Gary Habermas & Bart Ehrman on the Resurrection - PART ONE | Reasonable Faith Podcast

[@prime_time_youtube]

Thank you, Dr. Craig

[@thetannernation]

Dr Craig you are simply brilliant. Thank you for your ministry. I see you as the smartest Christian on the planet🙏🏼

[@mikeambs]

🤡🤡🤡

[@thetannernation]

@@mikeambs Challenge me on literally any topic in the world😂

[@mikeambs]

@@thetannernation #humblebrag

[@thetannernation]

@@mikeambs #NotAResponse

[@mikeambs]

​@@thetannernation It's the one you deserved. #thirsty

[@DrKyleBailey]

Great work!

[@Mr_mechEngineer]

Im glad to see how much rigor Dr Craig puts in the analysis of the biblical documents and evidence.

[@osmosis321]

He puts a lot of rigor into his smug attitude, not so much in the evidence or his arguments.

[@vejeke]

Have you seen Paulogia's response?

[@bartbannister394]

@@vejeke Nah. He's into "rigor," not evidence.

[@randypacchioli2933]

Gary Habermas is a brilliant scholar and has dedicated his life researching the historical truth on the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour - Jesus Christ. ✝️❤️👍

[@Djdu7228xnxj]

I hope to see a debate between Gary Habermas and Bart Ehrman.

[@rocio8851]

@avcostello1 You're right. I've watched/listened to that debate.

[@cygnusustus]

@avcostello1 LOL. I just watched that debate. The title was "How Jesus Became God." Ehrman went into detail about the progressive versions of Christology developed to rationalize early Christian beliefs and eventually ended up with our predominant views. Bird's argument was "Ehrman was correct, but this is the version I believe". How you interpret that as a "crushing blow" is beyond me. You have to be wearing a thick pair of God glasses indeed. Furthermore, Bird hinged his argument of early Gospel Christology on Matthew 28:19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". But that is not even the original manuscript! That text does not appear until around 300ad! The original text read simply "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” No mention of the trinity. No mention of the divinity of Jesus. So....massive fail on Bird's Biblical scholarship! Bird dealt a crushing blow to himself!

[@cygnusustus]

@avcostello1 "Your description here is not close to reality" Really? I can't wait for you to point out any false claim I made. Oh. Nothing? Then your objection is not close to reality. Dismissed child. My post stands unchallenged.

[@raymondbee6419]

@@cygnusustus por qué casi todos los que niegan a Cristo tienen está actitud tan lamentable? Si no tener a Cristo me hace como tú entonces me da gusto estar con Cristo

[@raymondbee6419]

@@cygnusustus por algo dicen que la felicidad es relativa... Yo soy feliz por mil motivos relacionados con Jesús y sinceramente la manera en que te expresas me hace creer que tú felicidad es solo de cartón😔😔 Dios te bendiga mucho 🙏 te deseo bendición y vida.

[@rebanelson607]

This was excellent. Thank you!

[@janwaska4081]

I enjoy serious accuracy in the analysis. Well done. Keep it that way. Thanks.

[@georgiapeach3109]

HE IS RISEN✝️❤️

[@GRXMotorsPNW]

Dr. Craig I hate to do this on this thread, but your work on "In Quest Of The Historical Adam" is remarkable! 👍It's truly a pity more Christians can't appreciate it! It is both cutting edge, original and very plausible! Please continue your efforts with it and thx!

[@Addeladle-St-James]

Christianity is based on coercion. You are made to believe you are ill and the only cure is belief in invisible forces. This is not something that you would find compelling in any other context. Fear makes people embrace dementia and willfully blind themselves to an obvious fraud.

[@brando3342]

(Edit: I think Dr. Craig essentially said this after I wrote it haha). I think perhaps what Gary was getting at when he mentioned the account of the appearance of Jesus to James, was simply to say that this was something they were speaking about at that time, the time at which the gospel of the Hebrews was dated back to. I don’t think he meant to be claiming it was a historically accurate account of the event, rather that in those early years, there was enough knowledge of this event, that people were writing stories about it (perhaps historically inaccurate ones). This type of thing doesn’t just come about all at once either. Which would seem to make it reasonable to assume that knowledge of this event well preceded the time the gospel of the Hebrews was written. That’s just my theory anyway. It could be completely wrong.

[@obcane3072]

I dont think he's trying to be obnoxious. He's excited at pointing out an error and raises his voice. It can be interpreted as obnoxious and he does like to revel in his "rightness". But he does come across as a real scholar in most of his lectures (Great Courses). I give him a pass.

[@brando3342]

@@obcane3072 I think maybe you meant to comment on my other post, but that’s okay. I do think he comes across just fine sometimes, but here he definitely comes across smug and obnoxious. The laugh is not just excitement, it sounds more like a “you idiots” laugh. He essentially even says as much in not so incendiary words.

[@GRXMotorsPNW]

@@brando3342 You should see Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin debate Ehrman. It was abundantly clear Ehrman lost that debate hands down.

[@brando3342]

@@GRXMotorsPNW I didn’t know they had a debate, might check that out. Thanks!

[@obcane3072]

@@brando3342 you're probably right. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. (And I did respond to wrong thread 🤦‍♂️)

[@oluwanifemiosakuade939]

Very nice presentation from Dr Craig. Still awaiting his comments in Philipians 2 though

[@daman7387]

It is entertaining to me how many ways people pronounce Paulogia

[@osmosis321]

I think it's just blatant disrespect. Mispronouncing his name despite the fact that he tells you exactly how to pronounce it is a way of saying "you're not important enough for me to bother learning your name."

[@timlenord1]

That downplays the fact that he's constantly nailing them to the cross.

[@billbasener8784]

Why does Bart Urban believe the disciples didn't believe Jesus rose until a week or weeks after the 'third day'? Is it because there is evidence pushing it forward from the 3rd day, or just that evidence pushes it back but not precisely to the 3rd day?

[@Marius.82.]

I love it. What do i have to do to have a book whit W.Craig autograph?

[@FrostinthePines]

Ehrman raised some really good points

[@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737]

by distorting Gary habermas points . the only valid point was about the gospel of hebrews

[@MrGourdman1]

It’s amazing to hear Bart Ehrman as a New Teatament theologian say that the disciples had visions alone and together when the NT says that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, the disciples in the upper room and at the Sea of Galilee and at His ascension. If you want to be consistent as a NT scholar, then you need to debunk these appearances instead of inaccurately suggesting that they were some kind of dream or vision. The other problem was why did the disciples proclaim that Christ had risen in opposition to Roman emporer worship, when that was sure to bring to them the same unimaginably painful death that Jesus had suffered or by becoming human torches in Rome during Nero’s reign. You would only risk the same death if you knew your final destiny lay beyond death.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Nero scapegoated them for the Great Fire of Rome and charged them with arson he didn't care about the Resurrection.

[@mtdouthit1291]

No it's not dreams or visions, it's just made up fiction.

[@ionicwoodsman2855]

Maybe someone can help me out with this one. As Christians, we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This includes the book of Hebrews. I think what Bart was saying is that if we believe that the author of Hebrews was divinely inspired to write factual historical pieces of information found in the fragments of Hebrews, then you really do not have the ability to pick and choose what you want to include as the word of God. If Hebrews was nothing more than some random guy making a record of what happened, but was not inspired by God, then you could take the bits where he talks accurately about history, and discard the other weird bits. But, if we believe the author was inspired by God, then you cannot simply throw out the bits that sound weird and keep the historical record.

[@thomasdillon777]

The reference is to the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews and not the canonical Epistle to the Hebrews. The apocryphal books are not recognized as God inspired and authoritative while the 27 canonical books of the New Testament are.

[@Bible33AD]

This is a different book of Hebrews they're taking about not the one in the NT

[@timlenord1]

This comment makes way too much sense to be liked on this channel. Dumb it down son. Dumb it down.

[@therockstar17]

I understand Ehrman is a scholar and I’m not but did he really just say Paul isn’t equating Jesus with God because he didn’t use Hebrew words for it from Joel? He’s writing to gentiles in the epistle to the Romans, not Jews, so what about the LXX?? I think that’s what Craig was getting at with Kyrios.

[@mtdouthit1291]

Habermas completely misrepresented Ehrman!

[@salmo5841]

This Bartman exactly reflects the Muslim view that this gospels by misguided so called eyewitnesses are difficult to accept because it is ridden with false theologies . But I think big question is what justified us to worship a human person rather the one he directed us to worship.

[@coreygossman6243]

Baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Before Abraham, I AM. Be not afraid, I AM.

[@salmo5841]

Can you explain to us what is meant by I am attributed to be Jesus words. Give us the full context. I don't even believe the words of the Bible since it was written by persons who were removed from Christ. It would have been interesting if the words were written by Christ himself. Or at least under his watchful eye. It was written by misguided persons who needed to worship him. You must turn back to Allah before it is too late. Dr Craig will not stand In your defense on judgement day if you were to say he has convinced you that Christ is divine. Pray now before death takes over you. Talking to directly !

[@coreygossman6243]

@@salmo5841 You don't believe the revelation in the Gospel, so what does it matter? You don't have any reason to believe Jesus existed without the Gospel's testimony, so then why do you care what the Gospel says or doesn't say? I can assume (maybe incorrectly) that you follow the Quran. I would encourage you to look at what the Quran says about the Injil. The Gospel's and the Torah are revelation according to the Quran, and they are to be trusted as the word of God. This was confirmed by Mohammed, who claimed that he was told to verify what he was told in the books of the Jews and Christians. In that case, I would reconsider your thoughts regarding "corruption". The Gospels are some of the best attested documents if all time, and the Gospels that Mohammed had in his time were the very same as the gospels that we have today.

[@salmo5841]

@@coreygossman6243 sure the Quran does affirm the Injil but it is not what you believe to be the book you are holding in your hands . Some Muslims have been misled by persons like you who don't study the language of the Quran, including it's genre and context and are running with translation that people make to the English language which for some reason keeps changing, highlighting their own flaws. Quran talks about the revelation and the message he gave to certain prophets using the word book as a symbolism. He says for example he gave Jesus the Injil. If this was referring to your book right now , how can something that is written by persons who were not connected to him and wrote these books was something that was giving to Jesus. This makes no sense. It is not even Jesus, Quran talks Moses and other prophets being given certain books . The most important point is the Quran even if tells story about Jesus which matches with gospel story, never supports and affirms Mathew , John ...the apostle Pauls work etc. Don't try to do what Dr Craig does . He will try to rationalise and convince you when on judgement day he will be fighting for his own soul in saving himself from punishment. This should not be this way. You must rethink . I find it perplexin how such a smart people like Dr Craig would be led into this path of worshipping a human person

[@coreygossman6243]

@@salmo5841 Well, the problem that you have is that the Quran tells you to trust the Gospel, and there is no evidence of the book you are talking about. Mohamed talks about the documents that the Christians of his time, his contemporaries, are using. That is the Injil. And the problem you have is that that collection of books is the same as the one we have now. In fact, the books of the Torah and the Gospels were both written by the hands of man, and admit as such. That is not a theological problem in the slightest.

[@reeseexplains8935]

You are misquoting Bart D Ehrman

[@Glorious716]

✝️❤️‍🔥🙏🏽

[@cccc13.]

Bart magically makes up this vision that one of the disciples had. What about the 500 and all the lines in the NT about them seeing him. Never talked about like it was just a dream.

[@theophilus5132]

Skeptics dismiss the 500 Paul appeals to in 1 Corinthians 15 since we don't have any written testimony from them, and they aren't alive to be questioned.

[@mikeambs]

Who are the 500? Where did they see Jesus?

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

When it comes to the 500+ witnesses, you have to rely on whether Paul would have reason to make it up or get it wrong. We have several great reasons to believe that Paul wasn’t lying based on things like his persecution and the fact that he was mocked and disgraced and hardly made any money or get any sex (he was celibate) and power. Would he be deceived? Remember that Paul was speaking for God and Proverbs commands you to not be gullible and believe anything and he was blameless in following the Old Testament. He’d want to make absolutely sure that this claim of the 500+ witnesses was true and he also mentioned that it was being preached by Peter, James, John and the other 12 Apostles, who were all being persecuted and risking their lives and Peter, Paul and the 2 Jameses were martyred.

[@mikeambs]

@@Nameless-pt6oj I have one reason to doubt Paul - he admits to spending three years going door-to-door in Jerusalem violently persecuting early followers of Jesus. He killed... he killed multiple people... he killed until he considered his work to be complete in Jerusalem... he killed cause he thought he was on some disgusting mission from God to eradicate the heathens. Why do I think Paul is not a trustworthy person? Well, the same reason I think any serial killer is to be seriously distrusted when they start to tell people they have one-on-one conversations with the creator of the universe.

[@osmosis321]

@@Nameless-pt6oj "you have to rely on whether Paul would have reason to make it up or get it wrong." So then you admit to having no good evidence and it all comes down to whether or not you believe Paul as presented in the Gospels. Nowhere in there did you make any reference to any kind of verifiable facts, we're supposed to believe it because it says so in the bible.

[@Ray-iu7hg]

Dr Lane argued that it couldn't have been ex post that Christians saw Jesus death as a sacrifice, because the Bible had it as part of Jesus ministries. This is theological, because it assumes the truth of the gospels, which is fine, but it's not then 'historical' analysis.

[@JM-19-86]

It does't assume the truth of the Gospels - you can give strong historical arguments for Jesus' predictions of His death and resurrection, with multiple criteria of authenticity. Mike Licona has published a paper on this.

[@patrickfisher2817]

Bart Ehrman claims Paul didn't believe Jesus was Jehovah in Romans 10:9 but he has been corrected on this numerous times by James White, Michael Bird and others. Paul quotes Joel 2:32 about Yahweh and applies it to Jesus. He tries to deny this claiming Paul did not write in Hebrew but in Greek using the term Kryios but conveniently leaves out the fact that this term is sometimes synonymous with the divine name.

[@cygnusustus]

Sometimes synonymous is not always synonymous.

[@patrickfisher2817]

@@cygnusustus Fair but given the passages Paul is quoting it seems fairly obvious that Paul believes Jesus is Yahweh. I said sometimes synonymous in order to be fair because kryios sometimes refers to earthly lords. And I wanted to demonstrate my awareness of that charge

[@cygnusustus]

@@patrickfisher2817 Nope. Romans 1O:9. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" This sure appears to be treating Jesus and God as separate entities, one of which is subservient to the other. Jesus did not raise himself, but needed God to do it.

[@patrickfisher2817]

@@cygnusustus you seem to be misunderstood Paul's message. He believes Jesus and the Father are distinct persons but they are one God and thus both Yahweh. As for the claim that Jesus is a subordinate being who needed the Father to raise him. Because Jesus became flesh and Jeremiah 32:27 says “I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27 if God is the God of all flesh and Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) it makes sense that the Father would be his God. However, it does not diminish the fact that Paul repeatedly claims Jesus is God/Yahweh (Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:5-11, 1st Corinthians 8:6, Roman's 10:9-13, 1st Corinthians 2:8 etc.)

[@cygnusustus]

@@patrickfisher2817 Since, as I showed, Romans 10:9 not only fails to support your claim but in facts refutes it, obviously it is you who has misunderstood Paul's message. Your verses from Jeremiah actually underscore my point that Paul does not equate Jesus with God, but views him as subordinate to God. Regarding your other verses, since I already proved you wrong about Romans 10:9 any verse you cite without quoting will be simply be dismissed. My point stands, unrefuted.

[@mtdouthit1291]

Gospel of the Hebrews at 8:22

[@mtdouthit1291]

“Lord” lies at 19:37

[@TruthBeTold7]

St. Paul definitely believed that Jesus was Yahweh. The British New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado argues in his book, "Lord Jesus Christ," that the term "Lord" (Greek, "Kyrios") is a title for deity, since it is the Greek translation of the Old Testament "Yahweh". The title "Kyrios" is applied to Jesus 180 times in the undisputed epistles of St. Paul. (e.g. 1Cor. 10:21; 10:22; Cor. 3:16; 1Thess. 3:13; 4:6; Phil. 2:10-11). Most recent studies conclude that the key semantic background is in Jewish tradition, and that designation of Jesus as Lord goes back to the very earliest Jewish Christians. (see Foerster and Quell, "Kyrios," in TDNT, 3:1039-98; Fitzmyer, "The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios Title," in his A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, SBLMS 25 (Missoula Scholars, 1979), 115-43.

[@Bowen12676]

KYRIOS is not a divine title. It's a title of respect one would use of a higher authority, whether a teacher, husband, king, master, etc. (it's the word translated "master" in Matt. 6:24 and "sir" in 13:27 + 21:30). It's also not the Greek translation of Yahweh any more than "Lord" is the English translation of Yahweh. It is a title that _replaced_ the name "Yahweh" in some translations. The title itself just means "lord" or "master" or "owner". Paul uses KYRIOS in reference to Jesus because God gave Jesus supreme authority (Phil. 2:9). Paul made it very clear that he did not think Jesus was equal to Yahweh. He said to the Corinthians, "you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God" (1 Cor. 3:23) and "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). He said "blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 1:3), which would make no sense if Jesus was Yahweh (since Yahweh does not _have_ a God and Father).

[@TruthBeTold7]

@@Bowen12676 That's not true. Context determines how a word is to be understood. The verses you cited are perfectly compatible with Trinitarian theology. The British New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado argues in his book, "Lord Jesus Christ," that the term "Lord" (Greek, "Kyrios") is a title for deity, since it is the Greek translation of the Old Testament "Yahweh". The title "Kyrios" is applied to Jesus 180 times in the undisputed epistles of St. Paul. (e.g. 1Cor. 10:21; 10:22; Cor. 3:16; 1Thess. 3:13; 4:6; Phil. 2:10-11). Most recent studies conclude that the key semantic background is in Jewish tradition, and that designation of Jesus as Lord goes back to the very earliest Jewish Christians. (see Foerster and Quell, "Kyrios," in TDNT, 3:1039-98; Fitzmyer, "The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios Title," in his A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, SBLMS 25 (Missoula Scholars, 1979), 115-43. Also see "Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology", by David Capes.

[@Bowen12676]

@@TruthBeTold7 Here's what Hurtado thinks about whether Jesus was worshipped as God in the NT: "As should be clear to any serious reader, in the NT Jesus is not worshipped “as God” (whatever that may mean) but, instead, with reference to God, as the Son of God, as the Lord appointed by God, as the “image” of God, etc. To be sure, Jesus is referenced as sharing the divine name and glory, and OT texts originally referring to “God” (YHWH) are interpreted with reference to Jesus, and, most importantly, in earliest Christian circles Jesus is accorded the sorts of reverence that are otherwise reserved for deities in the Roman era. So, there can be no question whether the exalted Jesus is treated in the NT as “divine.” But, at the same time, the NT (and early Christian writers generally) also distinguish God and Jesus, while also relating them uniquely to each other. (see larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/are-philippians-26-11-and-colossians-115-20-christ-hymns/).

[@spectre8533]

This is just a denial that Christ is numerically identical to the Father, not a denial that He is as divine as the Father.

[@Bowen12676]

@@spectre8533 The quotation from Hurtado doesn't mention "the Father" (in the anachronistic trinitarian sense). It's talking about Jesus' relationship to the God of Israel.

[@jaquicx9500]

Hallucinations dont make sense if you look at the over 500 greek manuscripts written by everyday people who usually didnt have the money to write things down. Theyre all accurate to one another in events, timing, subjects, etc. They all described Jesus the same way, but were all different individual experiences.

[@mtdouthit1291]

No it's not hallucinations, it's just made up fiction.

[@spacemanspiff9773]

Being a scholar I can’t but to think that Bart Ehrman is intentionally distorting Gary Habermas’s reasoning.

[@cygnusustus]

A scholar of what?

[@spacemanspiff9773]

@@cygnusustus I should have been clearer… Bart is the scholar I was referring to.

[@cygnusustus]

@@spacemanspiff9773 Bart Ehrman's Biblical scholarship is legitimate and well respected among Biblical scholars. William Lane Craig, I have to point out, is not a Biblical Scholar. Habermas is far more a theologian than a Biblical scholar. Habermas is, first and foremost, a Christian apologist. This guides all of his views.

[@spacemanspiff9773]

@@cygnusustus the same can be said for Ehrman, that his atheism/agnosticism guides his objections before his scholarship.

[@cygnusustus]

@@spacemanspiff9773 Except not. Ehrman came to atheism from Christianity, so his beliefs were not guided by Christianity. And if his beliefs were guided by his atheism (a strange suggestion since atheism is a stance on only one very narrow question whereas Christianity has a broad dogma), then he would likely not accept Jesus existence. Sorry, but your Tu Quoque fallacy is unsupported.

[@brando3342]

Hearing Bart’s obnoxious and arrogant tone, speaking about concepts of Christianity that he clearly doesn’t understand, but speaks with such confidence as though he does, is REALLY difficult to listen to 😣

[@drewm3807]

It was torture to listen to his smug tone for hours on end during his debate with Licona.

[@abidingewe2065]

What irritates me is the boyish giggling 🤭 like we are all ignorant.😒

[@brando3342]

@@abidingewe2065 Yup.

[@thetannernation]

He has changed. He used to be humble and honest. He really has turned into this obnoxious fraud

[@courgette3401]

Haha. He has spent his entire life studying this stuff. You might not like his smugness but he certainly knows his stuff. He has read all the original texts in their original languages. If you disagree perhaps you too should learn half a dozen ancient languages and read the original texts.

[@daman7387]

at 10:30 I think Ehrman wouldn't have to disbelieve the historicity of Jesus if he didn't accept the gospels at all, because isn't Jesus mentioned in Josephus or Tacitus or something?

[@kaiju4238]

What are you even talking about? Bart thinks Jesus existed.

[@garystanfield2274]

COMPARING THE CHRISTIAN JESUS TO THE TRUTH OF IMMANUEL: JESUS IMMANUEL 1. Son of God, a pagan deity 1. Son of Yahweh 2. Carried the Cross 2. Taken to the Tree 3. Died by Roman Law 3. Died by Jewish Law 4. Died on a Cross 4. Died on an Olive Tree 5. Crucified, 3 nails were used 5. Hung with rope tied to wrists 6. 3 separate Crosses were used 6. All 3 suspended on same Olive Tree 7. Died on Good Friday 7. Died on the Wednesday Passover 8. Rose on Sunday 8. Rose at the end of the 7th day Sabbath 9. 36 hours in the grave, 2 nights and 1 day 9. 72 hours in the grave, 3 days and 3 nights 10. Inherited his own name 10. Inherited the Father’s name Yahweh 11. Jesus’s name is a lie of Christianity 11. Immanuel’s name is truth of Yahweh’s Word 12. In truth was never prophecied or fulfilled 12. Was prophecied and fulfilled 13. Became Jesus the Christ, the lie 13. Became Yahweh Messiah, the truth 14. Died for Sins 14. Died for Transgressions 15. Jesus a Anti- Messiah name 15. Yahweh the true Messiah’s name 16. Jesus is a Latinized Greek name 16. Immanuel is a Hebrew name. 17. The names Jesus and Christ are sun deities 17. Immanuel has nothing to do with paganism

[@naghamebhav7543]

Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 105 sentadillas son unos SEXBABY.Uno muchas y un buen ejercicio. Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world 🌹😉💖 los mortalesm abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer.k

[@jaquicx9500]

Bart doesnt study, it seems. Jesus being a sacrifice was foretold looooooonnnnnnnnnggggggg before it even happened. He fulfills many other Jewish prophecies , too.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Then why did the overwhelming bulk of Jews and especially those who studied the scriptures religiously utterly reject Jesus?

[@TheSealsMen]

@@tomasrocha6139Just because someone doesn’t believe in something doesn’t mean it’s not true just like atheism

[@20july1944]

You, WLC and Reasonable Faith, really need to be more careful about repeating falsehood with extended quotes from things like Paulogia's videos and Ehrman's laughing responses. Paulogia isn't "taken in" by Ehrman; they are two of Christianity's deliberate enemies working together. It's good to get information out, but be careful how you package it.

[@brando3342]

Ehrman was VERY obnoxious in these clips 😖

[@GRXMotorsPNW]

@@brando3342 Yep I agree. Btw your reasoning on many things is good. I've seen you on other threads commenting and I almost always agree 👍. Did I see you on The Liberty Report with Dr. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams? I hope so. Have a good day

[@cygnusustus]

Habermas and Craig are two of Truth's deliberate enemies working together.

[@twocents4912]

How smart is it trying to debunk a culture built around loving your neighbors as yourself? When someone breaks into your home or shoots you, don't be mad, you condone that behavior. Believe in the LORD JESUS CHRIST and be saved 🙏

[@TheCount991]

Well, if christian culture was actually built around loving your neighbors, I might agree with you. But that isn't the case. Of course there are some christians who truly follow that, and I can respect them for that, even if I disagree with everything about their faith. But on the other hand, there are christians calling for the ostracization, dehumanization, and even execution of LGBTQ people. There are christians supporting child abuse. There are christians forcing their kids to marry because they got pregnant outside of marriage, only for them to promptly get divorced because they got forced into marriage to someone they couldn't live with. There are christians refusing medical treatment for their children, resulting in unnecessary deaths. There are christians demanding that health precautions be ignored. There are christians preaching that women owe their husbands sex. There are christians supporting white supremacy. My own Mom, who is a christian, had her fellow church members insulting her for not having more children after my brother was born even though the doctor said that she likely wouldn't survive another childbirth. I myself will probably never be able to be open about being an atheist for fear of losing both my family and my job. There are christians who are genuinely happy that people like me are supposed to be tortured for eternity. You can claim that these people aren't christians if you want, but you have no say in what they believe, and they get all of these ideas straight out of the bible. Even if they are not "real" christians, the fact that the bible is regularly interpreted to support these things means that the bible itself is a problem. You said "When someone breaks into your home or shoots you, don't be mad, you condone that behavior." No. I do not. What I condone is doing what you can to take care of those around you, endorsing that which promotes the well-being of other people, and refusing anything that causes unnecessary harm. Or, in your words, "love your neighbor as yourself." Most atheists that I have spoken to or heard from (at least those who have put significant thought into their atheism and morality) come to a similar conclusion. I know Paulogia has said that his philosophy was something like that as well. I can't speak for Bart Ehrman, as I don't recall having heard him talk about that, but I suspect he would also agree. The difference is, we don't need threats of eternal torture or promises of eternal bliss to make us be decent humans, we do it because we have empathy.

[@osmosis321]

You make it sound as though getting along with other people was a novel concept that nobody'd ever heard of before the Gospels came along. I suppose the introduction of the commandments was the first time it ever occurred to anyone not to kill or steal.

[@blackkman1324]

SO SNAKES AND DONKEYS CAN TALK?

[@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737]

if God exists and he does he can make them talk. they can't talk on their own just like you can't be saved on your own

[@blackkman1324]

@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 SO YOUR GOD (WHITE JESUS) CAN WALK ON WATER AND WHEN DEAD, IS COMMING BACK TO SAVE MY BLACK ASS?

[@osmosis321]

@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 You do realize that there's no limit to the impossible things you can justify believing on those grounds, right? Pigs can't fly? God can make them fly! You can't get two of every species on a giant boat? God can! You can't grow back a severed limb? God can! See where I'm going with this?

[@timlenord1]

Yes faithless one. Just like angels can impregnate women & have baby showers for their giant bundles of joy.

[@lolsing8836]

@@blackkman1324white jesus?

[@MuhammadsMohel]

16:56 yeah but that cartoon avatar of paulogia is very flattering of himself and isn't an honest representation; dude looks sawft in person and is no where near as squared up as that avatar. Whenever he sees the cross ✝️ it probably triggers him over his low t levels and he starts beating up on caricatures and strawmen like himself to feel better. Dude is weak.

[@jiluan6758]

Loil I just looked at the real Paulogia and it's a sloppy mess, not this chiselled chin avatar

[@michaell1425]

Dr. Craig seriously misunderstands early Christian christology. The early Christians were of course not binitarians or trinitarians. They remained unitarians, or monotheists. Every piece of evidence Dr. Craig cites only indicates an exaltation or wisdom christology. The doyen of recent new testament scholars Dr. James Dunn established this in his brilliant Christology in the Making and Did the First Christians Worship Jesus. Moreover, Dr. Craig's specious reasoning has been refuted time and again by unitarian Christians past and present. It is embarrassing that Dr. Craig is completely ignorant of this literature. Also Hurrtado and Bauckham hardly represent the majority of new testament scholarship. Lol. And Hurrtado never claims the early Christians regarded Jesus as God. Good grief.

[@leeberry7703]

Nonsensical

[@michaell1425]

@@leeberry7703 well refuted 😂