DEBATE: Jimmy Akin vs Bart Ehrman | Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?

[@berserker9682]

I used the same approach as Jimmy when I was still a skeptic, yesterday I was officially received as a catechumen to be baptized the sunday after easter.

[@mrsandmom5947]

Amen! Welcome!

[@mcspankey4810]

Divine Mercy Sunday

[@apologeticasanmiguelarcangel]

Welcome home

[@myke23111]

Wow. On Divine Mercy Sunday. God Bless you on your journey 🙏

[@mickqQ]

IMHO There are no real gods Only people that believe gods are real

[@Bogey1022]

I absolutely love that Bart bows his head during the prayer. Very respectful

[@ralphshively808]

I think it's okay either way. There are goods reasons to do either one.

[@mike-cc3dd]

You're impressed by too little.

[@PInk77W1]

Jimmy Akin bowed his head too

[@sjappiyah4071]

@@PInk77W1 Jimmy is a Christian, so that’s to be expected Bart is an Atheist and has no allegiance to the faith yet chooses to be respectful. Key difference

[@PInk77W1]

@@sjappiyah4071 ok cool. Thx. I had no clue Bart was an atheist

[@BryceCarmony]

Jimmy has a lot of swagger in this debate. He might as well started with "now I'm just a simple country apologist...."

[@Samael-Metzger]

Jimmy Akin is Full of crap,

[@user-hj8vd2od9h]

Years ago, Erhman shook my Protestant faith to the point I almost reverted to Atheism before I found the beauty and truth of the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is the only religion that makes sense. In my opinion; either Catholicism is true, or no religion is.

[@CybermanKing]

Yeah, that's exactly how it was for me, too, except rediscovering my Catholic faith. Ironically, I first came across Erhman in a YMCA library.

[@lewkor1529]

Former Catholic here. Beauty, maybe... Truth? absolutely not. Like you said... No, religion is true

[@user-hj8vd2od9h]

@@lewkor1529 In my opinion, it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments for the existence of a one true God. If a one true God exists, then Catholicism is the only religion that makes logical sense. If a one true God does not exist, then the only thing that makes logical sense is that no religion is true.

[@CybermanKing]

@@lewkor1529 How long were you Catholic for? Are you a cradle Catholic who fell away, perhaps even after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation or were you a convert that later lost faith?

[@lewkor1529]

If the one "true" God exists then he surely used a terrible way to communicate: an accurate, fiction sounding, error-filled book. That would include the fake Paul epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, etc.) and the 7 additional books (Apocrypha,etc.) in the new catholic new testaments. If the one true God exists, I am not sure he would vouch for Catholicism but I agree that resurrecting people from death would be child play for them. I doubt such a God exists though

[@lubormrazek5545]

the second I saw comic sans Ehrman lost the debate

[@patriceriksson7924]

There is no way a person defending reality can loose against a fairytalebeliever.

[@mmmnuts5645]

he would have won with copperplate gothic..

[@bilbobaggins9893]

Even as a Protestant, I really enjoy listening to Jimmy.

[@kyriosbooks8400]

why shouldnt you? what matters if you are protestant and he catholic, he is defending same Scriptures we all believe are historicaly reliable.

[@bilbobaggins9893]

@@kyriosbooks8400 I just meant in general.

[@ajamusic7322]

What denomination do they have out in the Shire, Bilbo?

[@malachi7948]

@@kyriosbooks8400 Here is what Christ says about the likes of Jimmy Akin, who believes that man “evolved” from beasts, a total absurdity and impossibility, and who denies the truth of scripture that man was formed out of the dust of the earth by God, and became a living soul after receiving the breath of life from God: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” This is not a debate between a Christian and an infidel , that we should take sides, but it is one between two apostates who trust more in the foolish wisdom of the world than in the truth which was revealed by God to the prophets and in the Christ whose sheep hear his voice and follow him.

[@bartbannister394]

@@malachi7948 The fact that humans and chimps have a common ancestor is proven by DNA. In fact scientists have determined it occurred 6 million years ago. I don't know if scientists have determined when humans and sheep had a common ancestor.

[@Saddamuel]

Not a Christian (yet), but I wanted to add that when it comes to Jesus referencing a psalm it seems very reasonable to me that he would be referencing it in full context. Don't we still see this today where quotes from TV shows, movies or books carry more content and meaning than the literal words alone? If a man were to say, "my name is Maximus Decimus Meridius", he might say no more and yet clearly mean that he will not rest until he has his "vengeance, in this life or the next". The more knowledgeable a person is about a book or film, the more fleshed out their use of a reference might be. I might quote "I drink your milkshake" in a literal sense when drinking a bit of someone else's milkshake because I know that's a famous quote but I don't know what it's from, but a big cinema buff might use it to refer to a business deal where we've stolen a major client from under a competitor's feet. Or, I just looked up a list of famous film quotes which could illustrate the point: "We're not in Kansas anymore", "Rosebud" or "I'm the king of the world." That last one could be an illustration of the inverse. Say society collapsed and a wise man were crucified in the chaos. Perhaps he has a sense of humour and decides to quote Titanic because his crucified pose resembles Leonardo di Caprio at the bow of the ship. It may clearly be sarcastic because he isn't actually the king of the world. But if his works survive 1000 years and testimony of his final words exists, then all that context might be lost.

[@Андрец-д4щ]

Мне понравилось, что неверующий Барт Эрман тоже встал и склонил голову в молитве. Вот это уважение и солидарность, которому надо поучиться нашим российским скептикам.

[@williamcurt7204]

Jimmy's tactical framing of the debate made Bart's position basically impossible to defend. Even if we reject biblical inerrancy, and completely accept all of the points Bart brought up as true contradictions, the Gospels would still be historically reliable. Bart was forced to argue whether or not Mary and Joseph always living in Nazareth or moving to Nazareth, or whether Jesus telling people to go to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem was a major contradiction. His protestant fundamentalism is showing through his atheism.

[@interestingreligion5204]

Tactics to win a debate. Ooooooohhhh sounds suspect.

[@joeoleary9010]

I'm not sure you understand what "contradiction" means and what it implies about the historical reliability of a text.

[@mattm7798]

They also aren't contradictions. A contradiction is A=B and at the same time, A=/=B. Both can't be true. For the egypt vs nazareth, there are multiple logical explanations that fit within the way we would expect people recounting a biography to report but to sum up, nowhere does it say the Magi visited Jesus at or even near his birth. This is important because it is THIS event which starts the ball rolling on them fleeing to Egypt, not Jesus's birth. In fact, there is evidence that it was as much as 2 years AFTER Jesus' birth since Herod gives the order to kill all 2 y/os and under...seems a bit odd if the Magi had even been there a even couple months after Jesus birth. There are plenty of logical plausible scenarios one can google that explain this very neatly.

[@user-qg8cj4zh5r]

You’re spot on with viewing this debate. Jimmy Akin just explained his motive and tactics he used in the debate and some of the stuff he said is word for word to what you commented here. Bravo

[@criticaloptimist7961]

This is exactly why I thought Jimmy lost, because it allowed him a lot of room to move the goal post.

[@cactoidjim1477]

First rebuttal: Bart presents in a style that would be recognized in any Protestant church: Dynamic vocals - from a soft whisper with small body language to near shouts and wide gesticulations. I may have to rewatch because it's giving me Evangelical flashbacks. But he didn't seem to *directly* address any of Jimmy's points. He just attempted to sow further doubt. Jimmy Brings the focus back to "Major/Intermediate/Minor" issues Shows further preparation with an unexpected web page for the audience to explore later. Offers explanation of ancient writing practices by using further points Bart agrees with. Uses StarTrek as an analogy. 1 bonus Geek Point. Using an analogy makes the point "sticky" for the audience and is a powerful technique.

[@zacharyboudreau9127]

Bart has a whole box of straws to grasp and many darts to fling. None land near a bullseye.

[@sapereaude6339]

I would make it a 0.5 bonus geek point. Star Trek is a subpar series. At the least he could’ve pulled a Trent and quoted Star Wars.

[@EEYore-py1bf]

@@sapereaude6339 Star Trek > Star Wars every time I say this as someone for whom Star Trek ended after Enterprise

[@CybermanKing]

@@EEYore-py1bf STD and the Star Wars sequel trilogy are trash anyway you cut it.

[@EnoYaka]

Can you theists grow a brain and drop the religion already?

[@millerpatrick]

Bart: Jesus din't say those words in Mark! For real? Just have a look: Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”Mk 14:62; “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” -But note he said "I am"

[@johnsecheverell7824]

The messiah was never equated with God by 1st century Jews. Also, I am waa a common way of answering those particular yes or no styled questions. When Jewish leaders ask the blind man healed by Jesus, if he is that man, he uses the same verbiage I am. Did he claim to be God?

[@tomasrocha6139]

None of his followers witnessed the trial

[@mattm7798]

Also LOL, Bart is simply wrong about Jesus telling the disciples not to leave Jerusalem THE DAY OF THE RESURRECTION...Luke just says v36 As they were talking about these things... It doesn't say it was the same day. I'm sure the disciples talked about the events of the resurrection a ton in the 40 days from rising to ascending.

[@ElliotBougis]

note also that Christ Himself "led them out" of Jerusalem to Bethany (v. 50) after allegedly forbidding them to leave Jerusalem (v. 49) typical "Spock moment" by skeptics

[@iu9142]

It's pretty impressive that Jimmy is using a PowerPoint after rebuttal. He really took the time to see all angles of his opponents points

[@angelbrother1238]

This is why akin is the me of my favorite catholic apologists . Him and mark bonocore .

[@AsixA6]

Yet, he still lost badly. Go figure.

[@affinity1746]

Yeah Jimmy really destroyed bart on this debate and won it.

[@mike-cc3dd]

He basically predicted berts opening statement. Pretty amazing

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@AsixA6 cringe atheism.

[@cerb4414]

im making fanart of jimmy akin dressed as a final fantasy red mage its gonna look so cool that hat is amazing btw

[@anthonypalo8191]

jimmy akin action figure must be produced😄

[@mikejr8604]

Zz top vs billy bob Thornton hahaha he looks like zz top to me the song cheap sunglasses i kept thinking.

[@cosmicostrich3657]

Pictures or it didn't happen

[@cerb4414]

@@cosmicostrich3657 give me 2 weeks

[@cosmicostrich3657]

@@cerb4414 i will hold you to it

[@gracehoffman6404]

I'm a student at UNC-Chapel Hill and took Introduction to the New Testament with Dr. Ehrman the same semester that I was finishing RCIA and got baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church. Needless to say, I struggled to open my Bible for several months and I was extremely confused, but I made it through with my faith intact. This debate would have been so helpful to me back then! It felt like a spiritual battle to go to that class each week.

[@mbfelty]

Praying for your faith to stay strong in college! Our parish priest prays for the faith of young Catholics at our daily Mass.

[@dannielz6]

Have you read any of Bart Ehrmans books?

[@JeremiahAlphonsus]

Ehrman is a filthy heretic.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@dannielz6 "Have you read any of Bart Ehrmans books?"---- Have you ever eaten food from a trash can? There are valid circumstances when certain individuals must examine the contents of a trash can, but they do not offer it to their children for supper.

[@andrewferg8737]

Never confuse paper & ink with the Person of Christ, the Word Made Flesh. ""The LORD said, This is the resting place, let the weary rest, and, This is the place of repose- but they would not listen. So then, the Word of the Lord to them has become nothing but: do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there- so then as they try to move forward, they fall backward and are injured and snared and captured" (Isaiah 28) Peace be with you.

[@cactoidjim1477]

Opening: Bart gets double points for being in a "hostile" audience and assuming the burden of proof. He offers several challenging points that each could be separate debates. It's a strong open, and a seasoned debate move: he sows doubt. Jimmy made the right move contrasting Inerrancy and Reliability - and focusing on defining "reliable". That makes Bart's burden incredibly heavy. Then, using Bart's own words to prove **63** points...THEN answers Bart's opening *in his opening* ...That is the best example of strategy and preparation that I have ever seen.

[@kynesilagan2676]

If you frequent CA open forums. You'd have an idea how Jimmy prepares for Bart. And yes, it must be suggested that audience tickets should be evenly distributed. And the organizer always inform they've done it. I remember what they did to Fr. Pacwa decades ago. No guest should be ganged up like that.

[@stephen4598]

I don't know if I agree the power point was the best idea. It was immediately obvious where that was going as a viewer and I mentally checked out of Jummy's opening and closing pretty quickly. In fact since I was watching 30 minutes behind (watching most of this at 1.5 speed), I hit the right arrow several times in Jimmy's opening and closing when he was droning on in the opening and repeating himself in the closing. I agreed with Jimmy more, but found it less engaging then Bart actually speaking to the audience.

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

@@kynesilagan2676 what did they do to fr. Pacwa? And who did it, catholic answers? Who hanged up on him? Was there a video of it?

[@willb5507]

Akin crushed him

[@danaharper9708]

@@kynesilagan2676 I have no idea how Jimmy prepared, whatever he did, it was effective.

[@meatofpeach]

A truly historical debate (no pun intended)! Thank you to Ehrman, Jimmy, and everyone else who had a hand in putting this together.

[@Snakejuce_]

There was only one person speaking historically and accurately....and then there was some dude named Jimmy who has no idea what the hell is going on and repeating the same old ignorant, absolutely irrational, claims. Amazing the level of blatant denial an ignorant sheep will engage in to feel better about living it's lie. Even more frightening is the fact that many of the sheep who viewed the "debate" can't even tell or critically and sincerely approach the topic. They also look to confirm their denial to feel better about their lie. What a time to be alive.

[@ptk8451]

There is more to it there.If it eas from Peter.,remember he was a coward and ran away.Possibly he was not near enough to hear it.directy.Maybe he heard it from someone who was there But remembering his denial of his master the previous night he must have been haunted by these words when it came to his ears.oh,no he was not likely to ever forget it Which is why We hear Go tell the disciples and Peter

[@debraandrus8302]

​@@ptk8451 l 1

[@ngmui430]

@@ptk8451 yeah, no.

[@johnnysprocketz]

the book of john is a forgery, sad but true for the cult worshippers

[@igotcookies]

I’m a huge Bart Ehrman fan and an atheist/skeptic myself, but with Jimmy admitting that The Bible isn’t inerrant, it makes Bart’s job much harder to defend than against someone like an evangelist who thinks it’s inerrant. I thought it was a great debate and Jimmy was very thought-provoking, but even if the gospels were 100% reliable, it’s still not proof of a supernatural to me. I enjoyed the debate though. Jimmy made some good points, and I’ve seen Bart debate many times before so I already knew what to expect from him.

[@danaharper9708]

Finally a fellow atheist who can be objective and provide a charitable comment about someone with whom they disagree.

[@markbond08]

It makes it harder to defend the debate topic, but you still have to be fairly gullible to believe the supernatural bits

[@WhiteRussianBC]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just apply that principle to everything in the Bible.

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

@@WhiteRussianBC define extraordinary evidence

[@edwardkim8972]

Whether or not the miraculous happened is a matter of faith, but it's likely that the Gospel writers did in fact record what they saw and they did not intend to deceive anyone with what they wrote down.

[@mdc8698]

Another Protestant who loved the debate. First time hearing Jimmy. Very impressed by his presentation and demeanor.

[@limsun3814]

Lol what were you impressed by? As soon as he said the brain dead theory that Joseph had 2 houses, he lost all credibility, at least other apologists agree that their are differences in the gospels that can’t be reconciled

[@deus_vult8111]

explain

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@limsun3814 his presentation destroyed bart by the end of the opening statement. Bart was uninformed, and unprepared. His arguments only work against a fundamentalist protestant. He didnt do his research

[@PInk77W1]

@@mike-cc3dd Jimmy was a Protestant

[@grimsanctuary3937]

@@limsun3814 Jewish culture and learning Biblical Hebrew would be a good start to understand the Old Testament. You do realize that Scripture (authors) are at odds with one another? English is a poor translation of the Old and New Testaments. "At least other apologists agree that there are differences in the Gospels that can't be reconciled." The problem is, which Scholars and who, many academic Scholars hold the same views with minor nuances, many others don't.

[@Strive1974]

Erhman has a special on Netflix about this. I sometimes worry that it may cause some to stray from the faith, and for some it may. After watching Barts arguments I'm not so worried anymore. Viva Cristo Rey!

[@filipinismo7296]

In his closing remarks... Erhman proves his blasphemous tone based on his revalistic agenda shrouded in ethics of material Humanism.

[@taylorj.1628]

Excellent debate. God bless Bart Ehrman. He is a class act, very respectful, and very well read. I'm still a catholic, but I think Bart did a great job.

[@mike-cc3dd]

No. His arguments were pretty garbage.. they would only work against a fundamentalist protestant. They are arguments from silence, and arguments from ignorance. He also doesnt realize that humans can choose what to write and are not fax machines. His whole intro was absolute cringe.

[@SpiritofAloha11]

Bart is petulant. Akin deliberately was nice to him so Bart wouldn't lose his ish.

[@Shawn-nq7du]

What if your friend was in an accident and you just say his mother was there when you know the names of 10 other people who were there, are you speaking falsely if you only mention his mother? Bart is deceptive and you have to think deeper. Don't let him steal eternal life from you -- stay Catholic, choose life. Also, Bart just made up his comment on Jesus appearing to his disciples "on that day." Go to hour/minute 1:24, and then read for yourself Luke 24. It seems like "on that day" he saw the men on the road to Emmaus, but not likely his apostles because he did not appear to him until after the men on the road to Emmaus returned to Jerusalem. Also, when Jesus tells them to stay in the city, does he mean don't pack your bags up and permanently give up your upper room in Jerusalem. Bart wasn't there and he doesn't know the details or intent of Jesus' words. Bart wins and causes souls to to choose death because people don't bother to think deeply or research what he said and pray. Christianity is not easy and the weak will fall away as Jesus says in a parable. The women visiting Jesus’ tomb as recorded? • Mark 16:1- Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome • Matthew 28:1- Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and another Mary • Luke 24:10- Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.” • John 20:1- John mentions Mary Magdalene.

[@jozsefnemeth935]

I found Bart a very useful empty brand. I thank him for introducing me to speakers like Jimmy Atkin and Timothy Grew. I also watched a documentary about Mormons because he uses them in comparison to the testimonies by St. Peter, Paul, James and Mary Magdalene, I think he acknowledges these four. I am not sure he realises what makes the difference between signing davodites in an era of religious experimentation and to preach in Jerusalem where your master.and Lord has been crucified. Let alone St Paul s conversion.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@mike-cc3dd His arguments are very solid unless you think contradiction supports your position.

[@Shinigami00Azael]

Does Bart actually think that Jesus was in shok and that's why he said exactly the begging of Psalm 22?

[@BonzTrinitarian]

Yeah, I found barts first rebuttal extremely unconvincing and naive.

[@mrswilbert]

​. Unlike the snake oil salesmen who kept directing people to his website that doesn't even work...🙄

[@Shinigami00Azael]

1:39:00 I literally had a way better memory before smartphones were a thing...

[@Davcramer]

I believe the Gospels and Acts were written before 70AD, primarily because none of the writers seem aware of the most cataclysmic event for Jews of the first century, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. And Luke in Acts, isn't aware of how Paul and Peter's time in Rome ends, with their deaths during Nero's persecutions, about 64AD. If Luke were writing after that time, wouldn't he have included their deaths as being Acts of the Apostles? And if Luke wrote Acts before 64AD, then that means both Mark and Luke, at minimum, would have been written before 64AD. And since Matthew and John also didn't know about the destruction of the Temple, so that would have placed them before 70AD.

[@UrsaringKrusherX]

If Jesus were God, wouldn't he explicitly say that he was God with no confusion?

[@Davcramer]

@@UrsaringKrusherX Just for being as veiled as he was about it, it still got him crucified. Most of the Apostles, for preaching that Jesus is the Son of God, were persecuted and killed. There was no 1st Amendment right to free speech back then, and of course the Jews (and we) have a commandment saying that there is only one God.

[@UrsaringKrusherX]

@@Davcramer you miss my point. You're implying that the exclusion of an important event gives credibility to the timeframe of the bible, but at the same time the exclusion of Jesus' explicit mention that he was God, which the message of his divinity is of utmost importance and the key message of the gospel (according to protestants), doesn't disprove his divinity. You're applying a double standard. With regards to his apostles martyrdom, there's hardly any actual documentation or evidence, much less the reasoning. Execution was rampant at the time and people were executed for all sorts of reasons. In fact, Sean McDowell concluded only 5 of the apostle's were more probable to have been martyred than not. Unless there are explicit official documentation of the execution and the reasoning, the martyrdom can only constitute speculation at best.

[@Davcramer]

@@UrsaringKrusherX Catholics have understood from the 1st and early 2nd century that James was beheaded by Herod (as recorded in Acts), Paul was beheaded by Nero, and Peter crucified upside down by Nero. Now I suppose you think we should have some sort of arrest warrant, conviction, and death certificate proving that this was what happed? Is that the official documentation you expect we could find? The New Testament strongly implies that Jesus is the Son of God and some references that he participated in creation. But Christians don't require him to spell out everything in bold black and white. That might be necessary for you to believe, but our standards aren't as stringent as yours. You may think that's stupid on our part, but your opinion isn't binding on us.

[@edwardkim8972]

Overall Akin did a good job, but he stumbled on a key point. When Bart brought-up the alleged contradiction of Joseph living in both Bethlehem and Galilee, Akin kinda stumbled in his response. In another video I remember see Akin address this same point much more effectively. In that other video Akin said that it was likely that Joseph had a family residence and a work residence. It's like a modern day construction contractor who has a regular family home and a small apartment / dormitory for where the construction site is located. That's a good way to address this alleged contradiction and I'm surprised Akin didn't defend it in that way this time around since I've seen him defend it in this kind of way before.

[@thecamil10]

He did say in another KZbin video that he didn’t have time during the debate to address it. But referred to an article where he explained that and where he also explains other points.

[@GloriaJesu]

Even despite this, Bart stumbled WAY more often than Akin did and was WAY more unprepared.

[@davidmyton6057]

Really enjoyed this debate. Good to see two respectful, smart and engaging debaters share their knowledge and perspectives. Never seen Jimmy before but I’ve become an instant fan. Kudos to Bart for stepping outside his comfort zone to take part in this discussion.

[@GloriaJesu]

Jimmy is the BEST

[@danielnabben8480]

• one thing that became increasingly annoying was that neither had a copy of the Gospels at hand. @1:25:48 if you just read the text neither would have to rely memory. Also, • Bart really struggled with inductive and deductive logic at so many points during the debate. Just because Mark didn't record Jesus saying something while carrying the cross or while on the cross, does not mean Jesus was silent. That is not how logic works. Put another way, 'not recording that Jesus spoke' is not the same thing as recording 'Jesus was silent.' Barts equates the two but that is a logical fallacy of a sophomoric nature. • Bart's recollection of what Mark writes about Easter Sunday is just wrong. Go read it. MARK Ch. 16 1 When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him. 2 Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll back the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” 4 When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large. 5 On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were utterly amazed. 6 He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him. 7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’” 8 Then they went out and fled from the tomb, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (This is where Bart stops and this is what he uses to indicate the women said nothing which Bart points is unreliable because of what Luke says, but~~ why stop here? When....) 9 When he had risen, early on ****the first day of the week***** (my emphasis), he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and ****told***** (my emphasis) his companions who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe. 12 g After this he appeared in another form to two of them walking along on their way to the country. 13 They returned and told the others; but they did not believe them either. 14 [But] later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. - - - - And just in case you were wondering if the women Mark mentions who were silent might be different women than the women Luke mentions who weren't silent: LUKE Ch. 24 1 But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb; 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were puzzling over this, behold, two men in dazzling garments appeared to them. 5 They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living one among the dead? 6 He is not here, but he has been raised.* Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners and be crucified, and rise on the third day.” 8 And they remembered his words. 9 Then they returned from the tomb and announced all these things to the eleven and to all the others. 10 The women were *******Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James****** (my emphasis); the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles,

[@rhuttner12]

With Ehrmans approach, all ancient history is mute. I find it strange how all of history, including the Early Church fathers, all agree on the authorship of the Gospels, but somehow 2,000 years later that just is unimportant.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Incorrect, for example the Alogi said Cerinthus wrote the 4th Gospel and the earliest fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement said nothing about Gospel authorship. Which makes sense since the Apostle John was illiterate according to Acts (4:13) and so were all 12 according to The First Apology of Judtin Martyr, Chapter 39. Likewise most of Matthew is copied from Mark so it's not written by an eyewitness either.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@tomasrocha6139 Hey man, a couple additions to your comment: 1) For John’s gospel, it’s actually likely a group write the Gospel, John the apostle was the primary source, so got the title. It’s more nuanced, but it seems commonly accepted. :) 2) On Matthew copying Mark, there is also quite a few unique Matthew elements not in Mark, so it seems more like the scribe copied Mark where the group agreed on the passage, and moved on to others. This makes sense of all the facts simply, for the claim of having no eyewitnesses would not explain why we have unique eyewitness material. :)

[@hello21467]

They didn't get formally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until Iranaeus in the late second century. Until they point they were all referenced by other names, not related to a specific person.

[@FuddlyDud]

@@hello21467 Ok, what other names are you speaking of? :) Let's go through and crack this code since, from what I know of said early attributions, it isn't anything contradictory (outside of later contestations, such as which John mainly wrote John).

[@valuedCustomer2929]

@@tomasrocha6139 You realize it was an oral tradition before it was written?

[@RayKosby]

At 38:24 Jimmy said "But, we are not here to debate faith tonight. At Bart says, we are looking at the gospels from a historical perspective and what a historian can make of them." later at 1:41:04 Dr Ehrman and Jimmy have the following exchange "E: I thought you started out your talk saying that you weren't going to be talking, that nothing you say is based on a statement of faith. J: I didn't say that . I'm looking at it from both perspectives..." I think Jimmy should have conceded that point to Dr Ehrman.

[@stooch66]

I am so tired of the soft people in our Church who don’t appreciate apologetics. Jimmy (and Tim, Karlo, Joe, and Trent) are doing so much to bring souls home to God.

[@xt001x]

Jimmy and Dr. David Anders brought me back to the Catholic church. Their ministry is invaluable

[@stooch66]

@@xt001x God bless you

[@eugenerosenquest1251]

Apologetics CAN BE used as a form of SPIN, public relations and manipulation. The thing is between these two, they BOTH may be right. There are elements of the Gospels that are historically accurate AND there there are writings in the New (and Old) Testament which are theological writing devices to make a claim or statement with the style of the time. The Goal is now, to tease out which is which in Scripture.

[@jesushernandez-eo8fq]

This guys are the avengers/justice league for defending the faith 👍👍

[@jlj2138]

Love them both! Hope to meet them in person someday!

[@row1landr]

I think....it is Dr. Brant Pitre that has a talk out (sort of new) about Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. In ancient Jewish times, genealogy was very important and a lot of attention was paid to it. Joseph (and Mary) came from the line of King David. The true line of kings had been in a sort of exile, but it would have come down to Jesus. Jesus is the King of heaven and the true King of earth. Before the birth of Jesus and even when Jesus was a child, It was Joseph who was in line to be King. Joseph knew this. And the Word was out among the people that the arrival of a new king would be taking place, Herrod was not happy and was having people killed and especially after the slaughter of the innocents, when the angel said it was safe to return, they chose Nazareth. Joseph knew that he had to be careful and not draw any suspicions. Nazareth was a very poor little town and out of the way.

[@kennethtemew8409]

@1:20:00 ... regarding the genealogy of Jesus .... bart is really really lost... his refutation has been answered by jimmy to the point that he no longer wants to stay on that topic but rather move on...

[@johnpaul-mp7zc]

Jesus did talk about who he was in the other Gospels and letters many times : 2018 Jesus Christ, divinity of The equality and identity of Jesus Christ as God is clearly stated in the NT, and is also implied by the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. The OT prophecies also point to the divinity of the coming Messiah. The NT writers affirm Jesus Christ’s divinity Heb 1:8 See also Ps 45:6; Jn 1:1-2,18; Ro 9:5 NIV footnote has alternative translations: “Christ who is over all. God be for ever praised!” Or: “Christ. God who is over all be for ever praised!”; Php 2:6; Tit 2:13; 2Pe 1:1 Statements which imply Jesus Christ’s divinity Mt 1:23 See also Isa 7:14; Lk 1:35; Col 1:15; 2:2,9; 1Ti 1:17; 1Jn 5:20 Jesus Christ’s unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead Mt 28:19 See also Jn 14:16; 2Co 13:14; Eph 1:13-14; 2:18,22; 3:14-17; 4:4-6 Jesus Christ’s eternal nature indicates his divinity Jesus Christ precedes creation Col 1:17 See also Mic 5:2; Jn 17:5,24; 2Ti 1:9; 1Pe 1:20; 1Jn 1:1; 2:13 Jesus Christ is everlasting Jn 8:58 See also Heb 1:12; Ps 102:27; Heb 7:3,24; 13:8; Rev 1:8; 5:13; 22:13 Jesus Christ’s pre-existence indicates his divinity Jn 6:62 See also Jn 3:13,31; 6:41-42; 13:3; 16:28 Jesus Christ’s manifestation of God’s glory indicates his divinity Heb 1:3 See also Mt 17:2 pp Mk 9:2-3 pp Lk 9:29; Jn 1:14; 1Co 2:8; 2Co 4:4; Jas 2:1 Jesus Christ’s divinity in the OT The divinity of the coming Messiah Isa 9:6; 40:3; Jer 23:6; Mal 3:1 NT passages which apply OT passages about God to Jesus Christ Ro 10:13 See also Joel 2:32; Jn 12:40-41; Isa 6:10; Ro 9:33; Isa 8:14; Eph 4:8; Ps 68:18 Jesus Christ’s claims to divinity He claimed to be one with the Father Jn 5:17-18 See also Jn 10:30-33,36-38; 12:45; 14:7,9-11; 17:11,21 He demonstrated his authority to forgive sin Lk 5:20-24 pp Mt 9:2-6 pp Mk 2:5-10 See also Lk 7:47-48 Jesus Christ’s actions imply his divinity Mt 8:26-27 pp Mk 4:39-41 pp Lk 8:24-25 See also Mt 12:8 pp Mk 2:28 pp Lk 6:5; Lk 8:39 pp Mk 5:19-20 Jesus Christ’s resurrection confirms his divinity Ac 2:36 See also Ro 1:4; Php 2:9-11 Jesus Christ’s names and titles point to his divinity Jesus Christ as judge Jn 5:27 In the OT, final responsibility for judgment is assigned to God. See also Mt 25:31-33; Mk 8:38 pp Mt 16:27 pp Lk 9:26; Ac 17:31; Ro 2:16; 2Co 5:10 Jesus Christ as “I am” Jn 11:25 “I am” is the meaning of God’s name in the OT (see Ex 3:14). See also Jn 6:35; 8:12; 10:7,11; 14:6; 15:1; 18:5-6 Jesus Christ as Saviour Ac 5:31 According to the OT, God alone can save. See also Ac 4:12; Eph 5:23; Heb 7:25 Jesus Christ as Lord Ro 10:9 “Lord” was equivalent to God’s name in the OT. See also Lk 1:43; 2:11; Jn 13:13; 1Co 12:3; 2Co 4:5; Rev 19:16 Jesus Christ as creator Col 1:16 See also Jn 1:3,10; Ac 3:15; Ro 11:36; 1Co 8:6; Heb 1:2,10; Ps 102:25 Jesus Christ as shepherd Heb 13:20 “Shepherd” was a well-known OT name for God. See also Jn 10:11-16; 1Pe 2:25; 5:4 Those who recognised Jesus Christ’s divinity The disciples Jn 20:28 See also Mt 16:16 pp Mk 8:29 pp Lk 9:20 The demons Mk 3:11; Lk 4:41 pp Mk 1:34 The consequences of recognizing Jesus Christ’s divinity Jesus Christ is worshipped as God Lk 24:52 The fact that no-one but God may be worshipped is fundamental to Judaism. See also Mt 2:11; 28:9,17; Jn 9:38; 2Ti 4:18; 2Pe 3:18; Rev 1:5-6; 5:12-13; 7:10

[@stormchaser9738]

Bart ends on “the message has to change in order to accommodate what we(secular culture) believes now.” Isn’t the whole point of Religion to subject what we believe now to eternal truth? If religion is constantly changing what it claims in order to accommodate what secular culture says, then why not just discard religion and be a secular humanist? I think Bart is tipping his hand that his objections to the faith might not be entirely historical and evidentiary.

[@JeremiahAlphonsus]

Bart is a filthy Modernist.

[@christislord4608]

I will presume that Bart thhinks that least the central messages were said by Jesus. And if that is the case all that was adjusted to the audience were the surrounding stories in which the messages were build into.

[@kenobi9532]

Islam is the only faith which has not changed to appeal to this sick, diseased modern culture.

[@outtatrue3733]

You are absolutely correct. Barts objections to his faith are not entirely historical and evidentiary. He freely admits that. He has told his deconversion story many many many time in lectures, debates, and his writings. Many times. However, the reasons for his lack of belief do nothing to disprove the facts he presented that prove the bible is not historically accurate. That was what he did in this debate. That is what he has done in his numerous lectures, debates and writings. As a catholic, I can be honest and say that the bible is not historically accurate without it affecting my faith. The evidence and facts are there. Bart presented some of that evidence and facts tonight. His lack of faith, for reasons other than the accuracy of the bible have no bearing on the facts and evidence. It disheartens me that so many of my fellow catholics, like many of those who have posted, choose to ignore facts and evidence. It shows that your faith is fragile and I pray that you will learn to accept facts and evidence that point to the truth. You do it in other aspects of your life. Right? Why ignore facts and evidence when it comes to your faith as well? Don't we call it it faith afterall? The truth is, the bible is not accurate or reliable. There is nothing wrong with that. It does nothing to falsify the truth that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Bart lost his faith because of the problems he found with the christian God's mercy. I found my faith because of God's mercy. But that has zero bearing on the accuracy or reliability of the bible. I urge you to listen to his evidence and don't be afraid to accept it. It should have no impact on your faith.

[@JeremiahAlphonsus]

@@outtatrue3733 Don’t deceive yourself. You are not a Catholic. Like “Pope” Francis, you are no part of the actual Catholic Church. Actual Catholics embrace the actual Catholic religion, of which belief in Holy Scripture is an essential part. See Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus encyclical.

[@linchpyn]

Ehrman lost the debate at the exact time he decided to use comic sans on his presentation.

[@takmaps]

🤣

[@akanewman7993]

😂😂😂

[@calebadcock363]

Massive blunder

[@tankbuggeru]

Even as an atheist, I cannot disagree with this statement.

[@DryApologist]

Interesting debate. As a practicing Catholic myself, I have no problem with any main point that I heard professor Ehrman say about the gospels and his point of view seems very similar to (mentioned) Fr Raymond Brown who was the head of the Pontifical Bibical Commission for a number of years and recognized by Pope John Paul II. So I hope Catholics can approach this topic with an open mind and without fear.

[@eugenerosenquest1251]

This critical thinking approach to the New Testament, which has needed to be done for 1800 years, is taught in Jesuit Schools and also by Irish New Testament Scholar John Dominic Crossan. Get beyond Tribalism and let's aim for what's true and real.

[@malachi7948]

“making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

[@catholicguy3605]

His approach is condemned by Pope St Pius X.

[@mike-cc3dd]

You had no problem with faulty arguments from silence? False dichotomies? Fundamentalist protestant mentality used as a reference toward catholic belief system? Thats too bad. Otherwise you would have not stopped cringing while listening to bart's opening statement .

[@eugenerosenquest1251]

@@mike-cc3dd How about Deceptive Information and Bad Theologies by Catholic Magisterium which has and does happen. Bart took the Context of Scripture into view which disqualifies him as a fundamentalist. Speculation vs. Assessing LIkelihood at a given time has informed assessment winning. The search for Biblical Truth has a value but in the end it all comes down to how it's applied apart from the paper.

[@SpiritofAloha11]

Poor ppl having multiple places to live isn't uncommon. Happens with Latin American immigrants all the time that send money "home."

[@Tony_4_Jesus]

Another guy on here said Ehrman shook his protestant faith to the point where he almost became an atheist. Well.... I'm a firm protestant, and i find Ehrman's "scholarship" to be laughable. My faith is doing just fine after listening to Bart Ehrman and other deconstructionists many times over. If you can't defend your faith against naysayers then you need to study more. All Batt Ehrman does is create strawmen and arguments from silence. I thought it was great when Jimmy shut him down on Jesus saying Eli, Eli lama sabachthani in Mark, which is obviously in reference to Psalm 22. Bart tried to interrupt him because he knew his BS interpretation was about to get slapped down hard, and Jimmy was having none of his interference attempt. Jimmy hamdled Bart beautifully and with class, exactly how you should shut down a dishonest heretic like Ehrman. I will give Ehrman credit though, he didnt come across as pompous and arrogant as I have seen him in other formats. Probably because he knew he was up against someone who had his number. Bravo my long bearded friend, bravo 👏

[@row1landr]

I think it is Steve Ray, in one of his talks, who tells who the authors were writing to. The how and the why the Gospel writers wrote how they did and what the writers were trying to get across to their audience. Unfortunately , Mr. Bart hasn't fully researched this. Also, he is unfamiliar with ancient Jewish customs and behaviors, which Dr. Brant Pitre and Steve Ray are experts on.

[@thr3escapes]

Ehrman claims that the Gospels need to be taken separately and that the uniqueness of each Gospel proves they cannot all be true because they are irreconcilable. Yet, Ehrman's own argument - that the Jesus presented in Mark is a Jesus who had lost all hope by the time he was crucified because of Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, my God why have you abandoned me?" - is irreconcilable with other parts of Mark's Gospel. The Jesus of Mark, Ehrman claims, was silent through his trial because he did not comprehend what was happening to him and had begun to lose hope because he did not expect that he would be put on trial and executed. How does Ehrman reconcile with that notion that the Jesus in Mark prophesied three times his death and resurrection? Mark 8:31 Mark 9:30 Mark 10:32 It would seem Jesus was fully aware of his impending death, and resurrection. This awareness on the part of Jesus is more consistent with reading Jesus' dying words in light of Psalm 22 which ends with the whole earth and all the families of nations coming back to God. Hardly the words of a despairing man. Clearly, Jesus was fully aware of his fate and accepted it as the act that would reconcile all humanity to God. There are alternate ways of reading Jesus' silence before the Sanhedrin in Mark than Ehrman's dogmatic separation and parsing of the Gospel narratives.

[@peter_hobbs]

Great points

[@tau7260]

Really great and thanks to both these gentleman and to Catholic Answers.

[@efrainandino7300]

Barts initial laugh is very odd. Practically shaking… then I see him get pulverized. I feel for him. Praying he can just let go. There’s really no point in trying so hard for so many years to disprove what really shouldn’t matter to him all. He probably believes deep inside but some Christian most likely hurt him before. See dr. Hugh Ross content, he can explain better. Anyway God Bless you and be well family ✌🏽🙏🏽❤️‍🔥. After listening to Dr Barts concluding statement, he stated an amazing fact about changes in states of being dealing with now and then contextually. Very well put and thought out. He’s very bright. God is working on him. And I have faith he’ll pull through in the end.

[@patrickcostello7781]

Lol I want to know what Ehrman was saying about the resolution at the end

[@finray2]

I've heard it mentioned somewhere else that Bart refers to himself as a historian but that he is actually not a trained historian but rather his focus is textual criticism.

[@Chandransingham]

Seen in London, UK. Very useful and helpful to get a better understanding of the Bible and look forward to the shape of things to come via faith and no-faith. God bless.

[@alvaroramos7564]

The way Jimmy dressed is hilarious

[@arnellchandler3095]

Is that all you got?🤔

[@timrichardson4018]

I find the passage in Mark about seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven convincing evidence that Jesus claimed divinity. Ehrman's claim is that Jesus wasn't referring to himself. But then why do they want to kill JESUS for a claim he made about someone else? They asked JESUS about what he thought about himself. And his reply was that they would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, and then they think Jesus has condemned himself as worthy of death due to blasphemy. It makes not sense if they thought he was referring to someone else.

[@demsrchildabusers7959]

Bart says Jesus didn't mention His divinity?! Holy poor reading comprehension! Did he read the same NT as me?

[@vejeke]

Did you read the oldest manuscripts available in their original language like him or you went for the KJV?

[@Dylan_Devine]

​@@vejeke Jesus calls Himself the "Son of Man" (a title of divinity in ancient Judaism because of the prophecy of Daniel) in all the Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. They even stoned Him for "blasphemy" when He said this according to Mark's account. Claiming "Jesus didn't claim to be God in Mark" is absurd.

[@exotericeric]

Love this!! I especially love how calm Bart is comparably with other debates he has been in. I believe the opening to his closing statement accurately conveys why this is. My take is that it's a Catholic context and in this respect he literally: felt the love!! Most importantly, this was less a debate than a dialogue. A genuine exchange without the intuitive undercurrents of reactionary overtones typically expressed as subtle jabs at Bart's character/identity. Lastly, loved the hug at the end!! Grateful to be a budding Catholic (I'll be 1yr old this Easter - 2022)

[@allglorytogod5928]

Praise God!

[@Shawn-nq7du]

I respectfully disagree. I think we are so use to the vicious attacks on the internet, that we do not know what a good debate is like. One should be able to decide not based totally on emotion.

[@chikkipop]

@@allglorytogod5928 What "god" and how do you know about it?

[@chikkipop]

Why would anyone be a catholic?

[@joshua_wherley]

@@chikkipop That's a good question. Perhaps ask a priest!

[@jonathanstensberg]

The two-houses hypothesis seems an unnecessary leap and overcomplication. It seems much simpler and more plausible to think that Joseph went to live with extended family who lived in the area of Bethlehem.

[@Shawn-nq7du]

Maybe it was just land

[@susand3668]

I think that could be the same thing -- Joseph had a little house of his own in Nazareth so he was near work (and Mary), and the family home in Bethlehem was his for being related to the home-owners. That would work.

[@t.d6379]

😂 that is basically what Jimmy is proposing

[@huh451]

Great debate! I’m glad Jimmy countered Ehrman’s use of Jesus’ words “Why have you forsaken me.” Totally misleading to use the phrase to suggest Jesus lost faith in the end.

[@kynesilagan2676]

Sometimes it is a mystery some intellectuals such as Bart easily falls to that. Where in that moment, we are called to ascent to Psalm 22 from that phrase. Not to descent from it.

[@huh451]

@@kynesilagan2676 exactly! Jesus is showing us how to pray when we are at the very end of our rope. Ehrman has a Great Courses lecture series on the New Testament. He uses the same quote at the end of the series, again without mentioning the line is the first words of the Psalm. I don't know if he uses it cynically as a sort of coup de grace against faith or if he really thinks his interpetation of the words is the correct one. If the latter, he seems to me to be a little simple.

[@stevves4647]

@@kynesilagan2676 you do realize bart was a fundamentalist Christian b4

[@programferris1018]

@@huh451 that statement alone refutes the doctrine of trinity and I don't know how lost can one be to still insist on ascribing divinity to Jesus despite him clearly calling for help. A God won't ask himself for help unless that God is not a true God. How contradictory and ridiculous the doctrine of trinity is. And yet you still cling on it as if it's something divine!

[@huh451]

@@stevves4647 no, I didn't know that. Thanks.

[@mariadelacarswell6704]

The guy debating with Jimmy forgets the disciple were enlighted by the Holy Spirit, that even Virgin Mary gave testimony of what happened during the crucifixion. Man kind does not have enough enlightenment to understand his ways, nor we are allowed to refuse his designs and commands…

[@TheBloodlessOne]

"In the white" but thank god it's not James White lol

[@borneandayak6725]

Thank you Jimmy, Bart and Catholic Answers. Amazing debate, both are great but I think Jimmy scores more point than Bart.

[@monotheist..]

but jimmy didnt regard gospel as innerant only got the gist as he agree with bart in qa session, and he not on scholars consensus side which agree that earliest gospel didnt have jesus said he was god its a development and john have a lot of different story and preach taht not overlap in synoptic so john have a different stuff here that historically innacurate

[@Deto4508]

@@monotheist.. earliest Gospels claimed that Jesus wasn’t of the Father? Do we have proof for this brother?

[@monotheist..]

@@Deto4508 so ep sanders and many scholars agree taht the gospel of john this vast big saying of jesus is god is made up because none of them overlap in synoptic and we see gospel change a lot of stuff th earliest gospel didnt say he was god if jesus really said he is yahweh like in john no way the earliest gospel didnt say that

[@monotheist..]

@@Deto4508 gospel of john have lengthy preaching that scholars agree that it doesn’t comeback to jesus like craig evans

[@Deto4508]

@@monotheist.. If I’m not mistaken, there’s no mention of Jesus saying He is Yahweh in the current gospel of John . But throughout the whole NT, there is a clear distinction being made from Jesus as He is not like any other king or prophet or angel and that He is off The Father. There’s bigger hints some places than others but from the whole NT, I think it’s plausible to say even the Apostles, from their writings, didn’t fully know who Jesus was like, like we do today and The Church that Jesus established helps us understand more of who He is and His relation to The Father.

[@bibibuu6646]

I really enjoyed this debate. Thank you. God bless from Poland❤🙏🇵🇱

[@Shinigami00Azael]

Amen przyjacielu :)

[@rickleonard9284]

It's refreshing to see two people disagree so much and still be respectful towards one another.

[@pinoyfuntvph5457]

The point is that not all the witnesess saw and wrote same detailed events of the story, some other writers tells almost complete story, BUT AT THE BOTTOM LINE THEY ARE BOTH TALKING SAME EVENTS AND HISTORY with their own view and perspective.... meaning HISTORY was happened because writers saw it and record it.....😅

[@c.Ichthys]

I read Luke 24 and Bart is wrong. Not only that, Jesus appeared in different areas, not just one town/city. In response to the lineages in Matthew and Luke, they do have common ancestors. Matthew’s genealogy traces the ancestors of Joseph, the *legal* father of Jesus. The structure of the genealogy descends from father to son, beginning with Abraham. Matthew traces "14" generations (in Gemetria 14 has significance) and points to Jesus's Kingship. One of the most common Messianic titles for Jesus was “Son of David". In Luke we are shown how Jesus is a “Son of Man”-he is related to all of us through our common forefather, Adam. In addition, in Luke, it traces Jesus's ancestry through Mary's lineage, which is from the Levitical priesthood, and points to Jesus's Priesthood (He is _the_ High Priest Forever in the order of Melchizedek). Both Elizabeth and Zechariah were also from the Levitical priesthood (Zechariah being a High Priest) and Mary was related to Elizabeth, something many overlook. Because of common ancestry Mary is also descended from the King David. We can conclude as further evidence that when the angel Gabriel announced that Mary would bear the Son of God, Gabriel said, “And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David” (Lk 1:32). This suggests that Jesus will be the biological descendant, not just a legal descendant through adoption. Romans 1:3 also says that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh.” Oh, and the 4 Gospels did not contradict. Each one was written for a particular audience to emphasize certain aspects they would understand and relate to. MARK: (c. 65 AD), Original language Koine Greek, was Peter's words, and scribed by Mark since Peter was illiterate. Its audience was to the Gentiles, particularly in Rome. Jesus is the suffering servant, (portrays His humility) and calls us to a life of suffering: "Pick up your cross and follow Me". MATTHEW (c. 80 AD) Originally written in Aramaic (later translated into Koine Greek). Its audience was to the Jewish people. Over 100 references to the OT. Christ's genealogy is linked to Abraham, the Father of the Jews. (It is a bridge gospel: Jews to Christians). LUKE: (c. 80-85 AD), original language Koine Greek. Its audience was to the Gentiles (especially to the outcasts). Jesus came for all people: rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, lowly, etc. and traces genealogy to Adam. JOHN (c. 90-100 AD), original language Koine Greek. Its audience was to the already converted Christians. Points to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. ("In the beginning was the Word..."). The Gospels are actual testimonies of Faith and not necessarily historical records of events (although historical events are included).

[@James_Dakota]

Brother in Christ here. I’m curious on what led you to sustain that Simon Peter was illiterate & what source you used of Matthew originally being written in Aramaic. Thanks!

[@c.Ichthys]

@@James_Dakota I was taught as a Catechist, by scholars and historians. I also have read numerous books. Most people during Jesus's time were illiterate. Very few could read and write. Also we see in Acts 4:13 13 Observing the boldness of Peter and John and perceiving them to be *uneducated* , *ordinary* men, they were amazed, and they recognized them as the companions of Jesus. Amen, and God bless P.S. I have Encyclopedias at home, and also indicates that the Gospel of Matthew (i.e. Aka Levi, previously the tax collector) wrote in Aramaic to a Jewish audience (the language of the Hebrew people then).and later was translated into the lingua franca of Koine Greek, the internationally spoken language and of commerce throughout the nations. John retained the original word "Cephas" for Peter's new name as given by Christ (see John 1:42) which means "Rock" in Aramaic. Paul also kept the orignal name of Cephas in several parts of the New Testament in Corinthians and Galations.

[@James_Dakota]

@@c.Ichthys Gotcha! Do you think the epistles of Peter were written by an amanuensis or by Peter in a later age? Also, I'm still curious about the exact source you used of Matthew being written originally in Aramaic. Thanks!

[@c.Ichthys]

@@James_Dakota no you didn't "gotcha" me lol. I had edited my response with additional information. You appear to be insincere in your queries. Do your own research then by seeking out accreditated historians and accredited scholars I've done that, as well as attained 3 certificates. God bless

[@c.Ichthys]

@@James_Dakota oh, and btw, the scribes (Mark, aka John Mark) wrote Peter's words. They are the inspired words of God. Believe or not, it your prerogative. Amen

[@GranukeGamingProductions]

Erhman is fundamentally mistaken that the Gospels are anonymous. We know that Polycarp spoke with the apostles and he still exclusively quoted from our current new testament. He knew the Gospels were written by the apostles. Also we know that Matthew wrote his first Gospel in Aramaic not Greek, so no it wasn't written in another language.

[@murph8411]

You have any evidence that Polycarp, a man who was born around 70 years after Jesus, met any of the apostles except the writing of people born around a hundred years after polycarp like tertullian or the 4th century Jerome who said John had made Polycarp a bishop?

[@joe5959]

​@@murph8411iraneaus

[@ryrocks9487]

I think I recall that the Fathers state that Matthews Gospel was written in Hebrew, which is similar to Aramaic, but still it’s an interesting note.

[@JC89Youtube]

This weird cowboy really spent 15 minutes or so of his opener explaining “reliability” not to clarify but instead so he could dodge the facts that the Bible’s unreliable lol

[@FuddlyDud]

@juancarrillo7296 How did Jimmy dodge the “facts?” As someone who is studying law and reliable evidence, Jimmy was right on point to me. :)

[@row1landr]

As far as memory goes, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will help them to remember. That doesn't mean that all the accounts have to be exactly matching.

[@CircusofPython]

This is the first time I’ve seen Jimmy’s legs.

[@StrangerInParadise58]

During Bart’s cross-examination of Jimmy, Jimmy displayed one of the most demonstrable examples of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. Jimmy literally made things up to reconcile the gospel accounts. He demonstrated exactly what Bart warned about in his rebuttal about combining the accounts to reconcile differences/contradictions and thereby missing/ignoring the respective message that each Gospel writer intended to convey. I get it now, Bart. Thank you.

[@mrswilbert]

Just like the Catholics do with Matthew 1:25

[@Belsonhooli]

That beard is glorious

[@dabliss101]

Why can't our universities hire someone like Jimmy Akin? Why always people like Bart Ehrman? Personally, I thought Bart pretty well got owned in this debate.

[@men.276]

Jimmy did a great job of surprising his opponent with the approach he took. Bart seemed confused and like he didn't know what hit him . 😳 Thank God we have smart brothers Ike him in our Church. 🙏

[@Doug8521]

Correction: Jesus’ Church

[@hanskung3278]

He seems confused because Akins answers are sometimes really pushing the boundaries.

[@kaiju4238]

@@hanskung3278 Bart answers with scripture. Jimmy answers with Star Trek references. Jimmy even goes as far to mock a Catholic scholar who Bart is quoting from.

[@hanskung3278]

@@kaiju4238 That's "Catholic Answers" for you and I'm Catholic.

[@kaiju4238]

@@hanskung3278 I believe you when you say Catholic Answers lol. Not it a good way though

[@jindjai]

Brother Jimmy is awesome. Nice to see such civility between both speakers.

[@malachi7948]

Is he your brother who is an idolater? From the apostle Paul: “now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” To be sure, he is an idolater who believes in a God other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And that is precisely what Akins is, an idolater because he disbelieves in what was revealed by God to his servant Moses. He accepts the impossibility that man evolved from the beasts of the earth. He puts his faith in the lies of Satan over God’s revelation to the prophets.

[@danaharper9708]

What if American politicians were this civil?

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@danaharper9708 if that were the case. The left would disappear in shame. But they only have the ability to shout down opinions. Since discourse means defeat

[@danaharper9708]

@@mike-cc3dd Every Catholic apologist readily admits large numbers of young people are leaving the Catholic faith for some other version of worship. It literally has nothing to do with “left” or “right” it has to do with _disbelief._

[@ungas024]

​@@danaharper9708 Young people where? Because here in Asia it is all in the upscale, it is even estimated that 30-40 years from now China will be a majority Christian even with the government persecution. The same thing is happening now in Indonesia, which forced the Indonesian government to regulate the Christian churches. Now, what i predict is that the Western institution will collapse after majority of it's populace will be an athiest, you can see the moral decline today and it's a tell tale sign of a fading empire.

[@row1landr]

Also, you really have to know ancient Jewish culture. The different Jewish sects had different biblical beliefs and even had at least two calendars. John followed the calendar of the Essenes and that is one of the several reasons why John's Gospel is different. Also, John never left his side. Only the apostle John was at the cross with Mary and the other women of their group.

[@Ancalagon-iu4uq]

It is unfortunate that Ehrman has become such a hack for a certain political ideology.

[@Hallahanify]

What do you mean?

[@mikelopez8564]

Cordial ecumenical debate; well done to all involved. However, a better debate, one that would address Mr Ehrman’s particular view of New Testament reliability, indeed veracity, would necessarily be with Gary Habermas, who developed the minimal facts argument.

[@zatoichi1]

"It was at that moment that Bart realized that Jesus might really be God..."

[@AstariahJW]

Jesus isnt almighty God . He is Gods son . The messiah. Annointed one that God sent into the world

[@slik_sean6346]

@@AstariahJW Jesus is God he is the first and the last

[@AstariahJW]

@@slik_sean6346 First and last what ? What's the context talking about ? We can say adam is first and last since he was only one created directly by dust and last one since eve was created by Adams rib But that doesnt make adam almighty God

[@voxnonvox6382]

I heard Jimmy Akin from Trent Horn. He is also good. Good job Jimmy.

[@kdmdlo]

Bart Ehrman îs a 2 bit "scholar". How he retains his position at UNC is beyond me.

[@kdmdlo]

@@tomato-ir9xs As a member of the faculty at a major public university ... I can comfortably say that Dr. Ehrman doesn't defend me (or if he's trying to, he's doing a poor job). Regardless, he is still a 2 bit "scholar" ... a hack.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known". Ehrman has been the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching. Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities.

[@GloriaJesu]

Akin crushed it.

[@tjflash60]

Thanks for the discussion. It seems to me that it would take more faith to believe in the words of JESUS if the Gospels are not historically accurate than if they are. Certainly, there may be things that are not easily explained but as the Gospel writer of John said, there were many other things that could have been written. There were more words and works of JESUS that could have been recorded. We have the information provided to confirm not to necessarily exhaustively prove.

[@utubepunk]

How did you confirm the words written are the words of Jesus?

[@sapereaude6339]

@@utubepunk How do you confirm the words spoken by you are spoken by you?

[@tjflash60]

@@utubepunk I am sorry that I was not clear in my phrasing. I did not confirm them personally other than studying the selection and translation of what is contained in the scriptures. I respect the process used and those who compiled them.

[@Peter-dr9ch]

@@sapereaude6339 what is that? What kind of question is that? Is that meant to be an honest rebuttal?

[@unassailable6138]

@@sapereaude6339 maybe by having witnesses who all agree on what he said without contradicting themselves, and witnesses who met him , not people who lived and wrote about what he said decades later

[@revisitingchristianity7138]

Both opening statements are impressive. Jimmy is a smart guy.

[@misterprogressive8730]

Really? He isnt showing any reason why the gospels are realiable. He is simply wiggling around the definition of "reliable". You dont need a time machine to corraborate a document, just compare it to other documents which talk about the same subject. The more documents corraborate withe eachother, the more reliable they are.

[@cactoidjim1477]

Using *63* points your opponent agrees with to support your opening statement - that's smart. Researching so well you rebut your opponent's opening statement *in your opening* - that's brilliant.

[@misterprogressive8730]

Being able to convince your supporters by wiggling around a definition without showing any evidence to your point is a smart move on a dumb fanatical supporters who would agree even on the sound of your farting.

[@homiesenatep]

@@misterprogressive8730 HAHAHAHA

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

@@misterprogressive8730 there's so many holes in your statement it could be used as a dip net..

[@aljay2955]

It seems that Bart agrees with what the gospels say but he's looking for a reason to not believe them.

[@saintsm]

This is what scientific historiography means........historical records are biased so as a student of history one has to get rid of the biases within. Maybe you should have open mindedness while listening to debates. If gospels were historically accurate we would have historians teaching resurrection in universities.

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

@@saintsm what a foolish thing to say..Have you ever read ( studied the scriptures ) yourself ? You have to remember that they teach that men , animals , trees etc... come from a rock in these colleges you're so proud of..lol..

[@saintsm]

@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 Ignorance and adamant.

[@malachi7948]

@@saintsm The entire academic industry is built on atheistic presuppositions. This is why they continue to teach evolution, even though this teaching was accepted without any supporting evidence. Do you deny that the gospels are entirely factual? So you count it faith to honour idols, such as the image on your profile, but not faith to trust Christ above liars?

[@saintsm]

@@malachi7948 no in order to be catholic I don't think i need any historical records which there isn't. If you read Augustin you would understand for him scripture was just old testament........ I don't think even he thought 4 gospels are historically reliable.

[@kathyweiland4732]

Jimmy is amazing in febates. I love how he finds commonalities between debators.

[@timrichardson4018]

Listening to Shelby Foote talk about writing his narrative of the Civil War helped me understand the gospels. Sometimes, a narrative can give you a more accurate feel for the characters and events than a hyper accurate and specific recording.

[@CalvinEastwood]

that was a brutal high-five at 45:30

[@t.d6379]

Jimmy is so unintentionally funny and cringe at the same time

[@everlightministries]

Ehrman repeatedly misrepresents the Gospel of Mark by saying Jesus is forsaken and distraught at the cross. Ehrman suspiciously left out how even in Mark, before His death, Jesus told His disciples He would be crucified in Jerusalem and raised again the third day. Dishonorable. Deceptive. Manipulative. I would not have clapped for Ehrman’s performance, it was in service to the devil.

[@joeoleary9010]

So we are to interpret "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" as a joyous declaration of spiritual confidence and exaltation?

[@everlightministries]

No, but as a quote from Psalm 22, which Jesus used to remind people He was fulfilling prophecy.

[@joeoleary9010]

@@everlightministries What were Jesus' last words? That is the issue, and the answer is that we don't know what Jesus' last words were, and that's because we have 2 Gospels that give starkly different accounts of what Jesus' last words were. That is why Prof Ehrman said that the Gospels are not a reliable source of historical info on precisely what Jesus said and did. Now if you like, tell me more about how the Devil is behind all this.

[@everlightministries]

@@joeoleary9010 A contradiction only exists when multiple records say different things happened that are impossible to reconcile. And since it’s easy to see how Jesus could have said all those seven statements, a gospel record mentioning only one (or different ones instead of all seven) does not show contradiction, or make them unreliable.

[@joeoleary9010]

@@everlightministries That's a fundamentalist interpretation of the NT -- that every single word of each 4 Gospels is a precisely correct record of what Jesus said and did, even when there are stark contradictions in what each Gospel says, bit nevertheless, we can mash them all together to get a big and wholly accurate picture of Jesus's words and deeds. I don't find that an acceptable way to historically interpret the NT. That kind of methodology is equal to saying that everything written in the ancient world has an equal historical value and all of it must be believed as fact.

[@mbfelty]

Jesus’ words in the gospel of Matthew, prefigured in Psalm 22, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” are beautifully explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church article 603: Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

I understand in Catholicism, these documents are held in high regard, but I question why. The article you reference seems to be a post hoc rationalization, it doesn’t seem to have any evidence to justify that conclusion

[@joeoleary9010]

And so did Jesus say that, or say something totally different while on the cross? Or did he say both, or neither?

[@chase6579]

​@@user-gv8xf9ul5j I'm surprised it doesn't mention that he is quoting Psalm 23 much as one may call a poem to memory by speaking the first line. his persecutors know this Psalm by heart and it prophesied the crucifixion.

[@chase6579]

​@@joeoleary9010 both

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

@@chase6579 how did you determine Jesus said both?

[@mattm7798]

The contradiction of Egypt vs Galilee/Nazareth is easily understood when it's clear the Magi were not visiting Jesus at birth...it was a good time later. First they came to a house, not an Inn or stable. Secondly Luke 2:41 says they went to Jerusalem every year for passover. So even if the Magi saw Jesus in Bethlehem(or near it) it was very likely on one of these trips to Jerusalem. Bart assumes the Magi were at jesus birth, but the Bible doesn't say that. So Jesus is born, dedicated, and returns to nazareth. At some point they go back down to jerusalem/bethlehem for passover(only about 5.5 miles apart. Also Herod kills all the children 2 years and younger. If the Magi were there within a couple months of the birth, he could have easily said "kill the male babies". As any parent would tell you, there is a HUGE difference between a 3 month old and a 2 year old. So it's clear a significant period of time had elapsed from from Jesus had been born and the wise men came to Herod because Herod would not have taken close to 2 years to realize the Magi weren't coming back. Bethlehem was only 5.5 miles away and even if we say the Magi visited Jesus in Nazareth, it still only takes several weeks tops to go there and back...not 2 years.

[@slavicgypsy5535]

Bart Ehrman is a retentive absolutist that cannot wrap his head around parable, symbolic messages and mystery.

[@brendansheehan6180]

Why can't it be the case that someone's "home" is always wherever one has family? During that era, and for that class, I would imagine that would be the case.

[@jendoe9436]

That’s an interesting thought. I know when I was in college, I would always refer to my childhood town as ‘home.’ While I ended up moving to my college time after graduation, my friends and family know when I refer to “heading home” I’m referring to my childhood town. And Jimmy does raise a point that it could be family property. People still have property and areas that ‘belong’ to the family, so it would make sense that Joseph had ties to both areas but preferred one location.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@jendoe9436 Exactly right! Family homes in that time accommodated their families in ways we don't today.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

How about the authors had THEIR OWN ideas about the story. These are stories. They have beginnings, middles, and endings. None of the authors were eye witnesses and they used each other as sources. Even the Catholic encyclopedia states this.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@dustinellerbe4125 That isn't necessarily the case for John. And it isn't necessarily the case that the Gospels weren't orated by a first hand account.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

@@brendansheehan6180 more than likely, these were not orated by anyone who had been a witness. These are occasional documents for Jesus groups. They are theological in nature, and fall under a literature category. The johanine group wrote in the late 90s. That's 60+ years after the supposed crucifixion. The life span of most Judeans was less than 40 years. Those who would have been alive with Jesus would've been in their 80s or 90s

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

So much of what Ehrman argued about is found in the Church Fathers and reconciled by them. It’s not that he had bad objections. Again, it’s just that much of what he questioned has already been answered.

[@Gumbi1012]

The problem is that often times the Church Fathers are shown to be unreliable

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

@@Gumbi1012 for example?

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

@Pseudo-Psellos have not read it. Any of those 120 that are relevant to Mr Ehrman’s questions/objections ?

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

Augustine wrote a whole book on his mistakes or misunderstandings. Retractions (Retractationes). So I would not argue the Fathers are without error. They do show integrity in self correcting and correcting each other.

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

@YAJUN YUAN I like this. I think if a person is holding to Peter being the Rock you need to have a “both and” approach. Was Christ not the Rock that Israel drank from when wandering the desert. So yes, good citation of Augustine. Again I hold to both but remaining Christ-centric is a priority.

[@DrummerDude5645]

Can we just have both of these brilliant scholars sitting around a table smoking cigars and drinking brandy just talking for hours about the discrepancies and contradictions? I find it more fascinating and effective at hearing their position doing this then having a formal debate.

[@ironymatt]

Has Erhman been on Pints with Aquinas? That's right up Fradd's alley

[@cb6562]

@@ironymatt That should definitely happen

[@mattm7798]

Also Bart acts as though the "versions" of Jesus presented in the four gospels are lost on Christians and we just combine them all into 1 giant gospel with no appreciation of the nuances each gospel writers puts forth. Not true. It is WELL known that each gospel presents Jesus with a different emphasis and we see that as specific design by the Holy Spirit...otherwise why would we need 4...if God wanted a single source for this story, He could have done that. We have Daniel and the Book of Revelation. Two different lenses of the tribulation time period. Just one other example.

[@YeridaBills]

Jesus is omnipresent and each apostle knows something different than the others because of a multiverse. You should try to disprove the Passion and the Latin Vulgate if you want credit. The middle of the Universe's life, or Jesus' birth and life, is actually the beginning and the end of time. The Latin Vulgate is more accurate than Hebrew and Greek.

[@YeridaBills]

But be warned that the dark ages teach it's better to hear the Latin Vulgate than to read it without wisdom.

[@YeridaBills]

Also, whether Jesus had to be tormented on the cross to forgive everyone's sins I'm not 100% sure. But the church has worked on the answer enough. They say Jesus died for our salvation, but I'm thinking he needn't have suffered as much as he did.

[@JM-SB-JB]

How can these two smart people debate so calmly? I am impressed. God bless to both of you.

[@danaharper9708]

They are calm and charitable because neither is afraid of the other. They are comfortable with their worldview and see no threat from those who disagree. Only people who feel threatened, who act out with hostility.

[@rosesweet]

BART brought up excellent points, but Jimmy “creamed him” with reasonable and reliable assumptions and logic. Loved the very appropriate tardis and Star Trek references.

[@interestingreligion5204]

Really?

[@AndJusticeForMe]

Creamed him. Don’t think so.

[@Jim-Mc]

Missing the Psalm 22 thing is very telling about Bart.

[@bar8665]

Bart: Luke says he appeared only in Jerusalem. Jimmy: Luke does not say he ONLY appeared in Jerusalem. Bart: Oh yes it does. You all look it up. Well, I looked it up. He does NOT say Jesus only appeared in Jerusalem.

[@torreyintahoe]

Bart: Why did Joseph and Mary go to Egypt? Jimmy: Maybe they had a vacation home in Egypt. LOL

[@StringofPearls55]

​@@torreyintahoe That's not what he said. Even to this day, the poorest of people leave their home for employment while still having a home in their native land.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@StringofPearls55 It's a glaring contradiction. It's one of many that Christians try to ignore or explain away. It's one of many facts that demonstrate that the gospels are fiction and were manufactured by people who never knew christ long after he died .

[@StringofPearls55]

@@torreyintahoe It's not a contradiction.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@StringofPearls55 It absolutely is. It’s two different series of events entirely. The gospels are full of them.

[@row1landr]

Jesus cries out that quote from psalms, because the corrupt high priests that were present at the cross would have recognized this and they would have known how it ends, and so, Jesus said this purposely so that the corrupt priests would have to realize that they played a role in the killing of the true Messiah.

[@SensusSpiritualis]

Bart Ermons closing statement 👌 Showed exactly why he thinks what he does. "Can a blind man leads a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?"

[@ericszostak276]

OMG......The look on Bart Ehrman's face is priceless.

[@Convexhull210]

Jimmy did a good job here. I am a protestant but I'm glad to see many modern Catholics now participating in apologetics. I think as Christians of different traditions we can at least unite on the shared belief in defending the Christian faith. Jimmy won this because from the onset he wasn't debating inerrancy but reliability and bart kept trying to make it about inerrancy.

[@rafaelrodriguez648]

If it is the word of God and is not inerrant in everyway how can it be reliably called the word of God. Any less than that, just points to how human the book is.

[@readmore4178]

How is a Protestant “Christian”?Which Protestant church did Christ establish?

[@Convexhull210]

@@readmore4178 that's a loaded question if i ever heard one. So in order to be Christian, you have to be catholic? Didn't Jesus say to repent and believe and you shall be saved?

[@Convexhull210]

@@rafaelrodriguez648 You're confusing reliability with inerrancy. Those two are not the same thing. Second, I do believe the bible is inerrant. It is inerrant in the message it teaches from beginning to end and is perfectly consistent in what it teaches.

[@mjdillaha]

@@readmore4178 Peter was the first Baptist pastor.

[@davebewshey1549]

And I'm sorry I wasn't really going to say anything about his weirdness level but my goodness this one was over before it started. Mr Jimmy might want to go into country music or something else other than debate

[@edmckay8001]

I guess Catholics don't want you to know about the Indian residential schools

[@marcuscaballarius2159]

Please show me a group of people that have no atrocities in their past.

[@edmckay8001]

@@marcuscaballarius2159 oh Marcus, you silly goose; The Tainos were good people unlike Christopher Columbus

[@marcuscaballarius2159]

@@edmckay8001 "Everyone of non-European descent, historically and now, were and are perfect angels." You lefties are a parody of your own stupidity.