DEBATE: Jimmy Akin vs Bart Ehrman | Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 мар 2022
- The teachings of Jesus Christ have influenced millions of people in the 2,000 years since he lived. But in recent times, many skeptics of Christianity have questioned whether the four Gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-can be trusted as true accounts of his life and teaching. Where do the Gospels come from, and how can we be sure they are an accurate record of historical events?
On Thursday, March 24 at 7 p.m., Catholic Answers author and apologist Jimmy Akin debated Bart D. Ehrman on the topic “Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?”
About Jimmy Akin:
Jimmy Akin is an internationally known author and speaker. As the senior apologist at Catholic Answers, he has more than twenty-five years’ experience defending and explaining the Faith. Jimmy is a convert and has an extensive background in the Bible, theology, the Church Fathers, philosophy, canon law, and liturgy.
About Bart Ehrman:
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He began his teaching career at Rutgers University and joined the faculty in the department of religious studies at UNC in 1988, where he has served as chair of the department and director of graduate studies.
Who's here after the Matt Fradd interview with Jimmy Akin?
Yeap. Hahaha.
Yep hahaha
Yep
Here here here 😅
....guilty
This is the first time I've realized that Jesus quoting Psalm 22 is a beautiful, sorrowful way of saying, "I've heard your cries."
I found it amazing when I learnt that too. Or daniel7:13-14 then Philippians2:10-11
2:45 Ehrman
25:07 Akin
44:07 Ehrman rebuttal
54:40 Akin rebuttal
1:05:01 Ehrman cross examination
1:16:37 Akin cross examination
You missed the highlight of the debate, 35:50
@@ultimateoriginalgod 🤣🤣
Thank you for this brother.
The High 5 was pretty kool 😎
1:33:13 Q&A
2:05:28 Ehrman Closing
2:09:31 Akin Closing
As a Catholic, I appreciate Bart's sense of humour. Great debate. Jimmy is first class, too.
@ I appreciate Bart's sense of humour. @ - Bart appreciates it even better than you for you might have smiled at his jokes while Bart laughs hysterically
@@user-vd6wb5ef8v Laughing at your own jokes is the sign of someone who thinks themselves very funny. Cheers!
I find Bart funny, too.
Some of his arguments are bit funny. Although I respect his scholarship, I often feel he is projecting his intellect against his fundamentalist past and to fundamentalists today.
For those who have never really experienced fundamentalism (I haven't experienced much as a Canadian Catholic) his arguments are less useful.
I fully agree with him that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. How about you?
I know mythicism has its proponents, academic even. The mythicist arguments and debates bore me, though. They seem overly speculative and play loose with the relevant texts.
@@PaxMundi118 :::I fully agree with him that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. How about you?
=====================
About me? There is no evidence that Jesus lived. But as we agreed, no proves of existance does not prove non-existance
@@PaxMundi118 :::Laughing at your own jokes is the sign of someone who thinks themselves very funny.
=====================
It is OK to think themselves very funny. But to laughing at your own jokes (i.e. to demonstrate that you think youselve very funny) is a sign of... I was going to say "idiotism", but this would be too impolite ... English is not my mother tongue... which word to use... smugness?
@@PaxMundi118 ::::I respect his scholarship, I often feel he is projecting his intellect
======================
in this here debates on Gospels Historical Reliability I failed to detect any Bart's intellect. I posted explanation of my opinion earlier. Will copy it here for you:
Bart Ehrman is either not smart or playing giveaway. This Barba-rossa in a cawboy hat draws a list of important and less important features of the Gospels. According to this list Jesus was just one of many ordinary preachers who accidentally got executed, like today in the former USSR an ordinary bloger gets accused of insulting religious feelings, or of being a so called "foreign agent", or stirring up national hatred or showing disrespect to authorities etc. and ends up in prison.
Yet Bart, being preoccupied with virginity of Jesus' mother, fails to notice that the main feature of the Gospels is Jesus being presented as the Son of God. To this end the Gospels describes several great miracles preformed by Jesus. Whether these miracles really happened or not, makes the Gospels reliable or unreliable. Not some discrepancies between the Gospels, which discrepancies are unavoidable taking into account that the "memoirs" of these four old gentlemen (who, btw. most probably could neither write nor read) were compiled many-many years after the events they narrate.
At drinking parties with my Uni mates we often remember our students' life and the same episode is often discribed differently by those who were there. Sometimes even disputes arise if this or that episode did happen
Just a note about poor people having two homes... come to Africa. People have a home they call home in the rural, then they maintain a residence in their place of work. It is so normal that I'm kind of bewildered that those in the west would assume it is a preserve of the rich. In Kenya, we have ushago (rural where our ancestry can be traced) and a home in Nairobi. Our rural home is over 200 miles from where I grew up... It is where my father was born and my ancestors for about 500 years lived.
Africa is not the Middle East of 2,000 years ago. Studying the history should inform your opinion. Only one person on the stage, Ehrman, studied the history of the time. The other guy was simply speculating.
@@KBosch-xp2ut the point I'm making... just like the brothers of Jesus and stuff, is that I'd understand why Joseph could have two homes in different towns. One is where he came from, his roots and the other is where he learns his keep. Actually that is how many in Africa (which is not the Middle East 2000 years ago) understand this. The west kind of assumes that their understanding of stuff is it... that is the assumption Bart makes, that Joseph was either rich, or it makes no sense.
@@KBosch-xp2ut do you even know the other guy and his creds? Why do you assume he is speculating? Because he is a Christian? Ad hominem-ish.
@@BradleyKisia
You can make up any stories you want. The evidence just isn’t there.
He’s speculating because he is simply making things up about what could have been to try and justify his beliefs.
@@KBosch-xp2ut who has made up a story... mine is not a story... I have stated a fact, that you didn't know and now do, say thank you.
If you are discussing the rest of the debate, I was careful to raise a point about one item only; so you are reading more into my comment than is there. Just to remphasize: I talked about two homes and stated that it is possible and reasonable (for me and my kinsmen) ... so, I am not sure what else you're on about.
You're looking for a fight in the wrong place, creating your own demons. Look for someone else's post to argue on/in... Mine was just a fact...
Jimmy was much more rational than most Christian apologists I have seen.
Coming from a position that allows the Bible NOT to be absolutely perfect allows for more common agreement than if the Christian was a fundamentalist Bible inerrantist.
Yes, chalk one up for the Catholics!
@@77goanywhere To be clear, Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant in all it means to assert in precisely the sense and manner which it means to assert it. This is why it's so valuable to know the genre of the book to have an educated understanding of what it means to propose (i.e. that Jesus in his ministry said x y and z even if he may have only said x and z at the sermon on the mount where Matthew also places y because it fits the topical organization. ) A fundie definitely has more trouble, because in taking everything as literal narrative history (which subconsciously they often fail to be consistent about), he's taking the bible to say things it never meant to. i've seen them claim that all Jesus' parables were literal events he was relaying for example purposes, and Genesis especially becomes a mess on the fundie model.
Where do you think rational apologetics came from? The scholastic era of the Catholic university system.
There are Sola Scriptura protestants who don't believe the bible is literal history or natural history. They just believe it is the only validi source of doctrine, (which doesn't make sense to me since they develop their own interpretational traditions but the earliest protestants believed in Sola Scriptura, but also that the Bible may, in parts only be allegorically true or apocalyptically true.
That being said, if the Pope has the capacity to speak on doctrine, and is "literally" the vicar of Christ, why not just have him once and for all tell us what the Gospel or other biblical inconsistencies mean.
For those distressed by Akin's emphasis on definitions, types, and especially his introductory focus on clear and well understood semantics: this is necessary for honest debate, and any laziness here gives either party room for rhetorical slight-of-hand; everyone should learn to appreciate the rigor of good semantics - it keeps bad actors from 'hiding the ball' and forces honest partisans to concede fairly contested ground instead of indulging their biases.
If you don't care about semantics, then you don't care about truth, and your only concern is winning.
To be wrapped up saying they only gave the "gist" of the whole account. To claim to be the inspired word from God himself and only have the "gist" should be extremely concerning to you.
@@NoWayJose.50 John 21:25
I'm not concerned. And I don't assent to Sola Scriptura. The Bible is a record of the faith, not the whole faith.
@tristentesla1304 you're confusing two different things. What is revealed and what isn't. The things that ARE revealed aren't accurate enough. And when you read this verse, there is more ambiguity. John says "I suppose", and that is not a confident assertion, only an assumption. Again, just the "gist".
We are not talking about what is NOT revealed, but what IS revealed and the quality of those claims.
Truth shouldn't need flowery language or structured lies.
@@notsocrates9529 you wouldn't know the truth if it was two inches from your nose
🎯 Key Takeaways (grouped by topics) for quick navigation:
02:38 *📜 Historical reliability of the canonical Gospels*
- Understanding the historical reliability of the Gospels.
- Examining the key terms "historically reliable" and what they entail.
- Addressing the broad outlines of Jesus's life while acknowledging inconsistencies and contradictions within the Gospels.
06:28 *🌟 Discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus's birth*
- Analyzing the differences between the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke.
- Exploring discrepancies regarding Bethlehem and Nazareth in the two accounts.
- Highlighting the absence of accounts of Jesus's birth in other New Testament writings and questioning their significance.
15:31 *⚖️ Variances in the narratives of Jesus's resurrection*
- Contrasting the resurrection accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
- Pointing out discrepancies in the accounts of how the disciples learned about Jesus's resurrection.
- Highlighting the divergent narratives regarding the disciples' post-resurrection actions and locations.
19:07 *🗣️ Jesus's self-revelation in the Synoptic Gospels*
- Examining Jesus's teachings about himself in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
- Emphasizing the predominant theme of Jesus preaching about God's kingdom and the need for repentance.
- Contrasting the message of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels with the portrayal in the Gospel of John.
20:16 *📖 Jesus' Identity in the Synoptic Gospels*
- Jesus focuses on preparing people for the imminent arrival of God's kingdom in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).
- He emphasizes repentance, belief in the good news, and love for God and one another as ways to get ready for God's kingdom.
- Jesus does not explicitly discuss his divine identity or coming from heaven in the Synoptic Gospels, unlike in the Gospel of John.
21:42 *📜 Jesus' Identity in the Gospel of John*
- In the Gospel of John, Jesus prominently discusses his identity through the "I am" sayings, such as "I am the bread of life" and "I am the resurrection and the life."
- Jesus presents himself as the one who reveals the truth from God and claims to be "I am," evoking the name of God from the Old Testament.
23:22 *📚 Sources and Jesus' Self-Understanding*
- The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the Gospel of John offer different perspectives on Jesus' self-understanding.
- Earlier sources used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, such as Q and the "M" and "L" sources, do not depict Jesus explicitly claiming divinity.
26:12 *📊 Evaluating Gospel Reliability: Major Claims*
- Historical reliability of the Gospels can be assessed by examining major, intermediate, and lesser claims.
- Major claims about Jesus, such as his existence, Jewish background, teaching ministry, discipleship, crucifixion, and involvement of Pontius Pilate, are supported by both historical evidence and Bart Ehrman's agreement.
34:44 *📜 Evaluating Gospel Reliability: Intermediate and Lesser Claims*
- Intermediate and lesser claims about Jesus, including his specific teachings, associations, actions, and predictions, align with historical evidence and Bart Ehrman's assessment.
- Bart Ehrman's agreement with these claims further supports the historical reliability of the Gospels, indicating consistency and accuracy in depicting Jesus' life and ministry.
36:23 *📋 Conclusion: Bart Ehrman's Assessment*
- Bart Ehrman affirms the historical accuracy of major, intermediate, and lesser claims presented in the Gospels, demonstrating reliability in depicting Jesus' life and teachings.
- His agreement with key aspects of Jesus' biography supports the argument for the Gospels' historical reliability, emphasizing the credibility of their portrayal of Jesus' identity and ministry.
41:37 *📜 Bart Ehrman questions the historical reliability of the Gospels*
- Bart Ehrman challenges the historical reliability of the Gospels based on discrepancies in key events such as the virgin birth and resurrection.
- Ehrman argues that disagreements on major claims like these undermine the overall reliability of the Gospels.
44:05 *🧐 Analyzing differences in Gospel accounts*
- Bart Ehrman illustrates significant differences in the portrayal of Jesus's death between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke.
- He emphasizes how these differences in narrative details reflect distinct theological perspectives and messages.
54:47 *📚 Resources for further study and understanding ancient writing practices*
- Jimmy Akin offers resources on his website to aid in further study of the historical reliability of the Gospels and understanding ancient writing practices.
- Akin discusses the importance of recognizing ancient writing practices such as selection, paraphrase, and sequencing in understanding Gospel accounts.
01:02:51 *📜 Ancient Authorial Practices*
- Ancient authors, including gospel writers, often provided gist accounts with approximate details rather than precise, word-for-word transcripts.
- Details in ancient accounts were meant to convey the essence of events rather than precision, similar to how individuals convey information in everyday conversations.
01:05:00 *🔍 Examining Gospel Narratives*
- Discussion on whether certain events in the gospels were historical or invented by the gospel writers.
- Examples provided include the story of people rising from the tombs in Matthew's gospel and Jesus's birth in Bethlehem as mentioned in Luke's gospel.
01:17:00 *📚 Comparing Gospel Narratives to Biographies*
- Analogous comparison drawn between reading the gospels individually and examining biographies of historical figures like Abraham Lincoln.
- Emphasis on the importance of comparing different sources to reconstruct historical events, despite discrepancies between accounts.
01:21:14 *📜 Organizational Methods in Gospel Narratives*
- Discussion on the organization of material in the Gospels.
- Matthew's topical organization enhances storytelling.
01:23:47 *📖 Genre and Historical Reliability*
- Examination of the genre of ancient biographies and their historical reliability.
- Comparison with other ancient biographies and their accuracy.
01:27:14 *🗣️ Oral Tradition and Gospel Transmission*
- Exploration of the impact of oral tradition on gospel transmission.
- Analysis of the reliability of oral transmission over time.
01:38:45 *📜 Authorship and Reliability of John's Gospel*
- The debate centers on the authorship of the Gospel of John, particularly whether it was written by an eyewitness or based on sources.
- Scholars debate whether John himself or someone else wrote the Gospel, with arguments focusing on internal evidence and historical context.
01:40:37 *💀 Multiple Attestation and Supernatural Events*
- The discussion revolves around the lack of third-party attestation to supernatural events described in the Bible, such as the "zombie apocalypse" in Matthew 27:53.
- Arguments are made concerning the significance of these events to Jesus's followers and the likelihood of external sources recording them.
01:43:23 *🌟 Jesus's Claims of Divinity and Miracles*
- Examination of Jesus's actions and statements regarding his divinity, particularly focusing on his miracles and forgiveness of sins.
- Perspectives are shared regarding the significance of Jesus's actions in demonstrating his divine nature, with emphasis on biblical interpretations and historical context.
01:49:03 *📚 Synoptic Problem and Gospel Composition*
- Analysis of the synoptic problem, discussing the priority of Mark's Gospel and the existence of the Q source.
- Perspectives are offered on the compositional practices of the gospel authors, including the relationships between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
01:51:54 *👻 Supernatural Claims in Historical Context*
- Exploration of supernatural claims in historical texts beyond the Bible, considering their credibility and interpretation within various cultural and religious contexts.
- Perspectives are shared on the acceptance of supernatural events in different religious traditions and the criteria for evaluating their authenticity.
01:57:07 *📜 Examination of Crucifixion Accounts*
- Comparing crucifixion accounts from Mark and Luke.
- Differences in Jesus' words and audience addressed in each gospel.
02:00:27 *📖 Luke's Use of Mary as a Source*
- Discussion on Luke's use of Mary as a source for the infancy narratives.
- Evaluation of Mary's influence on Luke's Gospel.
02:03:04 *🙏 Significance of Faith in Gospel Healing Stories*
- Examination of the role of faith in gospel healing narratives.
- Interpretation of Jesus' statement on faith in healing miracles.
02:05:17 *💬 Concluding Remarks by Bart Ehrman*
- Gospels viewed as documents of faith rather than historical accuracy.
- Importance of understanding differences in gospel narratives.
02:09:29 *🛡️ Concluding Remarks by Jimmy Akin*
- Proposal on assessing historical reliability of the Gospels.
- Importance of understanding ancient writing practices in evaluating gospel accounts.
As a reformed Christian Jimmy Akin is probably in my top 5 favorite living Catholics (I know a lot of Catholics would find it hard to believe a Calvinist would even like 5 Catholics). He’s so intelligent and articulate.
Thank you, and God bless you!
I couldn't help but notice the similarities in their voices. I listened without video for much of the debate.. the only way I knew who was talking was to process what was being said.
Akin is clueless.
@@user-ie6rq3iy9t Well substantiated argument, I'm convinced!
@@user-ie6rq3iy9t I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. His argument was well formed
I liked this a lot, but seeing the two handshake and hug at the end was the most heartwarming part. It really made my day.
I'm a long-time fan of Bart (I'm an ex-Christian who found out about him after I left the faith)....but I wanted to say Jimmy did an amazing job in this debate. Extremely good points and so well-prepared. A pleasure to listen to this!
Hey brother, I sincerely hope you find security in Christ someday... the narrow road is hard to find; the scripture indicates as much. Narrow the road and difficult the way.
@@scottward4316 He should have done a better job spreading his message around the world before he died
How so?
@@scottward4316 thanks for the kind wishes Scott. I hope the same for you. Christianity is a man-made religion and it took me almost 30 years of living in it to learn this. The brainwashing goes deep. Took me a LOT of study and work to get the courage to leave. I know first hand that it's not easy.
@@mrsatire9475 oh really !? You da man ! Lol
Wow, this is by far the best I've seen someone deal with Ehrman's arguments. Akin came very prepared.
And still failed 😂
@Ken Asai Did he? depends on which gospel you read lol.
Bart' presentation reflects his personal mocking opinions. Does not support his assertion that the books , Matthew Mark Luke and John are not reliable.
I actually thought Akin humbly and calmly mopped the floor. I mean you can clearly see Erhman's body language (stiffening, head titlting, eye brow raising, change in tone of voice, etc) on multiple occasions, each time his few opposing points, that he brought up, were one by one reasonably addressed by Akin.
@Gluteus Maximus You can tell Akin really studied Ehrman's debate approach and avoided several traps that most apologists fall into. Particularly, the denial of non-Christian miracles and dealing with the discrepancies. The startrek analogy and the genealogy rebuttle had Ehrman on the defense.
This was fun to watch. I wish more debates were like this. Both guys were respectful, funny and witty, and brought a lot of intelligent points to the discussion.
To be fair both are at the world class level of their positions. So not many can operate on this level.
I did not enjoy it. Ehrman is a scholar but goes too easy on Christians.
@@nicokarsen6131 How so?
@@nicokarsen6131 If anything, Akin was too easy on Erhman. There were several occations that Ehrman was about to lose composure and his body language were suggesting he wasn't comfortable that Akin came prepared to address his points. It wasn't because Ehrman took it easy, but it was because that Akin was in control of the pace of their debate because he knew how to address Bart.
@@gluteusMAXlMUS Akin is just a human search engine, he's definitely a very prepared debater
One of the best debates I have ever seen. Thank you very much!
It really was. A pleasure to listen to.
I am never in line with Ehrman on these debates, but he is always a gentleman and at times I think his good manners are exploited. I hope whatever turned him away from God is some day healed.
Your last sentence proves you’re biased. This wasn’t a theological debate, and YOUR opinion is based on your faith, rather than on the facts presented. I get tired of seeing comments like “hope he comes back to God” as if your opinion of faith holds any weight.
@@user-rx6yt7ix5e Bart has described his exit from faith as being caused by the suffering of humanity , and the fact that he cried as he told this made me believe that he also suffered personally. I don’t care for the Way his opponent disrespected Bart. I thought he was rude to Mr. Ehrman and that was my point. I do not care who won the debate and I did not address the issue. Bart was a happy person when he called himself a Christian. I hope whatever has hurt him in life is eventually resolved. I think he is a very decent human being at heart.
I’ve seen him talk before and watched his biblical series on RUclips. Him leaving faith was a painful experience. When he discusses it, I kind of feel that he would prefer to believe. I say this as someone who gave up faith as a young man, and called myself an agnostic/atheist for many years. I had a hard time believing, but it doesn’t quite make sense not believing as well. I kind of feel he will eventually find his way back.
@Deewood9996 what makes you so angry that you attack Christians even when they express concern for atheists? Bart’s decision to leave the Christian faith was an emotional one. I only expressed concern over his well being. Do you normally react so aggressively towards kindness? Are you in any kind of counseling? Have you noticed a pattern of difficulty within your relationships? Whether you ever turn towards Christianity or not there is no need to go through life angry and confrontational. If you get that triggered by a benevolent comment by a total stranger I shudder to think how horrible your life must be. I hope things get better for you.
@@tibbar1000 Your comments here may align with your perception of "kindness", but this kindness has wreaked untold pain and suffering on much of the world and many cultures that opposed christian views. Bart is spot on that this is all garbage and post-hoc rationalization now suggesting the "gist" of the story is outwardly disingenuous. I hate when you christians claim a hatred towards a non-existent being, not possible. The horrors perpetrated in the name of your religion is testament to the fact that religion makes otherwise good people commit horrible acts.
Ehrman makes a really great point about 45-50 minutes in, about the value of reading each Gospel on its own and not letting our expectations of the Scriptures blind us to the real text when we approach it.
EDIT: Can't believe I'm still getting uncomprehending comments about this. I meant this about private devotion and personal familiarity with the Scriptural texts, not about their literal meanings (which are almost always related to a previous Scripture). Read the words on the page first, internalize them, then start trying to "understand" or "harmonize" them.
That’s however just one form of academic historical criticism. There are others that Bart is just ignoring. There is a reason the codex of the Bible was made.
@@eswing2153 What are you talking about? The "Codex" of the bible is literally a collection of separate books.
@Andrewpearson1903 referring to Ehrman's talk at 45-50 mins - talking about the Gospel of Mark. He summaries the Gospel and presents it as something completely different from the other gospels.. at 48:50 to 49:17 states that Jesus "wonders why" God had forsaken him.... This is the problem with Protestants which Ehrman was, Mark wrote the gospel as a Jew for Jew's because the early Christians did not read Mark's gospel and think "oh my even Jesus is wondering WHY".. No, the Jews of that time knew the reference "My God. My God. Why have you forsaken me?" Its from Psalm 22. It is another fulfilment of scripture not a questionable end of "wondering". Ehrman made no good points there buddy.
Actually it is a very poor way to read the Bible. We can assume, in most cases, that the gospel writers were aware of one another's works, and that they wrote with the knowledge that (other than perhaps Luke) what they were writing would be fleshed out and given more context in the body of the other works.
@@hross1991you are making an assumption and putting words in Jesus mouth that aren’t there. Bart is quoting the text whereas and you are making excuses as an apologist. “Another fulfillment” is laughable buddy. THe gospels were written way after Jesus’ death by educated Greeks who knew the Old Testament and knowingly constructed the stories in order to make Jesus a fulfillment of prophesy. Not hard to do buddy.
When police interview witnesses after a car accident there are often conflicting reports. That doesn't mean the car accident wasn't real.
That’s the best analogy you can come up with, how elementary. The facts are the gospels were written 40-70 years after the death of Jesus. We all know how much can get lost in translation when 10 people play telephone.
The difference is the Gospels aren't independent because of the synoptic problem and because the 4th gospel was written so late there's no way the author didn't know the others
Where are getting this 40-70 years from?
@@zeraphking1407for real?
@@2haydnt Yes.
I’m impressed by Jimmy Akin’s clean, well-organized presentation. Bart Erhman has met his match - himself.
“We’re going to have a 10 minute break and that break is 10 minutes”. Well, thanks for explaining that!
He's talking to religious people so it needs to be made simple and clear. Some of them might argue it was a parable and actually means hundreds of years.
Many, many people think a ten-minute break is for other people. Their break is about an hour, give or take, so they can come back in whenever they please.
He's emphasizing that 10 minutes is 10 minutes, not 15, not 20, not 30 so don't dally. Reminds me of my first boss who when we were late for work would bellow: Work starts at 8 not 8:15!
@@masterpassword2 😂And in the tenth minute we rested.
@@masterpassword2 Wow, anything to get a dig at those "religious people" huh? 🙄
🎯 Key Takeaways (by idea) for quick navigation:
02:38 *🎙️ The debate format includes 20-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttals, 10-minute cross-examinations, and audience questions.*
03:38 *📜 Bart Ehrman focuses on the historical reliability of the Gospels, not their theological or religious accuracy.*
05:06 *📚 Ehrman believes the Gospels contain significant historical information about Jesus but also discrepancies that make them unreliable.*
06:28 *🌟 Ehrman critiques the differences in the birth narratives of Jesus between Matthew and Luke, highlighting contradictions regarding Bethlehem and Nazareth.*
15:31 *⚖️ Ehrman discusses discrepancies in the resurrection accounts, citing differences in how the disciples learn about Jesus' resurrection and where they encounter him.*
19:07 *🗣️ Ehrman analyzes Jesus' preaching in the Synoptic Gospels, emphasizing his focus on God's kingdom and repentance rather than his own divine identity.*
21:42 *📜 Jesus' identity in the Gospel of John is emphasized through the "I am" sayings, where he identifies himself as the bread of life, the light of the world, and the resurrection and the life.*
22:25 *📜 Jesus' use of "I am" in the Gospel of John parallels the Old Testament's reference to God's name in Exodus 3, implying a claim to divinity.*
23:22 *📜 Scholars recognize that Matthew, Mark, and Luke draw from earlier sources like Mark, Q, M, and L, none of which depict Jesus explicitly claiming divinity, unlike John.*
26:12 *📜 In the debate, the burden of proof lies on Bart Ehrman to demonstrate the gospels' historical unreliability, not on the believer to prove their reliability.*
28:02 *📜 The Catholic Church's interpretation of inerrancy allows for a more nuanced understanding, distinct from fundamentalist Christianity's literalist view.*
29:23 *📜 Reliability of historical documents is assessed by verifying major, intermediate, and lesser claims rather than demanding absolute inerrancy.*
33:07 *📜 Historical reliability is determined by the accuracy of a document's major, intermediate, and minor claims, rather than requiring perfection.*
36:23 *📜 Bart Ehrman, a skeptic, acknowledges the accuracy of major and intermediate claims in the Gospels regarding Jesus' existence, teachings, and crucifixion.*
39:23 *📜 Bart Ehrman confirms the accuracy of numerous lesser claims in the Gospels regarding Jesus' teachings, actions, and interactions, supporting their historical reliability.*
43:18 *📜 The minor discrepancies pointed out by Bart Ehrman do not challenge the major claims in the Gospels.*
46:17 *🏙️ Bart Ehrman illustrates discrepancies in the Gospels by comparing them to varying descriptions of New York City, highlighting differing details.*
47:28 *📖 Each Gospel presents a unique message, and readers should approach them individually to understand their distinct perspectives.*
49:13 *⚡ Bart Ehrman analyzes the portrayal of Jesus' death in Mark's Gospel, emphasizing Jesus' silence and the centurion's recognition of his divinity.*
50:54 *🌟 Bart Ehrman contrasts Mark and Luke's portrayal of Jesus' crucifixion, highlighting Jesus' interactions and demeanor in each narrative.*
53:59 *📚 Bart Ehrman argues against harmonizing the Gospels, asserting that each author has a unique message that should not be blended together.*
54:47 *💡 Jimmy Aiken provides resources and writing practices to aid in understanding the Gospels' nuances and historical reliability.*
56:02 *📚 Jimmy Aiken suggests further study and understanding of ancient writing practices to comprehend the Gospels accurately.*
01:02:38 *🔄 Jimmy Aiken emphasizes the gist principle in ancient writing, urging readers not to expect modern precision from the Gospels but to focus on their accurate essence.*
01:04:38 *📜 Jimmy Aiken concludes that judged by their intended standards, the Gospels are historically reliable in conveying the essence of Jesus' life and teachings.*
01:05:28 *📖 Bart Ehrman discusses the historicity of events in the Gospels, like the resurrection of Lazarus and Jairus's daughter, suggesting the possibility of people other than Jesus raising the dead.*
01:06:10 *🏘️ Jimmy Akin proposes the idea that Joseph and Mary had homes in both Bethlehem and Nazareth, explaining the differences in the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth.*
01:09:40 *📜 A comparison is drawn between Queen Elizabeth II's multiple lineages from William the Conqueror and the differing genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, suggesting they represent different lines of descent.*
01:14:38 *🔍 Bart Ehrman discusses the discrepancies among the Gospels regarding the disciples' movements after Jesus's resurrection, highlighting John's account as harmonizing the apparent contradictions.*
01:17:16 *📚 Jimmy Akin compares studying the Gospels individually to reading multiple biographies of Abraham Lincoln, emphasizing the importance of piecing together different accounts to understand historical figures accurately.*
01:21:41 *🗂️ Bart Ehrman discusses the organizational methods of the Gospel authors, suggesting that topical organization, such as in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, doesn't necessarily imply events happening all at once.*
01:24:28 *📜 Ancient biographies, like those of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, are known to contain inaccuracies, raising questions about the reliability of the Gospels.*
01:25:09 *🗣️ Debate on whether Matthew, written years after Jesus' ministry, accurately records his teachings hinges on the preservation of Jesus' sayings within the Christian community.*
01:26:32 *📖 Jesus' quote on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is a reference to Psalm 22, suggesting a deeper theological context rather than despair.*
01:28:36 *💬 Ethical teachings attributed to Jesus are considered well preserved due to their memorable nature and circulation within the early Christian community.*
01:29:44 *🎙️ While the genre of the Gospels may differ from modern biographies, the burden of proof lies in demonstrating their accuracy, especially considering the passage of time and potential for variation in oral tradition.*
01:36:27 *📞 Traditional understanding posits that the Gospels were not merely products of a "telephone game" but were based on eyewitness accounts or close sources within the Christian community.*
01:40:37 *🌍 Lack of third-party attestation for events like the "zombie apocalypse" in Matthew 27:53 raises questions about their historical validity, with explanations ranging from local significance to potential natural phenomena.*
01:43:36 *📜 Matthew presents Jesus as having the power to forgive sins, akin to priests in the temple.*
01:45:12 *🌟 Disciples believed Jesus was God early on, but Jesus himself didn't openly claim equality with God in synoptics.*
01:46:47 *📖 High priest saw Jesus' reference to Daniel 7 as blasphemy, a claim to divinity, reflecting the "two powers in heaven" doctrine.*
01:49:17 *📚 Jimmy Akin favors Markan priority in Gospel authorship and leans toward the Wilke hypothesis for Q source material.*
01:53:00 *📖 Bart Ehrman suggests the Gospel writers were more concerned with conveying a message than with historical accuracy.*
01:55:05 *✨ Jimmy Akin takes supernatural claims outside the Christian community seriously but believes Christianity offers superior evidence.*
01:59:57 *💬 Audience context matters in Gospel variations, influencing how messages were conveyed rather than strictly historical accuracy.*
02:01:52 *📜 Mary's influence in Luke's Gospel is evident in the infancy narratives, but she likely wasn't Luke's primary source for the entire Gospel.*
02:02:19 *💡 Luke's chapters 1 and 2 likely based on memories originating from the Virgin Mary.*
02:03:59 *🧠 Faith often attributed as the catalyst for miracles in the Synoptic Gospels, showing belief in Jesus' divine power.*
02:05:32 *🔍 Gospels should be seen as documents of faith, not just historical records, conveying individual messages to their audiences.*
02:09:29 *🎤 A source may be considered historically reliable if many of its major, intermediate, and lesser claims can be verified, despite approximations in ancient writing practices.*
Good job. I appreciate the friendly dialogue between Jiimmy and Bart . Two great experts in their field.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. ;)
@@TheWorldTeacher thanks. How do you see the debate? Good and things they could have improved on?
@@nardforu131, I’m an ATHEIST, but I consider Lord Jesus Christ to be a very holy person. 😇
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@TheWorldTeacher Not a vegan. Why do you ask?
@@nardforu131, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
Jimmy and Bart are both so interesting to listen to. Jimmy is a powerful force for faith and Bart is a christian reality check. Both men are so valuable to the conversation. Great debate guys. Thanks for your work!
Bart was “more” honest.
@@freethinkman7678 Was Bart honest when he said "father why have you forsaken me" as if Jesus was doubting God, when in fact, Bart turn out knew knew Jesus was quoting Psalms all along? He was trying to test if there were ignorants or less knowledgeable from the audience that would buy it, until Akin corrected & exposed him.
@@gluteusMAXlMUS “more” honest… there is a plethora of dishonesty with Jimmy Akin with his efforts to defend the “Faith” (a word centered in dishonesty)…
Bart could be dishonest with several items of interest and never touch his opponent in this regard
@@freethinkman7678 well give us a specific example to prove your point
@@freethinkman7678 I just realized how redundant your response was. Bart wont use Faith on debates. Of course he wont, he's debates for athiest.
Jimmy akins defends for faith on debates. Of course he will he's on the religious side. But that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. Otherwise, there's no point of debate
It also, works both ways. One can easily
Accuse Bart as dishonest from the opposition by saying that because he's an athiest, there is no moral grounds that would stop him from making up stories.
Of course, I already pointed the part where Bart lied. The burden now is on you to prove your point. Otherwise, Akin literally calmly dismantled Bart and controlled the whole debate. Anyone who is honest enough who watch the whole debate could clearly see it.
Reading Ehrman brought me back to Catholicism. As he picked his way across the gospels, finding tiny faults, I had the realization that the gospels were essentially true. I did NOT want to return to Christianity. I fought it and lost. I attend mass several times a week.
Yeah, among his many errors, the way he says "well Jesus probably said this, probably not that, maybe this, maybe that" like he has any sort of way to verify or give strong reasons for this.
Possibly one of my favorite of his logical fallacies was in a debate, he said because God "cannot" violate the laws of mathematics(i.e. God can't make 2+2=5), therefore somehow he cannot violate the laws of physics and thus, miracles and a resurrection aren't possible.
@@mattm7798 Bart Ehrman demonstrates a critical lack of imagination. Physics is not a stationary science. It swells, and changes. Physics exists because people with imagination asked questions and then set about finding answers. But those answers only made for more questions. Physics has not been finalized.
@@mattm7798 Assuming you have any idea what qualifies as logical fallacy, how is that a logical fallacy?
@@cjp.6880 That's a great emoji, Barbie. Thanks for demonstrating the typical wit and intellect of gawwd's most special little projects.
Tiny faults? There are massive contradictions dude. You sound like you didn't read Ehrman.
This is the way debates are suppose to be.
Also wanted to mention, I'm happy the optics of Jimmy being quickly eloquent and Bart needing a moment to think on his feet didn't tarnish the debate. Optics ruin debates these days. They can obscure the points.
Thanks for doing this debate. I’m not a Catholic but you have done one of the best jobs of anyone I have seen debating Bart and actually having a solid understanding at Barts level and able to actually have a meaningful debate.
I agree. I've watched a half dozen or more debates with Bart vs. Protestant apologists, and this one seems to do the best. Probably because he doesn't (secretly) believe in inerrancy.
I don’t know. I think Bart had a better grasp on the scriptures than Akin did.
I beg to differ. Akin didn't address the issue at hand and even made claims that Joseph (a carpenter) had two houses. Not only does he fail to give historical evidence for this, it goes completely against the narrative in the bible. Had Joseph been in possession of a second home, they wouldn't have gone looking for an inn nor would they have been forced to camp in an animal shelter.
He might as well go to the extreme and claim that Joseph had a beach condo in Egypt too. Cause one of the gospels has them fleeing there while the other gospel has them going to the temple!? Like the contradictions are so blatant you can't possibly solve them.
@@proculusjulius7035 Jimmy doesn't make that claim; he said that Joseph would have had some share in estate property with kin, not necessarily a permanent dwelling place. This would be the only reason to return under the census to be taxed as a resident of Nazareth. I am surprised Jimmy doesn't point out how it was quite common for someone to receive a part of an estate inheritance, when property is left to multiple heirs. Just think of the parable of the prodigal son who told his father he wanted his share of property inheritance now rather than later. BTW, the word "Tekton" does not strictly convey a carpenter, but more likely a craftsman. We historically use the word carpenter for Joseph because the early church fathers said he made wooden farm implements such as ploughs.
@@proculusjulius7035 That's the only question I think he didn't answer well. I talked to Father Mitch Pacwa on the radio about that today and he doubts that Joseph had a "summer home" in Bethlehem because he was not a rich man. Fr Mitch has been to Israel several times and speaks 12 languages fluently, to include Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic (Jesus language), and Arabic and has a PhD in Old Testament studies. He said the likely explanation, since the Bible doesn't give exact details, is that he left Bethlehem and went to Nazareth for employment. He goes into detail on why work was likely available in Nazareth because of the destruction that occurred in the area after the Zealot rebellion during that time frame. Why he had to go back to Bethlehem is because he was a resident of Bethlehem. He was born of the lineage of King David who was also from Bethlehem and that was his legal resident. That legal residence will stay with him wherever he goes and so when taxes are due, you have to go back to your town of legal residence and pay them. Here is a link to Fr Mitch's response: ruclips.net/video/hK0JQKyYk0Q/видео.html (it is around minute 18).
Bart is a very genuine and likable man, regardless of his faith! God Bless him and hopefully one day Gods grace truly touches him🙏
ima pray for you as well that yall leave polytheism and instead accept Islam
@@bstlybengali I appreciate your kindness. 🙏
His faith?
@@Fabian-kv9tw yes, we all have a faith system, it just may not be Christianity, Islam, etc. evolutionists have way more faith than most christians.🙏
Growing into adulthood as a Christian Bart thought he was ‘truly touched by God’s grace’. If he wasn’t as implied here then where does that leave believers?
Jimmy akin did really well. Hats off.
Are you suggesting he take of his giant cowboy hat? 🤠
@@nikkmitchell He's bald. I've seen it, and it isn't pretty.
But he's still wrong
@@KendraAndTheLawnope, he isnt😂
@@joe5959 but he's saying the Bible is not accurate ... just a gist
what a great debate. PLEASE do another one
I’ve watched so many debates and lots of Bart Ehrman debates, specifically. Jimmy is by far my favorite opponent of Bart’s!!!! Awesome discussion and I love how pleasant they were to each other. ☺️ I could only hope to be half as wise as either of these fellas one day!!!
Jimmy is a joke. Ask me why.
Watch James white
@@TheTranq ok I’ll look it up
Very respectful debate gentlemen and I learned quite a bit! Thank you
Really appreciate this Debate.
Jimmy, the links on your website no-longer work! I would love to read them
For something as memorable as attaining eternity, there are people who would memorise word for word., and I know many people have such ability.
Absolutely, there are millions of people who indeed memorize word for word. You're referring to the Muslims and the Qur'an? Millions have memorized it word for word by heart from start to finish - most of them Arabic isn't even their first language - many of whom are kids below the age of 5.
eternity is guaranteed 😉😉🙏🙏✝✝❤❤
Jimmy Akin is a beast! (A compliment) Seen a couple of his debates, and wow, he is thorough. Wouldn't want to be on his opposing side
This was a great debate, Jimmy. Both sides performed well and made coherent points. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing.
What this debate reveals is that two hours isn't enough to really drill down into this subject.
It would not be fair to Erhman to allow this to continue. When a fighter is getting hammered round after round you got to throw in the towel.
@@LetsgoB It wasn't really a debate since Erhman's "opponent" conceded from the start that the Bible is not historically accurate.
@@LetsgoB Akin's ludicrous theories that Joseph owned two homes when Luke 2:7 says Jesus was born in a manger and that Joseph is descended through both genealogies even though that would give him two fathers hammered nothing.
🔨⚒️⛏️🛠️🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨
Its more than enough. The claims or Christianity are bogus. Akins claims that Jesus not quoting Psalms 22:1 in its entirity because he was "tired" is laughable, it really is. Ehrman is spot on in his analysis of how the passion narritives tell completely different and totally incompatible versions of events.
@Jimmy Akin, in the town of El Arish on the north shores of the Sinai Penninusla there is a road sign which effectively says (in Arabic) "Jesus, Joseph and Mary Slept here."
I've driven right by it a few times.
Bart claiming Christians are missing the point of the Gospels has got to be a peak of irony.
Lol what? Majority of Christian’s barely read the Bible. I’m sure many are missing the point. Yeah super ironic one of the most well respected new testament scholars and historian, with the most popular college textbook on the New Testament in use today is missing the point of the gospel.
Yeah. Did he really think Jesus quoted psalm 22 because he was in distress? I don’t need to have a doctorate to understand that he quoted a prophecy about that exact moment.
Most of his claims were debunked in “misreading the Bible with western eyes” and that wasn’t even such a great book. I’m disappointed.
@@ModernLadyPsalm 22 isn’t a prophecy, it’s a song about feeling despair and being comforted in God’s protection. It could have been an allusion to Psalm 22 when Jesus cried out to God, but it certainly isn’t fulfilling some prophecy.
@@christophecrist2171
By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending.
The psalmist describes the crucifixion long before crucifixion was a thing: “they have pierced my hands and feet” and “They divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots”. Just like it happened.
But the psalm ends in hope and salvation from enemies and worship of the Lord by the whole world. Just as it happened.
@@ModernLady Where in the Psalm does it say that it’s a prophecy? Just because events correspond to each other, does not make it a prophecy. Where are the strong bulls of Bashan during the crucifixion? What about the dogs that encircle the speaker? What language can we take as allegorical, and which can we take to be literal? My view is that Psalm 22 is a song, and since the message of the cross is one of victory over death, the themes overlap to the point where people misinterpret the song as a prophecy. David was not a prophet.
I am Roman Catholic but I still greatly enjoy Bart Ehrman. He is a historian, not a theologian. How can Catholics mindlessly believe that the Bible is 100% accurate when (for one thing) the authors assumed a flat earth? Since most Catholics know next to nothing about the Bible, it is a bit appalling for them to just proclaim that the Bible (which most have never read) is flawless. As someone who has studied the Bible scholastically, this just ain't so! This does not throw out the basic spiritual messages of the Bible. It just means we are not going to ever find the graves of Adam and Eve because they were an allegory, not fact. The literalist view of the Bible has many logical problems. For example, Moses and the 40 year travels of the children of Israel in the desert. How come there is no evidence in this anywhere. We are talking perhaps of a million people who have to poo each day, eat and pitch tent. But there are no broken pots, fossilized poo or any of the castoffs of a million people anywhere in the pristine desert. The Egyptians, obsessive record keepers, also have nothing on this entire Moses affair. Were the Egyptians just embarrassed that they lost in this battle of minds?
All of your critiques have responses. You’re operating off the assumption that there is an assumption of flat earth. Nomadic living is in no way foreign to the Middle East. Egyptians weren’t known for their truth telling… just see what happened with Hatshepsut
You aren't a catholic stop trying to act like one so you can bring down Christians
This has strengthened my faith to Yeshua...
@JimmyAkin, thank you for doing this debate. I would like to point out that the links on your website (on the /bart link) don't work anymore. Could that be fixed? Thanks in advance :) God bless!
I found this out also, when I clicked on the first link Akin gives on his Bart page. When I copied just the name of the Akin article, searched on that independently of Jimmy's website, up came the article (about Joseph's two places of residence).
Best debate I’ve watched yet
To many props by Akin, including the hat.
If you just listen to this without watching the video, you could easily be forgiven for being confused as to whether Jimmy or Bart is speaking. Their cadence and pitch is so similar, as is their respective enthusiasm for each one's position. Great debate to listen to (although I'm a little more of a Bart fan.)
It wouldnt surprise me if Mr Bart was a secret Gnostic.
@@sheldonmurphy6031 well he has identified himself as somewhat of a christian-atheist...so not too far a stretch.
@@proculusjulius7035
Roger That!!
I just wasn't going to go there with mr pussnuts. lol
@@sheldonmurphy6031 Maybe not a gnostic, but he maybe he knows some cules how to find Jesus our Lord🤣👍🤌
Not in the slightest
Thoughts on this? The substance they used for writing might have been scant as well which would limit what they would choose to write and what would be most important.
If this is the word of G-d then how could anything be an approximation, couldn't he be precise? This is a pure manipulation without thought.
@@Sam-bj1jxYou're right they should have written an infinite amount just to convince you they wrote enough lmfao
Whole lot of ink spilled in the Bible about laws concerning livestock, but they run out when it comes to God on Earth? Okay.@@david52875
Hey does anyone know if Jimmy Akin has a website??
56:27 Watching the wholde discussion helps ;-)
@@Weserman75 WHOOSH
😂
Jimmy your recall of facts and wide knowledge are most impressive. Your presentation was practical and persuasive. The gist is historical, material facts are consistent. Ancient writing protocols and license, explain much. Great debate, Dr Ehrman is always brilliant 🎉
PERSONAL NOTES (Thanks to @dharmatech)
2:45 Opening Statement - Ehrman
25:07 Opening Statement -Akin
44:07 Ehrman rebuttal
54:40 Akin rebuttal
1:05:01 Ehrman cross examination
1:16:37 Akin cross examination
Debate highlight? 35:50
So if someone gave me a map that had 99 cities correctly located, but the one place we wanted to go was misplaced by several hundred miles, is that map reliable?
Its an inherently subjective label.
A car can be the most reliable car money can buy and still fail you when you need it.
What if 99 other people are giving the same map and the place they are going is accurately captured in the map?
Props to Jimmy for taking on Bart
Props to Jimmy for TRYING to take on Bart
Fixed it for you
@@El-Dorado930Jimmy won.
@@axderka LMAO 😂 Move to a country that's legalized whatever you're smoking and you could make a fortune.
Jimmy Akin is so far the most knowledgeable, but I have to give it to Bart, watch it, and form your own opinion. I wish these guys could go at it for longer
bruh since the time I knew bart ehrman, I have never seen a single christian at the level of bart ehrman....
but this one, man, I was absolutely amazed by how well Jimmy argued his point...
Kudos to both gentlemen!
Relevant to around 1:28:00
Can’t remember where I heard this, but if ancient people wanted to quote a psalm they’d often just recite the first bit and everyone would understand they were quoting the entirety of the psalm. Can’t back it up with a source but you can always look it up.
2:09:04 Why has this been edited out? I felt this was this was the point he was trying to make but it’s cut out.
It's not an edit. It's a glitch in the livestream of the event. There was not effort to censor anything Bart or I said. If the livestream had preserved all the words he said at this point, they would be there. Unfortunately, the feed glitched and didn't record them.
@@JimmyAkin Thanks for the explanation, I’m sorry to have assumed it was edited out. I love you both and wish you guys nothing but the best in defending our faith. God Bless
@@Radhaugo108 No problem! Happy to clarify! God bless you, too!
Ehrman said in his own opening that Mark has Jesus predict his death multiple times, after being rejected by the priests and scribes, and yet Ehrman still pushed the line that Jesus in Mark was surprised that he was going to die after being rejected by the priests and scribes. So Mark both has Jesus predicting his death and being surprised that he was going to die? How does that make sense to Ehrman?
But then he claims that Jesus' 'Son of Man' references are not about himself. So, if Ehrman was challenged on the death predictions in Mark, which all mention the Son of Man, would he change his claim and say they are not about Jesus? If so, then why did he say this?
Also, just because Mark doesn't mention Jesus saying something, it doesn't follow that Jesus didn't say anything. Ehrman assumes that and then somehow invents the entire psychology of Jesus during his passion from that assumption.
Mark is a bit of a mess and holds secrets that we never as the reader are informed of(Seems somewhat gnostic - Disciples are clueless throughout and Jesus says he teaches in parables so that if overheard people won't be magically saved who he did not mean to save.etc). You must also remember it was written some 50 years after the events claimed.
@@davidfrisken1617
''You must also remember it was written some 50 years after the events claimed.''
The current acceptable dating of Mark is 65 - 72 AD, which means around 30-40 years
What is this dating based on? Its based on a single thing: Namely, that Jesus predicts the persecution in Judea, therefore the author of Mark must have seen it.
This is the only reason for dating Mark so late and literary nothing else.
Also Mark is extremely clear and is not a mess, and literary has the highest Christology of all the gospels - just because Erhman doesn't accept this doesnt mean the vast majority of scholars also dont.
When you see that a person feels the urge to say that Mark has the highest Christology of all the gospels you know that this guy is not looking for the truth but to silence his deep insecurities about the religion in which he was probably indoctrinated.
@@floydthomas4195 Nope. it is definitely dated at a minimum of post Temple destruction. It is probably a lot later than admitted. eg Luke is now dated 125-150CE
@@vejeke
''I say you're wrong therefore you are wrong''
The absolute state of atheists lmao
Majority of New testament scholars accept the highest Christology in Mark.
Saying that the gospels are in agreement with Bart Ehrman's claims about them (42:00) only proves fact that Bart has read the gospels carefully. This isn't an agreement of two independent sources.
And saying that just because Ehrman agrees that the gospels contain that information is confirmation that they're historically reliable is ridiculous. How Akin got away with making that assertion blows my mind. The fact that Ehrman didn't notice that rather clumsy sleight-of-hand and immediately protest in the rebuttal is disappointing. Having said that, I'm sure it's much easier to see these things in the comfort of my recliner than standing up there on stage. I haven't read all the comments. Perhaps others noticed what Akin did...
@@olphartus5743No you misunderstand. Those are things Ehrman agrees with the Gospels about, not things he believes the Gospels claim.
Awesome........ think of the hours of effort these men have put into their knowledge, and the dedication that required. I recommend this highly, and I recommend you watch it in it's entirety at a single sitting. I have read much of Bart but nothing of Jimmy Akin.... what a surprise! Don't miss this one!
This was the best debate so far
Historians are trying to write anything about the slaughter of innocents.
Herod - once your pen touches the papyrus you will be beheaded.>
Historian - Fair enough.
Herod couldn't have executed any Roman citizens, though. Only Jewish historians could be thus threatened.
It seems like a similar argument would be: (1) husband is faithful hundreds of nights (2) husband is only unfaithful a couple of times, (3) does wife feel that the husband is faithful (reliable)?
Lol. You made me smile. Allah Bless you. I wish you a successful prosperous life - you and your loved ones as well as as many humans as possible - Allah Bless you all with a life of prosperity and success. Amen amen
and how many wives does husband have?
Solid stuff. Jimmy Akin and Bart bring up excellent issues and I leave more convinced than ever that the bible, the book of the Catholic church is perfectly reliable as the church affirms . There is no area of church teaching that cannot withstand intense investigation which is what rational beings should use their God given divine gift of reason to employ. Thanks to Jimmy and Bart.
1:48:30 Then why did they accuse Him of blasphemy if they didn't understand Him to be talking about Himself?
Yeah no one there was confused about what Jesus meant. The only one confused here is Bart.
Jimmy is my favorite apologist who knows how to have fun
Thank you Jimmy for your work in defending the faith, from Belgium with love.
I’m watching from Belgium too ✌🏻
I think the Gospel of Barnabas, which the Church rejects, is more credible than the four Gospels.

Yes, the four Gospels are not true. They are a mixture of false things and rumors, and there are true things in them.. There is no inspiration or anything.. Only the writer relied on news from here and there, some of them are true and some of them false, and he wrote these Gospels.. But the question is whether God left people without truth ..Of course not...God did not leave people without the truth. That is why he sent down the Qur’an so that people would know the truth..The Qur’an says that the Christian Trinity is a great sin and Jesus is just a prophet, nothing more, not God.
@@rostomnaseri9708
You Prostrate 5x a day towards a Pagan Stone in Mecca..
Not only that you perfrom TAWAF like the Hindus circling 7x around it & licking it believing a silly pagan stone "forgives sin" 🤣🤣
This was not a debate regarding faith the debate was regarding historical accuracy.
This was very frustrating. The two sides never agreed on terms and definitions. That makes this semantics. Reliability vs inerrancy is word play that should have been settled before the debate even began.
Well Bart agrees, and often uses the same criteria, he had to move the goal post because he was trapped.
It's amazing the more I read about Christians coming back to the faith and using Barth Ehrman for apologetics by reading his books it is starting to fascinate me how he works both ways for agnostics and Christians alike.
Stop deceiving yourself, just check the numbers, people are leaving in droves.
@@nauticdixons Nobody is talking about general member numbers in Christianity, I'm talking about this specific instance when it comes to Ehrman. And plus it is not an issue for us Christians the last days were already predicted 2,000 years ago
@@nauticdixons As it's written in the Bible. The big fall out - Great apostasy, as it should be because Churches as institutions, since looong time ago, have nothing to do with God.
Wow Jimmy really killed it with the check mark display. All Ehrman followers should watch that part. I'd love to see what they say.
Do you mean in his opening? I’m only listening. Halfway through, but a good debate so far.
@@stevenbatke2475 no about half way through. Hey green checked all of what Bart's agrees with which is all the major claims. Bart only disagrees a small amount and therefore, even by Bart's standards, the gospels should still be reliable when you weight what even Bart agrees with vs disagrees.
@@FiENdeR85 I agree that Jimmy presented that part very well. But as Bart said, it’s the differences of the birth narrative and the resurrection, that have contradictions that can’t be harmonized.
@@stevenbatke2475 could you elaborate on what major contradiction of the resurrection that you're referring to?
@@FiENdeR85 I’m not saying major, just saying differences. Ones I’m sure you’ve heard before, but it’s been a hell of a week, so I’m too tired to list chapter and verse.
Forgive the laziness.
These are ones I’m rattling off the top of my head: did the temple curtain tear before Jesus died, or after? How did Judas die? Who and how many people were at the open tomb?
Those are just a few, I know, and it may sound insignificant to believers, and they have been explained away many times, but the gospels in total, tell different stories from each other. All the differences cannot be harmonized. Two separate accounts cannot both be simultaneously true.
“Pretty darn good at passing on the gist”? I bet that study is SUPER honest
It's not even done. He's a terrible scholar. He even says "uh historical" instead of "an historical...."
@@jeffmaehre7150 I hardly think dialect is what constitutes good scholarship. Good scholarship would entail waiting for and reading a study to determine if that study is good scholarship, not simply assuming based on the manner of speaking of the author.
An historical is wrong. Historical starts with a consonant.@@jeffmaehre7150
1:39:17 John 19:35 says “you” know that the testimony is true, not we in most versions. I only saw it translated as “we” in the CEVDCI
Did part of Ehrman’s closing statement get removed? It skipped and something wasn’t shown.
No. It was just a glitch in the livestream. Nothing has been removed. I wouldn't do that.
When you can see the older copies and check for mistakes against older copies, the telephone game analogy falls apart. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the ability of the copiers to keep the high accuracy over thousands of years.
What Bart is talking about is pre-written text
If the gospels contradict each other, then how can anyone say that they’re historically reliable. That’s a contradiction and completely illogical.
If that’s not important, then just say so. To historians, it IS important when trying to determine what happened in history.
Please watch Jimmy's introduction
The Gospels are only 4 of 20 gospels that were handpicked by the church. There is no way they are reliable. At the very least, they are anonymous and they make claims of miracles. Nope.
Two really smart and kind men. I enjoyed this
Jimmy, what do Christianity, Islam and Mormonism have in Common?
So how did the "wise men" who came from the east and who sighted a star in the east, manage to follow that star to Jesus'birthplace in the Levant which was due west of them?
It moved
@@caseyshelton7216 god magic. Research star movement to see if it lines up with your theory. The monthly positions of the stars change because of the interaction between the rotation of the earth around its axis and the orbit of the earth around the sun. The stars rotate around the north and south celestial poles; hence the stars are always moving relative to a point on the earth's surface. (UNLESS THEIR MOVED BY GOD MAGIC)
well, it's possible to use a star in the east to navigate to the west, in fact it's well known how to do so. here's what you need: a sextant (developed c. 1750's), an accurate chronometer (developed c. 1800's) and a nautical almanack (19th century). Then what you do is take a star sight (of course you have to know the elevation of your observation location, which might be difficult in the middle of the desert, and you have to get an accurate horizon, which again might be difficult at night, which is when stars are typically visible) and figure out your position- with practice you can probably get within a couple miles or so. Then you look at your charts to determine the lat/long of the manger you are navigating toward (because of course you know where the manger is, don't you?), you plot a course, and bob's your uncle! So you can see the biblical story is 100% accurate!
It was likely a comet which people then referred to as a 'star'. This is backed up by other ancient literature. The comet with a tail (hence the pointing) was likely the one that appeared in 5 BC per Chinese records.
They didn't follow the star and it never says they did. These men were likely astrologers who interpreted the star's appearance. They took it as a sign of the birth of a king.
1:39:00 It seems Dr. Ehrman is confusing John 19:35 ("The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe") with John 21:24 ("This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.")
John didn't write the book of John, are you kidding? 😂
@@nauticdixonsWhy do you not think he did?
One of the most important debates. Respect from both sides and good points. However I must agree with Jimmy. The point is that the overarching message of the gospels is true and reliable. The details may differ but they are immaterial and these details which differ, are not in contradiction with the overall message of the gospels.
I really hope that jimmy and Bart could continue their debate over a couple of beers!
I can't believe the comments I am reading. Sorry if I offend you but Bart is totally in command of the material. Jimmy is an embarrassment. I can assure you there are Roman Catholics who are well acquainted with modern New Testament analysis (the historical critical method) and they will agree with Bart in some points. That's who should really be discussing the situation with Bart, they will be able to really go at it with Bart, not this guy who thinks if he gets Bart to agree that Jesus was a Jew etc. that shows the NT is reliable. He pulled the points from Bart's own books, duh, Bart made those points and yet doesn't think in crucial points the NT is reliable. Ask why, Bart is not so stupid that he doesn't realize what he wrote. All four gospels say he was resurrected, so what if they give different accounts, that is supposed to be a knock-down argument? It totally misses the point. If four accounts disagree on the details you have reason to believe they are not reliable in what they report.
Did anyone find what Bart was talking about in Luke 24? I tried looking it up but I couldnt find it.
Because he he absolutely wrong , so not going to find it.
@@beorbeorian150 he still must have been referring to something. He wouldn’t quote something if it wasn’t there, that would make for a poor argument. (Tho I do think he has the wrong interpretation, but it’s important to be able to know his arguments and where they stem from so I can discuss this with people who have been led away from Christianity due to his books)
He’s referring to Luke 24:13, through to the end. It all occurs on the same day and evening of the resurrection, and the disciples are told to remain in Jerusalem.
@@davethebrahman9870 Beor Beorian, do you care to update your moronic remark? Looks like yes going to find it.
@@davethebrahman9870 Luke 24:13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.
Where were they told exactly to stay in Jerusalem?
Luke 24:14 And they were talking with each other about all these things which had taken place.
Luke 24:15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them.
This seems quite rightly done. Good dialogue
From a Bayesian perspective, Jimmy makes a solid case for reliability. Bart's notion of reliability comes off as subjective in contrast. Sadly Jimmy didn't have time to sketch the two houses case.
So they have 2 houses one in Nazereth and one in Bethlehem but there is no room at the Inn and she gives birth in a barn 🤪😂😍🤣🤣🤣
@trump bellend I think it is a minor point..?
People seem to want it to flow like a just so story rather than being real life. The complaint is like "you wrote the story down wrong because you didn't explain this thing I don't understand". We don't know why, but there are a dozen of plausible reasons why -
He might have rented it out and simply couldn't for the tenants to leave.
It might have not been suitable for them staying in in general - eg it was small, filled up with materials and tools and just didn't have a bed.
It may have been a distance away and they didn't want to travel further at night.
The midwife Joseph was using in town was close to the inn and they couldn't travel to his house for some reason.
Real life is messy.
My parents put their cat in a pet hotel when they went on vacation. Several of their pets stayed at home - the cat was new and not getting along with the others. The cat freaked at the pet hotel and I had to go get him, but the cat couldn't go back to their house and I was leaving town so we had to go find another pet sitter for a weekend - somebody skeptically scrutinizing an account that included my parents hired a stranger to watch their cat while the other pets stayed home in 2000 years might scoff.
Real life is messy.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You can’t use “life is messy” when scripture doesn’t make sense, but then you’re certain about something use the opposite premise.
@Nahmanides Scripture is clear about what it's clear about. Ascriptural events, the wider context of scriptiral events can be debated within the confines of history and the text. That's not having your cake and eating it too, that's understanding the limitations of what can be known and what can't be known for certain.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 Scripture isn’t really clear about anything though. There are probably 10 separate interpretative traditions for each piece of scripture.
We as humans extrapolate information based upon many different variables.
The way you or I interpret a specific chapter or verse is vastly different than a 2nd century Jew or 6th century Monophysite.
I’ve studied rabbinical interpretive tradition ,early Christian interpretative tradition, and both Jewish and Christian early modern interpretive tradition and what I’ve realized is that all of them, while having some shared underpinnings, extrapolate different verses largely based upon the cultural climate they live in. None of us were alive or spoke to the authors of ANY scripture, so we’re all basically guessing as to what they actually meant.
Ultimately, we all see what we want to see. And especially now 20 centuries later, most Christian’s view the Bible from the point of view of long established scriptural traditions, often times erroneously established.
This is the only opponent of Bart that I've come across to actually respect Bart. Almost all Bart's opponents before this debate are trash, talks trash to Bart, etc..
Hoping next time for a dialogue between Bart and Akin, in a podcast! That would be fun! 💯💯
Historical reliability is fact
Supernatural inerrancy is faith
They are historically partially unreliable that’s a fact for sure
You can’t have stark contradictions and also claim reliability
yep
Your existence proves you wrong.
Bart @1:31:22 reminds Jimmy that he said he wasn't going to use faith during the debate. Jimmy said no he didn't say that but I thought I heard it too so I looked back and he did in fact say, "...we are not here to debate faith tonight as Bart said we're looking at the gospels from a historical perspective..."
The question was questioning a faith statement in the text though.
It would be like if Bart asked how people resurrect
wonderful debate, great tone, super duper!
This was the first time I watched this debate and I can tell Bart was not ready for Jimmy to go in the direction he did in his opening statement. I enjoyed it a lot!
It was a good debate. I didn't understand the effectiveness of what Jimmy was doing in his opening. There are many true things in the Mormon Bible and the Quran, but that doesn't mean the actual story is reliable in both cases.
Ready or not, Bart was certainly able and more than prepared to rebut Akin's apologetics. Mostly because Akin's argument was not really reasonable, it only sounded like it was until given a little careful thought beyond assuming he was making actual sense.
Dear@@joelrivardguitar You raise an excellent point. I agree with you; There are many true things in different scriptures and text and that doesn't mean the whole thing's reliable, but how do you personally go about establishing what's reliable from what's not?
Because if different texts say contradictory irreconcilable things, then either all are incorrect or only one is correct.
What falsification means and criteria do you employ to distinguish reliability?
@@SearchKnowTruth The Gospels do not harmonize, you can read Bart Ehrmans Jesus Interrupted for some examples or just buy The Synopsis of the Four Gospels by American Bible Society, which shows each verse side by side.
It's generally accepted that Mark is the source for the other Gospels, the Markan Priority arguments are given here:
bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
Mark does not seem to be writing history but using older narratives to construct a story, Dr Carrier writes a bit about that and some of the info is used here:
lagevondissen.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/the-gospels-as-allegorical-myth-part-i-mark/
But the theology is not Jewish, it's Platonic/Hellenism. David Litwa and Richard Miller write about this. J.Z. Smith as well. Dr Tabor also has many free resources on this topic, all PhD historical scholars. Here is one:
Death & Afterlife: Do Christians Follow Plato rather than Jesus or Paul?
Dr James Tabor
ruclips.net/video/MYyXf4V8e9U/видео.html
5:40 1st Hebrew view of cosmology and afterlife. The dead are sleeping in Sheol, earth is above, the firmament is above that and divides the upper ocean from falling to earth,
7:50 A linear version emerged with time and an end times and final Judgment.
Genesis says you will return to dust.
9:00 Translation of Genesis 2:6 God breathes the breath of life into Adam (giving him a soul). The actual Hebrew translation is “living-breathing”, meaning all life is this.
10:40 Hellenistic period - the Hebrew religion adopts the Greek ideas.
Sources the Britannica article and explains it’s an excellent resource from an excellent scholar. (JZ Smith)
13:35 In the Hellenistic period the common perception is not the Hebrew view, it’s the idea that the soul belongs in Heaven.
14:15 The basic Hellenistic idea is taken into the Hebrew tradition. Salvation in the Hellenistic world is how do you save your soul and get to Heaven. How to transcend the physical body.
Greek tomb “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home”
15:46 Does this sound familiar, Christian hymns - “this world is not my home, I’m a pilgrim passing through, Jesus will come and take you home”.
Common theme that comes from the Hellenistic religions. Immortal souls trapped in a human body etc…
47:15 Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology
Material world/body is a prison of the soul
Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world
Death sets the soul free
No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth
Immortality is inherent for all humans
Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul
Humans are fallen and misplaced
Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free
Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed
Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul
49:35 Genesis view
Creation/body very good, procreation good
Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth
Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust”
Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation
Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation
Humans belong on earth
Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body
Death is an enemy
Physical life and sensory pleasures are good
But really, even if all of the text kept the theology perfect and the Greeks were not involved and they strictly used OT resurrection/end times theology which was Jewish beliefs, that doesn't make it true.
What?😂😂
I love it when my prejudices jump up and poke me in the eye. I had never seen or heard of Mr. Akin before this. Based upon the thumbnail, I didn't expect much from him. Shame on me. I enjoyed his arguments a lot, and I'm a certified Bartfan®.
Glad to be able to reach across the aisle and make a favorable impression. Incidentally, off stage, Bart and I have gotten alone extremely well. Both very friendly.
@@JimmyAkin Thank you for your kind response. I think I'll enjoy following you.
@@colacurciolaw7745 Thanks! And feedback--from multiple perspectives--is *always* welcome!
I also enjoy it when my prejudices poke me in the eye. I don't know why I enjoy it so much.
Acts 1:3-4 say he was seen 40 days and commanded them to stay in Jerusalem. But Bart is confused with Mark where is says, “And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.” The fame and the people are separate.
It is not “fame”. Mark 16:7 says in the NRSV “ But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you. “.
This is a complete contradiction with Acts 1:3-4. The question is: why did the author of Luke/Acts change it?
@@michaelhenry1763 In Luke 24:13 and Mark 16:12-13 relay Jesus meeting two of them walking towards Jerusalem after the resurrection - early in the morning.
Luke 24:6 “He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee” Notice “when you were yet in Galilee” signifying Mark 9:30-32 and Luke 9:43-45 wherein Jesus told them of the resurrection and they at that time didn’t understand.
Mark 16:7 “But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.”
Acts 1:3-4 “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.”
He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem; which does not infer that they were then at Jerusalem; for they seem to be at Bethany, or on the Mount of Olives, from whence they afterwards returned to Jerusalem; and from thence they had orders not to depart, where the blood of Christ had been shed. So there is no contradiction here at all.
@@JesusThineBeTheGlory Are you using the King James Version? Does your Bible denote the difference in Mark’s endings?
I recommend using a different English translation. The original Mark ended in 16:8, “So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” ( NRSV)
This is ending that Matthew and Luke had. They did not like Mark’s ending and added to it. Later scribes felt uncomfortable with Mark’s abrupt ending and added to it. Scribes in the 4th century CE added the “shorter ending of Mark”. The scribe took inspiration from the gospel of Matthew, “ And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east and west, the scared and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
After the fourth century, scribes thought both the original ending and the shorter ending was inadequate and added verses 9 through 20 which reflects stories from the gospel of Luke.
Mark 16:7 and Acts 1:3-4 contradict each other because one says to go to Galilee and the other says stay in Jerusalem. Luke used Mark as a source. The question is why did he change it?
@@michaelhenry1763 Not sure why you're bringing up Mark 16:9-20 since the commenter didn't mention that at all.
Mark 16:7 and Acts 1:3-4 in no way contradict each other. Mark 16:7 takes place on Easter while Acts 1:3-4 takes place right before the Ascension, which was 40 days later.
This, like every other so-called "contradiction" is resolved by just reading the text. How all of these PhD's are respected when they fail this basic task is beyond me.
@@grantgooch5834 I did not bring up Mark 16:9-20, I instead brought up Mark 16:7. Mark 16:7 portrays the angel telling the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to meet Jesus. Acts 1:3-4, portrays Jesus as ordering the disciples to stay in Jerusalem. Where have they been for the last 40 days ( between his resurrection and ascension)? In Jerusalem. This is a complete contradiction. In one gospel they are supposed to be in Galilee in Acts they are in Jerusalem and then are ordered to stay in Jerusalem.
Here is the text:
”After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait there for the promise of the Father. “This,” he said, “is what you have heard from me;“
Acts 1:3-4 NRSVUE
Compare that to Mark 16:7:
”But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”“
Mark 16:7 NRSVUE
In Acts, within the 40 days, does Jesus ever go to Galilee? No. The entire 40 days takes place in Jerusalem.
Interestingly, the gospel of Luke contradicts Acts where Jesus ascended from. Luke says Bethany and Acts says Mount of Olivet:
”Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,“
Luke 24: 50-52 NRSVUE
”They said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.“
Acts 1:11-12 NRSVUE
What did you cut at the end of the video in the last sentence of Bart’s summing up?
Livestream glitch. You shouldn’t assume he cut it out.
At 1:14:37, Bart Ehrman is incorrect. It is not explicit in Luke 24 that verse 44+ (where Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem) is on the same day as the previous verses where they first discover Jesus after the resurrection. The "on the same day" reference ties two earlier events, not the command to stay in Jerusalem.
In fact, when we relate this to Acts 1 (also written by Luke) we know the time period was 40 days altogether within the events of Luke 24, so we know there are time gaps not laid out in detail within Luke 24, which is *corroborated* by Matthew 28 and John 20-21, not contradicted by them.
This makes sense, since witnesses (eg: Matthew) are going to remember the long trip to Galilee and back, where this wouldn't be front-of-mind to a writer like Luke who didn't take the trip.
if you read the text carefully.. all the events are on the same day.
Luke 24.. "on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, ..." The women find the tomb empty, they rush to tell the Disciples.. Peter runs and goes away in amazement.
verse 13.. Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus,.....29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.”
33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together.
36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them.....
49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
@@oceancoast92657 No, it's not on the same day (the part from verse 49, where Jesus goes up to Heaven). If you read the Book of Acts Chapter 1, 1-10 you can see that this talk happens on the day 40. And Luke is the author of the Book of Acts.
Jesus appeared to all apostles except Thomas at the first day, as it's being said in Luke, but the talk from the verse Luke 24:49 happens on day 40.
Just like Matthew didn't say that "they immediately go to Galilee" as Bart claimed. There is no such a phrase in the text.
Just read Luke 24:49-53 and the Book of Acts 1:1-13. Luke, the author of Book of Acts explains it more detailed that it was on day 40, when Jesus commanded the disciples to stay in Jerusalem and was taken into Heaven. So no any contradiction with Matthew that Jesus met with the disciples in Galilee, also because in the Books of acts it's says that the disciples saw Jesus during those 40 days. So there is just no any contradictions at all.
@Russell DeLong
Correct!
@@oceancoast92657 Verse 44 is likely a separate day. We know verse 50 is a separate day, and neither have clean breaks.
@@QuadraticSquared 'likely "? If you can prove that "IT WAS " the next day then maybe, just maybe, you'd have an argument.
And bart give more answers on 1,48 30 , a very good answer 😎😎 small and sort answer but is a big point 🙏🏿
I'm just to the part where Jimmy is about to cross examine. This is the most evenly matched I've seen Jimmy in a while. I wish there was more time for him to explain the stuff that's on his website (hilarious addition btw). Bart was an excellent sport and thankfully can laugh at himself. I loved the wit, integrity and rigor in this debate. I wish there were more like this one.
I am so glad to watch this debate. Though a skeptic, Dr. Bart Ehrman agrees that the historic man Jesus is not a myth, but a man who existed and died on the cross. Though I am not a catholic, Thanks to Jimmy for defending the reliability of the gospels. As a Christian, I am no more concerned about the historical Christ (Christ in flesh). As Apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:16 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more".
That was all you got from the debate? 😂
Take RCIA
Another fabulous religious debate. Very insightful.
Great job Jimmy and Bart! Great job to the audience and moderator! In this debate I really got the sense that Bart is approaching this material not only as a renowned academic, but with the compassion that comes from understanding what these topics mean to people who still believe them to be true.
Such a great comment.
It's why I enjoy talking to other scholars. Usually well-studied people (even if we have conflicting conclusions) talk to each other respectfully.
Bart is coming from a Sola Scriptura evangelical perspective the irony of which is he morphed into an all or nothing agnostic biblical scholar utilizing his original critical thinking skill set ( Sola Scriptura ) Catholics and Orthodox adherents have a healthy perspective on biblical and historical history putting it into a more mystical and practical interpretation .... Bart’s narrative is so far away from the original scriptural understanding it’s no wonder he and so many people are misguided ...
I think Bart is obstinate in his belief and refuses to consider error bars around his dating or his views.
@@eswing2153 do you have a specific example?
Dr. Brant Pitre has some devastating stuff on how the Gospels were NEVER anonymous
let hear em then. waiting for a debate with bart so brant can get destroyed
So they all just happened to title them Gospel according to me without even explaining who they were and no one identifies them as such until Papias?
@@tomasrocha6139 read the Book. I won't follow this ridiculous line of reasoning.
@@mrnarason Wallace points out that even as anonymous books, they carried enough internal weight to be accepted as reliable. Conversely, the 2nd century gospels like Thomas Mary and Peter were not anonymous but were spurious and had unreliable material. So, how important is anonymity in reality? LOL.
I am thankful for those God has gifted with the ability to reason as you do Mr. Akin. God bless you and continue to give you wisdom! " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering."
And let us beseech God to make his ears bigger and his nose blue while we’re at it
@@markrichter2053 And I have no idea what that means.
This is such an excellent talk
Jimmy I love you forever.