I have to say that Michael Bird was the most refreshingly intelligent opponent I have see you yet debate, Dr. Ehrman. He knew the material intimately well, he brought up good points, he was funny, and I think he was absolutely honest in his assessment. I still think he was wrong, and I think you did a good job of pointing out the errors, but it wasn't akin to any of the others you have debated in the past. It was a good show all around.
Glad to hear Bart address that Council of Nicea mess. I'm tired of critics using that as the basis of their arguments. They lose all credibility with me.
I think Michael Bird is the first person that makes good arguments Versus Bart Ehrman. He doesn't rely totally on his bible as does most of Bart's opponents, and he doesn't outright disagree as most normally does. He agrees with Bart a great deal, while still arguing for his belief, which was formidable. I thoroughly enjoyed this Debate. Thumbs up to both Michael bird and Bart Ehrman.
I have always found professor Ehrman an outstanding scholar in his field. I think Christians can benefit and strengthen their faith by listening to him. Many times Ehrman has expressed that he does not seek to weaken the faith of believers.
It's very refreshing to watch such a cordial debate. Unlike many of the nasty apologists Bart debates, Michael Bird was quite affable, is someone who I enjoyed listening to, and would welcome hearing more from. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and Greer-Heard Point Counter Point Forum have earned some respect from me for putting on the debate, and I am very surprised to be saying that about any school affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Good work everyone!
Bird is young yet so smart and sound. He’s a good evangelical Anglican theologian. Bart on the other hand is a good theological foe and scholar. This what makes biblical and theological studies worth our time and efforts.
stir yotype he is a very smart man but he is wrong about Jesus Christ buddy don't let him lead you where he is going. By his logic you can never know anything truly existed like the Roman Empire
Sarah, I think you mean by your logic about Bart's logic. You have to justify your logic about Bart's logic and it turns out to be a strawman. Bart is using a specific methodology as a historian and other Chrisitian historians would disagree with your logic because they also use Bart's logic but also include there own personal faith beliefs. In some ways you are correct you can never TRULY know anything because you ARE LIMITED BY YOURS SENSES and your cognitive capacity, but that is NOT what is colloquially meant to know something so again that argument is also a strawman, so settle down with the obvious false equivalence.
Ihsan Alkhatib Buddhism actually teaches that we have to have doubt about everything and try to find our own answers. And examine everything we read. I'm surprised at how ignorant most of the people are. What is a problem to READ anything alternative to what your location provides you with.
Irina Levyeva then read the glorious Quran proven to be free of contradiction full of astonishing scientific facts which was unthinkable 1400 years ago but proven to be true in modern scientific age .
@@azad1718 this is 2020, you are really living in a lala land my friend.... Mr Murshad....Islam is lagging behind Judaism and Christianity to open up and have evidence based discussions. There is enough-historical, archeological, manuscript, language and grammar evidence to prove that islam is a later copy of biblical, and Syrian apocryphal texts, complied say almost 300-400 years after so called mohamed lifetime,, all ancient maps, archeology, and historical writers prove that Abd-al-Mailk manufactured the koran and modeled it on biblical theme. The facts are: 1. if koran is your true source--then why does it have items from bible and torah, koran has no original thought, fundamentals or ideas on 2 basic levels - fundamental ideas of 1)good and evil, salvation, creation and role of human, and objectives of a human life, 2) names of people, places, events, characters, stories everything that exists in koran was already available in bible, torah and other documents of that era. Abd-al-Malik used a team of arabic scribers to copy-paste bits and pieces into a single document for political and control reasons with no logical beginning or end. Clarify to me on this, first on Manuscripts: Evidence1--all original manuscripts of koran have a range of as low as 19 to max of 34 verses, but the modern koran has 114 verses, where did they come from, who added them? Evidence2--none of the manuscripts (all original 6) have versification or verse numbers or verse/sura names--meaning that the suras and verse numbers were added later Evidence3--a report called al-mushaf al-sharif by Islamic scholars in their findings openly tell you the number of revisions, editions, text overlays, strikeout and additions in all 6 manuscripts one by one on an average of 2 thousand insertions, editions, revisions, per manuscript 2nd On Archeological evidence: Evidence4--If al-aqsa mosque was a place where mohamed ascended to heaven, why does the mosque writing talk only about jesus and absolutely no mention of mohamed or his going to heaven and back--what was Abd-al-Malik trying to prove by creating that structure with jesus mentioned everywhere all over inside walls of that mosque. Evidence5--all kiblas point to Petra before mecca started to be a city of settlement, after 800AD, before 791AD mecca as a city did not exist even in arabic records, texts, poems, folklore, stories. unlike Yatrib=Medina which is mentioned in numerous arabic records. Catrographic/Map Evidence: If arabic sources from pre-mohamed era are studied and examined--like old maps, trade routes, names of places and people--example the 7 famous poets of arabia. Mecca did not exists and J Smith proves that with solid proof, the word Mecca and the city are later creations and settlement based on all human settlement and acheological proof Evidence5--all kiblas point to Petra to begin with and then after Umayad dynast all kiblas point to Mecca. I will stop here, as there is more to clarify on evidence of koran versus made up manufactured material. What is the Manuscript Basis for the Qur’an - Jay Smith ruclips.net/video/52PEVUpJBtk/видео.html look up research paper/report released by Turkish Islamic scholars called Al Mushaf AL Sharif. it should clarify your misconceptions about korans authenticity and originality. the report talks about the 6 original scripts--watch the video where he destroys all the scripts one by one with solid scientific proof. ruclips.net/video/fMJRsd8SrhU/видео.html Watch videos by a scholar called Jay Smith--he has done a very thorough study on islam's historic origins and how everything was manufactured by Abd-al-Malik one of the chalif's of islam, J smith explains everything in detail ruclips.net/video/fMJRsd8SrhU/видео.html this video provides all details about original koranic manuscripts ruclips.net/video/52PEVUpJBtk/видео.html Then watch a video by a renowned historian-Tom Holland on islam's origins ruclips.net/video/eDQh2nk8ih4/видео.html watch a video between Jay Smith and Shabir Ally--where Shabir ally admits to be using the koran made in 1924 after standardization at Al Azar using Hafz text. Finally the Crisis of Faith for Yasir Qadhi ruclips.net/video/8Dc1HJ8Uif4/видео.html J Smith take on Qadhi's interview ruclips.net/video/vstGbZkjUcw/видео.html Koran is pure copy-paste, the arabs are surprised that there are so many dumb followers, and they thought they themselves were the dumbest folks on the planet, only hope is that you need to be born again. Listen to Christian Prince - an Arab royal who left islam when he found out the truth, now he follows Christ--after getting proved by koran that Christ is the only true god.
Both amazing speakers - entertaining, but still very much focused on facts, a leveled debate. Ehrman is one of the few atheists/agnostics I'm eager to listen to.
As one of the world's most renowned Bible scholars, Dr. Ehrman's vital intellectual contributions succeed in forwarding humanity's long overdue but essential change from unfounded belief to reason.
This is a great debate. Michael Bird puts up a good argument and even puts Bart on ther back foot occasionally although he came back well. This is really good food for thought.
Only at time 39:xx, but I'm happy to see that Bart's opponent has at least a DASH of personality, and is (it's a miracle!) the ability to acknowledge points counter to his own. SO much more interesting to listen to than the typical, single-minded believers he usually debates.
Michael Bird really gets off on the wrong foot when he references Jesus as the suffering servant of Isaiah. He is taking Isaiah Chapter 53 out of context. Who is the suffering servant? See: Isaiah 41:8-9 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”
And we can ignore them when later authors works misquote the older scriptures and some actually borrow from pagan works supposed quotes said to be the words of god but out of the mouths of greek playwrights.
Give me the God of Christmas, the God of love, the God of an innocent child in a manager, who comes to bring salvation and wholeness to the world, the way it was always meant to be.”-Bart Ehrman
that's because Michael Bird is a an actual, creditable biblical scholar who is respected in the academic world. Ehrman seems legit when he debates people like Craig or Licona. But he doesn't shine as well when he debates with Bird or people like Richard Bauckham. The latter types help expose the fact Ehrman both has no monopoly on biblical expertise and that he really is into selling books.
As an old adage says; "One will tell the Truth to help someone..... Transversely, There are those who will tell People what they 'want' to hear, so as to help themselves!
Ahmed deedat was the first ever to make a deep study of the subject and has debated so many Christian schoolars including Jimmy Swaggart, Floyd Clark, and Billy Graham beating them all
Rima Saba, and you believed that David Wood, who cried INSANITY to escape harsh sentence for hitting his father with a hammer, to be better. I have not seen a better debater in religion than Ahmed Deedat. Its just the internet, with Sheikh Google at hand, that makes these people nowadays look smart.
bart took an idea from deedat, I saw bart speaking about a fake story in the bible "women caught in the act", but I realised that Ahmad deedat was the first person to speak about this story
this was a great discussion. Very nice hearing entertaining but very knowledgeable speakers debate these topics, so that we can draw conclusions based on actual intellectual arguments, not internet swill.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these .. Please give one example where any Christian has raised the dead, healed the sick, made the blind see, and do so many miracles that would "fill several books"
I think that’s referring more to living like Jesus, as in trying to be sinless. Obviously humans can’t raise from the dead. Idk I could be wrong tho. That’s just my two cents.
I like Bart Ehrman and I really look forward to his talk/debate/discussion with Robert Price! If I could afford it I would just love to go and watch it live! I understand why some would say that there's a lack of evidence for a historical figure - but there's not enough evidence to conclude him being solely a mythical figure either... But a historical figure, (a lay preacher that got executed for rebellion against Rome), who later on got "myth'ified" seems very plausible! After all, it wouldn't be the first time, (nor the later), something like that happened...
robert price did not perform well in that debate. i would have liked to seen a better and more reasoned laid out argument. why is richard carrier's work dismissed by ehrman in his comments later about mysticism (said that it is a pretty dumb idea)?
I’m very surprised the reason Bart left. Christianity isn’t because of some intellectual discrepancy but rather an emotional and moral one. Isn’t the book of job all about suffering? Christ himself suffered horribly..I understand anyone’s concern for the children who are starving..hopefully we’d all do something about it..what I’m confused about is how suffering can be used as a basis for not believing God when the entire Bible is one suffering story after another..
Your work so amazing Prof Dr Ehrman, I learned many things, from how the disciples personality and roles, how to understand previous perspective view based on their civilization environment in thousand years ago, that's a really huge scope of research from the various Bible, language barriers, contradiction clarification , previous culture perspective, view of others people beliefs, we can see he spend all his life effort to his tremendous works and not for himself but sharing the knowledge for everyone in this world to know and understand.
Ehrman contradicts himself. He accepts Jesus claiming to be divine in John because the Jews want to kill him because if his blasphemy but in Mark where the Jews want him to be killed after his words to Caiaphas, Ehrman rejects that as a divine claim. He's not consistent in his understanding. You can't have it both ways.
this was a very enjoyable debate. both parties were well informed and had enough time to explain their position and they did there best while staying nice to eachother
I challenge anyone to give a cogent synopsis of Michael Bird's Christology. It can't be done. And because it can't be done, Bart Ehrman is confused as to how to respond. He doesn't understand Bird's position. As a debate, this is waste of time. However, Bart Ehrman did a great job explaining the evolution of Jesus's divinity.
Bart's Forte, is in Greek biblical scripture. I personally believe, if one is going to venture into man made religion one must start from the source. This would be Hebrew biblical scripture. Who would be best suited for expressing what was written? A well educated Jewish Rabbi. Rabbi's like Tovia Singer, shares the light on New Testament scriptures, that indeed is not in the Torah. This includes, those who wrongly call Jesus the messiah.
I think it is ironic that Dr. Ehrman admits in 1:25:05 that Psalm 110:1 is understood as another Divine being who sits at the right hand of God. Yet when Jesus applies that passage to himself in Mark 12:35-37, 14:62, and many other places like in Mark 8:38 where Jesus is going to come in the glory of his Father Jesus isn't claiming Divine Preexistence. This is a very strange methodology.
Bart is truly an authentic and genuine scholar. I respect and admire him more than many Christian scholars. The irony though is that Bart would be out of a job if it weren't for Christianity and yet he's spending his whole life refuting it.
I just wish these debates would be a bit more interactive in nature since while listening to this lecture style debating is pretty interesting. We are at 1 hour mark of this debate (at 1h 16 min or so) before we even get into a bit more interactive style of discussion between these two debaters.
When watching theologians debate Ehrman, I am always struck by how often they ignore the burden of proof. It's as if they think that simply taking jabs at Ehrman's conclusions, which form the basis of mainstream NT scholarship, actually absolves them of the need to PROVE their theological positions. They offer no evidence whatsoever. When pressed, it's always a "personal experience" or some ridiculous misrepresentation of science.
@@aaronjames8951 thanks for the caps. that's shouting, please try to avoid it. History is intended to be the best teaching of what we know and what we know they could know, with no sectarian interest nor interest in the specific private revelations. Other wise, we have to accept every such offered god from Krishna, Koresh or Romulus/Q. Not interested in being fooled, thanks.
The discussion of what it means to beget is a discussion I would like to take further. I remember, as a teenager, reading commentaries and being struck by the fact that the author presupposes that begetting equals biological descent, and does not even consider that adoption might be understood by the gospel writers as a perfectly legitimate means of begetting. To my mind, this made analysis of certain Biblical passages far more complicated than it needed to be, and it seemed to me that much trouble could be avoided if you simply permit adoption to fall within the umbrella of begetting. And so, when I hear Bart saying that, indeed, adoption _was_ understood by ancient people as a perfectly legitimate form of begetting, there is a little child in me saying "I told you so!" But precisely because my bias favours that conclusion, I want to be a good empiricist and duly consider any weaknesses before I leap to it. One weakness is, as pointed out in the debate, that Bart's argument is based on Roman sources and not Hebrew ones. Anyway, I've said enough for a RUclips comment; my point is to affirm the fact that this is an interesting line of enquiry.
Is the power to forgive outright without demanding blood sacrifice a power worth having?As a parent of (rather fine but not invariably perfect) children, I'd think this power indispensable to functioning well within a family, not to mention wider society. Seems rather odd to say that an all-powerful moral agent somehow lacks the power of bloodless forgiveness. Ah, well.
wow...if you just listen to the tone of Bird's voice as he talks you could imagine that it was William Craig speaking...it would be interesting to analyse why that is so...
Mike has a wonderful theological bent, Bart an unsurpassed logic that necessitates reexamination, and atheists don't get to be right all the time. How can this not be a win-win-win for all in the search for truth.
Thanks, for the great lecture, Bart. As Dr Bird pointed out at 51 minutes (Romans 1:3-4), the forefathers of Joseph going back to King David (Matthew and Luke), and His Father and Mother finding him back at the Temple (Luke 2:48), Jesus was descended from King David. Either Joseph was the biological Father of Jesus; or, Mary was a virgin... we can't accept both statements as fact.
tedgrant2 It is probably too late for you to see this but, simple as your comment is, it is the truest comment I have ever seen on these threads. Well said!
men debating and still trying to comprehend deity, the divine, the omnipotent. On trial is the competency, accuracy and legitimacy of the Bible and its writers. Both of these men are well read and have studied scriptures extensively. (much more than most) But despite a highly intellectual debate and sound reasoning for their arguments it still comes down to what each has put their faith in. God bless
[Somewhat inspired by the Michael Jones comment] Just a couple of days ago I started to listen to your book 'Did Jesus Exist?' It is all right so far. My major criticism is that the narrator mauls German specialized terms, such as 'Sitz im Leben', and they are hardly recognizable for people who just listen to the book, even if they are fluent in German. At the very beginning you assert that Jesus skepticism was the dominant view in the Soviet Union. It may or may not be true, but I think this sentence is very misleading, because the majority of Soviet scholars who wrote about the early Christianity didn't support this position. Anyway, I think you should search for an opportunity to debate a Jesus skeptic sometime. For the record, I am not one, but I feel that their view is not as silly as it might seem. In a sense, they could potentially be much harder to debate then the theologians you are usually debating, because they (I hope, I actually don't know) are more likely to arrive to their conclusions through reason and not through belief.
+Svetlana Belaya I believe Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Robert M. Price (aka "The Bible Geek" - good show, by the way) have scheduled a debate on Jesus Mythicism on 10/21/16. They previously didn't raise enough money and so the event was cancelled, but I believe it's back on now. I can't wait.
I wasn't talking to you,i was replying to Marian Kotuc who tells us that atheism was the official doctrine where she or he lived.So yes it was mentioned smart ass.
kwj171068 Well part of the doctrine of communism is indeed a form of atheism. Marx believed that religion was a fallacious tool used by the elite in order to oppress the masses. They advocated for this form of atheism.
How could his only immediate family espeacially his mother not know who is and where he came from?? Did she forget that she was visited by the holy spirit and was told who jesus was gonna be and where he is coming from? How does that even make sense his only mother calling him crazy WHEN SHE MIRACULOUSLY CONCEIVED HIM.. even zachariah and john the baptist knew who he was earlier on?? This is why the gospels don't make any sense and have many inconsistencies therefore was authored by man and not by GOD because he is not the author of confusion
run_gavagai_run what debate were u watching? Not only does he not say anything remotely similar to what you attribute to him Bird goes into extensive analysis why in Mark 1:11 and Romans 1:3-4 doesn't support adoptionism. So what response do you have to his actual points?
I left the comment more than a year ago. I don't recall the debate. I would have to rewatch it to respond. I don't have the time or interest right now.
One cannot study God--one can ONLY study a given Bible. there is no theology [godology]--there is ONLY bookology or biblology; or better yet, godosatanism/satanogodism. And since the bible [a tribal book] had caused so much bloodshed, hate, anger, frustration among so-called or self-deemed christians, what is there to study? Especially in view that each debater mainly cherrypics passages to support own view, interpretation, re-interpretions
I hope that your upcoming debate with Price will be posted (and maybe even live streamed). You always bring your a-game so I'm not worried. Please bring an end to mythicism.
Don't see how that is possible when Dr. Ehrman is using Peter, Mary, and Paul's visions as proof people thought they saw Jesus after his resurrection. Mary's very existence is in doubt, the Peter/Cephas of the epistles has none of the legend of the gospel Peter, and Paul really knows only of a revelatory Jesus not the one the gospels created.
vivahernando1 He's not using those examples as proof that it was true, but proof that people made those claims. People claim they've been abducted by UFOs, but that doesn't make it true.
Ken McNutt II last comment on this from me. What is wrong with saying Jesus' actual existence is in question? Most of the respected mythicists say the preponderance of evidence lead them to the conclusion Jesus never lived on Earth but due to distance in history or barring new archaeological evidence we probably will never know for certain. Why dogmatically say he existed if you are not a believer?
vivahernando1 That is actually a fair question. The answer is, from all the evidence I've looked at and books I've read, I'm close to 100% sure that a man named Jesus lived. But why does it matter if he existed and he wasn't God? Because I think what we know of his story is at the very least interesting and not many people have changed history as much as he did even if it was in a way he could have never foreseen or even wanted. One could easily make the case that Paul changed the world even more than Jesus. I wouldn't say that I'm dogmatic in any of these views, but I will say that it definitely makes much more sense if he existed than if he didn't. A Mythicist has to do almost the same amount of mental gymnastics as a fundamentalist Christian.
Ken McNutt II okay I'll jump back in. What are say 4 things (more if you have them) that you think mythicists are missing that allow you to come to the conclusion you have arrived at. Basically I am asking for facts of historicity. Please, please I hope you don't use Josephus
Bart immediately attacked the Christian myth of Jesus' divinity. Michael agreed with most of what Bart said, but added a lot of nuances in attempts to carve out a feeble defense of Jesus' divinity. If Michael has to jump through so many hoops, the answer is obvious: Jesus' divinity was a later invention, foisted upon accounts of his life. Good debate, nevertheless.
A few questions Dr. Bart. 1. What do you think of Jesus response to St. Thomas ? Is it historical ? 2. Why did you ignore this story in Gospel of Mark (chapter 2 ) When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” 3.
Dear Prof D Ehrman, I am a muslim from Indonesia. I love listening and learning from you. You had explained history of Bible logically and clearly. God had created the universes. God created Jesus and the holly spirits as well. Why the Christian believe that few men could kill God on the cross? Thank you and God Bless you
As I understand it, "homoousion", was used in the same way by Pope Dionysius in the century before Nicaea; in fact, he may have coined the term. The concept, therefore, was clearly ante-Nicene and was merely defined and dogmatized at the 1st Ecumenical Council. I find it curious that Dr. Ehrman provides such a unidimensional view of the phrase "You are My Son, today I have begotten You" and only refers to it in Acts 13:33 to support his contention that Jesus was made a divine being at the resurrection. Hebrews 5:5 also uses this phrase from Psalm 2:7 but places it in a wider context, viz., His appointment as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek during His earthly life (vv. 5 - 6), His agony (v. 7), His passion (v. 8), His death and by extension His resurrection (v. 9), and lastly His ascension (v. 10) which is described thusly in Chapter 9: "But Christ, having appeared as high priest of the good things having come, by the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation, nor by blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered once for all into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption" (vv. 11 - 12). What is more, the phrase is also used in the first chapter of Hebrews (v. 5); yet just prior to this it says: "...through having made the purification of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become by so much superior to the angels, as much as He has inherited a name more excellent beyond theirs" (vv. 3b - 4). Now, this does not mention the resurrection directly because it only explicitly mentions the "purification of sins" which had to occur with the shedding of His blood on the cross and His subsequent ascension into heaven, entering the holy places where He offered His blood, and sits at the right hand of the Father. I'd suggest that the resurrection is implied here because He had to resurrect in order for all of these things to come to pass but this in itself, at least to my mind, does not support the notion that Jesus only became a divine being at His resurrection because in verse 2, it says that Jesus was appointed heir of all things and that through Him or by Him all things were made (literally "he made the ages") which seems to support His pre-existence in eternity past, as well as His divinity. Thus, with all of these passages together, including Acts 13:33 where even Paul, although magnifying the resurrection from vv. 30 - 37, also includes His passion in vv. 27 - 28: "For those dwelling in Jerusalem and their rulers, not having known Him and the voices of the prophets that are being read on every Sabbath, having condemned Him, they fulfilled them. And having found no cause of death, they begged Pilate to put Him to death. And when they had finished all the things having been written about Him, having taken Him down from the tree, they put Him in a tomb." It seems to me that His resurrection could be construed as evidence of His divinity but not the very reason for His divinity. I think it a stretch to say that Jesus only became divine at the resurrection as Dr. Ehrman does at 22:19. What is more, Acts 2:36 does not say that "at His resurrection God made Him both Lord and Christ" (23:16) it says "Therefore let all the house of Israel KNOW assuredly that God has also made Him Lord and Christ-this Jesus whom you crucified." This should be understood in terms of knowledge and understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy from Psalm 110:1, viz., His exaltation and ascension; for it states in Acts 5:3: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, having hanged Him on a tree. God exalted Him to His right hand as Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Why? Because it is here in His ascended state that He offers Himself eternally in Heaven to the Father, functioning as a minister in the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 8:2), as an Advocate for sinners (1 Jn. 2:1), and as a propitiatory sacrifice (Ibid. v. 2).
I wonder if there are any discrepancies whose resolution doesn't work in the original. Also, what would Jesus have been executed over? Just being inconvenient to Roman power?
So when does Michael Bird think that Jesus was thought to be God? I think he is implying that he believes it is in the gospels and the disciples thought Jesus was God in some way even if they weren't exactly trinitarian. But they really just argued about whether the early Christians believed in adoptionism or not.
Bart says (25:59) that in Luke it is written "You are my son, Today I have begotten you" Actually in Luke 3::22 it is written "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." There's no "Today"
1:53:30 at the trial, when ciapahs asks jesus if he is the messiah, jesus says i am and ties the answer with psalms 110 and Daniel 7. And Daniel 7 is recognized as featuring 2 separate divine figures. plus there weren't blasphemy laws against claiming to be the messiah. blasphemy was if someone claimed to be God. john 10:33 ref
I wonder that it wasn't brought up that Mark 14:62, just before Jesus ' death Jesus says he, or the Son of man, will be sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds, a direct reference to his divinity.
24:56 Bart is inaccurate. Luke's account of Jesus ' water baptism doesn't have the Father saying You are my begotten Son, but This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.
I'm through the opening statements, ..and so far, ..Mr.Bird is kinda helping Bart make his case for him, ..accept of course when he quotes someone else who holds his same viewpoint. He (Bird) is really only saying, ''All these early Christians held this 'adoptionist' viewpoint, ..but Me and so-and-so disagree. I'm wondering how much of Bart' s rebuttal is going to point this out. Can't wait to see.
Above & beyond the historic & theological ideas on this, you have to ask yourself if you believe that Jesus was/is God, the following: God in christianity is the supreme being, the creator of all. Given what we know about the universe, the almost incomprehensible size of it, the galaxies it contains, the stars, the planets, every single form of life, the complexity of each creature, each microsystem. This was all thought of, designed and brought into being by this single consciousness of God. After around 13 billion years God decided to reveal itself to mankind. The most important thing for this God in doing this was not to just be known to humans, but to to be believed in, followed and worshipped. The God that had such intelligence and ability to bring everything into being decided the best way to do this was to incarnate himself into human form of a man in a pre-existing religion, that would live his life being largely mocked, not believed in and crucified for his ideas. And in order for others to believe in him he would leave his deeds and words in book that he himself was incapable of writing as he was most likely illiterate. Really? This is the best idea of convincing humans that a God of such magnitude could come up with?
We can gather knowledge only by thinking about what our five senses discover for us. This proves that even if god exists we still cannot ever know what he thinks/feels and wants for and for us.
So it was people that decided to throne Jesus as God ? But Not God himself ok I get it 😂 they decide if he was whether God’s son or God himself and then they decided that they should throne him as the almighty God . This is a disaster
Why would God make Jesus a divine being? This is entirely against biblical faith that God wants man as a man rather than as a God. The human Jesus, the resurrected Jesus, the exalted Jesus is still human at the right hand of God. I have a good quotation from Mark's Gospel 12:29 that Jesus is not YHWH as Bird claims: "Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one".
Your understanding of what is a divine being is the issue. There was not a wide gap between the divine and humanity at the time. That idea evolved later.
Bart? Softened a bit? What is he essentially opposing here? Heck, I'm agreeing with most of the things he's saying here. Note: the Australian professor...this is unreal! Is he tuned to some cosmic data base? How in the world do you keep all these information at the back of the head, and pull them out?? Bart is also ok, but he keeps repeating the same old arguments that are dealt with already. I'm thinking his primal concern is to keep getting invited to the debates (a.k.a. getting paid for it) and keep on selling books. Good debate though. I'm feeling like a dwarf listening to these two gentlemen.
Around 1:27:20 the questioner tries to use the skeletal remains of a single crucifixion victim as evidence for burial but doesn't the fact that only *one* instance has been found speak show that burial of crucifixion victims was quite rare? Obviously, this "evidence" backfires on the questioner.
Why does Bart stoop to ad hominem when referring to mythicists? I have never heard Bart call a creationists beliefs "stupid". But he regularly calls peer reviewed scholars like Carrier and Price's theories stupid. When he's talking about mythicists is the only time I have heard him use logical fallacies. Is it to protect his job? Carrier claims that many scholars who are agnostic about the mythicist stance will not let on over fear of losing their jobs.
Erhman is great, and love his demeanour. Just wish he'd get with Richard Carrier and Robert Price and David Fitzgerald more and do a serious historicity dig and not just fluff the issue off as a set in stone truth.
no man alive can ever win a debate with dr. ehrman.he is just too power full and knowledgable.all u need to win these debates is pure and simple logic.
Current political events have brought me to the conclusion that religion based on supernatural ideas makes everything in human existence worse. Whatever religion does there is a secular version that we could create that would do that thing better. Religion increases suffering and religion in politics just magnifies its negative effects. That is all for my rant.
I have always loved listening to Bart. I was wondering if you guys could help. I was an Athiest, became Agnostic, but now believe in God. Only God. Nothing about God through Jesus, just God. What does that classify a man as?
Hello all, Eugene here. I must record my disagreement with our friend Bart on one point, the Gospel of John. It is true that many, especially Trinitarians, understand John 1:1 and following to really say that "In the beginning of the cosmos there was already in existence, God the Son, Jesus". This is not the view of all Christians and the Greek text does not demand that understanding. It is possible to understand the passage to mean that in the beginning of the cosmos there existed the word of God, the logos not Logos, which is the expression of the mind and intent of God, which when spoken by God became the fulfillment of the word in the person Jesus. If that is the correct understanding then none of the gospels teach incarnation of God into a human body but rather the exaltation of the man Jesus.That is my understanding of all the gospels.
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3
Michael Bird makes some okay points, but it sounds like he's having a different discussion than Bart is... :\ This kind of sums up arguments that I have with other brothers...
Bird truly did his homework, this is the first debate where Bart is put against the robes. Dr Bird made Bart's thesis look like is not different than Dan Brown's theory. Bird > Bart.
There are indeed still Christians in Australia, although I suspect that this year's upcoming nation-wide census will show that they are now a minority.
I have to say that Michael Bird was the most refreshingly intelligent opponent I have see you yet debate, Dr. Ehrman. He knew the material intimately well, he brought up good points, he was funny, and I think he was absolutely honest in his assessment. I still think he was wrong, and I think you did a good job of pointing out the errors, but it wasn't akin to any of the others you have debated in the past. It was a good show all around.
Agreed. Bird displayed some intellectual honesty unlike most of Bart's opponents.
Nathaniel Harari Mike came STRONG!
Dr. Simon Gathercole and Dr. Daniel Wallace are also good
Glad to hear Bart address that Council of Nicea mess. I'm tired of critics using that as the basis of their arguments. They lose all credibility with me.
Bart is 100% authentic...logic, evidence, fact is spoken and the rebuttal is faith!! Bart keep spreading the word please
MindCreatedAll he’s agnostic
I think Michael Bird is the first person that makes good arguments Versus Bart Ehrman. He doesn't rely totally on his bible as does most of Bart's opponents, and he doesn't outright disagree as most normally does. He agrees with Bart a great deal, while still arguing for his belief, which was formidable. I thoroughly enjoyed this Debate. Thumbs up to both Michael bird and Bart Ehrman.
Randy Moffat Bart gave no refutation to Mike’s point about the Demons knowing that Jesus was the divinity
I have always found professor Ehrman an outstanding scholar in his field. I think Christians can benefit and strengthen their faith by listening to him. Many times Ehrman has expressed that he does not seek to weaken the faith of believers.
It's very refreshing to watch such a cordial debate. Unlike many of the nasty apologists Bart debates, Michael Bird was quite affable, is someone who I enjoyed listening to, and would welcome hearing more from.
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and Greer-Heard Point Counter Point Forum have earned some respect from me for putting on the debate, and I am very surprised to be saying that about any school affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Good work everyone!
Your enthusiasm, Bart, is contagious and very touching :)
Bird is young yet so smart and sound. He’s a good evangelical Anglican theologian. Bart on the other hand is a good theological foe and scholar. This what makes biblical and theological studies worth our time and efforts.
Bart is a genius. i enjoy listening to him very much.
stir yotype he is a very smart man but he is wrong about Jesus Christ buddy don't let him lead you where he is going. By his logic you can never know anything truly existed like the Roman Empire
Sarah, I think you mean by your logic about Bart's logic. You have to justify your logic about Bart's logic and it turns out to be a strawman. Bart is using a specific methodology as a historian and other Chrisitian historians would disagree with your logic because they also use Bart's logic but also include there own personal faith beliefs.
In some ways you are correct you can never TRULY know anything because you ARE LIMITED BY YOURS SENSES and your cognitive capacity, but that is NOT what is colloquially meant to know something so again that argument is also a strawman, so settle down with the obvious false equivalence.
sarah brumley .. By your logic .. Edition ,fabrication & interpolation is ok as long as it is still called the Word of god ..
stir yotype no...he just studies. Why don't you?
@@sarahbrumley5520 wtf???
Excellent. All religious traditions need this kind of rigorous academic study.
Ihsan Alkhatib Buddhism actually teaches that we have to have doubt about everything and try to find our own answers. And examine everything we read. I'm surprised at how ignorant most of the people are. What is a problem to READ anything alternative to what your location provides you with.
Irina Levyeva then read the glorious Quran proven to be free of contradiction full of astonishing scientific facts which was unthinkable 1400 years ago but proven to be true in modern scientific age .
@@azad1718 this is 2020, you are really living in a lala land my friend....
Mr Murshad....Islam is lagging behind Judaism and Christianity to open up and have evidence based discussions.
There is enough-historical, archeological, manuscript, language and grammar evidence to prove that islam is a later copy of biblical, and Syrian apocryphal texts, complied say almost 300-400 years after so called mohamed lifetime,, all ancient maps, archeology, and historical writers prove that Abd-al-Mailk manufactured the koran and modeled it on biblical theme.
The facts are:
1. if koran is your true source--then why does it have items from bible and torah, koran has no original thought, fundamentals or ideas on 2 basic levels - fundamental ideas of 1)good and evil, salvation, creation and role of human, and objectives of a human life, 2) names of people, places, events, characters, stories everything that exists in koran was already available in bible, torah and other documents of that era. Abd-al-Malik used a team of arabic scribers to copy-paste bits and pieces into a single document for political and control reasons with no logical beginning or end.
Clarify to me on this, first on Manuscripts:
Evidence1--all original manuscripts of koran have a range of as low as 19 to max of 34 verses, but the modern koran has 114 verses, where did they come from, who added them?
Evidence2--none of the manuscripts (all original 6) have versification or verse numbers or verse/sura names--meaning that the suras and verse numbers were added later
Evidence3--a report called al-mushaf al-sharif by Islamic scholars in their findings openly tell you the number of revisions, editions, text overlays, strikeout and additions in all 6 manuscripts one by one on an average of 2 thousand insertions, editions, revisions, per manuscript
2nd On Archeological evidence:
Evidence4--If al-aqsa mosque was a place where mohamed ascended to heaven, why does the mosque writing talk only about jesus and absolutely no mention of mohamed or his going to heaven and back--what was Abd-al-Malik trying to prove by creating that structure with jesus mentioned everywhere all over inside walls of that mosque.
Evidence5--all kiblas point to Petra before mecca started to be a city of settlement, after 800AD, before 791AD mecca as a city did not exist even in arabic records, texts, poems, folklore, stories. unlike Yatrib=Medina which is mentioned in numerous arabic records.
Catrographic/Map Evidence:
If arabic sources from pre-mohamed era are studied and examined--like old maps, trade routes, names of places and people--example the 7 famous poets of arabia. Mecca did not exists and J Smith proves that with solid proof, the word Mecca and the city are later creations and settlement based on all human settlement and acheological proof
Evidence5--all kiblas point to Petra to begin with and then after Umayad dynast all kiblas point to Mecca.
I will stop here, as there is more to clarify on evidence of koran versus made up manufactured material.
What is the Manuscript Basis for the Qur’an - Jay Smith
ruclips.net/video/52PEVUpJBtk/видео.html
look up research paper/report released by Turkish Islamic scholars called Al Mushaf AL Sharif.
it should clarify your misconceptions about korans authenticity and originality. the report talks about the 6 original scripts--watch the video where he destroys all the scripts one by one with solid scientific proof.
ruclips.net/video/fMJRsd8SrhU/видео.html
Watch videos by a scholar called Jay Smith--he has done a very thorough study on islam's historic origins and how everything was manufactured by Abd-al-Malik one of the chalif's of islam, J smith explains everything in detail
ruclips.net/video/fMJRsd8SrhU/видео.html
this video provides all details about original koranic manuscripts
ruclips.net/video/52PEVUpJBtk/видео.html
Then watch a video by a renowned historian-Tom Holland on islam's origins
ruclips.net/video/eDQh2nk8ih4/видео.html
watch a video between Jay Smith and Shabir Ally--where Shabir ally admits to be using the koran made in 1924 after standardization at Al Azar using Hafz text.
Finally the Crisis of Faith for Yasir Qadhi
ruclips.net/video/8Dc1HJ8Uif4/видео.html
J Smith take on Qadhi's interview
ruclips.net/video/vstGbZkjUcw/видео.html
Koran is pure copy-paste, the arabs are surprised that there are so many dumb followers, and they thought they themselves were the dumbest folks on the planet, only hope is that you need to be born again.
Listen to Christian Prince - an Arab royal who left islam when he found out the truth, now he follows Christ--after getting proved by koran that Christ is the only true god.
I really enjoy the way Bart Ehrman puts the information out their for people to decide for themselves. Great Debate!
Both amazing speakers - entertaining, but still very much focused on facts, a leveled debate. Ehrman is one of the few atheists/agnostics I'm eager to listen to.
As one of the world's most renowned Bible scholars, Dr. Ehrman's vital intellectual contributions succeed in forwarding humanity's long overdue but essential change from unfounded belief to reason.
This is a great debate. Michael Bird puts up a good argument and even puts Bart on ther back foot occasionally although he came back well. This is really good food for thought.
Only at time 39:xx, but I'm happy to see that Bart's opponent has at least a DASH of personality, and is (it's a miracle!) the ability to acknowledge points counter to his own. SO much more interesting to listen to than the typical, single-minded believers he usually debates.
Michael Bird really gets off on the wrong foot when he references Jesus as the suffering servant of Isaiah. He is taking Isaiah Chapter 53 out of context. Who is the suffering servant? See: Isaiah 41:8-9
But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”
Yes but gospel writers took prophecy out of context. So can only view as what's written
And we can ignore them when later authors works misquote the older scriptures and some actually borrow from pagan works supposed quotes said to be the words of god but out of the mouths of greek playwrights.
Give me the God of Christmas, the God of love, the God of an innocent child in a manager, who comes to bring salvation and wholeness to the world, the way it was always meant to be.”-Bart Ehrman
To be fair, the Ozzie guy seems a cut above the usual biblical inerrantist "scholars" Bart has debated in the past.
that's because Michael Bird is a an actual, creditable biblical scholar who is respected in the academic world. Ehrman seems legit when he debates people like Craig or Licona. But he doesn't shine as well when he debates with Bird or people like Richard Bauckham. The latter types help expose the fact Ehrman both has no monopoly on biblical expertise and that he really is into selling books.
@@drewchristiansen430 Bird and Bauckham have quite a few books they want to sell also. With a captive audience.
Drew Christiansen ouch
As an old adage says; "One will tell the Truth to help someone.....
Transversely, There are those who will tell People what they 'want' to hear, so as to help themselves!
yes, he usually is matched with second graders
Ahmed deedat was the first ever to make a deep study of the subject and has debated so many Christian schoolars including Jimmy Swaggart, Floyd Clark, and Billy Graham beating them all
Rima Saba, and you believed that David Wood, who cried INSANITY to escape harsh sentence for hitting his father with a hammer, to be better. I have not seen a better debater in religion than Ahmed Deedat. Its just the internet, with Sheikh Google at hand, that makes these people nowadays look smart.
ahmed deedat only debated two real Christian scholars Jimmy Swaggart and josh mcdowell
bart took an idea from deedat, I saw bart speaking about a fake story in the bible "women caught in the act", but I realised that Ahmad deedat was the first person to speak about this story
Yahya EL ALAMI No he didn't take shit from deedat.There's been scholars long before deedat that put forth the same idea's etc
skull Matias
Yes, Deedad the first one who destroy Christianity. On his time no one thought like him.
Love him.
more of a lecture than a debate compared to Barts other debates but still worth watching, keep it up Bart your a champion mate!
this was a great discussion. Very nice hearing entertaining but very knowledgeable speakers debate these topics, so that we can draw conclusions based on actual intellectual arguments, not internet swill.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these ..
Please give one example where any Christian has raised the dead, healed the sick, made the blind see, and do so many miracles that would "fill several books"
I think that’s referring more to living like Jesus, as in trying to be sinless. Obviously humans can’t raise from the dead. Idk I could be wrong tho. That’s just my two cents.
Yeah, but if you give them your money they'll make a big show of trying and claim that it's worked.
Dennis Copland and Paula White. LOL
You mean besides Elijah, Elisha, Peter, Paul, and Simon Magus?
I like Bart Ehrman and I really look forward to his talk/debate/discussion with Robert Price!
If I could afford it I would just love to go and watch it live!
I understand why some would say that there's a lack of evidence for a historical figure - but there's not enough evidence to conclude him being solely a mythical figure either...
But a historical figure, (a lay preacher that got executed for rebellion against Rome), who later on got "myth'ified" seems very plausible!
After all, it wouldn't be the first time, (nor the later), something like that happened...
robert price did not perform well in that debate. i would have liked to seen a better and more reasoned laid out argument. why is richard carrier's work dismissed by ehrman in his comments later about mysticism (said that it is a pretty dumb idea)?
Yes we might have given the world Croc Dundee, but we also gave it Ken Ham.....sorry.
The apple may have fallen far from the tree, but no blame may light on you for the worm.
+ronaldov09 Ken is almost as funny as the Croc so no worries.
Minogue
gamesbok
Well....we're all of us sinners. ;)
I’m very surprised the reason Bart left. Christianity isn’t because of some intellectual discrepancy but rather an emotional and moral one. Isn’t the book of job all about suffering? Christ himself suffered horribly..I understand anyone’s concern for the children who are starving..hopefully we’d all do something about it..what I’m confused about is how suffering can be used as a basis for not believing God when the entire Bible is one suffering story after another..
Your work so amazing Prof Dr Ehrman, I learned many things, from how the disciples personality and roles, how to understand previous perspective view based on their civilization environment in thousand years ago, that's a really huge scope of research from the various Bible, language barriers, contradiction clarification , previous culture perspective, view of others people beliefs, we can see he spend all his life effort to his tremendous works and not for himself but sharing the knowledge for everyone in this world to know and understand.
Ehrman contradicts himself. He accepts Jesus claiming to be divine in John because the Jews want to kill him because if his blasphemy but in Mark where the Jews want him to be killed after his words to Caiaphas, Ehrman rejects that as a divine claim. He's not consistent in his understanding. You can't have it both ways.
this was a very enjoyable debate. both parties were well informed and had enough time to explain their position and they did there best while staying nice to eachother
you can't lose a debate when you are telling the truth, and that's exactly where Bart stands.
🙄
I challenge anyone to give a cogent synopsis of Michael Bird's Christology. It can't be done. And because it can't be done, Bart Ehrman is confused as to how to respond. He doesn't understand Bird's position. As a debate, this is waste of time. However, Bart Ehrman did a great job explaining the evolution of Jesus's divinity.
Michael only. belives on his next paid check the rest is crap thas why
he defens his lies
Bart's Forte, is in Greek biblical scripture. I personally believe, if one is going to venture into man made religion one must start from the source. This would be Hebrew biblical scripture. Who would be best suited for expressing what was written? A well educated Jewish Rabbi. Rabbi's like Tovia Singer, shares the light on New Testament scriptures, that indeed is not in the Torah. This includes, those who wrongly call Jesus the messiah.
OMG! Bart is debating Austin Powers!! Yeh baby!!
kernowarty I knew I couldn't be the only one thinking that. Thank you!
kernowarty you got it!
bahahaha
I thought that was Austin Powers for a second.
Man ur right hahaha
I think it is ironic that Dr. Ehrman admits in 1:25:05 that Psalm 110:1 is understood as another Divine being who sits at the right hand of God. Yet when Jesus applies that passage to himself in Mark 12:35-37, 14:62, and many other places like in Mark 8:38 where Jesus is going to come in the glory of his Father Jesus isn't claiming Divine Preexistence. This is a very strange methodology.
Debate starts at 2:09
Michael really knows the issues presented
Bart is truly an authentic and genuine scholar. I respect and admire him more than many Christian scholars. The irony though is that Bart would be out of a job if it weren't for Christianity and yet he's spending his whole life refuting it.
I just wish these debates would be a bit more interactive in nature since while listening to this lecture style debating is pretty interesting. We are at 1 hour mark of this debate (at 1h 16 min or so) before we even get into a bit more interactive style of discussion between these two debaters.
When watching theologians debate Ehrman, I am always struck by how often they ignore the burden of proof. It's as if they think that simply taking jabs at Ehrman's conclusions, which form the basis of mainstream NT scholarship, actually absolves them of the need to PROVE their theological positions. They offer no evidence whatsoever. When pressed, it's always a "personal experience" or some ridiculous misrepresentation of science.
WHAT PROOF HE HAS ? WAS HE THERE IN THAT TIME OF JESUS..BART IS JUST IGNORANT OF THEORY..MOST OF HIS TEACHING IS PHILOSOPHY..
@@aaronjames8951 thanks for the caps. that's shouting, please try to avoid it. History is intended to be the best teaching of what we know and what we know they could know, with no sectarian interest nor interest in the specific private revelations. Other wise, we have to accept every such offered god from Krishna, Koresh or Romulus/Q. Not interested in being fooled, thanks.
Bart seems like fun someone to chill with and just talk..
The discussion of what it means to beget is a discussion I would like to take further. I remember, as a teenager, reading commentaries and being struck by the fact that the author presupposes that begetting equals biological descent, and does not even consider that adoption might be understood by the gospel writers as a perfectly legitimate means of begetting. To my mind, this made analysis of certain Biblical passages far more complicated than it needed to be, and it seemed to me that much trouble could be avoided if you simply permit adoption to fall within the umbrella of begetting. And so, when I hear Bart saying that, indeed, adoption _was_ understood by ancient people as a perfectly legitimate form of begetting, there is a little child in me saying "I told you so!" But precisely because my bias favours that conclusion, I want to be a good empiricist and duly consider any weaknesses before I leap to it. One weakness is, as pointed out in the debate, that Bart's argument is based on Roman sources and not Hebrew ones. Anyway, I've said enough for a RUclips comment; my point is to affirm the fact that this is an interesting line of enquiry.
Is the power to forgive outright without demanding blood sacrifice a power worth having?As a parent of (rather fine but not invariably perfect) children, I'd think this power indispensable to functioning well within a family, not to mention wider society. Seems rather odd to say that an all-powerful moral agent somehow lacks the power of bloodless forgiveness. Ah, well.
wow...if you just listen to the tone of Bird's voice as he talks you could imagine that it was William Craig speaking...it would be interesting to analyse why that is so...
It's the Christian virus. It affects the vocal chords.
Ehrman nailed it once again.
Mike has a wonderful theological bent, Bart an unsurpassed logic that necessitates reexamination, and atheists don't get to be right all the time. How can this not be a win-win-win for all in the search for truth.
So 2 Pac and Elvis are gods, Lots of people claim to have seen them after their death
Thanks, for the great lecture, Bart. As Dr Bird pointed out at 51 minutes (Romans 1:3-4), the forefathers of Joseph going back to King David (Matthew and Luke), and His Father and Mother finding him back at the Temple (Luke 2:48), Jesus was descended from King David. Either Joseph was the biological Father of Jesus; or, Mary was a virgin... we can't accept both statements as fact.
It's great but worrying to hear two very clever educated people disagree. Ordinary folk have got very little chance of arriving at the truth.
tedgrant2
It is probably too late for you to see this but, simple as your comment is, it is the truest comment I have ever seen on these threads. Well said!
They disagree for a very good reason.
The truth is hard to come by, which gives us a good clue.
How i wish i was here, watching them live.an honor indeed to see them both especially bart ehrman (me as muslim apologist)
men debating and still trying to comprehend deity, the divine, the omnipotent. On trial is the competency, accuracy and legitimacy of the Bible and its writers. Both of these men are well read and have studied scriptures extensively. (much more than most) But despite a highly intellectual debate and sound reasoning for their arguments it still comes down to what each has put their faith in. God bless
[Somewhat inspired by the Michael Jones comment]
Just a couple of days ago I started to listen to your book 'Did Jesus Exist?' It is all right so far. My major criticism is that the narrator mauls German specialized terms, such as 'Sitz im Leben', and they are hardly recognizable for people who just listen to the book, even if they are fluent in German.
At the very beginning you assert that Jesus skepticism was the dominant view in the Soviet Union. It may or may not be true, but I think this sentence is very misleading, because the majority of Soviet scholars who wrote about the early Christianity didn't support this position.
Anyway, I think you should search for an opportunity to debate a Jesus skeptic sometime. For the record, I am not one, but I feel that their view is not as silly as it might seem. In a sense, they could potentially be much harder to debate then the theologians you are usually debating, because they (I hope, I actually don't know) are more likely to arrive to their conclusions through reason and not through belief.
+Svetlana Belaya I believe Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Robert M. Price (aka "The Bible Geek" - good show, by the way) have scheduled a debate on Jesus Mythicism on 10/21/16. They previously didn't raise enough money and so the event was cancelled, but I believe it's back on now. I can't wait.
No atheism wasn't the doctrine it was communism get it right.
I wasn't talking to you,i was replying to Marian Kotuc who tells us that atheism was the official doctrine where she or he lived.So yes it was mentioned smart ass.
kwj171068 Well part of the doctrine of communism is indeed a form of atheism. Marx believed that religion was a fallacious tool used by the elite in order to oppress the masses. They advocated for this form of atheism.
How could his only immediate family espeacially his mother not know who is and where he came from?? Did she forget that she was visited by the holy spirit and was told who jesus was gonna be and where he is coming from? How does that even make sense his only mother calling him crazy WHEN SHE MIRACULOUSLY CONCEIVED HIM.. even zachariah and john the baptist knew who he was earlier on??
This is why the gospels don't make any sense and have many inconsistencies therefore was authored by man and not by GOD because he is not the author of confusion
Bird's argument against adoptionism seems to amount to "this causes problems for our theology". Am I missing something?
run_gavagai_run what debate were u watching? Not only does he not say anything remotely similar to what you attribute to him Bird goes into extensive analysis why in Mark 1:11 and Romans 1:3-4 doesn't support adoptionism. So what response do you have to his actual points?
I left the comment more than a year ago. I don't recall the debate. I would have to rewatch it to respond. I don't have the time or interest right now.
One cannot study God--one can ONLY study a given Bible. there is no theology [godology]--there is ONLY bookology or biblology; or better yet, godosatanism/satanogodism.
And since the bible [a tribal book] had caused so much bloodshed, hate, anger, frustration among so-called or self-deemed christians, what is there to study?
Especially in view that each debater mainly cherrypics passages to support own view, interpretation, re-interpretions
Good debate.
I hope that your upcoming debate with Price will be posted (and maybe even live streamed). You always bring your a-game so I'm not worried. Please bring an end to mythicism.
Don't see how that is possible when Dr. Ehrman is using Peter, Mary, and Paul's visions as proof people thought they saw Jesus after his resurrection. Mary's very existence is in doubt, the Peter/Cephas of the epistles has none of the legend of the gospel Peter, and Paul really knows only of a revelatory Jesus not the one the gospels created.
vivahernando1 He's not using those examples as proof that it was true, but proof that people made those claims. People claim they've been abducted by UFOs, but that doesn't make it true.
Ken McNutt II last comment on this from me. What is wrong with saying Jesus' actual existence is in question? Most of the respected mythicists say the preponderance of evidence lead them to the conclusion Jesus never lived on Earth but due to distance in history or barring new archaeological evidence we probably will never know for certain. Why dogmatically say he existed if you are not a believer?
vivahernando1 That is actually a fair question. The answer is, from all the evidence I've looked at and books I've read, I'm close to 100% sure that a man named Jesus lived. But why does it matter if he existed and he wasn't God? Because I think what we know of his story is at the very least interesting and not many people have changed history as much as he did even if it was in a way he could have never foreseen or even wanted. One could easily make the case that Paul changed the world even more than Jesus. I wouldn't say that I'm dogmatic in any of these views, but I will say that it definitely makes much more sense if he existed than if he didn't. A Mythicist has to do almost the same amount of mental gymnastics as a fundamentalist Christian.
Ken McNutt II okay I'll jump back in. What are say 4 things (more if you have them) that you think mythicists are missing that allow you to come to the conclusion you have arrived at. Basically I am asking for facts of historicity. Please, please I hope you don't use Josephus
Bart immediately attacked the Christian myth of Jesus' divinity. Michael agreed with most of what Bart said, but added a lot of nuances in attempts to carve out a feeble defense of Jesus' divinity.
If Michael has to jump through so many hoops, the answer is obvious: Jesus' divinity was a later invention, foisted upon accounts of his life. Good debate, nevertheless.
A few questions Dr. Bart.
1. What do you think of Jesus response to St. Thomas ? Is it historical ?
2. Why did you ignore this story in Gospel of Mark (chapter 2 )
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
3.
I wanna see Bart Ehrman debate N.T.Wright. That would be amazing
teardropsonmyfallen : I would rather see him debate Richard carrier...
D.A Carson too
Dear Prof D Ehrman, I am a muslim from Indonesia. I love listening and learning from you. You had explained history of Bible logically and clearly. God had created the universes. God created Jesus and the holly spirits as well. Why the Christian believe that few men could kill God on the cross? Thank you and God Bless you
wait until he wastes time destroying the Lies of the Quran
*****
Muslim believe that GOD is powerful, GOD doesn't need Jesus as mediator
Thanks Bart! :)
As I understand it, "homoousion", was used in the same way by Pope Dionysius in the century before Nicaea; in fact, he may have coined the term. The concept, therefore, was clearly ante-Nicene and was merely defined and dogmatized at the 1st Ecumenical Council. I find it curious that Dr. Ehrman provides such a unidimensional view of the phrase "You are My Son, today I have begotten You" and only refers to it in Acts 13:33 to support his contention that Jesus was made a divine being at the resurrection. Hebrews 5:5 also uses this phrase from Psalm 2:7 but places it in a wider context, viz., His appointment as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek during His earthly life (vv. 5 - 6), His agony (v. 7), His passion (v. 8), His death and by extension His resurrection (v. 9), and lastly His ascension (v. 10) which is described thusly in Chapter 9: "But Christ, having appeared as high priest of the good things having come, by the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation, nor by blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered once for all into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption" (vv. 11 - 12). What is more, the phrase is also used in the first chapter of Hebrews (v. 5); yet just prior to this it says: "...through having made the purification of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become by so much superior to the angels, as much as He has inherited a name more excellent beyond theirs" (vv. 3b - 4). Now, this does not mention the resurrection directly because it only explicitly mentions the "purification of sins" which had to occur with the shedding of His blood on the cross and His subsequent ascension into heaven, entering the holy places where He offered His blood, and sits at the right hand of the Father. I'd suggest that the resurrection is implied here because He had to resurrect in order for all of these things to come to pass but this in itself, at least to my mind, does not support the notion that Jesus only became a divine being at His resurrection because in verse 2, it says that Jesus was appointed heir of all things and that through Him or by Him all things were made (literally "he made the ages") which seems to support His pre-existence in eternity past, as well as His divinity. Thus, with all of these passages together, including Acts 13:33 where even Paul, although magnifying the resurrection from vv. 30 - 37, also includes His passion in vv. 27 - 28: "For those dwelling in Jerusalem and their rulers, not having known Him and the voices of the prophets that are being read on every Sabbath, having condemned Him, they fulfilled them. And having found no cause of death, they begged Pilate to put Him to death. And when they had finished all the things having been written about Him, having taken Him down from the tree, they put Him in a tomb." It seems to me that His resurrection could be construed as evidence of His divinity but not the very reason for His divinity. I think it a stretch to say that Jesus only became divine at the resurrection as Dr. Ehrman does at 22:19. What is more, Acts 2:36 does not say that "at His resurrection God made Him both Lord and Christ" (23:16) it says "Therefore let all the house of Israel KNOW assuredly that God has also made Him Lord and Christ-this Jesus whom you crucified." This should be understood in terms of knowledge and understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy from Psalm 110:1, viz., His exaltation and ascension; for it states in Acts 5:3: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, having hanged Him on a tree. God exalted Him to His right hand as Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Why? Because it is here in His ascended state that He offers Himself eternally in Heaven to the Father, functioning as a minister in the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 8:2), as an Advocate for sinners (1 Jn. 2:1), and as a propitiatory sacrifice (Ibid. v. 2).
I wonder if there are any discrepancies whose resolution doesn't work in the original. Also, what would Jesus have been executed over? Just being inconvenient to Roman power?
So when does Michael Bird think that Jesus was thought to be God? I think he is implying that he believes it is in the gospels and the disciples thought Jesus was God in some way even if they weren't exactly trinitarian. But they really just argued about whether the early Christians believed in adoptionism or not.
Bart says (25:59) that in Luke it is written "You are my son, Today I have begotten you"
Actually in Luke 3::22 it is written "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."
There's no "Today"
He's talking about a different translation.
1:53:30 at the trial, when ciapahs asks jesus if he is the messiah, jesus says i am and ties the answer with psalms 110 and Daniel 7. And Daniel 7 is recognized as featuring 2 separate divine figures. plus there weren't blasphemy laws against claiming to be the messiah. blasphemy was if someone claimed to be God. john 10:33 ref
Romulus is taken up alive, not when he died. His point still stands, but Romulus did not die when taken up.
I wonder that it wasn't brought up that Mark 14:62, just before Jesus ' death Jesus says he, or the Son of man, will be sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds, a direct reference to his divinity.
24:56 Bart is inaccurate. Luke's account of Jesus ' water baptism doesn't have the Father saying You are my begotten Son, but This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.
Sure depends on which translation you’re reading. Like they said. He has read the earliest available transcripts in Hebrew.
I'm through the opening statements, ..and so far, ..Mr.Bird is kinda helping Bart make his case for him, ..accept of course when he quotes someone else who holds his same viewpoint. He (Bird) is really only saying, ''All these early Christians held this 'adoptionist' viewpoint, ..but Me and so-and-so disagree. I'm wondering how much of Bart' s rebuttal is going to point this out. Can't wait to see.
Above & beyond the historic & theological ideas on this, you have to ask yourself if you believe that Jesus was/is God, the following:
God in christianity is the supreme being, the creator of all. Given what we know about the universe, the almost incomprehensible size of it, the galaxies it contains, the stars, the planets, every single form of life, the complexity of each creature, each microsystem. This was all thought of, designed and brought into being by this single consciousness of God. After around 13 billion years God decided to reveal itself to mankind. The most important thing for this God in doing this was not to just be known to humans, but to to be believed in, followed and worshipped. The God that had such intelligence and ability to bring everything into being decided the best way to do this was to incarnate himself into human form of a man in a pre-existing religion, that would live his life being largely mocked, not believed in and crucified for his ideas. And in order for others to believe in him he would leave his deeds and words in book that he himself was incapable of writing as he was most likely illiterate.
Really? This is the best idea of convincing humans that a God of such magnitude could come up with?
I like this Michael Bird guy. At least he's got a sense of humor. Cute! I like his energy...
belilu belilu
When you have no valid arguments, humor comes to the rescue.
What a sermon!
Even a 5 yrs Old child can refutes Trinity doctrine.
They are Three differents persons but not Three gods but One God. Is that Englisch?
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)
We can gather knowledge only by thinking about what our five senses discover for us.
This proves that even if god exists we still cannot ever know what he thinks/feels and wants for and for us.
bozhidar balkas did you derive that knowledge from taste touch smell seeing or hearing?
So it was people that decided to throne Jesus as God ? But Not God himself ok I get it 😂 they decide if he was whether God’s son or God himself and then they decided that they should throne him as the almighty God . This is a disaster
Dr. Bart is in beast mode now..thank the lord lol
What is Michael Bird's point? Unless I''m dense, he doesn't say - this is what I believe and this is how my belief is different from Ehrman.'s belief.
Why would God make Jesus a divine being? This is entirely against biblical faith that God wants man as a man rather than as a God. The human Jesus, the resurrected Jesus, the exalted Jesus is still human at the right hand of God. I have a good quotation from Mark's Gospel 12:29 that Jesus is not YHWH as Bird claims: "Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one".
Your understanding of what is a divine being is the issue. There was not a wide gap between the divine and humanity at the time. That idea evolved later.
Bart? Softened a bit? What is he essentially opposing here? Heck, I'm agreeing with most of the things he's saying here.
Note: the Australian professor...this is unreal! Is he tuned to some cosmic data base? How in the world do you keep all these information at the back of the head, and pull them out?? Bart is also ok, but he keeps repeating the same old arguments that are dealt with already. I'm thinking his primal concern is to keep getting invited to the debates (a.k.a. getting paid for it) and keep on selling books.
Good debate though. I'm feeling like a dwarf listening to these two gentlemen.
Hey, if Bart needs to repeat stuff for the sake of money, let him do it. He helped me and my mom leave Christianity and eventually accept Islam.
Around 1:27:20 the questioner tries to use the skeletal remains of a single crucifixion victim as evidence for burial but doesn't the fact that only *one* instance has been found speak show that burial of crucifixion victims was quite rare? Obviously, this "evidence" backfires on the questioner.
Why does Bart stoop to ad hominem when referring to mythicists? I have never heard Bart call a creationists beliefs "stupid". But he regularly calls peer reviewed scholars like Carrier and Price's theories stupid.
When he's talking about mythicists is the only time I have heard him use logical fallacies. Is it to protect his job? Carrier claims that many scholars who are agnostic about the mythicist stance will not let on over fear of losing their jobs.
Erhman is great, and love his demeanour. Just wish he'd get with Richard Carrier and Robert Price and David Fitzgerald more and do a serious historicity dig and not just fluff the issue off as a set in stone truth.
no man alive can ever win a debate with dr. ehrman.he is just too power full and knowledgable.all u need to win these debates is pure and simple logic.
YYEESSSS.
Thank you SO MUCH for posting this.
Humans are very good at inventing stories.
Current political events have brought me to the conclusion that religion based on supernatural ideas makes everything in human existence worse. Whatever religion does there is a secular version that we could create that would do that thing better. Religion increases suffering and religion in politics just magnifies its negative effects. That is all for my rant.
I have always loved listening to Bart. I was wondering if you guys could help. I was an Athiest, became Agnostic, but now believe in God. Only God. Nothing about God through Jesus, just God. What does that classify a man as?
You would be a Deist = a belief in a non-intervening creator first cause of which no characteristics can be attributed to.
Hello all, Eugene here. I must record my disagreement with our friend Bart on one point, the Gospel of John. It is true that many, especially Trinitarians, understand John 1:1 and following to really say that "In the beginning of the cosmos there was already in existence, God the Son, Jesus". This is not the view of all Christians and the Greek text does not demand that understanding. It is possible to understand the passage to mean that in the beginning of the cosmos there existed the word of God, the logos not Logos, which is the expression of the mind and intent of God, which when spoken by God became the fulfillment of the word in the person Jesus. If that is the correct understanding then none of the gospels teach incarnation of God into a human body but rather the exaltation of the man Jesus.That is my understanding of all the gospels.
Bart's opening minds.
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3
Congratulations, you know how to cut and paste but not do history and look beyond your beliefs -_-
Michael Bird makes some okay points, but it sounds like he's having a different discussion than Bart is... :\ This kind of sums up arguments that I have with other brothers...
always a class act
I'm always bored to listen to the other's opening statement. I only listen to Bart Ehrman, and then proceed to the cross examination and Q&A.
1:50:50 Professor Bart struggled with that question of Mark 14. In the end, he ate his own words and admitted that Jesus claimed to be divine.
Formally Informal. You’re confused. Ehrman agrees that’s what is in the text. That doesn’t mean that Jesus actually claimed that.
I'm wondering what the response to Bart is after he counters. Why isn't it shown?
Bird truly did his homework, this is the first debate where Bart is put against the robes.
Dr Bird made Bart's thesis look like is not different than Dan Brown's theory.
Bird > Bart.
There are indeed still Christians in Australia, although I suspect that this year's upcoming nation-wide census will show that they are now a minority.