I look up to Jimmy so much. I wish we had more men like him he is so knowledgeable about the faith. I’m a convert as well come this Easter vigil I will be confirmed into the church and he just gives me so much hope that you don’t have to be a candle Catholic to study and know the faith.
Tap dancing again from the theistic god trickster; faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, otherwise we can believe anything on faith; he deliberately omits to mention that the gospels weeere unsigned, and were simply translated as a church tradition. Also, belief in the supernatural is unfalsifiable, yet ridiculous. The invisible and non existent look very much alike.
I'm a relatively fresh athiest revert. At the time that I saw that debate, I was very freshly reverted. If Bart had done well, my faith would've been shaken, but it in fact only strengthened. Jimmy used a very athiestic highly logical approach against Bart, which was super effective.
James White said the same thing you did: when Ehrman is on the ropes, he resorts to arrogance and ruthlessness, and sometimes ad hominem attacks. But credentialism/appealing to an expert is in and of itself a logical fallacy, so even in Ehrman's counter to White he was wrong.
Appeals to authority aren't always fallacious. They're only fallacious when one appeals to an authority that doesn't have the required expertise on the given subject matter. It wouldn't be fallacious for me to say that a particular view on metaphysics is wrong because St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, and others disagree with you. Hence Bonaventure, citing Augustine, even remarks: "What we believe we owe to authority." If, in discussing some theological view, one said: "Well, modern empirical scientists disagree so you're wrong" then yes: THAT is an INFORMAL fallacy of appeal to authority.
The "Dr." James White that purchased a fake doctorate from a diploma mill to give himself authority and that claims that he's right because he's taught Greek all the time?
@@lhgihsThis is not true. It is always a fallacy. However, just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t meant it isn’t true, it just means it’s deductively flawed.
The Ehrman debate was great! One of my favourites. Idk about "trouncing" but I loved the way Jimmy approached the debate and it was honestly a breath of fresh air
Jimmy was really good. He also did a lot of speculation which raises doubt as to what is actually true. His whole argument on Mary and Joseph having two homes was speculative.
Honestly as a Christian I was hopong Jimmy would win undoubtedly. However, I do not think Jimmy won. For example, Bart actually was correct about Luke's Resserection account. Jesus dies say to "stay in the city, until you are clothed with power" so Barts claim about the Apostles being told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days is actually correct, Jimmy said Luke never said that, but it is exactly what Luke said. So now I am wondering how to reconcile that with the other Gospels.
Read, Pray, and be honest in your heart with the Lord. Ask HIM for the answers and the Spirit will lead you. We cannot become like the Gnostics that Paul warned Timothy about in 1st Timothy, obsessed with arguments and seeking knowledge just to win debates. We should read the Word FIRSTLY to seek His Kingdom and its Righteousness.
I will say for Ehrman, he at the very least attacks Christianity on a historical and textual level. It's a more substantive approach that Dawkins and Hitchens, who basically resorted to Oxonian browbeating and straw-men.
@@Bengal9063 Sound argument, I'm apostatizing immediately in light of this new evidence. Thank you for exposing the Church by saying that their worldview has no grounding in evidence, and that they have only fabricated, by imagination, all their arguments for it.
@johnmarkharris And James white Quoted Allands work in his debate with Erhman and Erhman just brushed it off. Seems like Scholarship by convenience to me.
I was graced to have been able to attend this one! I really enjoyed it. I remember I was quite star struck when saying hello to Jimmy, and I completely forgot what I was going to say. I ended up saying something like, “hey, I’m a really big fan of yours!” He was gracious and said “thank you,” before going back up on the stage. lol
Nah, I’ve met celebrities. It was neat, but they’re not really that big of a deal to me. Jimmy is one of the people I’ve looked up to in the faith for decades.
Not really. Christians were and sometimes are clever as a serpent when you need to be, and you present the fake humility of a dove when you need to be. That is manipulation ONLY, of a kind Machiavelli would be proud. That is not different from the Fox and the Lion, that the powerful know how to do anyway. That's my objection to you.
@@asliketheson Make an actual argument. Or you will prove me right. Christians created the atheists they rail against. Since you both operate from the same manipulation prime directive.
This was awesome. So many times we are simply trying to win the argument instead of the man. I pray for Bart so much and hope God softens his heart and opens his eyes and ears to the Gospel of Jesus as real.
Taking the argument to its logical end, it's basically saying that the Bible doesn't have to be completely accurate for it to be reliable. The problem with that line of reasoning is that you're saying it's possible for a book with inaccuracies to be the Book of God
@@أفلاكالأفكار and your Allan thinks the sun goes down in a puddle of mud and Jews worship Ezra as the son of God. Your holey book is inaccurate in every Aya
@@ToursPoitiers732 You can't even understand basic literature. The Quran saying that Dhul Qarnayn saw the sun setting in a black/very dark spring (e.g. looking at a body of water and seeing the reflection of the sun setting) DOESN'T mean that the sun is LITERALLY setting in the spring. How did you even pass an English Literature class if you can't even understand that? And there were Jews who viewed Ezra to be a son of God, as they say in the Torah that David is a son of God
@@أفلاكالأفكار why is Allan not correcting dhul qarnayn? Why does Allan think that the Pharao paid with dinars? There were NO Jews who WORSHIPPED Ezra as son of God. Why does Allan think that Mary is part of the trinity? It goes on and on. Do yourself a favour: throw your holey book into the next 🗑️
@@mattm7798 that’s a correct statement When theologians admit God can’t make a married bachelor.. or make mathematics different For the same reason God can’t make an apple both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way .. God can’t make ‘ something from nothing’ That’s one reason the miracles in the Bible are compelling Stopping the sun in the sky in Joshua Shooting fire in The Book of Chronicles Jesus healing people or turning water into wine It’s not hard to imagine how these miracles could be done without breaking the law of Non contradiction But I completely understand what Ehrman was saying there People who are bewildered by what he said, simply do not understand the implications
@@mattm7798 it’s also interesting the Bible teaches that God created the universe from pre existing matter It’s later theologians who invented the ‘ ex nihilio “ nonsense
Um, not sure where the Bible teaches that God created the universe out of pre-existing matter. Not that it would make that much of a difference since time matter and space had to start at some point.@@keenanmiller6231
Hitchens IMO arguments are fairly weak. He was just SO good at debating and combined with his accent and very quick wit, created numerous moments where he sounded great...but the actually meat of his arguments were often quite weak, often boiling down to "I don't like that God did this"
@@mattm7798Meanwhile WLC is still banging the drum for the Cosmological argument and has now called out Einstein's theories as being incorrect because they don't agree with WL's preferred version of A and B time theory. WLC is nothing more than a philosophical sophist.
They must be talking about a different debate. Because the debate I watched Bart Ehrman was very polite and respectful on both sides. But Jimmy Akin certainly did not decimate Bart, if anything Bart one the debate.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
Debates are next to useless in persuading the other side. To paraphrase Scott Adams: Each side is watching a different movie on the same screen at the same time.
I watched the debate. While putting inerrancy off the table Jimmy argued that the Bible is reliable in the “jist” of the its claims. That’s not good enough for me.
I gotta correct you real quick Bart didnt train under Kurt alland he trained under Bruce Metzger who was the leading textual critic in the world before he passed. Metzger didnt hold Barts views on preservation, James white is a textual critics also but hes not a scholar although he did quote scholarship Dan wallace , Kurt alland & Silva but Bart just brushed them off. Bart kinda gave up on Textual critical matters a long time ago & started focusing on other issues. I thought James white won that debate & Bart kinda admitted on his Blog. James asked him to name 1 textual variant that changes the meaning of an entire book & Bart couldnt answer that question sufficiently. Was a great debate though for sure.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
@@tomasrocha6139 Nice cope bro hope it makes you feel better! Ehrman very clearly lost the debate and Luke 2:7 doesn't refute Jimmy's point about St. Joseph having 2 houses.
@@tomasrocha6139 And she brought forth her first born son and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger: because there was no room for them in the inn. I suppose they remained in the cave for the allotted time it takes before one can present the first born to the temple (40 days). I guess that’s entirely reasonable, since there is no other scripture passage claiming they found more suitable lodgings following the abrupt need for shelter. Therefore, there is no other way to view that scripture passage. If it’s not written, it didn’t happen. Jimmy is really not as intelligent as he is thought to be.
With all charity, I feel bad for kids who grow up in Fundamentalist groups, or even Evangelical groups that take the Bible more literally. I think those kids often grow up to be hardened atheists because they “discover science” and get a bunch of “proofs” for why Jonah was swallowed by a whale and not a fish 🙄🧐🫠 I’m grateful for the “Baptized Imagination” and how Catholicism (and certain Protestant traditions) recognize the depth and width of God’s word and of the human soul. Symbolism and imagery are all over the Bible and I’m ever thankful for the Holy Spirit working through people who pointed those examples out to me. And well done, Mr. Akin! You were instrumental to my conversion and baptism ✝️🙌🥰
I get it, people have a right to disbelieve. I don't know much about this particular chap but, generally speaking, the aggressive, condescending, vitriolic new atheist types need to give it a rest already. They want so bad for God not to exist. I'm starting to think it's not so much a disbelief in God, but rather a hatred of Him for the imposition of existence itself.
Lol atheists are the biggest time wasters on this planet. At least Christian try to convert people because they believe it will benefit non-believers (eternal happiness and a mansion in heaven, who would reject that? lol). While atheists have no basis on why they need to change people mind by spending big portion of their life doing mental gymnastics to prove something they believe doesn't even exist or even matters at all in the end . If it's true we all going into blank void and cease to exist, then why it matters whether it's true or not? Heck even everything that exists in this universe doesn't matter then. It's like little kids arguing who would win in a fight, Batman or Spiderman, even though they know they're just fictional character 🤣.
As an athiest I think your point about new athiests is correct. Arrogance is never good. I think one needs to differentiate between the reasonableness of a set of beliefs. For example it's much harder to defend evangelical beliefs compared to other forms of chistianity.
This was the first time I had heard of Jimmy before, and after the debate he went straight to the top of the list of trusted apologists. I'm a believer 100%, but of course we all have some unanswered questions that may not affect our faith and belief in God. I've come to like Erhman, of course he is now a heretic however he does seem genuine and honest, as most of these guys are. So I did come in to the debate thinking Erhman would come out on top, however I was left jaw dropped by Jimmy. I had never seen anyone dig deep enough or use such sensical hermeneutics in apologetics before. The topic of Joseph having 2 living arrangements was an eyeopener for me, so logical yet so overlooked. Jimmy's overtly kind and loving approach was incredibly admirable. It's nice to see some legitimate apologetics being used in Christendom. I can't wait to see more of Jimmy in the future.
I don't know what apologetics are for. I can explain ANYTHING. Literally. Give me ANY story now matter how outrageous and I can defend it. Even ones with outright logial impossiblities. Go ahead, write the craziest story that makes no sense at all and I will find ten different ways to defend it.
@@drac7478 i’m not arrogant any person of reasonable intelligence could do it. I don’t know maybe you have to be a little above average but not some genius or anything. If you think it’s such an amazing claim, I’m making prove me wrong . I’m really not joking or trying to be a jerk. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but of course I think we both know it’s not that hard to defend something if we really want to. But again, if you think I’m being arrogant, go ahead and challenge me. You could probably do this yourself if I gave you a strange religion and gave you $1000 to defend it.
@@joecheffo5942 "In the land of Zindlewump, where thoughts were made of spaghetti and dreams wore top hats, a peculiar event was unfolding. The Grand Squeezle, a majestic creature with feathers of molten clocks, had lost its whispering wibblewobble, a mythical artifact said to unravel the threads of whimsy. Dibberbop, the acorn-wrapped wizard, flitted about on his wobbly zingsnatch, a flying contraption made of rubbery wishfulthinking and liquid chortles. He was on a quest to locate the wibblewobble, which had mysteriously vanished into the Snorflingwood Forest, where trees hummed polka-dots and rivers gurgled in hexadecimal. The forest was ruled by the Marflut, a council of animated toadstools with monocles and impeccable bookkeeping skills. They suggested that Dibberbop consult the Tinkleblorf, a creature known for its recursive riddles and penchant for knitting clouds into origami. Dibberbop traversed through swirling staircases of caramel and wobbly hills of glitter, only to discover that the Tinkleblorf had transformed itself into a nonsensical labyrinth of kaleidoscopic crinklepuffs. The more he searched, the more the labyrinth expanded into ever-bizarre dimensions, where time ticked sideways and shadows giggled. Finally, in a twist of improbable improbability, Dibberbop tripped over a flibbering quibble and accidentally dislodged a pocket of cosmic snorflins. Out of the pocket leapt the wibblewobble, now a splendid, quasar-colored balloon. The Grand Squeezle, appearing in a cascade of luminous cheese, gratefully accepted the wibblewobble, and the Snorflingwood Forest erupted into a harmonious cacophony of flamingo rhapsodies and dandelion confetti. And so, Dibberbop returned to his acorn, forever pondering the enigmatic essence of the Tinkleblorf’s riddles and the unfathomable nature of a world where nothing quite made sense, yet everything fit perfectly into the chaos of Zindlewump."
I wouldn’t call the graves opening up in Matthew 27 or the census requiring everyone go to their home of ancestry in Luke 2 “minor historical claims”. Bart made good points about how Christians wouldn’t trust the history of Ceasar by Seutonius as “historically reliable” the same way non Christians wouldn’t treat the gospels as historically reliable.
@@LetsgoB Yes, the barely educated ZZ Top cosplayer made "quick work" of the noted, elite scholar, who teaches the material at an elite university. In a related fantasy, zombie gods are real.
This is a great example of the saying “self praise is no recommendation “. I watched the debate . Did Bart agree that Jesus did miracles? No. Did he agree that he died for our sins? No. Did he agree that he rose from the dead? No. Did he agree that he ascended to heaven. No. So, what debate did Jimmy win? Hilarious.
Christian apologetics at its best: "Joseph had two houses" ... :) Of course, Jimmy, that was common in antiquity ... carpenters owning several houses (let alone they're 100 miles (a week's journey on foot) apart).
@@Xymage It isn't impossible yet highly unlikely. It isn't impossible that he commuted between his houses (100 miles apart) on a pink unicorn. However that is extremely unlikely. Logic, reason dictates that the most reasonable explanation is that the authors did not agree on Joseph's place of residence.
Exactly. Jimmy Akin lost every exchange. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
@@HunnysPlaylists Jimmy Akin tried to argue that Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem which is refuted by Luke 2:7. Since there was no room for Mary to give birth in Joseph owned no home in Bethlehem. Another blunder of his was when he said Joseph's genealogies in Matthew and Luke are two biological lines given they name different men as Joseph's father . Lastly he denied that Luke tells them to stay in Jerusalem till Pentecost which is just falseI am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” He also denied that in Luke the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusaelm for 40 days even though it says so plainly in Luke 24:49 .
The gospels can be both reliable and unreliable. People ... intelligent people ... will have differing opinions about how much is reliable, and to what degree. If Akins in fact demolished Ehrman in the debate, a logical result would have been a massive conversion to some form of Christianity (including Ehrman). Debates are more about how quickly one can think on their feet than about any right answer. It's entertainment, and generally doesn't move the needle one way or the other.
I think the same. Bart is not going away anytime soon, just because of Jimmy Akin's claim. People can keep their faith and scholars can keep dissecting the NT. There's room for both.
"If Akins in fact demolished Ehrman in the debate, a logical result would have been a massive conversion to some form of Christianity (including Ehrman)." It is not a logical conclusion, at all. There are MANY people, who, when confronted with the question "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" flat out say "No." For most people, it has nothing to do with the head... it's all in the heart.
You're presupposing people will do something because it is true. Do people avoided pre-marital sex because they could have children with a person they don't love/want a life with? Do people eat avoid junk food because it's true that it's better for your health? Even when Jesus was here and did miracles in front of people they still didn't believe. I'm not sure why you think it's some sort of requirement that the truth will have a 100% following
The gospels cannot be both reliable and unreliable. That's a contradiction. Historical reliability has a pretty clear, rigorous definition that the gospels, alongside the majority of ancient sources, simply do not meet. Even Aiken knew this, which is why he moved the goalpost in the debate and declared that a text is historically reliable as long as most of the main claims it makes are true. No scholar would ever accept that definition
The inability to move focus from “owning” others is the single greatest indicator of insecurity. Pretending that Jesus doles out high fives for reveling in the schadenfreude following the public mockery and disparaging of another human being rather than their misguided ideas betrays a complete lack of understanding of Him and his Word.
Assigning motive to people's actions is the single greatest indicator of ignorance because only God knows the heart. I'm not even Christian and I know that. Can you point to how it is sinful to express joy over victory in battle? Do you believe Jimmy was lying when he said he had concern for the emotional well being of his opponent? Are Christians not supposed to take up the metaphorical sword and fight? Your pedantic rhetoric gives rise to so many questions. Perhaps Jimmy should just perform some miracles next time he is in a debate. After all, that's how Christ convinced so many people.
I’ve always felt like Bart’s issues with Christianity are emotional more than academic. Then once he stepped into the role of hero atheist of the elites, that really became his identity. You can see in some of his tweets that his heart is broken without the love of Jesus; this was particularly obvious in a tweet about how much he longed for the love of Jesus around Christmas.
I suppose you're right on that point. He has stated many times that he lost his faith, not for academic reasons, but inability to rationalize the problem of evil, which has nothing to do with his academic field.
@@samuelflippin1890 I didn’t know he had said that. Thanks for sharing that. I assumed he was one of those people that studies the Bible academically & loses faith because of that. From a few things I’ve heard him say U assumed he came from a “Don’t ask questions; just believe.” background. I don’t actively follow him so I only know things about him when he’s popped up national articles or mentioned in other videos, but I’ve heard of a few tweets where he just seems so sad that he’s lost his faith.
James White beat Erhman in a debate first. But seriously, Erhman struggles to stay consistent depending on his audience because he is mostly motivated by money these days. Jimmy was correct right at the start, Erhman doesn't like that God didn't use a divine photocopier to transmit the text of scripture, and it's silly.
What? James White whole argument was that the amount of absolute textual variants is high because there are lots of copies but the relative amount is small and Ehrman easily shot that down by pointing out that the bulk of copies we have are the work of trained copyists from the Middle Ages and that the earliest copies are filled with textual variants.
@tomasrocha6139 I don't think you understood the debate. White was correct on the issue you are trying to bring up and Erhman's response was a deflection away from White's actual argument. Even Erhman admitted on his own blog that it wasn't his best debate, and he didn't post it for years.
@@chemnitzfan654 What? No, James White was seemingly unaware that the earliest copies were copied by complete amateurs and have far more variants than the extremely late medieval copies which were the work of professional copyists that he was trying to use to argue that the relative number of textual variants is very low.
@@tomasrocha6139 He was arguing that the number of meaningful textual variants is low. A spelling mistake, deletion, or duplication is meaningless, especially when we have so many copies with such early dating.
I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman. "I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..." William Lane Craig
Not sure why it matters so much to an atheist to do well in a debate. For what reason are they trying to change minds? Make more people accepting of the ethics that flow from evolutionary theory?
The fewer people follow archaic bronze age ethics the better for humanity as a whole. The bible is a terrible guideline that advocates for the oppression of minorities and women and deserves to be forgotten about.
I wonder how Ehrman reacts to John 14:26. Does he assume that that verse was simply added later, and that John is anyway the last Gospel to be written, so that what other scholars might be willing to think the effects of the Holy Spirit can be dismissed as further purely-human meddling in the Scriptures and traditions that we have?
I just watched the debate and I don't get the clai at all that you won, or even trounced Ehrman. I mean the fact that he got you to assert that Joseph was economically deprived and yet had two properties 100 miles apart. Just weird and bizarre claims from a historical perspective.
@@thedude0000 The Church Created ALL you know, don’t know, and take for granted. without your remaining Catholic Capital you lose every single ounce of it.
St Joseph Is The Patrilineal Descendant Of King David. you are also applying modern standards of monetary home "ownership" on a barter-based society that actually allowed uninhibited private ownership of land without taxation.
@@thedude0000 At least apologists doing so because believe that you would get a mansion in paradise later. What's atheist purpose of debate? why it matters so much if we will end and dissapear into emptiness? even if that's true, what benefit you or they get since everything in the end won't matter anyway? if it won't matter, why matter now? the real definition of wasting time and energy, while knowing you will go into nothing is even worse reality than despair. The real definition of anti-purpose, or anti-meanings. You don't believe? who cares? why put so much mental gymnastics to prove that we're just monkeys? just make money, build family, live a peace "meaningful" life. If you're smart and want to be happy, Theism is much better option. We are not monkees, we are precious and loved by God. Simple question: does love exists? where it come from as the source, and in most perfect degree?
That was a pretty bad point to be honest. Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus and his family were well off, quite the opposite. To postulate that they were poor but had 2 houses in 2 different places in is wild.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 you are also applying modern standards of monetary home "ownership" on a barter-based society that actually allowed uninhibited private ownership of land without taxation.
The magnificent hat has a really lovely way of treating interlocutors. It's great. And his note about James White, well, I wish James White would take to heart. White has a bit of an arrogant streak that gets him into trouble sometimes. He often assumes he's the smartest man in the room. I may grant that he often is, but it's an unhelpful trait that burns him. I think his recent debate with Trent Horn is another example of that. Now, I've learned a great deal from White, and I greatly appreciate his ministry, so I just want to see him improve.
So I’m a little high right now because I’m getting ready for bed and I’m aware that might skew my perception here so I’ll need y’all to tell me if it’s the cannabis…. Does this guy look like Erhman with a red beard? He even sounds like him. I swear when he imitated Bart (at 5:55) it looked like Ehrman was dressed up as a farmer for Halloween.
Bart's laugh is a coping mechanism to try to affably disarm those he is speaking with. It is charming at first, but the more you listen to him, the more annoying it becomes.
@@igorlopes7589 The test is if you ask yourself "Was that funny enough to laugh" you will realize it is more like a nervous TIC than real laughter. I wonder when he developed that? If after his apostasy, it may be an insight to the trouble of his soul.
Friend, a real God wouldn't leave us to even have to argue over how reliable or unreliable supernatural claims from thousands of years ago are. A real God that wanted a personal relationship would just appear.
Okay, and is this just your opinion which you are reading into how God should or should not reveal himself? What are you basing this on? What if I said “God has left us with reliable testimony but some people do everything they can to interpret it as not so”.
@The07vinny Well, the bible is the claim not testimony and you can't prove that a god is real. But playing along I would ask what's your definition of reliable because the Bible has been shown to be unreliable.
@@gabrieledwards1066 I disagree. The Bible has been shown to be reliable. why do you think the Bible shown to be unreliable? Also, I’m not saying I can prove God is real. All I’m saying is you should not base if God is real or not based on what you think a God would or wouldn’t do, especially if the Bible is filled with numerous testimonies about a God that has revealed himself throughout history
Lmao please check your Western-centric bias. The West is in open crumbling if not collapse and Christianity is still growing in non Western areas. The war is over in the West, but the West as we know it isn't gonna make it forever, and the West is not the world.
An educated and organized minority dominates a disunited and hedonistic majority. That is why Christians internally dominated the Roman Empire. Today, we take it for granted and have become apathetic and complacent. Thus the humanists, secularists, enlighteners, communists dominated us.
Non believers don't want any part of your "wars". We just want to live our lives free of the absurd bronze age sensibilities you people want to force on society.
I heard William Lane Craig talk about his own concerns on debating Hitchins: Craig (and, I think, the host of this program) were not concerned that he would actually lose - I.E. that Hitchens' arguments would be superior or Craig's main points would be disproven... They were concerned that because Hitchens is a clever, witty charismatic person, he would charm his way into "winning" the debate in the court of public opinion. Craig didn't say that directly - that's my paraphrase, but I think it's an accurate summary 😊.
@@benschenkenberger9971Hitchen’s brother Peter spoke about this in an interview where he talked about his debate with him back in the late 90s in Michigan I think it was. I believe he said something like it didn’t really matter what his points were because everybody applauded at everything his brother said anyways.
Exactly. Jimmy Akin lost every exchange. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
I’m an atheist and sided with Bart Ehrman on that debate. But I did think Jimmy Akin made some very good points in the debate and his friendly manner was great to see. Both debaters seemed to agree on most things except on what it means for something to be reliable. But it was a fun debate to watch.
I just watched the White V Ehrman debate Jimmy is talking about…… and White actually did EXTREMELY well during Ehrmans cross examination. “Raked over the coals”?? “Extremely embarrassing”?? Maybe I watched the wrong debate….
White's main argument in that debate is that textual variants are infrequent as a percentage of all copies, which is completely irrelevant as the vast majority are medieval copies (by trained copyists) of very late copies already infected with textual variants and corruption making them useless for establishing what the originals (which were copied by untrained amateurs) said. I wouldn't call it extremely embarrassing but it's a very poor argument.
@@tomasrocha6139 I don't find it poor. The counter argument has to go all in on the big assumption that untrained copiests must have made such an extreme mess of the texts that we dont hacve a clue what they say. thats pretty implausible. the skill difference between a trained and untrained copiest will be something but not *that* big. It's literally just copying words. And the whole premise of that objection is circular anyway, you have to presume that no divine agency was involved ensuring the message got across in order to presume that those mistakes were made
“At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;”
Exactly. No matter what it’ll boil down to do you believe Gods Word or not. The Lord will not be impressed by anyone trying to poke holes in His Word. It’ll all come down to who is paying for your sins. You, or Jesus, but they will be paid for.
Woooooow! What an enormous concession by Ehrman! I try to look at debates both from what I know & from an audience who may not know very deeply the topic of debate. I thought Jimmy's 1st rebuttal was hefty (presenting Ehrman's own professional work). But, Ehrman is really gifted at rhetoric. I think Ehrman's stage presence & rhetoric was excellent throughout the rest of the debate. His substance & reasoning on the other hand are incredible. He is scrapping the bottom of the barrel & trying to in desperation to find some false miniscule detail. I think in this debate towards the end Ehrman compares the history of Jesus with either Romulus & Remus and, or the founder of Greece (I can't remember his name at the moment). That's so ridiculous. Plutarch concedes that this area is highly speculative (something like that, (I don't have the quote with me).
Romulus and I think Barts point was that jesus was not the only historical figure to claim goodhood and later ascend to heaven. Romans did believe Romulus became a minor deity later in life and that gods took him up to heaven.
The gospels could be right about every single verifiable non-miraculous detail… and that still wouldn’t be evidence that any of the unverifiable miraculous parts happened at all.
@@MrProsat Nope… the exact opposite is the case. The only people who take the gospels as a whole are religious fundamentalists who signed a statement of faith that the Bible is inerrant no matter what the evidence says.😉 Even most Christian historians will tell you which parts of the gospels are fiction, which parts are forgeries and which sayings of Jesus were invented by the authors of the gospels.
@@ramigilneas9274 "Most Christian historians" are making guesses based on a priori ideas. They come to the table with preconceived notions that Jesus CANNOT be God. That is clear in their writings, which makes their self-proclaimed titles as being "christian historians" not worthy of considering seriously. You don't need to be a religious fundamental to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. And many do not understand what Christians mean when they say that. It doesn't mean that the Bible is literal throughout. For example, even in the 4th century, Christians were contemplating that the author of Genesis was not INTENDING to state that God created the universe in 6 literal days. The author's INTENT may be that he was using days in a metaphorical manner. That becomes clear when you see TWO creation stories inbedded within the first few chapters. So "Christian historians" need to take that into account. What is the intent? Literal history? Literal "CNN" type narratives? Such reading back their preconceived views into the intent of authors is just a straw man argument.
Weird thing about Bart is he writes entire books about how the NT cannot be trusted because of all the minor variations and that it has been changed etc, but co-writes a book with Metzger which says "yeah, we basically can say we know with a high certainty what the OG NT says". His allegations of contradictions are a separate manner(and have been answered numerous times)
Jimmy didn't beat Bart at all. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
@@thecatholiccorner In Matthew that's what happened since they were already living there when Jesus was born and only leave for Nazareth after returning from Egypt because they fear Herod Archelaus but in Luke they only go to Bethlehem for a supposed census then visit Jerusalem and return to Nazareth. Akin tried to reconcile this by arguing Joseph had homes in both towns but then Jesus being born in a manger because there was no room as reported in Luke 2:7 makes no sense.
@@Anyone690 So Joseph's family was so inconsiderate they couldn't make a little space for Mary to give birth? But then in Matthew Mary and Joseph had enough room to stay in Bethlehem for around 2 years until Herod ordered the Massacre of the Innocents and then after returning only left for Nazareth for fear of Herod Archelaus, not for lack of space.
That's quite the strawman. It doesn't have to be out of a lack of consideration. Since Joseph's kin from all over would likely have also returned to Bethlehem for the census, it is likely that the elderly of the family took priority in getting the beds. As the Gospel accounts show, you don't need a nice warm bed to deliver a baby. That's just one explanation I can think of off the top of my head.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 Since the Romans registered people at their place of residence it's highly unlikely that elderly kin would have to travel to Bethlehem to get registered.
Jesus existed is a poor argument to verify the major claim of Jesus' Ascension. Jimmy picked the major claims. Bart should have rebutted with different major claims.
"Ehrman disputes a few minor claims"? "Minor" claims like the virgin birth, Jesus being the son of God, and Jesus' resurrection? The claims which are the entire basis of the religion? Or does he mean the claims which are 100% false such as the census that required everyone to return to his ancestor's hometown or the massacre of infants by Herod?
Jimmy Akin lost that debate when he tried to argue that Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem which is refuted by Luke 2:7. Since there was no room for Mary to give birth in obviously Joseph owned no home in Bethlehem.
@@tomasrocha6139 Erhman had the burden of proof in the debate which he failed to meet. Jimmy did not have to prove Joseph’s ownership of property but merely offer a reasonable alternative explanation. Clearly David’s descendants were vast and they all had to return to Bethlehem for the taxes. Thus, it makes sense that the family house was full.
@@tomasrocha6139 If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
@@LetsgoB "David’s descendants were vast and they all had to return to Bethlehem for the taxes" You think the Romans somehow knew or cared for people's ancestors from 42 generations ago? That ficticious census is yet another big bible blunder that Ehrman pointed out in the debate.
I'm gonna have to check this debate out, I've got to admit 99% of the "theist beats atheist" videos are click bait, so it'll be good to see some good arguments for theism!
Just listened to the Ehrman/Akin debate. I thought that they both did fine. But, trounced? Absolutely trounced??? Wow!!! If that isn't epitome of confirmation bias.
Exactly. Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
I watched (partially) the debate. Ehrman's position was the Gospels are not reliable on "supernatural" occurrences referenced in the bible; the virgin birth and surrounding story of stars pointing the way, the resurrection and ensuing story. He does not argue the point that Jesus existed. No, Jimmy, you did not win any debate on these issues. You won on a play on words. Are there olive trees in Palestine? Yes, there are. Do they bear fruit in winter? No, and Jesus did not cause them to be bare in winter, nature does that all by itself.
Jimmy's approach to the reliability of the Bible is ridiculous. Just because a book correctly states that a city or king exists doesn't make it correct when it states that a man rose from the dead. Different claims require different evidence.
I didn't see the debate that is referred to here, but I strongly doubt that this guy "trounced" Ehrman. As to the question of the reliability of the Gospels, what if we just use a very simple metric: that these texts describe and defend a whole series of miracles (from the small stuff like turning water into wine all the way to the large stuff, like people being raised from the dead, including of course the central claim of Jesus's own resurrection) which have never been reliably witnessed anywhere in the world, in the whole of recorded human history? If this Akin guy can provide examples -- let's say, from the last thee hundred years of historical record -- of comparable miracles occurring in the actual world we inhabit, then I might begin to have some faith in the miraculous claims of the Gospels. But of course he can't. Seas don't part (Exodus), corpses don't miraculously come alive again, loaves and fishes don't miraculously self-replicate. These things don't happen, and have never happened. QED.
"If I saw the miracles, I would believe" no miracle is enough for you, there are plenty going on every day and you still don't believe. Nuns body didn't decompose, Eucharistic Miracles, apparition of Mary over Guadalupe, so on and so forth. You don't see miracles because you are lazy and choose not to look. I'm not sure what you mean by Jesus's resurrection has never been reliably witnessed, it's a pretty large religion 😂. Imagine 100 people go to Walmart and watch a gallon of milk fall, they go and spread the word about the gallon of milk falling. Then because I personally don't think the milk fell [not because of lack of evidence] I say, "the milk falling was never reliably witnessed". That would be pretty silly wouldn't it
I look up to Jimmy so much. I wish we had more men like him he is so knowledgeable about the faith. I’m a convert as well come this Easter vigil I will be confirmed into the church and he just gives me so much hope that you don’t have to be a candle Catholic to study and know the faith.
God bless you. My family joined five years ago this Easter. Best decision I've ever made!
Welcome home,pal.
Welcome home brother
Tap dancing again from the theistic god trickster; faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, otherwise we can believe anything on faith; he deliberately omits to mention that the gospels weeere unsigned, and were simply translated as a church tradition. Also, belief in the supernatural is unfalsifiable, yet ridiculous. The invisible and non existent look very much alike.
@@timothywilliams4089 what?
Ehrman is agnostic and I'm not sure Jimmy won, even though I'm on his side.
I'm a relatively fresh athiest revert. At the time that I saw that debate, I was very freshly reverted. If Bart had done well, my faith would've been shaken, but it in fact only strengthened. Jimmy used a very athiestic highly logical approach against Bart, which was super effective.
@@ultimatefactschampionship8758 You mightve inserted your comment on the wrong thread.
I'm not sure jimmy won either
@@ultimatefactschampionship8758 Thanks for explaining. Your original comment now makes complete sense. 👍
@@alisterrebelo9013 Super-effective in accomplishing what?
James White said the same thing you did: when Ehrman is on the ropes, he resorts to arrogance and ruthlessness, and sometimes ad hominem attacks. But credentialism/appealing to an expert is in and of itself a logical fallacy, so even in Ehrman's counter to White he was wrong.
to be fair, James White does the same thing Ehrman does. See his recent debate with Leighton Flowers.
Appeals to authority aren't always fallacious. They're only fallacious when one appeals to an authority that doesn't have the required expertise on the given subject matter. It wouldn't be fallacious for me to say that a particular view on metaphysics is wrong because St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, and others disagree with you. Hence Bonaventure, citing Augustine, even remarks: "What we believe we owe to authority." If, in discussing some theological view, one said: "Well, modern empirical scientists disagree so you're wrong" then yes: THAT is an INFORMAL fallacy of appeal to authority.
The "Dr." James White that purchased a fake doctorate from a diploma mill to give himself authority and that claims that he's right because he's taught Greek all the time?
@@adamr.6889one bad Christian and one typical atheist
@@lhgihsThis is not true. It is always a fallacy. However, just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t meant it isn’t true, it just means it’s deductively flawed.
The Ehrman debate was great! One of my favourites. Idk about "trouncing" but I loved the way Jimmy approached the debate and it was honestly a breath of fresh air
Jimmy was really good. He also did a lot of speculation which raises doubt as to what is actually true. His whole argument on Mary and Joseph having two homes was speculative.
So he makes up stuff not found in the Bible when in conversation with a Bible scholar?@@SergeantSkeptic686
@@SergeantSkeptic686 And rather nonsensically speculative.
Jimmy held his own, but idea that he “trounced” Earman is ludicrous.
Honestly as a Christian I was hopong Jimmy would win undoubtedly. However, I do not think Jimmy won. For example, Bart actually was correct about Luke's Resserection account. Jesus dies say to "stay in the city, until you are clothed with power" so Barts claim about the Apostles being told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days is actually correct, Jimmy said Luke never said that, but it is exactly what Luke said. So now I am wondering how to reconcile that with the other Gospels.
Honesty and integrity like this is so rare. 👍
How does that conflict with the other gospels?
(And no it doesnt say 40 days, it says until you are clothed with power)
@@ravissary79and when where they ‘ clothed with power’
What is that a reference to ? To Pentecost which is 40 days later
Read, Pray, and be honest in your heart with the Lord. Ask HIM for the answers and the Spirit will lead you.
We cannot become like the Gnostics that Paul warned Timothy about in 1st Timothy, obsessed with arguments and seeking knowledge just to win debates.
We should read the Word FIRSTLY to seek His Kingdom and its Righteousness.
@@Wilm-u1q Very eloquent way to tell him to ignore logic, reason, and facts and just believe blindly.
I will say for Ehrman, he at the very least attacks Christianity on a historical and textual level. It's a more substantive approach that Dawkins and Hitchens, who basically resorted to Oxonian browbeating and straw-men.
No they argue against madness and delusion.
@@Bengal9063 your curses are Consummately Returned.
@@Bengal9063 you have less than nothing outside of The Church.
@@Bengal9063 Sound argument, I'm apostatizing immediately in light of this new evidence. Thank you for exposing the Church by saying that their worldview has no grounding in evidence, and that they have only fabricated, by imagination, all their arguments for it.
Christianity doesn’t hold up to any of the three people you named arguments against religion in general or as a whole.
I'm not sure Ehrman worked with Kurt Aland, I think he worked with Bruce Metzger.
@johnmarkharris And James white Quoted Allands work in his debate with Erhman and Erhman just brushed it off. Seems like Scholarship by convenience to me.
I was graced to have been able to attend this one! I really enjoyed it. I remember I was quite star struck when saying hello to Jimmy, and I completely forgot what I was going to say. I ended up saying something like, “hey, I’m a really big fan of yours!” He was gracious and said “thank you,” before going back up on the stage. lol
Same thing happened to me when I met Jordan Peterson! haha. Except all I could think to say was that it was nice to meet him! What a dunce :-)
Weird. An actual star might well put you in a coma.
Nah, I’ve met celebrities. It was neat, but they’re not really that big of a deal to me. Jimmy is one of the people I’ve looked up to in the faith for decades.
Wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove? Seems to have worked.
I wish to become wise as a dove and gentle as a serpent. Sadly I am not such good things all the time. Certainly I must pray for grace of God.
I love that Christ calls us to use our intellect for His glory, but in a gentle way.
Not really. Christians were and sometimes are clever as a serpent when you need to be, and you present the fake humility of a dove when you need to be. That is manipulation ONLY, of a kind Machiavelli would be proud. That is not different from the Fox and the Lion, that the powerful know how to do anyway. That's my objection to you.
@@charlesnunno8377 lol
@@asliketheson Make an actual argument. Or you will prove me right. Christians created the atheists they rail against. Since you both operate from the same manipulation prime directive.
This was awesome. So many times we are simply trying to win the argument instead of the man. I pray for Bart so much and hope God softens his heart and opens his eyes and ears to the Gospel of Jesus as real.
So you want your god fantasy to afflict Ehrman with heart disease?
The fundamentalist background is definitely his Achilles heel. Glad you guys discussed this.
How so? Isn't Catholicism Jimmy's Achilles' heel?
Taking the argument to its logical end, it's basically saying that the Bible doesn't have to be completely accurate for it to be reliable.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that you're saying it's possible for a book with inaccuracies to be the Book of God
@@أفلاكالأفكار and your Allan thinks the sun goes down in a puddle of mud and Jews worship Ezra as the son of God. Your holey book is inaccurate in every Aya
@@ToursPoitiers732 You can't even understand basic literature.
The Quran saying that Dhul Qarnayn saw the sun setting in a black/very dark spring (e.g. looking at a body of water and seeing the reflection of the sun setting) DOESN'T mean that the sun is LITERALLY setting in the spring.
How did you even pass an English Literature class if you can't even understand that?
And there were Jews who viewed Ezra to be a son of God, as they say in the Torah that David is a son of God
@@أفلاكالأفكار why is Allan not correcting dhul qarnayn? Why does Allan think that the Pharao paid with dinars? There were NO Jews who WORSHIPPED Ezra as son of God. Why does Allan think that Mary is part of the trinity? It goes on and on. Do yourself a favour: throw your holey book into the next 🗑️
Bart Ehrman is always trounced when he isn’t in the room
But when he is in the room .. not so much
Like when he said God can't do miracles because 1+1 can't equal 3?
Agreed. I do however feel Jimmy was the better prepared for this exchange.
@@mattm7798 that’s a correct statement
When theologians admit God can’t make a married bachelor.. or make mathematics different
For the same reason God can’t make an apple both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way .. God can’t make ‘ something from nothing’
That’s one reason the miracles in the Bible are compelling
Stopping the sun in the sky in Joshua
Shooting fire in The Book of Chronicles
Jesus healing people or turning water into wine
It’s not hard to imagine how these miracles could be done without breaking the law of
Non contradiction
But I completely understand what Ehrman was saying there
People who are bewildered by what he said, simply do not understand the implications
@@mattm7798 it’s also interesting the Bible teaches that God created the universe from pre existing matter
It’s later theologians who invented the ‘ ex nihilio “ nonsense
Um, not sure where the Bible teaches that God created the universe out of pre-existing matter. Not that it would make that much of a difference since time matter and space had to start at some point.@@keenanmiller6231
Speaking of Craig defeating Hitch. Hitchens has a solid pro-life argument
Hitchens IMO arguments are fairly weak. He was just SO good at debating and combined with his accent and very quick wit, created numerous moments where he sounded great...but the actually meat of his arguments were often quite weak, often boiling down to "I don't like that God did this"
@@mattm7798Meanwhile WLC is still banging the drum for the Cosmological argument and has now called out Einstein's theories as being incorrect because they don't agree with WL's preferred version of A and B time theory. WLC is nothing more than a philosophical sophist.
@@kingsman428 mst irdmable dmned one, einstein isn't right.
@@kingsman428 einstein based his rlig10n on kant's moral relativism.
@@kingsman428 All Causality Necessitates The Uncreated. All Contingency necessitates The Uncontingent.
Can someone give an example of a point where Ehrman clearly lost in that debate? I felt like Bart did quite well.
The kids call it Cope.
@@gabrieledwards1066is that a no?
@@Christopher-tayso ah, yeah.
It's always like this. Each side thinks they did well.
how could a lyng man do "well?"
They must be talking about a different debate. Because the debate I watched Bart Ehrman was very polite and respectful on both sides. But Jimmy Akin certainly did not decimate Bart, if anything Bart one the debate.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
Jimmy has real Tom Bombadil energy in some ways.
But are his boots YELLOW???
(Coldplay wants to know)
What an endorsement.
2:40 You don't need a time machine. All you need is the Vatican's secret chronovisor! 🙂
(See Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World episode 299 for context.)
I love that we can make these type of references, similar to how comics did it.
Debates are next to useless in persuading the other side. To paraphrase Scott Adams: Each side is watching a different movie on the same screen at the same time.
I watched the debate. While putting inerrancy off the table Jimmy argued that the Bible is reliable in the “jist” of the its claims. That’s not good enough for me.
Well I guess Jimmy should just pack up shop then
@@johnshumate7504 ok? And?
@@johnshumate7504 😂😂😂😂
Just discovered Jimmy - and wondering where i've been all this while - Dude is so on point!
I gotta correct you real quick Bart didnt train under Kurt alland he trained under Bruce Metzger who was the leading textual critic in the world before he passed. Metzger didnt hold Barts views on preservation, James white is a textual critics also but hes not a scholar although he did quote scholarship Dan wallace , Kurt alland & Silva but Bart just brushed them off. Bart kinda gave up on Textual critical matters a long time ago & started focusing on other issues. I thought James white won that debate & Bart kinda admitted on his Blog. James asked him to name 1 textual variant that changes the meaning of an entire book & Bart couldnt answer that question sufficiently. Was a great debate though for sure.
Have you ever heard of "Danth's law"?
This was a great debate. It was fun reading Ehrman's blog after the debate to hear his take, which was an interesting practice in copium on his part.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
?@@tomasrocha6139
@@tomasrocha6139 Nice cope bro hope it makes you feel better! Ehrman very clearly lost the debate and Luke 2:7 doesn't refute Jimmy's point about St. Joseph having 2 houses.
@@BigMan-xz3rm So Joseph owned a home but there was no room for Mary to give birth in? 🤡 And I'm the one "coping" 😂? Christians can be so funny🤣.
@@tomasrocha6139 And she brought forth her first born son and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger: because there was no room for them in the inn.
I suppose they remained in the cave for the allotted time it takes before one can present the first born to the temple (40 days). I guess that’s entirely reasonable, since there is no other scripture passage claiming they found more suitable lodgings following the abrupt need for shelter. Therefore, there is no other way to view that scripture passage. If it’s not written, it didn’t happen. Jimmy is really not as intelligent as he is thought to be.
I thank God for Jimmy Akin. Very wise
With all charity, I feel bad for kids who grow up in Fundamentalist groups, or even Evangelical groups that take the Bible more literally. I think those kids often grow up to be hardened atheists because they “discover science” and get a bunch of “proofs” for why Jonah was swallowed by a whale and not a fish 🙄🧐🫠
I’m grateful for the “Baptized Imagination” and how Catholicism (and certain Protestant traditions) recognize the depth and width of God’s word and of the human soul. Symbolism and imagery are all over the Bible and I’m ever thankful for the Holy Spirit working through people who pointed those examples out to me.
And well done, Mr. Akin! You were instrumental to my conversion and baptism ✝️🙌🥰
At what point in the debate did Jimmy "win"?
I get it, people have a right to disbelieve. I don't know much about this particular chap but, generally speaking, the aggressive, condescending, vitriolic new atheist types need to give it a rest already. They want so bad for God not to exist. I'm starting to think it's not so much a disbelief in God, but rather a hatred of Him for the imposition of existence itself.
Lol atheists are the biggest time wasters on this planet. At least Christian try to convert people because they believe it will benefit non-believers (eternal happiness and a mansion in heaven, who would reject that? lol). While atheists have no basis on why they need to change people mind by spending big portion of their life doing mental gymnastics to prove something they believe doesn't even exist or even matters at all in the end . If it's true we all going into blank void and cease to exist, then why it matters whether it's true or not? Heck even everything that exists in this universe doesn't matter then. It's like little kids arguing who would win in a fight, Batman or Spiderman, even though they know they're just fictional character 🤣.
As an athiest I think your point about new athiests is correct. Arrogance is never good. I think one needs to differentiate between the reasonableness of a set of beliefs. For example it's much harder to defend evangelical beliefs compared to other forms of chistianity.
It kinda reminds me of that dialog in Tombstone where Wyatt asks Doc what makes a man like Ringo tick:
"He wants revenge."
"For what?"
"Being born..."
JP agrees with you, in the large amount of hatred of existence out there.
This was the first time I had heard of Jimmy before, and after the debate he went straight to the top of the list of trusted apologists. I'm a believer 100%, but of course we all have some unanswered questions that may not affect our faith and belief in God. I've come to like Erhman, of course he is now a heretic however he does seem genuine and honest, as most of these guys are. So I did come in to the debate thinking Erhman would come out on top, however I was left jaw dropped by Jimmy. I had never seen anyone dig deep enough or use such sensical hermeneutics in apologetics before. The topic of Joseph having 2 living arrangements was an eyeopener for me, so logical yet so overlooked. Jimmy's overtly kind and loving approach was incredibly admirable.
It's nice to see some legitimate apologetics being used in Christendom. I can't wait to see more of Jimmy in the future.
I don't know what apologetics are for. I can explain ANYTHING. Literally. Give me ANY story now matter how outrageous and I can defend it. Even ones with outright logial impossiblities.
Go ahead, write the craziest story that makes no sense at all and I will find ten different ways to defend it.
@@joecheffo5942 The arrogance is truly permeating all throughout this response.
@@drac7478 i’m not arrogant any person of reasonable intelligence could do it. I don’t know maybe you have to be a little above average but not some genius or anything.
If you think it’s such an amazing claim, I’m making prove me wrong . I’m really not joking or trying to be a jerk. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but of course I think we both know it’s not that hard to defend something
if we really want to.
But again, if you think I’m being arrogant, go ahead and challenge me. You could probably do this yourself if I gave you a strange religion and gave you $1000 to defend it.
@@joecheffo5942
"In the land of Zindlewump, where thoughts were made of spaghetti and dreams wore top hats, a peculiar event was unfolding. The Grand Squeezle, a majestic creature with feathers of molten clocks, had lost its whispering wibblewobble, a mythical artifact said to unravel the threads of whimsy.
Dibberbop, the acorn-wrapped wizard, flitted about on his wobbly zingsnatch, a flying contraption made of rubbery wishfulthinking and liquid chortles. He was on a quest to locate the wibblewobble, which had mysteriously vanished into the Snorflingwood Forest, where trees hummed polka-dots and rivers gurgled in hexadecimal.
The forest was ruled by the Marflut, a council of animated toadstools with monocles and impeccable bookkeeping skills. They suggested that Dibberbop consult the Tinkleblorf, a creature known for its recursive riddles and penchant for knitting clouds into origami.
Dibberbop traversed through swirling staircases of caramel and wobbly hills of glitter, only to discover that the Tinkleblorf had transformed itself into a nonsensical labyrinth of kaleidoscopic crinklepuffs. The more he searched, the more the labyrinth expanded into ever-bizarre dimensions, where time ticked sideways and shadows giggled.
Finally, in a twist of improbable improbability, Dibberbop tripped over a flibbering quibble and accidentally dislodged a pocket of cosmic snorflins. Out of the pocket leapt the wibblewobble, now a splendid, quasar-colored balloon. The Grand Squeezle, appearing in a cascade of luminous cheese, gratefully accepted the wibblewobble, and the Snorflingwood Forest erupted into a harmonious cacophony of flamingo rhapsodies and dandelion confetti.
And so, Dibberbop returned to his acorn, forever pondering the enigmatic essence of the Tinkleblorf’s riddles and the unfathomable nature of a world where nothing quite made sense, yet everything fit perfectly into the chaos of Zindlewump."
Jimmy Akin is my favorite apologist. He is one very smart dude. His podcast is great.
It's super cute thinking that Jimmy won that debate.
yeah it is 😂😂😂 He was being so humble he decimated him
I wouldn’t call the graves opening up in Matthew 27 or the census requiring everyone go to their home of ancestry in Luke 2 “minor historical claims”.
Bart made good points about how Christians wouldn’t trust the history of Ceasar by Seutonius as “historically reliable” the same way non Christians wouldn’t treat the gospels as historically reliable.
That argument presupposes the only evidence for Jesus is in the gospel accounts. Which simply isn't true
Maybe I’m alone on this one but I don’t see any problem in accepting the History of Caesar by Seutonius as a Catholic.
@@Xymage This was a debate about the historical reliability of the Gospels, not about the evidence for Jesus's resurrection
Jimmy is smart and doesn't make personal attacks to prove his point. I could listen to him talk about anything.
Jimmy Akin is so underrated… its crazy.
By whom??
But who rates him?
In what respect?
Jimmy made quick work of that cat.😂
@@LetsgoB Yes, the barely educated ZZ Top cosplayer made "quick work" of the noted, elite scholar, who teaches the material at an elite university. In a related fantasy, zombie gods are real.
This is a great example of the saying “self praise is no recommendation “. I watched the debate . Did Bart agree that Jesus did miracles? No. Did he agree that he died for our sins? No. Did he agree that he rose from the dead? No. Did he agree that he ascended to heaven. No. So, what debate did Jimmy win? Hilarious.
Nice story bro.
Christian apologetics at its best: "Joseph had two houses" ... :)
Of course, Jimmy, that was common in antiquity ... carpenters owning several houses (let alone they're 100 miles (a week's journey on foot) apart).
You're saying it was impossible for someone to have two houses? The pinnacle of logic here guys, pack it up 2000 years down the drain
Yes, because he had to return to his place of Birth.
He's also the last living Patrilineal descendent of Abraham.
@@Xymage It isn't impossible yet highly unlikely.
It isn't impossible that he commuted between his houses (100 miles apart) on a pink unicorn. However that is extremely unlikely.
Logic, reason dictates that the most reasonable explanation is that the authors did not agree on Joseph's place of residence.
Exactly. Jimmy Akin lost every exchange. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
To be fair, I don't think he trounced him but did do well.
Why not?
@@HunnysPlaylists Jimmy Akin tried to argue that Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem which is refuted by Luke 2:7. Since there was no room for Mary to give birth in Joseph owned no home in Bethlehem.
Another blunder of his was when he said Joseph's genealogies in Matthew and Luke are two biological lines given they name different men as Joseph's father .
Lastly he denied that Luke tells them to stay in Jerusalem till Pentecost which is just falseI am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
He also denied that in Luke the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusaelm for 40 days even though it says so plainly in Luke 24:49 .
@@tomasrocha6139 Christ being Born in a Manger fulfills The Old Testament.
@@tomasrocha6139 Joseph is Patrilineally linked to King David and Moses and Abraham.
@@tomasrocha6139 St Joseph was the true King, the last of his line.
The gospels can be both reliable and unreliable. People ... intelligent people ... will have differing opinions about how much is reliable, and to what degree. If Akins in fact demolished Ehrman in the debate, a logical result would have been a massive conversion to some form of Christianity (including Ehrman). Debates are more about how quickly one can think on their feet than about any right answer. It's entertainment, and generally doesn't move the needle one way or the other.
"The gospels can be both reliable and unreliable.". That kinda sucks when eternal toasting is at stake.
I think the same. Bart is not going away anytime soon, just because of Jimmy Akin's claim. People can keep their faith and scholars can keep dissecting the NT. There's room for both.
"If Akins in fact demolished Ehrman in the debate, a logical result would have been a massive conversion to some form of Christianity (including Ehrman)."
It is not a logical conclusion, at all. There are MANY people, who, when confronted with the question "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" flat out say "No."
For most people, it has nothing to do with the head... it's all in the heart.
You're presupposing people will do something because it is true. Do people avoided pre-marital sex because they could have children with a person they don't love/want a life with? Do people eat avoid junk food because it's true that it's better for your health?
Even when Jesus was here and did miracles in front of people they still didn't believe. I'm not sure why you think it's some sort of requirement that the truth will have a 100% following
The gospels cannot be both reliable and unreliable. That's a contradiction. Historical reliability has a pretty clear, rigorous definition that the gospels, alongside the majority of ancient sources, simply do not meet. Even Aiken knew this, which is why he moved the goalpost in the debate and declared that a text is historically reliable as long as most of the main claims it makes are true. No scholar would ever accept that definition
"If I misrepresent my opponent, I won." The dishonesty here is staggering.
He was well but James white, Daniel wallace, marck licona was well too
The inability to move focus from “owning” others is the single greatest indicator of insecurity. Pretending that Jesus doles out high fives for reveling in the schadenfreude following the public mockery and disparaging of another human being rather than their misguided ideas betrays a complete lack of understanding of Him and his Word.
Assigning motive to people's actions is the single greatest indicator of ignorance because only God knows the heart. I'm not even Christian and I know that. Can you point to how it is sinful to express joy over victory in battle? Do you believe Jimmy was lying when he said he had concern for the emotional well being of his opponent? Are Christians not supposed to take up the metaphorical sword and fight? Your pedantic rhetoric gives rise to so many questions. Perhaps Jimmy should just perform some miracles next time he is in a debate. After all, that's how Christ convinced so many people.
I would like to see a Br. Peter Diamond vs Jimmy Akin debate. I wonder Akin would debate him or run for the hills?
I’ve always felt like Bart’s issues with Christianity are emotional more than academic. Then once he stepped into the role of hero atheist of the elites, that really became his identity. You can see in some of his tweets that his heart is broken without the love of Jesus; this was particularly obvious in a tweet about how much he longed for the love of Jesus around Christmas.
I suppose you're right on that point. He has stated many times that he lost his faith, not for academic reasons, but inability to rationalize the problem of evil, which has nothing to do with his academic field.
@@samuelflippin1890 I didn’t know he had said that. Thanks for sharing that. I assumed he was one of those people that studies the Bible academically & loses faith because of that. From a few things I’ve heard him say U assumed he came from a “Don’t ask questions; just believe.” background. I don’t actively follow him so I only know things about him when he’s popped up national articles or mentioned in other videos, but I’ve heard of a few tweets where he just seems so sad that he’s lost his faith.
James White beat Erhman in a debate first.
But seriously, Erhman struggles to stay consistent depending on his audience because he is mostly motivated by money these days.
Jimmy was correct right at the start, Erhman doesn't like that God didn't use a divine photocopier to transmit the text of scripture, and it's silly.
What? James White whole argument was that the amount of absolute textual variants is high because there are lots of copies but the relative amount is small and Ehrman easily shot that down by pointing out that the bulk of copies we have are the work of trained copyists from the Middle Ages and that the earliest copies are filled with textual variants.
@tomasrocha6139 I don't think you understood the debate. White was correct on the issue you are trying to bring up and Erhman's response was a deflection away from White's actual argument.
Even Erhman admitted on his own blog that it wasn't his best debate, and he didn't post it for years.
@@chemnitzfan654 What? No, James White was seemingly unaware that the earliest copies were copied by complete amateurs and have far more variants than the extremely late medieval copies which were the work of professional copyists that he was trying to use to argue that the relative number of textual variants is very low.
@@tomasrocha6139 He was arguing that the number of meaningful textual variants is low. A spelling mistake, deletion, or duplication is meaningless, especially when we have so many copies with such early dating.
Were you watching a different debate?
He was in it.
I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman.
"I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..."
William Lane Craig
I'm curious if this is true, I highly doubt it. But but I'll watch the source material and see.
To answer your question wondering, no, Akin didn’t defeat Ehrman.
To answer your question wondering, yes, Akin defeated Ehrman.
@@Xymage no he didn’t
@@jimurban5367 OK Lil bro whatever you say
@@Xymage What a tool.
Not sure why it matters so much to an atheist to do well in a debate. For what reason are they trying to change minds? Make more people accepting of the ethics that flow from evolutionary theory?
Yet they're the ones saying that religion is just a "coping mechanism"
The fewer people follow archaic bronze age ethics the better for humanity as a whole. The bible is a terrible guideline that advocates for the oppression of minorities and women and deserves to be forgotten about.
I wonder how Ehrman reacts to John 14:26. Does he assume that that verse was simply added later, and that John is anyway the last Gospel to be written, so that what other scholars might be willing to think the effects of the Holy Spirit can be dismissed as further purely-human meddling in the Scriptures and traditions that we have?
Ask him. He knows scripture and the context a thousand times better than you.
Jimmy Rocks!
I just watched the debate and I don't get the clai at all that you won, or even trounced Ehrman. I mean the fact that he got you to assert that Joseph was economically deprived and yet had two properties 100 miles apart. Just weird and bizarre claims from a historical perspective.
debating an apologist is the equivalent of playing a pigeon in chess. They strut around knocking all the pieces over and then claim victory.
@@thedude0000 The Church Created ALL you know, don’t know, and take for granted. without your remaining Catholic Capital you lose every single ounce of it.
St Joseph Is The Patrilineal Descendant Of King David.
you are also applying modern standards of monetary home "ownership" on a barter-based society that actually allowed uninhibited private ownership of land without taxation.
you are trying to "argue" that immaterial details somehow refute unrelated Facts you know are unimpeachable.
@@thedude0000 At least apologists doing so because believe that you would get a mansion in paradise later. What's atheist purpose of debate? why it matters so much if we will end and dissapear into emptiness? even if that's true, what benefit you or they get since everything in the end won't matter anyway? if it won't matter, why matter now? the real definition of wasting time and energy, while knowing you will go into nothing is even worse reality than despair. The real definition of anti-purpose, or anti-meanings. You don't believe? who cares? why put so much mental gymnastics to prove that we're just monkeys? just make money, build family, live a peace "meaningful" life. If you're smart and want to be happy, Theism is much better option. We are not monkees, we are precious and loved by God. Simple question: does love exists? where it come from as the source, and in most perfect degree?
Jimmy literally did mental gymnastics. Joseph had 2 houses, etc
That was a pretty bad point to be honest. Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus and his family were well off, quite the opposite. To postulate that they were poor but had 2 houses in 2 different places in is wild.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 St Joseph Is The Patrilineal Descendant Of King David.
@@nenadmilovanovic5271 you are also applying modern standards of monetary home "ownership" on a barter-based society that actually allowed uninhibited private ownership of land without taxation.
you are trying to "argue" that immaterial details somehow refute unrelated Facts you know are unimpeachable.
your curses are Consummately Returned.
The magnificent hat has a really lovely way of treating interlocutors. It's great.
And his note about James White, well, I wish James White would take to heart. White has a bit of an arrogant streak that gets him into trouble sometimes. He often assumes he's the smartest man in the room. I may grant that he often is, but it's an unhelpful trait that burns him.
I think his recent debate with Trent Horn is another example of that.
Now, I've learned a great deal from White, and I greatly appreciate his ministry, so I just want to see him improve.
Terrible neckbeard
So I’m a little high right now because I’m getting ready for bed and I’m aware that might skew my perception here so I’ll need y’all to tell me if it’s the cannabis….
Does this guy look like Erhman with a red beard? He even sounds like him. I swear when he imitated Bart (at 5:55) it looked like Ehrman was dressed up as a farmer for Halloween.
This is some Sun Tzu Art of War type stuff bro 🤯
God be praised
Bart's laugh is a coping mechanism to try to affably disarm those he is speaking with. It is charming at first, but the more you listen to him, the more annoying it becomes.
It is also a way to make him seem more smart. After all if he laughed it must be going pretty easy for him, for sure he is winning the debate!
@@igorlopes7589 The test is if you ask yourself "Was that funny enough to laugh" you will realize it is more like a nervous TIC than real laughter. I wonder when he developed that? If after his apostasy, it may be an insight to the trouble of his soul.
See Paulogia's recent interview with Ehrman dismantling the distortions, misinformation and outright idiotic garbage spewed in this vid.
Friend, a real God wouldn't leave us to even have to argue over how reliable or unreliable supernatural claims from thousands of years ago are. A real God that wanted a personal relationship would just appear.
☝️ This.
Okay, and is this just your opinion which you are reading into how God should or should not reveal himself? What are you basing this on? What if I said “God has left us with reliable testimony but some people do everything they can to interpret it as not so”.
@The07vinny Well, the bible is the claim not testimony and you can't prove that a god is real. But playing along I would ask what's your definition of reliable because the Bible has been shown to be unreliable.
@@gabrieledwards1066 I disagree. The Bible has been shown to be reliable. why do you think the Bible shown to be unreliable?
Also, I’m not saying I can prove God is real. All I’m saying is you should not base if God is real or not based on what you think a God would or wouldn’t do, especially if the Bible is filled with numerous testimonies about a God that has revealed himself throughout history
@@gabrieledwards1066Lil bro has been shown to be unreliable
Wise as serpents and gentle as a dove… and pull the rug right out underneath him.
Non believers may win a skirmish but they have lost the war.
Atheism is raising, Christianity is falling. Especially young people do not believe. Gay marriage is legal. You guys have lost already.
Amen amen amennnnnnnnn
Lmao please check your Western-centric bias. The West is in open crumbling if not collapse and Christianity is still growing in non Western areas. The war is over in the West, but the West as we know it isn't gonna make it forever, and the West is not the world.
An educated and organized minority dominates a disunited and hedonistic majority. That is why Christians internally dominated the Roman Empire. Today, we take it for granted and have become apathetic and complacent. Thus the humanists, secularists, enlighteners, communists dominated us.
Non believers don't want any part of your "wars". We just want to live our lives free of the absurd bronze age sensibilities you people want to force on society.
I can't believe the host is impressed with Hitchens!!
I can't believe he initially doubted William Lane Craig's ability to debate Hitchens!!
😂
I heard William Lane Craig talk about his own concerns on debating Hitchins:
Craig (and, I think, the host of this program) were not concerned that he would actually lose - I.E. that Hitchens' arguments would be superior or Craig's main points would be disproven...
They were concerned that because Hitchens is a clever, witty charismatic person, he would charm his way into "winning" the debate in the court of public opinion.
Craig didn't say that directly - that's my paraphrase, but I think it's an accurate summary 😊.
@@benschenkenberger9971Hitchen’s brother Peter spoke about this in an interview where he talked about his debate with him back in the late 90s in Michigan I think it was. I believe he said something like it didn’t really matter what his points were because everybody applauded at everything his brother said anyways.
It depends on what you wanted. Both employed different types of sophistry, and neither offered any persuasive arguments or evidence.
@@benschenkenberger9971 Well, since Craig is and was a dishonest shitbag, that concern makes sense.
I think I saw this debate. Akin was obliterated. I have no idea what these gentlemen are talking about
Exactly. Jimmy Akin lost every exchange. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
Do you know if this debate is on RUclips?
@@OLJoe947 Yes
DEBATE: Jimmy Akin vs. Bart Ehrman | Are the Gospels historically reliable
At Catholic Answers and Jimmy Akin's channels.
@@tomasrocha6139 thank you I am watching now. I always like to submit my own scorecard then look at the reactions before any bias is introduced
Agreed
I’m an atheist and sided with Bart Ehrman on that debate. But I did think Jimmy Akin made some very good points in the debate and his friendly manner was great to see. Both debaters seemed to agree on most things except on what it means for something to be reliable. But it was a fun debate to watch.
I just watched the White V Ehrman debate Jimmy is talking about…… and White actually did EXTREMELY well during Ehrmans cross examination. “Raked over the coals”?? “Extremely embarrassing”?? Maybe I watched the wrong debate….
White's main argument in that debate is that textual variants are infrequent as a percentage of all copies, which is completely irrelevant as the vast majority are medieval copies (by trained copyists) of very late copies already infected with textual variants and corruption making them useless for establishing what the originals (which were copied by untrained amateurs) said. I wouldn't call it extremely embarrassing but it's a very poor argument.
@@tomasrocha6139 I don't find it poor. The counter argument has to go all in on the big assumption that untrained copiests must have made such an extreme mess of the texts that we dont hacve a clue what they say. thats pretty implausible. the skill difference between a trained and untrained copiest will be something but not *that* big. It's literally just copying words. And the whole premise of that objection is circular anyway, you have to presume that no divine agency was involved ensuring the message got across in order to presume that those mistakes were made
“At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;”
Exactly. No matter what it’ll boil down to do you believe Gods Word or not. The Lord will not be impressed by anyone trying to poke holes in His Word. It’ll all come down to who is paying for your sins. You, or Jesus, but they will be paid for.
Oooh.....
claiming victory when the other person isn't there to state their side......
bravo
Woooooow! What an enormous concession by Ehrman!
I try to look at debates both from what I know & from an audience who may not know very deeply the topic of debate. I thought Jimmy's 1st rebuttal was hefty (presenting Ehrman's own professional work). But, Ehrman is really gifted at rhetoric. I think Ehrman's stage presence & rhetoric was excellent throughout the rest of the debate.
His substance & reasoning on the other hand are incredible. He is scrapping the bottom of the barrel & trying to in desperation to find some false miniscule detail.
I think in this debate towards the end Ehrman compares the history of Jesus with either Romulus & Remus and, or the founder of Greece (I can't remember his name at the moment). That's so ridiculous. Plutarch concedes that this area is highly speculative (something like that, (I don't have the quote with me).
Romulus and I think Barts point was that jesus was not the only historical figure to claim goodhood and later ascend to heaven. Romans did believe Romulus became a minor deity later in life and that gods took him up to heaven.
I'm Catholic. I saw the debate. I wouldn't say Akin trounced anyone.
Even James (trying to be cool) white, couldn't do that.
Wasnt trounced. Akin just cleverly avoided questions.
Atheist homer. For non believers you sure do believe what you want to on the subject of this debate. Ehrmann got embarrassed 😂
@@ajcics Doesnt matter what I believe. Akin didnt trounce anybody
I appreciated how nice Jimmy was. I think Bart is a good guy, albeit misguided
The gospels could be right about every single verifiable non-miraculous detail… and that still wouldn’t be evidence that any of the unverifiable miraculous parts happened at all.
Heres some tissues 🧻
@@joe5959
Seems like almost all Christian historians agree with me.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Not really. Most historians see the gospels as an entire whole, rather than picking and choosing verses that "are not proven".
@@MrProsat
Nope… the exact opposite is the case.
The only people who take the gospels as a whole are religious fundamentalists who signed a statement of faith that the Bible is inerrant no matter what the evidence says.😉
Even most Christian historians will tell you which parts of the gospels are fiction, which parts are forgeries and which sayings of Jesus were invented by the authors of the gospels.
@@ramigilneas9274 "Most Christian historians" are making guesses based on a priori ideas. They come to the table with preconceived notions that Jesus CANNOT be God. That is clear in their writings, which makes their self-proclaimed titles as being "christian historians" not worthy of considering seriously.
You don't need to be a religious fundamental to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. And many do not understand what Christians mean when they say that. It doesn't mean that the Bible is literal throughout. For example, even in the 4th century, Christians were contemplating that the author of Genesis was not INTENDING to state that God created the universe in 6 literal days. The author's INTENT may be that he was using days in a metaphorical manner. That becomes clear when you see TWO creation stories inbedded within the first few chapters.
So "Christian historians" need to take that into account. What is the intent? Literal history? Literal "CNN" type narratives? Such reading back their preconceived views into the intent of authors is just a straw man argument.
Bart is a great mind, precise, knowledgeable, he knows his stuff. I'll have to find this debate.
How to debate Bart:
1. Flatter him
2. Hug him
3. Use Bart against Bart
4. Beat him
Weird thing about Bart is he writes entire books about how the NT cannot be trusted because of all the minor variations and that it has been changed etc, but co-writes a book with Metzger which says "yeah, we basically can say we know with a high certainty what the OG NT says".
His allegations of contradictions are a separate manner(and have been answered numerous times)
Jimmy didn't beat Bart at all. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
I’m lazy, the nice thing about truth is that it makes making your position much easier to argue.
Most people confuse their belief for truth however and are waiting for their turn to speak rather than listen, so yes that is not hard.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
Well he might have because Jesus was technically 2 years old when he left Bethlehem due to Herod’s order to kill first borns - 2 yr. old babies.
@@thecatholiccorner In Matthew that's what happened since they were already living there when Jesus was born and only leave for Nazareth after returning from Egypt because they fear Herod Archelaus but in Luke they only go to Bethlehem for a supposed census then visit Jerusalem and return to Nazareth. Akin tried to reconcile this by arguing Joseph had homes in both towns but then Jesus being born in a manger because there was no room as reported in Luke 2:7 makes no sense.
@@Anyone690 So Joseph's family was so inconsiderate they couldn't make a little space for Mary to give birth? But then in Matthew Mary and Joseph had enough room to stay in Bethlehem for around 2 years until Herod ordered the Massacre of the Innocents and then after returning only left for Nazareth for fear of Herod Archelaus, not for lack of space.
That's quite the strawman. It doesn't have to be out of a lack of consideration. Since Joseph's kin from all over would likely have also returned to Bethlehem for the census, it is likely that the elderly of the family took priority in getting the beds. As the Gospel accounts show, you don't need a nice warm bed to deliver a baby. That's just one explanation I can think of off the top of my head.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 Since the Romans registered people at their place of residence it's highly unlikely that elderly kin would have to travel to Bethlehem to get registered.
Jesus existed is a poor argument to verify the major claim of Jesus' Ascension. Jimmy picked the major claims. Bart should have rebutted with different major claims.
I watched that debate a long time ago and I remember Jimmys performance being pretty petty and embarassing.
Exactly. Joseph a carpenter owned homes in both Bethlehem and Nazareth? Why was Jesus born in a manger then?
God has made Jimmy Akin so humble that the humility has turned him into a verbal and intellectual juggernaut
"Ehrman disputes a few minor claims"? "Minor" claims like the virgin birth, Jesus being the son of God, and Jesus' resurrection? The claims which are the entire basis of the religion? Or does he mean the claims which are 100% false such as the census that required everyone to return to his ancestor's hometown or the massacre of infants by Herod?
Talk about not judging a book by it's cover. What a thoughtful and intelligent Apologist.
This was nonsense - we never saw a single clip that backed up his claims to have beaten ANYONE! This was completely one-sided and unchallenged.
I discovered Jimmy Akin recently. He is really cool.
Erhman got hammered!!!
Jimmy Akin lost that debate when he tried to argue that Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem which is refuted by Luke 2:7. Since there was no room for Mary to give birth in obviously Joseph owned no home in Bethlehem.
@@tomasrocha6139 Erhman had the burden of proof in the debate which he failed to meet. Jimmy did not have to prove Joseph’s ownership of property but merely offer a reasonable alternative explanation.
Clearly David’s descendants were vast and they all had to return to Bethlehem for the taxes. Thus, it makes sense that the family house was full.
@@tomasrocha6139 If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
@@LetsgoB "David’s descendants were vast and they all had to return to Bethlehem for the taxes" You think the Romans somehow knew or cared for people's ancestors from 42 generations ago? That ficticious census is yet another big bible blunder that Ehrman pointed out in the debate.
@@tomasrocha6139Reminds me of my cousin who is working in Texas and coming back to California to renew his CA drivers license.
I'm gonna have to check this debate out, I've got to admit 99% of the "theist beats atheist" videos are click bait, so it'll be good to see some good arguments for theism!
Ehh, I hardly think Bart lost. I’m not even sure we were watching the same video with the title of this interview
"White at one point tried to make himself sound superior on a textual matter"
Well it is a James White debate. He does it in every single one.
Being a popular atheist is like winning a bronze medal in the Special Olympics.
Ouch!
Being a theist gives a wide berth for being special needs.
Just listened to the Ehrman/Akin debate. I thought that they both did fine. But, trounced? Absolutely trounced??? Wow!!! If that isn't epitome of confirmation bias.
I dont think Akin trounced him….ive seen other interlocutors do much better.
Exactly. Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
I watched (partially) the debate. Ehrman's position was the Gospels are not reliable on "supernatural" occurrences referenced in the bible; the virgin birth and surrounding story of stars pointing the way, the resurrection and ensuing story. He does not argue the point that Jesus existed. No, Jimmy, you did not win any debate on these issues. You won on a play on words. Are there olive trees in Palestine? Yes, there are. Do they bear fruit in winter? No, and Jesus did not cause them to be bare in winter, nature does that all by itself.
Lil bro is yappanese
Jimmy's approach to the reliability of the Bible is ridiculous. Just because a book correctly states that a city or king exists doesn't make it correct when it states that a man rose from the dead. Different claims require different evidence.
Our James sounds like he does the opposite of what that other James likes to do in debates :)
He looked like a loon in the Erhman debate!
you saw what you thought could hide your shme ovr sn.
Awesome
"Beat him". Think again. Neither of you can hold a candle to him.
Lil bro loves yapping
@@Xymage About Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law?
@@HunnysPlaylists I was talking about the commenter
I didn't see the debate that is referred to here, but I strongly doubt that this guy "trounced" Ehrman. As to the question of the reliability of the Gospels, what if we just use a very simple metric: that these texts describe and defend a whole series of miracles (from the small stuff like turning water into wine all the way to the large stuff, like people being raised from the dead, including of course the central claim of Jesus's own resurrection) which have never been reliably witnessed anywhere in the world, in the whole of recorded human history? If this Akin guy can provide examples -- let's say, from the last thee hundred years of historical record -- of comparable miracles occurring in the actual world we inhabit, then I might begin to have some faith in the miraculous claims of the Gospels. But of course he can't. Seas don't part (Exodus), corpses don't miraculously come alive again, loaves and fishes don't miraculously self-replicate. These things don't happen, and have never happened. QED.
"If I saw the miracles, I would believe" no miracle is enough for you, there are plenty going on every day and you still don't believe. Nuns body didn't decompose, Eucharistic Miracles, apparition of Mary over Guadalupe, so on and so forth. You don't see miracles because you are lazy and choose not to look.
I'm not sure what you mean by Jesus's resurrection has never been reliably witnessed, it's a pretty large religion 😂.
Imagine 100 people go to Walmart and watch a gallon of milk fall, they go and spread the word about the gallon of milk falling. Then because I personally don't think the milk fell [not because of lack of evidence] I say, "the milk falling was never reliably witnessed". That would be pretty silly wouldn't it
um it still happens though
People actually think he won the exchange with Bart? 🤣
Lil bro loves yapping
Uncertain which “lil bro” you’re referring to.
Lil bro must think he's yappanese
@@Xymage Not sure what Lil bro you’re referring too bud. Good talk. 🤣
Lil bro decided to spare us from his yapping
Like my Christian friends use to tell me, “the Bible is the inerrant word of god, if you can prove one thing wrong then it’s all wrong”