The Resurrection Stories Aren't Hopelessly Contradictory

[@beejayca]

Poor old Bart. The scholar with the broken heart. God bless him.

[@nova8091]

@@rationalsceptic7634 that’s an assertion with no evidence. Based on a wild extrapolations that say That Jesus is somehow a pagan deity. which is historically just isn’t true and there’s no link.

[@captainobvious2435]

​@@nova8091i think they point out things like Epic of Gilgamesh and how the Genesis flood story copied it. Then there's Akhenatan who abolished all gods but one, leading people to think the Jews got the monotheistic idea there. Then a lady named, and others, Francesca Stravokopoulou try to claim there was an hierarchy of God's, elohim at the top mimicking ot&er ancient, perhaps Sumerian religion. Early church father Justin Martyr often gets referred to that when he mentions Jesus, Romans retort back with someone of mythology like "well we have Ascepelus." Alot of parallelism that falls when looking at some of the original myths and knowing some were changed after Jesus to match, like Mithra. But there are some that could make you wonder a little. Justin Martyr even makes a comment the demons heard the prophecies and tried to imitate them but got it wrong. Some, people bring up legitimately; some, people bring up with bad intentions.

[@Zuzuboy1218]

Dr. Stravakopoulou new book is awesome

[@laszloguti1047]

@@rationalsceptic7634 historized fiction xdd it would have been better if you stay silent. Jesus is God

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

My grad studies professor at the University of Washington once told us that just because someone is a great scholar, it doesn't mean they don't make mistakes and so, just because it is written even by a reputable scholar, we should never right away assume their assertion is correct. Always check for verification and other evidence. Good policy.

[@Orisitdonald]

Everyone on earth makes a ton of mistakes. The greatest are those who truly recognise and acknowledge it, try to change to correct it, and begin to try and work and do harder in order to bring the modt they can to humanity.

[@pigzcanfly444]

Hahaha that sound byte of Dr Wood talking about Bart Erhman.*chuckles*

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yes. LOL. I did steal the idea from Kerusso Apologetics.

[@pigzcanfly444]

@@TestifyApologetics yes I have seen his content before and I recognized it but that soundbite never gets old. xD

[@RD22TT]

These short videos are definitely going to make my job a bit easier.

[@FAITHandLOGIC]

Because you needed someone to tell you? If there were no contradictions, you wouldn't need someone to explain it. It would be obvious.

[@indianasmith8152]

This is a great summation of some of the more popular arguments of "contradictions" in the Resurrection accounts. If I can offer one suggestion - focus on another agnostic critic from time to time. Bart Ehrman is a convenient punching bag, but when you make him your only foil, after a few episodes it comes across as almost personal instead of dispassionate. Just a suggestion from a supporter!

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks. He's just the most popular foil out there. I actually like Ehrman in a lot of ways and I know he gives a lot to the poor. I don't want this channel to be a bash Bart session but he just states things in such a way that is clear and people are familiar with him. Good feedback! I do plan on mixing it up. In fact my next few videos are responding to David Hume, Paulogia again and perhaps Rationality Rules.

[@sonoftheking1977]

@@TestifyApologetics Hey bro I cane across your videos like 2 days ago and glory to God I love this channel I immediately subscribed. Stay encouraged brother. Maybe you and inspiringphilosophy can team up on something. And finally I personally don't mind you bring bart up all the time because my athiest uncle loves to bring him up and I can see now that bart isn't all that honest. God bless you brother.

[@indianasmith8152]

@@TestifyApologetics Good deal. I really do appreciate your channel and have been sharing some of your videos with my World History class (I teach in a Christian school). PS Feel free to follow my channel if you haven't. It's not apologetics related, but it's a lot of fun!

[@spriles]

Bart Ehrman is by far the most potent weapon of the sceptics and is probably featured more than anyone else as instrumental to all the faith deconstructions I've heard. Stick to it Testify!

[@indianasmith8152]

@@spriles He is one of the louder voices out there to be sure!

[@Aksm91ManNavar]

Why were the angels at the tomb different? Some gospels say they were outside the tomb, some say they were inside, some say there was only one, some say there were two angels, and some dont even mention the angels

[@genericscout5408]

I would assume it was because the authors of the gospels talked to witnesses on the ground who had their own spin to the story, some witnesses might be second hand but wanted to act like they were first hand to feel important. It's likely that the disciples filled in the gaps of the story from what they heard after they all ran away and scattered.

[@shaunigothictv1003]

​@@genericscout5408Excellent point.

[@WilliamFAlmeida]

The Mark passage is so easily resolved when you ask "who told the writer of Mark then, what happened?" - Obviously the women said something to someone at some point

[@MrPloppy1]

This does not lend credibility to the story. In fact it does the opposite. It’s the exact type of plot hole detail mistake that a writer can make when they are making up a story.

[@jamescurley8559]

@@MrPloppy1 Spotting a true contradiction between two gospels in this context is to conclude that one is a fabrication, and one is a report, or both are fabrications. But WFAs point provides sensible harmonization of the contradiction which could lead to both gospels still being accurate reports. If Mark (first source) is a report and he writes about what the women saw, well that means the women eventually said something since Mark knows about it. So, the outcome (women saying something) derived from Marks report still agrees with the other gospel accounts, meaning they both could still be accurate reports. This could be evidence that Mark did not finish or intend to finish his gospel at verse 8 (which would match the miracle proclamation pattern described in the video) and the ending was lost. Or Mark wanted to end his gospel there for rhetorical purposes, such as a call to action for others to share the gospel. Irenaeus also quotes Mark 16:19 around 180 AD which could be evidence for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 which includes the women speaking out. Just wanted to explain the significance of WFAs point and how it could still give credibility given that it harmonizes a contradiction which allows for the gospels to still be reports rather than fabrications. I do see your point though, if Mark was a conspirator, then he could have overlooked this simple plot hole (WFAs point) when "creating" verse 8 for a story that's supposed to look like a real report.

[@curtthegamer934]

​@@MrPloppy1But Mark's Gospel was written with the intention of people reading it to be a true account. Even if it was completely fictional and made to fool people (it wasn't), the author would have had to have been stoned out of his mind to make such a blunder that left such a glaring plot hole. Not even genuine fictional books that are clearly designated as fiction do this. When you read stories that are being told from the first-person point of view (i.e. One of the characters in the story is the one telling the story), the stories are always Always ALWAYS written in a way so that the readers only know what the narrator knows. They never include details that the narrator wouldn't know about.

[@annekekramer3835]

​@@curtthegamer934Wasn't Mark the earliest account? It was written when many witnesses were still alive, so I think it was written as a "reminder". When more and more witnesses died, people needed more detailed reports as there were less people still alive to ask from. At least, that's how I see Mark: short, not too many details, straight to the point.

[@Danielsan1223]

I agree with you that various arguments by Bart Ehrman on the gospels seem many times more weak and they seem not likely to be philosophically significant. HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT THE GOSPELS HAVE NARRATIVE DIFFERENCES THAT CANNOT BE BOTH WAYS. Matthew's gospel makes clear that there were Romans guards at the tomb before the stone was rolled away by an earthquake. And Matthew claims that the Roman guards left out of fear and told the Jewish leaders about the miracle, so then Matthew goes on to claim that the Jews invented a lie about Jesus's body being stolen that lives to this day. But in John, it says that the stone was already rolled away by the time the women and the others got there to look at the tomb. And, like you said, Mary is quoted saying, "They have taken him out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Also, in Matthew's gospel they all see Jesus at the same time and immediately recognize him as Jesus greets them. But in John's gospel, Mary is the first to see Jesus, and she doesn't recognize him because she thinks he's just a gardener. She doesn't even know it's him in their conversation until Jesus says something that triggers her.

[@dragan176]

You can make anything not a contradiction if you try hard enough. A question is: what's more plausible, that these were written by men with contradiction or that all these stipulations are right?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I don't think I'm trying that hard. And reconciliable variations is an evidence in my favor, not against. See here kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXPcmHuAZbV9fsU

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

The comments arent going to be fun

[@sathviksidd]

The timing is perfect. The algorithm should pickup atleast now lol

[@lukesalazar9283]

0:11 that's David Wood who hasn't had Jeffery Epstein in The Boom Boom Room yet yes?

[@valmid5069]

John: "I like it. I mean, don't, don't get me wrong, Pete. I love me a good hoax as much as the next guy. Right? Right? What's in it for us? Do we all get riches, fame and fortune first, right?" Peter: "Nah nah get this. You're going to be hated, persecuted, and reviled for the rest of your life! (Oh!)... *we tell the whole world that He rose from the dead and we get brutally murdered for our troubles!"* ---If Jesus Resurrection Is A Hoax, The Babylon Bee

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

Hey how do I deal with1 Peter 2:18 ESV "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust" and the rest of the chapter?

[@TestifyApologetics]

What do you mean?

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

Some skeptic gave me this verse saying the bible condomes slavery so how exactly do I respond?

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

Are You there?

[@Stephen-px4eg]

@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 who cares?

[@alekbrowning3058]

'What do you meme' (an apologist KZbinr) seems to have a lot to say on the subject, alongside Paul Copeland in his book 'Is God a Moral Monster'. It seems to be that slavery it quite a bit more casual than one thinks when given the context and place. It appears slavery isn't (in most accounts of the bible) meant to be interpreted as a kidnapping, or a force against your will. But rather, a way of collecting/paying debt. One was enslaved when they owed money. Hence why Christians are often regard as servants/slaves of God. Because Jesus paid the debt of our sin. Hence we are indebted to the Lord for Jesus sacrifice. If my words do not resonate/paint a full picture, I suggest looking into 'What do you memes' KZbin channel, and lay your understanding there, and pursue more scholarly conversation on the subject from that point.

[@defvent]

I love the little guy that says bruh at the end 😒

[@nathanjasper512]

Two accounts don't need to be identical but if four people give you a list of people that are present for something and each list is different and one list only has one name on it, you would definitely question it.

[@annekekramer3835]

If you go top a party, and i ask who was there, would i get the complete guest list from you, or would you name a few friends you saw? And if i asked a random stranger at that party who was there, would he mention your name? If he does not, does that mean you were therefore not at the party? Everyone mentions those that they think are worth mentioning, for their own reasons. If you tell the was an accident at the party, you most likely mention someone who performed first aid. If there was no accident, but a marriage proposal, you most likely mention them. Do you catch my drift? Everyone mentions who they think is worth mentioning, so unless it specifically states that there were no others present, i don't think this is strange at all.

[@disrupt94]

@@annekekramer3835 But the gospels are not supposed to be drunk recollections of parties? It also raises the question of why the authors care to mention a multitude of characters that are irrelevant to the overall narrative, but suddenly they don't care about persons present, and as the source of, the most important event in their life? Also, if you were at a party where one of the guest claims that there was an earthquake and that graves opened up for dead people to rise, while the others are strangely silent you'd be righfully sceptical of those claims.

[@zekdom]

2:29 5:32, 5:43 6:06, 6:10 - William Greenlead and Thomas Crafts

[@exaucemayunga22]

Where did the angel/man sit? Besides them or on the stone? Did the angel/man/men sit or stand? What was Jesus's last word?

[@genericscout5408]

Only the Romans would have known Jesus's last words, the disciples all fled during this time if I recall.

[@zachburkholder2559]

I think the more likely explanation for why Mark ends at verse 8 (if it does end there, I'm on the fence) is because Mark wants this to be the impetus to get others to tell the Gospel to others. He abruptly ends on the women not telling because he wants others to take it upon themselves. It his basic way of saying if you don't evangelize, no one will. I forgot where I read this but this is not my own idea. Plus, your showing that it was a common rhetorical device in Mark to say nobody or nothing and then pick up with somebody or something adds to this.

[@Thundawich]

If Mark made a habit of people being told to not go out and spread the news of what happened but they do it anyway, couldn't the ending be a deliberate inverse of that? This group was instead told to go out and tell people what happened, but they didn't tell anyone?

[@MartinWenzelYT]

But they clearly did...or Mark wouldn't have been able to report it. Or he just made up a very bizarre ending to his account that then brings into question the veracity of the whole account.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I suppose that is possible, but unlikely given the prior history and obviously word about the resurrection did spread. Even Jesus told his disciples at the Mount of Transfiguration to not say anything until he rose.

[@Thundawich]

@@TestifyApologetics Sure, but it would be easy enough to interpret it as saying something like many humans will disobey Jesus even after direct contact with him or angels or whatever, not that Mark was attempting to accurately record historical events.

[@ryoheiota1]

I'd like you also to cover the contradictions of the birth narrative, the date of Jesus' death(before or after passover), and where Jesus met the disciples(Jerusalem or Galilee)

[@stefan00017]

Why did this “certain ruler” in Matthew 9:18 say his daughter “is even now dead?” (This is past tense, something that already happened.) After all, Mark 5:23 says she “lieth at the point of death,” and Luke 8:42 has her “a dying.” (These last two accounts say she is in the process of dying, but not actually dead yet.) Are these errors in the Bible? How do we reconcile these verses? These subtle variations concerning the same narrative demonstrate the Bible’s reliability. The Four Gospel Records are not meant to mirror each other 100 percent, and this issue is just another case in point. Their writers did not “collaborate” and “fabricate;” otherwise, these interesting disparities would not exist for us to study here. The Four Gospel Records are the earthly life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ viewed from four different angles. Diversity in language and description is acceptable because God chose to give us more than one Gospel Record of Christ’s earthly ministry! Remember, the easiest explanation is the most likely plausible one. Here is this author’s belief on the subject. The father (who is actually Jairus, a ruler of the local synagogue, according to Luke 8:41) would have said first to Jesus Christ, “My little daughter lieth at the point of death…” (Mark 5:23). After all, Luke 8:42 says she was “a [in the process of] dying.” That dear father, realizing the severity of his daughter’s illness, assumed that, by now, she had most likely died. Moreover, some time had passed since he saw her, left his house, and found Jesus. Such passage of time surely caused her to further weaken and possibly expire. So, Jairus spoke to Jesus once again, “My daughter is even now dead.” The poor man was under great emotional distress, mind you. That little girl was his “one only daughter,” and she was just about 12 years old (Luke 8:42)-12 being the number of the nation Israel! Jairus was frantic, and could have blurted out many other words not recorded in Scripture. We should not get so bogged down in the conversation that we miss the miracle that took place. Jesus Christ raised that little girl back to life, just as He will raise national Israel from the dead one day! See Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:22-43, and Luke 8:49-56. It is apparent from Luke 8:55 that she had indeed died, and Jesus miraculously called her spirit back into her body.)

[@lukemedcalf1670]

Imagine if we looked at the contradiction between our current understanding of Gravity and our current understanding of QM and said "welp this is hopelessly contradictory!" and proceeded to give up learning anything new about the universe

[@shadowlemon69]

Unlike the Bible, science is progressing and evolving, you can say that it's contradictory unlike the infallible word of God. The difference is obvious, though I'd say that the apparent contradictions can sometimes be absurd, but some are really really strong arguments.

[@lukemedcalf1670]

​@@shadowlemon69 I didn't say science was contradictory, I said that we sometimes run into issues with our theories contradicting one another. I would say that our understanding of the Bible grows and evolves over time, just like science. Look at the history of the theory of gravity. The Greeks thought it was buoyancy, but then Newton comes along and give mathematical proofs for his theory that fails to explain some key stuff in the universe, but then Einstein shows that Gravity is not Newtonian, but rather the curvature of space-time and helps explain more stuff. I guess you could say Newton was at odds with Einstein, but in reality, if it weren't for Newton, would we have Einstein? So, I'm trying to say that what seems to be contradiction in the Bible actually can be a gateway to increased understanding about The Bible, just like how "contradictions" in science lead to new theories and better knowledge.

[@stechriswillgil3686]

Your missing the bigger point that Erhman has made in previous discussions. Namely, that the time gap of 25 yrs ( that’s a long time back in those days and would feel like 75 yrs today ), had passed before people started to write stuff down ! You cannot rely on word of mouth or hearsay after such a long period of time ! Nobody made notes or kept a diary at the time of Jesus life ! None of the disciples could read or write ! Also, the accounts changed and where embellished when people who wanted to convert others to this new religion where active. None of these people ever met or saw Jesus or where alive at the time of Jesus alleged resurrection or crucifixion ! This is the main point that Bart makes ! Therefore, discussing the minutia of the Gospels is futile in this light . The New Testament stories are purely Theological in essence. But then this is how ALL religions start off……….

[@paru-chinbaka5214]

“None of the disciples could read or write” is the most glaring issues of all in your comment

[@edwardkennedy9618]

Yes, Christians we should do own research..

[@davekearney1944]

Three strikes and he's out?? I don't know if you've played much ball, but the pitcher doesn't get to call his own balls and strikes. That requires an independent umpire. You've reconciled some differences in the gospels, but missed my most obvious one. Matthew reports a watch of Roman guards, an earthquake, an angel (clad in raiment white as snow and a face like lightning) rolling back the stone. The guards faint away like dead men. These events are not something you'd soon forget. Contrast that with Mark. I don't think witness error can explain away the differences. In most cases Jesus tells his disciples to meet him in Galilee. He then appears to some of them in Jeusalem (in some versions) but also first appears in Galilee. Some disciples doubt the Galilee appearance. Witness error is common but usually involves finer details, not large geographical errors. To continue your baseball analogy, I think Ehrman is safe on second with a stand-up double.

[@ballasog]

You don't even mention the Zombie Apocalypse of Matthew 27:52-53. Everyone had to have been pretty rattled. Everything the said about the tomb they must have shouted over their shoulder while running for their lives.

[@renren1641]

I'm confused, do you think the last bit of Mark was lost to history, or was the silence being followed by proclamation supposed to be implied by the author?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm providing two options scholars have provided. Ehrman hasn't given is the full picture of the debate.

[@renren1641]

@@TestifyApologetics Noted. Happy Easter!

[@jannenreuben7398]

It's not so much that the Gospel accounts have discrepancies but there are outright contradictions. This is not a problem for most historical texts because it's what you expect when humans with limited information try to describe things from past decades. It is, however, a problem when people try to convince me that these accounts represent the resurrection of a living god in human form and that I should dedicate my life to following such teachings. A contradiction is very bad in such cases because logically at least one of the contradictory accounts is wrong. If this account can't even get the details correct for the most important event in the Christian faith then why should anyone trust it for anything else? The mental contortions that some apologists go through to prove that 2+2=5 are astounding.

[@samcotten2416]

Dude, you just openly admitted that little contradictions like these wouldn’t phase you from believing any other historical account and that it’s only because this is God we’re talking about that you’re inclined to be skeptical. I wonder whether you even realize that you’ve confessed that the real reason you don’t believe the gospels is because you don’t want to follow the teachings, not because the available evidence is any less sufficient than it would be for any other historical account.

[@jannenreuben7398]

@samcotten2416 I can that English comprehension isn't your strong point so I'll rephrase it for you. I said that I would *expect* contradictions in old human stories, I did not say I would *believe* them. I would not expect contradictions in stories dictated by a god. A god should be able to get the details correct. I don't want to follow the teachings because they are mostly mythical bronze age bullshit written for illiterate goat herders. It astounds me that people still believe this stuff.

[@jannenreuben7398]

@samcotten2416 Looks like YT deleted my earlier reply. You need to re-read my first post. I said that I expected such contradictions in old stories, I did not say that I believed them. I don't accept the teachings of the Gospels because they are mostly superstitious bronze age nonsense written for illiterate goat herders. Why anyone believes that stuff now is beyond me.

[@samcotten2416]

@@jannenreuben7398 Tell me something, smart guy -- how do you know that Socrates really existed? How do you know that Alexander the Great really existed? Surprise, genius: we've got two, count 'em TWO sources on Socrates -- Plato and Xenophon. Both of them are written by very pro-Socrates-biased authors who believed nothing but good things about him, and they also both date to many decades after Socrates' death. As for Alexander the Great, the earliest archaeological source we have on him dates to over a century after his death -- most of the earliest stuff we have on him dates to between two and three hundred years after his death. You're entitled to whatever opinion you want, but you'll never change the fact that Jesus is quite possibly the single most archaeologically attested-to figure in all of ancient history. You Jesus mythicists can't even imagine a time before the internet existed, let alone a time before the vast majority of people could read or write. The "historical evidence" for every single ancient historical figure is extremely scant -- the truth is you atheists hold the Bible and Jesus to a ridiculous, unreasonable standard to which you do not hold any other historical figure or evidence. It all comes down to one question: did this guy who really existed (real historians consider it a settled question) really come back to life three days after death by the most gruesome execution in history, or did he not? It's not a matter of opinion -- it either really did happen or it didn't. If it really did happen (and all the best evidence we have tells us that it did), then I'm willing to take the chance that everything the guy said while he was alive was true. Hundreds of people were willing to go to their deaths swearing that they saw him alive after seeing him die, and liars make poor martyrs -- people don't die for something they know to be a lie. Also, hallucinations are by definition in the mind, so they logically cannot be shared experiences, and it makes no sense to say all these people collectively hallucinated the same thing at the same time. Cure yourself of the self-deception that just because you know how to say snarky, condescending things about Christian beliefs means that you're smarter and more informed than all Christians.

[@genericscout5408]

@@samcotten2416 I only think the major events are understood correctly, while the minor details changed as other people talked about them. It's one thing to play a game of telephone about the color of the blue grass, it's another thing to claim the sun stopped shining for 9 days when in reality the sun had a normal day/night cycle. It would seem odd to claim Jesus as the Son of God, when originally he was a Muslim. I just don't see how a game of telephone could result in that 180 with a large organization of many believers not catching the shift.

[@waxworse]

Bart Errman Err ~ To make an error or misjudgment.

[@jacobklingensmith2456]

Your court of law witness argument doesn't address or support the point you're trying to prove. For example, let's say you're on trial for murder and the prosecutor can't decide if one women witnessed you commit it, or many, and the names of the women change every time the evidence is presented. That is the problem Bart is pointing out, the testimony is unreliable. Further more, the gospel writers were not eye witnesses to the event, so it is akin to the prosecutor saying that they heard someone say they heard of 1, 2, 3, etc women of various and changing identies witnessing you commit the murder. Do you see how this is problematic? It is not just that the accounts differ in substantial ways, it's that they really do differ in ways that can't be reconciled enough to make them reliable. It also seems that you are deliberately missing the point when you bring up the fact that the gospel narrations have been changed. That is the exact crux of Bart's argument, they have been changed so much in both the act of oral transmission as well as in future written transmissions to render them unreliable. How do we know what is actual fact and what had been added? Imagine the previous scenario, only now it's 30 years in the future. It's extremely problematic.

[@Ryan-zh2or]

Dr. Bruce Metzger mentioned in this video was actually Bart's mentor.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yep. He oversaw his dissertation.

[@Zuzuboy1218]

I’m sorry the reason scholars agree the resurrection is historically implausible is bc crucifixion victims were left on the cross to rot and denied a proper burial. That was the punishment. Now WLC makes a weak argument that it did happen sometimes. So not totally impossible, however you’d need money, political pull (JC had neither)& a governor quite opposite Pilot. When Ehrman explains the common threads and thousands of inconsistencies in the gospels he’s just explaining why. They are copies of copies of a verbal myth written down generations later in a different language my competing authors. And what you’ve quoted he’s explaining not challenging. There are many authors, but Dr. Ehrman deserves credit of taking what scholars have known for years and bringing it to the main stream. Edit I agree there many other scholars There are alot of unaccredited “scholars “ especially in this field If you’re a super nerd learning Greek isn’t as difficult as you’d think

[@akkuestix]

How about Nicodemus? Joseph of Arimathea? Don't they qualify as powerful enough?

[@JTamilio]

And now he denies that he’s even a textual critic!

[@paulallenscards]

Mmm no. He doesn’t claim ‘textual critic’ as his formal title because that’s not a formal title that anyone in academia takes. His degrees are in history and divinity, and he considers himself a historian.

[@JTamilio]

@@paulallenscards How do you spell the sound of a sigh? These are lovely semantics - his own thesis was "New Testament Textual Criticism: Quest for Methodology." In 2002, Dr Metzger asked Bart to assist in writing the " fourth edition of his classic work on NT textual criticism." Source - ehrman blog.

[@paulallenscards]

@@JTamilio what do you suppose historians of ancient cultures do if not critically analyze the archeological and literary artifacts of a particular period?

[@JTamilio]

My point was that his trustworthiness is somewhat problematic. Similar to people who constantly move the goal posts in an argument, he will say what he feels is necessary to oppose a given argument on one moment, when he has said otherwise at other times.

[@aleclyons7766]

I hear David wood, I like.

[@hillaryochieng9352]

what bart is saying is true..we do normally read each story and try to look for ways to harmonize them put by badluck you cannot harmonize

[@TestifyApologetics]

But we can though

[@hillaryochieng9352]

@@TestifyApologetics How ?

[@G_Demolished]

@@hillaryochieng9352 Interesting that he never answered.

[@spacedee6968]

@@hillaryochieng9352 a quick search on KZbin will lead you to harmonized gospel accounts. From there you can decide for yourself if they come together eventually or not. Personally, I believe the gospels can be harmonized and they tell the whole story in different ways.

[@Samura1313]

@@G_Demolished His channel is literally an answer to that question

[@protochris]

Ad populum fallacies are abundant in the field of biblical scholarship, because it's the most speculative field and least scientific.

[@kingmatrix1345]

Matthew 28 tells us that 1 angel displayed power and might by causing an earthquake, lightning and removing the stone! Then the angel chats with the 2 Marys while sitting on the stone! Mark 16 respectfully ends at verse 8 in early manuscripts! The 2 Marys speak with the Angel inside the tomb with instructions to tell the disciples! The Marys were too afraid and said nothing! Luke 24 the 2 Marys visit the tomb and spoke with 2 angels this time inside the tomb! They bow before the 2 Angels who instructs them to tell the disciples of Jesus in Galilee! John 20 Mary Magdalene visits the tomb and notices the stone removed so she immediately runs and tells Peter and the disciples who all go to the tomb. Peter enters first and notices the linen cloth robe! The disciples go inside the tomb and believed but was confused! They returned where Mary originally found them! But Mary stayed and looked inside the tomb where 2 Angels sat at the head and foot where Jesus’s body was! They ask her why weep, then she sees Jesus mistakes him for a gardener but Jesus calls her name then she recognizes him?! So which version is true so we don’t have the original manuscripts to back the differences🤡

[@genericscout5408]

I think the book of Mark traditionally is attributed to Mark listening to Peter preaching in the church. So it wouldn't have been a first hand witness account. Based on what I see here none of the disciples were first hand witnesses to the actual angels.

[@fpcoleman57]

Fundamentalist and most evangelical Christians claim the Bible is without error. So is the Bible (the one with only 66 books) inerrant or not? Whether you like it or not the four Gospels cannot be harmonized 100%. Differences ARE contradictions.

[@Crosshair84]

You have an Islamic understanding of inerrancy, not a Christian one. Christian inerrancy concerns the message contained in the text. Not the literal specific words

[@fpcoleman57]

@@Crosshair84 So, Which account of the first Easter morning at the tomb is the correct one? Which genealogy of Jesus at the beginning of Matthew and Luke 3 is the correct one? Which account of the death of Judas is the correct one? (Matt. 27:5 and Acts 1:18) Where did Joseph and Mary go with the baby Jesus after he was born in Bethlehem? Egypt or Nazareth? Did Jesus carry his own cross as John 19:17 says or was someone else compelled to carry it for him as it says in Mark 15:21? How many people being crucified with Jesus taunted him? One or two? What were the last words said by Jesus on the cross? Matthew and Mark agree but Luke and John have totally different statements? My point is not about the word for word inerrancy of the text itself, though there are many Christians who would argue for that as well. For example, the "KJV only" people who deny the veracity of any New Testament ancient text other than the Byzantine which led to Desiderius Erasmus' Greek translation, the third edition of which later became known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. The denial of any other ancient text and all modern scholarship is breathtaking to say the least! My original point was that the four Gospels contradict each other and, therefore, any claim of inerrancy is false.

[@fpcoleman57]

@@Crosshair84 By the way, which I forgot to mention in my first response, there are contradictions in the Quran. I can't remember if it's says in one of the Hadith or the Quran itself how these are explained away but Islamic scholars support the notion that if there are contradictions in the Quran between the early Surahs and the later Surahs, what it says in the later Surahs always supersedes the earlier ones. There! Problem solved.

[@ArnauD-16]

​@fpcoleman57 which contradictions in the Quran? please enlighten us? And before you google "Contradictions in the Quran"....please look to see if they weren't rebuked first....because the Quran being written in arabic if a non arabic speaker (Arab or not because some non arabic non muslim scholars actually took the time to learn arabic to study the Quran) says there is a contradiction by using one translation of a word which has 10 other meanings... you can easily find thousands of contradictions even in a dictionary using this method....

[@fpcoleman57]

@@ArnauD-16 It's a shame there isn't one definitive meaning of every word in the Quran. Scholarly rebuttals are similar to Christian apologetics. They can make the text say whatever they want it to. That's one reason why there are thousands of Christian denominations.

[@LanPhotos-n9q]

if only Jesus just rise again so we can settle this once and for all…

[@mary_samuelson]

Love this. Very sound minded. Thanks 👍🏻

[@liamdoyle2828]

Ben Witherington III said this about Bart Erhman: Bart Ehrman, so far as I can see, and I would be glad to be proved wrong about this fact, has never done the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies. He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever! His area of expertise is in textual criticism... It is mystifying however why he would attempt to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted which frankly reflect no in-depth interaction at all with exegetes, theologians, and even most historians of the NT period of whatever faith or no faith at all. A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveal mostly cross-references to Ehrman’s earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled in-for example Raymond Brown and E.P Sanders, the former long dead, the latter long retired. What is especially telling and odd about this is Bart does not much reflect a knowledge of the exegetical or historical study of the text in the last thirty years. It’s as if he is basing his judgments on things he read whilst in Princeton Seminary. And that was a long time ago frankly.

Testify! Great video brother ❤️

[@Tatiana-cp1fc]

I just subbed! Great video! Prayig your channel grows 🙏

[@leonpope861]

When you accept ROMANS 3, the whole Chapter about our proclivity for sin, and our inherent estrangement from ADONAI, the Gospel, and the full counsel of ADONAI is dead on, and a blessing and Good Tiding of Joy. 🤓🤭🤫😏😎. 🙏✝️🔥🛐🤲

[@Mike00513]

Has anyone noticed when Erik says “Gospels” he pronounces it “Gaspels”?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yikes. I'll try and be careful. I guess living in Oklahoma for several years rubbed off on me...in not a good way.

[@jedphillips9362]

Awesome! You should make a video of the assumed contradiction between the synoptic gospels and John with the Passover and Jesus' Crucifixion.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks! Maybe someday. I think Inspiring Philosophy has done one. I have written about it here: isjesusalive.com/does-john-disagree-with-mark-about-what-day-jesus-was-crucified/

[@jedphillips9362]

@@TestifyApologetics thanks Brotato Chip

[@elshuku1]

Great video would love to see the reason as to why there are differences in Mary seing the angel before telling the disciples vs John where she tells the disciples first and then she sees the ange

[@sjappiyah4071]

The David Wood audio was gold LOOL

[@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens]

Great video👍

[@zacklee5787]

You really knocked that strawman down! But unfortunately for apologists, the contradictions, or "differences" as you generously put it, go further than the number of women seen at the tomb. They include more striking differences between the accounts of ghost Jesus between the gospels. First, Paul's claim of seeing jesus is consistent with a "heavenly vision", whereas the later gospels embellish this account in various ways, some claiming that people (Who? Well that's not important but there were 500 and none of them knew anyone who could write, also they go to a different school so you wouldn't know them) saw Jesus walking through the street. Another said they could touch him, another claimed he could walk through walls, another claimed there was an earthquake to open his tomb, another claimed that an legion of dead people were also resurrected from their graves. Note that the aforementioned claims are all mentioned in a single gospel, and none of the others. This seems to go deeper than multiple people remembering the same true event just a little differently.

[@obamatime1634]

Ah, so your a man of culture as well I see. Watching David Wood

[@jindy94]

but if the gospels are inspired by God, why would Mark's Gospel have certain portions of the word to be lost from all earlier manuscripts? that cant be gods plan right?

[@martinecheverria5968]

Brother, this channel is awesome

[@TestifyApologetics]

Glad you enjoy it! Be sure to sub and tap the bell if you haven't already. And if you have, you're the best. 🙌👍

[@beerboots]

Bart doesn't claim that separate witness accounts need to be identical - That's a strawman. If you asked him, I sincerely doubt he would assert that. This isn't a court of law, this is the supposedly holy, inspired word of the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God. The standard for accuracy and competence should not be the same standard we set for unholy, uninspired historical accounts. Why do Christians switch between simping over the perfection of God's word and then giving it all this 'human, man-made room for error' leeway when it's convenient? At the very least, even if the accounts don't line up in an intuitively obvious, simple way, one might expect from God's holy word, that he would have inspired it in such a way as to not be so confusing, unintuitive, and at first glance - self-contradicting. This has forced Christians to spend a great deal of energy coming up with convoluted theories and explanations, to convince both each-other and atheists that the gospels are not complete nonsense. It's almost like God wants it to be difficult for people to believe his word... Or maybe it just isn't the word of 'God' to begin with. If I recall a very significant event in my life that included the presence of a small number of close associates - I don't think we're going to forget who was there... in most cases. This is not an insignificant lapse in consistency of detail. This is major. Christians conflate the general concept of imperfect witness accounts with the idea that major details like who was present at an isolated event can just so easily be forgotten. I'm sorry, these kinds of inconsistencies are consistent with false narrative, not natural deviation in witness testimony. Natural difference in witness testimony might be things like - what exactly was said, what exact time of day it was, what the weather was like, the exact timing of different things occurring throughout the course of an event. Forgetting who was present, sure - if there was a large number of people, or if you didn't know the people well, or if it was a very mixed group that doesn't normally find themselves together at the same time. It is possible, but highly implausible that these testimonies would not have originally included a very clear account of who the heck was there to experience such major events! I know Christians love belittling and undermining Bart Ehrman. Personally, I find him great but a little overhyped. Don't be so quick to dismiss his scholarship, as he is often not just representing himself, but scholarly consensus. So there's no need to be so cocky about discrediting 'Bart's' arguments. No, these arguments have a great level of detail and research to back them up, and Bart simply dilutes them into lay-speak for his listeners. This Christian attitude of 'You're smarter if you DON'T trust the experts', is antithetical to critical reasoning and genuine truth seeking. I don't trust the experts arbitrarily. I trust the rigorous methodology that they are forced to apply to their research if they don't want to be laughed out of the room by their peers for poor logic and lazy work. I trust the process by which experts hold each other accountable through peer review and discussion and debate. I trust the many years of collective academic studies, training and experience which goes into experts applying their wealth of knowledge within a broad contextual framework, and forming their consensus. But nah, stick to KZbin guy who affirms your biases and tells you what you want to believe.

[@77goanywhere]

I get told by Christians all the time that God's word is perfect. But when you point out incontrovertible evidence that God gets details in his own book wrong, all hell breaks loose. A perfect God can't get his facts straight? Mmmm. 🤔

[@akkuestix]

It's written by men, inspired by God at a time when writing was too expensive.

[@genericscout5408]

It's the sola scriptura group that would claim the Bible is literally perfect. But realistically it's a compilation of books believed to be divinely inspired.

[@haytchieekay6500]

I have done the homework...drop your emails below if you're sincere about your faith and I'll send you the most crucial document you'll most likely ever read

[@Cletus_the_Elder]

Ehrman's criticism is superficial. He doesn't seem to care much about the reasons for differences in the gospels, other than to tally them up to claim they are inconsistent and therefore false. It is a weird kind of literalism. Not the literalism of some of the fundamentalist who interpret without any literary, historical, or even intra-Scriptural context, but a literalism, nonetheless. A literalism characterized by lack of imagination, faith, respect for the authors, and depth of scholarship.

[@ballasog]

The sort of literalism that doesn't allow making editing the text on the fly to make it say what you need it to say.

[@jasonpagi5527]

Agreed and also it just means bible is written by mere man from past god had nothing to do with it , humans make mistakes

[@TestifyApologetics]

non sequitur.

[@jeffmurphy1886]

Very well put. Kent Hovind also covered these contradictions and like you, showed there wasn’t any. I hope you delve more into this topic.

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

Hovind 😐 This better be a Joke You can't be serios Kent 😂😂😂

[@jeffmurphy1886]

@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 I like the goofy guy. Sure he is batty about a lot stuff.

[@jesusirizarryrodriguez835]

Lol ok

[@jochemschaab6739]

Yeah they are hopelessly contradictory with their worldview

[@arcguardian]

2:10 Bart's problem is that he doesn't know how to read, or he's straight up dishonest.

[@andiswandumiso7187]

Thanks brother

[@mikesmithz]

Sounds like you are moving tne goal posts. You can make anything be anything if you twist the words enough. Bart is simply pointing out the contradictions in the accounts - you are twisting things to come up with an explaination...but this is not the responsibility of Bart. He's just giving tne facts, plain and simple.

[@n1kobefan]

Jewish sources - Flavius Josephus Roman sources - Tacitus - Suentonius Greek sources - Lucian of samosta - Mara Bar-serapion Others sources include - Pliny the younger letters - Christian writings outside the bible - the didache - early church fathers writing’s Archeologist evidence - Pilot stone - Ossuaries bone box’s belonging to figures in the Bible like James You’re welcome ☺️

[@jkm9332]

Let’s just assume that the resurrection accounts are contradictory. Does that mean they’re ALL false? Nope, just like the existence of counterfeit money doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as real money. At best we wouldn’t know which account is correct in all the details. Maybe one writer got some details a little wrong. What’s important is that they all agree that the tomb was empty.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Nice thumbnail man. But the case for Christianity is astoundingly weak.

[@TestifyApologetics]

No. Assertions with out arguments are astoundingly weak.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

@@TestifyApologetics I’m sorry I gave you the benefit of assuming you’re familiar with the “historical evidence” claimed for the resurrection of Christ. If you know of any contemporary independent impartial historical documents which corroborate the miracles of Christ, please enlighten us. Until you can produce archeological support and differing perspectives which present a consistent account with no signs of collusion, then it would be wise to stop calling Christ the most well attested figure of antiquity because bearing false witness is a sin.

[@bornagainalex2250]

@@isidoreaerys8745 have you watched his many other videos? Please watch them.

[@c2s2942]

Barts biggest problems tend to be self imposed and argued from silence.

[@ocmiente]

So, let me get this straight. In the text description you write, "Please do not turn this into an opportunity to attack the personal character of Bart Ehrman", yet you accuse him of being dishonest. You attack Bart personally, and change the subject to blame Bart's credentials rather than the strength of his arguments.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I didn't accuse him of being dishonest I said he hasn't given us a full picture of the scholarly debate for reasons unknown and this shows you that you have to do your own thinking. And this comment can cut both ways.

[@ocmiente]

@@TestifyApologetics 5:08 You definitely did accuse him of being dishonest. Saying you didn't doesn't remove the fact.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I said I don't know his motives and maybe he feels he has a good reason for the omission and you need to do your own homework and not just take his word for it. Open the transcript and read it yourself.

[@ocmiente]

@@TestifyApologetics You accuse him of omitting facts, yet you claim that you're not accusing him of being dishonest. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If that's not the case, then please explain how bringing up this omission has anything to do with the argument about the value of his title, or the issue about the contradictions in the Biblical account of the resurrection. The only reason this was brought up was to impugn Bart's integrity. It was an ad hominem attack.

[@austinlincoln3414]

He just said he didnt know why he left it out and that you cant always expect the full picture because of peoples degrees. He wasnt accusing him of straight up dishonesty

[@Pablo113]

Come on, Just Make up your on Beliefs as you go ALONG!

[@thetheoreticaltheologian2458]

See this is usually why I don’t take atheist/agnostic “scholars” too serious when trying to discredit Gods word the Bible.

[@rc7625]

🤦

[@Summarisation]

There are major contradictions in the resurrection. Was it Mary Magdalene alone or was it many disciples? All we know is that the gospels contradict. Let us not over rationalise what appears to be black and white contradictions.

[@ballasog]

Assume arguendo that there were 100 identical independent accounts claiming that a dead guy had come back to life. Does that come anywhere close to being credible evidence for something like that?

[@ArnauD-16]

Let me start by saying I'm a believer in Jesus and the God of Jesus. But no matter how you look at it from an historical and ritual jewish stand point....the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection make absolutely zero sense. From the secret trial of Jesus to the crowd of jews convincing Pilate (please look into what kind of man he was) to a jew aka Jesus being put in a tumb when jews used to be burried, to WOMEN who are NOT even his family members going to take care of a jewish MAN's body! Like the greek did (because the authors of the gospel were probably greek and had no idea about jewish practices)....please as he said in the video do your own research but try if it is at all possible for you to put your biases to the side and look at things objectively....

[@FelixFortunaRex]

At About 3 min say scholars disagree on when or certain verses are added or cut/paste. Seems that’s problem which whole thing. So much adding and subtraction and edit and re-edit then post edit. No one know what is original and Bible believers don’t accept that as truth except for writings outside of Bible. So odd. As for not full picture of scholarly debate. I’m sure this video gave us the full picture of scholarly debate much better than poor old Bart. 😂

[@macka1815]

I wonder why Jesus can’t defend himself against these accusations. Why some KZbinr speaking up for him. Jesus are you even real???

[@EricEscander]

Ok so rather than deal with some of the passages that CLEARLY contradict, and therefore aren't reconcilable, you deal with passages thay have differences but theoretically could be reconciled with each other. So let me give you an example of a clear contradiction between the gospels and it has to do with happens after The Resurrection. In Matthew after some of the disciples see the empty tomb they are told by the angels that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that they should go to Galillee for Jesus will meet them there. On the way back to the rest of the disciples to tell them what the angels said Jesus appears to them and says the same thing: God to Galillee and I will meet you there. So the rest of the disciples are told what happened and they head towards Galillee and they meet Jesus on a mountain/hill. He then proceeds to give the Great Commission. But in Luke we get a different story. In Luke the disciples see the empty tomb, they're told Jesus ain't here no mo and that He lives. Peter sees the empty tomb as well. That very day Jesus meets up with 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus. He teaches them why the messiah had to die and be raised from the dead. Then they realize it's him while in Emmaus but he disappears. That night they go to Jerusalem to tell the other what just happened. They're all in a room in Jerusalem and Jesus appears. He eats in front of them, gives a shorter version of the commission and the He says this: DO NOT LEAVE JERUSALEM UNTIL YOU RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. Uh oh. Then He ascends to heaven from Bethany. In Acts it kinda starts where Luke leaves off and it has Jesus repeat the same thing: Don't leave Jerusalem until you have received the Holy Spirit. He commissions them again. And then he's gone. So which one was it? Stay in Jerusalem or go to Galillee. It sure as hell ain't both. If Matthew's right the not only does this affect Luke's gospel but everything that happens in Acts. You can't reconcile the 2 accounts. I can go into why that is, though it should be obvious, but I'll let someone try and reconcile these accounts because it might be mildly humorous and entertaining. Also we haven't mentioned John's account which has Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem and giving them the Holy Spirit and a short commission. Uh so what happened to Pentecost? In chapter 21, which was probably a later addition, he then meets them in Galilee. When did this happen? And this is not the same encounter in Mattew btw. Big time contradictions that have big consequences. And once you see there are contradictions then it opens the door for other differences to be possibly contradictions as well.

[@MrPloppy1]

Yes. I immediately noticed he picked the lowest hang fruit to try beating up on, but ignored the others… the MANY others that can’t be dismissed by twisting their minds into pretzels. Did the woman/women witness: -The stone already rolled away or as it happened? -Guards or no guards? -One angel flying down from heaven sitting on the rolled away stone, two angels materialized in their midst, two angels-one at the head and one at the foot of where Jesus’ body was, or no angels but a single man dressed in white in the tomb? Or how about, in John, Jesus saying not to touch his resurrected body because he hasn’t ascend to his father yet, but later tells Thomas to go ahead and touch his wounds. Oopsie. Pretty bad when the same writer contradicts their own supposedly true story. But not keeping the details straight is exactly what happens when you make up a story.

[@flimsyjimnz]

*Great* Declaration Of Independence anecdote. Subbed.

[@WRISTFLICK]

You lied, I’m struggling with this right now. She says I know not where he is. Not WE. This did not help. Only made things worse.

[@mattjohnstonz8858]

love this video, learned a lot. Thanks bro!

[@oscargr_]

Yeah, the parts that didn't make it to the book are the evidence for what the book meant to say...

[@ryanazzi5204]

Amazing work keep it up 🤝🤝🔥🔥

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks 🔥 If it's good, it's grace.

[@christopherpaige3270]

Ehrman isn't actually trained in the relevant specialty (analyzing eyewitness testimony). Eyewitness testimony always has issues like this - it actually makes the story MORE reliable!

[@michaelbrickley2443]

I just got done scanning some of the comments on Dr. Richard Carriers’ talk about the myth of Christ…sad the lack of intellect that is in the minds of the dear Drs’ fanboys

[@commenter178]

Awesome video as always

[@tonylondon-bn5ck]

while you are not making any judgments on accounts but you contradicted yourself by giving him 3 strikes. Also, people viewing you video will judge your video and ask questions and will judge Bart Ehrman. Secondly, these are all clear contradictions. OXFORD DEFINITION: noun a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another. "the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions" a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present. "the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction" the statement of a position opposite to one already made. "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first". . According to this, what would you believe? when everything and everyone is contradicting each other. This would not be wrong to say, that you are in doubt to believe what is true and what is not and keep on debating to establish the fact what is. . Again, the above believe in doubt, leads to FALLACY, according to definition of OXFORD: a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument. . Hence you are in doubt and present an invalid point. . 3rd and lastly, if the Muhammad pbuh was a prophet spoke Arabic, so do his entire book Quran is in Arabic. which in case, projects the authenticity being in the same language as his and still being understood and spoken. Unlike, bible, Christ spoke Aramaic, and there is no manuscript in Aramaic, which historians believe that there was one. But only the translation, in Hebrew or Greek of that time. Which also projects that, many of the linguistics barriers have mislead the information, facts and significance. . Then the question arises, what do you believe, a friend who is changing his verdicts every time you meet him? No, you always question his reliability and seek someones else's advice because you doubt your friend because he provides you unreliable facts.

[@genericscout5408]

The oldest copy of the Quran found was written 100 years after the events. Even if it's written in the same language as the original Quran there's a good chance that they just wrote in anything they felt like to justify their rule. For the bible they had an oral tradition that passed down the stories, stories that are backed up in the dead sea scrolls as well. You would think a 4000 year old oral tradition would have many flaws and drifting of content, but that's not really the case. And the originals were found in Hebrew in the scrolls. On both ends of the spectrum you're relying on the human hands to have not been blatantly corrupt before the codex, and manuscripts became much more concretely shown. Still I don't think an unchanging text even makes it more accurate if it's claims are just provably false. Stuff like Jews worshiping Ezra, and adherents are supposed to just take that as fact. With the gospels if they were written not based on any witnesses at all, but based on a lost original document you could argue in good faith that the original document could have been misleading. But if you're writing directly about people who were there and what they saw, it's the witnesses themselves that are the problem. So instead of saying the gospels have issues you should be saying the people who witnessed the miracles themselves were confused and duped. In Islam I just witnessed a person who said he was proud to say all muslims should execute anyone with the wrong opinions. I'm pretty sure you would denounce that person, but you both read the exact same book. But came to different conclusions. It wouldn't be surprising if four different witnesses all said something different especially when you asked them about an event they saw 20 years ago. Though it is a good thing to point out that if they get minor details wrong what actually happened? I just don't see the major details being wrong though if the witnesses tried to tell the truth. For the Quran saying it's God's perfect words, but not practicing slavery in the modern era despite all the laws regarding capturing sex slaves to add to one's harem. Kind of suggests that's not God speaking since that practice stopped and is seen as evil now.

[@Pyr0Ben]

i couldn't imagine being so insufferable as to put the definition of a word in a youtube commwnt section

[@tonylondon-bn5ck]

@genericscout5408 SELF EXPLANATORY COMMENT. I hope you understand the meaning of Hijrah ... The Birmingham Quran manuscript is on sheets of parchment on which early Quranic manuscript or muṣḥaf have been written. In 2015, the manuscript, which is held by the University of Birmingham, was radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645 CE (in the Islamic calendar, between 56 before Hijrah and 24 after Hijrah).

[@tonylondon-bn5ck]

@Pyr0Ben yes why not ... because Ignorance is evil and it blinds people to even understand the obvious given with Logic.

[@johnisaac6908]

Great video

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Great job, keep it up!

[@Austintheeditor]

Hey are you a christian just asking

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yes.

[@Weex1k]

Love the outro!

[@mohamedmussa4272]

I like that u do research and not a blind sheep. Can you do research on Quran? Please respond to this if you will so I can watch and subscribe

[@genericscout5408]

The Jews worshipping Ezra thing is weird. I think after 100 years the Quran stopped changing, but it would have been better had an original copy been preserved by God so people would have a copy created the same year that Muhammed died. I think all the 3 major religions play apologetics when things aren't perfect.

[@LiveNKicking]

So, if stories are the same, the Bible cannot be trusted because there was harmonization. If the stories are different, the Bible cannot be trusted because they don't say the same thing. Heads I win, tails you lose...This type of argumentation is such a joke.

[@andrewthomas4636]

👍

[@macwade2755]

Great video Testify! God bless you!

[@johnzuma4688]

Bart is just trying to come up with some reasoning to support his belief that Christianity is wrong.

[@reeseexplains8935]

Your hopelessly confused.

[@williamkennedy2474]

Haha, you make Bart's arguments look no different from those employed by conspiracy wackos with tinfoil hats.

[@Orisitdonald]

Poster, look up the term hypocrisy, watch the video from an outside perspective, and tell me... Why are you pretending to be a Christian while you are harshly judging and mocking Mr. Ehrman for no legitimate reason? Proverbs 16:18

[@juradoalejandro5261]

Great video!!

[@DeltaRoots]

It's a fake book

[@stevioa9]

Hilarious. Why do you worry about this if you are not actually rather rattled? And your innuendo is most unbecoming. But more than that, if you understand the true essence of Jesus none of this matters.

[@TestifyApologetics]

hi we just met and this is crazy, but have you considered that your psychoanalysis is kinda lazy?

[@stevioa9]

@@TestifyApologetics Of course, you can't hear me. Look to the beam in your own eye, if you dare. Bless.

[@cliffmorganekitson3971]

Thanks for that great video! Packed full of educational and edifying content again! God bless you