New Resurrection Book Misrepresents Scholarship: What You Need to Know (feat Dr Bart Ehrman)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- With Gary Habermas' new thousand-page book serving as both a potential doorstop and a source of debate, Dr Ehrman helps unpack what it truly means to argue "Argumentum ad Bartum" and dissect whether the size of one's work directly correlates to its credibility.
=== !! FREE !! SIGN-UP FOR BART'S NEW COURSE - www.tinyurl.com... ===
Featured videos: • Why do biblical schola... • The Resurrection Argum...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord 
Наука
=== !! FREE !! SIGN-UP FOR BART'S NEW COURSE - www.tinyurl.com/BartHate ===
BartHate 💀
J e s u s P o w e r S t a r t I n g
All who read will receive Jesus healing energy all old aches and pains will be washed away. Those that ground yr spirit by self worship are allowed
thanks, sound interesting! I just signed up and blocked out some time to watch!
This is the first one I've signed up for. I've liked Bart for quite a while and there ain't no better price than free.
I wish I could excuse Gary. But he does have an earned PhD in history. His misquotations of Ehrman strike me as lying by omission and quote mining. Gary is not an honest person in this regard. His faith has blinded him.
"[F]aith" is a weird way to spell "wallet."
A classic case of blind faith. 🙄
Fundamentalist Christian academics are rife with piss poor academic standards. Gary Blabbermass teaches at Liberty University, an absolute morass of academic and moral standards. That alone should be enough to discredit him. But most Christians don’t care. They think Gary and Bart are on equal footing as scholars and view academics like a sports game. In reality it’s like an amateur basketball player getting dunked on by a pro athlete. Ehrman demolishes Gary at every level but they don’t understand.
Do what u like is his way. Maybe he can't find his way home. Well alright in his sea of joy presence of the lord 😁@@Amazing_Mark
Hmm. Did Habermas misquote though?
"I should stress in addition that Paul indicates on several occasions that the traditions about Jesus are ones that he himself inherited from those who came before him. This is clearly implied when he says that he “handed over” what he had earlier “received,” technical language in antiquity for passing on traditions and teachings among Jewish rabbis. Even where Paul does not state that he is handing on received tradition, there are places where it is clear he is doing so. I have mentioned, for example, Romans 1:3-4, an ancient adoptionistic creed about Jesus that indicates he “became” the son of God only when he was raised from the dead. This creed was not written by Paul: it uses words and phrases not otherwise found in Paul (for example, spirit of holiness) and contains concepts otherwise alien to Paul (that Jesus was made the Son of God at the resurrection). He is using, then, an earlier creed that was in circulation before his writing.
Where did Paul get all this received tradition, from whom, and most important, when? Paul himself gives us some hints. He indicates in Galatians 1 that originally, before his conversion, he had been a fierce persecutor of the church of Christ, but then on the basis of some kind of mysterious revelation he came to see that Jesus really was the Son of God, and he converted. After three years, he tells us, he made a trip to Jerusalem, and there he spent fifteen days with Cephas and James. Cephas was one of Jesus’s twelve disciples, and James was his brother. I will stress the importance of this fact in the next chapter. **For now I simply want to point out that this visit is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions that he refers to and even the received traditions that we otherwise suspect are in his writings that he does not name as such.** And when would this have been Since Paul sometimes provides a time frame (“three years later” or “after fifteen years”), it is possible to put together a rough chronology of Paul’s life. To give us a rock-solid start, we can say that Paul must have been converted sometime after the death of Jesus around 30 CE and sometime before 40 CE.
The latter date is based on the fact that in 2 Corinthians 11:32 Paul indicates that King Aretas of the Nabateans was determined to prosecute Paul for being a Christian. Aretas died around the year 40. So Paul converted sometime in the 30s CE. When scholars crunch all the numbers that Paul mentions, it appears that he must have converted early in the 30s, say, the year 32 or 33, just two or three years after the death of Jesus.
This means that if Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them, and received the traditions that he later gives in his letters, around the middle of the decade, say the year 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death."
--Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist 131-132.
Oh, good gods. There is only one "evidence" that someone "resurrected," and if it is valid, then SALEM'S LOT is evidence that vampires exist.
Utterly stunning that Salem's Lot was his second book.
He wrote several other books before hand which were later published as Richard Bachman novels.
It is insanely impressive either way, one of his best hands down.
Oh hilarious! Gary interviewed 250 scholars in "appropriate fields".. but managed to bypass the acknowledged leading NT authority - Dr. Bart Ehrman - despite quoting him heavily throughout the text.
Cherry picking scholars and quotes to support a specific view of Christianity? Inconceivable!
Right?
Obviously he couldn’t find enough historians who agree with his minimal facts so he had to add a few theologians and philosophers… maybe even lawyers, journalists and cold case detectives.😂
he might write popular books, popular because so many want to cast doubt on Jesus, but that doesnt make him the leading NT authority. And who has 'acknowledged' that? In reality there is no leading NT authority. Just quite a few scholars.
@@PC-vg8vn
Well… Habermas talks about Ehrman as if he is the leading authority that gives his minimal facts argument some weight.😂
I'm a PhD in history who has published quite a bit. The clear sign that Habermas is not doing true scholarship is that he openly admits to paying to have this book series published by a non-peer-reviewed press. This book is not scholarship.
You are right. And, remember, Ehrman's book "Did Jesus exist" is also non peer-reviewed.
@@theemptycross1234I don’t think that’s true. I searched Barts book and it is peer reviewed.
@@j.a420 Are you sure? I remember Ehrman in an interview (I think Mythvision) where he said that the publisher asked him to write a pop market book about Jesus historicity, he wrote it, it was reviewed by the publisher (not by peers) and then Ehrman said he was glad to go back to do scholarship (because his book is not peer-reviewed scholarship).
@@theemptycross1234 I didn't think it required peer review since it is almost a nonsensical argument that Jesus never existed. No brainer.
@@acircharo you are right: if you don't use your brain, you will always think Jesus existed 😆
Okay, but if I don't like "Did Peter Hate Paul?", I'm gonna want my money back.
No refunds!
You'll need your receipt for proof of purchase. Lol
Maybe you can get a Cheerios' coupon. (It's a "zero," get it?)
Now that's a book I'd like to see.
Gary is using Bart the same way that Paul used Peter. He only acknowledges what Bart says insofar as he can use it to show that he was right all along.
LOL great point
In that way Gary is being so Biblical!
It isn't fair to hold Gary to the standards of a real professor. He teaches at Liberty University, which was just fined millions of dollars because female students who reported sexual assaults were punished for violating their ridiculous code of conduct. How is he supposed to know any better? If academic dishonesty is the worst crime you can pin on him, he should be in the running for professor of the year.
Look up the prior history of the institution Ehrman teaches at. You'll be amazed that it's turned around enough to even have Bart there.
@davidhinkley so they're both bad researchers and we should probably believe the more rational and likely claims ("people told an incorrect story about a magical resurrection" vs. "A magical resurrection definitely happened.")
I love it, when there's no way to defend the apologist, just pretend pointing out flaws in one or two people who criticize the apologist proves the apologist was correct
Non sequitur.
@@rossgalbraith3878 congrats on knowing words 👏
@@adamcosper3308 congrats on the logical fallacy
“They added nothing to my message” could also mean that they told him a bunch of things that Paul chose to ignore and not include in his version of the story.
Also, Paul could be (and possibly is) lying about never hearing about his message from anyone else, and may very well have heard it from someone adjacent to them, and thus would be more similar to their message than not. It's probably some combination of both, honestly: Paul acknowledged the parts he was fine with ("They only asked that I remember the poor," though based on other letters that sounds like a veiled indication that Paul promised them money), and just pretends they didn't say anything else. Who's going to double-check over in Greece?
@@Uryvichk It seems to me, based upon my observations of cult formation in the current era, and assuming that human nature has not changed radically in the last 2000 years, that the simplest explanation for everything Pauls says and does is that he joined the Jesus movement to make a living preaching. Maybe he persecuted Jesus followers, maybe not (...do we have anyone's word about that other than his?) but at some point he was struck with how easy it would be to just take this message into the virgin (...so to speak...) territory of non-Jews and build from there. We see preachers of all sorts (not just Christian) do the same thing to this day, so why not Paul?
(If we are going to accept his vision as literally true, why are we not Mormons?)
All that said, it's interesting to ponder the relationship between Peter and Paul (...as reported by Paul, apparently ...) for much the same reason as pondering the relationship between Vecna and Orcus. Either way, for a Christian author to deliberately misstate a source, as is done here, is strong evidence against his sincerity.
It could mean "They agreed with me" or "They disagreed with everything I said so here's my version", so Have-a-massive-lie goes with the interpretation that suits his agenda.
Definitely how I always interpreted that line too.
I gain all of my understanding of English from cross-reference Tolkien's use of the words in TLOTR. From this I understand that the word 'ring' is nearly always used in reference to magical powers. This informs my understanding that my wedding ring holds literal power binding me to my spouse and, should we ever separate, it must be destroyed.
You are a loyal servant of the Tolkien faith my brother.
I still don't understand how the minimal facts argument is supposed to work at all. At base, there is the assumption that we should accept what the scholarly consensus is, but 'Jesus resurrected' isn't part of that consensus.
Then why did Bart say this, was he misleading others? 1 Cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance
Bart Ehrman "Paul indicates on several occasions that the traditions about Jesus are ones that he himself inherited from those who came before him. This is clearly implied when he says that he "Handed over" what he earlier had "received," technical language in antiquity for passing on traditions and teachings among Jewish rabbis... where did Paul get all this received tradition, from whom, and most important, when? Paul himself gives us some hint. He indicates in Galatians (Gal 1-2)... Paul must have been converted sometime after the death of Jesus around 30CE and sometime before 40CE (Bart puts it to AD 32-33)... Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter) and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them, and received the traditions... say the year 35 or 36" [Did Jesus Exist? Pages 130-131]
The "supposed to work" bit is about a lot of hand-waving, misquoting, making up stuff out of whole cloth, that is supposed to dazzle you with . . . "baloney." Just make sure you pass around the collection plate.
@@jobinkoshy8197 what does this have to do with the post you replied too?
I believe the idea is that if we take the minimal facts the most reasonable explanation for those facts is the Resurrection.
I agree with you that it does raise the question of why we should come to that conclusion when it isn't the conclusion of the consensus of experts.
I think Habermas' answer to that one is that scholars aren't "allowed" to affirm the resurrection.
@@jobinkoshy8197People join the flat earth society and must have bern converted by people who truly saw the flat earth. Paul is surely not the brightest candle and he surely had other to think for him and come up with a savious found in scripture. We dont know but we see stuff in Philo of Alexandria and others. It was around at the time.
Perhaps Gary's book should be titled, "Misquoting Bart."
It would be worlds better than using "evidences" in the title.
No surprise that a self proclaimed Chistian "scholar / expert / apologist" misrepresents the facts / scholarship. It's basically all they do.
I can see the headline now: Person Whose Job Consists Entirely Of Misrepresenting Facts Accused Of Misrepresenting Facts
It's a feature, not a bug.
Have you seen bart do the exact same thing or do you just see what you want to see?
@@joe5959 I think you missed the 'Christian' bit. Bart is a scholar of Christianity not a Christian scholar.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillaryes, and a shit one at that
Peter probably hated him, since people were always robbing him to settle debts with Paul.
🤣
But later they joined forces and started making candy together.
And don’t get me started about when Mary met up with them.
Funny
This deserves more likes than it's gotten
I love Paul and Dr Ehrman videos tbh. They always seem to have so much fun
Exactly! reviewing scholarship does not have to be dull.
Sounds to me like Habermas has wasted 14 years of his life.
Until you see his net worth.
He who dies believing the most lies wins.
@@ModernCelt
And the vast swaths of gullible sheep that eat it up uncritically.
@@TinesthiaDoes your knees hurt from gargling on paulogias balls?
Do you own a fedora?
Peter hated Paul because Paul's name came up first alphabetically.
Except "Cephas" would beat "Paul."
^^an argument still waged to this day
They must have both despised Mary then. Folk singers huh, All ego man...ohhhhhhhhhhh
Just like Japan got Korea to change its name from “Joseon”. This is an actual thing that happened.
It seems like the minimum facts proof is less of a silver bullet and more like using buckshot at 200 yards. There just might be a factual element in all of these books. And if we follow the WLCraig school of thought, you can't possibly lower the epistemic bar any further.
I love when Dr Ehrman is on.
He's so easy to love, such a happy presence.
He's the most reliable new testament biblical scholar.
@@arnulfo267No hes not😂
Why? How do you know what he is saying is correct? He has been caught many times simply speculating, if not being downright dishonest.
@@jamiehudson3661 Dishonest?
I'm a lay person and I have never thought that pre-Pauline meant 'before Paul's conversion'. It has always been obvious to me that it was about the Pauline letters. So if a learned apologist makes such a mistake, it's very embarrassing.
Pre-Pauline was when Doris was my girlfriend. Pauline doesn’t like me to refer to that time.
"they added nothing to my message" could also be true if he was uncompelled by all arguments made to him. this vague message could be taken as "I already knew everything they said" and "I didnt believe a word they said" and "everything they were right on I already knew, everything else I rejected"
Pretty much.
Would honestly love to see a fictionalized dramatization of the early history of the church with the whole Peter vs Paul conflict in full display.
When I think that Bart agrees with me then I don’t need to provide any evidence for my claims.
But when Bart disagrees with me then I will provide all of the evidence for my case and ignore almost everything that Bart says.
That's a lesser-known fallacy called Argumentum Ad I'm-Always-Rightum
Bart does speak out his ass quite often it seems. Look at the data yourself.
@@joe5959what data was collected about the resurrection?
That's what most religious people do with academic information and science.
@@joe5959
The data is that 4 anonymous authors who don’t claim that they are eyewitnesses and don’t claim that they spoke with eyewitnesses invented a narrative about Jesus based on the hearsay they collected.😂
Oh yeah! I'm so glad you brought Ehrman in for that ridiculous Paperweight book that Habermas wrote.
Misrepresenting scholarship is exactly what I expect from Garry Habermas. Thank you, Paul, for taking the time to read and review the book.
Misrepresenting is what Bart does. But those who blindly follow him would not know that.
@CRoadwarrior Did you not watch the video to see how Dr. Habermas really misrepresents Dr. Ehrman? I have read books by Ehrman and other scholars. I haven't seen him misrepresent any mainstream views. Most of what he says is the same as what Dale C Allsion Jr. would say. Maybe I am missing cases when Ehrman quotes or explains someone else's view incorrectly. Can you give examples of such cases? I would be happy to know if I am wrong.
@@Nexus-jg7ev One of Ehrman's problems is that he does not interact with scholarship that would refute his claims. He acts as if it either does not exist, or straw man's the position so he can easily knock it down. There are numerous videos on YT showing such things.
I believe I already pointed out in comments here how Bart will misquote the Bible and add words not in the text. He adds the word "babies" in Revelation 2:23 when no Greek word for "babies" is there, as seen in the MythVision podcast video called "Jesus in Revelation is EVIL." The Greek word in that text is properly translated "children."
Now either Bart is woefully ignorant of Greek, or he's being dishonest at Rev. 2:23. But either way, he was very wrong.
@@CRoadwarriorSo the example you provide is a mix up of babies and children? 🤔
I'd agree that this would be something he'd want to have corrected in future prints of a book, but it was a podcast. Was he reading it? Just pulling it from memory?
That seems like such a trivial thing for anyone to care about.
@@dwo356 Podcast or not, we would expect people we trust to give us accurate information to actually do that. It is not "trivial" to use the wrong word while explaining something about a passage of the Bible, especially when the word used is more emotionally charged.
A "child" and a "baby" are two different things, just as my 6 year old is no longer a "baby" and can no longer be regarded as such based on biological fact. So no, it is far from "trivial." It is part of the problem when people like Bart make such mistakes, but people don't get the important implications of them.
If he's such a "scholar," why can't he get basic facts of Greek text content correct?
Bart *fracking* Ehrman needs a lightning sound effect when he enters ⚡⚡⚡
🤣🤣🤣
It's not surprising that Habermas's channel is closed to comments.
I love seeing Dr. Ehrman on. He's misquoted so often, so it's nice to hear him refute idiotic and dishonest claims about him.
Habermas always comes off like he’d be happier as a Dungeon Master or Star Wars nerd. He prefers reading interpretations into the facts than actual scholarship.
and if he becomes a DM, I will play as a priest.
epic loot guaranteed?
That's not what a DM does.
@@jursamaj I wasn’t saying he’d specifically do that as a DM. It’s about how being a DM requires the ability to extrapolate an interesting story from the existing material.
And honestly, it’s hard writing concise comments that also explain everything fully. Nobody likes that guy who nitpicks comments to tell them why they’re wrong. I was writing a short RUclips comment, not an essay.
Early Christians were very similar to QAnon today. They all think they have the same ideas, and if they speak together, they'll think they agree, but if you go and talk to each of them individually, you'll find they have wildly different ideas from each other.
Still true today, honestly.
I'm not sure if Peter hated Paul, but when they sang Puff the Magic Dragon with Mary all was right in the world.
It was the harmonies.
Jesus wasn't a Christian. Paul invented christianISM (AKA Christianity). The religion is based on Paul's inventions. Letters "written" by Galilean fishermen in expert Greek? Puhh-leeezz.
yes. Besides, they are letters about magic. I am sure the languege does not matter :- )
No, Christianity is based on Jesus. I am not sure what letters you are referring to. If you mean the Gospels, only Luke would be viewed as a letter in some sense as it is addressed to an individual. As for writing in Greek, have you not heard of an amanuensis?
@@PC-vg8vn "Christianity is based on Jesus."
on st0ries and rants about jesus and his magic. And on the hopelessly vague term of "the g0d". Somehow, the word "base" simply appears too solid for myths like the bible.
some dudes wrote something about bullsh!t to scam the ignorant.
There is an adage about how the news seems reliable about every subject with which you are unfamiliar, but then becomes much less reliable about subjects for which you have some knowledge. This seems relevant to the reference about the eyewitness nature of the nightly news. I have literally been interviewed for the news only to find that they then use a quote from me and then move on to get lots of details wrong by ignoring other things that i said that are not shared with the audience.
This seems relevant to claims about the resurrection somehow.
@PrometheanRising - As an RN, I'm here to confirm the near absolute truth of this adage.
This guy really wrote four volumes on his minimal facts hypothesis? God I would hate to see the tome produced if he had a reasonable number of facts.
If this series was needed to explain the gospels, it surely points out that all-knowing god did NOT write or oversee the biblical account - because if god had, it would have been clear to everyone at the get-go, without needing a follow-up 2,000 years later.
@@johnnehrich9601 Absolutely
Big book energy. I love it!
I feel like Bart Erhman starting getting super active just after I read his book. I never knew about him before. But now he shows up alot. The man is quick to laughter. Hes downright bubbly. I like him.
Was it Bart who said that Paul met with John to discuss whether Peter should be replaced by Ringo?
Good Old John Ankerberg! I was their babysitter when their daughter was very tiny and he was a budding apologist/tv personality. His wife sang? I think? My sitting jobs for them were in, like, 1970-81? Somewhere in there. Then they moved to Tennessee. John went to the same high school as me-though he was in one of the first graduating classes, and I graduated much much later. Every time I see him on tv, I’m like, yup! He’s still at it-misleading the masses!
How so? Any proof of that?
I was watching your video earlier about that guy who said if there is a one in a million chance Christianity is right then that's good enough to devote your entire life to it. And he tried saying, "If Christianity is wrong then what have you lost?" Gary has lost 14+ years of his life writing about his unfounded biases. 14+ years he's never going to get back.
I honestly thought that George R R Martin would finish A Song of Ice and Fire before Gary Habermas finished his book. If Gary can do it, then George is running out of excuses.
Well, there's just a quarter of the project out so far. Race is still on.
Well "they" can't write both at the same time. Have you ever seen them in the same room together?!
I don't understand how apologists can find Habermas to be a good source in favour of their side.
Because apologists don't need good sources. They just need a source with a string of initials after their name they can cite.
Especially since, to my understanding, biblical scholars don't take Gary seriously.
because they cling to anything that seems to support them.... having no evidence supporting your case at all, while desperately insisting you're right anyway, will do that to you...
@@KenS1267And if you can't find one, use a diploma mill to make one.
Clearly "pre-pauline" means before Paulogia
clearly
First and Second Peter: "Paul never called Peter a lunkheaded doofus who couldn't catch fish in the Sea of Galilee if they jumped into the net, and Peter never said 'Nuh-uh' back, stop saying that or go hang out with Marcion, gosh!"
EVIDENCES - is not a word. EvidencE is a mass noun, not plural in English.
Go away, Habermas.
In general English this tends to be true, but it isn’t uncommon for the word evidences to be (correctly) used as a pluralized noun in more academic contexts. Evidences can also function as a verb.
ETA that he should definitely still go away. Lol
Pretty sure that pluralize evidence is valid if it refers not to multiple pieces of evidence, but multiple types/lines of evidence.
For that matter oxford dictionary does mention that it does happen that evidence is pluralized in academic contexts :
In general English, evidence is always uncountable. However, in academic English the plural evidences is sometimes used: (specialist) The cave contained evidences of prehistoric settlement.
Gary misrepresented Bart?
Shocked, I'm shocked.
Well, not that shocked
Minor chagrin?
If a god wanted me to know its word I wouldn't need a PhD to understand it.
‘O Lord, let my enemy write a book!’ :)
*_FOUR_* volumes?? More words means it's truthier? Interesting...
Of course Peter hated Paul. People kept stealing from him to pay off Paul. I’d be pissed too.
Had a opportunity years ago to ask Habermas a question in the hallway of a conference after he’d finished his presentation. He got very irritated and dismissive. It was just a question not a challenge. That’s not why I’m no longer christian though. The question was just one of many that weren’t adding up in my tiny mind in regards to christianity and the bible.
Big difference when quoting each other. Gary will cite a lot of Bart’s work while Bart doesn’t even mention Gary’s name at all.
"Soylent kombucha"...noice
I always enjoy listening to Bart's perspective. He inspired me to reread Mathew and Mark even though I'm a nihilist.
It's amazing that so soon after the "resurrection" the whole thing went off the rails yet Jesus didn't come back down to clarify it to everyone.
The only evidence for the Resurrection that matters is if the apostles really saw Jesus alive and walking around again after his death (because how else was one supposed to verify a resurrection actually occurred?).
Unfortunately for apologists like Habermas, Paul's early testimony casts doubt on the veracity of the "appearances" because Paul's experience was purportedly a vision after Jesus had already gone to heaven! But this didn't keep Paul from saying Jesus "appeared" to him like he "appeared" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8.
The physical appearances where Jesus is a revived corpse who is touched only develop later, particularly in the gospels of Luke and John. These stories look like apologetically motivated inventions. There is no evidence these stories existed or were believed in the earliest Christianity. They look like they evolved later from what were originally spiritual experiences of Jesus up in heaven.
I would say even that wouldnt be evidence, there is a reason why the quote 'the rumors of my desth are greatly exaggerated' is so used.
But yeah, it is impressive how apologists dont have even that low bar.
If I knew beforehand of this guy named Jesus and then say him walking around after his supposed death, the immediate thought for me was that he wasn't really killed. Coulda' swooned or maybe someone else was crucified in his place, or aka like Mark Twain's “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” (Wikipedia has a FULL page of premature obituaries.) Any of the above, over a resurrection.
Actually, I think Paul COULD be considered an eyewitness to a resurrected Jesus - IF he was NOT delusional, mistaken, or lying. (Mountain-sized "IF.") The only true eyewitness in the full meaning of the phrase. Of course, we don't have his statements uttered under oath, or any background of how much a wackadoodle he was.
I don't mean witnesses to the (later) stories in the gospels but that Jesus was actually divine. If (again IF, which I don't for a moment believe) this vision was heaven-sent, it won't matter if the entire city of Jerusalem did or did witness the empty tomb. Or if Jesus was not a blood-n-guts human but some archangel who somehow met whatever crazy conditions god set down to serve as the ultimate atonement done in heaven. If the human-Jesus did or did not perform miracles, did or did not preach any sermons. Proving you were an message of god would be the real issue, not whether you stopped off on earth on your way.
But IF Paul really believe he talked to a holy ghost, it would carry no more weight that anyone else claiming they talked to Gabriel, Moroni, or Casper.
Now if some figure, complete with halo floated into the UN and addressed everyone, and answered lots of questions, I might believe.
@@johnnehrich9601 This also makes the response of the authorities in Acts seem very weird. Let's say Jesus was indeed (thought to be) executed, and then a few months later people start saying he was raised from the dead and that people have seen him. If you were the Sanhedrin or Roman prefect, wouldn't your first thought be "Crap, we must've killed a stand-in, or he survived somehow and got away, or someone's pretending to be him to rally support for his own claims"? Seems like priority number one would be arresting and torturing the guy who is preaching in Jerusalem that he was raised from the dead until you find out what he means and where this executed criminal is now.
EVEN IF the preachers just meant some kind of invisible spiritual resurrection, why would the authorities go "Ah, he's just speaking metaphorically, nothing to worry about" and not just assume there might be some kind of rebellious speaking-in-code going on here? Yet they don't seem the least bit concerned with recapturing Jesus, as though the author didn't think about that and/or knows that it never happened because nobody had any reason to think anyone had been raised from the dead to begin with.
there is zero evidence that the accounts as recorded in the Gospels 'developed later'. Yet you state it as if fact.
@@PC-vg8vn Except for the legendary development you can see throught mathew's humble jesus, mark's multiple endings until jhon's fanfic.
Sorry dude, but it is academic consensus the fables in the gospels were 'developed later'.
If you have evidence the gospels' accounts were like that since the beginning of christianity, now is your time to show the evidence.
Until then, all you have is your fri nge opinion vs academic consensus.
Gary is like the Alex Jones of the apologetics world
I never noticed how much Gary sounds like WLC with a muffle. Is it possible that Gary ate WLC, and that explains where all of this is coming from? Has anyone seen Bill?
Has anyone seen them in the same room together?
I have the Bart Ehrman Text book. It was recommanded by Dr. Dale Martin when he taught New Testment History and literature at Yale. The course is now on Yale open course.
“They added nothing to my message,”
That is how someone who refuses to acknowledge anything he didn’t already agree with talks, as in “Anyone who preaches another gospel is anathema to God.”
There are so many signs of what really happened at that meeting. People got mad at Paul, Paul argued with them, tensions rose, and they finally struck a deal that Paul would leave their congregants alone and they would leave his congregants alone, and everyone would do their own thing, EXCEPT that Paul would pay the Jerusalem church money donated from his churches ("They only asked that I remember the poor," coupled with Paul's repeated statements in later epistles that he was gathering donations for Jerusalem).
This perfectly explains Paul's dismissal of the "so-called super-apostles," his tendency to stay in Greece, his fixation on money and defensiveness at the idea he was misappropriating it or spending it on himself, and his anger in Galatians because he clearly thinks that Cephas's Jewish Christian faction broke the agreement they made and were trying to convince his converts in Galatia to get circumcised. The whole letter has very strong "WE HAD A DEAL, CEPHAS!" vibes, and it explains why he'd put an anecdote in there about Cephas being a hypocrite and refusing to eat with gentiles: "See you guys, that Cephas guy doesn't even really like you, not like I do!"
@@Uryvichk Those look like good points. I’ll check those out.
It probably means what he meant for it to mean. That they were all on the same page.
@@jamiehudson3661 If he meant that they were in agreement, he could have said that. Given all he writes about Peter, they were not. See @uryvichk post above yours
So Paul had 500 witnesses and Habermas has 250 experts. I'm so convinced!
Gary, what are the names and addresses of the 250?
We want to interview them!
Love your content, Paul, but... I can't *watch* it anymore due to all the eye-searing AI art. Just... can't.
I'll be listening to it podcast-style, is what I mean.
it is really annoying and unnecessary
At 22:50 Bart states, "Paul threatened the Galatians they may lose their salvation". First of all that meeting is with Peter, privately, so if there is a threat it is to Peter. I don't believe there is a threat to the Galatians or Peter.
Paul is very clear in Gal. 2, Paul is the minister to the uncircumcision and Peter is the minister to the circumcision. Paul is stating to Peter, stay in your lane and quit being a hypocrite. Your gospel Peter is the gospel of the circumcision and mine is the gospel of the uncircumcision.
Gal. 2:7, On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.
There is no threat, you circumcision believers, Peter's group keep doing what you're doing, keeping the law. That is why the Circumcision epistles, Hebrew-Revelation is written to the Law Keepers, circumcision believers, preparing them to go through the tribulation.
My group, Paul's, is not under the circumcision gospel but under the uncircumcision gospel, better known as the Grace message, we are grace + nothing.
No threat of someone losing their salvation, Bart sticks that in there to keep his narrative going. Bart is generally more precise. That is an assumption on BE's part.
I know this is hard to believe, 2 gospels, the Circumcision gospel, Genesis 17, and the Uncircumcision Gospel, Gal. 2:7, Eph. 3:2,9, etc.
Robert Hill wrote a book called, The Big Difference Between the Two Gospels.
Gary Habermas has been doing this for years and years. I first came across his Minimal Facts approach in the early 2000s and found them very frustrating. I don't like apologetics in general and Habermas' work is no exception, but there is a kernel of a good idea in the Minimal Facts approach. The approach might, and I stress the word *MIGHT* with about five hundred asterisks behind it, be a good starting point for people as a rickety rope bridge to faith, almost the same way that Aquinas's Five Ways could be a rickety rope bridge to belief in God. It won't *necessarily* get anyone there, but it *could* be a good starting point.
But that isn't how Gary has ever used it. He has tried to use it to get to a historical resurrection, which I think is completely crazy. It's a shame because there really is the seed of a good idea there. In any event, the fact that Habermas quoted Bart without even consulting him is unconscionable.
Whether or not you're an Ehrman fan (I'm a fan), one thing his friends and foes would agree is that he is probably the hardest working Bible Scholar on the planet. Whether it's teaching at UNC, his books, the MJ podcast, his own blog, appearances on shows like this, his output is prodigious.
The mere incontrovertible fact that Paul’s writings say NOTHING about the vast majority of Jesus’s teachings, including all his parables, the Sermon on the Mount, or any of his miracles, is a HUGE problem for the breezy evangelical assumption that there has only ever been ONE kind of Christianity, and it’s Paul’s Christianity.
"If you don't believe his argument, at least it'll be a good door stop" sent me. 😂
That Paul didn't want to spend lots of time with the people who spent a year with God in the flesh - hearing about everything, documenting everything, just being with them - is all i needed to hear to conclude that Christianity is Pure Bullshit!!
You gotta give it to faith-based scholarship: It saves a lot of legwork.
Ah, yes, a multiple volume series, because the divinely inspired original wasn't enough? /s
Ehrman knows full well why Paul does not often mention the details of Jesus' life in his letters as Ehrman has already said why in his previous defence against mythicist arguments - it was not the point of his letters and therefore largely irrelevant to what he was writing about. So im not sure why Ehrman suddenly thinks if he had discussed such matters with the other apostles he should have included those details. He needs to be more consistent in what he says.
Truly I can’t say how infuriated i would be if people misquoted my research or like claims to read it and try to ascribe positions to me that I never said
I LOLed at the image used at 15:29 to illustrate what Bart was saying.
love the historeo claim. 'It gives us the word history so it must be true'. Bart 'it also gives us the word story...'
And the idea of comparing how the same words are used multiple times in the Bible rather than how a reader of eg a letter would understand it at the time. It is rooted in the inerracy, that all had a common author, and so look how the one author used the term elsewhere. It is like the argument that any 'less clear' bit should be interpreted by 'a clear meaning' elsewhere. regardless of languages; writing styles; huge time spans in the contexts written in etc - because one heavenly author wouldn't confuse us....
Sigh.
Im so excited to talk to bart, i think thats one of the greatest gifts to give anyone who has known just what these people can do to a person. my mother was traumatized, my family is religiously manipulative, and i never have felt comfortable spiritually with them around. Paul, thank you.
So, Habermas is just dishonest. Milking his last min of "fame" aka a grifting the flock.
The evidence for jesus existence is low very low almost non existent, so a resurrection being historical is laughable
Use of word "minimal" is wrong. They're the maximally supported facts (ie. the greatest set of facts that are attested by "all" scholars), and highlighting this is important because any attempt to use them to cantilever out to more "facts" fails, because you've already stretched historical method to its limits in creating that maximal set. If other "facts" were to have widespread scholarly support, they'd already be in that set. This is apologetics, not historical method. Historical method does not allow you to look at the maximal set of "facts" the evidence probably supports, declare them "facts" and then use them to reach even less probable conclusions. The probability limit was already reached in the creation of the maximal set of facts.
So refreshing to hear you guys counter crazies like Habermas. Thanks so much
I love Bart's chuckle and his humor, it really resonates with me! I am laughing and smile along. I would love to see him do like a funny biblical scholarship stand-up routine.😂
It's actually annoying and unnecessary.
@@jamiehudson3661 I can appreciate your perspective for sure. I just happened to get a humor, but yeah I can see how it could be annoying for sure Cheers
I watched another video of Habermas' where he seems to also refer to 'pre-Pauline' as pre Paul's conversion, though he says there are different senses to pre-Pauline amongst scholars. But despite Ehrman's criticism in this video, he himself has said regarding Paul's visit to Jerusalem, in around AD37/38 - " This visit is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions that he refers to and even the received traditions that we otherwise suspect are in his writings that he does not name as such." And of course it is unlikely that these 'traditions' suddenly appeared at their meeting, but rather developed significantly earlier such that they were well-known within the Christian community. So despite what Ehrman says in this video, anyone reading his earlier book would conclude he was referring to early credal traditions that are contained in Paul's letters because Paul quotes them. And these date to within a short few years after Jesus.
21:40 This is where I think Paul lies. the only source we have, and please, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, for Paul getting a stamp of approval from the Apostles in Jerusalem is Paul. Or Luke, who might as well be Paul. NONE of the actual Apostles say this happened. Just like Peter's vision totally throwing out dietary laws. You would *think* that both would be big enough deals that someone else might mention them at least in passing. But no.
Saul of Tarsus NEVER changed his goal of protecting the Temple from worship of Jesus. He took it from the inside and changed it from a Jewish cult to something for the Gentiles who didn't matter to him anyway.
If you reject the testimony of Paul in his epistles or his other books of himself, and if you reject the testimony ABOUT Paul in the book of Acts by Luke, I am not sure why would you accept Peter's attestation of him and the scriptures penned by Paul in 2 Peter 3:15.
Paul's apostleship was of Jesus Christ (see Acts 9:10-20), revealed in his doing the work of an apostle, preacher, and teacher (see 2 Timothy 1:11) with signs and wonders wrought by him (see Acts 14:3). The evidence of his ministry was found in the people of the churches in the many regions and cities that he ministered to as recorded in scripture.
Paul preached the gospel of Christ to Jew and Gentile(see Romans 1:16); both groups are reconciled to God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He was born, lived, served, suffered and was crucified for our sins, buried, and rose again the third day, all in accordance with the scriptures (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). His atoning sacrifice of himself means that people can receive the forgiveness of their sins through faith in him: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).
@@sdlorah6450 did you miss the part where Dr. Ehrman said that the 1st and 2nd Peter were written by two different people, neither of whom were Peter?
He went on to say they were almost certainly written to erase the appearance (or actuality) of a rift between Peter and Paul?
As for Acts, it was (most probably) also written by Luke, who was basically Paul’s biographer. Anything written by Luke is through the lens of Paul’s teaching
@@reeceguisse17 All of scripture (both Old and New Testaments) is inspired by God, i.e. God's word given to men; it is authoritative and trustworthy, able to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (see 2 Timothy 3:15-16, John 17:17, Romans 3:2). His word says Peter is the author of 1 and 2 Peter written by the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. Whenever someone says something (in this case, Dr. Ehrman concerning the authorship of 1 and 2 Peter), it should be tested by what God's word reveals. If they differ, believe God and his word.
@@sdlorah6450 all scripture, according to scripture, is perfect. That is the very definition of “So the Bible tells me so”
@@reeceguisse17 There is nothing higher than the holy scriptures (see Psalm 138:2b); they are God's word with warnings of sin and death (see Romans 3:23, 6:23a, Revelation 20:14) that we must heed and his promise of salvation to all who believe on Jesus Christ (see Romans 6:23b). We have already seen in history the fulfillment of God's promise of Jesus' first coming to atone for our sins; Jesus' promised second coming is soon and sure. We make a grave mistake when we do not fear God and believe his word.
Bart’s bewildered “what?” at 13:10 cracks me up so much.
Maybe Habnermas will start a series on BBC titled " Misquoting Ehrman"
It is bizarre to me that Gary or anyone would spend so much time writing something so terrible
Quantity is not quality here? I believe Gary when he claimed he asked God for a sign and God right then and there , struck a tree with lightening. Facts wouldn’t matter to me from that point onwards either.
@@chriswest8389 he is making a bold claim. If he had evidence of that, I would be interested. If he had no evidence, I have to assume it didn’t happen. A claim like this is not trivial or normal. So if there is no evidence, it is plain stupid to take his word for it
Don't let all these scholarly debates distract you from the fundamental question: If peter was mentored and trained personally by Jesus for a year (synoptic gospels) or three years (gospel of John) and received the holy Spirit at pentacost Acts 2, and then continued to receive timely revelations to settle doctrinal disputes Acts 11, and Paul was recruited by Jesus himself and directly revealed his message to him, then how in heaven or earth can Peter and Paul disagree on anything at all?
If bith men received rheir information directly from Jesus, how could their possibly be any differences? And given that there are, how do we discern who's right? Hiw can we even trust revelation as a valid way of knowing anything if it leads to contradictions?
This is a much bigger deal than most people are giving it credit for.
It’s like listening to multiple presidential candidates who all claim that God told them that he wants them to become president.
Unfortunately God seems to provide contradicting messages to his followers.
I can't understand why Bart is upset by mythism ???
Bart could learn a lesson from himself here, he himself is way too quick to just cite scholarly consensus and move on, it's why he's the Christian's favorite atheist Bible scholar, he hands them pretty much everything the Bible scholars agree on, even though most Bible scholars are Christian so of course they're going to agree on things that they can't actually present evidence for.
example?
Ehrman should sue Gary for the misrepresentation in that brick/book.
Gary, Gary, quite contrary, why are you cringe like so?
My phone broke earlier this week, I was quite happy to have a 750 page book ("Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" - I quite enjoyed it) on hand to hold the replacement screen in place as the glue set. A 1000 page book would probably do even better.
1000+ pages & absolutely failing at proving anything.
Is that a new record?
Signed up for the free course. Thank you for the present. Being unemployed, bodily disabled and suffering from chronic illness, i am not able to afford any course. Thank you.
Best funniest Christian take down channel
Wow this is devastating for Gary.
The moment I heard the title, and the word "evidences", I knew all I needed to. 'Evidence' is plural. Only the most blinkered Christians seem obsessed with this bizarre phrasing.
Personally I’m okay with it. I see it as a short-cut way of saying “different kinds of evidence.” It’s a common practice to shorten cumbersome phrases.
But if you want to argue it shouldn’t be used in the title of a supposedly scholarly work, I would agree.
Why are you using so many AI-generated images?!
Imagine all the things Gary could've done in fourteen years instead of writing that vapid waste of paper.
He could've darned his socks, or learned how to pick locks, invented cool recipes for garlic butter rolls because trying to look up recipes online only returns a bunch of wordy seventy-page stories that end in "just put garlic butter on bread and put it in the oven for three minutes" and yes I'm talking from experience, and then he still would've had five thousand one hundred and ten days left to find other worthwhile things to do instead. Instead he chose the path of mass tree slaughter. What a dick.
"Soylent Kombucha"... 😂
22:32 I love that photo just as the trinity reference comes up.
Yeah people think Paul thought Jesus was god there are a few verses Trinitarians point too but if you read them carefully like the one in Philippians he couldn't have been god or preexistently equal with god.i think Paul thought of Jesus as a prexistent being just like people thought Moses and the patriarchs were pre-existent and for his suffering me was made lord king over all humans and angels and is gods viceroy not equal to god or the same as god.this is the view of the book of Enoch and a lot of other Pseudepigrapha views on the messiah not god but gods representative and servant and all humans will serve the messiah and he will be able to command the angels etc.some jews believed in a pre-existing exalted divine messiah but not a equal to god messiah.
Have recently gotten Gary's book. It remains to be seen if Habermas misrepresents scholarship or if Paulogia misrepresents Habermas. 😉
Definitely let me know!
@@Paulogia It may take me a while since I work full-time, but I'll give it a go!
There are at least a dozen quotes in Dr. Ehrman's books where he states the traditions/creeds come from the 30's, some from the early 30's. Here is one: "And some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus. The vast network of these traditions, numerically significant, widely dispersed, and largely independent of one another, makes it almost certain that whatever one wants to say about Jesus, at the very least one must say that he existed. Moreover, as we will now see, there is yet more evidence."(pgs. 92-93, Did Jesus Exist?)
@@philly5330 the point in the video is that Bart doesn't mean creeds when he says traditions... Gary (and you) are conflating them. do you have an example where Bart says that the CREEDS come from the 30s? If so, I'll retract.
Thanks for the reply. Traditions, creeds, confessions are generally synonymous. Another way to say it, perhaps more accurately, would be to say creedal traditions. Dr. Ehrman in this quote starts by using "tradition" and closes by using "creedal statement". "This then was the very ancient pre-Pauline tradition that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 15 and that he expands, at the end, by giving even more “witnesses” to the resurrection-including himself, the last to see Jesus alive afterward (some two or three years after Jesus’s death). Some scholars have argued that this terse statement of faith originated in Aramaic, meaning that it might go all the way back to the Aramaic-speaking followers of Jesus in Palestine during the early years after his death; other scholars are not so sure about this. In either case, it is a powerful, concise, and cleverly constructed creedal statement.(pgs. 138-140, How Jesus Became God)
@@Paulogia
At 10:10 Ehrman says of 1 Cor: 11 - "quotes the words at the LAST supper". Incorrect, should be "the LORD'S supper". Thats a sneaky way of trying to change the wording to something that it aint! The "LAST" supper implies previous suppers whereas the "LORD'S" supper implies a ritual meal partaken by anybody.