How a Catholic Beat the World's #1 Atheist New Testament Scholar (feat Bart Ehrman)

[@ExcelsiorUnltd]

“They want to put the burden of proof on the believer” …Well… yeah

[@bodricthered]

Monsters! You may as well not allow hearsay books if you go that far!!!

[@michaelsommers2356]

That sounds like an admission that they can't meet that burden of proof.

[@mranthonymills]

And here we have Bart, who will prove that Bigfoot does NOT exist.

[@lawrencerockwood7623]

Ehrman's background as a former evangelical in central to understanding his scholarship. The fact that his focus is on the first and not the second thru third centuries is the primary case and point. He does not understand how something can be authoritative, while not historically accurate is the primary case in point. Ehrman has always been one of my favorite scholars, although he has never challenged my Catholicism. Like many of the Church Fathers, I am a Neoplatonist. Something Bart does not really address. How, for instance, can you eval the relationship of Christianity with contemporary Indic thought of you don't have an understanding of the central role of Middle and Neoplatonists in the early Church. I have always felt closer to atheists than Fundelmentalists of any religion, that is why Catholic intellectuals are not challenged by Bart.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@lawrencerockwood7623 You haven't read Ehrman's books, have you?

[@ProphetofZod]

It’s so off putting listening to Jimmy describe his own brilliance.

[@rumrunner8019]

I agree. But let's be honest here: *PLENTY* of atheists on social media do the same thing. In no way do Christians have a monopoly on feeling *EUPHORIC* about their own "intelligence."

[@thetexasliberal283]

I think that’s why he and cam get along so well

[@rainbowkrampus]

"We agree on a book. HIGH FIVE!" He has a child's concept of performing agreeableness and this is what he was glazing himself over? Oof.

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

"And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

[@joculp]

@@rainbowkrampus oof. the high five is extremely condescending. It's manipulating. If Bart doesn't return it, then he comes off as antagonistic. But by participating, he makes the whole thing seem childish.

[@Maurus200]

So a Catholic Apologyst is claiming he "won" because he had some success in manipulating Bart. He said by manipulating Bart he was essentially able to keep him from using all his data against him. By preventing damaging data from being used he won the debate. I find that kind of victory extremely flacid.

[@thomash.schwed3662]

Ah, Flaccid and Hollow! I remember them well when they were on the Borscht circuit in the Catskills. They never appealed to me because their routine always came across as weak and empty.

[@Teemie123]

But isn't Jimmy a heretic? Don't Catholics believe in the inerrancy of scripture? And I know you could wriggle and say it provides an inerrant view of the nature and character of God. And we're not talking about the whole Bible here, just the Gospels, which Catholics will not even allow laypeople to read in the service, and which appear in nearly every homily. I sat through enough sermons to know that they would be very different if a cornerstone of "orthodox" teaching were that the Gospels are "true-ish"

[@ossiedunstan4419]

@@Teemie123 True -ish is not a valid evidence for a claim, Evidence is needed for any argument , no evidence , no argument, apologists state that bible is evidence, the bible is the claim, you cannot use a claim to justify a claim, That is circular in nature. I argue with believer's by asking them to give me evidence of their god 65,000 years ago, Why my people have over 31 records of sea level rise not a global flood. Its usually a red face shame, or its a red face in anger as they know to attack me and my people they have to resort to racism derogatory comments such as i have had at me even in KZbin chat but that s ok by community guidelines. Here is hand written letter delivered by personally by the perpetrator after i brought shame to him in the local papers letters to the editor, IT IS WELL YOU SIGNED YOURSEL OSSIE DUNSTAN. YOUR OPINIONS ARE CLEARLY IMMATURE,BACKED BY VERY LITTEL EXPERIENCE OF LIFE AND EVEN LESS EDUCATION AS TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. SUGGEST YOU APPLY YOURSELF TO MATTERS THAT YOU UNDERSTAND;ALTHOUGH THE LIST MUST BE VERY SHORT. YOU MIGHT START WITH THE CERTAINTY THAT IF THIS CONTINENT(AUSTRALIA) HAD NOT BEEN PUT TO SOME USE IN THE SERVICE OF HUMANITY IN 1788 YUO WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT BE HERE. YOUR ANCESTORS( ABORIGINALS) - HAD THEY BEEN OF PURE BLOOD(WHITE)- AND OYU SURNAME SUGGESTS OTHERWISE - WOULD HAVE DIED MUCH YOUNGER- THAT IS TO SAY YUONG AS TO NOT HAVE PEODUCED(reproduced) ISSUE. THUS YUO SHOULD GIVE THANKS TO GOD THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED FROM INFANT MORTALITY , NAKED FILTH AND IGNORANCE LEADING TO EXTINCTION BY THE ARRIVAL OF CHRISTIAN CIVILASATION - HOWEVER IMPERFECT IT MAY BE - TO PUBLISH YOUR IMMATURE OPINIONS It is as was written except the bracketed reproduced. This is what coward christians are like the world over. I have not caught up with this scumbag yet , But i will. This letter was in response to me posting 5 quotes from his bible involving genocide , child rape, and the running of pregnant non believers through the stomach with bronze sword. I was actually surprised the local paper printed my letter as they are always standing up for religion.

[@WhiteScorpio2]

That's exactly why I don't watch debates.

[@Maurus200]

@@thomash.schwed3662 why do I completely forget what this is from.

[@skyganfor]

This debate took place during a huge turning point for me. I was in my transition from a Catholic to becoming an Atheist, and Jimmy Akin was one of the few apologists that kept me from leaving. This debate however was super embarrassing to watch, and Jimmy fumbled hard. Bart provided evidence and responded to criticisms from Jimmy. Jimmy however stuck to his script and didn't respond to anything Bart had to say. It just reinforced for me that Catholic Answers provides nothing more than superficial answers.

[@BobbyHill26]

The craziest part to me are all the people in the comments of the original video and I’ve seen referring to this debate in other places that think Akin absolutely stomped Ehrman when to me it looked like he completely embarrassed himself

[@davidhoffman6980]

But you forgot that Jimmy said that behind closed doors with no witnesses or recording devices, that Bart admitted defeat! 😂

[@thescoobymike]

Hello fellow excath 👋

[@louseveryann2181]

Only now?!

[@ARoll925]

Congrats

[@christopherknight4908]

"Bart Ehrman, who says he was a Christian at one point..." Apologists who talk like this need to be referred to in kind. Frank Turek, who claims to be a Christian, is a shining example.

[@lnsflare1]

@@christopherknight4908 In all fairness, I do refer to a lot of apologists who claim to have been serious atheists, then describe the most cartoonishly flanderized pulpit version of atheism imaginable, that way. Yeah, Lee Strobel, I'm sure that you really got to adulthood and never heard even the most basic of basics about the dominant religion of your nation, back during an era where being an open atheist was much more heavily frowned upon than it is now. Sure, Kirk Cameron, I'm sure you had a very nuanced and considered grasp of atheism, even though you were famous for using your Christian fundamentalism to make life unbearable for everyone else on the set of Growing Pains back when you were a famous teen heart-throb. On an unrelated note, I wonder how Cameron feels after seeing how well Leonardo DiCaprio has done for himself in the intervening decades.

[@ossiedunstan4419]

Frank Turek is a racist and is racist to me and the entire Australian Aboriginal civilisation which is over 65,000 years old, But yankee apologists won`t debate me .

[@axer3515]

@@christopherknight4908 I believe they are all fakes. They never share their doubt that they all because they think it will let others see the truth.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@ossiedunstan4419 _"...the entire Australian Aboriginal civilisation which is over 65,000 years old."_ No offense meant, but how exactly did they civilize?

[@borkabrak]

I personally find that to be a more honest way to express it. Isn't Christianity at its heart supposed to be being like Christ? Most people who claim Christianity are just playing in a sandbox of pretty ideas.

[@publiusii4246]

Its kind a sad. Bart:"I liked this guy he was nice." Apologist:"So my first strategy was to build a report with Bart so he wouldn't eviscerate my credibility on stage in front of everyone." So you weren't nice cuz you're a nice person. You were nice cuz you're a sociopath.

[@CUtz143]

That’s Christian love for you, unless they can get something out of it they won’t be nice.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@CUtz143 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26-27)

[@Aryasvitkona]

To be fair to the apologist, Bart said they had a decent discussion beforehand too. So he likely was nice generally, but on stage he did play it up to make Bart look unreasonable if he was too aggressive. Definitely not a sociopath but absolutely slimey

[@n0etic_f0x]

Yeah... like. This is why I just can't trust Christians, I want to, but I can't.

[@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104]

@@EvilXtianity very culty.

[@anchitbose4151]

People think silence refers to defeat but sometimes certain arguments of apologists are so stupid that responding to them is a waste of time and energy

[@WhatDreamsMayCome10Z]

Gotta get a win where you can. Even if it’s one you made up in your head.

[@dilanbrinkley3587]

I find myself using silence as a response more often lately. It can be decently effective at conveying several negative reactions 😂

[@battleboozex]

It's why the Gish Gallop is popular in this kind of debate. Just throw so much bullcrap out there and then claim victory when your opposite doesn't have a quick answer to all of your madness. It's way easier to spout dogma than truth, and dogma is all the religious side has to offer.

[@alisaurus4224]

From Sense & Sensibility: “[Man talks a load of nonsense at her] Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.”

[@MossyMozart]

@@battleboozex - That explains the trumpian method of public speaking - an avalanche of lies that sane rationals cannot respond to in 2 minutes.

[@Rurike]

Not even a minute in and im annoyed at the need to intro bart with "who SAYS he was a christian". Already a need to not only poison the well by implying deciet but just keeping up that tired argument that anyone who leaves christianity was secretly never one to begin with.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Maybe people should start saying that people like Mike Winger and Lee Strobel who claimed they were former atheists.

[@YTUSER69887]

Strobel never was, at least not as he presented it. His own friends and family outed him for lying about his militant atheism. He was a Deacon in his church before he wrote his book. He invented the militant atheist narrative to make it more marketable. ​@@Lobsterwithinternet

[@YTUSER69887]

Strobel never was. He fabricated the entire militant atheism narrative. His own friends and family outed him as making it up, he was a Deacon in his church for years. ​@@Lobsterwithinternet

[@bmlgmk]

That’s Frank Turek for ya. Among the snarkiest, self-important apologists out there.

[@ARoll925]

@@bmlgmk garbage, garbage human, Everytime I hear a clip from his show with the cognitive dissonance music playing I get confused for a second

[@mdm123196]

So Catholic apologists are just as intellectually dishonest as evangelical apologists.... who didn't see that coming?

[@Kyeudo]

It turns out that you can't have intellectual honesty if you "know" the answer before you've researched the question.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Well they are reading from the same playbook.

[@tripolarmdisorder7696]

Gotta lie for Jeebus.

[@diegog1853]

Yeah I mean... apologism I don't think is an honest position to begin with in any circumsntance. When you first pretend a proposition is true and then you try to defend it in anyway possible. I mean it is kind of fine as an intellectual excercise, but as a profession to actually try to convince people of the thing you presuppose I think it is quite dishonest and ugly.

[@francisnopantses1108]

Raises hand. I was raised Catholic. Always have been. There are non crappy Catholic theologians but the ones the bishops like are the intellectually dishonest ones.

[@facundotorres175]

Apologists love lying about scholars like they will never find out, sometimes straight to their faces

[@spacemoose4726]

If the Spiderman analogy doesn't work because we all agree Spiderman wasn't a real person, then just use Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter instead.

[@robertwarner-ev7wp]

Lincoln DID hunt vampires, I saw a documentary about it.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@spacemoose4726 But what if I claim he was?

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

​@@Lobsterwithinternetcitation needed?

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

It was a secret project of the War Department.

[@Cyrathil]

This is where I think the Mythicism-vs-Historian issue goes off the rails. Is Bart Ehrman saying there's never been a Peter Parker in New York? Over the last ~30 years, no one named Peter Parker has existed? That's not a massively different claim than the historical account of Jesus' actual existence was. Sure, there's all these mythical accounts *of* Peter Parker that claim all these very fanciful events, but strip all that away... Yeah, we all get that the Peter Parker *in the Spiderman tales* doesn't exist, just like Bart probably doesn't believe there was a guy who walked on water, cast demons out of people into pigs, brought people back to life, turned water into wine, was bodily resurrected, etc... despite there being a guy who existed that the later claims became about.

[@letefte]

“I knew I was going to do well”. This must be the christian humility I’ve been hearing about.

[@lovealive4382]

🤣 Exactly

[@Lerian_V]

It's confidence.

[@magicker8052]

The smugness of the whole thing was sickening

[@Kris_M]

Someone "winning" or "losing" a debate doesn't show whether they are correct or not, it just shows who's the better debater or how biased the environment was. Can people just stop bringing up winning or losing a debate?

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

Debates are useful in matters of public opinion. They are not an appropriate venue for different views about science or scholarship. That's what peer reviewed journals are for.

[@lucyferos205]

It used to be about the facts, back when Socrates started popularizing them. Then Sophism and rhetoric developed to essentially cheat debates.

[@johnnehrich9601]

True. People can "win" debates by being able to counter arguments with facts OR tap-dance so fast their feet - and their tongue - are a blur. Often good debaters are the ones most dogmatic, while the ones who are nuanced - but see the bigger picture - can seem to hesitant or don't have enough time for a complete response. If debates were trying to convince a limited select set of listeners, like say a jury, who would vote afterwards yes or no, that would be one thing. In order to claim who won or lost, should we poll everyone in the specific audience, or some set of all who hear the debate on KZbin? If the audience was say 100% Catholic and afterwards, 10% changed their mind, does that count as a win or do the 90% who haven't been swayed count in the opposite way?

[@terryleddra1973]

I've never seen a debate yet where both sides didn't claim victory.

[@fepeerreview3150]

Yes. This is why I mostly don't watch debates. It's not a format that promotes thoughtful and informed analysis of problems. For example, there's no time in that context to do appropriate research before answering a question. One must already know the answer and have it ready. But very few people can be that knowledgeable and that prepared, especially when the other person is gish galloping, tossing out irrelevant questions, demanding references, etc. A debate should be limited to one narrow question, the Oxford Style Debate. That sort of thing can sometimes yield worthwhile information.

[@shassett79]

Jerusalem existed. Therefore, the Bible is reliable. Therefore, Jesus actually rose from the dead and flew into heaven. QED

[@utubepunk]

That's just science.

[@EvilXtianity]

_"Therefore, Jesus actually rose from the dead and flew into heaven."_ You omitted the sun going dark for three hours and the corpses and skeletons rising out of graves and walking into town to "appear to many".

[@Julian0101]

Ngl, i never expected seeing a chris tian to embrace the spiderman analogy.

[@shassett79]

​@@EvilXtianityOh yeah, that's also true, obviously. I mean... we all know Jerusalem existed, right?

[@shassett79]

​@@Julian0101The Spiderman argument is a deliberate provocation, but it definitely parallels an argument Christians actually make.

[@tribequest9]

Well since Kings Cross station exist I guess Harry Potter is real

[@riseofdarkleela]

I have been to Platform 9-3/4!

[@deviouskris3012]

My daughter was able to find sacred Hufflepuff robes. Further supporting evidence.

[@Sableagle]

There's a robe-and-wand shop with a broom parking rack by the door near me.

[@krelios]

"Reliability is a spectrum, however I think I've tricked Bart into agreeing to debate a false dichotomy." -- Dishonest Interlocuter

[@jaya1305]

There are only two types of people in this world: Those who think in false dichotomies, and penguins!

[@metanoeo4]

"Only a Christian deals in absolutes"

[@archapmangcmg]

Frank Turek "Are the Gospels reliable or unreliable?" It's SO on-brand for Frank to confuse a binary for a spectrum!

[@bensrandomshows1482]

Omfg that's amazing

[@jamesheartney9546]

"So where do you draw the line?" Why draw a line?

[@Dr_Wrong]

Confuse a spectrum for a binary.. I think..

[@archapmangcmg]

@@Dr_Wrong Either way. And let's not forget that Turek himself had the kind of "mutilation" surgery he claims is so bad. Dude had breast reduction surgery.

[@Dr_Wrong]

@@archapmangcmg Did he?? omglmao Is that true? My anti-bias makes me auto-sus facts/conclusions I like.. Do you have any verification I can check? omgplzsayyes.. 😜🤣

[@Jeagan2002]

Honestly, the Spider-man analogy works a LOT better if you start from Peter Parker. We can all agree that at some point there was probably some dude in New York named Peter Parker. What we CAN'T agree on is whether or not he got bit by a radioactive spider and got super powers. We can all agree there was probably some dude named Jesus, but we can't agree whether he got magical God powers because his mom got impregnated by someone other than her husband.

[@Julian0101]

@@Jeagan2002 The thing is that most chris tians don't even touch Peter Parker, they go from 'new york' and therefore 'spiderman'.

[@TremendousSax]

Exactly. The supernatural claims contaminate the alleged reliability of the gospels. They're not even consistent among each other with the details of the resurrection. It's such a silly debate

[@brianhurd3355]

I personally like the Spider-Man analogy too, although it tends to only work at the very surface level - I have seen it muddied significantly by the addition of "and we also know there was a guy named Stan Lee that claimed to have invented a fictional Spider-Man, whereas the gospels are presented as true events by people who firmly believed them" - at that point we're debating on the differences in the analogy and it loses relevance.

[@lucyferos205]

​@@brianhurd3355 Well, we know the gospels were the product of oral transmission and includes supernatural elements, making them myths by definition. I don't see how that's much different from Stan Lee writing fiction, honestly.

[@Dr_Wrong]

Well, at least the translated gospels are mostly spelled right.. that’s reliability!!.. /s

[@kennymartin5976]

"When examining the gospels, don't be Mr. Spock" 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

[@AmmonRa-wm5kc]

Keep up the good work! Been following your videos for a long time now. You helped me in my transition into a mindset away from Christian fundamentalism to a mindset of reality.

[@Paulogia]

I'm go glad to have been some part in finding your way out of the maze.

[@realLsf]

If you have to plan how nice you are & how you’re going to act, you’re already loosing I asked a Christian a question & said, “I don’t know”. Now, that was a miracle

[@al4nmcintyre]

Oh so *that's* what happened to Yosemite Sam--he became a Catholic apologist!

[@rembrandt972ify]

No, dash-blam it. Just wait a gall-ding dang durn minute here.

[@Basta11]

People can win debates and be wrong. Getting scholarly consensus means that your idea has pretty strong evidence for being truth.

[@KendraAndTheLaw]

Consensus can also be a manifestion of groupthink and gate-keeper-ism

[@Basta11]

@ we are all human. We are all subject to group think, even evidence based scholars. But as far as gatekeeping, no one is prevented from acquiring competence in these fields and presenting hypothesis. The issue seems that people who do not have actual competence present their hypothesis and expect them to be at the same level or beyond as those that do.

[@Basta11]

@ yes, unlike religious people who are all independent logical evidence based thinkers.

[@geckofeet]

Historical context: The Dodgers did used to be a New York team, specifically a Brooklyn one. There are probably still people alive who are bitter about their move.

[@whatevername8551]

If the Christian god is so perfect and omni, then 100% reliability is the requirement not a spectrum

[@niekesselbrugge1132]

This. Absolutely This.

[@njhoepner]

Exactly. It's amazing whenever these apologists have to defend something they can't defend, they suddenly bring the almighty down and start using purely human excuses for him.

[@MossyMozart]

@@njhoepner - He had to wash his beard; his socks were in the drier; his chariot of fire melted his tires; he dropped his keys down the toilet; Mormon missionaries came to the door and he just couldn't get away; the pot roast burned; he lost his glasses; a police officer stopped him for speeding, not wearing his glasses, and driving on burnt tires; he found Adam & Eve under the bushes trying to create a new species of people; the cat threw up a furball; he had to get his foot x-rayed when a Nephilim stepped on him; the address was in his other holy raiment - the usual.

[@niekesselbrugge1132]

@@njhoepner or they start tell outright lies or they twist data to suit their agenda

[@johnstrong3029]

Since the debate was not about the perfection of the Christian God, then a more nuanced perspective acknowledging a spectrum of reliability is perfectly appropriate.

[@sobertillnoon]

Hahaha. Bro didn't want what happened to White to happen to him so he had to go out of his way to just be normal nice to Bart. What a self own.

[@bengreen171]

wow. I thought Texans were all OIl guys - but it seems Jimmy is well into his gaslighting.

[@jdevlin1910]

A+ comment

[@bengreen171]

@@secretgoldfish931 thankyou.

[@bengreen171]

@@jdevlin1910 I have to admit to feeling slightly smug about how it turned out. Cheers.

[@ZenWithKen]

So according to Jimmy's point of view, the fact that the Spiderman movies portray New York with 100% accuracy gives the argument that Spiderman is real, validity. I see.

[@bob-e5z]

The gist of spider-man is true

[@Sableagle]

Are you saying you don't believe in spiders?

[@jeffreyjdesir]

Idk…Spider-Man isn’t even supernatural but fringe science so you’d be less irrational taking the events as plausible given an understanding of reality than the Bible, since “sin” and “holiness” aren’t real.

[@ZenWithKen]

@@jeffreyjdesir Fringe science would cover it for sure, but then I'd put a dude resurrecting under that category as well, e.g. Frankenstein. It made for good fireside stories until someone ruined it by believing it actually happened. If sin were real, that belief would be it.

[@philiptoner8719]

The idea that the gospel writers were trying to convey a historical event is pure speculation at best and better categorized as wishful thinking

[@Petticca]

Mark sets up a reason to have female characters going to the tomb, because they'd need help to move the stone (or it wouldn't be shocking at all if the idea wasn't fresh in the mind there) and then he had them running away telling NO ONE. I need no more evidence that this was not ever supposed to pass as historical, factual or anything of the sort. Matthew, Luke and John are comical expansive fan fiction, whether or not they expected people to take the story to be factual, or historic is neither here nor there at that point, to me.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@Petticca _"Mark sets up a reason to have female characters going to the tomb, because..."_ Nope. The original version of the oldest gospel of Mark did not originally include any appearances of Jesus after the women visited the tomb on Easter morning. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one. The later Gospels made up the resurrection fiction and that was then also added to Mark from the Luke version 1,500 years later during the King James project to harmonize the Gospels.

[@amyself6678]

the godpel writers in 70ad were greek jews who just saw romans burn temple and most israelis to ash, in great uprising. they desperately felt need for some idea more than judaism, which clearly had failed. like with babylon exile for each jewish catastrophe after they rewrite half their religion. after babylon they decided canaan and temple were not important and totally got rid of lesser gods and half bought into Darius view of good vs evil balance. judaism changes, it doesnt need a magic man just a disaster killing half.

[@nemdenemam9753]

Dont know about the other three but 'Luke' starts his by explicitly saying that he is collecting an account of what happened.

[@michaelsbeverly]

6:14 "trying to be nice." Christian apologetics, and in fact much of Christianity (not all), in a nutshell. Faking for faith. Gross.

[@dohpam1ne]

"So I decided to use Bart's own work against him... he seemed pretty caught off guard by that" I'm not sure if Jimmy knows, but this tactic is used by practically every apologist in every debate ever.

[@immxmax]

The amount of selective quotes from The Origin of Species alone...

[@dohpam1ne]

@@immxmax Dawkins's quote "The universe has precisely the properties we would expect if it were governed by nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" also gets a crazy amount of mileage.

[@banjofangirl3458]

​@@dohpam1nestill a crazy ass quote

[@LarryThePhotoGuy]

Bart's claim: A compendium Bronze Age and Iron Age stories cannot be taken as accurate without first showing that they match what is known of history and reality. Jimmy's claim: The Bible is accurate because it gets the gist of these stories kind of right and the details don't matter. Good job Jimmy! Ding, ding, ding!

[@amyself6678]

Basically no court would allow in quadruple hearsay by anonymous writers. especially when some church picked the 4 gospels from among 100 different writings. .a judge would laugh and throw out the case. common sense knows fan fic is about being exciting and writers crave success, they go for feels not facts. Washington never cut down a cherry tree but we almost believe that, before writing we d grab that fact and put cherries on our flag as history of how miracle of revolution kicked out superpower britain. jesus and jews got killed by romans eventually, Washington won, he is more likely the son of god.

[@joshuagies4900]

Even the clips where he's being "kind" and asking for a round of applause he sounds condescending.

[@zeemon9623]

It did have a lot of "For once in his life he did the smart thing which is to agree with me (who is correct by the way)" energy.

[@turnerturner3281]

And still continues to gloat about being "the only person Bart has ever high fived during a debate!" What an absolute tool.

[@sworddemonboggle1491]

So, according to Jimmy’s opening statement, he also accepts or at least admits that there are aspects of the gospels that are historically reliable and historically unreliable. Therefore, the Bible is KINDA historically reliable. If he doesn’t like this misnomer, then he needs to take it up with the Bible, not the standards for historical reliability

[@Oswlek]

*"He would point out that there was a Jesus"* And that would be a red herring because the tactic of using the mundane to demonstrate the miraculous applies equally to both. The fact that the two of you agree Jesus is more likely to be a real person than Peter Parker doesn't change this in any way.

[@jacoblee5796]

Agreed, Bart completely misses the point.

[@sterlinggibson6143]

Not a good sign when one of the participants is focused on debating the person instead of the argument.

[@richunixunix3313]

Paulugia, I have listened to your videos for the last four years and I will state what I think about you. I believe your research, presentation. Are right up there with those who have PhD’s.. Keep up the good work.

[@Paulogia]

Wow, thank you

[@Finfie]

Just spend 5 minutes trying to clean my monitor because i saw a black spot on screen, just to realize that Barts cartoon avatar has a black pixel on his cheek....

[@brianhurd3355]

Bart Ehrman always seems like a pleasant guy to me, so I wonder about how it comes off to those who still are believers when they see him on Paulogia. Seeing Turek frame a false dichotomy followed by Akin leading with "Here are the gambits and stratagems I employed to defeat the fabled Ehrman" - it just felt mean-spirited and disingenuous. Mind you my quote only relays the "gist" of what he said. ;D

[@Dr_Wrong]

Reliable opinion right there..

[@angusmcculloch6653]

I don't understand this line of critique. Debate is a contest. It's been understood this way since the ancient Greeks, who wrote and taught lessons on how to debate. Debate was always seen as employing logos, ethos, and pathos simultaneously. Lessons included tactics on how to manipulate the crowd's emotions and how to manipulate your opponent's emotions. It also includes using logos and ethos to try and favorably frame the debate. That's always been a part of debate, which is why people since Socrates have said debate isn't necessarily the best way to ascertain truth. So, again, I don't understand critiquing a person who is in a debate for playing by the rules that have been part of debate since ancient Greece. And I write this as someone who did debate in high school and college.

[@brianhurd3355]

@@angusmcculloch6653 - Fair and valid. As Socrates (or at least Plato) denounced sophistry to win court cases irrespective of the truth, so do I for this subject matter. Assuming at least some of the audience is watching debate as a means to determine the truth of an argument or viewpoint, actively employing the sophist methods to mislead or ensnare, for the purpose of "winning," feels ignoble to me. Granted I am not a person who did debate, so you rightly point out that I may be misunderstanding the point of it.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

@@brianhurd3355 This also assumes Ehrman himself was not employing rhetorical strategies, which strikes me as a naive position given he is an experienced debater. In fact, in the last question of the 2016 debate with Michael Bird, Ehrman realizes he's made a verbal misstep and tries to recover it. In short, he employs rhetorical strategy to try and win the point. The difference is he just didn't make a video saying, "These are the rhetorical strategies I employed." So, again, to say one is a sophist and one is not when they are both engaged in debate is unconvincing for me.

[@brianhurd3355]

@@angusmcculloch6653 - Thank you for sharing your knowledge and perspective on this. I concede that Ehrman certainly uses rhetoric as well, and just as much of it may prove ignoble to me if I could easily identify it. To my original wondering though, would you say Ehrman seemed to believers as Akin seemed to me? I can say I've been swayed by debate on topics I wasn't sure of, but only when I felt the 'winner' (in my mind) was correct and truthful. Perhaps I've been naive?

[@hermenutic]

I enjoyed this. Thanks for sharing.

[@garysan]

Hey Paul, do you name your titles in such a way to click bait the theists into watching? It seems really smart, keep it up!

[@ariellalima7229]

I find it funny that most apologists are so passive-aggressive when them mention Ehrman: "...renowned in CERTAIN circles..."

[@donparker4521]

Why didn’t they stay at their second home in Bethlehem instead of staying in a stable?

[@PeteOtton]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp They forgot they had let it out on JBNB, so it wasn't available.

[@donparker4521]

@@PeteOtton Well there was a lotta people in Bethlehem for the census that never was, I guess that makes sense,… 😂 U funny. Ty! May everyone come to be disabused of evil. ☮️ & ❤️

[@rustkitty]

Me: Sure, I guess. Let's get edified! [gets edified] Ed: Hmm, this feels very strange...

[@Dexrazor]

This made me exhale sharply from my nostrils, take my like damnit

[@aaronbredon2948]

A horse is a horse, of course, of course And no one can talk to a horse, of course That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed

[@MossyMozart]

@@aaronbredon2948 - Now, _THERE'S_ a stable genius for you!

[@mattm8870]

What I get from this is the reliability debate is completely pointless since both Jimmy and Bart agree that the Gospels are a mixture reliable and unreliable information. With Jimmy only seeming to win because of his trickery in hiding that he in fact threw in the towel at the start.

[@philw6056]

If New York City is real at least the gist of Spiderman is real, too. And if the gist of it is true, his superpowers are proven. Q.e.d

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@philw6056 That also means the Avengers are real too, therefore the Norse Gods are real.

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

4:40 Seems somewhat odd, hearing Jimmy giving aid and comfort to James White. James White, Calvinist, who most certainly has a thing or two to say about Catholicism, that James White, right?

[@justalffie]

Is the apologist confessing and admitting that him being nice was performative and not genuine?! Just based on their worldview that cant be ok can it?

[@skyinou]

Are you sure about that? Turek will tell you that doing good for the sake of going to heaven isn't only good, but is the only way and reason to be good...

[@justalffie]

@skyinou sounds very much like what Turek would do .. reminds me a lot about a certain someone saying "if I have to say a lie to bring attention to something " 😅🤣.. ends justifies the means I guess to them 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@bob-e5z]

Whatever it takes to bring people into your cult, i mean save souls.

[@francisnopantses1108]

​@justalffie you know that's pretty crazy-- when I was in Catholic catechism and doctrine class I was told in no uncertain terms that the ends NEVER justify the means. We asked the priest about Anne Frank and he waffled. But he would not even clearly say that it was permissible to lie to save a human life. (Most Jews would say that it is.) So it's kind of amazing to have a Catholic apologist arguing that the end justify the means. I guess it's the Crusader loophole. They committed killings, but it was okay because they were advancing the faith.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@justalffie 1st Corinthians 9:19-23 19For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

[@MrsMarchelewski]

I love that Akins is celebrating "winning" this debate not on actual information, or good analysis, but on his misleading tactics.

[@davidnrose2135]

Could just ask Jimmy if the Qur'an is as reliable as the gospels. I'm sure he'd become a bit more critical then

[@markrothenbuhler6232]

Maybe the strategy should have been there are actually dozens of gospels rather than just four. They get increasingly unreliable as compared to other earlier written gospels. That does not mean that one late gospel account did not also have something reliable in it. Instead the line is drawn in the sand and apologists will reconcile all of the contradictions in the four canonical ones, but throw all of the rest under the bus. It seems very arbitrary.

[@Julian0101]

Well, there are four gospels because the bible mentions 'the four corners of the world'. Though it is fun seeing all the mental gymnastics apologists have to just for that arbitrary choice.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@Julian0101That's what Iraenius said.

[@merbst]

​@@Julian0101 Are you saying "the four corners of the world" isn't an apologetic?

[@egonomics352]

There are more gospels. For early Christian communities in Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia, the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, and Gospel of Phillip were just as legitimate and valid.

[@jessicamilare178]

I honestly think that argument is terrible. First, all surviving non-canonical gospels were written at least 50 years after the Gospel of John and, as a rule of thumb, they contain much more spectacular (full of miracles, etc), legendary and even anachronistic reports. Second, the historical reliability of later gospels have no bearing on the historical reliability of the canonical gospels. Take, for example, Cleopatra. There are many legends and unreliable material about her, but that has no bearing on whether Plutarch's and Josephus' reports about Cleopatra are accurate. If you claim that the Gospel of Mark cannot be historically reliable because the Gospel of Peter, written almost a hundred years later, contains a giant walking talking cross, I mean, come on, you obviously would be helping your opponent's case.

[@CUtz143]

Paul is the only person I have notifications on for, every video I watch as soon as I can! Quality content as usual guys, thank you for all your hard work!

[@MrBigolbear]

I have been looking for platform 9 3/4 for years...maybe I am in the wrong London. 😂

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Have you tried London, IN? Or New London, CT?

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

The films were part of a disinformation campaign.

[@Izurag]

Ah, good to know Pints with Aquinas agrees that the overall gist of the Bible is kinda reliable! I'm sure this resonates perfectly with his theology and understanding of God and Christianity!

[@DoubleAAmazin]

I don't think you've won a debate until the guy you're debating changes his mind and agrees with you.

[@DoctorBiobrain]

Yeah, I’m sick of debating people who think they’re the judge and prosecutor of a debate who get to decide all the terms of the debate including who has the Burden of Proof and what arguments are valid, then proclaim themselves the winner if you can’t convince them they’re wrong to their satisfaction. But…if you aren’t the one proving your point, the best you can do is say the other side didn’t prove their point. You don’t win by default if you didn’t prove your point. That’s why smart people WANT the Burden of Proof and dumb people think it’s a trick. If you’re not the one proving your side, you can defeat the other side but you can’t win.

[@cipherklosenuf9242]

Winning or Losing would require a formal debate with judges and an assessment rubric. It’s a rhetorical exercise. One can also debate as in having a vigorous discussion about a controversial topic. Changing minds doesn’t matter. It’s about exchanging views. It’s engaging to participate in and challenging but it’s not about winning or losing. People will tend to keep their opinions anyway.

[@lyleneander2100]

How hard would it be to simply describe Bart as "former Christian ", instead of implying that he was never a Christian, but masquerading as one. Typical of apologists.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Because they can't admit that someone could be a real Christian and renounce their faith.

[@Shasarazad]

I really enjoy the videos you make with Bart.

[@facundotorres175]

13:00 holy shit, talk about low bar bill this guy is going subterranean!

[@jdm5570]

So let me get this right, he manipulated the rules of debate, personally manipulated the doctor and generally just acted in bad faith to try to score points. How is this a win? This is insanely duplicitous.

[@ballasog]

I don't think it was. He looked crazy, so if that's true none of his behavior was necessarily intentional deception.

[@Dr_Wrong]

This “I wanna be a cowboy” dude sounds contrived, manipulative, and superficial.

[@x1PMac1x]

Circling the wagons on each side of these debates can be cringe, but the religious apologists take it to new heights. They just hate to admit that they are defending the most famous case of a work of fiction creating an immense following of the gullible.

[@ARoll925]

If Mary and Joseph had a vacation home in Bethlehem, why the hell were they looking for a room at the inn?, that is wild

[@RaycrowX]

Their heat was out and Joseph hadn’t gotten around to fixing it. Mary was pissed.

[@SomeUniqueHandle]

They'd rented it out as a B&B that week and couldn't afford to refund the rental fees.

[@Crimenocerous]

Almost spit out my coffee at the “everyone who questions the bible is wrong, duh”

[@GrumpiestKevin]

12:05 only at the beginning of the debate so this may be covered but reliability is more than yes or no, and can cover multiple areas. Is the Bible a reliably relate history about the times it talks about? Mostly no. Is it a relable indication a god exists, hell no. Does it offer reliable predictions about the future? Hahahahaha. No.

[@ufpride83]

Every apologist’s debate strategy is to play the shell game with words. That whole word salad about the reliability of the gospel and the use of the words gist and historicity interchangeably so much that at the end he concludes that “gist” and “historically reliable” are the exact same thing is a perfect example of this word shell game

[@EricMcLuen]

The DaVinci Code accurately describes works of art. Therefore, the interpretations of their symbolism is reliable.

[@GeistView]

Using the Catholic Apologist logic, in the comics of Spiderman exists the city of New York. According to the Apologist, because New York City exists then Spiderman stories are True.

[@kimkingsun7315]

And Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones etc.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@kimkingsun7315 Then The Avengers also exists, meaning that Thor and the Norse Gods are real too.

[@kimkingsun7315]

@Lobsterwithinternet exactly

[@dacritter8397]

Somehow I am reminded of pigeons and chess pieces...

[@Esch-a-ton3]

“He was not charitable” because he called out my lack of scholarship. Actually, correction is one of the highest forms of charity.

[@lnsflare1]

Miracles can be proven to not have happened, depending on whether or not the muscle should have left evidence, like how Noah's flood has no evidence of ever actually having happened even though it should have left massive amounts of unavoidable evidence over literally every inch of the surface of the Earth.

[@carlgranados7106]

The problem with the gospels and all holy books is that everyone picks and chooses what they want to follow and what to ignore with their "faith". My favorite example is Mathew 19: 23-26. What true believer is going to share his money and success with the poor as Christ suggests? Plenty more from the gospels I can pull out but you get the point.

[@roberthawes3093]

James White is notoriously arrogant. Personally, I'm glad Bart eviscerated him in that portion of their debate. Frank and Jimmy, as apologists you're pretty much already professional contortionists, but I'm afraid you're going to dislocate something if you keep reaching around to pat yourselves on the back like this.

[@cygnustsp]

Two decades ago Jehovah's Witness Greg Stafford crushed James White in a debate. Sadly Greg left the JWs and became somewhat of a jerk and cult leader.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@cygnustspCan't have two cult leaders in the same cult.

[@ethanf.237]

Religious believer here! I think Akin quite clearly lost this debate, and it's disheartening to see so many Christians acting as though he was the clear victor. Great video!

[@NomdeGuerre90]

Genuinely curious. What is the main reason you believe?

[@Mercury-Wells]

Confirmation bias is common among the faithful. Well done for being better than that.

[@johnnygnash2253]

Same here. I'm a Christian, and Jimmy's approach just seemed silly and disingenuous, starting with that ridiculous high-five. Jimmy is taller than Bart and he smacked him unnecessarily hard. I guess that's supposed to demonstrate dominance, hence winning? Being kinda goofy - if that's all you've got - doesn't translate to a "trouncing" win in a debate.

[@deaahimm6334]

Yeah. Ok.

[@ethanf.237]

@@deaahimm6334 Very substantive contribution

[@archapmangcmg]

Tolkien was a literary genius, too, but we don't believe in hobbits so I don't see a problem with talking of the genius of the Book of Acts.

[@davidhoffman6980]

I'm really confused about Joseph owning a summer home in Bethlehem. If he was wealthy enough to own property in two towns, then why did he make his wife ride on a donkey instead of a carriage? And why did he make her give birth in a stable and put his step son in a feeding trough? Why didn't he just have a home birth? Was he trying to punish Mary?

[@Jcs57]

He was operating under divine influences in order to establish a narrative from which authors could gain influence and inspiration for writing future Christmas songs.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

​@@Jcs57or in other words... even before they were written down the gospel tried hard to push as many "fuldilled prophecies" into the narrative as possible, even when it obviously makes no sense...

[@code-skeptic]

If you go out after a debate and admit that you behaved strategically in order to win rhetorically, it automatically discredits the idea that you won because the truth was on your side. Very unwise

[@SantoAtheos]

Fun fact Pope Benedict aka Joseph Ratzinger was quite the Catholic Apologist. I read several things he wrote long before he was world famous

[@tomsenior7405]

I am done with Apologist claims. They claim so much and demonstrate Feck all. The same stories, the same lies. Sod the lot of them.

[@Jcs57]

They start with a presumption introduce it through empty claims support it with bald assertions and use circular arguments to reference their sources. The god of fallacies is beyond convincing which adds legitimacy to the Omni attributes. 🙄

[@tomsenior7405]

@@Jcs57 Agreed.

[@jamiegallier2106]

❤❤❤ Seven minutes in: Even the niceness is a ploy with them, and they see nothing wrong with manipulating people and gaining trust that way.

[@amateuroverlord8007]

Ok it’s very laughable that the Gospel are trying to give you the “gist” accounts and not necessarily meant to be 100% accurate. So and all powerful God’s plan to give us the message for salvation that we are supposed to live by, that the faith of where our soul will go to for all eternity, and the best the God has to offer is just the “ gist”. Give me a break.

[@l0rf]

I like Paul Ehrmann a lot, he's very pleasant to have in the show. But I disagree there with him, like you seem to, that these writings are historically accurate.

[@lllllliiillllll]

@@l0rf 32:03

[@joed1950]

This was not a debate. Mr. Akin used his time to talk to his audience. He was not talking to Mr. Ehrman but he was simply educating his people. This is sad yet typical of believers, they do not talk to the opponent. Certainly Mr. Ehrman knows this. and, Mr. Akin was, with body language, making lite or making fun of the whole discussion and to many of his people he showed how ridiculous it is to think anyone could be an atheist.

[@scienceexplains302]

*Akins and Joseph’s two homes* Akins tried to argue that Joseph had two homes, thus justifying traveling to Bethlehem from Nazareth for the land registration. It depended on weak arguments and Bart refuted him well. I went into it a little further in my notes, which I can post here. Matthew and Luke disagreed on whether Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth. The key to this "home" contradiction is Matthew 2:23 vs Luke 2:39. Akins values his post-biblical univocality over the content of the Bible.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

The major discrepancy I see in the story is where Joseph takes them to Egypt in Matthew and goes home to Nazareth in Luke. These can't be reconciled.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Why would they end up in the ancient equivalent of a Motel Garage if they had a house just a few meters further? That's "who ordered the Code Red" territory of self contradicting.

[@Marconius6]

13:15 If the gospels are only supposed to be reliable for the gist of things, and not details, then Christians should probably stop using minute details or exact wordings of a single passage to judge people...

[@goldenalt3166]

Every scam is based on reliability of the claims they make to get you involved.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@goldenalt3166 Or at least the believability of those claims they make.

[@blairmcian]

Ehrman's point about definitions is very important. Folks I have argued with often resort to a sort of "proof by definition." For instance, they argue based on the obvious fallacy that two things that can be referred to by a particular word must be the same thing.

[@Jcs57]

I’m sorry did he suggest that I have the burden to prove I don’t believe his god construct? If that’s where we are I have all kinds of bald assertions I can introduce that he would have the burden to disprove. 🙄

[@robertpearson5410]

For the most important thing in the world, according to Christians, the gist is acceptable.

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

To resolve the birth narrative contradictions Jimmy wildly speculated the holy family had two houses. Since Jimmy opened the door to speculation I would suggest two play. Matthew and Luke had the same source for the basic elements of the birth narrative. Both authors fictionalized additional elements for their own reasons. Also a plausible explanation for the contradictory elements in each narrative.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@SergeantSkeptic686 In the early history of church martyrs, I keep running into situations where two or more towns will claim to be their hometown so they can claim their remains and the prestigious honor of being home to a martyr. Eventually, they both split the martyr's bones between the two places and both get to claim to be the home and resting place of the martyr. I figured the same thing happened to Jesus: Nobody knew where Jesus came from and nobody cared until the fall of the temple made it favorable to claim to be his home. Two primary claimants arose, both for theological reasons, and claimed to be the hometown of Jesus. Later writers tried to consolidate the narrative by claiming he came from both to legitimize him to a gentile audience.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

The weird thing is that both Nazareth and Bethlehem being even mentioned seem to have agenda driven roots (Nazareth to fulfil the nazirite comment in one supposed prophecy, Bethlehem to Tag back to "house of David" in another), which leaves the mentionmi Kapernaum in one of the gospels the only unmotivat3d hometown, and more likely to predate the editing process adding the many prophetic citations to the underlying story

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

@@Lobsterwithinternet Your idea is speculative. It's plausible, but not necessarily true. . It's also possible Jesus was known to be from Nazareth. The Messiah is supposed to be born in Bethlehem. The gospel authors were motivated to get _Jesus of Nazareth_ to be born in Bethlehem. They fictionalized different stories for that purpose.

[@edgarmatzinger9742]

The ony question in the original debate was: Are the gospels historically reliable? Should've been a short debate as the answer is resounding NO.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Or at least "not always" if you go by the standard touched upon in the debate... Which means you no longer can rely on everything being reliable just because it appears in the gospel and need to assess every claim on its own merit... like the Zombie apocalypse breaking out in Jerusalem, not even being known to the other 3 gospels. 😮

[@torreyintahoe]

In the debate, Jimmy never gave a reasonable explanation for the discrepancies of what Joseph and Mary did after Jesus' birth. Also, while Jimmy pointed out the issues they agreed on, the two don't agree on the most important feature of the gospels, the resurrection. I would also say that the reliability of the gospels is a spectrum not a binary, which Jimmy needs them to be in order for his argument to work.

[@hadz8671]

David?

[@dwightfitch3120]

@@hadz8671What?

[@hadz8671]

@@dwightfitch3120 - the original message has been edited (David -> Joseph) since my comment.

[@torreyintahoe]

@@dwightfitch3120 I had a brain fart and wrote David instead of Joseph when I first posted it.

[@ABARANOWSKISKI]

Always happy to hear from Bart! :)

[@rafaelallenblock]

I remember this debate. It's interesting to hear Akin admitting to his deceitful approach which jibes with the duplicitous semantic non-arguments he made.

[@camwyn256]

I love your intro jingle. Makes me think of "The Man Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down a Mountain", which I'm going to watch after this

[@Mouse_007]

The very first thing the apologist said was wrong. He said if you want to prove that the gospels are 100 percent accurate ... you need to see if every claim can be verified. No !!! You only need to disprove one thing (not every thing) and it's no longer 100 percent accurate. It can't be 100 percent accurate if even the smallest claim is found to be incorrect.

[@Rain-Dirt]

You know what... Jimmy Akin describes a debate in which Bart Ehrman became cold _(according to Jimmy)_ and roasted his opponent by firing question after question, completely "destroying" the other side. Jimmy Akin proceeds with saying he did not want this to happen to him, so he devised a strategy of being nice to Bart the whole time so Bart would not be triggered... THAT ALONE to me is an admission in itself that Jimmy knows that there are problems with the religion he's trying to defend. _(this is only further confirmed with Kimmy trying to shift the "burden of proof" tactic, which seems weird to me as well... because proving a negative is not meaningful, especially when it's the religion making the claims...)_ Jimmy Akin did not won anything, all he did was trying to weave an attempt at making a case, desperately so. _(...and in not an entirely honest way either)_

[@socstud0]

I love the response from Gimli, i mean Jimmy, on Bethlehem vs Nazareth residency "oh, simple, Joseph had 2 houses!" Boooooom. mic drop. Joe was a baller. But, why was there no room for Joe, Mary and Jesus in Bethlehem if they had a second house there? Did they VRBO it out?

[@josephlambert5413]

How many houses does a carpenter have ? If I was poor I would be profiting from practical stuff I could afford on my own with what job I have. Let’s say I’m a Luther and poor. I have not much but I have a hundred guitars I’m sure.

[@jaymiewilson9844]

I studied Bart Herman's contradiction claims a little and I was troubled so I went to another believer to see their take and they just simply said why can't it be both? Like for example the two different accounts of the birth narrative from Matthew and Luke and the two accounts of the resurrection. Bart claims the two gospels contradict with these two accounts in particular but with the mindset why can't both be true I found no error and now it seems so silly to me that Bart couldn't see his own confirmation bias with his approach to the gospels. Im still a believer but im thankful for men like Bart that challenge me. These issues do need to be studied

[@henrypbel]

Do you really believe that a scholar who has gone from true believing fundamentalist to Moody Bible College to Princeton Theological Seminary to teaching at one of the best state schools in the US, who has written a couple dozen books including several on this topic and the most widely used college textbooks on the subject, knows Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, who answers questions from lay people every day, someone who is happy to acknowledge where theological arguments have merit -- this guy hasn't heard every conceivable "harmonization" of gospel discrepancies a million times, from countless sources and taken them into consideration whether he finds them superficially persuasive or not? if you can't find a thorough examination of this exact question in at least 50x his books / blog posts I'll eat my hat. It's even more insane to suggest that he's aware of them but his confirmation bias is so fierce it blinds him from the truth. To paraphrase what he's said elsewhere, of course you can imagine a plausible away (to varying degrees) around this contradiction or that -- so can I, so can he -- but then you have to find a way to harmonize all the contradictions. There are people who have spent their lives on this project. This is what apologists do. But at a certain point a healthy mind has to weigh hundreds of could bes and what ifs against the alternative: maybe these books were written by imperfect men rather that being inspired / written by the perfect creator of the universe. From the pov of logic and rationality -- which historians are bound to pursue when doing history -- there's no other sane conclusion. Even if you can't bring yourself to admit that, you cannot possibly argue that the God who inspired the text was interested in being understood.

[@jaymiewilson9844]

@henrypbel ok hear me out, I hit a nerve. We both agree Bart is brilliant and I love studying his work. He makes me think and I love that, but he is clearly wrong with the two contradictions that I studied, I dont give a rats ass about his credentials, any dude can just be wrong on a topic, especially with a confirmation bias mindset. Every man is guilty of doing this. I just want to challenge people to put his claims to the test and think for yourself. Dont be a sheep and intimidated by Barts credentials where you feel you cant challenge his claims. I know Bart would respect being challenged. I went to Bart with humility, heard the contradictions he presented, approached the issue with honesty and wanted to find truth. He is very wrong about the birth and ressurection accounts from Matthew, Mark, and luke being contradictory. They dont contradict with the mind set that they all could of happened. I went to the scripture with that mindset and found no errors. he swears up and down that the two accounts being different are contradictory but they all could of happened, wich tells me Bart has some confirmation bias. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke for yourself about the birth and ressurection accounts, if you don't believe me. Let me make a really simple analogy. It's like if I went on a trip. I went to New York, Maine, and then to Connecticut. Told one friend I went to Connecticut but left out Maine and new york, and then told another friend I went to New York and Maine as well in the same trip. Did I contradict myself by only mentioning Connecticut to the first friend? No obviously not, unless I said I only went to Connecticut. I approached the gospel accounts with that in mind. Leaving a detail out or presenting new ones is not a contradiction unless it clearly says "only this happened" wich the accounts of the birth and ressurection dont say, wich does leave room for more activities to have taken place. If Bart discusses that argument already I apologize and would love to hear his thoughts. I am pretty new to his work but in the lecture I listened to he didn't bring it up and swore they were contradictions and they both can't be right. I can send a link to the lecture If you want to know what Bart said. I've been watching christian/athiest debates for years and the conclusion I've come to realize in regards to this topic is whatever the man wants to believe he will find reasons for it to be true. Athiest or Christian or Muslim or Jew. Bart Erhman is no exception to this. There is no 100% check mate response that can disprove or prove the Bible, it's whatever the heart wants to believe and I chose to believe and im finding reasons to believe.

[@henrypbel]

@@jaymiewilson9844 obviously anyone can be wrong. there are legions of apologists that can quote chapter/verse and are confidently wrong all the time. I wasn't listing his "accomplishments" to suggest he's right about about a particular interpretation. I was reacting to the notion that he hadn't considered your interpretation because he was blinded by confirmation bias. I have never seen in any of bart's public statements an unwillingness to give biblical harmonizations a fair hearing.

[@billdecompsa4705]

​@@henrypbelgod inspired the authors, but that has nothing to do with their narratives being perfect aligned with one and other.

[@billdecompsa4705]

Cool.

[@dmckenzie9281]

I've only heard the term edify from two types of people : Pastors and condescending Emergency Department Doctors dressing down a lowly paramedic for their treatment choices.

[@swingingvoter4309]

I was born into a devout Catholic family, and had the full Catholic upbringing. So I can confirm that we were taught that contradictions in the Bible don’t invalidate the message. We were taught that it was not a book of history or a book of science, but a book conveying a message, etc. However, contradictions are still concerning, even for Catholics. Bart seems to way underrate the Spiderman/Peter Parker/New York analogy. I think it is every bit as effective, if not even more effective, against a Catholic audience as an evangelical audience.

[@thesuitablecommand]

Jimmy Akin strikes me as a genuinely friendly guy... who happens to live in an entirely different world from me. The things he believes in are so radically alien and foreign to me that it actually upsets me to hear him speak so confidently and, frankly, condescendingly, about them. He's the kind of guy I could probably be friends with as long as we never ever discuss religion.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

Or tonsorial habits.

[@onenote6619]

To win a debate, you don't have to be right. You just have to be good at debating. One of the teaching methods for debate is to have people argue the position opposing their own. So, if you want a real outcome, check out the facts and not the debate.