High Priest Abiathar? - Supposed Biblical Contradiction #28

The Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman said the first thing that made him question the validity of the Bible was an issue Mark 2. We look into that issue here and see if there is any problem.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
Dan Wallace - Mark 2:26 and the Problem of Abiathar bible.org/arti...
J. R. Edwards - The Gospel According to Mark
Edward Andrews - Misrepresenting Jesus
Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus
Maurice Casey - Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel
#NewTestament #JesusChrist #History

[@austinapologetics2023]

I like what the KZbinr Testify said regarding Ehrman and these contradictions are errors. He said something along the lines that looking at a myriad of interpretations and explanations and taking the most uncharitable one, even when it is less plausible than others, and then saying that it's an irreconcilable difference isn't scholarship.

[@x-popone6817]

ok

[@viviennebaptiste]

Who was the KZbinr?

[@WhosthatHotspice]

@@viviennebaptiste This is the youtuber kzbin.info/door/adiEsTZ0hNxs5OxwGiyELQ

[@actingapostlesage]

Hey Michael @inspiringphilosophy. Seems like this guy might need some attention. Couldn't bring myself to really hear past his ramblings but you might kzbin.info/www/bejne/in7QpGV6f7Nja5Y

[@therottingstench]

@@actingapostlesage oh yeah that guy gives me cancer

[@quicksilver7532]

Thanks inspiring philosophy 💖🙏

[@BornAgainRN]

Another way to resolve this, which actually builds on this explanation, is that Jesus was using name conflation between Abiathar and Ahimelech. Since Abiathar was more well-known than Ahimelech for keeping the law, Jesus may have purposely used the former high priests name, even though Ahimelech was actually high priest. This would’ve been similar to Matthew 23:35 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for being like their spiritual forefathers who had murdered all of the prophets since the foundation of the world “from Abel to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah.” The minor prophet, Zechariah the son of Berechiah, was not the last chronological prophet murdered. That would be John the Baptist. Nor were the Pharisees responsible for the murder of Abel. Rather, Jesus is also using name conflation by referencing the patronym of one prophet (the son Berechiah) and conflating him with the method of martyrdom of another prophet of the same name (the son of Jehoiada). And since the son of Jehoiada was not the last chronological prophet of the Hebrew Bible (that would be Urriah), nor was he the last prophet murdered chronologically (that would be John the Baptist), then Jesus is speaking canonically by referencing the last canonical martyred prophet which would be the son of Jehoiada. Jesus “may” be doing the same thing in Mark 2:26, by using the name of the more well-known and respected and obedient high priest, with the name of the actual high priest who was reigning during that time.

[@adrianvarela8890]

Thanks for posting. GBY!

[@shadycnetwork]

I wish you would have mentioned this while talking to Bart

[@Nunya_Bidness_53]

If you want to believe, you'll find reasons. If you don't you'll find excuses. That's how free will works.

[@alexhamilton4182]

“You surely die, Ahimelech, you and all the house of your father.” The pharisee are identified with ahimelech. David told Abiathar he new Ahimelech was doomed when he took the bread.

[@donovankelly7723]

Very well done! Thank you

[@coffeecup7084]

God never make mistakes the supposed mistake is always on our part for not allowing scripture to interpret scripture.

[@coffeecup7084]

And I believe that this happened to Mr Bart E

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

that's an incoherent sentence. "Scripture interprets scripture" is nonsense.

[@zgobermn6895]

Excellent!

[@freightshayker]

Good stuff

[@305thief8]

Nice keep it up!!😇😇😇😇

[@adrianvarela8890]

excellent!!!

[@aidanbradypop]

Very well stated!

[@gangsterghost7200]

Mike would you like to debate bert?

[@williamcurt7204]

Obviously I don't agree with Bart on many things he says. But you've got to love the man for eternally frustrating mythicists and ratheists online.

[@Silverheart1956]

Yeah, Keep praying for Ehrman, in hope that He will return.

[@prime_time_youtube]

Thanks

[@nsp74]

ehrman versus ehrman

[@henrydells6864]

Typically reconciliation 😂😂

[@faithhope8537]

If you cross reference this, Abiathar was the high priest as the father of Ahimelech, being just a priest. It's just another way that Jesus Christ puts everyone in their place. Ahimelech was not high priest at this time. 1 Chronicles 24:6 2 Samuel 8:17

[@theosib]

I think only fundamentalists should be super worried about this. Let's say that Ehrman was right that this is a mistake. Well, the gospels were written by humans. A mistake by a human writer doesn't necessarily rule out divine inspiration, and this doesn't necessarily mean the writer accurately recorded what Jesus said. Journalistic integrity is barely a thing today, so we can't expect writers two thousand years ago to do a great deal better. As long a they got the gist of it right, then we should feel grateful for getting that much.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

I still think its great that IP shows that Bart Ehrman thinks about the scripture like a fundamentalist. Its Origen's criticism of the Pagans and Judiazers all over again.

[@supermicroppclips]

Or maybe Mark got it wrong.

[@thstroyur]

Or maybe not; maybe ancient texts are _that_ tricky to interpret. Who knows? Not like anyone studies these things...

[@karlazeen]

Why do they have to be so tricky though? Wouldn't a god who desires for us to see his message make it clear to everyone?

[@thstroyur]

@@karlazeen And yet, ancient inspired authors aren't Gods themselves - so there's that annoying lil' technicality critics miss so often. If you want divine infallibility, tho, you can go and look for the Tablets of the Covenant yourself - and maybe pitch your idea to George Lucas, while you're at it...

[@Manny650]

Another dope video 👍

[@mditt7]

If you are going to "nitpick" and abandon Faith over such trivialities, one would have to suspect that your real grievance is in actuality more hidden and much broader and deeper than merely a grammatical or linguistic matter. The Bible is potentially teeming with such contentious material if one chooses to go there. You only have to look at the ongoing splits and schisms throughout Church history to be informed of this. Keep it simple if you can! works for me. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and all your strength...the rest is just interpretation." The Baal Shem Tov (Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer)

[@truenobiker5926]

they were not working on the sabbath .they were picking grains because they were hungry JESUS would not violate any commandment it would have been a sin .

[@csmoviles]

💖🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖

[@josuearanday]

To me it's clear that Mark (not Jesus) named Abiathar as a character in the story concerning David, either if he was or not the HP it's of little relevance. He named him and not Ahimelech, that's why a mistake of the same kind would be naming Saul as going to the Tabernacle instead of David. Then someone could say "Saul was alive by then..." Yes! But Saul wasn't in the story, neither was Abiathar!

[@christianprinceears4653]

Notice how Mark does not mentions that David was a King, the Word King is not used for David, but the word Priest is used for Abiathar? If Mark removed the title of the Priest from Abiathar then you may have a Point, but since Mark uses ones title without doing he same for David, then we know that Jesus was drunk on wine when he said it, and since the Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel the other later Gospels realize this mistake and they remove it from their Gospels-and this proves even more that even the Writers of Luke and Matthew understood that Mark was writing a Mistake. also, the whole idea was not to show that David ate the Bread from the temple during the Time of Abiathar, the idea was to show that he ate the Bread of the Priests, something that only Priests could do, and for this Reason Mark thought that David ate the Bread of the High-Priest Abiathar, the whole idea was that David ate the bread of the High-Priest, and the Priests knew about it, so the Sin of David becomes even greater on Sabbath, and yet God did not punish him, because Sabbath is made for Men , and not the other way around, so, Men can break Sabbath and Men can eat the Sacred Bread of the High-Priest on Sabbath if need be.

[@qualitymedical7156]

isn,t there a difference between high priest and priest.

[@Charles-tv6oi]

1rst it doesn't call his father the high priest in 1 Sam. 21 KJV . Also his son was also priest n Jesus calls him HIGH PRIEST. Often both serve as priest n possibly fill in at times. It also simply says IN THE DAYS of ABIATHAR the high priest. It DID NOT say when Abiathar was high priest. If I say PRESIDENT Biden opposed Jimmy Carter on a presidential bill, am I wrong for calling Biden PRESIDENT before his time ? We talk the same today cause he's known as president at this latter date. 2nd These.2:11 with John 1:1 KJV shows the WORD ( GOD) shall send delusion on these birds who don't Wana obey n follow God.

[@ProslepsisStuff]

Also known as a prolepsis.

[@حامدالمهتدي]

It is the Author of I Samuel who made the mistake, not Jesus. Abiathar was the father and Achimelech was the son. The so-called OT historical books should not be considered as inerrant word from divine origin.

[@anyaforger8409]

Talk about quran who often relies on vague statements to avoid errors but we can demonstrate quran is full of mistakes when it says that the Pharaoh threatened his magicians to be crucified when crucifixion isn't practiced by egyptians at all or introducing the samaritans too early at the time of golden idol controversy.

[@حامدالمهتدي]

@@anyaforger8409 I agree, I'm not muslim.

[@anyaforger8409]

@@حامدالمهتدي what's your religion?

[@حامدالمهتدي]

@@anyaforger8409 I'm a believer in Christ.

[@outofthebox7]

In the Greek it says: επί Αβιάθαρ, which clearly and literally translates: "- on - Abiathar" Επί means on, upon. I am Greek by the way. You can find the same e.g. Acts 1:26 where we read: επί Ματθία, which translates "on Matthias" What it means in the case of Abiathar, is "on (the time or even better, the days of) Abiathar" Question is, why is the mention of Abiathar significant? Because he was considered by the writer as high priest or for another reason? Why mention Abiathar and not his father? Also, at 3:47 the argument is not sound. Sure Ehrman can be accused of making an historical error, but Ehrman is not Jesus Christ, nor does anyone consider him without error. Ehrman himself would agree that he erred, so likewise he can claim Jesus erred. Having said that, my common sense says that the conclusion of the video, that is, in pointing out that in context, Jesus preferring to use Abiathar is accurate and if you think about it, it even makes Jesus seem wiser in doing so.

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

My mind goes back to something Rabbi Sherwin Wine said about the Bible. "It's not for children because it would have to be clear." Sadly, just because you can create a universe does not mean that you can competently write a series of books and letters that don't need translation. Just remember folks, the Bible is the same book with a talking donkey, a talking snake, and a talking bush. People don't walk on water. At the time of the crucifixion, people didn't rise from the dead and go into town and greet friends. You'll be okay.

[@GodlessGubment]

Jesus was wrong. Adapt.

[@4thlegion253]

You are wrong. Evolve

[@GodlessGubment]

@@4thlegion253 workin on it

[@utopiabuster]

Your "Supposed Bible Contradiction" is one of the best apologetics series on KZbin. Thanks and God Bless

[@maranatapalle]

I love that Ehrman makes the same "mistake" as Jesus - in the very text where he criticizes Jesus...

[@moosechuckle]

I agree. It’s really hard to see your own mistakes, when pointing out the “supposed mistakes” of others. There is probably something about that in the Bible… like, taking the plank out of your own eye or something.

[@VVeremoose]

If Ehrman wasn't an ex Christian, I don't think he'd be known at all. His thinking seems extremely weak

[@qaz-fi1id]

@@VVeremoose he is a genius who destroys most Xains in debate. He is blinded by the ruler of this world, but he is not a weak thinker.

[@VVeremoose]

@@qaz-fi1id I've never been impressed. There are other atheists who I feel are far superior intellectuals.

[@Iamwrongbut]

Jesus made a mistake?

[@CaptainBars]

If I made a reference to "when King David slew Goliath," my statement would not be considered incorrect even though David was not yet King at that time. So, in the same way, referring to an event that happened "in the days of Abiathar the High Priest" would not be inaccurate even though the man hadn't become High Priest just yet. This is one of the easiest claimed "contradictions" to refute and yet the enemies of Christ still push it. They must be desperate.

[@lorenioooooas]

Also even if the bible is fake or something, surely jesus or mark or whoever wrote that verse would have the old testament handy and write the correct name for the priest. I'd argue the little differences and supposed errors if anything prove the bible more. If you're a policeman and you hear 3 exact same statements, it's bullshit, and the witnessess colluded if you hear differences in each statement but saying the overall same truth, then it's more likely to be true.

[@poppypalais3108]

If it had been written "when Goliath was slain during the days of King David", would that be right?

[@margaritakryuchkov9894]

@@lorenioooooas Ahimelech was a priest! Abiathar was the high priest! High priest and priest is *not* the same thing!!!

[@margaritakryuchkov9894]

@@poppypalais3108 It states: "In the days of Abiathar, the high priest!!! There is no error!!!

[@paulv7554]

@@margaritakryuchkov9894 Absolutely. This is clearly not an error, even with a very superficial reading of the text. The different accounts of the two robbers on the crosses in Luke and Matthew bother me a little bit. In Matthew, both are mocking Jesus and in Luke, only one mocks Jesus. Certainly an explanation could be that both robbers initially mocked Jesus, but one repented moments later. The problem I have with that explanation is that neither Matthew nor Luke relate that act of contrition happening with the robber. One would think such a transformation of heart would have been worth noting.

[@thomasdillon777]

Great job showing the context of Jesus’ reference. Also, Ehimelech, who gave the show bread to David had a grandson who was also named Ehimelech (the son of Abiathar) who became high priest as well. Jesus referencing Abiathar the high priest made better sense given the context.

[@ossiedunstan4419]

You do know not one character in any middle eastern death cult doctrine ever lived.

[@matthewm7590]

@@ossiedunstan4419 you do know that literally every single accredited scholar, secular or not, would laugh you out of the room right?

[@babisbabinos8075]

​@@ossiedunstan4419The channel Useful Charts has two videos on history and archeology of biblical characters.

[@deeds7529]

in a weird way, I love to hear what people consider bible contradictions because it makes me research them and grow in faith

[@Josdamale]

"επί Αβιάθαρ αρχιερέως" means "at the time of Abiathar the highpriest" and not "when Abiathar was the highpriest".

[@spicerc1244]

Thank you. It is strange that Catholic translations like the RSV posit the latter.

[@Nick-z2o]

This is like calling the 1960s "the time of Clinton, the president" just because he was alive back then. Why not state who the president was at the time? The same goes for the High Priest.

[@MrMandude365]

@@Nick-z2o Because it’s relevant to the point Jesus is making. Jesus and his followers are being criticized by a group of rabbis, Jewish religious leaders, for not strictly following Jewish law, so Jesus references an example of prominent figures from the Jewish scriptures bending the rules in an emergency to counter them; David and Abiathar. By calling Abiathar “the High Priest”, Jesus is drawing a direct comparison between the figure he’s talking about, Abiathar, and the religious leaders he’s talking to, the rabbis. A better comparison would be like if I were talking to an American politician about the ethics of lying and I said “George Washington, the first president, didn’t lie when he chopped down the cherry tree”. You would understand I was emphasizing his status as president to draw a parallel between him and the politician I was talking to, and that I wasn’t saying he was president WHEN he chopped down the cherry tree. That’s what Jesus is doing. He’s basically putting the rabbis in a position where if they argue back, they would be implying they think they know more than Abiathar, who was widely respected. And yes, I know Washington didn’t actually chop down a cherry tree, but you get the point.

[@RottenDoctorGonzo]

One I heard: "President Obama had lots of friends as a schoolboy in the '60s."

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

Skeptics should give the bible a break. They should become smarter rather than demand from God to dump down the texts. Erham is a popularizer not " a great scholar"

[@joseseserda]

Emotional damage

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

@@joseseserda At tu. Skeptics love to insult their opponents.

[@Flosseveryday]

His own writing was used against his argument. Wow. I didn’t see that coming!

[@kevinohiggins3868]

egg

[@sudeepjoseph69]

egg

[@mugglesarecooltoo]

@@sudeepjoseph69 toast?

[@heatedpants8437]

chicken

[@huskydragon2000]

Bacon

[@abanoubmorcos318]

That's a bad word in Egypt بيض

[@susannah9675]

To find the answer to this we need to go back to the book of laws and ordinances given to Moses. Numbers 8:24-26. Upon reading this it is possible to have a High Priest with previous High Priest in service at the same time.

[@yoadrian8496]

The problem is the "Fundamentalist" interpretation of the Bible which Ehrman believed in. It states, in part, that if one part of the Bible is wrong then all of it is wrong. Ehrman is as much a fundamentalist in his unbelief as he was in his beliefs.

[@Thrawnmulus]

I guess you haven't listened to Ehrman then, or at least it's been a hot minute

[@abyssimus]

Last Sunday at church, I saw the verse in my study Bible with a footnote saying that Ahimelech was the high priest at the time. Since I'm not an infallibilist, I just figured "ok, this was (at worst) a mere textual error with no implications for doctrine," and continued my faith journey completely unbothered by it. While many "Biblical mistakes" are a result of misunderstood ideas being taken out of context (e.g. pretty much all popular eschatology), there's some points (like Goliath's height) that are simple enough to just retort with "and what does that have to do with salvation?" when one doesn't idolatrously elevate the Bible to being a member of the Trinity (as I've seen some do with John ch. 1 in an attempt to justify infallbilism).

[@DarrenGedye]

@@abyssimus William Lane Craig made a similar point, as his career and Ehrman's had been very similar up until that point. WLC kind of shrugged and carried on, but Ehrman just couldn't seem to get past it.

[@AndreAy1975]

@@abyssimus There are possible explanations for Goliath: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJqqdWqshrSqopo

[@adrianvarela8890]

@@abyssimus Interesting approach. GBY

[@jippedgamer9723]

I'm not that familiar with bert erhmans work, but from what I've seen, I'm not at all impressed because a lot of what he says is flat out false, like how he says the bible never mentions hell even though there's at least 161 verses mentioning hell, or how he claims the bible never mentions the trinity even though there's dozens of verses mentioning it. He doesn't seem to know what he's actually talking about

[@droe2570]

This is true of all the "new atheists".

[@Jim-Mc]

It's especially frustrating because his talking points are so pervasive among atheists and the 'deconverted' that they're accepted as common knowledge now. And it makes it hard to argue when a lie is so widely accepted.

[@RickOnTheDrums]

"This supposed contradiction can be resolved." I always love that ending tagline.

[@bretzajac9068]

What a weak reason to doubt God.

[@teetrevor]

A review of Ehrman’s work reveals he is not as intellectually rigorous as he likely believes himself to be

[@insertrandomthinghere4847]

Minor technicality, but technically David was anointed king in 1 Samuel 16. So in God’s eyes, David was already a king, and Ehrman could refer to David by that title. However, the principle of the argument is still true.

[@droe2570]

You just argued that Bart is God.....

[@DarrenGedye]

@@droe2570 No, he didn't. Re-read it. He is saying that if David has been anointed as king as God commanded, then from God's perspective David could be considered king, so therefore we can be charitable and say that Ehrman was not wrong. The same idea occurred to me. However the point of IP's video is that Ehrman would not be wrong even if David had not been anointed at that point. It is perfectly legitimate to retroject titles into a person's past for the purposes of clarification. For example if I asked "When was Elizabeth born?" someone could ask "Which Elizabeth?" If I clarify by saying "When was Queen Elizabeth II born?" I am retrojecting for clarification, since she was not called "Queen Elizabeth II" when she was born, and there was no expectation that she ever would be.

[@thomasecker9405]

@@droe2570 No he did not...

[@honorscholar6692]

@@droe2570 no

[@rolandovelasquez135]

I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman. "I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..." William Lane Craig The two key words here are "deliberately" and "deceptively". I too have seen him do the same. He knows what he's doing.

[@nerdatron817]

I think I could convert Richard Dawkins with your videos

[@grubblewubbles]

Good luck, he has his heart and mind set and he's not even sure anything will convince him at this point!

[@Saint_nobody]

Too much of my feed is filled with political banter. My fault I clearly acknowledge. Yet here I give thanks for something of greater importance to drop some time with. Thank you.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

I think this example shows the root of the great persistent errors of Bart Ehrman. For all his great contributions, he reads the texts like he's reading a scientific paper generated by a machine and not like transcribed conservations of human beings, a similar error that fundamentalists make. That's why something that can be easily seen by referring to the context of the verses before and after, he treats like a contradiction because he expects that sort of mechanical writing where words have only one meaning outside of any context, which isn't how human language works.

[@chrisstegink4402]

this argument of"dr" erhman is dumb and is a distraction from a more common error of grammar involving the word "shall/shalt". sure he has his error but the one i mention involves the rest of the professing to be believers. these new versions of scripture will only arm the predators with more errors.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

@@chrisstegink4402 Almost all the errors I have seen christians gleen from Erhman is him doing exactly an over literal and non-contextual reading of scripture.

[@Greyz174]

he was a fundamentalist when he started, and then he stopped being one because he realized you cant read the bible like that he was still a christian for a few years he stopped because of the problem of evil, not this

[@ikengaspirit3063]

@@Greyz174 I don't get what you're talking about, I didn't say anything about his journey of religion.

[@Greyz174]

@@ikengaspirit3063 the second part was me taking a liberty and assuming that you thought he was arguing that you cant be a christian because of these errors the first part is to point out that bart is in agreement with you that you cant read it like how fundamentalists do and so i dont see what your issue is with him

[@Actuary1776]

Pretty sure Ehrman knows the Greek just as good as any Christian scholar you just quoted. Perhaps you included a critical scholar in your rebuttal that agrees with you and not Ehrman? Guessing not. And Ehrman calling David King before he’s actually King IS NOT the same thing as completely misidentifying a person.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

there was no misidenitification.

[@Actuary1776]

@@ikengaspirit3063 Of course there was. The gospel author was writing anywhere from 30-60 years after the events supposedly took place, mistakes happen when stories are told over long periods of time.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

@@Actuary1776 This isn't modern day where twitter has ruined people's memory span, Australian Aborigones can keep accurate info for 40,000 years but somehow a largely oral Levantine culture cannot do that for 30 years?. Also, 30-60 years doesn't matter to the centuries before Athaibar(or whatever the right spelling is).

[@Actuary1776]

@@ikengaspirit3063 No, this whole idea of oral tradition remaining static over any significant period of time is myth, it just didn’t happen. The gospels themselves evidence this.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

@@Actuary1776 "tradition remaining static over any significant period of time is myth, it just didn’t happen" Static how? Like I personally more read on parts of the world where most of there tradition is oral and they can stay consistent enough to transfer the same info they are supposed to for millennia. Simple change in wordings isn't enough to argue away the validity of an oral or behavioural chronicle.

[@ernieland2480]

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Stick to the KJV instead of those archaic langue's.

[@tahzibizimungu7677]

Jesus didn't look like Shaggy from Scooby Doo 😂👌

[@rg442]

This is silly. Barely merits a whole video on the subject. If this tiny stumbling pebble makes you fall then not much that can be done for you.

[@BatMite19]

Ehrman is a classic example of someone who was looking for a reason not to believe and took the easy way out.

[@BatMite19]

@Patrick Davenport Absolutely! But my point was that he was not someone who wanted to believe but just couldn't because of insurmountable text difficulties. He was someone who didn't want to believe, and then he found his excuse.

[@MixtapeKilla2004]

''REAL TALK!''

[@Thrawnmulus]

That's a bold assumption, most people like Bart are looking harder for reasons to KEEP believing.

[@davidstrelec610]

@@Thrawnmulus Nope that’s not true

[@utopiabuster]

@@Thrawnmulus , If that's what you call "harder", you may want to stick to easier.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

I much prefer this content to other videos you have posted recently.

[@WORDversesWORLD]

The bible is a history book and is not the Word of God for His Word resides in one place, a place no man can contradict!

[@pebblesintheshoe4438]

Bart Erhman can be a muslim.

[@daneski3370]

Inspiring philosophy could you tackle some of the jews for Judaism content? No one really tackles their view points, and the completely counters Christian viewpoint. Evening if I have to donate to get an video I would do so. Secondary, have you reviewed Ceasars messiah?

[@Akhil_Chilukapati]

Jews for Judaism just Interpret the Talmud . I recommend you to read the Book 5 volume series of Answering Jewish objections to Jesus by Dr. Micheal Brown and watch this link below . Hope this helps. kzbin.info/aero/PLOSesbHxQr2TKM79aSxPLfOyOS5f7Q20z

[@davidstrelec610]

Jews just simply interpret the Bible in the perspective of the talmud, the Jews take man made errant oral traditions as words of God and add to the word of God

[@moosechuckle]

I would just like to tell you, your interview with the the married couple who spoke about sex and the Bible, was terrific. My wife grew up in church, and their view of sex and what they taught, combine with some other abuse issues she went through, became a real burden in our physical life. We’ve been married for 17 years, and until about 5 years ago, the physical aspect of our marriage was clouded her feeling dirty, wrong, and anger at times. Although we have made it through our difficulties, your video and those two people, I believe, will help so many overcome those issues. Thank you for what you do, and tackling the tough issues.

[@melindalemmon2149]

Can you send me to that interveiew Brother? And amen.

[@moosechuckle]

@@melindalemmon2149 sure thing!! Here’s the link. kzbin.info/www/bejne/enzYlqSNiqaed7c Just an forewarning: It’s not one for kids or even kids to be in the same room while you’re watching. I mean, it’s not completely x rated graphic, but the interview does revolve around sex, sex in marriage, has some comments on sexual acts, and discussion on how the church (and other teachers within the church) have viewed and taught sex. So there is definitely an adult themes. I just wanted to put that out there, in case you were sensitive to that type of conversation, or if you planned on listening to it while driving the kids to soccer practice. In theory that’s funnier than it is when something like that actually happens.

[@user-dm1yx7qz6h]

What a deceptive days we are living in. Jesus preached an important message and it is totally diverted into another discussion by so called thinkers/researchers

[@philosophersam]

Why do we keep doing this? Husserl and countless other thinkers have critiqued our need to apply the rigor necessary to do work in the hard sciences to the only real world, the life-world - the world of our direct, lived experiences. We are limited, biological beings. Even if Jesus himself made a mistake like this, it does not mean he was not perfect in the only way that matters. It means he was human. To make him flawless in all aspects of human experience is unbiblical. There is a biological component to memory and recollection - there is no suggestion in any biblical text that Jesus magically transcends that human limitation. Also, the silly notion that the biblical witness is infallible or inerrant is just plain wrong. Both words are just a form of song and dance around truth. We are instructed not to engage in such things (Matthew 5:37). I actually find efforts to debunk poor thinkers like Ehrman to be inherently flawed. We should be gently leading people to look at the assumptions which led them to consider these ideas in the first place. Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Most Holy and life giving Spirit. Amen!

[@JJFrance]

Thanks!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thank you for the donation.

[@samuelflores1419]

Context Context Context! Context is always Key! God Bless!

[@thomasdowe5274]

It is hearsay anyway and for Ehrman to state this as his reason to leave Christianity is a bit inane as an excuse, and hardly the enough to break-the-camel's-back :)

[@jamesbaxter5147]

It’s clear he had other issues to begin with, and that once he found himself reasons to deny God’s existence, he was free to accept his other issues (mainly the problem of good and evil).

[@thomasdowe5274]

@@jamesbaxter5147 Well, I'll bet it was Christianity he was disturbed about and not some idea that God doesn't exist. As a philosopher, how could he say that, and since knowing if there is a god or not is *Unknowable!!! 'Good and Evil' are certainly part of Christianity and its theological study! Indeed, I just saw him discussing the "Human Condition" with Jeremy Griffith in a video.

[@LawofMoses]

I know God, I walk in covenant with God and I Love God. I fear God as well and that is the beginning of Love because until you fear disobeying God and causing God to look upon you in shame so you feel horrible then you can not love Him. I started this walk when I was 32, to look for God. I started to actually begin to find God when I was 39 and sealed myself to God as the gospel tells us to, those of us who listen to the gospel teacher and not the ones who came after him, know to take up the commandments of God and to seek out our roots back to Abraham and to Moses and Yehoshua and the prophets so we become firm in knowledge of what GOD ALONE asked of us. It took me several years of fighting sin and the devil by obeying God. I fought the sin out of me with God's help, by his instructions in the written word. It is a very narrow road and as the mattan/Matthew gospel says very few will find it. We have to fight Satan and the whole world that serves him in sin in order to get out and the one who will help is God alone because we can't trust anyone else. I am with God, God provides for myself and my family and yes there is absolutely evidence BUT not until you absolutely come clean, in thought, word and deed, the absolute opposite of all the lying religions. The gospel was sent down to free us from sin by sending us to our teacher and if you reject it then you are freed from God into sin perpetually and to death spiritually from God which as I can now see is absolutely hell on earth, your light you pretend to have is absolutely darkness caused by your unwillingness to even try to obey God. I speak to 99% of the population. If you can't put everyone first after God and stop yourself from all sin THEN YOUR NOT WORTHY AND YOU ARE ALREADY FINISHED BEFORE YOU EVEN STARTED. So come out of all sun, take up the commandments and begin your battle, call to GOD ALONE, LEARN YOUR ROOTS, BE GOD'S PEOPLE. FIGHT SATAN WHO IS THE SINNERS INNER VOICE, THE CONSCIENCE THAT LEADS YOU TO HURT YOU, that's not you, it's Satan the deceiver. If you come to God and pass the trials cleansing yourself by obedience then GOD WILL BECOME YOUR CONSCIENCE AND YOU WILL LOVE GOD AND HATE SIN, SATAN WILL FLEE FROM YOU. SO there it is. Peace, the ball in in your court Be wary of this world, it is the valley of death, you need God's light and God doesn't dwell with sin or sinners. Not until they begin the journey to stop sin. 😀😉

[@jfr45er]

New title for this vid. “WATCH this THOUGHTFUL Christian DISMANTLE FAMOUS BIBLE CONTRADICTION”

[@ETBrothers]

This is a great explanation using reason and more importantly the Bible to explain the Bible.

[@elroivision]

Bart EHRMAN IS A COMEDIAN, DON'T TAKE HIM SERIOUS

[@nd2350]

1 Samuel 22:11 says that even Abiathar was a priest at that time and 1 Samuel 23:6 says he brought Ephod with him. He was definitely not ripping off Ephod from dead bodies of priest when they were being killed.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

📚📖🧐💬I'm a dedicated Bart Ehrman "FriEnemy"....the truly wonderful thing about many of Prof. Ehrman's unique critiques (...questions) ....is the search for the Answers, we might not otherwise even consider......with each one we move closer understanding the Historical Jesus and His times...Prof Ehrman along with establishing reasonable bumpers on historical Jesus research...has even revitalizing interest in Bible reading amongst the unbelieving...and lately I notice he has begun to set his record straight with Muslims... All in all Atheo-agnostic Prof. Ehrman has done an immense service for Western "Christendom" ....

[@grubblewubbles]

Espescially with his debunking of Richard Carrier.

[@Nick-z2o]

This still doesn't work. Why not mention the legitimate high priest? This is like talking about the 1950s and saying that it was "in the time of President Trump" because Trump was alive then.

[@anthonyq2354]

I've wondered if jesus did intentionally cite the wrong high priest. He says to the puffed up Pharisees 'have you not read...' almost to see if they, the great tyrants of the law, would correct him. They don't. Its not what I actually believe but wouldn't suprise me

[@ewankerr3011]

Having made such a statement, I suspect that Bart Ehrman is not divine and I am now having a crisis of faith regarding Bart.

[@euanthompson]

This really did feel like a case of being hoisted on your own petard for Ehrman

[@ready1fire1aim1]

"4 beings hidden in ONE God" Our Big 4 is Father 👨 Holy Spirit 😍 Son (singular) Son (plural) They're in all our Eras. Lots of names. Especially Yam (Yaw). Singular is Jesus Christ Plural is Jehovah Satan So when you hear Adonis (singular) that denotes Yeshua Christos But when it's Adonai (plural) that denotes it's Yahweh Sathanis. Also, anyone else think it's weird how all Western Religions are worshipping Yam (Yaw)? Devil worship seems like a bad idea.

[@AaronGlenn88]

to attempt to build the sum of one's life work from disproving the bible, based on this one rendering goes to show that a man will do anything to suppress the truth in unrighteousness....first in his own life...and then to bring others into his destruction. You don't try to disprove Jesus. It never works out for you. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword by which he strikes the nations. His word is life. His words are his righteous judgement. His word never falls to the ground. those who claim that their superior intellect has somehow figured out that the scriptures are trivial or false....is a fool. The level of blindness by which the blind lead the blind into the ditch starts with thinking these so called scholars have anything of substance to offer a man. It is God alone who is our bread. It is jesus alone who gives drink to thirsty men. It is jesus alone who quenches the soul from eternal fire of consciousness. -When man realizes just how in miserable need he really is. Only the Gospel, and the work of the Cross can save a man. It is his name alone that saves us! His name is Jesus!

[@danperger336]

I’m sure that if it could be considered an error then those accusing Jesus would have pointed it out at the time 🤔

[@danperger336]

@@itsmillertime3311 His accusers were not writing the Bible.

[@americanman3054]

Can you make a video on the diffrences in numbers between Chronicles and Samuel.

[@JoeArant]

I feel like more charitable readings give a proper appreciation for history as a discipline that necessitates nuance and qualifiers.

[@thomasecker9405]

Same...

[@annapobst]

This is awesome 👌😄😄 well done!!

[@jonhilderbrand4615]

1. Don't you dare hold me to my own standards! 2. Never muddy the waters with logic! Excellent video, Michael! I am so grateful for you and the time and effort I know you put into your work. You are prayed for in this house!

[@jamiehudson3661]

Ehrman is one of the most deceitful scholars I think I've listened to. He contradicts himself quite often when he thinks it benefits him or will help him win a debate. I recently caught him contradicting himself on Paulogia. Of course, in Paulogia style, he mocks the person he is discussing and edits the clips terribly. Gary Habermas was doing an interview, and in a couple of points, he references something that Ehrman said. Paulogia has Ehrman listening and asking if he said that. One of the points was about the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 being dated to the thirties or within five years of the resurrection. Ehrman claims he never said that. I Googled it and found another scholar quoting Ehrman as agreeing that the material Paul was mentioning in the creed that he had received, was probably giving to him by Peter and James when he visited the in 37 AD.

[@truncated7644]

Could you share the url of the page where you found this? Thanks!

[@midnightwatchman1]

This is a strange passage to use to leave one's faith . it makes you wonder if it is true at all

[@bakhop]

Great job as usual. When I first heard of this controversy, I thought, "I bet the Lord gave honor to the name of the more righteous of the two men." It is in line with his teaching about the talents where the one given a little who buried it has his talent given to the one who took what he had and made good use of it. Also, if Ehrman was dissuaded from the great tradition of our faith by such a trifle as this, one wonders what could secure his faith. I have found that those who want to ditch Christianity are looking for excuses to do so in order to serve themselves in ways staying true forbids. So thanks for shedding some light on the matter.

[@MuhammadsMohel]

Yep. Reminds me of when people say they wanted to do something but you can tell they're looking for an easy out or something to feign resistance over.

[@jayt9608]

I understand where you are coming from, but I believe there is a better explanation. Ahimelech is priest during a nadir of the official priestly offices. The Ark had been captured, Shiloh sacked and razed, and the holy articles scattered. Thus the people and priest observed as best they could, but ceremonial functions were at best incomplete. Abiathar is the priest that functions much as David's personal priest during his time as outlaw and exile and thus grew in personal prominence as David's reign expanded and the Ark was brought to Jerusalem. Thus in many ways, he is a great high priest for hie role in restoring the priesthood back to its original position. When a person considers that he was both the king's personal priest and later high priest for career that lasted more more than 50 years at least. Thus I do not agree that he had to be more righteous than Ahimelech but he was more influential and better known.

[@josuearanday]

No. Wrong. If Ehrman would have said: “in the days of king Saul, when he went and ate of the bread…” it would have been the same mistake. Mark botches the name of one of the main characters by naming another, who was still alive, but wasn’t even named in the original story.

[@rogerhelou9164]

I'd love to see you debate Ehrman

[@Jim-Mc]

More KZbin apologists need to go directly at Ehrman. He doesn't hold up under even modest scrutiny.

[@jeffphelps1355]

IP is the Cadillac of apologetics

[@MuhammadsMohel]

Ehrman knows there is something cool about Jesus, he even enjoys a preacher's cadence when he preaches his debates and cites his credentials, yet he is willing to doubt and get paid because Jesus doesn't fit into his ideas of what Jesus should be. Judas.

[@smariscal24]

With that I am starting to think... that Bart Erhman do not exist.

[@paulsabo7632]

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 1 Timothy 6:3‭-‬5 KJV

[@derekofbaltimore]

Couldn't it also have been that jesus mispoke?? That is also a charitable assessment and i dont see why that would be a problem..

[@4thlegion253]

The problem is making it Wrong when in reality it isn't! Absolutely there is no problem as an external look into it just like there is no problem in believing anything

[@MAMoreno]

This is such a low-stakes contradiction in the first place that I don't see why it should matter. The reference to the Book of Samuel is still clear. The point that Jesus was making is not obscured by the issue. It is _at worst_ a tiny flub where one name was accidentally placed into the text because of its similarities to the correct name. And for all we know, it could've been a very early copyist's error rather than a mistake by Mark himself (let alone by Jesus). It's easily dismissible.

[@theophilus5132]

In my opinion, what really drives Dr. Ehrman is the problem of evil. All these other things he loves to debate and write about are really just the surface issue of the real problem. For example, Ehrman loves to highlight how many children die per day/hour of starvation. It's his existential angst against God that amplifies whatever problems he encounters in biblical scholarship or textual criticism. Watch the debate between Dr. Michael Brown vs. Dr. Bart Ehrman on the problem of evil. You can search for it here on KZbin. Great debate, and you get a good glimpse into what really drives Ehrman.

[@jonathandutra4831]

I guess Bart don't like to put in the hard work.

[@borrowedtruths6955]

How many of you believe you're actually serving Christ, when Satan has never even noticed you? Watch the short video "Noticed" by going to the red symbol to the left there.