--DEBRIEF: w John DeRosa | Bart Ehrman Gospel Reliability Debate

[@Knate1104]

Jimmy is a class act. The one person I learn something from every time I hear him speak. He is a true blessing to us all. Thank you Jimmy.

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

Thanks, Jimmy, for joining me for this debrief. I learned many new things!

[@JimmyAkin]

Thanks for having me on John! I really appreciate it!

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

@YAJUN YUAN , the initial video only had my screen and not the shared Zoom view, so we corrected it. The audio content is exactly the same.

[@peter_hobbs]

I can’t listen to this just now, but I watched the debate. I thought you did brilliantly. Thanks heaps. I look forward to going a bit deeper on same of the points Bart made on your website.

[@akanewman7993]

38:15 That is more common than people realize even in ancient times. It's the same with Jacob when he fled from Esau, and then his family when they migrated to Egypt during the famine - should his son Joseph visit home, he'd have a family home to go to. Or the prodigal son who would likely have two residence: his father's house and the rented one at the far away land he went to. I think the problem most times is that we typically superimpose our assessment of the ancient world given our modern sensibilities, on the economic implications of having two places to lay one's head, but that begs the question, because even present day migrant workers do have multiple residents regardless of how small it may be. I think the hypothesis is highly plausible given Luke's account that they were returning to Bethlehem (Joseph's hometown) for a census, and since census are done according father's houses (or tents Numbers 1), their destination was Joseph's family house or at least the house of his relatives.

[@SuperDarioluna]

No question, I think was the most challenging debate for Bart.

[@marysanchez6382]

If Joseph had a residence in Bethlehem, why were they looking for a place for Mary to give birth? Jimmy might have covered this point and I didn’t catch it.

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

I don't think it specifically says they were looking for a place. Read Jimmy's article and you'll see the word translated "inn" (as in "no room for them in the inn") is very broad. Perhaps it could have been a smaller component of a larger family-owned residence. Check out the blog articles for the details!

[@coniferviveur3788]

The essence of the assessing the historical reliability of the gospels hinges on two criteria: firstly the coherence and consistency of the overall mundane content and secondly evidential validation of the non-mundane content. Failure to meet the first criterion is an embarrassment that can try to be rationalized away but failure to meet the second undermines the very credibility of the gospels since these are the key events comprising the core meaning of the gospels. . Acknowledging the historical reliability at least in principle if not necessarily always in detail of mundane content no matter how great a percentage of the total content does not and cannot justify any of the non-mundane content. The reliability of each and every event describing non-mundane content must survive scrutiny of objective evaluation solely on the merit of its own verifiable supporting credible evidence. Inability to meet this criterion renders the gospels as qualifying to be treated as historically reliable to some degree but only respect of the trivial and mundane.

[@bennguyen1313]

Any thoughts on Sarah Ruden's Gospels translation? Also, would love to hear your thoughts on any biblical evidence that could suggest some of the events were due to psychedelic drug use! For example, was the burning bush just a DMT-rich acacia tree? Were the Eleusinian Mysteries a gathering where kykeon was consumed (barley/Paspalum distichum, water, mint, ergot/lsd/Claviceps purpurea)... similar to Velada used in Mazatec rituals? Or the divine mushroom of immortality (milk/honey, Amanita muscaria or Psilocybe mexicana mushroom, frankincense)?

[@crimony3054]

Yeah man. Drop acid and find God.

[@widdershins7628]

Great job, Jimmy.

[@jessel3621]

Historians have to take historical texts as reliable unless proven otherwise. If they didn't, much of history would be "unknowable". As an example, Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars are the only source for many things about Julius Caesar and the Gallic tribes. Historians have to take Caesar at his word on many things, even though they also use their judgment on how plausible things would be. The burden of proof is on the historian to prove if certain things that seem implausible in text are wrong.

[@kaiju4238]

Bart met that burden of proof. He is correct when he points out Luke has the disciples stay in Jerusalem and Matthew has them going to Galilee. People will then say Well John says... No. Luke is its on texts and Jimmy agreed with Bart on this one. Who ever Luke was knew nothing of John and his story is that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem while Matthew has them going to Galilee. I wouldnt be surprised if the Luke community argued with the Matthew community about this. Matthew seems to want to keep things a little more Jewish while Luke didnt. It resembles how Paul and the other apostles were towards each other. When you your left to ask yourself, What did the disciples do after Jesus was raised from the dead we wouldnt know because the Gospels say different things. Marks Gospel ends with the woman running away telling no one, Matthew has them go to Galilee and Luke has them staying in Jerusalem. People will point out that Bart was wrong mentioning Luke 24 but when you actually read Luke 24 you can clearly see the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and Jesus appeared to all of them there and appeared to 1 on the way to Emmaus. So when Bart says that Jesus only appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem in Luke 24 he is correct because that's what the story shows. The Gospels arnt historically reliable and Bart proved that.

[@jessel3621]

@@kaiju4238 so would you say the different accounts of Alexander of Makedon are unreliable? They contain differences and contradictions. As a historian I would consider them all reliable and valuable as sources of information on the life of Alexander, even if one account seems more plausible than others.

[@kaiju4238]

@@jessel3621 Ive personally never went deep into that. But from what I know from historians, they call it a mess and unreliable. If they contain contradictions and differences, they arnt reliable. If someone was to tell you a story to your face with contractions and differences you would deem them as unreliable. Otherwise you would just be seen as gullible

[@billyhw5492]

@@kaiju4238 You're throwing away your soul over that?

[@jessel3621]

@@kaiju4238 my view is that if 2 historical texts contain an obvious contradiction, then 1 is probably right. So we have the truth, but it could be either account. Different ancient texts about the same thing are reliable in that way. Otherwise very little about ancient history could be known if you require more than 1 account in agreement.

[@sdjohnston67]

This is great!

[@jesseplatt2842]

Can you do a Bible study or an episode On the Divinity of Jesus in Mysterious World? I have a friend who believes Jesus is not equal to the Father and is created...not a JW just reads the Bible on his own and that is his conclusion...I just like the way you explain things and would love to listen to an episode from your podcast.

[@progidy7]

At 32:38, you revisit when you suggested that maybe Jesus' family owned 2 houses or properties, and you did this to help you harmonize something that would otherwise be harder to reconcile. It was very inspiring! As you probably know, Jesus also has 2 genealogies (Matthew 1 and Luke 3), and they both have Joseph as his father but 2 different men as his father's father. So, I did what you did and made up an unprovable, unfalsifiable explanation! Mary was married to Joseph, she gave birth to Jesus, then at some point Mary was divorced from Joseph BUT got remarried to another man who was ALSO named Joseph! Thus, each Joseph had a different father, explaining the 2 lineages! I hereby give you permission to use that in your next book or debate.

[@johnmaroun6129]

On the off chance you’re actually interested, Akin actually presents on his website several plausible explanations for the differing genealogies, as well as several plausible explanations for apparent hometown discrepancy. Also, I think you’re correct to describe Akin’s theories as unfalsifiable, but that criterion does not seem the most useful for determining the validity of historical theories. Whereas falsifiability is a key criterion for determining whether a hypothesis in the natural sciences holds true because the hypothesis should be repeatedly testable, you don’t determine whether an historical event happened by attempting to repeat it; by attempting to repeat the historical event, you don’t prove the previous historical event, but instead, cause a new one. We can, however, posit various theories with greater or lesser plausibility, in which case you can turn to Occam’s razor, which holds the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is to be preferred. In the case of Akin’s “two homes” explanation, I would say it assumes too much, and any theory that assumed less should be preferred. So, I agree, it’s not a great theory, but I disagree on the reason

[@progidy7]

@@johnmaroun6129 I've heard the many ways to reconcile the lineages. I've not been convinced. Tell me, is my invention impossible? Is it counter to history? I think it fits rather nicely.

[@johnmaroun6129]

I think we might be talking past each other, but I think your theory fits, though not as well as the theory that Joseph simply had both a biological father and an adoptive father, as the texts seem to suggest the name Joseph refers to a single individual

[@kaiju4238]

@@johnmaroun6129 Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was born. How is Joseph the father of Jesus?

[@johnmaroun6129]

But what I think is irrelevant. As long as you’re satisfied that your invention fits nicely, then it sounds like your explanation for reconciling the lineages is perfectly adequate ☺️

[@tonywilliams49]

Just make things up to justify your faith. This is why Religion can't stand up to questions.

[@tonyl3762]

What was made up? Offering plausible theories that can reconcile different historical accounts is not "making things up." It's just showing that one shouldn't assume a contradiction when a plausible reconciling alternative exists.

[@Magic-lg9lw]

Barth was convincing in his arguments. Akin not enough strong arguments

[@roadracer1584]

Jimmy looks like one of the ZZ Top band members. That aside, the Gospels were written by flesh and blood human beings and are not the "inspired word of God" because God doesn't exist at least the God Christians worship. I believe in the Carl Sagan concept of God. I agree with Bart Ehrman the Gospels are not historically accurate and Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John are fictitious names and are not the actual authors who wrote the Gospels. No one knows who wrote the Gospels. Biblical scholars have an approximation when the Gospels were written. Interesting the Gospels were originally written in Greek and Jesus and his disciples supposedly spoke Aramaic and were illiterate.

[@tonyl3762]

God's existence is a whole separate issue. But merely making claims is not evidence. There was no dispute in the early Christian Church about the authorship of the 4 gospels. They certainly thought they knew the authors. Why doubt them? If Matthew was truly a tax collector, he had some level of education above the rest of the disciples. It was not beyond the realm of possibility to have a scribe either. Jesus was NOT illiterate. He reads of scroll in a synagogue. He writes in the sand. You really don't have a good grasp of some important details. Because all the New Testament writings refer to the Jewish Temple as if it were still in existence, there's a good case to be made that all the New Testament was written before 70 AD when we know the Temple was destroyed by Rome. Keep listening, reading, and studying from a VARIETY of sources.