Six Times This Christian Was WRONG About This Bible Scholar (feat Dr Bart Ehrman)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Christian apologist Frank Turek likes to quote renowned Bible scholar Dr Bart Ehrman to back up his points... the trouble is that seemingly every time he's misrepresenting the professor's points. Dr Ehrman joins me to review his actual positions.
== SIGN UP for BART's "Scribal Corruption of Scripture" COURSE ==
www.tinyurl.com...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada
== SIGN UP for BART's "Scribal Corruption of Scripture" COURSE www.tinyurl.com/BartScribe
Thank you so much Paul, you and the good Dr make a formidable pairing. I almost feel sorry for Frank, well, I would if he wasn't blatantly dishonest and if he didn't go to colleges and mislead/indoctrinate kids.
You guys are awesome. 😊 Greetings from New Zealand
*Why is this never brought up*
Matthew 17
17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus.
*Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth*
Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE*
Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua.
@@fordprefect5304 It is all most likely to be made up myth man. For all we know even the writers of the original scrolls and scriptures knew it was made up and over centuries people just started believing it. Maybe they did think it was real and sincerely thought it was true.
Either way we know humans are capable of being convinced of things that aren't true, and have been known to die for those beliefs, especially when they make grand promises and threats.
@@fordprefect5304ya, somehow Jesus didn't get that redaction scholarship from the 21st century that you think is credible! LOL 😂😂😂
@@TheTruthKiwiyou're as blind as Paul is with or without his glasses!
Turek being dishonest??? Colour me surprised.
Of the apologists out there, J Warner Wallace is my most disliked, but Frank is up there.
Turek cant be in the same room as honesty
Grifting 101
An honest apologist? I don’t think so. 😂
Turek has no choice but to be an apologist. He lacks the integrity needed to sell used cars.
The really effed up part of this is that Frank gets to say these lies in front of a captive audience with no one to fact check him on any of it.
Worse is that even when the audience does here the truth they just say Erhman is lying.
That sums up religion in a nutshell. That’s also why they want to control education. Must be in a vacuum to believe temper nonsense.
In a perfect world (such as one created by some sort of all-powerful god, perhaps), Turek could be sued for slander or taken into custody for being clearly mentally disturbed, because those are the two options here; either Frank is absolutely out of his freaking mind and legitimately thinks his completely back-asswards take on reality makes sense to him, which would make him padded-walls crazy, or he knows he's full of shit and belongs in jail for defrauding all those victims of his of their time and money.
God? You seeing this shit? Hello? Anyone there? Guess that settles that question, huh?
Turek's mendacity rises to the pathological.
“ and where does evil come from , Christopher”?
Religion!
I’ll never forget the Hitchslap Turek got that day.
I remember hearing Ehrman’s name in seminary classes. It was used as a byword and a cautionary tale about a former evangelical who was “led astray” by textual criticism. We were all but warned off from reading him. The truth shouldn’t fear examination.
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv What's Metatron's "proof"?
@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv huh? Who is saying Christ didn't live?
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Why is Metatron not giving this undisputed proof Jesus existed? He would be headline news around the world if he did. There is no evidence Jesus existed outside the bible, actual proof would be be world changing.
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv I thought Paulogia assumed that some preacher called Jesus lived, not that there is proof that he was resurrected after being crucified.
It's one thing to claim that apologists are misquoting a scholar, but the fact that you are able to get the mentioned scholar(s) onto the channel to specifically call them out never ceases to amaze me. Good work.
That's one of my favorite things about Paul. He's done it several times, not just with Bart. It's crazy Cuz 90%of the time, the scholars haven't even heard of the apologist misquoting him
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv "unless this RUclipsr looks at this one specific claim he's a coward" dude RUclips is a big place.
@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv you sound like a bot, you've commented the same thing 3 times across 2 videos
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Until Metatron has the guts to take on my undisputed proof that Christ was secretly Mary in drag, he's a coward!
Dr. Ehrman is such a fun guest! Great video Paul ❤
"It probably wouldn't be hard fro Frank to look it up.."
yeah. That's your first mistake. For some reason, it turns out it's incredibly hard for apologists to look up anything.
There should be a whole channel that’s just Dr. Bart Ehrman laughing at stuff.
That's every video!
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv The fundamental question is not whether Christ lived, it's whether he rose from the dead and ascended. And I'm sorry if Paulogia hurt your feelings.
@@caseyspaos448 think of all the things we haven’t seen him laugh at yet!!
@@ron88303 guys please can we keep this a happy thread about the ray of sunshine that is dr Bart Ehrman 🙏
We had a pet parrot who was 30 years old when he died. In the next week or so, we and our kids at various times thought we still heard his voice, or a squawk, or another familiar noise (him tapping a bar of his cage with his beak). Each time, the one who heard to sound would look over, and even go over to his cage, just to see and verify that he wasn't still there. The sound seemed so real at that moment.
No, I don't believe that our pet bird resurrected from the dead.
Maybe he is just sleeping.
But just think of all the money you could make if you could convince people your parrot rose from the dead and wanted them to give you 10% of their income
@@grepora Pining?
Bet he had lovely plumage 🤣🤣🤣 Cheers 🍺
@@christasimon9716 pining in the fjords
I really identify with something Bart Ehrman said toward the end of this video. That being that he’s not trying to get people to convert to his beliefs or believe what he believes, he’s trying to get people to think. In my personal journey the past 3 years now of diving deep into the history of Christianity, biblical studies, doctrinal disputes, logical reasoning, and critical argumentation I’ve definitely landed on this point. We all share space in this world and have to work in conjunction with each other to make sense of things. Whether or not we differ on particulars is not important (in fact it might be an asset) but how we think about and develop our understanding of reality impacts our ability to engage with it. People like Bart Ehrman are attempting to combat dogmatic tribalism in order to help people think for themselves. This is something I can get onboard with.
The only thing atheists want, regardless of how we get here, is the truth. That's it. For me, it started with TV commercials. As a kid I kept asking why the fifth dentist _didn't_ recommend the toothpaste, and why every toothpaste was recommended by four out of five dentists. It put me on a life-long track to see through bullshit no matter where I see it, even if I generally agree with the source on other topics. It's not even about religion, at the core of it; I hear garbage like Frank Turek or Ben Stein lie right in front of me, I _don't_ side with the obvious liars.
It's really as simple as that, I think. Atheists wind up atheists because theists **_always lie._** About everything. Including their cults. Maybe especially about their cults.
Turek practices that dogmatic tribalism.
@@EdwardHowton FYI: it was Trident Gum not toothpaste. I think the answer was because the gum company calculated that they only needed to pay off (aka bribe) 4 dentists and have one as a contrarian so they wouldn't get sued for false representation by some dentist. Consumers would think if a majority of dentists approve it then it must be good enough. Basically, it is a straw poll that has no real meaning or significance.
As for Christians, I think most of them are victims of cult mind control by various self-righteous blood thirsty (and money grubbing) cannibals (who annually eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood and convince the innocent to do it too) who have tortured (physically and emotionally) and killed billions of people over two millennia. Once someone is convinced they are hopeless sinners with original sin and Jesus is their only savior they will do anything they are told to do just to get in Jesus' good graces because they don't want to burn in Hell for ever. Then the Christian dogma tells them they need to isolate them selves from non-believers because the non-believers are really servants of Satan (ignoring the fact that the Satan actually serves God and does His dirty work). They end up in an endless echo chamber of deception, lies. and abuse. True Hell is being a Christian (or one of their victims) thinking that they are doing "good" in Jesus name.
Well said.
@@greporaThat's the thing, toothpaste (or whatever the product in question is because it's ALWAYS four out of five whatever recommend whatever) companies don't have to bribe anyone. They just *_say_* four out of five. Get a quote from one guy willing to shill out and make up a number that lets them avoid being sued. "Fifth" dentist goes "hey wait I didn't agree to this" and their lawyers can say "oh well you're the fifth one the other four are fine also whatever you do don't ask anyone else that's a total waste of time".
Buy off one guy, say it's most guys, dismiss anyone who objects as the "rest".
Should sound familiar, too. Back in leaded gasoline days, Robert Kehoe went around saying lead was perfectly safe to anyone who would listen, and would gesture at "most scientists agree" and dismiss anyone who said lead was dangerous as "fringe". Creationists? "Science proves god actually! Teach the controversy!" Flat Earthers and all other conspiracy nutjobs? "Do your own research!"
It all boils down to "four out of five facts supports our position". Any contrary evidence can be summarily dismissed and be said to be outnumbered. Fraud in a legally-protected loophole.
Critical thinking skills matter, and I got mine from freaking TV commercials' bullshit.
That guy on stage is arrogantly wrong about most things.
Yeah. It's kinda his shtick.
He's a liar. He makes money lying to people, because they need to feel special.
@@pavld335they literally can’t handle the truth
"Bart Ehrman HIMSELF" - Congrats, Dr. Ehrman, one graduating to the "himself" tier!
I'm so glad Dr Ehrman keeps emphasizing that these are problems specifically with the inerrancy doctrine, and not necessarily Christianity more broadly. Because honestly in quite a few cases the group's pushing hardest for the most problematic shifts in society and in law are the literalists.
That said, for me personally as a non-believer, these variances are crucial. Because what I'm looking for when I'm deciding whether or not I can trust a source that would require me to devote significant portions of my life to it I want to know that I can trust it. And I don't feel like I can trust a document with as many mistakes, variances, and contradictions as the Bible has. Certainly not enough trust to Merit a religious conversion, which is and should be a very serious decision.
The problem is there is no objective evidence that Jesus existed (I am agnostic about this question) and none that he was resurrected. The evidence that does exists would not be admitted into a court of law because it is all hearsay -- third of fourth hand or in Paul's case imagined. It is like believing in a religion based on Homeric epics, or Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter.
You are better served by pursuing pragmatic spiritual practices like positivity (not toxic positivity), mindfulness, meditation, yoga, etc. that facilitate a healthy body and mind. Identify and evaluate your values to realistically and objectively define how you act toward yourself and others (somewhere between selfishness to altruism with situational ethics and respect for the rights of others and how you handle people who do not respect your rights). Define your boundaries (what is unacceptable to you), your standards (what is acceptable to you), and what your goals in life will be. Learn to practice self discipline. All of this is much better than pursuing an imaginary God and being told what is appropriate behavior by ancient fiction writers or by those who assume authority over your beliefs.
Frankie boy can’t argue Dr. Ehrman on facts and evidence, so he is trying to discredit him and failing miserably.
I have an Army Buddy I was really close to, who I considered my little brother. He struggled with a lot of mental health issues that the Army exasperated and he died of an overdose. It happened almost a decade ago, but it still bothers me to this day. Every couple of years or so, I see someone on the street who, for a brief moment, looks EXACTLY like my friend.
Further, I have a family member who lost her husband of several decades a few years back. Every so often an animal visits their house, such as a bird or a raccoon (their house is right on the edge of a large wooded area), and she claims that it is her husband visiting her.
Why is it so hard to believe that early Christians had these exact same experiences that they misinterpreted as divine?
Yep
Same here. Mother-in-law says exactly the same thing and also claims she can still smell her husband in the house. I have suggested she remove all his old coats, boots, hats from the hallway but that's a step too far, apparently!
It's way easier to believe early Christians misinterpreted these events as divine. No science, no motivation to use critical thinking, highly superstitious, no tested & peer-reviewed hypotheses, no easy fact-checking, little time to stop and ponder anything when the next meal was the highest priority ...shall we go on?
"Christian apologist Frank Turik sure likes talking-"
Could've just stopped there.
I saw Frank's debate with Christopher Hitchen's and he looked like a small kid arguing with is father. Hitchen's was polite, but sorta played with him the way a cat plays with a mouse.
That was the great thing about Hitch. Say what you want about the guy, but he had lived a hell of a life and learned a thing or two, and he had a strategic supply of wit to go with his arsenal of lived experience that could scare off the army of several small countries.
Some soft, sheltered, limp noodle like Turek never stood a chance in the face of Christopher Hitchens. Guy was a former communist who went to Cuba to work for Castro's cause, for crying out loud. Turek struggles with papercuts.
I would love to see a debate between Bart and Frank discussing the inerrancy of scripture. Only lets make it a live debate and not an internet debate.
Oh, and I forgot the bit where Turek will delay things by constantly trying to revise trivial stuff like what the 'debate' is about and the precise wording on his personal engraved invitation. Like I said, Trumpian delay tactics.
Yeah make it a written debate.
I was about to leave a comment about this, when Bart said he and Frank should have a debate, I got excited about the prospect of it actually happening! I would pay good money to see an Ehrman vs. Turek debate. I don't think Bart has done a public debate in a while, I miss them. It was watching Ehrman's debates on RUclips years ago, that helped me out a lot in my own journey, of deconversion from religion.
Live debates are basically useless. Frank could still spew more nonsense in 10 minutes than Bart could correct in an hour.
that's true. It is something that bothers me about live debates. But the spectacle, the feeling of it happening in person, in front of a live audience, is exciting. I feel that something is lost when it's only done online. Not the same vibe.@@jursamaj
Consider the arrogance of preachers who don’t understand the words they read, the history of their beliefs, or even be able to scientifically articulate what they believe just to tell us we have to accept what they say with a penalty of eternity in hell. What the actual fact?!
One such example is when William Lane Craig literally argued cosmological science with Sir Roger Penrose. Theologians and apologists seem to believe they’re experts on everything, including the work of actual scientists and historians when those same scientists or historians attempt to correct them.
11:13 - “when you say something wrong to the lay community, they can’t correct you on it” - bit of a self own there on Frank’s part given that’s the basis of his entire career. 😛
Frank's Self-awareness: 🕳️
I really enjoy Bart and Paul collabs. I know I'll be entertained while I learn something interesting.
Thank you.
Where did Turok get the 99% number?
**presses buzzer**
His butt.
Final answer.
I want someone to actively call Frank out at one of his lectures. His dishonesty knows no bounds.
Just have Erhman in disguise and then wait until after all the lies Turek makes especially about misquoting him.
I've seen it happen, but Turek ignores the question and goes into some weird non sequitur.
Even if this happened, he could just deny the person calling him out. Even if it was Ehrman himself there, like in the first clip, Frank could just accuse him of "changing his tune"
In a conversation with paulogia, paul literally called him on that and frank's response was 'well maybe ehrman changed his answer later'.
The guy *cannot* even admit he could have got it wrong.
@@GameTimeWhyThat'd be hilarious. He'd have on the thick rimmed fake glasses with the fake nose & mustache attached. Maybe even an obvious fake accent. 😄
I want to give myself kudos for clicking on this video when it had 666 views. Just tickled me a bit! lol
With how long Turek has been doing this, it's hard to say he is mistaken, and not dishonest.
Maybe he picked up Ehrman's books and read them with blinding rage. Then after dealing with the massive hemorrhoids that gave him. He truly thought what he was saying to be true.
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Metatron? Who TF is that? Why does Paulogia need to in your opinion? Do you know what undisputed means? Hypothesis "proofs" are not evidence. Does your Metatron claim weak proof or solid evidence?
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Whether or not Christ lived is irrelevant, so no reason to discuss.
It wouldn't change any doctrine, right. Fundamentalists are not convincable. But I would like to know :-)
So far we have this analogy to Homer, as there's this saying "we do not know whether Homer was a real person, but we do know that he was blind." And we can say "we do not know whether Jesus was a real person, but we do know that he never claimed to be God."
I was a divinity student at Trinity College at University of Toronto. In the first year we all took "baby bible" in one big class including Anglicans (me) united Church, Roman Cathilic and Baptists. On the first day Professor Ann Jervis shared that the gospels were not written until decades after Jesus' death and no one was following him around making notes. At least 5 students left the class in tears and we never saw them again
😮
Seem like you survived the trauma unharmed, well done 😀 Cheers 🍺
Oh no way! I'm at TST now (St Mike's).
The late-dating of the Gospels is WRONG. That Matthew the tax-collector became the most unlikeliest of the 12 Apostles partly because he was the most literate and was present to take notes on what Jesus said and did, is a thesis that makes eminent sense.
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh since I originallly post this comment I've had a stroke and have aphasia so my words are confusing. But I know that what is wrong to believe that first, no one was making notes while Jesus and the his followers were traveling and preaching and teaching. How do I know? Because that not how information was dissimentated - it was over the well, the fire, in the community baths.... And for your thesis - where is the information that you used to "date" Matthew?
I’m going to bet my Oceanside property in Jamestown North Dakota that this video will stop these grifters from misquoting Erhman from here on…..🙄😝
That property must have a high property value... and great weather! 😁
@@rembrandt972ifySeveral billions of dollars!
Probably the least controversial atheist channel on this platform.
Love your work.
God can create a universe, but he can't find a way to talk to the people he put in it
So he decided to pass on information using scripture, written in a language few people understand, and expected it to be translated perfectly, and copied perfectly, and distributed throughout the entire world before everyone in it died. Sounds reasonable to me!
I love it when you have Bart on here. He seems to have a strict no BS rule that I find delightful.
I love the episodes featuring Bart Ehrman! it's always funny and insightful!, his avatar is cool.
I’m so tired of apologetics. A perfect, omnipotent and omniscient entity with an important message for us should not require translation or interpretation for everyone to have the exact same understanding of its message’s meaning. This is a complete failure to control the message and indicates that the entity, if it even exists, is nothing like what is claimed about it.
27:30 My experience also. I finished several courses at the Prairie Bible Institute, which was the Canadian equivalent of the Moody Bible Institute at that time. The Institute offered courses where you could learn Greek so that you could read the compiled Greek New Testament, but I left before I got in that deep. However, I was taught that the New Testament had been preserved for us by God without error... no spelling errors, no changes, no doubt that we have an exact copy of the originals. Boy, that was a whopper! My observation over the 50 years since then is that fundamentalist Christians are much more interested in defending their theology than investigating the truth.
No. 4. The original. Well Frank is an American and he KNOWS that the original was in American English. He knows he was given the original, not just a copy, when he was a child and he still has it safe so he can compare the new interpretations to it.
Paul is excellent, & I love listening to Bart- what a source of information.
I wonder about those Mary visions. If they are only visions, NO sound, how do the victims "know" that they see Mary??? She could be any random female from the Middle East.
(And this is not a question about evidence, it is just the starting question about their vision)
My favorite change was when a scribe change a word to something he thought made more sense, a head scribe came by changed it back and called the scribe an idiot even if the sentence was more nonsensical. All were documented in the margins while they copied the books. Sorry I’m being vague it’s been a while since I read about that story and I’m too lazy to find the source 🙃🙃
🙄Turek blatantly trying to pull a Trump with the whole "Misquoting Erhman" poop.🙄
Yup
Naw, this is an old christian thing. Christians love to oppose stuff, but after a couple decades people get sick and tired of hating it so it gets co-opted. Like metal music, right? First it's satanic, but then you get christian metal bands that rip off popular songs and just replace the lyrics with their own shitty cult versions.
Movies about super heroes are evil because super powers are magic... until someone goes "hey why not Bible Man to get to the kids".
Same with book titles. Dawkins writes _The God Delusion,_ fifty bajillion butthurt christians vomit out rip-offs with titles like _The Dawkins Delusion_ and other similar shit.
Remember that religions are scams, and scammers are lazy. If they can rip someone off, they will do it.
@@EdwardHowton🙄 Umm yes. He's blatantly Trumping there. Nice of you to be so needlessly dismissive and condescending in search of stroking your own ego though. Really great.👍
@@taylorlibby7642Sigh. Okay Timmy, here's what you're not understanding. _Trump is copying them._ I'm not saying Trump is a brilliant hero of democracy, I'm saying he didn't innovate ripping people off. Keep your attitude problem to yourself next time.
@@EdwardHowton 🙄uh-huh.yeahyeah. suresure. whatever you say. doubling down on the dismissiveness and condescension sure does make your point for you. or is it making mine for me?👍
I’ve enjoyed watching Turek get taken apart since I stumbled across his evisceration by Hitch. At this point though, I’m as certain as a skeptic can be that he’s a grifter.
Despite being alive and we have perfectly preserved copies of Erhman's books and recordings apologist manage to misquote him.
I dont kmow if I found your channel or Mythvision first. But you are one of the main contributing channels that has helped me realize I have accepted my disbelief in amy god. I appreciate your videos and your channel for what you are attempting.
I have had a strange walk through Christianity and for a decade at least; I have wrestled with some serious issues of what gave me faith.
Now that I am consiously accepting of this, I have a new journey to redfine my core foundation. Thank you again.
Apologists and making up a fake "Bart Ehrman says" in lieu of evidence, name a better couple
Turek is so bad. This shows be good
Oh noes...Frank Turek bears false witness...call me utterly shocked. *not even turns away from the newspaper currently reading*
Frank admitted that when you preach to lay people (instead of academics) you get little resistance as they don't know any better. He's a victim of this as he's been repeateding the same script for so long he honestly believes it and is unable/unwilling to verify his sources. If Frank were honest he'd provide a response to this video but I won't hold my breath.
Like most people, Christians project a lot and never do shadow work
Turek is not paid to respond, only to evangelize. Any honest facts are way lower on his list of priorities as a signee of a 'statement of faith.' His 'job' depends on opposing anything that doesn't promote belief (telling the truth is diametrically opposed to his job description if it goes against this edict).
A list of all apologists who have signed a 'statement of faith' would be useful - a list of questionable truthfulness especially if their lips are moving.
Nothing like getting the actual scholar to defend himself after being dishonestly misrepresented.
Thank you Paul. Thank you Dr Ehrman.
I almost feel sorry for Frank, well, I would if he wasn't blatantly dishonest and if he didn't go to schools and try to indoctrinate kids.
The job of an apologist (upon signing a statement of faith therefore upon monetary penalty) is to evangelize to the exclusion of any finding or fact they may be aware of or discover that may dissuade the believer. (We may never know if there is anything on which he truthfully disagrees with Ehrman).
Paulogia regarding Turek: "He's definitely not that sefl-aware." That is laugh out loud brilliance!
People keep saying that Turek is one of Christianity's best current apologists. Turek is a joke. If Turek is the best they've got, they ain't got much.
Please do this debate! Would be very enjoyable to listen to.
I know, right?!!!
@@ABARANOWSKISKI I message Frank on his facebook page. I asked when he was going to do this debate. that was two three weeks ago. No response to report to date.
@@andrewschafer8986 lol! You know, its funny, I was talking to my parents today about some of the absurd things we used to believe when we were Christians, a long time ago. We just laugh about it nowdays. I continue to be interested in religion debates, now as an atheist who just finds it interesting. Bart Ehrman is one of my favourite people to listen to! I love Bart.
Ironically, Turek is putting Ehrman on the radar and selling more of his books (Ehrman's). Anyone who is just slightly skeptic would be even more curious about Ehrman's work after Turek's attacks.
Some are good at stand up comedy, some are good at apologetics.
That last point good old Frankie put out opens him up for a lawsuit by Dr. Ehrman for slander if his comment in some way effects Bart's career.
Frank can't help it, he's a preacher so of course he's going to end up misrepresenting everyone he disagrees with, that's what preachers do.
That's what christians do.
Not all.
You're very generous to say that maybe Frank just doesn't know, or isn't aware of these things. I think there are definitely a lot of things Frank is ignorant-of. Then I think there are things that Frank is willfully ignorant-of. But then, I think, a lot of the time, Frank just lies and manipulates.
Frank Turek sure does have a big, big mouth. You can always tell when Frank's feeling challenged because his mouth just gets louder and louder.
How come Bart and Paulogia never come out and say what is really going on? Frank Turek is a liar, paid to lie.
Just a mathematical aside to Bart and Paul. One out of eight is 12.5% not 14%.
That changes everything
14ish percent was paulogia's response.
17:22 An Ehrman-Turek debate? Yes please!
I was delivering packages last night and there were a couple times I got startled by what I thought was a person on the road but turned out to be my eyes playing tricks with the headlights. I didn't hallucinate though just thought I saw something I didn't
Something like that happened to me also, but I think it was a hallucination. It has only happened to me when I was extremely sleep deprived.
Frank Turek has to pull this bs rather than just presenting freaking evidence.
@21:30 "This interviewer" is The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff. I used to listen to his radio programme every week while in Bible School. I'm not sure what is credentials are, nor how he got to be The Bible Answer Man, but I do know that he has memorised the entire Book of Proverbs.
Interestingly he’s Eastern Orthodox now, and couldn’t remain an evangelical.
As one apartment's previous students, he is absolutely correct about how he does not use appeals to emotion or tell any of the students his position on belief. He does not try to convert/ deconvert anyone, The study of the text alone does that. It makes you question what you learned from preachers your entire life. Learning the truth of the scripture and its history does more to convert/deconvert than any apologist.
The accusation that Ehrman is just a grifter could only be more ironic if it was Lee Stroble on that stage instead of Frank Turek.
As Flanders said, 'I did everything the Bible said... even the stuff that contradicted the other stuff!'
Babe wake up, Paulogia dropped a new Bart Ehrman collab
Frank is what dumb people think smart people sound like.
I wouldn't consider Frank smart. Clever might be a better description.
Why is Frank so concerned about Bart's position on the scriptures .
It is clear Turek sees Ehrman as a real threat to Christianity. All of this speech was just to discredit Ehrman's work and make people think he's the one that's dishonest and disingenuous.
The projection too when Turek says that you can say anything to a lay audience and they don't know the difference! (ahem) they are listening to Turek and think he is an expert!
Excellent video Paul! I cannot stress enough how important this channel has been for me during my deconstruction, and for how I apply logic to new situations/information, in general. It’s also introduced me to a world of amazing science educators, scholars, and skeptics. Much love. ❤
A lying apologist? I haven't enough faith to believe that.
I keep imagining some scribe coming across the original. 'Thou shalt not keep slaves!' 'Nah... that can't be right... make it something about pork.'
Bart Ehrman: “Read the Bible.”
Frank Turak: “He’s trying to convince his students to not be Christians!”
If reading the Bible causes Christians to lose their faith that sounds like a problem with Christianity. Lol.
I love Bart. He is so incredibly interesting
Why aren't I even slightly surprised that Frank Turek would happily and repeatedly lie about Bart Ehrman.
Only six? Or are you only talking about today?
Definitely not the only six.
@@Paulogia Okay 666 times.
Of all the apologist Frank is the most dishonest grifty of the bunch (if we ignore Ham and Hovind). Dude lies SO MUCH on twitter about everything while constantly pushing his "courses" that is just him repeating common apologetics to his fans for 300 dollars a piece.
I do believe Frank believes, but i also think he has no problem lying along the way to further his cause and his wallet.
Jezus was resurrected
And
Jezus was not resurrected
Are pretty much the same sentence, 75% the same words, 100% different meaning. So 99% doesnt say everything.
Frank is a 🤦
0:18 Do I hear a chat notification of Steam in the background? 😋
Paul: are you possibly a gamer?
Dr. Ehrman "admits" that which he did not say.
Frank Turek is, as all apologists are, dishonest.
I particularly despise the group of apologists who peddle the outrageous insult to intellect and honesty that is ‘Atheists know God exists. They’re liars who deny their knowledge, because they want to sin’
Turek evidences his version of this utter BS claim, by recalling the numerous times atheists have answered “No” to some variation of the question:
‘If it was proven to you that God exists, would you become a Christian?’
This entirety of his evidence is a lie, he frequently asks if an atheist would worship that god. He is intentionally reframing an objection many atheists have to Christians’ who insist that every atheist _would_ beg forgiveness and worship their god, if they found themselves in its presence, unable to deny its existence.
Many atheists find it inconceivable that there could be a justification for creating something _knowing_ children starving to death, children being trafficked and tortured, toddlers suffering and dying to abuse inflicted by their parents, will be manifest into terrifying, painful existences upon completing this creation.
They would reject worshipping, thanking and praising such a god. When Turek presents this objection as Atheists deny God to sin, it is an extra level of disgusting that he is taking their moral objection to excusing child torture, and presenting atheists as immoral for being god denying liars.
Ugh. Heard of the Geisler. Hate to see the SMU logo. (Former Perkins student ...) I suppose he's there in the interest of topics of public interest. Blyecch.
Frank accuses others of what he does himself
This guy (Turk) sort of reminds me of the “authors” who publish their “works” in the Amazon comments section of Dr Ehrman’’s books…
There's something I've always had a problem with Turek and other similar fundamental apologists saying accusations like: "You are gonna believe what makes you happy", or other similar accusations like "you just want to sin". Maybe it's because the bible is loaded with similar language (like one verse that says God has given them over to their pleasures) but what it often tells me is that the person leveraging such a sentence is claiming that they know me better than I know myself.
I have heard some anti-theists and atheists use similar language, for myself personally though I would rather in speaking to religious people attempt to understand why they believe what they believe. I can't know what you believe without first having a conversation, and neither should I assume what you believe, unless I talk to you or witness your actions.
Frank Turek is such an hypocrite. He is blaming Ehrman for what he is trying to do and accomplish. He is going to make you look bad and make him look good in the process. He knows his followers are gullible and won't fact checked what he is saying.
My sister is an evangelical and she owns lots of books from apologist. Every time I ask her what the oppositions and science are saying about certain subjects, she says that she doesn't have time and too complicated to understand. I guess god did it is much easier. Sigh!!!
Frank is one of those Apologists who don’t really try to present actual evidence or sound arguments… he primarily focuses on creating silly gotcha arguments… usually by misrepresenting or flat out lying about his opponents or their views.
At 17 minutes, Ehrman mentioned how several books disappearing wouldn't be likely to effect doctrine, and the list included "Acts". Wouldn't that effect the doctrine of the Pentecostal denomination rather significantly? I'm not Pentecostal myself (former Baptist), so maybe I'm missing references to some of their practices outside of that book. I'm not necessarily assuming Dr. Ehrman is reading these comments (although if he/you are, I'd love an answer!).
Good stuff guys. Ahh Frank is kinda full of brown stuff.
I’ve been trying to find out why, in all these debates, William Craig gets to use words from the New Testament as proof.
We must give him stories of Jesus walking out of the tomb or people “ saying” they saw Jesus.
Would a sit-down discussion between Frank and Dr. Ehrman even be possible, or has it been tried and Frank refused? What would it take to arrange one on this very subject?
*Never Punish Any Sin/Crime Again = Jesus ?*
When I was a child and I first heard the _adulterer & let he without sin cast the 1st stone, ect_ story, the very
first thing that came to my mind was, _so no human can ever prosecute another for any sin or crime, as we are all guilty.
Everyone's a sinner baby that's for sure
@@paulnolan4971According to the men that "claim to speak for God". (Bible)
But I'm not sure if your response is a sincere assertion, or sarcasm
BTW ; "Everyone" ?
Can babies sin ?
How would that work ?
How much of your precious time, energy, and life are you willing to expend pretending to know things you cannot possibly know?
I’m a simple man. I see a video with Dr Bart Ehrman, and I click.
I put apologists on a scale about how moral their use of apologetics is.
At the "honest" end of the scale are apologists who believe what they are saying is a valid reason. I suppose it is good to be honest, but the honest end of the scale means you do not know the apologetic is false. You are using it in good faith. These apologists are usually quoting other apologists they have heard.
At the "dishonest" end of the scale, there are apologists who know they are using is not a good apologetic. They know it is flawed. They may know it is wrong. Some of them are "Pious Frauds." They know what they are saying is a lie, but they justify it because it helps people believe.
I think Frank Turek is often at the dishonest end of the scale. I think Frank is a true believer. I also think he is smart enough to see through some of his own apologetics. This puts him in the category of being a pious fraud at the time. I also think that Frank is also selling a product. He knows that his target market wants red meat. Frank sells books and views by tearing apart atheists and perceived enemies of Christianity. He portrays himself as a warrior against critics of Christianity. In those cases, I think there are times when he knows what he is saying is false, but he is supplying the red meat his audience wants.
Frank won't talk to Bart directly because he knows he's being dishonest when he says the things he does. His career requires he doesn't put himself in a position to be contradicted.
Yeah, it happens all the time. It is infuriating, and it is grossly dishonest. The problem is no matter how much Dr: Ehrman or anyone else puts them on blast for it, their target audience will never see it because they live in an information bubble.
Frank lies with the confidence of a person who thinks nobody will ever look anything up.
He knows he can say whatever he wants because his fanbase is not interested in fact checking him. All they want is reassurance and confirmation.
just like the maga crowd.@@pansepot1490
I love how Frank spends half his time saying "look at this evil atheist Bart Ehrman, he believes X, which is stupid, so you should believe not X" and the other half saying "even evil atheist Bart Ehrman has to admit that X is true!!!"
And yet, should there be inconsistencies, contradictions, or outright mistakes in a book that almost all christians claim, or atleast used to claim, is 'the word of god'? If the bible is supposed to be the word of god and they claim that their god is perfect and inerrant then I would expect that his word would also be perfect and inerrant and if something were to come along and mess with that inerrancy that their god would do whatever to protect the perfect, inerrancy of his word.
4:45 I think there's a pretty big gap between saying that Jesus' disciples believed they saw him after death and saying that they claimed to have seen him after death.
I don't think there's any way we can definitively make any sort of inquiry into what beliefs they held, but we can at the very least make some assertions about what they told others, and that distinction is pretty important.