How An Atheist Scholar Misleads Millions Of People: The Mark Series pt 65 (
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- Bart Ehrman has convinced more people to reject the Christian faith than almost anyone alive today. But he has done so largely through being very misleading. I'm going to provide some solid examples of this as it relates to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark because I think there is a lot of benefit in dealing with misleading claims about the Bible. I'm doing a lot of apologetics related stuff here at the end of this series on the Gospel of Mark and I hope you find it faith building and inspiring!
Here's my teaching on Psalm 22 as an amazing passage that gives us good evidence that Jesus was prophesied ahead of time. • Really Specific Prophe...
This is part 65 of the Mark Series, going verse by verse through the Gospel of Mark. Today we are in chapter 14:53-72.
See the WHOLE Gospel of Mark playlist here. • The Gospel of Mark Ser...
The video clip I used from Bart Ehrman is from this debate he had with Craig Evans • Religion Soup: Ehrman ...
I have live videos every Monday and Friday at 1pm Pacific Time. Monday is a Bible study and Friday is a Q&A.
Feel free to use my videos in your own gatherings as an aid to studying Scripture.
My website BibleThinker.org
If more churches taught like this instead of treating Christianity like a fairytale, we would be able to easily debunk Bart’s claims.
facts!
Amen
Normally, any ancient document is considered highly accurate if it has a accuracy of 95%. Highly accurate ancient documents are rare, most of them doesn't even come close to this bar.
However, the new Testament manuscripts have a accuracy of 99.5%(The 99.5 accuracy figure is determined by scholars who compared the greek, latin,Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian manuscripts)
It is all about interpretation guys. When Bart Ehrman is touching about errors of the new Testament, he is actually referring to the other 0.5%.
And even out of the 0.5%, 0.4% are just errors like spelling mistakes and now we are only left with 0.1% which is currently unresolved.
But as Bart Ehrman himself admitted in his book that the 0.1% doesn't in any way affect Christian doctrine.
And with the latest research done by people like James Snapp, the remaining 0.1% have also been refuted by many scholars but there is still resistance, so it may take time to get widely accepted.
P.s - We should thank early Christians for preserving the ancient documents as best as they can eventhough they were faced with persecution.
You mean treating Christianity like a _myth._
@@nsptech9773 HOW did you come to conclude that the NT manuscripts have a 99.5% accuracy? What sources have you compared?
As a law enforcement officer, I can attest that most incidents requiring written reports involves more than one responding officer, sometimes several officers. Each officer is required to submit a written report detailing the who, what, when, were, why, actions taken, and their individual actions taken. All reports will refer to the same incident, but all reports will contain different details as seen, heard, and witnessed by the responding officers. Same goes for the writers of MML&J.
@@tomdebevoise
Your opinion.
I don't know what you mean by MML&J but you make a good point. And that is one reason why one person might only mention three crosses where others mention more than three crosses. For example. One of the apparent contradictions in the New Testament.
@@robertbrown6879
MML&J = Matthew Mark Luke & John
@@tomdebevoise
Says who? I believe it was written earlier.
@@tomdebevoise
So, have you a profound wish that you're living and breathing? I believe in God and in the resurrection of Yeshua because it is true.
Bart knows “Why have you forsaken me” is a crucial line for the messiahs fulfillment of prophecy. He’s completely full of it.
He knows. He chooses to lie.
@@lmaoyourekiddingme Do you have any evidence for that claim? My impression from reading his books and listening to his podcasts is that he’s an uncommonly honest person.
@@DavidWalker1 So why would you be listening to an unbeliever and an infidel atheist liar if you wanted to know the truth?
@@DavidWalker1 Mike just laid out several examples of how Bart lied in the clip. Bart is a very intelligent man, he knew he was directly deceiving his audience in the clip.
@@lt8862 What do you think is Mike's best-proven example of Bart knowingly lying?
Jesus was not in shock but I am in a shock to see how he came to such a ‘shocking’ conclusion! Can’t take his work seriously anymore.
Bart Ehrman made a full rebuttal to this video, should check it out
I read his book When Jesus became the Messiah. OMWord!! The dumbest stuff. I was expecting something that makes this man's creds real. People who listen to him are willing to risk their eternal salvation on words like "might have been, could really mean, maybe it happened, ect". Very sad.
@@littlenaro1700 there's no rebutted he can give to take back the words he himself already spoke.
@@jessepolkjr7067 It is up to the people to discern what is true and what is not. I do not fault Bart whatsoever. He has questions like many of us Christian do. Having questions does not or is not suppose to turn you away from your faith. It suppose to further solidies your faith because you search the truth and you find it. We as Christian should not be such a snowflake to question as if we will disintegrateif someone questions our faith. Jesus himself questions the Jewish orthodoxy so why cant we question.
@noorzanayasmin7806 I didn't say anything about not having questions. 💁♀️
The two thieves on the cross both mock Jesus in one witness but then in Luke one thief asks Jesus to remember him. It is quite possible that over the space of the three hours together that one man repented of his mockery and recognized who Jesus is.
That has always been my understanding of how events transpired.
I'd look into how crucifixion works before venturing an opinion.
@Jesus the fraud God wait, so Josephus overrides all the authors (plural) of the NT because?
@Jesus the fraud God So because someone else said the same thing, before you said it, that means you dont exist?
@Jesus the fraud God "For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done."
Bart Ehrman: Jesus was shocked and become silent
Bible: Jesus is silent, Pilate was shocked (amazed)
exactly
Bingo
bible misleading people...there was no biblical Jesus, none! zero! a myth! non existed in real life...
@@patasnamananaliksik6053 troll
@@patasnamananaliksik6053 really?😅
I was misled by atheists. God saved me and brought me back.
How did atheists mislead you? I don't. And I'm pretty sure most other atheists. Do not "mislead" people. Because we don't believe as you do. And voice our disbelief. Is not misleading you. Be accountable to yourself. Don't blame others if you question your faith.
Atheists are human beings! Being Christian does not make you superior to those who don't believe as you do. Or don't believe at all.
How do you know that?
@chadmccoy8032 what do you mean by asking that? What answer do you want to hear?
@@texastea5686 the truth.
He told you the truth.
Erhman actually was my professor very briefly. I enrolled in his New Testament course and on the first day he started off by asking the class (which was packed with probably 350 people, mind you) “How many of you think the Bible is true?”….”Well my goal for this course is to have you rethink that”.
I dropped the class after that lecture. It was clear to me that he was not open to much debate. He certainly has done a great deal of damage to the faith. I pray that people who take his course consider both sides of the argument before making the most important decision they could ever make.
Proud of you 👍
You poor baby, you couldn't handle the idea that you might just be wrong and some one might be able to open your eyes.
I hope you were able to spend your new found free time in Bible study, listening to internet apologetics... soo much more informative, lol
@@sinjinbritt3371 the point here is being upfront. If he does not believe the Bible, then he should cut any studies on the Bible, and declare himself full atheist.
@@markgilrosales6366 You literally have no idea what Bart Ehrman's role is as a professor. He teaches textual studies, which is higher education for students who want to take their bible scholarship to the highest level.
Professor Ehrman has NEVER tried to influence anyone's religion. His only role is to teach everything there is to know about the bible and it's creation from a historical perspective. His announcement to the class is an indication that they are going to be as shocked as he was as a student when he learned what he now teaches.
He has actually said that his studies are NOT the reason he eventually became an atheist.
I assume you would’ve stayed had he said “well my goal for this course is to feed and add to your confirmation bias INSTEAD OF challenging your world view like a good teacher by teaching you to look critically at some text that you might otherwise not examine so critically.” Lol
I NEVER interpreted Jesus' silence as shock
That’s probably because you have faith goggles on!
Me neither! That was very strange!
@@davethebrahman9870
The shock is an assumption - just one possible explanation. It is also not one that fits the rest of the context (as covered in this video).
Obviously everyone has such ‘glasses’ since everyone has a worldview and/or motivations that influences how they interpret things; it is not exclusive to one side.
Or it’s because His silence was prophesied in Isaiah 53.
If you want to attack that chapter just know it was also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls written just like it is in our Bibles today. The scrolls chemical dated over 100 years before Jesus was born. Repent and believe
@@mitchellcollins7370 I hesistate to burst your confidence, Mr Collins, but your contention is false. The Isaiah text from Qumran differs from the standard masoretic texts in thousands of places, although it is true to saythat it seems to be based on the same textual tradition. What really explodes your conclusion is the Jeremiah text that agrees with the LXX in being 7 chapters shorter than the one in your bible.
You’ve brought me back to Christianity. Thank you Mike. You’re channel is amazing
Jesus Christ loves you. And through Him, may you have everlasting life!
That is awesome to hear!
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-nine just persons, which need no repentance.
- Luke 15:7
Thats amazing!!!!! God loves you and sent His son Jesus to lay down His life for you. 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
It is so important that we pray and allow the Blessed Holy Spirit to help us to hold it together when we experience the temptation to follow atheistic interpretations of the scriptures. The natural man cannot know .... 😩
The Bible should of brought you back. Read it and make it about Jesus
You just let Bart off the hook for spouting opinion/assumption as fact. Silence implying shock is a FALLACY Mike. We don’t need to defend his conclusion when his premise is built on opinion.
He was my professor. The doubt was destructive in my life but God restored me and gave me testimony!
You recovered, bless you. The professor considers his reason to trump faith. I recovered, faith in our Creator, his mysteries, and in our Saviour is superior to human reason, and fully incorporates it.
@@johnrieley1404 Bless you! Praise God! What a joy to be restored. The gifts of faith, hope and love...what an amazing God we serve!
Hes was my professor and he made my life so much less destructive.
Go and listen to his answer to this video on Paulogia channel. If you belive in truth, you should see his statements in the way in which he was presenting them.
Doubt was destructive? What good is your faith if a little fact checking makes you want to close your eyes and live life blindly believing?
I think the need for faith and belief necessitates sacrificing logic and rationality.
If all 4 gospels were exactly the same word for word, then Bart Ehrman would say they were just copied from each other, great video
But Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark ... That is a fact and understood
@@tonyturek4596 A story is told of a school teacher asking her pupils to write about their pet. The teacher read their accounts, and said to one little boy, ‘You have written the same description of you dog as your brother. You must have copied his work.’ The boy replied, ‘No, miss, it’s the same dog.’
@@rosemarybaxter9120 Your anecdote misses the point about identical testimony, which is:
People will almost never describe a thing or event in precisely the same way. This is a fact accepted by police and the judiciary; to the extent that any eye witness testimony that is identical or very similar is immediately viewed with suspicion.
If the description of the dog is minimal, such as "The dog is brown", then identical testimony is perfectly reasonable, however if the dog's shape, behaviour, fur, paws, claws, ears, eyes, tail, movement, bark and nose were all described identically, it becomes reasonable to suspect that plagiarism or conspiracy has occurred.
And he would be right.
@@futilitarian3809 funny you mentioned police and judicial hearing of eyewitness testimony…
J. Warner Wallace is an extremely accomplished cold case homicide detective, meaning he has significant experience in carefully examining eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence in cases with little or no direct evidence because they’ve gone so long without being solved. Using this he has successfully prosecuted many murderers. He was also an extremely skeptical and cynical atheist for over 3 decades.
As an atheist, he decided to examine the gospel accounts using his detective methods, not as scripture but as historical eyewitness testimony that needed to be examined thoroughly to reach a verdict. His conclusion was that the gospels are an extraordinary example of what eyewitness testimonies look like when they are genuine and unadulterated, and many NT scholars agree. He ultimately accepted Christ for this reason and others. Don’t take my word for it, I recommend his books “Cold Case Christianity” and “Person of Interest” for a detailed look at the evidence. If you took the time to read this far, thanks and God bless!
Ehrman is obviously making an argument from silence. It never fails to amaze me that so many people think that silences makes _their_ case.
No, uneducated gullible person. You really need to read books.
As forensic investigators say: Absence of evidence is not evidence. :)
@@Myrdden71 No, the scholars are not making an argument from silence and anyone who imagines so is uneducated & dishonest.
Hey! I didn't expect to see you here. I'm glad you watch this channel too. I find it to be very informative. And, yeah, it's astonishing how even the most highly acclaimed scientists, scholars, and philosophers will resort to basic fallacies and obvious lies to erase the cognitive dissonance that arises when they have to consider that they might, in fact, be the one in the wrong. Admitting you're the bad guy is never easy, and it certainly wasn't for me, but it's the only way to truly make sense of this wicked, wicked world. All we can do hold fast in our assurance of His grace, and pray that others find it, the same way we have. Take care! :)
@@sentientflower7891 wheres your evidence? Barts conspiracies? Barts assertions? We can all study the new testament without needing bart's opinion. All he does are create theories... mark never said Jesus was in shock... this is bart's assertion. Tell me in text where it says that Jesus was in shock.. Tell me where we can find anonymous gospel? The guys trash..
Well done, sir.
"My people perish for lack of knowledge."
And those people just believe in the bible.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 it’s always funny when atheists make these little snarky comments, we’re not going to lose our temper. But what we are going to do is pray for you my guy
@@-0-___good for you that you won't lose your temper. perhaps you are reasonable. That's good. You do realize however that many Christians lose their temper. When someone doesn't accept their beliefs. There is so much anger out there against atheists. Why? Because we don't believe in what they believe? Bart is not misleading anyone. He is honest. He points out contradictions in the bible. The flaws in theology etc. He realizes this when it comes to religion. "Everybody can't be right. But everybody can be wrong".
I do not care what anyone says about my Jesus; no one can turn my heart away from my God because I know he is alive; I have seen him, and he healed me when I was near death
Amen
Yeah, living by fantasies and fairy tales is so much easier than living in reality.
@justbarelysociable2211 ig we all need to live in some sort of fantasy right? The LGBT people can play gender make believe so why can't we play religion make. make believe
@justbarelysociable2211 ig we all need to live in some sort of fantasy right? The LGBT people can play gender make believe so why can't we play religion make. make believe
Angel, you're alive to claim that your god saved you. Say that to all the dead people who thought the same god would save them, and... oh wait, they're dead, and even worse, some of their family members couldn't stand the pain and agony and ended up committing s*icide!! The world is full of lucky and unlucky ones my friend. The thing is, the lucky ones claim their god saved them, the unlucky, well, they can't even think or speak; the only thing we have from them is the crying of their loved ones.
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is a prophetic statement from Psalm 22:1. And the last words Jesus said were "It is finished." This man just needs to read straight from the text. It's not that hard.
that isn't inconsistent with what ehrman said
I would encourage you to double check the text, and read:
Matthew 27:46
Mark 15:34
Luke 23:46
John 19:30
You are taking Psalms 22 out of context. That chapter is not talking about a future Messiah. You can't take some words out of context from someplace and apply it somewhere else as a proof text. That is why we have over 2000 denominations in just the USA alone. Ask any Jew what Psalms 22 means and they'll be happy to tell you.
@@Michael-le5ph It literally is about the Messiah. It is a prophetic connection that the Messiah would, like David before Him, suffer at the hands of His enemies and appear forsaken by God. Psalm 22 is understood by Christians, and was understood by Jews of the time, to be a prophetic prediction of the Messiah.
@@Michael-le5ph Judaism today isn’t the same as Judaism before Christ. That’s a common misconception. Jews today have gone through the Old Testament and changed their interpretation of everything that applies to Jesus. They also moved Daniel from the prophets to the writings and try to discredit its authenticity. This is because Daniel predicts exactly the year in which the messiah will come
Bart is saying Jesus did not know what was happening to him in Mark? What? Did Bart not read Mark? How many times did Jesus prophesy what will happen to him?
he either didnt read it or he was blind by his own vain imaginations when he did
@Roger Mills Incorrect. The separation from God is part of the punishment that awaits unrepentant sinners. He experienced that on our behalf.
@Roger Mills You’ve never studied WHY Christ said that and what it meant?
@Roger Mills Which theory best explains the Christian faith to you? As in, why did Christianity come to existence?
@Roger Mills Well it is truth that most of the people were illiterate but that doesn't mean all of them. The author of the gospel received a Greek education and a rabbinic one. I may be incorrect in this one, but m'en had to recite some verse of the Torah, maybe not a big part of it, but at least a major part. In the book of Acts, Luke refers to a certain person who helped Paul to recover is view. This one actually was a Rabbai, but was mainly erased from their writing at the time. But he is mentioned as a Prophet and a friend of Herode. Everyone said that Paul made Christianity but they don't understand that Paul was called for the Gentiles because he knew way more than the other apostles. He knew about Greek philosophy and has a Roman nationality if I remember correctly. For the rest Luke and Matthew may know how to write and were educated. At least Luke. The rest were fisherman but they had something others did not, a humble heart.
Paul did not copy past all the word of Christ. Paul writings were hard to understand even to his fellow apostles. He did taught was Jesus said, but in a different wording. For example in 1 Corinthians 9 is talking about those who preach the gospel should received their living from the gospel. When Jesus sent the 72 disciples Luke 10: 3-8. Jesus told them to receive the food they will be given. Because they go to preach thr Gospel without "a purse or bad or sandal".
So he is not wrong in what he is saying. We need to remember that at that time, the disciples didn't "publish" I may say the Gospel. They shared what they experimented and in order to make the story know to everyone (imagine no TV, no phone, you have to go from kilometers to hear a man told you a story of some Jesus of Nazareth), they decided to put in on paper. Some say that Mark learned from Peter, Luke stated in the beginning that he met countless eyewitnesses etc.
Reason why some name are named in some gospel and not in others. Reason can be that they were still living at the time and were tracked (like how Paul killed the first Christians).
That is also something. Paul was the detractor of the Church. Pretty happy to kill some blasphemous Christian in the name of the most High. Reason why he turned out so fired up for Christ. Jesus said so one time in Luke 7:47 talking about the woman who wiped his feet with her tears. Paul has been forgiven the blood of Jesus's followers hence he has loved Jesus much and was ready to die for him.
I understand your unbelief. Sometimes also I wake up and I'm like "This thing is crazy". But God worked hard enough for me to stop believing. I pray that you may also find the Lord.
Amazing work! I came to this video via Bart Erhman’s response video, and his response was laughably unsubstantial. It was honestly frustrating to listen to because of it’s total lack of valid points. Thank you for standing up for truth!
I experienced the same emotions. My frustration turned to anger at. his deception.
The Paulogia / Ehrman response to this video is sorely lacking.
Bart continues to push the idea that Mark implies "Jesus says nothing" along his journey to the cross. As Mike points out, the entire point of Mark's Gospel is NOT to describe what Jesus said. It is instead to describe what was done TO Jesus by others. Just because Mark doesn't record all of Jesus's words doesn't mean what is recorded in the other Gospels didn't happen. To imply otherwise is narrative--pushing.
Bart repeatedly says "You have to pay attention to what Mark says." Even if the other Gospels didn't exist, Bart's narrative construction about what Mark is "trying to say" fails the literary test. He himself admits Mike's point about Jesus NOT being surprised about what's happening to him due to the fact that he predicted what would happen to him.
There is no contradiction between the Gospel or Mark and the Gospel of Luke, unless you believe that Mark choosing not to record Jesus's words is evidence that Jesus didn't actually say them. This is the only logical way to make sense of Bart's position in the opening video clip.
Scholarly opinion: Mark was the first gospel written. We do not know who wrote it. It was written at least 40 years after Jesus death. It is written in Greek, not the native language of Jesus which was Aramaic. We do not know where it was written. The author used sections of the old testament to compose some narrative, as for example Psalm 22 for crucifixion. When Matthew and Luke write their gospels they use large sections of Mark, sometimes verbatim. However they add things because they do not like some of the things said in Mark.
Excellent!
Depend on the scholars, Christian conservatives ones say that it was written early like in the 50s, some say 60, other 70 and some 80.
This, the OP, is exactly and precisely Dr.Ehrman's conclusion. There is no commentary on the theological truth of the Bible, but just the assertion that the writers of the Gospels may not be who most Christians think they might be.
Ehrman: Mark wrote his gospel so that early believers would despair and stop believing.
Mark 1:1: The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,
🤣🤣🤣
You quoted a verse! Wow.
@@sentientflower7891 Careful, don't cut yourself on that edge.
@@Lenin95 quoting a verse doesn't make an argument.
Mark was the name the church gave to the book. There was no mark who wrote mark. Also Mark 16:9-20 was added decades later by some unknown person and has a short and long ending. The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the earliest and oldest bibles and mark stopped at 16:8.
This is me doing my best to show you how Psalm 22 offers us really good evidence that Jesus is Savior and that God inspired the Bible. I also answer skeptics’ claims in this video. ruclips.net/video/eq8oaOix3rs/видео.html
Mike Winger, may the LORD continue to blessed you with the delight for HIS word. 🙏🙏✝️🔥🛐🤲
What would be more keeping with Jesus character that he felt forsaken on the cross by his father or that he was using his last moments in great physical distress to try and speak and preach and teach his people one last time in person.
@@davidboyer2290 Both. Jesus is also fully human and felt the weight and consequences of sin as it laid on Him to bear. The sins of the world were put up there on the cross through Jesus. The Father cannot look on sin, so He had to turn away. But in keeping with Jesus also being God, His words never fails to present spiritual truth.
Thank you very much Mike Winger!
You did do that!
@Chumnley snoop whatever do you mean? I have been a Southern Baptist and as far as I know the only thing they have changed is they are teaching Calvinism now. I am not sure how you are classifying evangelical, but I proclaim the gospel of Christ as a now independent Baptist.
What? You are misleading people. Bart is entirely correct in what Mark says about the words of Jesus during the trial. You’re reading things into the text that are not there.
I can’t believe anyone could read the passage and imagine things that are not there, and call someone who literally quotes the text and call *them* misleading.
Are you blinded by your fear of non-Christian experts?
Staggering.
It really is. The intellectual acrobatics make people sound so dumb 😂
What? Mike showed in Marc that Jesus knew what was going to happen to him and also some other stuffs...yet you believe Bart who just had a wrong personal interpretation. Staggering!
This is why one should read the Bible for ourselves. God will speak to you through it. Never listen to so called Bible experts who might mislead you.
Excellent point. Christians are mocked for "blind faith" yet non-believers will trust the false claims of other non-believers instead of reading the bible for themselves.
Reading the Bible is why I'm no longer christian. Not only is it contradictory nonsense, but even if the god depicted existed I wouldn't want to worship him
@@ocold-gp3oi I understand where you're coming from, and at least you've taken the time to read the whole bible, which is more than a lot of people do. Whilst I don't believe that there are real inconsistencies, I suppose my question is - would it matter? These historical documents are almost 2000 years old, so inconsistencies and small typographical issues wouldn't be surprising. Let's say we were to remove all of the inconsistencies that Dr. Ehrman could identify, you are still left at its heart with a man called Jesus, who lived in Palestine and claimed to be God (this is attested by Christian, Roman and Jewish sources, not just the bible). He was crucified (same sources), and his tomb was empty after three days, and his supporters truly believed he had returned from the grave to life and that they had all seen him (otherwise I think it's difficult to explain why they were willing to go to jail and in many cases execution for him). Even if Jesus used slightly different words to the words we have as he died, or whatever inconsistencies one might have, for me personally I don't think that they change the substance of the matter, and again for me the best explanation for all of these facts is that he did come back from the grave.
On your second point about the nature of God and whether a person should worship Him - if you do come to believe that He exists (and I pray you will because it's changed my life immeasurably for the better), He would be the one who caused humans and all life around us to exist, and without Him nothing would continue to exist. I think that that being the case He definitely deserves to at least be thanked, if not worshipped. The bible says that He continually welcomes us to be in a relationship with Him which, if it is genuine, should make us better, more kind and loving people. He was even willing to take the punishment which we all deserve for all the awful things we do, in order to allow us to avoid that punishment ourselves. In short, it's reasonable to a certain degree to question God's existence, but if He does exist as portrayed in the bible, He's at least immeasurably more loving than any person I've ever met, and I believe is perfect - that's why I thank Him and sing love songs of worship to Him and all the other accoutrements of the Christian faith.
I apologise for the essay - RUclips comments don't make for good conversations! Have a great day.
@matthewaustin1366 not only are there not any sources other than the bible (literally zero contemporary sources to prove that Jesus existed at all, and even events like the census don't line up with other contemporary dates from Roman sources) but even the bible doesn't have Jesus claiming to be a god. The closest he gets is a super passive agreement with Peter saying he is. I don't think you've actually read the bible, or you'd have known this already. And I don't think you've done your diligence in even listening to what Ehrman is saying or you'd know about the lack of contemporary historic proof. I think it's unfortunate that people who think the creator of the universe wrote this book of absolute truths, yet they don't even bother reading the whole thing. You sound like you're making some awfully important determinations without looking at much of the evidence, and I don't think it's serving you very well
@@ocold-gp3oifrom my understanding and what other scholars say, what your stating is not true. Investigate and listen to multiple angles. From my understanding Bart believes that he exists as well.
Isn't it interesting that when Mike discusses Mark 10:45, the sub-heading below the passage is "Bartimaeus Receives his Sight." That's my prayer for Bart Ehrman.
That’s a solid catch brother! God bless!
You’re a better person than me to pray for Bart as he has such an open contention for the gospel, while you’re praying for him remember also to pray for those whom he deceives, that they also may be pulled back from the fire to salvation.🙏🏽👼🏼🕊
@levi I get that impression too, and Jesus does say, that they will not come to the light, because their deeds are evil, this man Bart, loves his sins,and he is trying to bring as many as he can along with him to hell.
This is the correct approach. Better than getting mad. That's what I did.
Excellent !! :-) :-)
Thank you for this! Your sincerity and joy talking about our Savior is really wonderful! God bless you.
@Blah Blahblah 😆
After a 20-year absence from church and having read Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, John Spong and some of Bart Ehrman's books, I have finally returned.
Did you find evidence that a god exists?
lol
@@cnault3244 I certainly did, after the “evidence” that He did not exist fell short.:)
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Why don't you share your evidence as I was unaware any existed.
Found a teapot in orbit, I reckon...
I admit, Bart helped me abandon my christianity, but being eager to find the truth if it is not the bible, listening more and more to bart my faith in the bible has grown New roots, because I can begin to understand the culture and imagine how scripture came into this reality or World, and I always loved Jesus’ sayings, that has guided my ways With other people, and helped me in stabilizing unrest or hostility or frustration or greef etc. Trust the truth to find its Way if you never fear it and only seek it diligently
I see, absolutely none of the books or letters in the bible has been dated by the authors, the vast majority don't mention the authors, but you find this historical. Then you find the words of Jesus inspirational. Obviously you don't read much.
@@bartbannister394 whoa whoa whoa.... when I have no verifiable and falsifiable evidence..... I rely on ....."scripture"....
@@kl7985 Scripture? Muslims have scripture, so do Jews. So...?
@@bartbannister394 Yes. When I want to know what's wrong with the Muslims I can just ask a Jew. When I want to know what's wrong with Christians I can just ask a Muslim, etc. etc. Pick and choose whatever verses you enjoy and ignore the rest. These "holy scriptures" aren't worth the paper they are currently written on.
@Bart Bannister So let me get this straight: By your logic, if a book doesn't mention how old it is, there's no possible way to tell how old it is?
During that clip of Bart all I could think is "just read mark" lol
You haven't read the book?
As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. That's Ehrman.
@@Myrdden71 stop lying and read the material before commenting and slandering.
Ehrman is correct. The crucifixion scene in Mark is completely different from any of the other Gospels, and he clearly suffers more in Mark. So what's the beef?
@@scambammer5940 these people don't read. Not even their own Bible.
It's not just Mr. Ehrman who's the problem; it is those who listen to him who for some reason believe blindly and not check the facts for themselves.
Mostly naive young people, the usual target of radicals and scoundrels.
Where do we find the facts? I assume you mean YOUR facts that are real and true and falsifiable. Provide those facts.
@@matcomb7501 Study literary genres, read the text. Then you'll see where Ehrman is misleading. Ehrman is a historian. He isn't an expert on literary criticism.
LOOOOL The irony in your projection is hilarious. You know, people who believe him do so because they have actually checked the facts and have read the bible. Maybe you should do that too before blindly believing the words of a lying apologist. Did Jesus expect to die on the cross and be resurrected in Mark? Well? DID HE?
_"It's not just Mr. Winger who's the problem; it is those who listen to him who for some reason believe blindly and not check the facts for themselves."_
@@stylis666 I myself have checked the facts and read the Bible regularly. All of it. Perhaps you should it give a more honest try, this time? 😉
The irony is Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus turned me into a fundamentalist. It showed me the great lengths people went through to make sure we have the preserved word of God.
How do we have the preserved word of god?
Why on earth would an all mighty deity choose a book to be the best method of recording the most important occurrence in human history!
Written on papyrus many years after the event, then he/she allowed the originals to be lost forever and was apparently happy to have it badly copied and translated until it became so vague it spawned thousands of interpretations?
Both the protagonists gave a good account of their views but it’s a fairytale nothing more nothing less I’m afraid.
"This guy tried to prove his arguments that I disagree with, that's how I know he's wrong!" Fundy logic
@@mattparks94 Yes, he is wrong. Ehrman is what's considered a "fringe scholar" along with the rest of the Jesus Seminar.
@@sadusattack2628 fringe according to who? Evangelists?
@@mattparks94 The entire scholarly community.
So Mark and Luke say the exact same thing but in different words? I hear Ehrman saying the texts are different. I hear Winger saying that Ehrman says the texts are so contradictory that they must be false. It seems rather sad that people who believe in the inerrancy of their sacred texts need to jump through so many logical hoops to try to reconcile textual differences which presumably are intentional.
The best thing to do is not blindly hearing any of them, check the text
I went to a local Presbyterian church and discovered that their Sunday school studies were based on Bart’s twisted work. I hit the roof. Woke up a few.
Education is the enemy of Christianity, just as intelligence has no place in church.
Must’ve been a pcusa..
@@rysloan because you people never bother to learn and refuse to listen.
@Resurrected Eyes Christians sin all the time. Don't try your self righteous game on me.
@Sentient Flower, I’m not claiming all Christians are deep thinking individuals, BUT your claim that Christians never think is outlandish. With all respect, that kind of claim is rooted in your own prejudices and nothing more.
Francis Collins, Hugh Ross, Robert Bakker, Allan Sandage, etc…were these people unthinking individuals? No way. They probably thought it through a lot more than you or I ever have. Doesn’t necessarily meant they’re right. (Very smart people can be very wrong.) But to make the claims that education is the enemy of Christianity, or that there aren’t learned Christian persons is grossly inaccurate and disingenuous. Actually, it’s even beyond that; it’s simply a lie you’ve told yourself so that you may avoid listening to others and considering a different view.
To be honest, my first impression of this 3 minute argument is that the arguer is being intentionally disingenuous. It was built on a lot of major false assumptions.
It’s also a cut up clip as you can see. Bart gives quotes from Jesus’s last words (different in each gospel) and other examples. Maybe watch the actual clip or lecture to see his full argument.
Strawman, but advanced.
@@CyberManor the three minute clip was given to us unedited first, then edited to condense the time of the video. But what was being said was intentionally misleading from what the Bible says. I believe Mike did a very good job here proving your comment incorrect.
@@chadasonmcgraw8097 It’s not intentionally misleading. This view is pretty common in scholarship. The description of this event is portrayed differently in Mark and Luke.
@@CyberManor But that argument is intentionally misleading. I mean no disrespect, but who said they needed to be the exact same? These were written by different apostles with different perspectives focusing on the major tenants of Christianity. None of which actually contradicts itself. The basis of the argument is based on a misleading bit of information that does not follow the logic.
LUVVVVed this video. I pray that you continue to provide common sense-reasons to learn how to think Biblically. I appreciate how you don't get 'wordy' but explain every angle in terms we can comprehend. I luuuvvvv it! Tha k you for your hard work, Pastor Mike. 🙂
When I was in college, I was told flat-out lies by professors about the Bible and Christianity. I believed them for a long time because I thought my professors were more knowledgeable and smarter than me (even though they were NOT Bible scholars, usually English professors) and knew what they were talking about. One lie was that nothing in the Bible was "written down" until hundreds of years after the fact and that what's in the Bible was just passed on orally like myths from other cultures...I know, shocking! I was also told that women were treated much better in Old Testament times before (Christ came) and the birth of Christianity. FLAT.OUT.LIES. It is so important to read the Bible and learn what it says so we don't just take someone else's word for it. If only I'd read the Bible and acknowledged it as the Word of God in my 20s instead of in my late 30s.
How long was the book of John written after Jesus died ?
Either you attended a diploma mill, or you're being dishonest. One of the most basic skills all University students are expected to learn is how to think critically. It's clear from your statement that you believed someone because you thought they were smarter than you, that you didn't even learn that. Also, one cannot be a professor in Biblical Studies at a major public or private University without a Ph.d in their field (Biblical Studies), or having yielded major accomplishments in their field. The fact that you were taught Biblical Studies by English majors is another clue you received a rotten education from a rotten institution. I feel sorry for you.
@MRW I'm not assuming anything, and you're not an academic. If you were, you would not have made all the rather obvious elementary fallacies in your rambling diatribe. When you start out your statement with a lie, and proceed to launch one ad hominem after another, you make it apparent you are incapable of informed rationa discourse. Don't waste my time.
@MRW This is absurd. I should not have to explain this to you. If i say I've never been to India, then I go to India, it does not make my original statement false. You're just arguing with yourself and wasting my time. i don't have time to point out every logical fallacy you have made. I don't have that much time to waste. How about the latest one: "You have learned the phrase in that you can strike the letters in correct order on the keyboard, but you obviously don't understand it." This is a obvious elementary ad hominem fallacy. It is attacking my cognitive faculties rather than any argument or assertion that was made. i could have the worst understanding of everything on the planet and the assertion could still be true. That's why it is a fallacy. What an educated person would be expected to do is ask for support for the assertion, then address the argument that supports it. You have wasted enough of my time.
@MRW “Late first Century” lol yah real late. Like 90-100 CE. John was probably in twenties around Jesus time 30-33ce. So john lived to be around 80-90+ in the first century??? Average life expectancy per the data is around 35 years old. There is no way John lived to the 90’s CE He didn’t write that book that’s for sure. Which makes it very untrustworthy. A couple decades of story telling then someone wrote John’s gospel?
Also can you find somewhere in the Greek NT writings where it says the Logos of God is a set of writings?
Good for Bart Ehrman. He is opening up people's minds. Bart nailed it. After all, these are just myths written by unknown authors and translated and copied innumerable times over thousands of years. None of these stories were written by eyewitnesses, and yet the level of detail provided is critical to believing the stories.
Ah, but to be so "open minded" where one's brain falls out isn't so good.
I politely disagree, but agree with Voddie Baucham who says, “I choose to believe in the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.”
Glad you're here and thought to leave a comment. 🤗
@@jessitabonita You can say EXACTLY the same thing about the National Enquirer "reporting" Elvis still alive on the Moon -- living happily with Marilyn Monroe in the Titanic!
I agree with everything you’ve said but upon consulting with my best friend who is a Priest, he stopped me and said most people mistake the Bible for a Historical account and it’s not, it’s a theological book not based solely on fact or historical accounts.
@@robjohnston1433 please think about your comment.... it makes no sense comparing your own fantasies with the Bible which have been perfectly reserved after many rulers ordering all Bibles to be collected and burned. Your sin are blinding you sir...you and the rest of us have an appointment with God...., i hope you make it right with your Maker, Jesus who was God in flesh....before it's too late for you.
Over 1000 prophecies have been fulfilled in the Bible in our recorded history. There remains the last few prophecies of the end of days where Jesus will come for His saints and to judge the wicked...
@@frankoppizzi3990 your friend has been deceived and so have you. Prove the Bible to be NOT historical.
Jesus was in shock? How could that be when he knew ahead of time exactly what was going to happen to him. He knew every detail. That's why he wept so hard in the garden of gethsemane.
"My god my god why have you forsaken me" sounds like he was in shock to me. As you lot keep saying, Just read Mark.
@@scambammer6102 1) This is addressed in the video at 54:28-1:03:30
2) Even if that verse implied shock , (which it doesn’t) if you “just read mark” Jesus clearly forknew that these events will occur , indicated in passages such as in Mark 8:31-34
We don't know if Jesus already knew every detail. It is only the Gospel writers writing decades after the events that tell us He knew that. Jesus never wrote anything. If He had then we would know exactly what He knew and what He didn't. I find it startling that Jesus never wrote anything down. If you are the Son of God why not tell the world?
@@Michael-le5ph 1)You can’t take the words of Mark’s gospel to form a narrative that Jesus did not know what was occurring during his own cruxifixction. But then when Mark’s gospel simultaneously has sections demonstrating his foreknowledge of the events, suddenly state that ‘we can’t know what he was really thinking because it wasn’t written by him’.
Or else we can simply dismiss all the verses brought up that ‘supposedly’ show that he was in shock.
You can’t eat your cake and have it too, either we read the whole text as is and come to conclusions, or reject the text. But we can’t use certain portions to form a narrative, then dismiss other passages that work against it.
2) “If you are the Son of God why not tell the world”? He did , what do you think his preaching was, what do you think his appearance to 500 after he resurrected was.
Your standard that “he needed to write it down” is a 21st century western lense. Plenty of people in the ancient world did not write down their teachings like Socrates for example.
And just like how Socrates disciples Plato and Xenephon documented his life and teachings, so did Jesus’s disciples Matthew & John, along with 1st generation Christians like Mark & Luke gathering their information from eye witness accounts.
In Fact, one might say that having 4 separate accounts with different writing styles, perspectives, themes , focuses and sources, written by different authors with different relations to Jesus, yet all concluding the same thing on who Jesus claimed to be is actually perhaps *stronger* evidence than Jesus just writing it down.
It shows that Jesus’s claims of what he was were understood and believed by people coming from all different angles.
Plus the likelihood that someone would edit a document that Jesus physically wrote is extremely high compared to if documents written by different people across the mediterranean from Jerusalem, to Ephesus, to Greece, and Rome. Hard to corrupt and edit all of those documents that come to the same key conclusions.
It actually seems purposeful that Jesus didn’t write anything but entrusted his disciples to spread his message orally & through literature
@@sjappiyah4071 1. Of course you can take bit and pieces of things and put them into a narrative. christians do it all the time. It's the entire principle of all of our denominations. We only have the writer of Mark's word that Jesus said any of those things. Go study the origins of the Gospels. They were anonymous. The church gave them name because they needed them to be eyewitness accounts so they had to have a disciples name on them, or a close associate of an apostle such as Luke or Mark. We know that Mark, Matthew and Luke used other sources to put together their story. Luke even admits this. We've know this for years, it is not a surprise.
2. There are major accounts in the Gospels that cannot be reconciled. They are not just different perspectives. For example, was Jairus daughter dead or just sick, and if she died, when did she die exactly. Is she dead before jesus get there or is she dying and they tell Jesus to hurry to get to her before she dies? depends on which gospel you read. How many women came to the tomb and who were they? depends on the gospel. Was there an angel, or two angels or just a young man?How is this a different perspective? It's a different account. What day was Jesus crucified on? depends on the gospel. Did Jesus say not a word to Pilate or did he have a conversation? depends on the gospel. You have to read the stories side by side-- not one book and then another. NOT different perspectives. different account of the same story. It does not mean Jesus is not the Son of God, it means the Bible is not inerrant. Protestants came up with that idea, the ancient church was well aware of this and would have never made the claim. Infallible is not inerrant. Bart is only repeating what scholars have always know. You seem to see it as a threat. How so? Evangelicals claim inerrancy and that is off the table. But it can still be infallible. Bart can tell you the gospels may not be able to be trusted in every account but he can't tell you that Jesus is not God. That is for YOU to decide. Sound like he scared the crap out of apologists and they are now reacting--with even more preposterous claims than what they accuse Bart of. It's ok for them to twist scripture but not Bart.
This actually not just Dr. Ehrman's narrative, this is almost every biblical scholar agreed to.
Is that what Ehrman told you?
@@jesusisking9035 No, it's common knowledge amongst scholars.
Please read my comments above. Mike is not really being honest here!
@@keeshamelink1964 you're not realizing that "christian scholarship" has never been the authority over Christian's. Since the German liberal movement of the early 1800s Christian academia has been subverted by bible agnostics and liberals that the body of Christ does not heed to. I dont think many are saved. Our final authority is God not man
Hey Mike, have you seen Bart Ehrman's response on Paulogia's channel? I think he showed how you misunderstood him (and thus mislead your audience, unfortunately).
As an ex-Atheist, I just want to exhort anyone who is being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (including Bart's doctrine) that the WORD OF GOD is the only genuine lamp to your feet and a light to your path. In it, Jesus declares He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, And He demonstrates this by the power of God working in Him and through Him like none other. Thank God, it is WRITTEN.
How old and how did you convert from atheism? My son is an athiest so I’d like to know
@@Bestbirths, I will pray for your son. It was in 1991 during the 1st Gulf War. I was in Saudi Arabia and 34 at that time (perhaps an agnostic and a foolish atheist). I am now 65 and still persevering in Christ. The journey from then to now is like none other. This Earth life is just the beginning.
@@floydmbciin How did you found Christ?
@@Hvb101 It's a long story but very briefly, someone gave me a Bible, and in the Book of Esther, something changed when I was inspired to do the Esther fast for a reason. 15 days later my miracle came through. I could have treated it as something that would have happened anyway. Instead, I never looked back and my journey began. Other miracles followed. The GOSPEL and my acceptance of JESUS as my LORD and SAVIOUR came later within the year. I've learned a lot since then primary through my covenant with God to read HIS WORD daily for the last 30 years or so. No turning back - EVER.
As an ex atheist, ex-thiest then atheist, then thiest then atheist, I exclaim that starting with "ex atheist" has no rhetorical weight but to say you were once wrong and can be wrong again, same as me. For the Bible told me so does not prove anything, Ehrman is right Mike's breakdown, although thought out, is not on point and is biased, using interpolation from authors writing more than 25 years after Jesus's death. You read into the text when it coincides with your views but say stop reading into the text when it doesn't.
Friendly atheist here! While we might disagree on the divinity of the source material, I don’t think there’s any doubt that your exegesis is much more sound, and thoroughly debunks Ehrman’s narrative. Well done.
Friendly Atheist here too. I agree, this presentation makes some valid points in criticism of Ehrman’s representation of The gospel of Mark.
I recently finished reading Jesus Interrupted by Ehrman, a point made repeatedly is that basic Bible scholarship commonly taught in seminaries (even among conservatives) is not present in most Churches or among most believers. Christian apologists continue to confess a divine authority for Christian scriptures. Contradictions must still be “right” for their theology to be an ultimate reality. This takes a lot of effort.
When secular scholarship sees a contradiction in any ancient literature it’s just…a contradiction, no scramble to justify anything necessary. Contradiction and controversy help us understand the complexity and subtly of cultural development, it doesn’t challenge our view of reality as it does Christians. Ehrman can be wrong as can Luke…true? Within secular scholarship that’s common sense, among Christians it’s a challenge.
@@cipherklosenuf9242 i agree completely. To the people of Papua New Guinea who experienced it, the cargo cult was very real. We can be interested by it and study it but we don’t for a moment believe the central tenets of that belief system. We do not entertain the idea that they could be right or that their belief system should be taught in public school or that it should supplant scientific consensus.
The only reason we do this for Christianity (to whatever degree) is purely a matter of local popularity.
If you lived among the adherents of the Cargo cult and they held political power, you would have to engage with their ideas by necessity.
But when engaging with those ideas, granting their premises, there are better and worse ways to reason through the belief system. I think Ehrman did a pretty poor job not only in executing his hypothesis in that talk but in simply picking his targets.
Christianity does not lack for targets, each of which entirely undermines the whole rest of the religion and each of which is held to be compatible with the others by Christians. Why go for such an esoteric argument that does nothing to deconstruct the religion when the whole rest of Christianity or Classical monotheism in general is made entirely of low hanging fruit?
@@jonathan4189 Well said. I would be interested to hear Ehrman’s response to the criticism.
Consider the scientific evidence of atheism, when has something ever come out of nothing? You can put nothing in a room, observe it forever, and it will still be nothing. Order out of chaos is also tough to argue, can you think of a time this has ever happened outside of conspiratorial planning to give the appearance of order? There must be intelligent design to the universe, this should be self evident to any thinking man, only a fool says in his heart "there is no God." -Psalms
The only explanation is the something/someone must have existed eternally and created things, evolution is a wildly flawed theory. God is there, if you sincerely humble yourself, commit to serving his will with your life, and pray for him to reveal himself, he will do it. He promises, I do too 😊.
If you're up for a challenge, try Robert Breaker's "The 7,000 years of human history." It puts together a lot of pieces against the atheism line of thinking. You sound intelligent, I believe you will discover the truth. There must be a starting point to everything, this video clears it up 😊
Listening to Bart Ehrman, I could see the holes and issues with his claims. But I knew them because Im familiar with the bible.
As Christians we have a duty to others and ourselves to know the Word. It's the very foundation of our faith. There are so many different people and ways to trip us up. The enemy is legit out to get us. So the worst problem that exists is ignorance.
Reminds me of the seed parable. We all must read our Bible more. It's one of the most critical ways to mature in the faith.
Yes, you can trust him as a biblical scholar. He is very well-versed on the topic.
Why do you poison the well by calling him an atheist scholar?
Bart Ehrman helped me believe again in the existence of Jesus.
Your work and gifts helped me believe in the Truth of the Bible!
I keep praying for Bart’s heart to turn again and become a Jesus lover!
truth? I think you dont know what the truth is.
@@elimelek5569 the truth is we don’t know but because you don’t know either you can claim it is true
@@elimelek5569 what do I claim that I don’t know? How do you know? Indoctrinated theist
@@elimelek5569 the truth is. There is no evidence for god - therefore no god! If your non existent God wants worship - it show up - if not it should stay hidden!
@@elimelek5569 don’t distract from the topic. Where is your god? Why listen to the bible in the first place? Why this 27 books of the New Testament? Why is the epistle of barnabas or the Shepard of hermas not in the bible? Because it didn’t fit what the only cult (church) wanted. It has nothing to do with a god!
Thank you for the questions you asked, cause i probably would have, when i watched the clip i was kind of shocked and scared, but i am thankful i watched this all the way through. It is a wake up call for me to seriously and diligently read and search the word of God. Most importantly to pray for God's wisdom , insight and discernment cause we Christians really need this especially in the period we are in right now. Thank you Mike , thank you for praying with us at the end. May the Spirit of God continue to give you wisdon, i sight and discernment to be the truth to light, and to expose false doctrines.
This has brought me so much peace and i thank God cause i was feeling rather odd this day. But watching this did something to my heart and how i see God through Jesus Christ, it gave me hope and peace again in so many ways , cause at times we Christians want to elaborate the truth but lack the words and ways to do it. God bless you and all glory be to God through Jesus Christ. Amen
Will Mike be forced to take down another video? Stay tuned, my friends!
This one is pretty embarrassing after seeing Bart's response.
This video was filmed a year ago, you commented 11 days ago.. so how long will we have to stay tuned for him to take it down?
I wouldn't be surprised. After all, videos get taken down for people merely inserting a magazine into a gun. Then again, RUclips allows hardcore pornography. So who knows? We just have to trust the morally righteous judgment of RUclips. Right? 🙄
@@Coffee1776 (1) YT does not allow hardcore pornography, (2) Invisible Gorilla was referring to Mike taking another one of his own video's down, not YT taking it down
I can see how he could be responsible for turning so many Christians, who are perhaps struggling with their faith, away from Christianity.
He’s clearly a smart guy, he speaks with authority and conviction and it seems like he’s sort of relying on the fact that a whole lot of people wouldn’t bother to go read or re-read these gospels themselves in order to confirm or reject his claims.
I think a lot of people might see a lecture like this and just take everything he’s saying at face value. We usually don’t want to believe that someone is lying to us or trying to mislead us. I totally understand how some people can be swayed by lectures like this. And that is why breakdowns and rebuttals like these are so important.
I consider him to be an antichrist
actually, Bert Ehrman reflects the mainstream of biblical scholarship., biblical scholarship isn't an attempt to deceive anyone, it's a scientific endeavor. It uses empirical methods,, clearly you have no idea how biblical scholarship operates
I lost my way to skepticism and life experiences, Bart didn’t help. Lol. I hit rock bottom and had no choice but to ask for God for mercy and grace. I’ve been praying for my doubts of Jesus and the Bible. Today I was fasting and came across this which cleared up some of my confusions. I’ll keep searching. God is good :)
Your doubt and questions are good. God is not a Christian. Christianity does not own God. It's only a problem if you see no value in a relationship with God unless the Bible is all true.
@@DIBBY40 it’s part of the human experience I suppose. I doubted, questioned, tried things but I found nothing good for me. And I came to the conclusion that Christianity is best for me.
@@sloth6247 Good for you Sloth; at least you have thought it through. I left evangelical christianity in the late 1980s and have been on quite a ride ever since. For me christianity as presented to me made me full of all sorts of fears. My experience of God when I have experienced him is unlike anything....so I absolutely know what you mean when you say "God is Good". It has been quite a surprise to me that I could have a relationship with God and not be an evangelical Christian. I was caught in an all or nothing mindset: The "all" part made me fanatical, the "nothing" part made me miserable. My view now is that whatever your religion, or spirituality, if you are not becoming more loving, peaceful and beautiful it is a waste of time. God bless you on your journey. And maybe this hell bound heretic will see you in the Father's house one day 💖
@@DIBBY40 i completely understand you. I belief in a personal relationship with God above all. I’m not blind to the problems of the modern church: The ignorance, the greed, the abuse, the indifference, the complacency, the hypocrisy and the judgement. However the Bible asks us to congregate. I now realize this is a very important part of spirituality. I figure we need to transform the church (people), whatever that may look like, and not just abandoned the God of the Bible, who I’ve come to realize provides me peace like nothing else. Thank you and God bless you too.
Nice job brother. It's refreshing to see someone attack an argument without attacking the person.
except for the title of the video, that's mudslinging pure and simple. also he missed the nature of the debate. the debate was on the historical value of the Synoptics, you watched the debate, right?
An Atheist argues against the notion of a supernatural being not the
gospels. For one thing there is very little evidence for Jesus outside
of the gospels. How about pitting yourself against me as regards you
claiming there is a supernatural being. Give me your best shot
@@williamjohns9322 is that mudslinging? The title is stating a fact. Not adding a layer or sensational adjective to the word misled
@@DrMontague you are talking about two separate things. Bart may not believe in a supernatural but Bart himself argues Jesus was a real historical person. Are you disagreeing with Bart here? As for evidence of A God? From my point of view and looking at it even scientifically, there seems to be so much evidence for a ‘supernatural’
@@danielkim672 Jesus was likely a real person who was deluded enough to believe he was god. but out side the gospels there is next to nothing known about him. According to the trinity Jesus was god, the same supernatural being who drowned babies and children in his flood, and who demanded cruel death sentences. Clearly you have a psychological yearning for there to be a big daddy in the sky even if if he is evil.
There has been a response by Bart posted on Paulogia's channel. Bart has a calm and convincing argument.
Thank you very much.
Would be nice to see a conversation between them.
😃
Not convincing.
@@thefriesens1071 Paul's Christ Jesus and Philo's Divine Word are the same imagined OT Character.
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of Creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6)
Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I
"XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..."
Celestial High Priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT
"XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son."
Spiritual Kinship/Angel of God (Rom. 8:29, Gal. 4:5-7, :14, Heb. 1:4)
Philo: ON THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES
"XI ...In reference to which I admire those who say, “We are all one man’s sons, we are men of Peace,” (Gen. 42:11) because of their well-adapted agreement; since how, I should say, could you, O excellent men, avoid being grieved at war, and delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?"
"XXVIII ...And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel. For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man’s Sons.” (Gen. 42:11) For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word...."
Note: Gal. 1:19 "but I did not see any other apostle except James the LORD's brother." This could be a cultic title (like Peter/Cephas which means "Rock" could have been, or an idiom) rather than being a biological relation? Paul constantly refers to those "in Christ" as brothers/sisters in a spiritual family.
Good Shepherd (Heb. 13:20)
Philo: ON THE CHANGE OF NAMES
"XIX ...for they have abandoned all connections with pride, and having connected themselves with lawful persuasion, choosing to become a portion of the sacred flock, of which the divine word is the leader, as his name shows, for it signifies the pastoral care of God."
"XX But while he is taking care of his own flock, all kinds of good things are given all at once to those of the sheep who are obedient, and who do not resist his will; and in the Psalms we find a song in these words, “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore shall I lack Nothing;” (psa. 23:1) therefore the mind which has had the royal shepherd, the divine word, for its instructor,..."
Purification/Forgiveness of Sins/Glorification (1 Cor. 6:11, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6)
Philo: ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, II
"XXVI Such then are the figurative meanings which he desires to indicate by the sacred vestments of the high priest;... ...namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;..."
Tested (Heb. 2:18) A Man (Rom. 5:15-19, 1 Cor. 15:45-49)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I
"XXXIX ...For when the sacred word has purified us with the sprinklings prepared beforehand for purification, and when it has adorned us with the select reasonings of true philosophy, and, having led us to that man who has stood the test, has made us genuine, and conspicuous, and shining,..."
Sits Beside God (Heb. 8:1)
Philo: ABOUT NOT MOVING LANDMARKS
"XXXVIII... I say, should such men triumph in and insult the misfortunes of others, having no respect for justice, the ruler (Note: justice/ruler) of human life, who sits by the side of the great Ruler of the universe, who surveys all things with sleepless and most piercing eyes, and sees what is in recesses as clearly as if it was in the pure sunlight?"
The Word is a Covenant (1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:4-6)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book II
"XXXIII ...God, says that he is about to erect firmly his covenant full of grace (and that means his law and his word) in the soul of the just man as on a solid foundation, which shall be an image in the likeness of God, when he says to Noah, “I will establish my covenant with Thee.” (Gen. 9:11) And besides this, he also indicates two other things, one that justice is in no respect different from the covenant of God (Note: justice/covenant), the other that other beings bestow gifts which are different from the persons who receive them;... XXXVI Since then all steadiness, and stability, and the abiding for ever in the same place unchangeably and immovably, is first of all seen in the living God, and next in the word of the living God, which he has called his covenant;..."
Sacrificial Blood (Heb. 12:24)
Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS
"XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, and should in some manner become rational; following the guidance of admonition, and purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it."
Intermediary Agent to Mortals (Rom. 8:34, Gal. 3:19-20, Heb. 12:24)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book I
"XII ...who never abandons his faith in God and his invisible comprehension of him, but who keeps to the intermediate divine word, which affords him the best suggestions, and teaches him everything which is suitable to the times. For God, not condescending to come down to the external senses, sends his own words or angels for the sake of giving assistance to those who love virtue. But they attend like physicians to the disease of the soul, and apply themselves to heal them, offering sacred recommendations like sacred laws, and inviting men to practice the duties inculcated by them, and, like the trainers of wrestlers, implanting in their pupils strength, and power, and irresistible vigour. Very properly, therefore, when he has arrived at the external sense, he is represented no longer as meeting God, but only the divine word,..."
Empties (Kenosis) Himself (Phili. 2:7-8)
Philo: Who is The Heir To Divine Things
"XLI ...but in real fact for the whole world which was created by divine wisdom may be consecrated and dedicated, being made a burnt offering of early in the morning and also in the evening. For such a life as this becomes the world, namely, continually and without ceasing to be giving thanks to its Father and Creator, so as to stop short of nothing but evaporating and reducing itself into its original element, in order to show that it stores up and conceals nothing, but dedicates itself wholly as a pious offering to God who created it."
Born of a Woman/Under the Law (Gal. 4:4b), Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24b)
Philo: ON FLIGHT AND FINDING
"XX ...For we say that the high priest (Jos. 20:1-6) is not a man, but is the Word of God, who has not only no participation in intentional errors, but none even in those which are involuntary. For Moses says that he cannot be defiled neither in respect of his father, that is, the mind, nor his mother, that is, the external sense; "He shall not go where there is a dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother." (Lev. 21:11) because, I imagine, he has received imperishable and wholly pure parents, God being his father, who is also the father of all things, and Wisdom being his mother, by means of whom the universe arrived at creation (Prov. 3:19-20, 8:22-31); and also because he is anointed with oil, by which I mean that the principal part of him is illuminated with a light like the beams of the sun, so as to be thought worthy to be clothed with garments. And the most ancient Word of the living God is clothed with the word (Law) as with a garment, for it has put on earth, and water, and air, and fire, and the things which proceed from those elements. ...Nor will he “rend his clothes;” (Lev. 21:10) for the Word of the living God being the bond of every thing, as has been said before, holds all things together, and binds all the parts, and prevents them from being loosened or separated."
Philo: A Treatise Concerning The World
"II ...But the eternal law of the everlasting God is the strong and lasting support of the universe. This law being extended from the centre of the world to its furthest extremities, and again back from its extremities to the centre, moves on in the unwearied irresistible course of nature, uniting and binding together all the parts of the universe. For the Father who established it made it to be the indissoluble bond of the universe. ...since the divine law has placed itself as a boundary to keep all these elements distinct from one another." See also (the pseudograph) Colossians 1:17
@@thefriesens1071 I agree, that it is different for different people. Why was it not convincing for you?
Years ago, I enjoyed Dr. Ehrman's teaching on video; we used many of his series in bible studies at the church I attended. I remember seeing an interview with him where he explained his journey from Moody Bible College to Episcopalian to Atheist or Agnostic. I am an Episcopal priest. I'm have many questions about the Episcopal interpretation. It's not turning me from Christ, it's turning me to people like you who explains from the Bible instead of "supposing." Thank you.
Do you not know Mike is “supposing” that the text in the Bible is trustworthy
Hello, Sandy.
Having grown up with a distrust of organized religion before I accepted Christ, I would encourage you to test all your church's interpretation agains the scriptures themselves. This applies to all church interpretations ,including mine.
What Erhman says in this clip is academically laughable: it makes no sense unless someone is ignorant what Mark and Luke actually say! Erhman is forcing the two texts to contradict each other in ways that are imaginary, by focusing on unrelated details. Yes, there are some apparent contradictions between the four Gospels at times, but not what he says in this 3-minute clip. Why should I put my faith in Erhman when I can read the Gospels on my own?
Sincerely,
Raul
@@MakeChangeNow You mean instead of blindly assuming it is not reliable?
@@raulscott5149 One would expect scholars to have looked and found for themselves that it’s not trustworthy
Spoken like a true atheist. Your make an unsubstantiated claim with no proof even offered in your own defense.@@MakeChangeNow
If all the witnesses at a trial, give word for word identical testimony of an event, the judge will come to a conclusion that the witnesses have met and decided to give the same testimony.
The witnesses of the gospels have a common thread but not identical
I agree fully with you. While listening a picture came to me. The synoptic Gospels can be seen as a 3 strand plat a woman would use in their hair. If u gaze upon it from the top and follow 1 strand, it weaves above the others for some time and then goes under, in the same the synoptic Gospels might be silent about a certain point due to the aurthors emphysis trying to imply, but the other Gospels will add to that point where another is silent to emphysize something else. Theres no contradiction. Its 3 accounts not to be mixed into 1, but all added for a full story, plus the Gospel of John add to further illuminate truth.
JESUS CHRIST IS INDEED LORD AND IS COMING AGAIN.
And in reality all historians agree that Luke and Matthew used Mark as their primary source and copied many passages word for word.😉
Acts 28:24
And indeed, some were persuaded of the things he is speaking, but some refused to believe.
There are no eyewitness accounts.
@@sentientflower7891 Matthew, and John were eye witnesses. Mark is often called the gospel of Peter as Mark was mentored by him.
Luke was a contemporary who carefully met eyewitnesses as well as a doctor. He also wrote the book of Acts.
For the time period, one should see how many manuscripts of any other literature are available and compare them. There is no comparison.
It's funny, I remember when I was agnostic, and in one breath I would say each of the gospels is just a rewriting of the first and then in my second breath complain that they weren't the same. I was self contradictory. Of course I was utterly ignoring that these are literally different witnesses who saw different parts of the whole event. But I wanted to live in rebellion and sought to solidify my own position and was not intellectually honest.
I'm glad you were able to see the truth. As someone who just reconverted three months ago, I can also see now how foolish I was by denying the truth in the Gospel without actually reading it within full context.
Your honesty and experience helps you to know how to relate in compassion to other deniers of the Gospel & plant a seed without offending their stance. I pray God uses you both in a powerful way in these last days. God bless you!
nice to see someone so honest and not let their anger take control of things they dont know or understand.god bless you
Those are not contradictory at all. Because the problem of being too identical is not that they retell the same stories. But that they do so verbatim. If the Gospels were true, of course we would expect them to have similarities, they are narrating the same events after all. The problem is that they use the very exact same words, meanign that they copied each other. And then you have moments were they tell the same event, but they are different, which is not a problem. The problem is that they contradict each other.
Both are not contradictory in the slightest, because they are adrressing different things entirely.
Old Place, thanks for your honesty and thank God, He never gave up on you. Keep sharing your witness
It's interesting how we tend to isolate things in scripture from their full context, perhaps in part, because of the chapter and verse references we've added to make navigating scripture easier. Mark has so many references to clarify Jesus knows the cross is His destiny, but if we ignore those, we can make Mark say things he didn't intend. Thank you for your careful exploration of the issues raised by Dr. Ehrman to provide greater clarity.
Yes absolutely agree with you. The context is v impt. It really is a wilful misreading of Jesus' crucifixion in Mark's gospel by this Prof.
Ehrman is 100% correct. The three minute excerpt compares the description of the crucifixion scenes in each gospel and explains how they differ. Ehrman begins the clip by saying the differences are differences in emphasis. Although there are irreconcilable differences elsewhere, I didn’t hear Eherman saying the crucifixion scenes are irreconcilably different.
The four gospels were written at different times, decades apart, the earliest being Mark, which was written in Greek about 40 years after the events it claims to describe. And he didn’t say they were irreconcilably different. He said the authors had different messages to convey and if you lump the gospels together into one mega gospel, you’re missing the message of each gospel. Why does Jesus in Mark ask why God has forsaken him? Why is that even in any of the gospels if not because Jesus believed (at least at one point) that God had actually forsaken him?
Don’t get caught up in textual consistency. Harry Potter novels contain no internal discrepancies and every copy is identical. Therefore, this is strong evidence that Harry Potter and the stories it contains are actually true, argued a Potterene apologist in the year 3000 AD.
No one is dying for Harry Potter and getting persecuted for believing in Harry Potter stop it
@@BrotherInChristDK
Lots of the early Mormons were persecuted, tortured and murdered for their beliefs… I guess this means that Mormonism is true.😂
Harry Potter stories were never meant to be real, and not treated in this way since they were released. Theres nothing wrong with being written in greek since it was the most popular language and woud be more easy to spread, even the hebrew bible was translated to greek years before jesus was even born. and 'god why have you forsaken me?' was the recitation of Psalm 22, every other gospel gives Jesus diferent speaches in the cross, so why would they repeat it again?
What an amazing gift you have. After 20 years, I have found someone who goes into depth of research that I crave to know but unable to do myself. Thank you Mike and team for your caring and generosity of your time. You certainly clarified details that I have been pondering about.
I agree! I think discipleship and mentorship in the faith is something that is still lacking in most church because it takes a lot of effort and time (so much time). I was studying Matthew chapters 24 and 25 and there were so many questions I had. I felt like I didn't have anyone I could reach out to or turn to discuss detailed things. Luckily my husband is in seminary so he really helped guide me to study the passages (he didn't give me answers, but is teaching me how to study the Bible in a scholastic manner). However I still crave mentorship and am praying that God would provide me with someone.
Check out Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church too....Has a channel here.
@@mtgsk5180 That's the mistake you are making right there, Ehrman is not interested in faith or theology, he is a Biblical scholar and historian not a theologian.
If you are interested in what happened in the past read Ehrman, if you want theology just talk to your pastor.
@@pinball1970 Funny then, how he's acting like a theologian
@@jeffschlueter1660 No, historian
As usual, thank you for the thoughtful, intelligent scholarship and response. Praying that those who are in doubt will be encouraged and edified by this response. God bless you!
Why has the holy spirit never informed the congregation that their pastor is raping one of their children? It's happened millions of times and yet god just ordains more pastors. Some power, some all-loving god.
@@bartbannister394 We're not Catholics
@@savedbygrace.slowedreverb So?
@@bartbannister394 butt hurt, or jealous? Why would God interfere with our individual free will, death is not the end and sorry to say neither is rape, justice comes in the end and we all have to answer for the wrong we have done.
@@stephenburrows1816 well that sure didn’t seem to stop god from intervening in scripture. He appeared to do that fairly frequently. It’s funny how now that it can be verified, it’s “mums the word.” 😂
I'm not sure if this presenter understands Ehrman's point in the video. Judas is irrelevant. The point is the different treatments of Jesus in his experience of the crucifixion. Ehrman is very clear in the clip. This is a textual analysis, a kind of literary analysis of a character in a story. His evidence is clear and convincing. Now there might be other interpretations, but you can't say he is misleading. His main point is not to claim the Bible or the gospels can't be trusted as historical documents. His point is that each gospel, Mark and Luke, have a different emphasis as to Jesus' experience during the crucifixion scene so they convey different ideas. Mark's story might comfort those of us who feel traumatized by a difficult experience, while Luke portrays strength in the face of that experience. And if you just claim they portray the same thing or mean the same thing, you lose the power of each story. That's all. You are responding as if your faith is under attack, but that's not on Ehrman, that's on you.
You are so true!
34:50 Justifies unbelief? At no point does Bart Ehrman ever say that something like this should ever shake your faith. In fact, he says the opposite. Bart Ehrman has repeatedly said that you can still believe in Christianity despite these things, but that you need to have a more intelligent faith. Bart Ehrman has talked about how none of these things affected his belief when he was a Christian scholar.
The thing that truly shook Dr. Ehrman's faith was the problem of suffering.
I don’t care what kind of faith Bart thinks I should have. His twisting of Mark, adding his conclusions that Jesus was in shock, is not to make my faith intelligent. It may be for him to make money, he’s on the speaking circuit and publishing books. His problems with suffering seem pretty trite, to tell you the truth. More than 20 years ago my ankle was deteriorating from a previous fracture. One of those bones is gone now. I can’t tell you what the pain was like. Yeshua (Jesus) came. He put his hands on my ankle and healed it. It is still healed. No “faith healers”, just Him. I don’t have to prove that to anybody. I was there. Bart’s words mean nothing. You know Him or you don’t. Bart doesn’t and I doubt he ever did. Believe me, you wont forget Him.
@@mchevalier-seawell4438 I wonder why Jesus came only to heal your silly little ankle and not save the millions of starving children in the world. The children who are suffering unimaginable pain daily through no fault of their own. The children who live short, frightening, and awful lives, while you get to walk around here with the intelligence of a goldfish.
No one needs to prove to you Bart was a Christian, that information is easily available. If it was something that could be disputed, the numerous people that knew him at Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and Princeton Theological Seminary. Well known Christian scholars, like Dale Martin, who have been friends with him for decades, would dispute his narrative.
Jesus seemingly being in shock at the situation he found himself in is just from a plain reading of the narrative presented in Mark. That is just how the passion narrative reads - period. You see, you can use your brain to come to a conclusion about a book or passage that isn't explicitly stated. I know that must be hard for you, but it's true.
Mark presents Jesus as saying nothing throughout his entire crucifixion. Could Jesus have said something? Most definitely, but that's not how Mark chose to portray him. In Mark, besides telling Pilate "You say so." Jesus says nothing until his cry of dereliction. Quite an odd way to portray the situation, especially if you portrayed Jesus as being sure of his coming resurrection previously in the book. Every other Gospel has Jesus being far more confident and talkative throughout his crucifixion, but not Mark. Hmm, I wonder what Mark could be trying to tell us?
Brother, Mike, thank you for loving us all enough to do this for us. Your care for us is truly one of a shepherd.
Thank you so much for this, Mike. You set an inspiring example of how to approach criticism of the faith with a clear mind.
Sigh
@@greglogan7706 Repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ that has died for sins and rose from the tomb on the third day and let the Holy Spirit within you, and you shall be saved.
Lol
Your problem is that your are too arrogant to consider that people might have very good reasons to not believe Christian and biblical claims.
Jewish scriptures from the so-called "old testament" that contradict Christian beliefs.....
Isaiah 43:10-11
I, Yahweh, am the lord, and besides me there is NO OTHER SAVIOR.
Deuteronomy 4:35
Yahweh is god, and there is NO ONE ELSE beside him.
Isaiah 45:22
Look unto only me to be SAVED, for I am Yahweh your god and there is NO ONE ELSE as your SAVIOR.
Jeremiah 17:5
Cursed be the man that trust in man and make flesh his savior, and whose heart no longer looks to Yahweh.
Psalm 146:3
Do not trust in man, for in whom there is NO SALVATION.
Hosea 11:9
God is NOT A MAN.
Numbers 23:19
God IS NOT a man OR son of man.
1 Samuel 15:29
God is not a man.
Psalm 49:7-8
No man (including Jesus) can die in place of, or be ransom paid for the sins of another.
Ezekiel 18:20
Every man is responsible for his own sin, and a father (including God-the father) cannot take responsibility for the sins of his children
Exodus 20:4-5
Anyone worshiping a man in place of Yahweh is guilty of the sin of idolatry.
Malachi 3:6
I am the lord and do not change.
Christianity completely contradicts Hebrew scriptures and what Jesus believed. Jesus wouldn't even know modern Christians as his followers, but Paul surely would. Christians are no less deluded than a Mormon or Muslim who believes their new testament is true.
Important Messianic scriptures which Jesus didn't fulfill and proves he wasn't the Jewish messiah (which means he was only a deluded and dishonest cult leader)...
Isaiah 11:9
Jewish scriptures say that when the messiah comes and the kingdom is established, "the earth shall be full of knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea". Meaning everyone around the world would know of Yahweh without the need to teach.(fail)
Zachariah 9:10
The messiah will take the weapons of war away from everyone, proclaim peace unto all the nations, and his rule will be over all the earth.
(We still have war, weapons of war, and Hindus--fail)
Isaiah 2:4
The messiah will judge between the nations and give many people criticism for their behavior. He will take all weapons if war and there will be world peacs and no more teaching/trainjng how to fight war.
(Fail)
Zachariah 8:23
Everyone worldwide will try to seek out Jews in admiration to bring them to the messiah, because they heard he is with them. (Fail)
Ezekiel 37:12
Mass Resurrection of the dead. (Didn't happen-- fail)
Ezekiel 45:22-23
The messiah will perform animal sacrifices for the sins of the people. (Which completely cancels the Christian claim that jesus was the last sin sacrifice)--fail
Zephaniah 3:9
When the messiah establishes the kingdom, Yahweh will give everyone one pure language to use. --fail, didn't happen.
Jeremiah 31:34
No more teaching of religion, for all will immediately be given knowledge of Yahweh. No bibles,no qurans, no religious books needed. And nobody would lack knowledge or be an atheist.
Are there atheists and religious books still?? Fail
Isaiah 26:19
Zombiepocolypse. Dead shall rise worldwide. ---fail
Ezekiel 44:9
Everyone must be circumcised by the heart AND the flesh. (Cutting all mens dicks😱🤭--fail)
These are just some of the major messianic scriptures that must happen, but didn't happen. Jews know they didn't happen, and therefore they know their messiah hasn't come.
Anyone whom claims otherwise has failed to acknowledge the importance of Jewish scriptures to Jews and Jesus.
Only blind cult faith in the ridiculous vision* claims of Paul (Paul never met Jesus) would lead someone to believe jesus was the messiah.
Wow! I never knew that about Bart. Converted more Christians to Atheist than anyone? Bart is now my hero!
You're damned then if you can't open your heart and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord God and Saviour and take up your cross and follow him all the way through your Life, choose Life choose Jesus Christ, be blessed.
@@chetanpaulr I’m fine with that. Are you? As a citizen of a free country, your opinion has no bearing on my life. Maybe we can talk about it when we meet in hell.
@@skeptic_al Yeah go to hell on your own accord, my Lord God Jesus Christ will lead me to salvation and Eternal Life, sorry but not sorry to see you choose your own damnation of hell.
Even though it’s been up for a while now, I just wanted to say that the website looks amazing Mike! Grateful to everyone involved in putting it together! You guys are rockstars!🤟🏽
Those are devil horns in your comment! Some say that means I love you. But, apparently, an occultist made this and the other symbols. And, it's ironic that an occultist would formulate the devil horns symbol to mean I love you. Where did she get it from? It's used by celebs that don't need sign language period!
yes ...a valuable industry to protect..
Thank you for your comment to Mike and his staff of truly gifted people, who we never see.
Your hand signal emoji is definitely understood within the context of your sentence as 'you rock.' 'You rock!' could also be demonized just as the hand symbol. But you use both to emphasize Mike is doing an excellent job. He is. 😊 Just like language, some hand gestures can mean different things to different people. Ever look up the word "pious "? Lol. I think it is very appropriate for this conversation. 🖖
Deeply edifying. Well presented with a spirit of kindness.
Perfect summary.
Utterly stupid. Who in their right mind considers the bible to be moral by any sense of the word? Never mind the absurdity of talking snakes, magic apples spoken of in Genesis, here is a book that endorses slavery, murder, and all kinds of immorality... a book about a bloodthirsty god that is all-powerful, yet still demands innocent blood. Call this diety Satan. Even if the biblical god were real, it is completely unfit for worship.
Consider just how immoral and illogical the story of Abraham and Issac is. Abraham hears a voice that tells him to climb a certain mountain and kill his own son. Instead of questioning this voice, instead of replying, "isn't murder Satanic?" This ignorant Abraham character hauls his son up a mountain with a bundle of sticks and a knife in hand, fully intent on killing the child. Is that in any way moral, much less logical? And how does the biblical god react? He blesses Abraham and declares him "righteous above all others"... for being willing to perform the Satanic act of murdering a child. How utterly evil is that? Even if the biblical god were real, it is wholly unfit for worship. It doesn't take much to figure that out.
not toward Bart Ehrman. the title is totally unfair and not in keeping with the ideas of the debate. you watched the debate, right?
@@williamjohns9322 Yes, I think the title is trying to go for a general sense in which he misleads people and that he is not being critical on some things. I'm going to try to find the debate. I'm an atheist trying to learn about historic Christian worldviews btw
@@williamjohns9322 plp
The ties to prophesy Mike illustrates in Paslm 22, and Isaiah 53 are mind-blowing! When I became aware of Dr. Erhman's online lectures, I was impressed with his knowledge and interpretations. Yet, the more I watched him, the more I realized he was stuck with certain repetitions, and he found himself quite entertaining. This lecture is the first impressive Christian rebuttal I've heard to Erhman's work, and I think it's enlightening. Thanks.
Watch first clip of Ehrman. Then go read the Gospel of Mark. Three times Jesus predicts his death and resurrection, all three characterize abandonment and humiliation.
Ehrman is verifiably misrepresenting the text. It is not believable Ehrman does not know this. Whatever caused him to abandon the faith... It wasn't logic, truth seeking, or evidence.
@@spartakos3178 Yep, good ol' fashioned "pride"
Cope away!
@@spartakos3178 No you are misinterpreting Ehrman. He never said Jesus didn't predict his death or was shocked that he had to die. That is your misinterpretation. You're jumping tot conclusions. Look up his answer on Paulogia.
How on earth can you say that a professor is misinterpreting? What are your credentials? Or are you just a layman?
@@davethebrahman9870 Lol what’s wrong? In disbelief that perhaps Ehrman isn’t so infallible as atheists like to believe?
Once again well done, Mike. A hearty well done on the new website as well.
-PAPA Dale
Somebody please for the love of God give me an ounce of proof without using the Bible.
Somebody please for the love of George Washington give me an ounce of proof without using most of the historical documents referencing him.
@@HoldToChrist why would God sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself? Make it make sense, without saying sin. Make it make logical sense on why those steps needed to be taken. Also make sense of thou shall not kill and explain why it's different than a global flood or turning a lady to salt for looking? Why is it a crime to exercise your free will?
@caveresch there is no statement in the Bible that reads "Thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew is properly translated as "You shall not murder."
Your other demand about not mentioning sin is confusing. That's like demanding a doctor explain why their cancer patient died without being allowed to use the word cancer. It seems you've heard an explanation before and didn't like the answer and demand an alternative. But there is no alternative to give.
@@matthewpahnke2613 ooo my bad bro, I guess I never realized the difference between killing and murdering... Here's the logical explanation, self defense fine... Going to war because of disagreeing on beliefs or to take land from an established country or for control of their resources, bad. Either way you look at it killing is murder and murder is killing... Anyway, Hebrew is the language of the devil (if it exists) anyway... Look at any serious catastrophe in history and I bet you'll find at least one person still praying in Hebrew involves or benefitting... Vote for Trump and fight against those folks please and thank you... Also a church just recently ended any and all chances of me ever believing in any of this when the most important thing to my fiance was, was to have her church that she donates 10% of her $32/hr check to weekly officiate and they said no because I didn't believe in one person despite having every moral alignment with them. That's a cult.
I feel like the premonition of Jesus saying the “son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men”…in Mark 9:31 already dismantles his interpretation of Mark’s gospel.
You honestly think someone with Ehrman's credentials hasn't read Mark 9:31...? Like many scholars, Ehrman believes that Jesus was not referring to himself when he talked about the "Son of Man".
@@williambecker5811 who was he refering to ?
@@stephenbaptist3077 A coming Son of Man. Go read any of his works and you would know this.
@@williambecker5811 Jesus claiming to BE the Son of Man (of Daniel 7:13) is literally what got him killed. See Mark 14:62.
@@Wesstuntube I mean if we're just reading the Bible and taking it all at face value just turn to the page that says Jesus is God and call it a day. Critically minded scholars don't accept that as the reason why. If you actually took a look at content from mainstream scholars instead of getting it filtered through the lens of apologetics, you would already know that most scholars don't think that's why Jesus was killed.
I just found your youtube channel this month, and I actually feel like my prayers have been answered. I have genuinely been looking for a way to make researching and learning context of the bible easier... and you have certainly saved me much confusion and time. Your time and effort is SO appreciated. Thank you so much for making these videos!!
That’s wonderful, praise God!
James white
Jeff durbin
Frank turke
David wood are also good
@@HLZBORO738 thank you! I’ll check them out!
Look up Off the Kirb Ministries for a great spiritual building Christian channel. He's brilliant too.
@@HLZBORO738 Durbin is amazing
No matter what your position is on Bart’s assessment of Mark, the fundamental issue remains that the supernatural claims of the Bible do not have good evidentiary backing. It’s more than reasonable to doubt claims that have not been proven to be true.
Thank you Mark for BBB this wonderful website!✝️🙏🏼💕
Well done Mike! You just taught many of us something that Many of us have never realized. Your teaching is helping make many Christians much stronger and more informed!
When I heard the 3 minute clip, the Holy Spirit automatically tore it apart with verses that proved him wrong. That's the great thing about the Holy Spirit, if you have Him and you read your Bible, He is always faithful to defend the truth with scripture.....He brings it right to memory.
And HOW did you come to conclude this 'holy spirit' is real? Have you observed this spirit?
@@theoskeptomai2535 have you physically observed logic? No? Well, according to you, it must not exist.
I have memory issues day to day with my medical condition. The only thing that never leaves me is the word. I can forget everything but the word always comes to me no matter how long ago I've read the word etc. The word from scriptures I may have read years ago will come back when needed. God is faithful to His word. The Holy Spirit indwells us and will bring things to rememberance. God's word is alive in us. This is evidence the believer has that the unbeliever can never know. Yes God is in our hearts unbelievers sorry you can't accept that.
I said to my fiance that I'm already tearing down his argument as he's making it because I read my bible! Each gospel is a separate human being, and trying to make a different point with their telling of the story. Their experiences are different and their priorities are different....of course there is differences in their stories. It doesn't make contradictions, it makes different things that are witnessed and prioritized.
@@dh31409 circular arguments, never listened in psychology class....but I learned it from Mike!
I don't think the clip portrays Bart misleading anyone because he adds that you can't take these Gospels and try to make them one, which is true. They are different points of view being recorded by different writers. The most important events to each writer have been remembered and recorded by them. You have to remember, Mark's Gospel is probably a record of what he learned from Simon Peter while Luke, presumably, interviewed many people, and recorded what stood out to him in their recollections.
Except that Prof Ehrman then goes on to assume that the Christian narrative is a mashed-together , consolidated version of the four accounts and then dfebunks this straw man as an impossibility because of the supposed incompatibilities he raises. And that IS misleading.
I agree with Mike he’s trying to creat a false conflict
Translation: The evidence Bart Ehrman shows contradicts what I want the story to say, therefore Bart is misrepresenting Mark in an effort to deconvert Christians.
Come on man.
You could switch that around and that's what Mike did it's up to us to decide which way to go. Mark died preaching the gospel to pagans. If he didn't believe why die for that belief.
what part of the argument did you disagree with?
First clip of Ehrman: Ehrman states Jesus Dies a Humiliating Death not knowing why it happened.
Mark 8:31 "And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again."
Mark 9:31 "for he was teaching his disciples saying to them "the son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise."
You’re misrepresenting your own sentences and must have not even paid attention to even 5 minutes of this video. I’d bet any sum of money if you read the entire Bible start to finish and studied each context you wouldn’t sound so ignorant.
He’s an agnostic currently.
I’m glad your talking about his work. I have read several of his books and he has a lot of convincing points. I am still a passionate Christian but he’s extremely smart and backs his claims so I hope you work on every more current book because you can help right the wrong he’s done. Thanks for everything. Your work has saved my soul. Well along with Jesus. Be sure to cover his heaven and he’ll book pretty please.
Bart Ehrman does have some good arguments. This one isn't among them.
And when he’s being honest he’s good.
“Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, appendix paperback edition, pg 253.
Just arguments are weak and the Bible refutes them All.
@@gregorytremain4086 Once he refuted his own argument as well. Bart Ehram didn't bring anything new to the table with his book MisQuoting Jesus. The things that he mentioned were already known to the New Testament Scholars 100 years before.
It is all about interpretation guys. The new Testament has an accuracy of over 99.5%. When Bart Ehrman is touching about errors of the new Testament, he is actually referring to the 0.5%.
And even out of the 0.5%, 0.4% are just errors like spelling mistakes and now we are only left with 0.1% which is currently unresolved.
But as Bart Ehrman himself admitted in his book that the 0.1% doesn't in any way affect Christian doctrine.
So there you go, at the end of the day you have an accurate ancient document.
He is a tool of the devil. Stop giving him praise.
This was a very helpful clarification on the comparisons of the two Gospels!
third rate apologetics. Anyone who denies Mark is way different than Luke is a liar.
Love it… “If Mark didn’t say anybody breathed, therefore Mark’s gospel must be stating that nobody breathed.” Brilliant
If Matthew said ‘No one breathed’, and John said ‘Everyone breathed’, no doubt you would make the same assertion. Matthew clearly says that Jesus ‘didn’t answer, not one word’. Christians are just desperate to hold on to inerrancy in the face of the evidence.
That is not Brilliant at all. It is a very stupid and dumb answer from someone who doesn't (want to) know or understand what someone is trying to say. And definitely not what Ehrman said and meant. It is Mike who is putting this words in his mouth, hoping he can mislead his flock with this manipulation. Please look up the answer of Bart on Paulogia (channel on RUclips).
@@davethebrahman9870 Jesus didn't answer to Pilate, yes, after all, an answer requires a question. This cannot possibly be equated to Jesus not saying anything at all, unless you're willingly trying to be dishonest.
@@Bruh-el9js That is simply silly. What do you think ‘not one word’ means? Why would Pilate ‘wonder’ (Matthew) if Jesus did in fact answer the charges by saying that his ‘kingdom is not of this world’, which is in fact a defence to the charge? You are imposing your theological presuppositions on the text.
@@davethebrahman9870 It means that Jesus didn't ANSWER one word. An Answer necessarily responds to a question, i.e., the accusations, and is entirely unrelated to whether he sair anything at all, the NIV says: "But Jesus still made no reply", the KJV says "...but HE answered nothing".
Why are you quoting Matthew now when I clearly established that we're discussing Mark? And how is "kingdom not of this world" a response? How do you explain Matthew (in NIV) saying "But Jesus made n reply, not even to a single charge"? You're not even quoting the right book, the "kingdom not from this world" quote is from John, and in there he doesn't offer a defense in any way, he quite literally complies with the accusation. If we accept "answer" to be a response to the accusations, then the other gospels were right and Jesus didn't respond. If, however, we understand "answer" to be any and every back and forth dialogue, which is a right thing to do in most contexts, then we mischaracterize what Matthew said, which, once again, as per the NIV, is: "But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge". Couple that with the further context that it is said that Jesus didn't respond to the priests, not to Pilate: "When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer".
There is no contradiction.
I am SO FREAKIN' EXCITED TO DISCOVER YOU AND YOUR TEACHING!! What a GIFT!!! Today has been a "Pour it all out EXHAUSTING Day"... and somehow (I'm too tired to remember) THIS crossed my path. GOD SENT. Thank you for your diligent, Biblically FAITHFUL study... I can't wait to learn more!! Wow... I'm gong to crash and sleep and let my mind ponder all I've absorbed here... So grateful.
Well done, sufficient rebuttal.
If by chance you have seen the video of Dinesh D'Souza vs Bart Ehrman debate .
Dinesh hands him his butt. Its a great video Dinesh has a real sense of humor.
God bless.
Not really
@@bipslone8880 lmao , and how do you figure…
@@johnalexander4940 In your dreams
@@bipslone8880 how do you figure that ?
MIKE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EXPLAINING THE DOCTRINE IN SUCH A SINCERE AND SOUND WAY... REALLY IMPRESSIVE .. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK 👍 LOVE FROM INDIA ❤️
I ALWAYS LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR VIDEOS ... GOD BLESS YOU !!
Me tooo. From India❤️
If you guys want to see a good debate watch Dinesh D' Souza vs Bart Ehrman on the topic of a Loving God and Evil.
Dinesh did an INCREDIBLE job refuting Barts assertions. Go and watch it please. Good 👍 apologetics material.
God bless you both
I don't think Dr. Ehrman is trying to convert people into atheists. He is saying each gospel is important in different ways. Also, you are making points Bart is not arguing against. He is more objective than you are. You are motivated to make it work and he is not.
It's amazing how out in the open it is right there in scripture and yet somehow people listen to Bart Ehrman or someone like him and don't seem to question it. This is evidence to me that there are spiritual forces blinding the minds of people. We need to pray against this together.
Exactly. For someone so brilliant he exhibits poor reading comprehension skills
Well since there's no proof that a miracle man named jesus actually existed, it's a mute point.
@@briankrakau8371 well Bart Ehrman the atheist does affirm he existed.
@@kevingp12 read my post again, then show me where Bart says this.
@@briankrakau8371 troll
Thank you Heavenly Father for people like Mike Winger who can use objective truth in the proper way to expose false teachers.
Mike Winger is a really good example of what Steven Weinberg meant when he said, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." Winger is someone clearly made worse by his religious beliefs.
It’s fascinating how much believers trust their holy books. Regardless of how many inaccuracies, inconsistencies, false claims and forgery there is still the temptation to believe anything an old book has in it. Why didn’t Jesus just write his own gospel? Or at least commission one of his 12 to be a personal historian? Why the anonymous authors writing decades after he supposedly existed?
Jesus (as the Holy Spirit) DID commission four Gospels, and they were not written by anonymous authors (three were eyewitnesses, one an historian).
Copies of the NT manuscripts abound and are in excess of almost any other ancient writing.
No real historian, even Bart above, doubts the existence of the man Jesus.
The Bible is unlike any other book. That's called the anointing. Pray and ask for God's revelation. You may be surprised.
@Bot are you Blammit?
Yes
"Church" not being a building or organization but rather a called-out (of the world) group of people that He designated as "His body "
P.S. Early writings show that the letters later called the New Testament were identified and used regularly much earlier than 330 AD. 🙏
@@eswn1816 how could someone disprove that the Holy Spirit commissioned the gospels?
@@eswn1816 there were other gospels used as canon before 300CE that are not in the Bible now such as the Shepard of Hermas.
@@MendicantBias1
Check out Philosophy of Science ("proofs")
"disprove" = prove a negative... not possible!
What makes Bart assume Jesus has "no idea what's going own"? Jesus was fully aware of what, where, why, and how. :/
His (Bart) behaviours are in the ways of the con-men.
He told His disciples he was going to die and prayed in the garden about it the night before. To say he didn't know what was going on is ridiculous.
“My god my god why have you forsaken me?” not knowing what’s going on vs another gospel, Luke, saying “into your hands I commit my spirit”. Asking why it’s happening vs the other quote. Does that help?
@@CyberManor Have you read the entirety of Mark? What Phil (the original post) is saying is that in the book of Mark, Jesus already knows of his death beforehand.
@@HistorymakerD Mark is my favorite gospel actually. It leaves out all the made up stuff like the infancy narratives, inconsistent genealogies, non historical census in Luke, Matthew trying to make Jesus the new Moses with the slaughter of the innocents, the embarrassing details left in like the spittle to heal someone and his family calling him crazy. It’s still interesting how the narratives change and go from Jesus asking a question to being confident in his death.
When Mr Ehrman, said " My G-d My G-d why have you forsaken me " I would suggest that he should read the rest of Psalm 22 🙄 it is a great Psalm of victory.. 🕎🌎🌍🌏✝️
Why?
@@bipslone8880 I hope that you also red the psalm 🙄 and especially the last verse, it would be a great comfort to those that heard it, before Ye-hua said 🙄 Tetlesti😳 or it is finished.. I hope that this helps. 🕎🌎🌍🌏✝️
@@dawvidben-huir8101 why are you changing the subject away from mark?
@@bipslone8880 I am not changing away from Mark, remember we are able to " see " Ye-hua through the eyes of Matthew, Peter ( Mark ) and John, and a later historian Luke ( a companion of rabbi Shaul from Tarshish )🕎🌎🌍🌏✝️
@@dawvidben-huir8101 ya, run away then
Thank you for this video. A loved one that I am witnessing to went to UNC. They took two of his courses going in to them with very little biblical knowledge. Now 20 years later we are trying to have discussions on why they believe what they believe. It goes back to Dr. Ehrman’s lectures. He is smart and presents the topics in a passionate way with opinions on scripture that would be difficult to unpack. He has a lot of the same talking points in his debate with Jimmy Akin.
Eloquence wit and charisma embracing enough doubt to champion self and feelings as the unspoken god. Satan has no new tricks just new misguided souls with itching ears. Great job Mike, God bless you.
When I was an atheist (or, more accurately, an anti-theist), my criticism of the scriptures was not in order to discover truth, but to mock the scriptures and those who believe them. I "knew" the scriptures were false, contradictory, etc., so I didn't care if I wasn't presenting the scriptures honestly or accurately, I was just concerned with showing & convincing Christians that they need to "wake-up" and "stop believing this nonsense".
I didn't realize it at the time, but I was fond of using the same logical fallacy of which Mike is exposing Ehrman of using, i.e. the "Argument from Silence", and its sister "The absence of evidence equals the evidence of absence".
A prime historical example of this was the long-running anti-theist position that, since there was no extra-biblical evidence of the existence of the Hittites, they, therefore, did not exist and were a total fabrication of the Biblical writers.
So when the mountains of archeological evidence for the existence of the Hittites was uncovered, you would have thought that they (as the rational people anti-theists claim to be) would have recognized this fallacious thinking and abandoned it. Their failure to do so exposes just how reasonable many of them truly are.
When discussing Bible or God issues with atheists and anti-theists, it would be a wise strategy to ask them at the beginning if they are intrested and open to discovering what the truth is, or if they are there simply to disprove the Bible. Otherwise, we are simply spinning our wheels, .
How wonderful!
Glory To GOD for your Salvation!!!
Thank you for your comment, my thoughts also!
I found no reference to the no Hittites claim except for the obviously false claim by a Christian another Christian did not believe in them.
Christians obviously need to work on your villain motivations and skepticism again.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Again, you have fallen victim to the logical fallacy "the absence of evidence equals the evidence of absence". Just because you didn't find the information, doesn't mean it's not there, it could mean that you simply don't know how to look, you gave up give up after a Google search, or you're just not that bright.
@@Bildad1976 How do you know that then? How could you know that without a source?
@@Bildad1976 And quoting the source instead of using unbiased assertions that seem to come from a Christian who is clearly not very bright for not thinking two seconds about why a Christian not believing in the Hittites is dumb.
My husband uses Bart Ehrman to make me doubt the Bible, thank you so much for this video! Perhaps you can do more about him? Thank you so much for your new webiste, I listen a lot to your video's but they are long and you talk so quick ;) I can not write that down so quickly as a Duch person. I love it that you make it available free! God bless you in your work!
I would strongly suggest not listening to this Bart Ehrman. Why? When you hear someone spreading falsehoods, why would you trust in what they say? One of the ways I keep myself straight is by not listening to people that routinely lie. I'm not saying that this person is a liar, necessarily. But the same principle applies. How much of what this man says do you believe? Let's say 10% of what he is saying is at the least misleading. Even 5%. If that was the case, why would you listen to him? Don't do it. It's been a while since I've listened and commented on Bart Ehrman's videos but my conclusion is that this is one of those people that is not credible, not because he isn't intelligent but because he is misleading.
Believe in it if it makes you feel happy but thats what its about making yourself feel happy in the face of death.
@@MrYorickJenkins Everyone dies. The question is where you end up.
@@robertbrown6879 Indeed. IMO there is after death, no "you" which can "end up" anywhere at all.
@@robertbrown6879 she said her husband listens to Bart....Not her!!
In this crazy world it is a comfort to listen to your stream. Thank you for doing what you do.
Except he didn't talk about contradictions at all. You've missed the entire point. He was only saying how each gospel is a book on it's own and it emphasizes specific things to tell us a story in their way. I you read them independently, you can get that rom each of them. That doesn't mean he claims they contradict each other.
And I think most Christians would agree with that. The issue is this: why must we interpret silence as shock or uncertainty? Why must Jesus’s cry be one of doubt, and not simply a reference to the entire Psalm, as was common during the time? Why must the decision of Mark to not mention things Jesus said during His passion to mean He didn’t actually say them? As you said, Mark is telling his own story and using the details of greatest interest to him in trying to reach his gentile audience
Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" This is Jesus taking the context of the Psalm and applying it to the cross for fulfilled prophecy...Mark is only emphasizing prophetic connections to Jesus.... Bart either has not read the bible or He is completely fabricating a narrative based upon deception. Based upon his stature he is likely the latter.
It does seem to be deliberate on Bart's part. He has to be willfully misrepresenting scripture.
You guys completely missed Ehrman's argument. The exact translation is irrelevant. The argument is that there are different traditions within each of the gospels, but in your Christian dogmatism you read only one tradition. It's like you guys are missing a comprehension gene.
Satan is using him and he will be cast away when satan is done.
@@LC-jq7vn I guess if you base your life's purpose on a fiction, might as well make it climactic.
@You Say If only philosophical and philological exegesis of the gospel writers were ONLY Jewish in language and culture. It would make this argument much more accessible to the monolinguals.
lol... Apparently Bart hasn't actually looked up psalm 22.
As Allen Parr always says, "If you take text out of context, you get conned."
I love the BEAT
"A text without context is a pretext."
I forgot all about the video Listening to what Jesus went through for our rebellious, vindictive, hateful selves is heart breaking. I am not worth it.
I think of my problems and still so selfish. Thank You Lord Jesus Christ!!!! 🙏
As a preface, I am a former Christian Deist. You have pit forward a concise, respectful rebuttal here. It's refreshing to see differing views without rancor or condescension. Thank you for this.
what's it like in your perspective to be a Deist, especially Christian! I would like to study it maybe.
So you were a believer at some time..? Why have you abandoned the truth? I believe if you had at some point a TRUE encounter with Christ, you know deep in your heart that He is the only one.
I have always been analytical. At 8 years old I brought up the "problem of evil" to my church pastor. His answer was, "it's God's will". That was probably the first chink in the armor of Christianity for me. In my life (I'm 55 now), I have seen a lot of bad. I can't reconcile an omniscient, omnipotent omnibenevolent God to predestination a large portion of living creatures to suffer and die (going to eternal torture in many cases) when He could easily will it otherwise. So, while I won't belittle someone believing, if it helps them, I can't personally believe in the Christian God. My conscience tells me that there is something underlying reality, so I let my search go the way of a "Force or energy" that makes reality exist. That's the best my limited vocabulary can do at this point.
“Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, appendix paperback edition, pg 253.
@PulsarWatcher if you want to make the claim that it has changed you need to provide evidence not loose conjectures.
@PulsarWatcher ... yeah... yeah we kinda do. The amount of time available to the skeptic in which history allows them to posit wild changes on the basis of what we dont have is between ad 33- and ad 70... but even then you have a massive problem because what we see from the earliest writings of, say, Clement of Rome, immediately justifies and connotes the same biblical narrative we have today. So you have to posit critical changes in between 30 years of christs death WHILE the apostles and eye witnesses are still alive and proliferating the message we see repeated in extra-biblical writings and in manuscript fragments.
Long story short, no, there is no actual time period in which the skeptic can reasonably claim alterations to the biblical narrative.
@@andrewhinson4323 i am not sure that it's that simple. With clement what *you* see is a chain of custody that is eventually named orthodoxy. I can conceive of a scenario where this one sequence was selected for a later church apparatus to the exclusion of other sequences whose texts were rejected and hunted down for destruction. For example... Gnosticism and texts such as what were found at Nag Hammadi didn't fall into disuse organically. The opposition actively sought them out.
@PulsarWatcher So what is the evidence that it was changed over the centuries?
@PulsarWatcher "May have" is a possibility. Sure, it's possible the bible have been changed. That doesn't mean anything, anything is possible.
"Most likely did" that's a probabilistic claim. Now you have to prove that there is a high probablity that the bible is changed. Then you can say that it's unreliable.
You can't jump from possible to highly probable. It's possible that a parachute fails to open, but that doesn't automatically mean it is most likely to fail, and therefore unreliable. That's quite a leap of logic.