Biased Bart Ehrman Hits Irony Overload (ft. Tim McGrew)

In a recent video featuring Genetically Modified Skeptic, Bart Ehrman contends that the Bible writers exhibit significant bias, particularly the Gospel of John displaying strong outgroup bias toward the Jews. While attempting to illustrate this with cherry-picked examples, Ehrman reveals a surprising level of confirmation bias.
Original video: • Cognitive Biases in th...
See also Tim McGrew, Cherry Picking the Gospels: • Tim McGrew - Cherry Pi...
McGrew v. Ehrman on Unbelievable?
• Bart Ehrman vs Tim McG... (Part 1)
• Bart Ehrman vs Tim McG... (Part 2)
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Daniel Wallace quoting Gordon Fee: "The problem with Bart's work in ORTHODOX CORRUPTION and MISQUOTING JESUS is that he turns possibility into probability and probability into certainty and then he comes up with an interpretation that just seems bizarre."

[@minamimynaguib6092]

In addition to what you are saying, I agree with WLC when saying that Bart somehow represent himself as a historian rather than a textual critique. That is why I believe Dan Wallace is the best debater for Bart so far in such a discipline. Unfortunately, Dan's work is not that much popular among skeptics.

[@johnbreitmeier3268]

Could it be that Bart is just an evil, bitter liar who has made an obsession into a living through blasphemy? Is it possible, therefore probably and thus absolutely certain?

[@johnbreitmeier3268]

@@piesho How so? how is calling a btter blasphemous liar a bitter blasphemous liar wild? just seems accurate to me. it is exactly what the video did.

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

@@piesho Bart was shown to be wrong by sound arguments in this video. It was by no means ad hominem. Bart’s developmental hypothesis does not fit the data when rightly interpreted and dated.

[@emilybremer-white2506]

To add to this - John also has pharisee protagonists (nicodemus and Joseph of arimathea). Nicodemus is only in John and matthew omits the detail that Joseph of arimathea was a Jewish leader. Matthew also has the long polemics about the hypocrisy of the pharisees. It seems John is one that shows the most nuanced picture of the Jews, Mark has barely any details at all, Luke seems to know little about Jews and Matthew is the most critical. So it doesn't seem the differences can be explained by a developmental pattern as much as just the emphasis of the authors. I also found it a weird claim that Jesus is more in control in luke's passion than in mark. In luke he is freaking out so much he sweats blood. Another weird claim I've heard from Bart is that the miracles get more impressive as the gospels get later. The impressiveness of a miracle is a bit subjective, but it is hard to think of a reasonable criteria that has Jesus walking on water, feeding 4k and 5k, calming a storm and raising the dead (all in mark) as less impressive than the new miracle accounts in later gospels

[@noahpinheiro5685]

Very good point,

[@skwills1629]

But it has to be more impressive Miracles and More Anti-Jewish since My Narrative Depends on it!

[@FuddlyDud]

Honestly, Bart’s pattern sounds like one of those really exciting thoughts that makes you think you cracked some sort of code…but once you give it more thought, you realize you got overly excited over nothing. :P Great video as usual Erik, and big thanks and prayers for Bart and Tim for strengthening our theology more and more! :)

[@sabhishek9289]

Yeah, that fox Bart Errman is unintentionally strengthening our theology and the Gospels' reliability.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@sabhishek9289 And we are grateful for it! :)

[@bc4yt]

You absolutely nailed a thought that was looking for words in my mind 😂👍

[@FuddlyDud]

@@bc4yt Thanks man! Means a lot!

[@joshd3502]

Does Bart think people don't have Bibles and can't read?

[@darkwolf7740]

Sounds like Dr Zakir Naik

[@logicianbones]

Keep in mind a large portion of Bart's target audience can't name the titles of the four gospels according to Pew.

[@andrevisser7542]

Sadly Bart try twist scripture to serve his narrative, just like Islam do.

[@paulschlachter4313]

I don't think he twists things intentionally - he's got a bias.

[@AbsurdScandal]

@@logicianbones Added one last question to the legendary Poe in our previous convo! You may not have noticed it, so that's why I comment here!

[@GhostBearCommander]

How is Bart’s claim even taken seriously here?

[@skwills1629]

Because He has a Doctor in Front of His Name and Because The World is Governed by Satan.

[@Cardinal541]

One thing that has and will always grind my gears with these sceptical "scholars" is how they always talk as if everything they say is 100% verified fact and quite obvious to the "enlightened" crowd they think they are part of, even when this couldnt be farther from the truth. Truly the heights of pride and arrogance.

[@downenout8705]

Talk about calling the pot calling the kettle black. There are millions of theists across the planet claiming with 100% confidence that their particular god is the only true one and that there is nothing that could persuade them otherwise. Can't get much more arrogantly confident than flying a plane into a building.

[@OrthodoxCrusader-sm4xi]

​@@downenout8705more confident are the people who think their jew funded ideology wich killed 125 million people and has been used in dictatorships like china and fascist italy is somehow a resonable position

[@sabhishek9289]

Why does Bart Errman still have his job is beyond me? He should be fired for not doing his job and for lying constantly without facing any repercussions.

[@truncated7644]

What grinds my gears is internet commenters calling out people for pride and arrogance while denigrating their opponents with scare quotes, (e.i. "scholars") who not only have PhDs but an exceptional publication record that even their philosophical opponents respect. You may disagree with him, but despite McGrew's counter argument, he has reasons supported by scholarly research for his opinion. You want Bart to state what he believes with less confidence and certainty, but you seem to demand this with the confidence that you and McGrew are right. Isn't that a perfect example of irony?

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@truncated7644 Dude, you didn't present any rational arguments supporting Bart Errorman or any other scholar as to why he is correct in this comment. All you did was say that they are right simply because of their elite positions so just accept everything blindly without being skeptical at all. Why should these scholars be respected when they refuse to do their jobs properly without letting their personal beliefs and ideas cloud their judgment? "You want Bart to state what he believes with less confidence and certainty, but you seem to demand this with the confidence that you and McGrew are right. Isn't that a perfect example of irony?" Mr and Mrs McGrew do not do that at all. Kindly point me out where they do. Or else your accusation is completely unjustified and invalid. This is no perfect example of irony.

[@AndrewElgert]

I'm glad that when I was listening to Bart's ridiculous claim, I kept thinking, "uh, what about Acts?" In the first few chapters, St. Peter routinely condemns the crucifixion, blames the Jews and calls on them to repent. Paul's letters also clearly militate against Bart's tendentious interpretation. Was glad to see my feelings were justified 😅

[@skwills1629]

Saint Peter did NOT Condemn The Jews for The Crucifixion in the First Few Chapters of Acts. That is a Lie. Especially since the word Crucifixion or Crufified or Any Variant of the term is Used Only 3 TImes in Acts.

[@AndrewElgert]

Ah, okay, so since Peter uses the phrase "nailing him to the cross" rather than "crucifixion," then I'm lying? Read Acts 2:22-23, then repent.

[@skwills1629]

@@AndrewElgert - Acts 2 is Not Condemning The Jews for Crucifying Jesus, and even if it were it is Not proof that the First Few Chapters Continuously did so. One Verse is Not Continuous. And the verse is Part of Peter Addressing Israel, and telling them Jesus fulfilled Prophecy. So, No. Peter is Not Condemning The Jews for Crufifying Jesus, as if he is Speaking to Christians and telling Them The Jews are Evil and at Fault. Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Act 2:26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Act 2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. By the way Peter says in Several Places in Acts thatHe is a Jew...

[@darkwolf7740]

McGrew-ing in knowledge since the dawn of Tim.

[@fatstrategist]

This comment made me feel an emotion that I didn’t know existed 😂😂

[@qb101]

I love Tim McGrew. I have gone through a lot of his material and watched a lot of his debates. He's clear, concise, and authoritative. His debates with Ehrman are the absolute best because Ehrman just gets dismantled every single time. This is the difference between a true scholar that knows the text and does good scholarly work, and one that uses it as a tool to sell books with edgy titles which have little to no scholarly value.

[@banmancan1894]

One of the things that fascinates me about general KZbin skeptics is how they inadvertently demonstrate the ontological importance of Christianity by spending copious amounts of time trying to poke holes in it. I do like a lot of the conversations being held on channels like Genetically Modified Skeptic, Mythvision, and others. However, If I were an atheist (unless they're hurting people), I would just prefer to leave those people of religion to themselves and get on with my life. Of course, that is my own hypothetical lifestyle that I would live...

[@skwills1629]

Modern Day "Sceptics" are Actually just Anti-Christian Bigots driven by a Hatred of God, not a lack, of beleif in God, and a Desire to Push Social Agendas, as They Equate Christianity with Conservatism and Conservative Politics. Phil Zuckerman's Evidence that Secular People are More Moral than Religious People for Example fixates on Conservatives Evangelicals tending to Vote Republican, Opposing Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, and The Like, or supporting Traditional marriage, and being For Gun Rights, Et All, and He Pretends this somehow Proves Religion is Less Moral than Secularism. There is an Obvious Agenda.

[@skwills1629]

@@tomasrocha6139 - The Thing is, Atheists like You Never Really DIscuss what CHristianity is or Teaches or its Actual History and simply Repeat the same old Arguments Originally made by 18th or 19th Century Writers, Most from The 19th Century Labour Movement and Released from The Rationalist Press, especially The Thinkers Library. And Yet You Obsessively and Endlessly Attack Christianity. Even then, Even IF IF IF we accept PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that what You said was Valid about Christianity, Most of it is Cheap Emotional Appeal. Seriously, when You Recite Joseph McCabe's Hell is Unfair since it is Eternal Torture Nonsense, or Matt Dillahunty's Revision of Joseph McCabe by saying "Infinite Punishment for Finite Crimes", You haven't proven Hell doesn't Exist or that God doens't Exist or that You don't Go to hell, You just say its Unfair, as if that Somehow makes it Not True. it is a Pure Appeal to Emotion , Not Reason or Evidence. And You don't even Know Why People Go to Hell, since You Think Hell is A Punishment for Actions You Did. The same is True of Your Dogma that You All Repeat that God Condoned, even Commands, Rape, Slavery, and Genocide. Even if that Ridiculous Lie were True it doesn't Prove God doesn't Exist. The Joke is, You Keep Bashing Christians as Stupide and Cruel and Hateful and God as a Celestial Dictator Ruling a Celestial North Korea, and Pass that of as Logical Refutation of Christianity. You Certainly can't Prove Christianity is False when You Misrepresent it. Like when You say Original Sin is Ancestrial Guilt and Unfair, and also a Bible contradiction as Other Verses say God won't Blame the Son for the Sins of The Father, as if Original Sin Really is Saying Because Adam and Eve Sinned God Finds Us All Guilty, when it is Really about The Corruption of Nature that Came from it, or when You pretend Noah's Flood was Killing Innocent Babies and Animals, as if the Reason for The Flood was Purely Bad Actions by Adult Humans. You Also Try way too Hard to Depict All Christains as beign Guilty of Nazis and The Holocaust, The African Slave Trade, and The KKK. All While Denying Atheism had Anythign to do with Communist Attrocities, and Ignoring how it was Not just Atheism, it was the same Secular Humanism All of Your Leaders Also Push. Seriously, when Sam Harris's Project Reason Folded he gave the Rest of the Money to The American Humanist Association, Which He is a Member of, and The AHA supported The Soviet Union. So did The Council For Secular Humanism. And American Atheists was Founded by a Communist Madalyn Murrey O'Hare Who wanted to Defect to The Soviet Union. But We're Supposed to ignore all that and Pretend You People Merely lack beleif in a god and aren't Pushing a Humanist Agenda even Though the AHA Affiliated Secular Student Alliance says it exists to Push Humanist Values, and is what Mindshift or The Friendly Atheist are Paid By. This is Also Why You Ignore Liberal Christians or Pretend They aren't Real Christians and Conservative Evangelicals are the Most Committed Christians, Because You are Mainly Pushing a Political Agenda. Then you Lie and say You merely lack beleif in a god so can't have an Agenda. Seriously. Your Obsessed with Christianity for Political and Social Reasons, Not Rational Ones.

[@thecloudtherapist]

Thank you for sharing this - very important point. From my view, having watched so many videos, channels and KZbinrs in this area, from both sides - it seems to me that non-believers have an itch to scratch about Christianity, specifically. They refuse to leave the other side alone and to at least respect their prerogative - no! They feel they must prove them wrong, while all the time (a) not understanding the material themselves (b) not reading the material itself (c) being completely against the material causing a potential change of their own minds (i.e. being open to being convinced otherwise). All this anti-patterning is a waste of their precious time, considering they're convinced they only have this life to live!

[@ratamacue0320]

Speaking for myself, at least... One thing that has not changed from when I was a Christian to now (atheist) is that I care what's true (in the "capital T", "objective" sense, i.e. that which comports with reality). A statement popularized by Matt Dillahunty, to which I also subscribe: "I want to believe as many true things and as many false things as possible." Beliefs influence actions, and others' actions influence my own and others' lives. False beliefs are often harmful. I want to live in a better world, so I care what others think and believe. Besides my own beliefs, I want others (by and large) to believe more true things and fewer false things. IMO, your idea that those that challenge your beliefs should just leave you alone to spread ideas which we consider to be harmful falsehoods is silly, shows your lack of understanding of our perspectives, and I suspect difficulty thinking outside your own (IMO narrow) perspective. Additionally, I'm curious what led me and others to beliefs that I now consider erroneous, and about the actual history behind what became "the Bible" and Christianity.

[@acem82]

I've seen enough of this from Bart Ehrman that I can now confidently assume that when he makes these objections, he's lying. He is a bad source and should be treated as such. Congratulations, you played yourself!

[@joshua4747]

Bart talking about his students genuinely not understanding, because they’re reading the Old Testament and seeing the plain prophecies that get fulfilled in Jesus is king of funny because I agree with his students 100%. If you look at prophecy you will be faced with an immensely compelling case for Christ.

[@93Current]

Only if you indulge in the art of cherry picking

[@downenout8705]

Only if you don't set out the criteria that makes for a "fulfiled" prophecy and then apply the same criteria to falsify all the Islamic "fulfiled" prophecies.

[@93Current]

@@tomasrocha6139 The author of Matthew clearly mines the Tanakh for messianic prophecies for all it is worth.

[@skwills1629]

@@93Current - Ever since Sam Harris You Mindless Atheist Drones say Cherry Pick. But it Means Nothing Here. Its Not a Case. Its a a Silly Dismissal. So is saying Cognitive Dissonance, or Cognitive Bias, or Delusional, or the Like.

[@skwills1629]

@@downenout8705 - The Islamic Fulfilled Prophecies Agree that Jesus was The Messiah, Though.

[@FruitNDoggie]

Bart Ehrman is the equivalent of a modern day journalist, except he tries to interpret historical events. He sees a building on fire and declares that it's a mostly peaceful protest.

[@samuellefischer9596]

Bart lost me at the “handing over to them” (the Jewish leaders). What an AWFUL argument, even a 3rd grader would understand that Jesus was handed over to the Jews to be crucified at the leadership of the Jews who then pressured the Romans to actually do the act

[@skwills1629]

Actually it was not "The Jews", so much as The Pharisees and High Priests of The Temple. That is Not All Jews, either. Even then though Pilat Handed them to The Roman Centurions as The Jews did Not have the Right to Execute People on their Own.

[@euanthompson]

The more I here from Ehrman, the less convinced I am that he should be considered a scholar in his field, let alone have a teaching position. Still somehow not the most crazy person out there though.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

His specialization isn’t even history, it’s textual criticism

[@downenout8705]

Agreed, that honour goes to the Muslim apologists with the Christian apologists coming in a close second.

[@euanthompson]

@@downenout8705 A bit of a hasty generalization there don't you think?

[@downenout8705]

@@euanthompson It's an entirely subjective personal opinion, but I think believing that the moon was split in two is slightly more crazy than believing that 37.2 trillion dead and rotting eucaryotic cells magically came back to life.

[@downenout8705]

@Bones18 They are both snake oil salesmen, it's just that the Christian apologists are better at selling their products.

[@johnnylollard7892]

The way nonbelieving scholars treat the New Testament is unlike the treatment of any other ancient text. The ridiculous critical standards which verge on psychoanalytical, most of which are unproven, are comparatively rarely used when discussing the Presocratic fragments, Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Plato, etc. If we actually applied their standards for the Bible, most of history is lost, and everything from antiquity is unknowable. There are about 3 extent sources for the Battle of Cannae. Only one of them was written at a time when survivors of the battle were around, the equivalent of WW2 vets living in the 2000s. Over 100k men participated. About half that number died. Huge geopolitical event. Two or three written sources which are extent. A similar principle applies to even people like Alexander the Great, I've found. There are events written on scant stone tablets which historians will take on good faith, albeit with some errors.

[@truncated7644]

Secular historians are skeptical of non-biblical sources as much as biblical ones. They have to sort through them to determine what is most likely to be true and what is wrong, mistaken or fictive. What makes you think anything you just wrote about secular historians is true?

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

@@truncated7644Yes, but there is a noticeable underlying tone in their presentations sometimes which shows they have an undeniable ideological investment in their positions. For Erhman it’s an almost apostolic mission to disabuse “fundamentalist” kids about their beliefs about Christianity and the Bible so that they don’t vote Republican. In an interview he did with a Humanist organizer he all but laid this out.

[@truncated7644]

@@keatsiannightingale2025 I'm not saying scholars are unbiased. When they analyze facts and draw conclusions, they tend to believe their conclusions are true (why else would they hold them?). But that isn't evidence that they are wrong (or right). The point of my previous comment is that @johnnylollard7892 thinks non-believers treat the Bible differently, but as I see it @johnnylollard7892 is upset because they treat it exactly like other very human documents.

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

@@truncated7644 That is true to a large extent. I’m a Christian, and yet I am open to the methods and conclusions of critical Biblical scholarship. I understand why many of my fellow believers are not. Biblical innerancy is a sacred cow to many Christians, especially in the USA. In Europe, I am told, most professing Christians don’t bat an eye upon hearing that Paul likely didn’t write the Pastorals or that the gospels were written anonymously or semi-anonymously in the case of John (the author of which appears to have known the community he was writing to). I still think Christianity has a historical plausibility regardless. And even I would argue that the most essential tenants of Pauline theology, for instance, are still captured in the seven epistles universally accepted as genuine. (I still hold out some hope for Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, as they are both disputed by critical scholarship today regarding their authenticity).

[@mynameis......23]

Always knew someday bart is gonna start lying to impress his audience. satan truly is leading bart.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

I mean, he has been lying by omission for a while.

[@ryanrevland4333]

Nah...Satan is a fictional character. It cant lead anyone anywhere.

[@azophi]

I guess the real question is: is Satan always the one who causes people to lie? It seems clear to me YHWH causes many to lie

[@skwills1629]

The Idea that Jesus was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet is Also a Lie since Unless You are Talking about Dispensationalism and Think The Church is some sort of Stop Gap and This is The Church Age and The Kingdom is still Not Here, His Claim that Jesus Prophecied The End Of The World in The Generation of The Disciple's is a Lie. The Church is The Kingdom, and came on The Day of Pentecost. The People Fleeing is From Destruction is Jerusalem being Destroyed by The Romans. The Darkness happened at The Cross. Jesus was Not a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet. But the Lie that Jesus was a False Apocalyptic Prophet is Literlly the Basis of One of Dr. Ehrman's Books.

[@skwills1629]

@@ryanrevland4333 - Let Me Guess, because You are an Atheist and The Word Atheism is Defined as a lack of beleif in a god, You calling Satan a Fictional Character is Not making a Claim and Carries No Burden Of Proof. Right?

[@tylerf5914]

That JackSepticEye clip at the end was golden, and so was Tim's analysis.

[@darkwolf7740]

Jacksepticeye never existed 👀

[@tylerf5914]

@@darkwolf7740 you may be on to something. Anyone can deepfake some young generic Irish guy and AI voices can sound pretty convincing. Man I guess I'll need some extraordinary evidence to convince me to believe an actual Irishman became a famous, millionaire, KZbin before the age of 30. Especially since that's not an everyday occurance, and I've never personally met or became one myself.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@tylerf5914Precisely. Such an extraordinary person needs extraordinary evidence, and since none exists, then we must conclude that Jacksepticeye is just an AI hologram. So who created him? It was Testify. He is good at editing, so he must also be good at making AI holograms, hence he created Jacksepticeye.

[@timothytakang5407]

​@@darkwolf7740Very funny 😂😂😂... Bravo❤❤❤

[@rolandovelasquez135]

I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman. "I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..." William Lane Craig

[@philswaim392]

Lol wlc is the true deceiver

[@skwills1629]

@@philswaim392 - Let Me Guess, Craig is a Deciever simply for Defending Christianity, Right?

[@philswaim392]

@skwills1629 i dont think he defends christianity. When given the chance to, he defends deism, then just asserts christianity is true. He claims to have arguments but they arent rational. Finally he recently admitted that his belief in christianity isnt rational so much as just him taking pascals wager. Hes been corrected numerous times by scientists for proposing fine tuning. Hes been corrected numerous times on his fallacious reasoning. Yet he still uses the arguments. He is dishonest and is not a genuine interlocutor. I find him to not just be uncompelling but rather a good person to listen to if you want to find good reasons to not believe a god exists.

[@truncated7644]

That's a pretty serious accusation. Can you point us to where that was said or written by WLC?

[@rolandovelasquez135]

​@@truncated7644saw it in a wlc video where he was commenting on a then recent debate he had with Bart Ehrman. He's wearing an orange shirt. I'll look for it. It is a direct quote.

[@lovegod8582]

Bart Ehrman is about as credible at Bart Simpson

[@robertlehnert4148]

Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers, said Critical New Testament scholarship is critical about everything except its own methodology and bias. In Secular New Testament studies, position "A", given an arbitrary 80% probability of being correct, is the basis for operating supposition "B", at another 80% validity, which in turn gives the scholars' final derived position of "C", as "almost certain at another 80% probability", when the actual mathematical progression makes "C" close to zero probability of being true. And that's not even considering the actual validity of "A". When examined, much of Secular New Testament scholarship starting premises are pure assertions with no evidence, from either within or outside the NT texts. Per Sheldon VanAuken, since these premises cannot be derived from the texts themselves they are of no value as criticism

[@James-qo7uz]

I agree that this pattern is not the best or strongest argument to present by Bart to show some kind of gospel progression bias. But I do have a question. If the gospel message of salvation by faith is the most important core doctrine in the whole Bible, then why is the gospel message so convoluted throughout the Bible? If you had the gospel of Matthew, one would think that the gospel is works salvation. Where is the simple gospel message in Matthew, Mark or Luke. We have to wait till John to get one verse like John 3:16. And you read the beginning of Acts, one would think disciples like Peter preached that baptism is apart of being saved. It’s no wonder there are so many denominations. People interpret the Bible in so many ways and every one is convinced that their interpretation is correct. But in reality, only one interpretation could be right. Or all could be wrong.

[@truncated7644]

Great points. If God loves us and wants us to have a right relationship with him so badly, he seems very unprepared to convince much of modern mankind.

[@hectorhernandez215]

Plain reading of the Bible without adding or subtract help to understand a unified message... opinions are not bible....

[@James-qo7uz]

@@hectorhernandez215 plain reading of prophecies is that the New Testament Jesus did not fulfill them. One has to allow the text to say something that it doesn’t say to allow Jesus a second coming to finish the job. But it does seem rather convenient that the gospels had Jesus fulfilling OT prophecies (some of which had nothing to do with a Messiah, but i digress) that couldn’t be proven or disproven later. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Okay, it can’t be proven or disproven 40-60 years after the supposed event. But all the stuff that could be proven or disproven like establishing world peace and being a ruler, all of that got spiritualized and put off for total fulfillment until the next coming. Sounds awfully fishy and convenient.

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

@@truncated7644Why does God need to convince anyone, as if convincing is even a means for beginning a true relationship? It was St. Paul who wrote, at all events, that “God demonstrates his own love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Every heart that has ever resisted the gospel has always done so out of a denial of the justice of God, and every mind that has ever resisted the gospel has done so because it could not accept any notion outside the narrow confines of its own presuppositions. Hence the gospel is “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks” even to this day, except with much broader application given the gospel’s clash with all kinds of ideologies, both theistic and atheistic. I, too, find it interesting that the synoptists are remarkably non-digressive and non-expository in their narrations with few exceptions. But are we going to pretend that Jesus isn’t supposed to be the primary vehicle of those expositions in the text. ? Jesus himself taught the virtue of _pistis_ (faith) in his miracles time and time again. His word was: “Your faith has saved you” or “Your faith has made you well”. Perhaps Paul’s theologically expository gospel message and Christ’s action-oriented gospel were always meant to compliment one another all along. From a believing point of view, that is consistent with the literary side of the revelation that is represented in the NT writings.

[@truncated7644]

@@keatsiannightingale2025 If you are convinced based on your scriptures that my non-belief is because I have a darkened mind and am controlled by sin, there is no counter argument I could offer that you wouldn't dismiss. Paul is just one human being out of billions, yet you are convinced everything he wrote is the word of God. You have no evidence for this and must believe it on faith. I am just asking for evidence sufficient for the claim that the God of the universe communicated perfectly through him. It's a very high bar and there is very little supporting evidence. So don't quote Paul to me as if it is convincing evidence, he's just a 1st century pre-scientific middle eastern Jew who thought a rock rolled alongside Moses providing water (1 Cor. 10:4). That's not something I am willing to base my life on.

[@sabhishek9289]

Bart Errman is a shameless fox who constantly lies about the Gospels and he should be fired for not doing his job. God bless you Erik.

[@Dylan_Devine]

Bart isn't being smart here. He of all people should know that Mark was writtten to a gentile audience of Greeks, so it was written like a Greek letter. The Greeks preferred their news and important announcements to be short, sweet, and to the point, so Mark is a very short gospel (only 11,000 words compared to Luke's 19,000 words), but it's dense with information, and it only focuses on the things that Mark considered most important. As a Greek gospel, the gospel of Mark only needed to convey the essential information about Jesus's birth, ministry, crucifixion, and Ressurection; he was not concerned with cramming in unnecessary details about the events leading up to the crucifixion. But even from the Gospel of Mark alone one could see that the Jews were responsible for His death.

[@OrthodoxCrusader-sm4xi]

02:43 maybe you should quote a Early Church Father,if the guy keeps claiming that Early Christians did that

[@Konxovar0]

I think critical Biblical scholarship can be summed up in one Wikipedia article section, "Christology" in "The Gospel of Mark": "Mark does not explicitly state what he means by 'Son of God', nor when the sonship was conferred. The New Testament as a whole presents four different understandings: 1. Jesus became God's son at his resurrection, God "begetting" Jesus to a new life by raising him from the dead - this was the earliest understanding, preserved in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1:3-4, and in Acts 13:33; 2. Jesus became God's son at his baptism, the coming of the Holy Spirit marking him as messiah, while "Son of God" refers to the relationship then established for him by God - this is the understanding implied in Mark 1:9-11; 3. Matthew and Luke present Jesus as "Son of God" from the moment of conception and birth, with God taking the place of a human father; 4. John, the last of the gospels, presents the idea that the Christ was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus - an idea also found in Paul." If you notice, they're claiming Mark has a far lower Christology than the other Evangelists, apparently believing Jesus only became God's son at His baptism, obviously written directly after Paul's rock-bottom Christology "preserved in Paul's Epistle to the Romans." John clearly developed his own Christology out of thin air after Matthew and Luke's. Except that last line at the end there, " Christ was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus -- *an idea also found in Paul.* " Paul, whose Christology was apparently so low he agreed with Mark that Jesus only became God's son at His baptism, also believed He was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus? Paul, whose Christology came before Mark's, totally agrees with the "super duper Christology" found in John, and yet Mark is developing on Paul's? I don't have to say anything more. Edit: Yes I do, that "low Christology" apparently in Acts 13:33 comes from either an inability to read or heavy prejudice: The critical scholars apparently say Paul's words, "And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you’" refer to Jesus' resurrection being His "begetting," but that's impossible. If you only read that verse, it's theoretically possible that it is referring to Jesus' resurrection, but in the very next verse, Paul says "*And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead,* no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’" That specifically implies the "raising" of Jesus previously referred to was NOT referring to His resurrection, but instead the same kind of "raising" as referred to in Acts 3:22, "Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers." At the very least, this is equal to Matthew and Luke's Christology.

[@blickysticky6012]

What are you trying to say ?

[@Konxovar0]

@@blickysticky6012 Critical scholars believe both in a developing Christology, and that Paul, the real Paul, the individual man, participates in writing about both the lowest and highest Christology, and believing both.

[@dw5523]

No wonder Ehrman is only getting traction when he's preaching to the choir. I can't imagine anyone else taking him seriously. Wasn't it Bill Craig who said there's two Barts, the academic one and the popular one?

[@thecloudtherapist]

Bart Ehrman continuing to teach students on a subject that he does not believe in, sounds like a contradiction in terms on so many levels!!

[@airkami]

Imagine reading 4 tellings of one story and treating them as 4 different stories lol

[@the57student]

Unfortunately for Bart, Matthew was written first. Quit giving them the Markan priority argument.

[@darkwolf7740]

I reject Markan Priority for 2 main reasons. 1) The early Church says Matthew was written 1st time and time again. 2) If Matthew was 1st, then Mark is 90% made up of Matthew. Makes a lot more sense that Mark is using Matthew rather than the other way around because if Mark was 1st, then Matthew is made up of 70 - 80% Mark.

[@harrygarris6921]

@@darkwolf7740 why couldn’t they have been written independently or simultaneously and simply drew from the same source(s)? I mean I don’t get why no modern scholars like this explanation but it’s by far the simplest one and in my opinion the most easy to reconcile with the likely historicity of the early church.

[@LockeTheAuthentic]

​@@harrygarris6921it relates to the greek manuscripts having entire sections of the Gospels matching verbatim. In Koine Greek, thats incredibly unlikely given how varied it can be in how its written. So either one copied the other (and thats by no means a bad thing necessairly) or they had a written source they both copied verbatim. This is where arguments for "Q" live and are generally unsatisfying. A third possibilty is that God inspired them by some miracle, but I dont know we have any reason to suppose this.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@harrygarris6921I don't doubt that the accounts are somewhat independent. That's why Undesigned Coincidences (UCs) exist. My running theory is that Matthew, like Mark, relied much on Peter's preaching. So Matthew wrote his Gospel based on existing oral traditions, then Mark used much of the same material, adding in little bits that he learned from Peter, his own knowledge, and other oral traditions.

[@whatsinaname691]

But Markan priority makes so much more sense

[@2010Juve]

I had a lengthy conversation with Bart on his blog and he did not want to concede that the Son of Man in the Gospel of Mark is Jesus. He's a liar.

[@truncated7644]

OR, he simply disagrees with you.

[@2010Juve]

@@truncated7644 no academic denies the Son of Man in Mark 14 and throughout the Gospel of Mark is Jesus.

[@truncated7644]

​@@2010Juve I am a subscriber, I would love to have the date of the blog post if you know it. Also, how many academics do you know? Or are you defining an academic as one who would not argue that the "Son of Man" character in Daniel could possibly refer to someone else other than Jesus?

[@2010Juve]

@@truncated7644 The Son of Man in Daniel is not directly a reference to Jesus, but to a divine/pre-existent being in combination with Psalm 22. But yet, I do believe that when Jesus quotes the Son of Man, his favorite self-designation, he is referencing that character to be himself, and yes, I will find you the link. The conversation is lengthy and takes place in many areas on the blog post.

[@2010Juve]

One of the funny things is that Bart agrees that like 70% of the Son of Man comments in Mark are a reference to Jesus, but that however, that 1 verse in Mark 14 isn't. That is hysterical and is in the same heritage as someone claiming to be a creationist.

[@BhikPersonal]

God bless you Erik for this valuable content. Keep exposing the notorious liar Errman.

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

2:15 they said the same thing about Joseph's brothers. They didn't recognize him while he was saving the world either

[@markhorton3994]

There is much discussion of whether or not Pilot became Christian. If he did not wanting to blame a brother could explain John blaming the Jews as well as Paul saying that the Jews were more guilty than Pilot.

[@csmoviles]

Thank you so much for addressing these issues 💝🙏💝🙏💝

[@austinapologetics2023]

Not really related to this video but I've noticed some inconstancies with Bart for a while now. In his debate with Richard Bauckham he argues that Irenaeus added the titles of the gospels because Clement quotes them but doesn't attribute authorship. But then in a book of his I was reading he stated that Clement was probably just using common oral traditions because there is slight variation between the gospels and Clements quotations and therefore he wasn't referring to them at all

[@metaldisciple]

Hey Erik! I don’t know what happened to my comment but I wanted to ask if Josephus is a reliable source for the events of 70ad.

[@metaldisciple]

@Bones18 Thanks! I know that his reports on Christ are not very reliable but 70ad is different right??

[@smidlee7747]

@@metaldisciple From what I heard there are two different copies of his writings. One seems to have been edited to make him seem more pro-Christian while there is another copy (I think from the Arabs) where he mentions Christians.

[@t.mitchellb2766]

Christian Apologists use Bart Ehrmen like they use the Bible. Useful when it agrees with them i.e., there was a historical Jesus, but easily dismissed when they dislike an interpretation of scripture.

[@TestifyApologetics]

that's because his interpretation of scripture is here is wrong, as it often is. Ehrman isn't a take it all or nothing proposition.

[@marlin6023]

​@TestifyApologetics In a video [Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin I Think they showed] William LANE Craig talking about "Good" Bart when he is dealing with scholars on his "level", And "Bad" Bart when he "wants to make hay"- blow details, issues out of proportion with an audience of a mostly unscholarly audience in regard to his level in The Scriptures.

Genetically modified skeptic 😂😂😂😂

[@BanazirGalpsi1968]

An atheist wants to see air .

[@abidingewe2065]

Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. No one took His life. He lay it down. For everyone who will believe. ❤

[@RatioChristiTAMU]

I like how your cadence in the into makes it sound like “Genetically Modified Skeptic and NT Scholar” is one long descriptor for Bart. 😅

[@harrygarris6921]

I love this idea that the “message of the gospel” changes and develops over time and that’s just stated as fact. I have no idea what genetically modified skeptic thinks the message of the gospel is, but it’s clearly not what Christians are saying it is. The idea that God will be born as a man, live righteously and be unjustly killed, atoning for the sin of humanity and breaking the power of death in the process, and be raised up again to new life is predicted as early as Genesis chapter 3, is fleshed out but remains the same message throughout the OT, and is restated in pretty much the exact same terms throughout the NT. I just do not see any changing of the gospel message itself anywhere in the Bible. Maybe someone could help illuminate this.

[@darkwolf7740]

Here's some interesting statistics for you. Under Matthaean Priority > The priority of reported events goes up by 10% > The priority of miracles goes down by 8% > The priority of parables goes down by 32% Under Markan Priority > The priority of reported events goes up by 17% > The priority of miracles goes down by 15% > The priority of parables goes down by 38% Legendary development? Nah ❌️

[@skwills1629]

@@tomasrocha6139 - Atheists need to stop being Stupide. Quoting This Dogma from Your I Have No Religion Religion is Not Rational, and Really is Not what Christians Believe. Christians do Not Believe God to be Immoral, Nor is An Atheists Quoting Rubbish from Atheist Websites about Noah's Flood or Endorsing Raype Slayvery and General-Coide and all that Rot going to Mean Anything as You are all Lying Sociopaths Misrepresenting The Bible, and do Not Think God Died on a Cross simply to Receive Our Punishment. By the way, Sacrifice also does Not mean to Give Something Up Forever, it means To Make Sacred. The Entire Point of The Sacrifice was Also not God Sacrificing Himself to Himself to Allow Himself to forgive Us and to Save us From Himself. By Allowing Us to Kill Him, and By Ressurecting, which You Scumbag Dishonest Liar Atheists Always Ignore. The Word Sacrifice means To Make Sacred. The Entire Point Here is, Jesus is Held Up for us to Hate and Dispise so We can Take Out Our ANger, Our Hatred, Our Fears, Our Anxieties, Our Guilt, and Our Shame on Him. And The Resurrections Makes us Face it, but Lets us Transform it. Read Rene Girard, and Not just the Scumbag Atheist Liar Dogmas about Him. Rene GIrard is Himself an Atheist but not a Scumbag Liar Atheists Like You. And He Gets it. You Don't. Nor do You want to.

[@harrygarris6921]

@@tomasrocha6139 It's funny you use that analogy. If the wrong man gets executed for murder it quite literally did save the real murderer from the penalty of their crime. Christ's death saved us from the penalty of sin. The exoneration comes through his mercy.

[@mikebrown9850]

The gospel message Christ brought to mankind from the Father, is vastly different from the message the west eventually adopted. The first change in the gospel we see is in Galatians 1:4. Paul, Peter, John and Jude all write about dealing with dissenters and ministers leading the church astray and seeking their own following or simply abandoning the apostles altogether. By the first council of Nicaea, the western church was unrecognizable from the gospel message Christ taught.

[@skwills1629]

@@mikebrown9850 - This is of Course Nonsense. Absolutely No Evidence Exists to suggest The Church was Radically Changed or the Message of Christ Radically Changed. The Entire Point was that Pail, and Peter, and James, and John, and All Prevented that. The Apostolic Fathers Confirm The Teachings were Preserved, and We see a Transmission throughout The Church Fathers.

[@dowmanvarn7160]

Why are Christians so intimidated by Bart Ehrman? Is it because his analyses often make sense? Is it because he once was a Christian and now no longer is? Ir you believe on faith no amount of fact or argument can change your mind.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm not intimidated by him, maybe it's because...idk...he's often wrong?

[@dowmanvarn7160]

Yet he's quite well received in academic circles. And very well published. None of this guarantees correctness, but how is someone like me who isn't a biblical scholar able to find out that he is so often wrong? @@TestifyApologetics

[@TestifyApologetics]

Credentials are just indirect evidence that you know what you're talking about. Indirect evidence has to give way to direct evidence. Show me that you don't know what you're talking about and I don't care about your degree (or other credentials)

[@lolsing2205]

@@dowmanvarn7160 stop appealing to authority

[@pi4313]

I notice he sticks to the linear trajectory argument a lot, as if it was the crux of his argument. Arguably it was, but perhaps the idea can be expanded to the idea that different writers in different times AND locations had different reactions. It’s entirely possible too that there was no “linear trajectory” but that different authors still included different things for different messages and purposes. He also mentions the Jews following Jesus to the cross and weeping - sure this doesn’t sound like an act of shifting the blame towards the Jews. But think about it more deeply - if the author did think the Jews were to blame for Christ’s death, think about how impactful it would be to include a story about your enemies crying over your savior. Definitely seems like this could be a story used to advance a message about your enemies rather than to necessarily relieve them of direct responsibility. Maybe he was trying to say they regretted past decisions. I personally don’t think the Bible should be putting any emotional emphasis on who killed him, given that it is always more complicated than that - literally anyone’s actions back then, such as eating an apple at 12:56 pm instead of 12:55 pm, could’ve influenced what happened to Jesus in some indirect enough way. The reason that courts and judges blame people and find people guilty now is because punishing the most direct cause of the incident is often the most effective way at law at order-- this is not to say that at least in some part, blame is still an arbitrary and human concept.

[@TheChurchSplit]

Don’t mind Tim just single-handedly destroying Bart’s whole career.

[@smidlee7747]

Bart is a professional ear tickler so Tim can't touch Bart ear-tickling career.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

I knew this was phony, because I remember Matthew 27:25. Never you mind why I memorised that passage... 😑😑😑

[@Lurkingdolphin]

The worst part is Bart is so utterly out of date with ancient Jewish sources and current scholarship. , Jews in the second temple period believed in a divine messiah . The part that them stumble was that fact that Jesus came humbly as a servant was humiliated and died on a cross which was the very shameful in the ancient world, instead of a military conqueror

[@ryanrockstarsessom768]

Thank you

[@Timelord888]

So you're telling me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John... all Jewish themselves were somehow anti-Jewish?

[@AmazingDuckmeister]

I think one of the most overlooked things here that is ignored by Batt Ehrman is that the word Jew in the New Testament can mean Jew ( ethnically Jewish and follower of 1st century Judaism) but can also mean Judean (a Jew from Judea). Most of the disciples were Galileans, and so were seen as outsiders - remember Peter denying Jesus in Mark 14, and the servant girl says about Peter's accent? So couldn't it be possible that negative mentions of the Jews refer to Judeans and not Jews?

[@markmcflounder15]

Ohhhhh that first part was intellectually painful! I used to so respect Dr. Ehrman. Now, many of his claims are both laughable & cringe worthy.

[@someonethatisachristian]

The jewish 2 messiahs, ben joseph (suffering messiah) and ben david (conquering messiah) solves this "mystery". The jews was under roman occupation at Jesus time and waited for the conquering messiah, completely ignoring ben joseph, the suffering messiah.

[@Juanrepublicnotion]

Not just irony.. it’s hypocrisy too..

[@kightsun]

I think John being from Galilee it's more likely he's referring to Judeans, not Jews

[@danielboone8256]

Perhaps I missed it, but did Tim address the point Ehrman made about John saying Jesus got handed over to “them”, that is, the Jews?

[@skwills1629]

It is Not a Real Point since Ehrman simply Decreed that.

[@MatthewDickau]

Not in the clips in this video, but here's a quick response to that point: the Greek text does indeed say Pilate handed Jesus over to "autos" (them) to be crucified, but there's nothing that forces "autos" to mean the Jewish leaders instead of the Roman soldiers (both groups appear earlier in the text), and a couple verses later it is clear that it is the soldiers, acting under Pilate's authority, who performed the crucifixion. Biblegateway has the Greek text of the New Testament (look for "Mounce reverse interlinear" under the list of translations) which you can use to look into claims like this in more detail. :)

[@danielboone8256]

@@MatthewDickau Thank you, this is very helpful!

[@whatsinaname691]

He mentions it in the like 7:45 mark

[@justanotherbaptistjew5659]

Can you do a video on Jesus speaking Greek with Peter at the end of the Gospel of John? I’ve heard someone say that Jesus and Peter couldn’t have had their conversation about Agape and Filie because they spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

[@skwills1629]

Greek was the Common Language in The Roman Empire at the Time and Especially in Palestine since The Time of Alexander The Great, so This is Like saying it is Odd to Hear Hispanic People in Texas Speaking English. Texas was Part of Mexico Once, and They are Hispanic, so They Should Speak Spanish, not English, so Any Account of Them Speaking English is Obviously Not True.

[@arno_groenewald]

When your opinion starts to come before your work. Bart needs to take a long break and then return to the material.

[@hglundahl]

11:32 The ones mocking Jesus, btw, I think the order is Matthew (30's / 40's), Mark and Luke (50's or 60's), John (c. 100), appear only in Matthew and Mark ... I think the real point is, the audience is getting less Jewish, therefore less likely to pick up on the first words of Psalm 21 (22 in some Bibles).

[@hglundahl]

He is,@Bones18 , since his Gospel is post-Patmos.

[@smidlee7747]

@@hglundahl There is some doubts since John didn't mention the destruction of the temple in his gospel. The gospel writers were quick to point out Jesus fulfilling prophecy yet didn't mention the destruction of the temple as one of them. We know the early church did indeed pointed this out as fulfilled exactly as Jesus said it would.

[@hglundahl]

OK,@@smidlee7747, there is a difference of Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy and prophecies of Jesus being fulfilled. The destruction of the temple was obvious, didn't need pointing out in a Gospel. The OT fulfilments are on some level less obvious, since Jews go on missing them up to this day. That's why they _were_ specifically pointed out, including rules about the paschal lamb being prophetic of the Redeemer and Eucharistic Bread (why His bones were not broken, specifically Gospel of John).

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

@@hglundahlThe Patristic testimony is not clear on that point, I don’t think. By all accounts John survived Patmos and even did a little more preaching and ministering in the times of Nerva, but he probably died before Trajan took the throne.

[@hglundahl]

OK, but@@keatsiannightingale2025 ... either way it seems he wrote the Gospel after Patmos. I'm referring to the Acta Sancti Iohannis which were followed in Ælfric's sermon on him. It makes sense logically that he _first_ reassures Christians of Jewish origin, that in the views of the King of the Jews _they_ are the real Jews, and _only then_ trains them to use the word Jews about the sect usurping it at Jamnia, so, I'd go with the Acta, even if I don't trust its identification of the Gospeller with the Son of Zebedee, and even if other Fathers disagree.

[@truncated7644]

Isn't it an even greater irony that in a thread about cognitive bias the commenters are so very confident that McGrew has proved Ehrman wrong? All McGrew has done is to offer a handful of arguments that Bart is not unaware of and has counter arguments for.

[@darkwolf7740]

Could you provide these counter arguments?

[@truncated7644]

@@darkwolf7740 No, that's not germane to the comment. if you want to know his arguments, read his scholarship or subscribe to his blog. My point is Bart doesn't get all wound up and call people liars, arrogant, prideful. He doesn't call for others to be fired for holding the points of view that he does. But the commenters here do exactly that, and I would think that if a commenter is saying Bart should lose his job, it implies the commenter is very confident that they are right and Bart is wrong. And considering this comment section is about cognitive biases, I would say that it is pretty IRONIC.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@truncated7644Bart is not a believer, so why would he get angry? He has no religious belief to defend.

[@truncated7644]

@@darkwolf7740 Exactly.

[@truncated7644]

@Bones18 What does that mean? You scored a point or something? The argument isn't about the correctness of Ehrman's point of view, it is about the certainty opponents have that Bart is wrong that ironically occurs in the context of a discussion of cognitive biases that can cause people to be overly confident in the correctness of their opinion.

[@giorgosst4649]

Can you make a video about dead sea scrolls and about teacher of rightouness and similarities with jesus?

[@deadalivemaniac]

I like Ehrman, at least for the fact he’s a scholar and has some level of credibility. I say that as a conservative EO Christian. I dismiss anybody with “skeptic” as their title out of hand. See Genetically Modified, Cosmic, and Armored.

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

I honestly like cosmic skeptic more than Ehrman he's changed his KZbin name to Alex O'Connor, and he's less intelligently dishonest than Ehrman in my opinion.

[@OrthodoxCrusader-sm4xi]

No the guy doesnt,the guy isnt able to debate

[@deadalivemaniac]

@@theintelligentmilkjug944 not really. He used the chestnut of “I talked to my really smart friend pursuing a master’s in quantum mechanics and he’s getting straight A’s…” I cannot take that person seriously nor honestly. Plus how he constantly hides behind the most basic objections of divine hiddenness and evil and suffering. I know he changed the name but that’s a stain of cringe nothing will ever wash away.

[@deadalivemaniac]

@@OrthodoxCrusader-sm4xi true, but his only appeal to me that’s genuine is how he embodies the arguments I need to know how to answer. “Skeptics” will uncritically support whatever he says or any other mainstream naturalist scholars say.

[@blusheep2]

Yeah, Cosmic Skeptic is a relatively intellectually honest guy who shows respect to his opponents. He has also changed his name. He just goes by his real name, Alex O'Connor.

[@toobsterdude]

Unbelief has it's own interpretations.

[@protochris]

Reading John 19:16, it does not specify who are the "them" that Jesus is delivered to for crucifixion. Bart claims the Jews are the antecedent in verses 14 and 15, but it could easily have been the soldiers first mentioned in verses 2 and 3. We find later in verse 18, that the "them" (αυτοις) are the soldiers, because it says "they crucified HIM and the other two with him. If Bart is consistent in his claims, then the Jews were also responsible for crucifying the other two with Jesus, which Roman law would have never allowed. Finally in verse 23 it says "Then the SOLDIERS when they had crucified Jesus...". These passages clearly debunk Bart's notion that Pilate handed over Jesus to the Jewish authorities to be crucified.

[@ElficGuy]

Tim McGrew is an absolute LEGEND!

[@andrelegeant88]

John absolutely emphasizes the role of the Jews more than other gospels. Some of what Bart says is not accurate. "auton" in John 19:16 means "them" and the "them" is ambiguous. It does not necessarily refer to the Jewish priests. However, John absolutely refers to and blames "THE JEWS" whereas Luke, for example, places blame on the high priests.

[@faithnreason446]

The high priests were Jews.

[@skwills1629]

@@faithnreason446 - Actually No, The High Priest were Levites. Not that it matters as Blaming a Group who is Jewish is not Blaming All Jews, which is what You would have to Argue to make Your Rebuttal Make Sense.

[@Konxovar0]

It can be true that John speaks about the Jews in a way which previously, maybe 20-30 years before his Gospel was written, would only have been used to speak about the high priests specifically, and that John is accurately reporting the events. Non-Christian Jews as a whole were probably a bigger problem when John was writing his Gospel than when Matthew, Luke, or Mark were writing theirs. That can be true along with the Gospel's claims.

[@andrelegeant88]

@@faithnreason446 John refers to The Jews as a whole people though. You don't see Ioudaioi used the same in earlier gospels. This is actually one of the features that causes people to group Revelation with John even though the writing is nothing alike and most of the theology is incompatible

[@skwills1629]

@@Konxovar0 - More likely John was The Last Written Gospel, which is True in Tradition, and not just some "Modern Consensus", but it is True of The Consensus View as Well, and By 70 AD Christianity was No Longer seen as Jewish. John is Not so much Anti-Jewish, as it is Written in a Context when "The Jews" Represented Those Who did Not Accept The Messiah. Before 70 AD Christians were seen as Jews. More than Likely it is simply a Distinction of Alliances, or "Religion" as We say it Now, than of Race and Not as Anti-Semitic as it is Claimed. But We do Tend to Project Modern Ideas Onto the Past. Like You do when you assume The High Priest was a Jew. He was a Levite. But today We see Israel as Jewish, and Think The Israelites in The Old Testament were All Jews. Jews come from Judah, Only One Tribe. The Samaritains were Also Israelites. And Still are. The Samaritains Still Exist. Samaritains are Not Jewish, though.

[@fletcherallen3478]

If you read the Bible and think anyone is “responsible” for Christ hanging on the cross other than your own sin you need to read the gospels again.

[@glstka5710]

3:03 What translations? The translations I use all have the ambiguous pronoun.

[@glstka5710]

0:39 The Primacy of Mark is a modern theory (as far as I know started in the 19th century) often held by liberals. Irenaeus of Lyons, a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John gives the order of the Gospels as the commonly accepted Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., this is a pretty early testimony.

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

The only problem is that multiple accounts of the origin of Mark’s gospel exist. There are those that go with Irenaeus’ version of events, which is that Mark wrote “after their departure.” There’s another, I believe found in Eusebius’ citation of Clement of Alexandria’s lost work, stating Peter was still alive and even knew of Mark’s undertaking, and even stating he was indifferent to it! I don’t have the exact citation on hand, but I’ve read the passage in Eusebius myself, so it isn’t just hearsay. The patristic testimony shouldn’t be discounted, but it also must receive more critical analysis than blind acceptance too.

[@glstka5710]

@@keatsiannightingale2025 You are looking for Eusebius' Church History Bk.2 Chpt.15 And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. And they say that Peter, when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. This doesn't say anything about the order of the Gospels. Also Clement (of Alexandria) is a later writer than Irenaeus (just slightly) Clement also was a convert from Platonism while Irenaeus evidently was a Christian from youth (recalls learning from Polycarp as a youth) Clement is a good supplemental source but I tend to go with earlier sources first then look to later. I'm still unaware of anyone saying that Mark's Gospel was first before the19th century.

[@shanehanes7096]

Has Erhman ever read the Talmud! Lol BTW, have you ever read the contradictions Erhman makes against himself in his books.

[@darkwolf7740]

Erhman never existed 📸

[@mccalltrader]

What nonsense, John didn’t write the Jews crucified Jesus…yes Pilate said “them” when he handed Jesus to “them” to be crucified.(jn 19:16) It can’t be the high priests, because earlier in John, they said they could not kill because of the law,(jn 18:31)and then later in John, it says the soldiers crucified him(jn 19:23)and Bart knows this, but plays like it something more, to sow doubt and confusion. He is dishonest and a liar, beware!

[@Sunburst6520]

A story from the book of 1 Kings, where a prophet by the name of Elijah when he beheld 400 false prophets of the false object of worship called Baal said to them if you think you're God to be the answer then assemble yourselves and call me fire down from heaven; Elijah said to them likewise shall I do the same as the story goes the 400 false prophets of the false being made themselves a bunch of ruckus calling out to the lie they believed. Elijah surely used scripture from the word of God the Old Testament or Old Covenant or Agreement and fire did fall from heaven. The more you get right about God the more he shows up. God is a spirit those that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. John 4:24 Don't just have faith, have faith in God, and his word. There is surely a type of extreme unpleasantness already in the Earth, have you seen it, are you delivered from it? Job 38:17 "Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?" Job 38:33 "33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" As a child, I would have dreams in be in many nightmares where underground tentacle monsters could sense my slightest movement and impel me, wars, dreams of persecution, the grim Reaper, things would get wild. I remember calling on the Old Testament name of God Jehovah, and I remember things did not end well for me when I was being assaulted by a witch. However, ever since I was a child the name of Jesus has never failed me, when I began to call on his name Even recently, a spider demon with a human face around the size a 42" TV was crawling on my wall when I awoke from my sleep. I spoke the name of Jesus quite a few times and I attained Mercy unto myself, for that because Jesus has the authority for this reason. John 3:35 " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." 1 John 2:23 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." I believe that God cares for his creation and doesn't want to lose them, because I believed in Jesus and had the humility to honor his name many times throughout my life. I attained mercy through the New Covenant, agreement, or Testament. Only parts of the old still apply. The old prepared place for the New. I believe Love is many things, and is doing many things read 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (KJV) and study the langauge of the time (Middle English) and do for yourself an order of operations properly like you would use in Algebra. A few things I believe Love does it when you matter greatly it is a kindness(: an act to preserve and help you), that never lies to you. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 "And the Word:λόγος(in ancient Greek) message, expression of God's ideas), was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." For if I read James 1:5 (KJV), do not leave out James 1:6,7, and 8 (KJV), and while we at it live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. If there are 18000+ religions in the world I know to whom I say go to save me trouble, the name and the ideas that I will confess as Lord to be serving of and to call my friend. Proverbs 4:19 “The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.” A concept of the word is the idea that is behind it or what should pop into your head by what the author is meaning. If you do not have the idea of the word correct you have a misconception and it changes the whole story. Read the KJV, pray for wisdom, pray without ceasing: don't go a day without it. Genesis 18:14 "14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son." El shaddai, is one of God's name: meaning, the Almighty. The deductions you can make with your eyes are not as important to me as the decisions you can make with your heart. I believe God set the stage before we got to the play. God putting bones in the ground isn't him being deceptive, he wants to know if we will be persumptious.

[@BeRitCrunk]

Fresh testify. Delicious

[@gioarevadze2703]

like

[@yellow8954]

If listen to a good amount of Barth and it really does seem like he's biased. He slips in personal opinions with facts to make a concoction thats sweet to some ears but deadly for the soul.

[@Onlyafool172]

Thank you testify, i think those atheists make a lot of interesting question some more than the other, but ultimatly they are refining our faith, and for that i thank them.

[@PizzaDisguise]

I think it would be hard to believe Jesus is the Messiah, as a Jew, and have leaders of the Jewish nation completely disagree with you. That being said, once you saw the Temple destroyed again, it should give you pause. Jesus definitely prophesied it.

[@hglundahl]

Is this mostly about the Gospel of St. John and how the narrator (but mostly not Jesus) uses the word "Jews"? In 90, on Patmos, the Jewish heritage Christian community that heard St. John got a message from Christ that their enemies in the ethnic Jewish community (at least locally) had gone so far that in the eyes of The King of the Jews Himself, they were not Jews. In c. 100, in the Gospel, he is himself telling them by his word choice, that for social purposes, they nevertheless had to call their enemies "Jews" ... I suppose getting harrassed by people first protecting you against the now Roman persecution, then asking if you were serious about being Christian, then delivering you to the Romans to get persecuted and eaten by lions would tend to foster a somewhat orrery "outgroup bias" against those Jews who were doing that, and who since Jamnia were claiming the name "Jews" for themselves.

[@natemead]

Mohammad sounds like he fits the bill

[@TruthWillSetYouFREE-]

Very sorry for this once a Bible scholar who lost his faith what will he do when the end comes

[@davidabramyk2999]

Ugh erhman, Pilot isn’t being said to turn over Jesus to the Jews as the Jewish leaders had the power to carry out crucifixion. It’s saying pilot gave into the Jews demands for conviction. He’s smart he knows what he’s doing it’s a hardness or heart. I get it he makes a powerful appeal to emotion in his debates and story telling. But it blinds him to truth

[@addersrinseandclean]

Keep up the good work

[@robdumond2634]

Not even the elementary school playground has as much projection and hypocrisy as christian apologetics.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

What is your theory for how exactly christianity began the way it did?

[@faithnreason446]

You didn't actually respond to any arguments.

[@skwills1629]

Reciting The Dogma of The Modern I Have No Religion Religion that Christian Apologetics is Full of More Projection and Hypocrisy than a Playground is Not Really Proof that what was Said Here is Wrong. Its a Childish Insult. And Ironically it is You being a Hypocrite and You Projecting Your Faults as a "Sceptic Community" Onto Christians.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Edgy

[@darkwolf7740]

Step 1) Make an ad-hominem statement Step 2) Don't evaluate on it Step 3) Walk away

[@paulblase3955]

Ehrman forgets that most of the early Christians were Jews. As, of course, were Matthew, Mark, and John.

[@truncated7644]

I'm sure he completely forgot that.

[@truncated7644]

Ok, so @Testify has supplied the crack you all need to desensitize you to the work of scholars like Bart that you disagree with. Enjoy your high. When you come back down, realize that people like Bart aren't unbelievers for arguments like this. Bart disbelieves Christianity for entirely other reasons. What he can do is his best effort to understand the texts as they are written, without worrying that a particular interpretation risks his hope of heaven or triggers his fear of hell. No one is unbiased, but scholars who claim to have an eternal relationship with a supreme god definitely have a much stronger one.

[@TestifyApologetics]

we found the Ehrman Blog subscriber, guys.

[@el4276]

"but scholars who claim to have an eternal relationship with a supreme god definitely have a much stronger one" do you have any evidence for this claim

[@darkwolf7740]

So you're not allowed to critique people now if they have a degree? Guess I should just zip my lip forever then.

[@truncated7644]

@@darkwolf7740 No, but if you do unzip them, be kind and generous rather than polemical comments this thread has spawned.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@truncated7644I'll always do that but in your original comment you did the exact same thing you're telling me not to do. Take your own advice, my friend.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

He said “we’ll get to that later” regarding John saying that Jesus was handed to the Jewish authorities to kill him - I never heard him address this? Where is the timestamp?

[@bungalobill7941]

Is there anyone more overrated than Ehrman?

[@inukithesavage828]

Bart is so sketchy

[@victorguzman2302]

We, The unbelievers are unbelievers because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that a god exist that you are absolutely sure it does exist. Show us the evidence. The Bible is NOT evidence. What you call faith is a very dishonest position because you are affirming something that you yourselves can no and will not be able to prove. If I tell you that I can fly, you’ll have to believe it because I told you I do. If you don’t believe me, then, you are in the wrong. I can even write a book telling my story of how I started to learn how to fly, and you must believe me. That’s the Bible.

[@HelloKrishnam]

This is very misleading. Christians don't blame Jews but are sympathetic towards Jews as they are not recognising Jesus the saviour and thr kind.

[@SamAdamsGhost]

I mean... there are plenty that blame Jews. In history and still today

[@andrevisser7542]

Of course Christians don't blame Jews for Jesus's crucifixion but we surely can blame the synagogue of satan or as Jesus called them "a brood of vipers"... Then again, all part of God's plan to save those who believe on Him from satan's bondage and restore our personal relationship with Him.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

God judged those responsible in 70 AD.

[@SamAdamsGhost]

@@andrevisser7542 That is not the same thing

[@SamAdamsGhost]

@@tafazzi-on-discord No that would be the Romans

[@meanman6992]

I wonder what messianic Jews would say

[@JonClash]

W

[@kaylorschaff2791]

Jacksepticeye jumpscare

[@corundergroundreligion8190]

Bart is a fool

[@jameswitt108]

Delete that insult and actually make an argument that doesn't bring shame to Christ's name.(Matthew 5:22)

[@corundergroundreligion8190]

@@jameswitt108 Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[@jameswitt108]

@@corundergroundreligion8190 Paul's argument is about the consequences of rejecting God and falling into idolatry (Ehrman is not an idol worshipper). He's highlighting how some individuals, despite claiming wisdom, turned away from God's truth and pursued foolishness through idol worship. Delete that insult bro, the devil wishes to sift you like wheat.

[@corundergroundreligion8190]

@@jameswitt108 lol get a grip. You give satan too much credit. Bart is 100% evil.

[@pabloandres6179]

I dislike both of em

[@Augustus_McCrae]

Bart is a closet, "Evangelical"...