photo from the shore it would have looked as if I had walked on the water, stumbled, and was helped by the guy in the boat. Perhaps a biblical scribe might have made more of it.
As purely a seeker of knowledge, I was very interested in listening to this debate. Who would come better prepared? Who would provide the more convincing arguments? Bottom line is that using a litmus test of critical thinking a weighing of the presented evidence, Ehrman easily wins this debate. Understand, I'm not saying he's right... simply that body and the weight of the evidence provided by Ehrman in this debate was superior. Dr. Price approaches this subject like a trial where he is the defense attorney. He believes that all he has to do is cast doubt on the other side's position in order to win. Sorry Doctor, but that is weak. To win a debate you must provide more compelling evidence for your position than your opponent provides... and that simply didn't happen. The only one who provided physical evidence, applied sensible reasoning and spent the majority of their allotted time making their case was Ehrman. 1 point for Dr. Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman definitely wins. He knows his stuff. Even though I am an atheist, I have to say that the mythicist position is really more than a bit out there. It seems like a flight of fancy for different reasons, but it is not actually sound. It is absolutely reasonable to believe that Jesus was not a supernatural being, but that some person named Jesus existed and was highly regarded as a sort of rabbinical guru revolutionary by some people in the region at the time. This absolutely comports with what we know about other messianic figures in that same place at the same time, all espousing "salvation" in different ways against the Romans, or corruption, or other reasons. There is nothing irrational about accepting this as the most likely position.
Bart Ehrman pointed out in another lecture when asked why soo much of what is scholarly known about the history of the bible isn't more widely known to the general public.His answer "Because most scholars don't know how to talk plainly to people about the information know about the history of the bible" Robert Price's ramblings proved this point quite effectively.quite verbose where as most of what he said made perfect sense to himself.......a listener really had to concentrate to follow his train of thought.....interesting debate though.
@j t Where did you get those ridiculous facts? I almost choked as I read what you just wrote. The letter J not existing isn't an argument. The name Yeshua/Iisou simply evolved across multiple languages to become Jesus. The same way Yahweh became Jehovah. Are you going to argue Jehovah didn't exist because the letter J didn't exist? Ridiculous. Moses did exist by the way, just not at the time people first hypothesized he did. Egyptologists thought Raameses was the Pharaoh of the Exodus because a Pharaoh later on in the Egyptian record has a name that sounds like one named in the book of Chronicles. Turns out that Pharaoh was actually Raameses, so they had their timeline off by hundreds of years. And when you take that into consideration, the Exodus suddenly becomes not only plausible, but likely, and supported by multiple archaeological discoveries in Egypt. So... try again, bub. And stop using 50 year-old facts.
As an atheist and a person who thought they were "sure" that Jesus was invented whole cloth, I find Bart's argument very convincing. The Jesus of the stories is certainly not the man as he may have really existed, but I'm not so sure there wasn't an actual man.
At an early stage of my de-conversion, I came to accept Jesus as an historical figure who was deified after his death. I now see the Christian religion not as the religion of Jesus, but the religion of Paul...a man who came along after the fact and cobbled together a religion from Jewish cloth that the Gentiles could get on board with. Paul was not going to win over many of the Jews with his story of a crucified Messiah, but the Gentiles were another story.
The reason this story attracts so much attention is because it has truth in it ,there are many more religions out there that draw little or no attention and make no one angry ,the underling reason for people to do that is that they don't believe themselves and need assurance .
@ christianity has old testament as cannon and dont accept the god of the old testament as cannon either you remove old testament wich jesus in the new testament said that he didnt come to destroy previous teachings so this trinity and faith > works makes 0 sense
@ realistically the narrative didn't happen at all. Jesus was crucified and his followers were overcome with grief. The mind does strange things, we just understand a little better today
@@fredc.meekinsjr.5553 Read the NT and see my friend. Paul didn't make a separate denomination or anything, in fact he was appointed by Jesus to preach the gospel. Paul wasn't hallucinating when he saw Jesus, even after his crucifixion. And touching on the fact that Christians follow paul. Incorrect. We follow Jesus, and paul is an apostle of Christ, so we can learn from him, but not follow him, paul says to follow CHRIST aswell. No man nor religion. Jesus only. For example if you want to learn maths, you have a teacher, you're not there to follow the teacher, but to learn more about maths, and the maths teacher has experience with maths, so we learn from them, but our goal is ultimately to learn the mathematics. And paul didn't just go to the gentiles because he didn't think the Jews would believe him. Jesus appointed peter to preach to the Jews, and was successful, remember the day of pentecost how much souls were added to the kingdom? Paul was appointed to preach to the gentiles. Jesus makes a way, for both jews and Gentiles. So that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but everlasting life. Turn to Jesus, his arms are wide open. God bless you all💯🙏✝️
1:21:47 Burton Mack is still alive, he's 90, born 1931. Still working for the School of Theology in Claremont, California, and is still believes the documents of Christianity to be myths, though, like Bart, suspects Jesus was a real man that was probably just a nice teacher. He's probably best known for his work on the Q hypothesis, but he's written a lot of good books on christian mythology. I recommend "The Rise and Fall of the Christian Myth: Restoring Our Democratic Ideals"
They both presented credible arguments but, I think Price hadn't adjusted his arguments as well to a secular opponent as Ehrman. I think he dropped into viewing Ehrman as an Apologetic on occasion which he certainly isn't.
Stephen Taylforth - Yeah, agreed. Price had a tendency to slip into arguments against miraculous works, which Ehrman was not arguing for and would also argue against.
@@willmosse3684 I really listened to Rob Prices argument and despite having quite extensive education I am trying to understand what he is trying to say. This usually means he has little to say. Bart is clear with his evidence. Nothing more really to say.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME When jesus failed to come through on a promise about people there with him not tasting of death til he brings in a heavenly kingdom (as a revolt against the Romans and oppressive world powers against the jews and christians)), he was pretty much exposed as a hack just like the other messiah claimers with the same or similar name. The fact that all these fake messiahs died and left Rome still in charge to dominate the world proves this. Last we checked no kingdom of horses and weapons has came from the sky to free anyone in the lifetime of his supposed followers
I enjoyed the debate. Ehrman was much more passionate and more lawyerly. Price is at times hard to follow but he is a happy thinker and brings the joy of knowledge to his subject. Matt said he was going to get tough but he let lots of the questioners drone on and on. I enjoyed how Price addressed Erman's points as best he could and comes off as a really good guy.
If the debate was called "Did the Jesus of the Bible who rose from the dead exist", then both Bart Ehrman and Robert Price would be on the same side and say "NO"!
Bart destroyed Price in the question period, really undermined all of his points. Price come across as a crank, making baffling connections, making his explanation seem less plausible than believing in the historical Jesus. Price didn't bother to challenge Bart at all in his question period. Carrier is a much more compelling scholar.
I too think Erhman is much better at debates than Price. Just like Hitches is a much better debater than Dawkins. I would love to see Richard Carrier debate Ehrman.
Prince is just a Biblical Scholar who focused on the Christ myth theory just to make people notice him in order to sell some books about a very controversial topic that no REAL historian believe. This is just one step away from being a conspiracy theory. "The earth is flat!" "No, it's round and I can prove it with a mathematical theory!" "I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! That mathematical theory can be just something created to make me think that the Earth is round so, until I don't see it with my eyes, I'll continue to think that it's flat!"
Dr Robert m price is a walking library of biblical knowledge as is Bart Ehrman, when people shoot ehrman down for his arguments of the trustworthiness of the gospels as not being historically trustworthy, I say "Ok attack the arguments not the individual" I say the same of price, attacking the person is just not the way to win people over.
I just don’t think this is the platform Robert Price is used to. You can tell by his prewritten comments and inability to think “on the draw”. Ehrman is a frequent debator . Price appears in documentaries by himself ..... that’s that
You're right but I still want to point out that Bart Ehrman is a rather bad debater. If I had to go by this debate only I'd conclude both positions are wrong ;)
@@Mr_A1-37 Price distorts facts or just denies them. He works best when preaching to the choir or when operating in a vacuum of knowledge. As soon as he is confronted by someone who is knowledgeable; he can't get away with his lies. (he is also snarky and snide).
The subtitles and the funny voices were embarrassing and juvenile. Also clear was that he doesn't have any background in the original languages which severely dents his arguments.
LOL true. They should have had them write down their questions. I doubt many would have had the patience to write down all that hogwash they were saying
@j t Yeshua.. There fixed it for you... Which is the same as Joshua... Just another fact observed that you could have easily checked.. *God with us* still equals Emanuel which literally means *God with us* because God was actually in the flesh. JOHN 1:1-14 IN THE BEGINNING.
I used to be on the fence. Leaned most towards mythicism. After much research and thought, I have since come to believe in the historical Nazarene discussed in the NT. I do not believe he was some sort of deity. Nor do I accept the allegations of miracles or rising from death. But I most certainly believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.
After this I am going to watch 2 Bhagavad Gita scholars debate whether the Hindu Gods exist and talk about the reliability of the people who wrote it and made copies and were also divinely inspired. Since I enjoy learning about the topics.
I am at 58:28. I was raised Christian, kind of. Mom was a Mormon and dad an anti-religionists. He believed more in the possibility that aliens had been here than what religions invented. I had a short personal experience with two beings of light in 1982. Made me into a believer of higher beings. I searched and prayed. I decided that there have been people who were special to those “beings” throughout history. BUT tellings of them were greatly exaggerated by their followers. My personal experience involved me suddenly looking down at my car and a bright light on either side of me. I heard “You are going to be hit. You can’t let your car move”. Then I was back in my car pushing down in the parking brake, putting shift in Park,
I am a Bible-believing Christian. I normally don't side with Dr. Ehrman, but of course, I was happy to for this particular topic. He argued his points very well.
It's because of mythicists that when I see videos on the history of Christianity from channels that have "Atheist" in their title, I'm ready to give them the same attention I give such channels that are clearly from conservative Christians. Bart Ehrman, ReligionForBreakfast, and Ryan Reeves are some of the few serious educators.
Wow, nice catch!! At first I thought breeze or wind from a fan but after watching several times there doesn't seem to be any detectable air flow. Definitely odd.
@ {K}... it's a miracle! proof that pages are alive... Bart didn't almost jump out of his seat... doesn't even look like he noticed it much... I've had pages flip on their own many times, the spines of heavier books can cause this to happen... but when you watch this a few times it is weird
Outstanding debate. It's really interesting to see you defend a different position than usual. I noticed that Matt Dillahunty on his own channel admitted a while back that you won him over here. I can see why.
Although I haven't read Carrier's book (it's not available in my local library, and I'm not willing to pay $35 for a copy of it), I found one of his lectures heavily convincing. A random blogger that has no credentials, however, ended up refuting that lecture pretty well.
I found Carrier convincing, right up until I actually bought one of his books and read it. In a nutshell, his position is that an alleged friend with a statistics degree told him that the historical method should be quantified through Bayesian probability (even though probability only applies to future events). Despite not having any sort of statistics degree himself, Carrier then tried it out and found that if you apply Bayesian probability to the existence of Jesus, the chance that he existed tops out at about 1:3. Basically, Carrier is to NT historical criticism as Michael Behe is to evolution and atheists can be just as susceptible to bad scholarship as theists when someone tells them what they want to hear and they aren't topically-educated enough to know better.
@edgewiseass - I'm not particularly topically educated, but the stench of bullshit was quite palpable - then with cheerleaders like that hack Fitzgerald in tow (tip David, if you don't want to be treated like a conspiracy theorist, don't argue like one) credibility for the position was non existent. Sad to see it has become the Atheists Intelligent Design.
Thank you for your kind, loving reply. If you are a Christian, as indeed your profile picture and playlist repertoire suggests, I have certainly been impressed with your Christ-like response! :) Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but if 2:27 fails to count an individual as an intellectual, what would be your definition so I can more accurately describe these two debaters. I don't really care, considering it's irrelevant to this whole debate, but go ahead and prove me wrong. Cheers.
orca winfreys big black fish hole Well, no one knows what Jesus said. And why should it matter what one of the anonymous authors of one of the 30 gospels claims?😂
@@305thief8 ok then who wrote them? if you say mark luke Mathew and john you're wrong. "12th-13th century depiction of evangelists Luke and Matthew writing the Gospels. But for more than a century, scholars have generally agreed that the Gospels, like many of the books of the New Testament, were not actually written by the people to whom they are attributed."
Bart did well, especially during the the alternating questioning between him and Robert. I enjoyed this debate and both gentlemen are quite knowledgeable. The evidence does seem to suggest that Jesus, the man, did probably exist but he is much different than who Christians might think. he is. Matt is a stud with his cowboy boots :)
That's a fair summary. he probably did exist, some of what he is supposed to have said and done is true, some exaggerated and some false. He was executed by the Romans, he wasn't resurrected. I think the Romans would have noticed if someone they executed than turned up alive. That would have been reported. Paul was the crucial figure. He became convinced by the Christian's tales of the resurrection and he had a vision of Jesus. What I'd like to know. Any good evidence that Jesus preached to non Jews or intended his message for non Jews?
@Jubei Yang But I think Price's response, though poorly articulated, is that there is no way to distinguish between non-magical Jesus whose legend grew into magical Jesus and non-existent Jesus whose legend grew into magical Jesus.
It seems to me that some extreme skeptics question whether anyone ever lived in antiquity. I can hear them saying "how do we know there were humans in ancient Rome?"
Jonah Conner Exactly what I was thinking, their arguments can be applied to nearly any ancient figure, yet we don't have "Plato Mythicists" or "Alexander The Great Mythicists" I may be an atheist and a scientifically minded person, but I do tend to think the Jesus Myth position is not one based on evidence or cogent arguments, but a sincere desire to push a particular worldview. Which is unfortunate because it does nothing but hurt and discredit the cause of secular humanism.
Definitely. I think the mythicists go too far, although I greatly respect Price and Carrier as scholars. Most of the stories people tell have some nugget of truth in them that simply gets exaggerated and embellished over time. It seems to me highly improbable that the entire contents of four gospels were completely made up. It is much more reasonable to think that Jesus was just another of many apocalyptic prophets in 1st century Palestine, and he became popular because of the belief in his resurrection, as Ehrman has pointed out many times.
@@jonahconner1111 Actually it only takes one lie or fanciful tale to snowball into a movement. Like why did Mithra have a great following and story line? Was there an actual Mithra at some point?
William P Hall - I really can’t agree with you. When you’re doing research, you deal with facts and evidence From these you draw a conclusion. Your conclusion may be right or it may be wrong, but you believe it to be correct. I think it shows great arrogance to call your conclusions “facts” when they are really just your conclusions, based on the facts, as we know them. There’s always the chance that something else will be discovered that makes your present conclusions false. Then you can change what you believe and spare yourself the bad form of revising your “facts”. It cheapens the whole idea of “facts”.
I've increasingly come to accept Bart's view as far more likely than an invention. Crucifixions were public events and Paul's readers would know if "Jesus" had not been killed. Josephus's description of the death of James by Ananus includes "the brother of...." It makes far more sense that early stories had some historical context. These visions were of "someone".
i agree. i am not stupid but price sounds like a person who is rather over-involved in impressing himself with complicated grammar and terms rarely used. complicated is not the same as clever [although of the bits i grasped i sort of agreed - ehrman's jesus does sound unremarkable and not someone you would ever write home about but you could steal the basic premise of a crucified prophet and just add old fables to it to form a religion/saviour that the old testament spoke of.
That's as weak an argument as Dr Robert " in my opinion" price, I have a degree in physics but if your telling me I can not recognize psudo intellectualism without substance because I don't have the degree you approve of.. That's real and utter arrogance most historians did not have the brilance to better the world though innovation and thus commit themselves to grandstanding on the achievements of others.. Utter tripe..
All great religious traditions in the world cannot arise without a founder. Despite some very good arguments against it, I (not a Christian myself) personally believe that Jesus is a real historical figure and a very charismatic mystic himself that influenced a great part of the world after his passing. The exaggeratingly embellished and faith-induced legends associated with him recorded in the surviving holy texts may have been a source why his existence was doubted at this time.
The more you dig into Carrier and Price, the more it just becomes a hall of mirrors. Speculations that hinge on gaps of knowledge. I recall picking up a thick used book decades ago from the late 1800’s that when great detail arguing that Jesus did not exist. It’s not a new argument. Surely there will never be a definitive answer but Ehrman’s historical view just rings more true to me. Partly because In long experience with martial arts I’ve seen in the 20th century, exactly that myth building of a real person within a couple of generations. A mythic warrior sage that can dodge bullets, disappear and reappear elsewhere, enlightenment, a god etc. If it wasn’t for the rise of the internet and one person and then others working hard to piece together a pre-war historical account to combat the mythology and legends, who knows, and that is in the modern era. The ability of humans to build a grand mythology around a real person within a few generations just feels very real to me.
"I heard it from abdul al-hazred who heard it from ras-al-ghul who heard it from abu-bakr who heard it from the prophet...peace be upon him." ! Way to mix your metaphors to level awesome, Mr. Price!!!
Its bizarre to see a debate where both sides are reasonable, im so used to atheist vs theist debates. I lean towards mythicism because we have seen Scientology be created in front of the world in the last century by 1 man alone and then taken around the globe by the 1st generation of apostles. Imagine how much easier it would have been 2000 years ago to create a religion wholecloth.
lol. The guy in the black and with a red tie looks like he's watching a football game the way he's sitting only needs a beer in his hand and a remote on the other😅
the conclusion is that you look nutty doubting that Jesus existed at all. But that no position should lack humility as we are all in the dark to some extent.
Price isn't arguing that Jesus for sure never existed... Just that if he did, he was so in extraordinary, that there was no reason for anyone to take notice... But that his followers built the messiah myth around him, and that if there is any truth to the story, it is soooo intertwined with lies, that they can never be separated.
Just FYI if you think that this debate could have been won *if only* Ehrman had agreed to debate Carrier, I think you are shifting the goalposts. The mythicist community was enthused about Price being willing to go toe-to-toe with Ehrman on this topic. Price is a published academic scholar. He has credentials, he knows the languages and the history (albeit with an unconventional take). He was certainly qualified and motivated enough to challenge Ehrman and could just as easily have declined if he felt this was not worth his time. Price has been advocating for Jesus Mythicisim for a long time and it is something he has a sincere intellectual position on. He is certainly one of the best "steel man" advocates for the position and to excuse the failings of mythicism because he wasn't a *perfect* spokesman is ludicrous. What conversation would we be having if the reverse had happened and Carrier had debated Ehrman instead but (hypothetically) done poorly. Would we then insist that the mythicists deserved a "do over" and that the more qualified and respected Dr. Price should have debated instead?
All you have to do is watch Carrier's lectures and read his books on the historicity of Jesus, and then you could probably have made a better showing than Price in this debate - if you could remember all of Carrier's material.
I was at this discussion. I know / knew the organizers. I got a lot out of watching this again just now. I didn't think I would stick with it. I remember listening in the audience and feeling like Price, while speaking at an ostensibly genius level, is in his own world. It also seemed like each was trying to undercut, or skip upstream to supersede the other's evidence and so deflate that argument rather than confront the actual presented issue in plain language the audience could rally around. What we have here is mild debate. It's actually a civil, albeit dry, somewhat clinical exploration of Price's longstanding personal exploration of the historicity of Jesus contrasted by Ehrman's representation of what he calls "the academy's" given that Jesus existed. Getting these two on stage was supposed to be a sort of "final showdown" for the historicity of Jesus issue. Rather than locking horns and generating applause moments... it just kinda fizzled. I actually thought of this debate while watching the Peterson / Zizek debate which is at least a much more entertaining case of each talking past the other.
The people saying one 'destroyed' the other in these comments are engaging in dismissive hyperbole. Why do people stand in line to ask questions they haven't thought through???
Well, I have posted many things on discussion boards that I have not throught through. It is only through other people’s criticism that I learn anything new.
@@carlpen850 I'm not a christian, and so have no investment. However, atheists like Dr Price do. He makes so many thinly stretched assumptions in the first 5 minutes or so, but he can't see it - I would suggest through the same sort of confirmation bias that blindly believing, literalist christians live in (unlike Dr Ehrman)
Thank you Dr Ehrman I have been waiting a while to see this. I think you both made very good points but I am more on your side now. I think the fact I was swayed by the 'mythisists' when I deconverted was reactionary. The truth does matter but either way we came to believe in passed on legends. I hope there are more scholars who as you say look at some of the valid questions around this.
When Ehrman was marginalizing Price's mythicist position as an outlier, I couldn't help but recall the same tactic being deployed against him by William Lane Craig. In their debate on the resurrection, Craig continually leveled the charge that Ehrman's view were not supported by serious scholarship, that he was in an extremely small and discredited fringe group of academics that weren't even taken seriously by mainstream new testament scholars, that the "overwhelming historical evidence" left no room whatsoever for doubting the resurrection, and that Ehrman's personal crisis of faith was responsible for his poor scholarship. Craig even displayed bold graphics calling out "Bart's Blunder". The difference here, however, is that Ehrman is an eminently more respectable debater than Craig, and his arguments-unlike Craig's- bested Price's by their force of reason.
Wait, Craig seriously said that? Jesus Christ! So to speak. What's the point of even having a discussion with someone like that? The kindest reasonable response is "Ok, bye."
Its bad argumentation if you're meta-arguing about appeals to authority on appeals to authority. I had hoped for, and was disappointed by, the lack of any consideration by both sides of the rarity of readers and writers of the time period and the enormous power they wielded in their communities because of those skills. It's easy to take any position on Paul or Josephus when they have so little competition and were writing for a specific audience who could neither dispute their authority nor their sources.
1:15:27 As he says "Jesus" the page flips on it's own. Not one leaf on the tree shook from the "breeze".... The papers above the book were covering the book, so no breeze could have made it under and perfectly flip that page. The papers on top also would have moved from the "breeze" before that page would have turned.
I'll confess up front that A) Dr. Ehrman clearly was more persuasive during this discussion, and B) he's much more qualified to comment on the historical legitimacy of Jesus than I am. (These are not, of course, particularly remarkable concessions on my part.) But I do wonder: Dr. Ehrman says the idea of a crucified Messiah is just so kooky that nobody would come up with it unless they had no choice--ie, it was based in a historical fact nobody could argue away. However, it's clear in hindsight that a great, great, great many people in the ancient world turned out to be very amenable to the idea of a crucified Messiah, first some Jews and later gentiles. So, kooky idea or not, it had legs (or posts, as the case may be). That being the case, it seems all we really have to believe is that even ONE person might entertain this idea, however outlandish it may have been at the time, and then once that lone nut introduced it the concept to others it would then catch on in just the way that we now know it historically did. To me, this does not sound so far-fetched; people today have dreamed up crazy myths out of the blue and found a receptive audience. Was there really not one person in ancient Judea who would do the same?
I think it makes perfect sense as the destruction of the temple in 70 made the Jews scramble to figure out things like atonement and salvation, and what better solution then one sacrifice for all time (as opposed to once a year previously at the temple).
But they lived in a small village where their friends and families would know or have heard of the man about which they wrote. If they wrote of some imaginary man, everyone would know it and call them out on it. And Paul would not send letters all over their known world because he just liked spreading fake news. But Josephus would certainly have no motivation to invite scorn or disbelief. He was a respected historian of that era and would never voluntarily damage his reputation over some non-existent Jew. Doesn't make sense. All the old Testament tells tales of Jews who lived before them and recorded their lives and their legends. That's how ancient Jews left scriptures to record tales about their chosen prophets and teachers.
The argument that Noone would come up with the idea that their savior would die has No context of how the stories of other dead and risen gods of the era existed.
But the idea of the God that died and resurrected for their followers salvation is not new to Christianity, so that idea is not as outrageous as you make it out to be
Bart Ehrmann is making my faith in Christ stronger every single time. He opened my eyes to textual criticism and to take scripture much more seriously and to remain in a sober mind when studying textual variants and history. This man has done more for Christianity than many pastors and apologists.
One debate I'd like to see => Debating the paths of modern religions(how they were created, how they changed by social forces and how they justified their actions) and how they parallel ancient religions.
The Christian movement did not overpower the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire transformed itself into the Christian Movement to preserve its power and dominance into the infinite future. And it succeded, since the original Roma Christian Catholic Church today still rules the whole world, and has its seat of power in thr modern site known as THE VATICAN.
Lol you said chirstians didn't "overpower" the Romans. But then literally your next sentence says "the Roman Empire transformed itself into the chirstian movement to PERSERVE its power and dominance..." That sounds like the Roman Empire was overpowered politically by the christians lol
@@fairytaleoverworlds7795 Dr. Price is suggesting that Jesus never existed (combining both mystical Jesus with historical), while Dr. Ehrman is suggesting that a historical Jesus did exist, but was embellished overtime with miracles
@@fairytaleoverworlds7795 Price is talking about the myths, legends, exaggerations, and possible misinterpretations. Ehrman is talking about someone who spoke about peace of mind - of which he was one of many through history up to now.
Honestly, Dr Price has the more open position in my opinion. For the first time ever I listened to all 4 gospels in audio format a few months ago. I would listen to one before going to bed because the last few years my interest in the type of stuff increased a bit. I don't know if it's just the way it was read or what but the feeling I was getting was I could totally see all if it being fiction. I've heard countless debates and discussions on this topic and I just don't get the certainty Bart appears to display. I don't think the evidence is that overwhelming that it's almost a guarantee. I have it about 50/50, I think anyone saying he absolutely existed or didn't have some form of bias.
A hero ?? How , why? I could get up and say jesus didn't exist, or jesus did exist . anyone could , hes just giving his opinion, hes given no facts no evidence nothing, just opinion. In fact I could do it & with more authority than him or any of the others I've seen on utube. Especially when people like him speak about archaeology he knows nothing about archaeology , just because he says he has a few mates that are archaeologists , is meaningless I have mates that are medical doctors , doesn't mean I'm qualified to speak about it on stage .
hammers kev, opinion? Ehrman is the go to guy, on the front lines for ancient language translation, transcription and biblical context. It’s not opinion, and obviously so. He would never claim to be an archeologist, but works closely with them, industry proximity on a professional level isn’t as “meaningless” as you claim. If you worked in a field that overlapped and closely involved with the medical field, then maybe you’d be worth listening to. You have a lot of nothing to say on him, how about you back it up? Dust off some off your Hebrew, make an argument, refute his knowledge, because right now you’re just a dude with no credentials calling out a renowned biblical scholar. White noise
It doesn't matter what Bart or anyone else thinks, you will bow before the Lord. You will face judgement. I have been looking at these evidences for 20 years. Jesus is Lord.
Overall I think Ehrman did really well in this debate, but there's one point I really wish he would have addressed in more detail. With the Clarke Kent comparison that Price made... I wonder what modern theologians would think of the superman comics had they been buried in the sand 2,000 years ago and dug up today. Ehrman said at one point that he would believe in Clarke Kent, but not superman. And the issue with that is that Clarke Kent wasn't a real person either, so unless I misheard him or he misspoke I have trouble understanding how he could differentiate between an ancient fiction and an ancient biography.
Happy Thoughts - Ehrman addresses this extensively in his books. He clearly lays out the “rules” of historical textual criticism and how they are used to determine the veracity of a text. It is a science and not guesswork. I believe that Ehrman doesn’t have the time to go over this in this particular debate.
This is my point exactly, if historians will only rely on hearsay that corroborates one another, and or to ancient text dated on the same time period to prove a person back then existed. I think its not a good method, they must not be accounted as true history, but rather put in a "History Maybe Category" they must not assert it, because if the same scenario would happen, if the world somehow ends and most of the account about our existence vanished, except the "DC comic books" and this historians method of proving someone existed is applied, the next form of thinking life on earth would think Clarke Kent exist and maybe his a superman,, i not saying that their method is flawed, given the limited and ancient sources of evidence like hearsay that they can only have. My point it that they should not assert it as true, and only just a possibility. Archaeologist use carbon dating and many other scientific way of dating an artifact to know their age. Historians on the other hand cannot do this, yes they can date the paper holding the text but not the text and its meaning its self. Unless they invent a time machine, just like Price stated.
Yeah, I think Ehrmann came over better and the "no smoke with out fire" argument is quite plausible - it seems perfectly reasonable that there might have been some guy, maybe more than one, doing some kind of preaching at the time, being crucified for it... and maybe being a basis for Jesus. Impossible to tell 2K years later.
@@roqsteady5290 There is not might. The historical Jesus existed and many scholars have reconstructed what he actually believed. Oral tradition was a huge part of this culture.
that won't happen - there is a spat between them. I believe Carrier heavily publicly criticised Ehrmans book on did Jesus exist . Admittedly Carriers work on the subject is far more an academic driven tome rather than a layman guide like Bart's is.
@buymebluepills lol it will be a great debate but carrier have the upper hand trust me, if you haven't read OTHJ then you are criticizing a position you don't understand. Like Bart...
I thought Dr. Price's argument was less interesting, less cohesive and less convincing. Maybe archaeologists will find additional documents that will shed light on this issue.
Price made no logical sense of argument his opening statement. He reference the gospel writers and text. Seems odd to and at the same time deny the historical Jesus
Bart at one point said that he and Bob would have to debate a certain point over a beer ...these two men are fountains of knowledge and ideas ...I think a beer would work well for all of us ...thanks for making this debate happen ...
He keeps mentioning Caesar Augustus and saying there was no proof of his existence. But there are at least statues of him from his time... there is none of that of Jesus
I lean towards the analysis by John Schonfield in his work, "The Passover Plot". Yeshua wasn't the "Messiach" but he was a "Political Player" assiduously attempting to convince the Jewish people that he was that prophesied hope of Judaism. As such, he managed the prophesies to accomplish his acceptance as being the one that was expected. Unfortunately, the typical breaking of one or two legs to prove death of the victim crucified didn't happen, and because a Roman soldier sympathetic to the suffering of Yeshua, stabbed him with his spear; killing him - no resurrection plans could proceed when a broken leg healed ... end of story. However, the book by Schonfield is definitely a must read for anyone who objectively wants to understand those times and beliefs.
Come to think about it, I never questioned whether or not Jesus existed until I started watching RUclips videos that did. I had a course in college back in the '70's called "Western Civilization" which covered what they could recover from the Stone Age, through the Phoenicians, Egyptians, the Roman Empire etc. all the way to the Renassaince(sp?). Western Civilization II covered from the end of the Renassaince to the Modern Era, which I didn't take. You know, I don't believe Jesus was even MENTIONED... AT ALL!!! It never occurred to me(until now) that there was a BIBLICAL Jesus and the "concept" of a real historical Jesus. Wow. That fact has just now dawned on me. The topic just slapped me in the face!
I've asked myself the same thing . If this guy is so important for Christianity where is his tomb? Why didn't people took trace of where he was living and what was he doing? But then they are going to say that the church has evidencies , evidencies those that nobody can see, only them.
Christians often portray the idea of the Crucified Messiah as an amazing plot twist, the kind no-one anticipates but which, in retrospect, was there all along. You could even say that christians worship the God of Plot Twists. To Ehrman, it's more like a hurriedly re-written script when your lead actor dies halfway through filming. This analogy seems worth exploring.
Bart argued the Christian perspective better than all the evangelicals that he has debated. Impressive
I'm an atheist so I had no real side to root for in the debate. Ehrman's position seems a lot more credible.
This is perhaps the first and only debate Christians wanted Dr. Ehrman to win lool
SniperElite that's true me included.😂 I enjoy both of their works.
Why it is always itching in the wrong place for you?
yes because knowing he existed doesnt directly make you want to believe in his fake prophecy, fortified with no miracles, compared to the milllions of shocking miracles that Jesus has done, which makes it hard for you not to believe in his teachings if you know that his existence is a fact
Even if Jesus did exist that doesn't mean he was the Messiah. In fact Judaism had defined views of the Messiah and will argue that Jesus never fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah to come. An example: Jews believed the Messiah would come and bring world wide peace. Well, we can look on the news and see daily this hasn't happened yet. The Jews had no concept of a "second coming"...so they expected it to happen the FIRST time.
Read some of the prophecies the NT uses to defend the Messiahship of Jesus e.g. Matthew 2:15 "out of Egypt have I called my Son" referring to Jesus... but in the Tanakh in Hoseal 11:1 ISRAEL is the son Yahweh called out of Egypt not Jesus, not a Messiah. So prophecies drawn from the Tanakh are taken out of context and applied to Jesus.
Jesus is Messiah, Jews believe if Jesus died, so he couldn't fulfilled the prophecies, but you know what, actually Jesus still alive. just if they don't try to kill Jesus, perhaps they would saw the prophecies.
What surprised me the most about this video, is that Dillahunty is actually, physically capable of not talking all the time.
Alexandre Fry
I can’t stand him.
He is incredibly annoying and, as I’ve said, obnoxious.
Travis Carver
Sweet Trav, that’s because you’re indoctrinated and brainwashed.
I'm listening right now. I truly thought he'd be interrupting all the time.
What a surprise
Matt Diluhunty not talking.
I wonder what got his tongue.
@Jakeeyy1009 SA was saying Travis Carver was indoctrinated and brainwashed you non-comprehending Sweet clown ;)
I used to think if you liked Ehrman you had to dislike Price. Turns out they're both very interesting and worth a listen on their podcasts.
Bart Erhman is the epitome of objectivity. He has been on both ends of the aisle, and manages to keep from flying into an extreme while using scholarly rigor. Such a breath of fresh air.
Bahahah
Bart is very even keeled, yes, but Matt Dillahunty, who is now a pretty aggressive atheist, ALSO used to be super-duper Christian and studied to be a- pastor? Minister? I forget that particular detail.
Bart Erhman views on the historicity of Jesus is well within the scholarly consensus. The scholarly consensus believe Jesus existed, the scholarly consensus also believe most of the miracles Jesus performed was largely fictitious. Therefore the scholarly consensus is the epitome of objectivity. Most of the proponents of Jesus mythicism like Robert Price are mainly "fringe" scholars
So awesome to see Santa Claus debate on the validity of Jesus.
D Moore People are so concentrated on Price’s looks they never hear what he says lol
The irony isn’t lost on me, though, that Santa Claus is trying to prove the man responsible for his existence didn’t exist.
Excellent debate. It seems that Dr. Price doesn't really understand Ehrman's arguments, though. He has a tendency to argue against points that Ehrman isn't making, while avoiding arguments that he is making.
The first thing they tell you in speech class is not to sound like you're reading the whole speech.
No matter what side you're on, Robert Price has a cool tie.
You can't beat his black socks and sandals - Classic Sartorial Academic Elegance
In 1986 I head the great privilege of being a volunteer at the Kibbutz Ashdod Yaaquov - the Mehad variety. Some volunteers were on a rented boat near the shore of Lake Kinneret known to Christians as the Sea of Galilee. I was at the shore on a very calm day and they called to me to get into the boat. I stepped out on the water and worked my way on the rocks that were just submerged below the surface of the water. Watch out! my friend yelled: "Don't step there; the rocks are over here". So I changed by foot step strategy and arrived at the boat safely without falling in. Later it occurred to me that if someone had taken a photo from the shore it would have looked as if I had walked on the water, stumbled, and was helped by the guy in the boat. Perhaps a biblical scribe might have made more of it.
this is a beautiful picture. =D
Is it just me or does Price look like he just got done with his weekly D&D session?
Curtis Stevenson best comment ever! Lol
D&D?
Aaahh Dungeons & Dragons
His weekly D&D session lasts over 150 hours, so he always looks like it just ended. :P
More likely The Call of Cthulhu
As purely a seeker of knowledge, I was very interested in listening to this debate. Who would come better prepared? Who would provide the more convincing arguments? Bottom line is that using a litmus test of critical thinking a weighing of the presented evidence, Ehrman easily wins this debate. Understand, I'm not saying he's right... simply that body and the weight of the evidence provided by Ehrman in this debate was superior. Dr. Price approaches this subject like a trial where he is the defense attorney. He believes that all he has to do is cast doubt on the other side's position in order to win. Sorry Doctor, but that is weak. To win a debate you must provide more compelling evidence for your position than your opponent provides... and that simply didn't happen. The only one who provided physical evidence, applied sensible reasoning and spent the majority of their allotted time making their case was Ehrman. 1 point for Dr. Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman definitely wins. He knows his stuff. Even though I am an atheist, I have to say that the mythicist position is really more than a bit out there. It seems like a flight of fancy for different reasons, but it is not actually sound. It is absolutely reasonable to believe that Jesus was not a supernatural being, but that some person named Jesus existed and was highly regarded as a sort of rabbinical guru revolutionary by some people in the region at the time. This absolutely comports with what we know about other messianic figures in that same place at the same time, all espousing "salvation" in different ways against the Romans, or corruption, or other reasons. There is nothing irrational about accepting this as the most likely position.
Bart Ehrman pointed out in another lecture when asked why soo much of what is scholarly known about the history of the bible isn't more widely known to the general public.His answer "Because most scholars don't know how to talk plainly to people about the information know about the history of the bible" Robert Price's ramblings proved this point quite effectively.quite verbose where as most of what he said made perfect sense to himself.......a listener really had to concentrate to follow his train of thought.....interesting debate though.
It's interesting to see George RR Martin in a debate.
They even sound similar lmao
Same literary influences too. I believe both of them consider themselves to be Lovecraftians
Bart Ehrman is very rational and sensible, which is very refreshing in this day and age where people so often confuse their fantasies with reality.
I have no idea what is the truth here, but I have to say that Ehrman's vast knowledge is overwhelming.
He's a clever bean.
Yep, Bart is a Bible College valedictorian. roflmao
The truth is Jesus existed, it's pretty obvious.
@j t Where did you get those ridiculous facts? I almost choked as I read what you just wrote. The letter J not existing isn't an argument. The name Yeshua/Iisou simply evolved across multiple languages to become Jesus. The same way Yahweh became Jehovah. Are you going to argue Jehovah didn't exist because the letter J didn't exist? Ridiculous.
Moses did exist by the way, just not at the time people first hypothesized he did. Egyptologists thought Raameses was the Pharaoh of the Exodus because a Pharaoh later on in the Egyptian record has a name that sounds like one named in the book of Chronicles. Turns out that Pharaoh was actually Raameses, so they had their timeline off by hundreds of years. And when you take that into consideration, the Exodus suddenly becomes not only plausible, but likely, and supported by multiple archaeological discoveries in Egypt.
So... try again, bub. And stop using 50 year-old facts.
@j t is that supposed to be some kind of argument? If so, it's terrible. You mean you could go on forever with lousy arguments?
As an atheist and a person who thought they were "sure" that Jesus was invented whole cloth, I find Bart's argument very convincing. The Jesus of the stories is certainly not the man as he may have really existed, but I'm not so sure there wasn't an actual man.
At an early stage of my de-conversion, I came to accept Jesus as an historical figure who was deified after his death. I now see the Christian religion not as the religion of Jesus, but the religion of Paul...a man who came along after the fact and cobbled together a religion from Jewish cloth that the Gentiles could get on board with. Paul was not going to win over many of the Jews with his story of a crucified Messiah, but the Gentiles were another story.
The reason this story attracts so much attention is because it has truth in it ,there are many more religions out there that draw little or no attention and make no one angry ,the underling reason for people to do that is that they don't believe themselves and need assurance .
@ christianity has old testament as cannon and dont accept the god of the old testament as cannon either you remove old testament wich jesus in the new testament said that he didnt come to destroy previous teachings so this trinity and faith > works makes 0 sense
@ realistically the narrative didn't happen at all. Jesus was crucified and his followers were overcome with grief. The mind does strange things, we just understand a little better today
@@fredc.meekinsjr.5553 Read the NT and see my friend.
Paul didn't make a separate denomination or anything, in fact he was appointed by Jesus to preach the gospel.
Paul wasn't hallucinating when he saw Jesus, even after his crucifixion.
And touching on the fact that Christians follow paul. Incorrect. We follow Jesus, and paul is an apostle of Christ, so we can learn from him, but not follow him, paul says to follow CHRIST aswell.
No man nor religion. Jesus only.
For example if you want to learn maths, you have a teacher, you're not there to follow the teacher, but to learn more about maths, and the maths teacher has experience with maths, so we learn from them, but our goal is ultimately to learn the mathematics.
And paul didn't just go to the gentiles because he didn't think the Jews would believe him.
Jesus appointed peter to preach to the Jews, and was successful, remember the day of pentecost how much souls were added to the kingdom?
Paul was appointed to preach to the gentiles.
Jesus makes a way, for both jews and Gentiles.
So that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but everlasting life.
Turn to Jesus, his arms are wide open.
God bless you all💯🙏✝️
1:21:47 Burton Mack is still alive, he's 90, born 1931. Still working for the School of Theology in Claremont, California, and is still believes the documents of Christianity to be myths, though, like Bart, suspects Jesus was a real man that was probably just a nice teacher.
He's probably best known for his work on the Q hypothesis, but he's written a lot of good books on christian mythology. I recommend "The Rise and Fall of the Christian Myth: Restoring Our Democratic Ideals"
They both presented credible arguments but, I think Price hadn't adjusted his arguments as well to a secular opponent as Ehrman. I think he dropped into viewing Ehrman as an Apologetic on occasion which he certainly isn't.
Maybe but I dont think so, they both are well acquainted with each other and their works
Proving that the facts suggest Jesus is Lord
Stephen Taylforth - Yeah, agreed. Price had a tendency to slip into arguments against miraculous works, which Ehrman was not arguing for and would also argue against.
@@willmosse3684 I really listened to Rob Prices argument and despite having quite extensive education I am trying to understand what he is trying to say. This usually means he has little to say. Bart is clear with his evidence. Nothing more really to say.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME When jesus failed to come through on a promise about people there with him not tasting of death til he brings in a heavenly kingdom (as a revolt against the Romans and oppressive world powers against the jews and christians)), he was pretty much exposed as a hack just like the other messiah claimers with the same or similar name. The fact that all these fake messiahs died and left Rome still in charge to dominate the world proves this. Last we checked no kingdom of horses and weapons has came from the sky to free anyone in the lifetime of his supposed followers
Why isn’t George R.R. Martin at home writing those books
Heretic Life lmfao
I enjoyed the debate. Ehrman was much more passionate and more lawyerly. Price is at times hard to follow but he is a happy thinker and brings the joy of knowledge to his subject. Matt said he was going to get tough but he let lots of the questioners drone on and on. I enjoyed how Price addressed Erman's points as best he could and comes off as a really good guy.
I'm not a mythicist but Dr Price is just a pleasure to listen to. His humor, erudition, and general good nature come through clearly.
If the debate was called "Did the Jesus of the Bible who rose from the dead exist", then both Bart Ehrman and Robert Price would be on the same side and say "NO"!
Bart destroyed Price in the question period, really undermined all of his points. Price come across as a crank, making baffling connections, making his explanation seem less plausible than believing in the historical Jesus. Price didn't bother to challenge Bart at all in his question period. Carrier is a much more compelling scholar.
I too think Erhman is much better at debates than Price. Just like Hitches is a much better debater than Dawkins. I would love to see Richard Carrier debate Ehrman.
@@HeinrichGossler They actually have a "debate", but by text.
Prince is just a Biblical Scholar who focused on the Christ myth theory just to make people notice him in order to sell some books about a very controversial topic that no REAL historian believe.
This is just one step away from being a conspiracy theory.
"The earth is flat!"
"No, it's round and I can prove it with a mathematical theory!"
"I DON'T BELIEVE YOU! That mathematical theory can be just something created to make me think that the Earth is round so, until I don't see it with my eyes, I'll continue to think that it's flat!"
@@magnus8704 do you have that link? Or is it somewhere I can find?
Dr Robert m price is a walking library of biblical knowledge as is Bart Ehrman, when people shoot ehrman down for his arguments of the trustworthiness of the gospels as not being historically trustworthy, I say
"Ok attack the arguments not the individual"
I say the same of price, attacking the person is just not the way to win people over.
Is it weird that I want to play D&D with Robert Price? I have a feeling he would be anwesome DM
I'm pretty sure he'd be an amazing DM, but I would want Bart and Matt to also play.
Versus GRR Martin yes
I just don’t think this is the platform Robert Price is used to. You can tell by his prewritten comments and inability to think “on the draw”. Ehrman is a frequent debator . Price appears in documentaries by himself ..... that’s that
He can't handle any push back.
You're right but I still want to point out that Bart Ehrman is a rather bad debater. If I had to go by this debate only I'd conclude both positions are wrong ;)
I wish ehrman would debate carrier...
@@Mr_A1-37 Price distorts facts or just denies them. He works best when preaching to the choir or when operating in a vacuum of knowledge. As soon as he is confronted by someone who is knowledgeable; he can't get away with his lies. (he is also snarky and snide).
The subtitles and the funny voices were embarrassing and juvenile. Also clear was that he doesn't have any background in the original languages which severely dents his arguments.
I'm embarrassed for every single one of those questioners, who can't ask a simple question without taking up a 5-minute screed.
@j t That's not the consensus of the academic community
LOL true. They should have had them write down their questions. I doubt many would have had the patience to write down all that hogwash they were saying
@j t Yeshua.. There fixed it for you... Which is the same as Joshua... Just another fact observed that you could have easily checked..
*God with us* still equals Emanuel which literally means *God with us* because God was actually in the flesh.
JOHN 1:1-14 IN THE BEGINNING.
What I liked best about the debate is that Dillahunty didn't flinch in it. That already makes for a good debate.
I used to be on the fence. Leaned most towards mythicism. After much research and thought, I have since come to believe in the historical Nazarene discussed in the NT. I do not believe he was some sort of deity. Nor do I accept the allegations of miracles or rising from death. But I most certainly believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.
After this I am going to watch 2 Bhagavad Gita scholars debate whether the Hindu Gods exist and talk about the reliability of the people who wrote it and made copies and were also divinely inspired.
Since I enjoy learning about the topics.
I may join you.
I like Robert Price, but he was a fish out of water in this debate. Kudos to Bart Ehrman.
This is Bart Ehrman at his best.
I am at 58:28. I was raised Christian, kind of. Mom was a Mormon and dad an anti-religionists. He believed more in the possibility that aliens had been here than what religions invented. I had a short personal experience with two beings of light in 1982. Made me into a believer of higher beings. I searched and prayed. I decided that there have been people who were special to those “beings” throughout history. BUT tellings of them were greatly exaggerated by their followers. My personal experience involved me suddenly looking down at my car and a bright light on either side of me. I heard “You are going to be hit. You can’t let your car move”. Then I was back in my car pushing down in the parking brake, putting shift in Park,
Thank you Dr Ehrman! I have been waiting to hear this for ages :-)
I am a Bible-believing Christian. I normally don't side with Dr. Ehrman, but of course, I was happy to for this particular topic. He argued his points very well.
It's because of mythicists that when I see videos on the history of Christianity from channels that have "Atheist" in their title, I'm ready to give them the same attention I give such channels that are clearly from conservative Christians. Bart Ehrman, ReligionForBreakfast, and Ryan Reeves are some of the few serious educators.
A riveting debate. Thank you!
Someone please tell me what it is that flips the page on the table infront of Bart at 1:15:27 - it even makes Bart jump out of his seat almost.
Wow, nice catch!! At first I thought breeze or wind from a fan but after watching several times there doesn't seem to be any detectable air flow. Definitely odd.
AdinoThe3znite Right when he said the word Jesus as well.
It's an open Bible. The pages are wafer thin. I think the lightes breezes flip those pages.
@ {K}... it's a miracle! proof that pages are alive... Bart didn't almost jump out of his seat... doesn't even look like he noticed it much... I've had pages flip on their own many times, the spines of heavier books can cause this to happen... but when you watch this a few times it is weird
It must have been an newly returning Pagen god Flippus. The crazy god of flipping.
Outstanding debate. It's really interesting to see you defend a different position than usual. I noticed that Matt Dillahunty on his own channel admitted a while back that you won him over here. I can see why.
David Rutten Matt did a interview with Richard Carrier after that and said that he was pulled again back to a more neutral stance..
Although I haven't read Carrier's book (it's not available in my local library, and I'm not willing to pay $35 for a copy of it), I found one of his lectures heavily convincing. A random blogger that has no credentials, however, ended up refuting that lecture pretty well.
I found Carrier convincing, right up until I actually bought one of his books and read it. In a nutshell, his position is that an alleged friend with a statistics degree told him that the historical method should be quantified through Bayesian probability (even though probability only applies to future events). Despite not having any sort of statistics degree himself, Carrier then tried it out and found that if you apply Bayesian probability to the existence of Jesus, the chance that he existed tops out at about 1:3.
Basically, Carrier is to NT historical criticism as Michael Behe is to evolution and atheists can be just as susceptible to bad scholarship as theists when someone tells them what they want to hear and they aren't topically-educated enough to know better.
edgewiseass Well said. You're absolutely right.
@edgewiseass - I'm not particularly topically educated, but the stench of bullshit was quite palpable - then with cheerleaders like that hack Fitzgerald in tow (tip David, if you don't want to be treated like a conspiracy theorist, don't argue like one) credibility for the position was non existent. Sad to see it has become the Atheists Intelligent Design.
A debate between two intellectuals with a moderator I already know and love? Let me get my popcorn.
Thank you for your kind, loving reply. If you are a Christian, as indeed your profile picture and playlist repertoire suggests, I have certainly been impressed with your Christ-like response! :)
Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but if 2:27 fails to count an individual as an intellectual, what would be your definition so I can more accurately describe these two debaters. I don't really care, considering it's irrelevant to this whole debate, but go ahead and prove me wrong. Cheers.
:)
the moderator is a douchebag, BTW, nevertheless it is not a cardinal sin for a moderator, he would redeem himself by cancelling his call-in show.
@MHM, Robert Price knows more about the Bible than 99.9% of Christians. How many PhDs in Biblical Studies do you have?
Silly Sad what you said barely makes any sense.
If one had actual, accurate, complete census material of the era, I would guess they would find more than one Jesus of/ from/ in Nazareth.
orca winfreys big black fish hole
Well, no one knows what Jesus said.
And why should it matter what one of the anonymous authors of one of the 30 gospels claims?😂
@@ramigilneas9274 *anonymous.....* *says that but early church fathers let us know who wrote the Gospels.*
Rami Gilneas
Because truth matters.. and truth will set you free.. (that’s Jesus)..
History was recorded for a reason.
@@305thief8 ok then who wrote them? if you say mark luke Mathew and john you're wrong.
"12th-13th century depiction of evangelists Luke and Matthew writing the Gospels. But for more than a century, scholars have generally agreed that the Gospels, like many of the books of the New Testament, were not actually written by the people to whom they are attributed."
Bart did well, especially during the the alternating questioning between him and Robert. I enjoyed this debate and both gentlemen are quite knowledgeable. The evidence does seem to suggest that Jesus, the man, did probably exist but he is much different than who Christians might think. he is.
Matt is a stud with his cowboy boots :)
That's a fair summary. he probably did exist, some of what he is supposed to have said and done is true, some exaggerated and some false. He was executed by the Romans, he wasn't resurrected. I think the Romans would have noticed if someone they executed than turned up alive. That would have been reported.
Paul was the crucial figure. He became convinced by the Christian's tales of the resurrection and he had a vision of Jesus. What I'd like to know. Any good evidence that Jesus preached to non Jews or intended his message for non Jews?
@@bitdropout Check out Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, InspiringPhilosophy's work on this.
@Jubei Yang But I think Price's response, though poorly articulated, is that there is no way to distinguish between non-magical Jesus whose legend grew into magical Jesus and non-existent Jesus whose legend grew into magical Jesus.
Both men represent their own respected believes based on their own unique research. No problem with that.
I'm not religious -- but it seems to me that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming, and Ehrman did a good job arguing that.
"the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming,"
What evidence would that be?
It seems to me that some extreme skeptics question whether anyone ever lived in antiquity. I can hear them saying "how do we know there were humans in ancient Rome?"
Jonah Conner Exactly what I was thinking, their arguments can be applied to nearly any ancient figure, yet we don't have "Plato Mythicists" or "Alexander The Great Mythicists" I may be an atheist and a scientifically minded person, but I do tend to think the Jesus Myth position is not one based on evidence or cogent arguments, but a sincere desire to push a particular worldview. Which is unfortunate because it does nothing but hurt and discredit the cause of secular humanism.
Definitely. I think the mythicists go too far, although I greatly respect Price and Carrier as scholars. Most of the stories people tell have some nugget of truth in them that simply gets exaggerated and embellished over time. It seems to me highly improbable that the entire contents of four gospels were completely made up. It is much more reasonable to think that Jesus was just another of many apocalyptic prophets in 1st century Palestine, and he became popular because of the belief in his resurrection, as Ehrman has pointed out many times.
@@jonahconner1111 Actually it only takes one lie or fanciful tale to snowball into a movement. Like why did Mithra have a great following and story line? Was there an actual Mithra at some point?
I really liked this talk. Both seemed open to question their views and as always once Bart starts talking everyone is on the edge of their seat.
After many years of listening to people from all walks of life, I have found that anytime the word “believe” is used- facts are absent...
Yes, well... if you believe something it's usually based on a fact of some sort.
Facts dont even need to be presented when you deal with beliefs or thoughts people think repetitively
@@Ban_Usury_Worldwide that is not true. You can believe the sky is red if you think it enough, no fact to back that up
Is that a fact?
William P Hall - I really can’t agree with you. When you’re doing research, you deal with facts and evidence From these you draw a conclusion. Your conclusion may be right or it may be wrong, but you believe it to be correct.
I think it shows great arrogance to call your conclusions “facts” when they are really just your conclusions, based on the facts, as we know them.
There’s always the chance that something else will be discovered that makes your present conclusions false. Then you can change what you believe and spare yourself the bad form of revising your “facts”. It cheapens the whole idea of “facts”.
I've increasingly come to accept Bart's view as far more likely than an invention. Crucifixions were public events and Paul's readers would know if "Jesus" had not been killed. Josephus's description of the death of James by Ananus includes "the brother of...." It makes far more sense that early stories had some historical context. These visions were of "someone".
I'm sorry...I ahve no idea what Robert Price is talking about
i agree. i am not stupid but price sounds like a person who is rather over-involved in impressing himself with complicated grammar and terms rarely used. complicated is not the same as clever [although of the bits i grasped i sort of agreed - ehrman's jesus does sound unremarkable and not someone you would ever write home about but you could steal the basic premise of a crucified prophet and just add old fables to it to form a religion/saviour that the old testament spoke of.
He IS a Lovercraftian scholar after all. I do like Price though.
Get a degree in History and you will.
That's as weak an argument as Dr Robert " in my opinion" price, I have a degree in physics but if your telling me I can not recognize psudo intellectualism without substance because I don't have the degree you approve of.. That's real and utter arrogance most historians did not have the brilance to better the world though innovation and thus commit themselves to grandstanding on the achievements of others.. Utter tripe..
Also English is my third language so I'm going out of my way to come down to your intellectual level..
54:46 Barts reaction😂😂
Is there another audio track behind Ehrman’s speech? I can hear it with my headphones.
I can hear it without my headphones and it's really off putting.
I think it’s that brainwashing propaganda crap
All great religious traditions in the world cannot arise without a founder. Despite some very good arguments against it, I (not a Christian myself) personally believe that Jesus is a real historical figure and a very charismatic mystic himself that influenced a great part of the world after his passing. The exaggeratingly embellished and faith-induced legends associated with him recorded in the surviving holy texts may have been a source why his existence was doubted at this time.
The more you dig into Carrier and Price, the more it just becomes a hall of mirrors. Speculations that hinge on gaps of knowledge. I recall picking up a thick used book decades ago from the late 1800’s that when great detail arguing that Jesus did not exist. It’s not a new argument. Surely there will never be a definitive answer but Ehrman’s historical view just rings more true to me. Partly because In long experience with martial arts I’ve seen in the 20th century, exactly that myth building of a real person within a couple of generations. A mythic warrior sage that can dodge bullets, disappear and reappear elsewhere, enlightenment, a god etc. If it wasn’t for the rise of the internet and one person and then others working hard to piece together a pre-war historical account to combat the mythology and legends, who knows, and that is in the modern era. The ability of humans to build a grand mythology around a real person within a few generations just feels very real to me.
I think they've both orated their position quite well, Bart is a bit more energetic, whereas Bob is laid back a bit. I'd love to see a Round 2!
"I heard it from abdul al-hazred who heard it from ras-al-ghul who heard it from abu-bakr who heard it from the prophet...peace be upon him." !
Way to mix your metaphors to level awesome, Mr. Price!!!
Its bizarre to see a debate where both sides are reasonable, im so used to atheist vs theist debates. I lean towards mythicism because we have seen Scientology be created in front of the world in the last century by 1 man alone and then taken around the globe by the 1st generation of apostles.
Imagine how much easier it would have been 2000 years ago to create a religion wholecloth.
lol. The guy in the black and with a red tie looks like he's watching a football game the way he's sitting only needs a beer in his hand and a remote on the other😅
These god debates continue because Yahweh is invisible and Jesus won't come back like he promised.
bart must have some kind of divine powers to be able to drop the same pen two times without picking it back up
While the discussion was very interesting, I kept looking at Matt's boots the whole time. They're awsome.
KernriverMerle - Shit-kickers.
Welcome to Texas
haha
they certainly beat the socks-with-sandals on the right :)
We call pointy boots like that “roach killers” cause they can get into the corners of the wall.
Thank you so much for posting this Dr Ehrman!
Bama Boy What was the conclusion of the video?
the conclusion is that you look nutty doubting that Jesus existed at all. But that no position should lack humility as we are all in the dark to some extent.
Price isn't arguing that Jesus for sure never existed... Just that if he did, he was so in extraordinary, that there was no reason for anyone to take notice... But that his followers built the messiah myth around him, and that if there is any truth to the story, it is soooo intertwined with lies, that they can never be separated.
Just FYI if you think that this debate could have been won *if only* Ehrman had agreed to debate Carrier, I think you are shifting the goalposts. The mythicist community was enthused about Price being willing to go toe-to-toe with Ehrman on this topic. Price is a published academic scholar. He has credentials, he knows the languages and the history (albeit with an unconventional take). He was certainly qualified and motivated enough to challenge Ehrman and could just as easily have declined if he felt this was not worth his time. Price has been advocating for Jesus Mythicisim for a long time and it is something he has a sincere intellectual position on. He is certainly one of the best "steel man" advocates for the position and to excuse the failings of mythicism because he wasn't a *perfect* spokesman is ludicrous. What conversation would we be having if the reverse had happened and Carrier had debated Ehrman instead but (hypothetically) done poorly. Would we then insist that the mythicists deserved a "do over" and that the more qualified and respected Dr. Price should have debated instead?
Ken Hood Jr. he certainly has the credentials but price talks so monotonously that I didn't make it to the end of his speech.
All you have to do is watch Carrier's lectures and read his books on the historicity of Jesus, and then you could probably have made a better showing than Price in this debate - if you could remember all of Carrier's material.
Respect and appreciate all three of you... Please keep up the honest search 🔎
I was at this discussion. I know / knew the organizers.
I got a lot out of watching this again just now. I didn't think I would stick with it.
I remember listening in the audience and feeling like Price, while speaking at an ostensibly genius level, is in his own world.
It also seemed like each was trying to undercut, or skip upstream to supersede the other's evidence and so deflate that argument rather than confront the actual presented issue in plain language the audience could rally around.
What we have here is mild debate. It's actually a civil, albeit dry, somewhat clinical exploration of Price's longstanding personal exploration of the historicity of Jesus contrasted by Ehrman's representation of what he calls "the academy's" given that Jesus existed.
Getting these two on stage was supposed to be a sort of "final showdown" for the historicity of Jesus issue. Rather than locking horns and generating applause moments... it just kinda fizzled.
I actually thought of this debate while watching the Peterson / Zizek debate which is at least a much more entertaining case of each talking past the other.
The people saying one 'destroyed' the other in these comments are engaging in dismissive hyperbole.
Why do people stand in line to ask questions they haven't thought through???
Well, I have posted many things on discussion boards that I have not throught through.
It is only through other people’s criticism that I learn anything new.
@ ... and I can... so what ?
@@carlpen850 I'm not a christian, and so have no investment. However, atheists like Dr Price do. He makes so many thinly stretched assumptions in the first 5 minutes or so, but he can't see it - I would suggest through the same sort of confirmation bias that blindly believing, literalist christians live in (unlike Dr Ehrman)
Why didn't they think through important points before denying an important historical figure like Jesus? Of course they would be asked questions.
Thank you Dr Ehrman I have been waiting a while to see this. I think you both made very good points but I am more on your side now. I think the fact I was swayed by the 'mythisists' when I deconverted was reactionary. The truth does matter but either way we came to believe in passed on legends. I hope there are more scholars who as you say look at some of the valid questions around this.
Finally!!!!! I was wondering when this was going to be posted (I knew that it could be viewed in Canada with a pay per play sort of situation).
When Ehrman was marginalizing Price's mythicist position as an outlier, I couldn't help but recall the same tactic being deployed against him by William Lane Craig.
In their debate on the resurrection, Craig continually leveled the charge that Ehrman's view were not supported by serious scholarship, that he was in an extremely small and discredited fringe group of academics that weren't even taken seriously by mainstream new testament scholars, that the "overwhelming historical evidence" left no room whatsoever for doubting the resurrection, and that Ehrman's personal crisis of faith was responsible for his poor scholarship. Craig even displayed bold graphics calling out "Bart's Blunder".
The difference here, however, is that Ehrman is an eminently more respectable debater than Craig, and his arguments-unlike Craig's- bested Price's by their force of reason.
Wait, Craig seriously said that? Jesus Christ! So to speak. What's the point of even having a discussion with someone like that? The kindest reasonable response is "Ok, bye."
You mean the force of using the Bible to prove the Bible? That's all that Ehrman ever does.
Its bad argumentation if you're meta-arguing about appeals to authority on appeals to authority. I had hoped for, and was disappointed by, the lack of any consideration by both sides of the rarity of readers and writers of the time period and the enormous power they wielded in their communities because of those skills. It's easy to take any position on Paul or Josephus when they have so little competition and were writing for a specific audience who could neither dispute their authority nor their sources.
Everyone know that Bill is terrified of living in a godless universe. He has to convince people that his opponents are liars.
1:15:27 As he says "Jesus" the page flips on it's own. Not one leaf on the tree shook from the "breeze".... The papers above the book were covering the book, so no breeze could have made it under and perfectly flip that page. The papers on top also would have moved from the "breeze" before that page would have turned.
Wow
Finally, don't have to pay to watch this.
I'll confess up front that A) Dr. Ehrman clearly was more persuasive during this discussion, and B) he's much more qualified to comment on the historical legitimacy of Jesus than I am. (These are not, of course, particularly remarkable concessions on my part.)
But I do wonder: Dr. Ehrman says the idea of a crucified Messiah is just so kooky that nobody would come up with it unless they had no choice--ie, it was based in a historical fact nobody could argue away. However, it's clear in hindsight that a great, great, great many people in the ancient world turned out to be very amenable to the idea of a crucified Messiah, first some Jews and later gentiles. So, kooky idea or not, it had legs (or posts, as the case may be).
That being the case, it seems all we really have to believe is that even ONE person might entertain this idea, however outlandish it may have been at the time, and then once that lone nut introduced it the concept to others it would then catch on in just the way that we now know it historically did.
To me, this does not sound so far-fetched; people today have dreamed up crazy myths out of the blue and found a receptive audience. Was there really not one person in ancient Judea who would do the same?
I think it makes perfect sense as the destruction of the temple in 70 made the Jews scramble to figure out things like atonement and salvation, and what better solution then one sacrifice for all time (as opposed to once a year previously at the temple).
But they lived in a small village where their friends and families would know or have heard of the man about which they wrote. If they wrote of some imaginary man, everyone would know it and call them out on it. And Paul would not send letters all over their known world because he just liked spreading fake news. But Josephus would certainly have no motivation to invite scorn or disbelief. He was a respected historian of that era and would never voluntarily damage his reputation over some non-existent Jew. Doesn't make sense. All the old Testament tells tales of Jews who lived before them and recorded their lives and their legends. That's how ancient Jews left scriptures to record tales about their chosen prophets and teachers.
The argument that Noone would come up with the idea that their savior would die has No context of how the stories of other dead and risen gods of the era existed.
But the idea of the God that died and resurrected for their followers salvation is not new to Christianity, so that idea is not as outrageous as you make it out to be
Bart Ehrmann is making my faith in Christ stronger every single time. He opened my eyes to textual criticism and to take scripture much more seriously and to remain in a sober mind when studying textual variants and history. This man has done more for Christianity than many pastors and apologists.
One debate I'd like to see => Debating the paths of modern religions(how they were created, how they changed by social forces and how they justified their actions) and how they parallel ancient religions.
The Christian movement did not overpower the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire transformed itself into the Christian Movement to preserve its power and dominance into the infinite future. And it succeded, since the original Roma Christian Catholic Church today still rules the whole world, and has its seat of power in thr modern site known as THE VATICAN.
You should take a look at dialectic materialism, whenever 2 ideas meet they will influence each other and move on including parts of the other.
Beast "Rome" and Image of the Beast "Holy ROMAN Catholic Church".
Very true!
The Roman Empire most likely created the Christian movement. Watch Caesar's Messiah.
Lol you said chirstians didn't "overpower" the Romans. But then literally your next sentence says "the Roman Empire transformed itself into the chirstian movement to PERSERVE its power and dominance..." That sounds like the Roman Empire was overpowered politically by the christians lol
The Jesus Dr Price is debating is not the same Jesus Dr Ehrman is talking about.
How so?
@@fairytaleoverworlds7795 Dr. Price is suggesting that Jesus never existed (combining both mystical Jesus with historical), while Dr. Ehrman is suggesting that a historical Jesus did exist, but was embellished overtime with miracles
@@fairytaleoverworlds7795 Price is talking about the myths, legends, exaggerations, and possible misinterpretations. Ehrman is talking about someone who spoke about peace of mind - of which he was one of many through history up to now.
Honestly, Dr Price has the more open position in my opinion. For the first time ever I listened to all 4 gospels in audio format a few months ago. I would listen to one before going to bed because the last few years my interest in the type of stuff increased a bit. I don't know if it's just the way it was read or what but the feeling I was getting was I could totally see all if it being fiction. I've heard countless debates and discussions on this topic and I just don't get the certainty Bart appears to display. I don't think the evidence is that overwhelming that it's almost a guarantee. I have it about 50/50, I think anyone saying he absolutely existed or didn't have some form of bias.
Bart, you are a hero for reason. Keep shedding light on unquestioned dogmas.
A hero ?? How , why?
I could get up and say jesus didn't exist, or jesus did exist . anyone could , hes just giving his opinion, hes given no facts no evidence nothing, just opinion.
In fact I could do it & with more authority than him or any of the others I've seen on utube.
Especially when people like him speak about archaeology he knows nothing about archaeology , just because he says he has a few mates that are archaeologists , is meaningless
I have mates that are medical doctors , doesn't mean I'm qualified to speak about it on stage .
hammers kev, opinion? Ehrman is the go to guy, on the front lines for ancient language translation, transcription and biblical context. It’s not opinion, and obviously so. He would never claim to be an archeologist, but works closely with them, industry proximity on a professional level isn’t as “meaningless” as you claim. If you worked in a field that overlapped and closely involved with the medical field, then maybe you’d be worth listening to.
You have a lot of nothing to say on him, how about you back it up? Dust off some off your Hebrew, make an argument, refute his knowledge, because right now you’re just a dude with no credentials calling out a renowned biblical scholar. White noise
It doesn't matter what Bart or anyone else thinks, you will bow before the Lord. You will face judgement. I have been looking at these evidences for 20 years. Jesus is Lord.
Doctor's of demons
The weirdest debate I’ve ever watched and I’ve listened to many.
These debates never prove or disprove anything.
God's Perfect Plan.
I thought this same thing. it's so bizarre. i've never even heard that people believe Jesus was tortured in outer space by aliens.
Does anyone else hear a weird audio in the background that is not either of the debaters?
its the LORD
Overall I think Ehrman did really well in this debate, but there's one point I really wish he would have addressed in more detail. With the Clarke Kent comparison that Price made... I wonder what modern theologians would think of the superman comics had they been buried in the sand 2,000 years ago and dug up today. Ehrman said at one point that he would believe in Clarke Kent, but not superman. And the issue with that is that Clarke Kent wasn't a real person either, so unless I misheard him or he misspoke I have trouble understanding how he could differentiate between an ancient fiction and an ancient biography.
Happy Thoughts - Ehrman addresses this extensively in his books. He clearly lays out the “rules” of historical textual criticism and how they are used to determine the veracity of a text. It is a science and not guesswork.
I believe that Ehrman doesn’t have the time to go over this in this particular debate.
Good point.
This is my point exactly, if historians will only rely on hearsay that corroborates one another, and or to ancient text dated on the same time period to prove a person back then existed. I think its not a good method, they must not be accounted as true history, but rather put in a "History Maybe Category" they must not assert it, because if the same scenario would happen, if the world somehow ends and most of the account about our existence vanished, except the "DC comic books" and this historians method of proving someone existed is applied, the next form of thinking life on earth would think Clarke Kent exist and maybe his a superman,,
i not saying that their method is flawed, given the limited and ancient sources of evidence like hearsay that they can only have. My point it that they should not assert it as true, and only just a possibility.
Archaeologist use carbon dating and many other scientific way of dating an artifact to know their age.
Historians on the other hand cannot do this, yes they can date the paper holding the text but not the text and its meaning its self.
Unless they invent a time machine, just like Price stated.
Regardless of what one believes on the historicity of Jesus, we can all agree that believing him to be a "savior" is a huge mistake.
I was sadly surprised that Dr. Price did not do a very good job here. He's waaaaay better than this.
jesus mythicism is like the flat earth movement but for history, it's no surprise that Price Lose
It's hard to be better when you are faced with someone who knows the truth. Ignorant people make bad people look better than they are..
This is B.E.’s Chanel. He must have scrubbed any disparaging remarks. Price was rudely interrupted multiple times.
@@MZONE991 There is no primary historical evidence that jesus existed
@@stevestop10 bahahahahah!! Ehrman just proved he did. You are just proving that Jesus mythicism is a CONSPIRACY CULT
Price's "argument" is chaotic, disjointed and disorganized.
Yeah, I think Ehrmann came over better and the "no smoke with out fire" argument is quite plausible - it seems perfectly reasonable that there might have been some guy, maybe more than one, doing some kind of preaching at the time, being crucified for it... and maybe being a basis for Jesus. Impossible to tell 2K years later.
Yeah, he didn't have 1700 years of bullshit to rely on. ;)
@@roqsteady5290 It is not a "maybe", it is probabilistic logic. Jesus existed behind the shadow of a probabilistic doubt.
@@roqsteady5290 There is not might. The historical Jesus existed and many scholars have reconstructed what he actually believed. Oral tradition was a huge part of this culture.
Agreed. And he had some negative points, too. :-)
Who the hell is watching tv (or whatever that noise is) in the background?!
I'm not being bias but Bart ended this before it began! But I would love to see DR Michael Heiser up against Bart!
Bart didn't present any evidence because there is none
I would like to see Richard Carrier take Robert's place.
that won't happen - there is a spat between them. I believe Carrier heavily publicly criticised Ehrmans book on did Jesus exist . Admittedly Carriers work on the subject is far more an academic driven tome rather than a layman guide like Bart's is.
@buymebluepills totally disagree. Carrier is chomping at the bit for Ehrman.
@buymebluepills lol it will be a great debate but carrier have the upper hand trust me, if you haven't read OTHJ then you are criticizing a position you don't understand. Like Bart...
@buymebluepills and btw is bart the one who don't wanna debate so...
@@jonfromtheuk467 laymen? Do you know what this means or was that a sarcastic insult? He's a respected professor and expert in Greek manuscript.
"10 minute breaks are 10 minutes, not 15 or 20" - my tutor/lecturers said this constantly because of those 4/20 breaks 😂😂
The silence of Robert Price at 1:33:04 pretty much sums up the whole debate.
OMG he paused for about .0002 seconds. lol
The pause was from 1:33:04 to 1:33:06, so 2.000 seconds not 0.0002 seconds.
so you're a Buddhist
saintdenis11 you fellows need to get a life... Arguing over the length of a pause.
Bart made no case that disputes the claim that the gospel of Mark is a fictional narrative created after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem
I thought Dr. Price's argument was less interesting, less cohesive and less convincing. Maybe archaeologists will find additional documents that will shed light on this issue.
Price made no logical sense of argument his opening statement. He reference the gospel writers and text. Seems odd to and at the same time deny the historical Jesus
I was once "on fire for God" until reason put out the flames.
And, sincerely, what is that reason? Curious. Thanks.
That is weird!!
To me I was set on Fire when I used reason !!!!
@@jesusvdelgado5401 YES true
I pray you found that Fire again. JESUS IS LORD Of LORDS God Bless YOU
Bart at one point said that he and Bob would have to debate a certain point over a beer ...these two men are fountains of knowledge and ideas ...I think a beer would work well for all of us ...thanks for making this debate happen ...
He keeps mentioning Caesar Augustus and saying there was no proof of his existence. But there are at least statues of him from his time... there is none of that of Jesus
Making statues for a certain individual is prohibited in Judaism.
I lean towards the analysis by John Schonfield in his work, "The Passover Plot". Yeshua wasn't the "Messiach" but he was a "Political Player" assiduously attempting to convince the Jewish people that he was that prophesied hope of Judaism. As such, he managed the prophesies to accomplish his acceptance as being the one that was expected. Unfortunately, the typical breaking of one or two legs to prove death of the victim crucified didn't happen, and because a Roman soldier sympathetic to the suffering of Yeshua, stabbed him with his spear; killing him - no resurrection plans could proceed when a broken leg healed ... end of story. However, the book by Schonfield is definitely a must read for anyone who objectively wants to understand those times and beliefs.
Can I just point out the irony of Bob Price using Peter's writing as proof Jesus didn't exist, he was known to have already denied him three times.
There you go assuming the story about Peter is true
Daniel Clarke nice catch. I did not catch that.
hahahaha good point .
like Paul McCartney songs indicate John Lennon didnt exist.
yet Paul " knows" John existed.
Bearer of the light is one thing
Come to think about it, I never questioned whether or not Jesus existed until I started watching RUclips videos that did. I had a course in college back in the '70's called "Western Civilization" which covered what they could recover from the Stone Age, through the Phoenicians, Egyptians, the Roman Empire etc. all the way to the Renassaince(sp?). Western Civilization II covered from the end of the Renassaince to the Modern Era, which I didn't take. You know, I don't believe Jesus was even MENTIONED... AT ALL!!! It never occurred to me(until now) that there was a BIBLICAL Jesus and the "concept" of a real historical Jesus. Wow. That fact has just now dawned on me. The topic just slapped me in the face!
A lot of this hinges on Paul. Is there any evidence that there was a Paul?
I've asked myself the same thing . If this guy is so important for Christianity where is his tomb? Why didn't people took trace of where he was living and what was he doing? But then they are going to say that the church has evidencies , evidencies those that nobody can see, only them.
Christians often portray the idea of the Crucified Messiah as an amazing plot twist, the kind no-one anticipates but which, in retrospect, was there all along. You could even say that christians worship the God of Plot Twists. To Ehrman, it's more like a hurriedly re-written script when your lead actor dies halfway through filming. This analogy seems worth exploring.
Where do you see a "crucified messiah that accomplishes nothing" all along?
Why does Price always sound so snotty when he quotes his opponents? Calm down, Becky.
@maeb LOLOLOLOL
oh, the irony...
I worship the ground that Bob Price walks on.
He has kept me from becoming a victim of religious con men.