Hah, I was going to write something similar. I'm not actually a fan of how much Bart seems inclined to laugh away the positions of his opponents at times, really.
I was thinking the same thing, the overall tone of voice and cadence are eerily on point, but there were several parts where Bart would have started laughing and the bot just keeps going.
@@BattleF08not sure how much you’ve heard him speak in general, but he just laughs a lot even when he’s not debating someone. I think the same tendency carries over into debates, so it may sound like he’s laughing at the opponent’s position, but I don’t think that’s typically the case. If you listen to a few minutes of the beginning of a Misquoting Jesus podcast you’ll most likely hear him laughing about the point they’re at in the college semester, holiday plans, general busyness, etc.
For real... he laughs so often I almost take him less seriously because of it. He'll laugh at the idea of mythicism and say "No. Just no!" There's nothing considered like "Well, maybe..." Just laughter and dismissal.
Super validated when my immediate reaction to "it's true in every way we can prove" was to think we can't prove any of the actually important bits, then for Bart to later point out the same thing and even describe Excusegist Bart as using smoke and mirrors.
17:36 In my experience, most folks refer to the book as “Acts”, but i know that there are those who prefer “The Acts of the Apostles”. But Dr Bart makes a strong case for the more-correct title “Selected Acts of a Handful of the Apostles and Also, Even Especially, Paul”.
Christian Bart: "These two sources agree with each other on every point!" Atheist Bart: "Here are several examples where they don't do that, including two where Paul's descriptions of how God will treat humans are polar opposites." Christian Bart: "Ah, but have you considered that he was a liar who just told people what they wanted to hear?" What a magnificent exchange THAT was. I'd have thought it a strawman if I hadn't explicitly heard multiple apologists make exactly this claim, more brazenly than Bart did here. If anything, he steel-manned it by dressing it up in a nice coat to hide the fact that the emperor had no other clothes to speak of.
This wasn't a religious debate Evidence 1: No insults Evidence 2: No fallacies Evidence 3: No presupposition Evidence 4: No rejection of engineering (It is designed therefore complex, when the hallmark of design is the opposite) Evidence 5: No rejection of science Evidence 6: No rejection of reality.
Firstly I 'd say you mean complicated rather than complex being removed as the hall mark of design. Quite simply built systems can be quite complex. You also missed a charcteristic of christian argumentation, the Gish Gallop.
I didn't think you should expect a theological debate from a historical scholar like Bart Ehrman. Just because the topic of the debate has influence *also* may have impact on theological questions doesn't make this a theological debate.
the argument that 'the bible is as reliable as other works of its time' is usually followed by the accusation that we don't subject those other works to the same level of criticism. But we do. It's the bible believer who wants us to treat it differently from the other historical texts that have claims about miracles.
I think Acts does some heavy lifting with its claims about Saul of Tarsus. A jewish Roman citizen who was on first name basis with future Emperors, leaders of the Sanhedrin, and student of renowned jewish rabbi. Saul seems to be the Forrest Gump and the early Levant.
The “Saul/Paul” character in Luke/Acts is plagiarized from Flavius Josephus’ autobiography, The Jewish War. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish born Roman citizen who was on first name basis with future Emperors, was a garrison commander in the Jewish army, personally knew the members of the Sanhedrin, personally knew the Jewish royalty and religious leaders. Was arrested by the Romans, sent to Rome on the same ship as “Paul”, shipwrecked in the same place as “Paul”, was imprisoned in Rome just like “Paul”. Returned to Judea as a Roman general, saw three of his friends crucified outside of Jerusalem and had them taken down, where two died and one survived. The “Saul/Paul” in Luke/Acts is a lie. The “Paul” that wrote the epistles wasn’t Flavius Josephus, nor was the “Paul” that wrote the pastorals.
Particularly since there is no role for a moderator in a debate. A debate needs two teams or individuals, a time keeper and one or more judges - no moderator. Many people think a debate should have a moderator because they think that the joint press conferences that get called debates in U.S. elections are actually debates.
Bart should do an experiment where he does the same debate, but switches which wears the jacket. Show the video to different classes, & see if the results differ depending on which side wears the jacket. I suspect the person in the jacket gets a level of respect the person not in the jacket, doesn't, somewhat like the racism experiments with dolls. I think results might partly be the clothing as a person in a jacket is afforded more respect. It's why attorneys always wear jackets in court.
This is an excellent argument for the abolition of strict professional attire OR do it like public school uniform - every American, regardless of occupation or class wears a suit jacket!
The affirmative side basically said that the author of Acts and Luke believed that Paul was a hypocritical populist speaker and that such a thing was all right.
"hi guys, Paul of Tarsus here, your favorite violent mystic! I totally just got a dream from Jesus and he said he changed his mind about all that diet stuff haha" No wonder it got popular, what Jesus said sounded hard, basically Jewish reformism, Paul came along and said "nah screw that, just believe, Jesus told me when you weren't looking"
Don’t forget, you’re reversing the order. Paul wrote his stuff around 50 CE. The *earliest* gospel (called Mark) could not have been earlier than 70 CE, 20 years later. At absolute minimum. And it’s the group of people who would be familiar with what Paul said. And Paul should have been familiar with any oral traditions that could have existed at the time in that community. He should have been aware that Cephas (later called Peter) and Ya’kov (commonly called James) knew Yeshua (Jesus) personally. That should have at least made it necessary for him to address their direct relationship with the guy he’s having visions of. But Paul shows now awareness of anything in the gospels. He shows no awareness that they occupy any special position. None of the other church fathers in the epistles show any awareness of the events in the gospels. Or anything that the gospels say Yeshua said? So, did Paul (and the others) just manage not to know anything at all about Yeshua’s life or anything he said? Not quoting or referring to those things even when they would have made their points perfectly? Or did the gospels pull things (such as names and beliefs) from Paul to tell their stories. Their conflicting stories that cannot all be possibly true (someone has to be wrong when they disagree), or perhaps they were all wrong. Mark makes no sense if you try to read it as historical events. It makes perfect sense if you read it allegorically. It’s kind of like reading Aesop and wondering how foxes can talk.
The only problem is that it wasn't a dream. His companions saw the light and heard the voice but couldn't what it was saying. Also, Paul was blinded and had to go to someone else to get his sight back.
@JCTheSniper15 I mean, yeah, the kinds of responses one should have should be adjusted based on the question. For instance, if someone asked: "Is the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian entirely historically accurate?" I think for that question someone should say no. But if the question was "Is the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian reliable for some historical details?" Then I think the response should be yes.
@@HekademeiaYT The book of Acts found similarities in older stories and are rearranged, but luckily most people are illiterate in regard to the literature of antiquity.
I think even to be able to debate oneself and still make good arguments demonstrates a level of mastery most debaters couldn't approach. To do this without a partner shows he is a master debater.
Hey, if you do these types of videos in the future, it would be great if you were to add a sound effect for both yes Bart and no Bart for audio only listeners
I enjoyed the ai, appreciate that you told me it was an ai, and I quite enjoyed Bart's insight that the arguments rarely change people's mind. We should remember that, so that we're not disappointed when we can't convince somebody
I debated Testify on this topic a while ago, will upload video soon. A lot of this revolves around the disciples willingness to risk their lives over their claims
Which is a farce, and doesn't reflect reality. Testify is a sad creature, whom I would feel sorry for if he wasn't spreading misinformation to thousands of people, while making money
@@Ansatz66 Part of the argument is that acts has way too many details (of geography and so on) that have been verified, so we can take acts as reliable.
@@modernatheism : But that part of the argument is obviously irrelevant to the actual issues. People don't really care if Acts gets details of geography correct. People are far more interested to know if Acts gets miracle stories correct. When people ask "Is Acts reliable?" they are not asking if Acts is a reliable source for trivial details that no one cares about.
@@Ansatz66You don't seem to understand how reliability works. How many "trivial details" can be contradictory before they start adding up to major changes? Using this logic, would you say the Wolfenstein games are historically accurate? Sure, they may get major aspects of history wrong and are clearly just about having fun, but those are all "trivial details", they depict Hitler as a bad guy, and Hitler was a bad guy. That's all people care about right? Therefore the Wolfenstein games should be taken as a reliable historical source, right?
I would tend to think we'd have many robust accounts of people being raised from the dead if it had happened, especially on a significant scale as it seems. I dunno, it's not the kind of thing you see everyday. I'm pretty sure that if my mom resurrected for instance I'd leave pretty darn unambiguous testimony of it and I'd shout it from every last rooftop I could find.
This was amazing. Please do more videos like this on NT debates! One of the best things about this video is how Bart brings up the pointless nature of a debate, because it doesn’t actually coax people out of their echo chambers and their preconceived beliefs. Each side just hears what they want to hear. As a species we need to learn to outgrow the debate mentality and overcome the tendency to want to double down on our foregone conclusions. We need to replace that tendency with openness to the possibility that we are the ones who are wrong. If everyone did that, the folks arguing for the weaker side would be able to recognize their side is weaker without feeling threatened or embarrassed or like they’re the loser.
Trying to contextualize Acts as a historical document to affirm its veracity would be like trying to contextualize the old practice of blood letting and "balancing the humors" as medicine to affirm that they actually work, even though they don't. "People believed they worked" does not equal "they really worked" just as "people believed this was true at the time" does not equal "this is true".
My concern on the affirmative side is that I don't think it really addressed the issue of the contradictions with Paul very well. The opposed side conceded the archeological facts and made a case even given that. The affirmative side never really addressed the other side and just said, hey, they agree about the archeology.
Yep. In my experience a pretty accurate representation of a true debate with someone who actually holds that position. They kinda have no way through other than to sneak in minor wins and pretend they're big wins (the archeology), or take the points they lost on and just bull ahead saying they won anyway (eyewitnesses). You see both a lot from apologists.
The nonsensical sudden emphasis on certain words that doesn't respect the context of what BartBot is talking about shows that the source recordings of Bart don't match to the word choices of the writer of Bart. Therefore there is no historical Dr Ehrman.
I think you should ask people to vote both before and after your self-debate, especially if you previously taught your audience about the topics you present.
"One of the earliest extant inscriptions to use the term "Politarch" was located on the Vardar Gate in Thessaloniki. The Gate was unfortunately destroyed in 1876 but the inscription, which dates to the 2nd Century AD, can now been seen in the British Museum in London."
I'm not sure what bias it would be, but fascinating how people can be susceptible to the idea that: "we didn't think x was historically accurate, but then we discovered it was." The original author would have had NO way of knowing which details would be lost to time, nor would they likely even consider such a concept as helping prove their case!
Skeptics and apologists arguing with one another isn't really my thing. I only clicked on this video because the thumbnail is the best thing I have ever seen in my life.
I really enjoy Bart's stuff. I've watched so much of his content starting with the 30 hour section he did on the Bible and Christianity. I learned more there than all my time in church. I was never a big memorizer of scripture and I rejected organized religion at a young age so my knowledge had many big holes. More recently I found Paulogia and am also impressed by him. Great admiration to you both.
I don’t want to take anything away from Dr. Ehrman, who I’m sure is an excellent instructor. But philosophy professors engage in this kind of exercise all the time, both with and without costume changes 😉 (Just needed to rep for my favourite discipline!)
I would think, probably due to the inerrancy dogma that I was brought up in, that Acts should be hyper factual and exceed even our current day standards for accuracy, especially considering the uniqueness of the message and consequences of the rejection of said message. In other words, “Where’s the beef?” Not much substance for the affirmative position here. Maybe Bart’s students need to take a logic class as well seeing they missed the straw man and appeal to authority arguments.
The main blunder of historians is extracting historical truths from what are pieces of fantastic fictional literature: it is either fiction or historiography. Acts, gospels, or Marvel comics cannot be both.
The problem is that ancient texts often blurred that line... and that is something historians have to take into consideration. Alexander the great was often considered to be son of zeus, like hercules or whatever. But of course we do beleive that alexander the great is a historical figure while hercules is not. So... when some historian is talking about a battle fought by alexander the great, and he says that he is the son of zeus. What should we make of it? should we throw the entire account in the trash? No, we compare with other sources to see if other people are talking about this battle or if there is some arqueological evidence for it, and discard the fantastical part of him being the son of zeus.
Why not accept that Spider-Man is historically reliable if we know that New York exists and that they are high schools. He visits the New York Public Library, the Bow bridge in Central Park, the Chrysler building, Tudor City Place and many, many more existing places. So this confirms that Spider-Man is real and the multiverse. 🤣
Or at least Spider-Man was based on a "real Peter Parker". Sure, that Peter was not able to walk up walls, just like flies, but since a photographer for a newspaper is a mundane thing, we should therefore accept that there was a real Peter Parker that is behind the myths we see written down as the Spider-Man stories.
Spider-Man is a known made up figure, made known by the creator himself. Stan Lee. That man was born and lived in New York! So he should know New York pretty good, right? And New York is not that big in one sense, and today we have all kinds of resources to know it more or less ourselves. Almost 2000 years ago is very different, they did not have what we have with internet, computers, phones etc and the scope is much much greater. Remember that Acts or Paul's trips are much of the then "roman world", suddenly in Thessalonica, Jerusalem, Athens, Malta, Ephesus, Italy to name a few. If you get different things right about such diversity of places, people, ways of life etc you should be considered pretty legit. That you don't fool around but takes things seriously. That should indeed make the other claims be taken more seriously. Why even bother to be so detailed in such a broad sense if all the other claims is fairy tales, nonsense, lies or magic tricks? What's to gain when you remember Acts is written to one man? Luke sure took his time to convince or reassure one man, writing those 28 chapters that at time wasn't a cheap UA-cam comment. I came over this. "Letters were also a costly investment. Richards estimated the cost of producing Romans or 1 Corinthians adjusted to 2004 would have been around $2,300 (or $3,100 today)" (in 2020). So Acts would not be cheap.. He did not have what we have. Imagine that. The author was serious.
@ so writing was very expensive? We have thousands of writing from this time and before. Let’s take the Epic of Gilgamesh. A very detailed narrative as detailed as any scripture written way before the bible. Why even bother to be so detailed in the stories of Gilgamesh? I have no idea. Do you?
@@robertjimenez5984 If Romans and 1 Cor cost over 3000 dollars that is quite a lot of money imo. I don't know the contents of Gilgamesh, what kind of people made it or how it was made. The claimed reason for making it etc. Is it like Acts? Acts was still written to one named person, and it was still expensive. That's boost's the argument that the author is serious about the contents provided to him. This expensive point is just a part of what I wrote, my main thing is to not equate it with Spider-Man, since that to me is anachronistic and out of line. Wish you a good day, Sir.
@ well look it up, read it and then tell me. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a story written in the 1,500BC and is well documented. 1,500 years before the book of Acts.
We have a genre for stories told with historical figures in historical locations... it's called "Historical Fiction." My favorite thing to bring up when this argument comes up is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I shouldn't have to explain that just because Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States when this movie is set, doesn't make it a documentary.
Hey paul, this is just an audio suggestion but the p's are enunciated quite intensely. Listening in my car it feels like a kick drum. A low shelf eq below 200 hz might fix this in the future! Its just a bit distracting to me. Thanks for the work as always.
My only complaint is everything after 10:13 should be done by No Bart or at least in a post debate or debate review. Here it feels like Professor Bart is telling us why No Bart was correct which i understand is his opinion but the audience should really come to this conclusion on there own
*The Bible : **_Gods Big Book Of Multiple Choice Answers_** ;* As evidenced by thousands of versions/denominations of Christianity, that disagree on the interpretation of almost everything in the Bible.
Idea for a future video: Contemporary stories of the period (ie. from 2000 years ago) that make similarly supernatural claims about well-known figures but that Chistians reject.
Not demanding modern standards from ancient historians to consider them reliable is like accepting whatever nonsense Aristotle said about four elements and humors in the body and alchemy, because hey you can't hold an ancient naturalist to modern scientific standards!
“The author of acts follows the historical writing practices of the day” and yet there are so many aspects of ancient history that we have tentative confidence at best actually happened as historians then described them! Tacitus was a valuable historian. He was not perfect.
Are you aware of the criticism that Andrew Ter Ern Loke has made of your and Bart Erham's skeptical positions? He has also criticized other skeptical scholars on his UA-cam channel.
@@Paulogia Just in case, I'm not him. But Andrew is my name in English, I'm from Colombia. I am new to this type of debates, I mentioned it because I would like to know if you have already responded. On the other hand: Can you please recommend the bibliography and authors in general that argue for and against the resurrection?
@@Paulogia Just in case, I'm not him. But Andrew is my name in English, I'm from Colombia. I am new to this type of debates, I mentioned it because I would like to know if you have already responded. On the other hand: Can you please recommend the bibliography and authors in general that argue for and against the resurrection?
@@Paulogia Just in case, I'm not him. But Andrew is my name in English, I'm from Colombia. I am new to this type of debates, I mentioned it because I would like to know if you have already responded. On the other hand: Can you please recommend the bibliography and authors in general that argue for and against the resurrection?
I see the 40 days as a reflection of Jesus' 40 days in the cave with satan. In which case, the author of Acts is saying the apostles are "satan." Which could be a callback to Matthew 16:23.
At least with the explosion example, we could archaeologically test for residue, and papers dated before that date under rubble buy not after then. Giving a speech or having a meeting is much less testable, but at least they're pretty mundane claims. A miraculous event _could_ be slightly testable archaeologically if there was a claim about a sustained residue: perhaps some kind of healing or permanently glowing object, or a material not composed of the atoms but of some completely different substance with which we can interact. There could be other explanations, but at least I'd be open to claims about them if we had something concrete as a starting point. But there are no confirmed findings of that nature (and they're rarely claimed, to be fair). Take each claim as independently as they are different. Different in nature, location, conditions, scale, sourcing, corroborators, concordance with your own experience and prior worldview, timing, duration, etc.
Points of disagreement, missed opportunities and agreement. Agreement. 1. History in the first century was poor. Historians generally showed bias. 2. There were 2 ascension accounts in Acts. 3. The author of Luke poorly represents Paul Missed Opportunities. 3. Passion narrative is derived from Mark, Marks passion narrative is flawed, it contradicts Paul’s account. The Q source lacks any information on the PN. The narrative is not two source, but is based in a flawed account. 4. The Birth Narrative appears to have been added later. When we scrape off the birth narrative and much of the hyperbole in the resurrection account we essentially have Marcion’s Evaggelion. 5. Dr. Steve Mason shows that at five points Luke-Acts parallels Josephus histories. 2 of those points are in the Birth Narrative, the remainder lean heavily into Acts. This indicates there is a significant amount of story crafting using verisimilitudes in Acts. 6. While we have three sources for the material in Luke which the author holds closely to, for acts we have one source, the epistles, and he drifts away from that source. He does not give a list of sources concerning Stephen, the major events in the life of Peter, we can surmise the execution of James is from Josephus. Thus we are left wondering, in the early second century what sources the author is using. Points of disagreement with Bart. 1. The author of Luke, as Robin Faith Walsh, has pointed out that Luke was a master at writing texts, and in this case a biography of an important person. Give Luke 2 points 2. However, the author of the text claims that he has set out to order the accounts. Indeed he has two big sources. Luke scores two points for telling what he is going to do. 3. Luke uses Mark as a source, but uses less of Mark’s account even though they have similar theologies. Instead he uses a much more reliable representation of the Q source than in Matthew. Luke gets two more points. 4. It now appears that Luke used at least three sources as well as Josephus for Luke, though many scholars believe he had yet a forth source. Score 2 points. Luke now gets a B+ 5. Luke however makes a few errors worth noting. a. He does not disclose the Roman Emperors at the time the text was written, even though he gives great detail of the Syrian officials at the time of Jesus birth. - 10 points. Thus the major flaw of Luke Acts is the author is using his great literary skill to hide the fact that he is cobbling together information which he neither first or second knowledge of, but at times acting as he did. 6. The ascension accounts and the epiphany on the road to Damascus may represent different accounts of the same event. Again it’s a good idea, but Luke does not disclose his sources.
oh dear 'i flesta laget' the movie about the guy making clones of himself like one might print copies in the old days XD i remember that movie , dam i wish i hade grabbed a dvd copy of it back when dvd's was on the 'last years' aka got extra cheap because it was a good premise for some life reflection comedy ^^
The machine doing all the debating gives us the perfect proof of the non-existance of any God who cares to act to allow humans to worship it, once the AGI takes over all worship.
Too often we get stuck in our little cocoons of expertise. Theologians talk theology. Philosophers, philosophy. Historians, history. But if we want to know whether a book is "historically accurate", the absolutely most solid confirmation that it is would be physical evidence, an _archeological record_ that corroborates the book. So, what do we have in the way of physical evidence, an archeological record, to support Acts, or any part of the Bible for that matter? Yes, it's helpful if a book is internally consistent, etc. If it's not, that's a red flag. But even if it is, if there is no archeological evidence to support it and little to no corroborating and independent sources, then the book is still rather flimsy evidence.
If Bart finds frustrating that people are swayed by the “shouldn’t be held to modern historical standards” argument, then he’d be better to shift to a different standard - if the Bible is an inspired text that is communicating from God his most important message, then why does He allow such errors? Does God inspire just the impetus to write something but without any direct hand in what is written, or does He take an active hand in ensuring that His message is accurate? Then choose to argue with whichever option the opponent chooses.
I think it would be interesting if Bart polled his class before and after the debate. I'm sure there's a selection bias since Christians are probably a lot more likely to take his class.
Wow Bart Ehrman absolutely dominated the whole debate!
I disagree. I think Bart won that one.
Personally I'd say this one was pretty evenly matched.
Evenly matched? They were both clobbered by the moderator, Bart!
@@tetsujin_144 But Bart won every point that was ended decisively.
Unlike some _so-called_ debates, at least Bart let Bart get a word in edgewise. 😉
Need to train Robo Bart to laugh a little more often. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Dr. Ehrman speak without laughing.
Hah, I was going to write something similar. I'm not actually a fan of how much Bart seems inclined to laugh away the positions of his opponents at times, really.
I was thinking the same thing, the overall tone of voice and cadence are eerily on point, but there were several parts where Bart would have started laughing and the bot just keeps going.
@@BattleF08not sure how much you’ve heard him speak in general, but he just laughs a lot even when he’s not debating someone. I think the same tendency carries over into debates, so it may sound like he’s laughing at the opponent’s position, but I don’t think that’s typically the case. If you listen to a few minutes of the beginning of a Misquoting Jesus podcast you’ll most likely hear him laughing about the point they’re at in the college semester, holiday plans, general busyness, etc.
@@mattbrown5234yes, I have a similar personality to Bart, in that I laugh a lot. It’s just who we are, I think.
For real... he laughs so often I almost take him less seriously because of it. He'll laugh at the idea of mythicism and say "No. Just no!" There's nothing considered like "Well, maybe..." Just laughter and dismissal.
Paraphrasing: "Rhetorically effective but an irrelevant argument." Theism in a nutshell.
Super validated when my immediate reaction to "it's true in every way we can prove" was to think we can't prove any of the actually important bits, then for Bart to later point out the same thing and even describe Excusegist Bart as using smoke and mirrors.
17:36
In my experience, most folks refer to the book as “Acts”, but i know that there are those who prefer “The Acts of the Apostles”.
But Dr Bart makes a strong case for the more-correct title “Selected Acts of a Handful of the Apostles and Also, Even Especially, Paul”.
Not quite as catchy 😂
Paul the apostle and some minor side kicks who actually meet Jesus and are totally irelvant.
Christian Bart: "These two sources agree with each other on every point!"
Atheist Bart: "Here are several examples where they don't do that, including two where Paul's descriptions of how God will treat humans are polar opposites."
Christian Bart: "Ah, but have you considered that he was a liar who just told people what they wanted to hear?"
What a magnificent exchange THAT was. I'd have thought it a strawman if I hadn't explicitly heard multiple apologists make exactly this claim, more brazenly than Bart did here. If anything, he steel-manned it by dressing it up in a nice coat to hide the fact that the emperor had no other clothes to speak of.
That was great. You have to understand that he was talking to a different audience, but don't worry, we know who he lied to.
"Oh, okay, so it's not _Acts_ that is unreliable, it's *_Paul_* that is unreliable. Thanks for clearing that up."
@@fieldrequired283 lol, yep. And boy is he.
If the three robo-Barts stop fighting and team up, humanity is doomed.
You misspelled saved 😁
Is Bart FSD????
a robo-bart divided against themselves cannot stand.
This wasn't a religious debate
Evidence 1: No insults
Evidence 2: No fallacies
Evidence 3: No presupposition
Evidence 4: No rejection of engineering (It is designed therefore complex, when the hallmark of design is the opposite)
Evidence 5: No rejection of science
Evidence 6: No rejection of reality.
Well its the type of debate religious people should have, if they possessed the ability.
@@Marniwheeler True that.
Firstly I 'd say you mean complicated rather than complex being removed as the hall mark of design. Quite simply built systems can be quite complex.
You also missed a charcteristic of christian argumentation, the Gish Gallop.
I didn't think you should expect a theological debate from a historical scholar like Bart Ehrman. Just because the topic of the debate has influence *also* may have impact on theological questions doesn't make this a theological debate.
the argument that 'the bible is as reliable as other works of its time' is usually followed by the accusation that we don't subject those other works to the same level of criticism. But we do. It's the bible believer who wants us to treat it differently from the other historical texts that have claims about miracles.
I think Acts does some heavy lifting with its claims about Saul of Tarsus. A jewish Roman citizen who was on first name basis with future Emperors, leaders of the Sanhedrin, and student of renowned jewish rabbi. Saul seems to be the Forrest Gump and the early Levant.
How was Saul/Paul a citizen? At that time, the only citizens were Italian.
The “Saul/Paul” character in Luke/Acts is plagiarized from Flavius Josephus’ autobiography, The Jewish War. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish born Roman citizen who was on first name basis with future Emperors, was a garrison commander in the Jewish army, personally knew the members of the Sanhedrin, personally knew the Jewish royalty and religious leaders. Was arrested by the Romans, sent to Rome on the same ship as “Paul”, shipwrecked in the same place as “Paul”, was imprisoned in Rome just like “Paul”. Returned to Judea as a Roman general, saw three of his friends crucified outside of Jerusalem and had them taken down, where two died and one survived. The “Saul/Paul” in Luke/Acts is a lie. The “Paul” that wrote the epistles wasn’t Flavius Josephus, nor was the “Paul” that wrote the pastorals.
The moderator is too verbose. He needs to let the debators talk. :)
Particularly since there is no role for a moderator in a debate. A debate needs two teams or individuals, a time keeper and one or more judges - no moderator. Many people think a debate should have a moderator because they think that the joint press conferences that get called debates in U.S. elections are actually debates.
Thanks for the upload Paulogia. I really needed a break from politics.
Bart should do an experiment where he does the same debate, but switches which wears the jacket. Show the video to different classes, & see if the results differ depending on which side wears the jacket. I suspect the person in the jacket gets a level of respect the person not in the jacket, doesn't, somewhat like the racism experiments with dolls. I think results might partly be the clothing as a person in a jacket is afforded more respect. It's why attorneys always wear jackets in court.
This is an excellent argument for the abolition of strict professional attire OR do it like public school uniform - every American, regardless of occupation or class wears a suit jacket!
The word "animate" is doing some serious heavy lifting here haha
I think we should start jumping up & down when we talk with each other.
The affirmative side basically said that the author of Acts and Luke believed that Paul was a hypocritical populist speaker and that such a thing was all right.
This bart bot sounds too fake. The bart i know laughs way more than this
There needs to be a line of code that makes Bart Bot laugh every couple of sentences…
"hi guys, Paul of Tarsus here, your favorite violent mystic! I totally just got a dream from Jesus and he said he changed his mind about all that diet stuff haha"
No wonder it got popular, what Jesus said sounded hard, basically Jewish reformism, Paul came along and said "nah screw that, just believe, Jesus told me when you weren't looking"
... and you don't need a painful operation as part of your _member_ ship fee.
“I fell off my horse and hit my head, and He told me I could eat a cheeseburger.”
Don’t forget, you’re reversing the order. Paul wrote his stuff around 50 CE. The *earliest* gospel (called Mark) could not have been earlier than 70 CE, 20 years later. At absolute minimum. And it’s the group of people who would be familiar with what Paul said.
And Paul should have been familiar with any oral traditions that could have existed at the time in that community. He should have been aware that Cephas (later called Peter) and Ya’kov (commonly called James) knew Yeshua (Jesus) personally. That should have at least made it necessary for him to address their direct relationship with the guy he’s having visions of.
But Paul shows now awareness of anything in the gospels. He shows no awareness that they occupy any special position. None of the other church fathers in the epistles show any awareness of the events in the gospels. Or anything that the gospels say Yeshua said?
So, did Paul (and the others) just manage not to know anything at all about Yeshua’s life or anything he said? Not quoting or referring to those things even when they would have made their points perfectly? Or did the gospels pull things (such as names and beliefs) from Paul to tell their stories. Their conflicting stories that cannot all be possibly true (someone has to be wrong when they disagree), or perhaps they were all wrong.
Mark makes no sense if you try to read it as historical events. It makes perfect sense if you read it allegorically. It’s kind of like reading Aesop and wondering how foxes can talk.
@@Autists-Guidemember snip fee 😂😂😂
The only problem is that it wasn't a dream. His companions saw the light and heard the voice but couldn't what it was saying. Also, Paul was blinded and had to go to someone else to get his sight back.
To quote Bart Ehrman on the Reliability of Acts and the New Testament “Depends on _who_ you ask, and _what_ you’re asking.”
@@DesGardius-me7gf the funny thing about that is you can apply it to literally anything.
@JCTheSniper15 I mean, yeah, the kinds of responses one should have should be adjusted based on the question. For instance, if someone asked: "Is the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian entirely historically accurate?" I think for that question someone should say no. But if the question was "Is the Campaigns of Alexander by Arrian reliable for some historical details?" Then I think the response should be yes.
@HekademeiaYT yes, the excitement of language! Haha
Now don't be bring Bart Erhman into this debate!
@@HekademeiaYT The book of Acts found similarities in older stories and are rearranged, but luckily most people are illiterate in regard to the literature of antiquity.
I think even to be able to debate oneself and still make good arguments demonstrates a level of mastery most debaters couldn't approach. To do this without a partner shows he is a master debater.
Perfect setup on this word play.
Ah, but how clever a wordsmith is he? Might you say his linguistics are cunning as well?
"I guess slippery really works"
Well, that's the quote of the week.
Oh that first century rhetorical device! Ya know lying about being there.
The opening montage is "chef's kiss."
I really liked this episode and I especially liked the format. I hope there are similar productions in the future.
This is the time Bart had a worthy debate rival.
Hey, if you do these types of videos in the future, it would be great if you were to add a sound effect for both yes Bart and no Bart for audio only listeners
Absolutely love the idea for this video‼️
I enjoyed the ai, appreciate that you told me it was an ai, and I quite enjoyed Bart's insight that the arguments rarely change people's mind. We should remember that, so that we're not disappointed when we can't convince somebody
Very innovative video. With a format like this, you could easily get Kent Hovind to debate himself, and lose. RockOn, Paul.
Bart's been doing this too long... he's started talking to himself!
Cool video! Glad to see that AI doesn't know how to simulate excited chortling yet 😹
TTS is not AI, just saying.
I debated Testify on this topic a while ago, will upload video soon. A lot of this revolves around the disciples willingness to risk their lives over their claims
It is strange that Bart didn't even mention that. How did Testify connect it to Acts being reliable?
Which is a farce, and doesn't reflect reality.
Testify is a sad creature, whom I would feel sorry for if he wasn't spreading misinformation to thousands of people, while making money
@@Ansatz66 Part of the argument is that acts has way too many details (of geography and so on) that have been verified, so we can take acts as reliable.
@@modernatheism : But that part of the argument is obviously irrelevant to the actual issues. People don't really care if Acts gets details of geography correct. People are far more interested to know if Acts gets miracle stories correct. When people ask "Is Acts reliable?" they are not asking if Acts is a reliable source for trivial details that no one cares about.
@@Ansatz66You don't seem to understand how reliability works. How many "trivial details" can be contradictory before they start adding up to major changes? Using this logic, would you say the Wolfenstein games are historically accurate? Sure, they may get major aspects of history wrong and are clearly just about having fun, but those are all "trivial details", they depict Hitler as a bad guy, and Hitler was a bad guy. That's all people care about right? Therefore the Wolfenstein games should be taken as a reliable historical source, right?
I would tend to think we'd have many robust accounts of people being raised from the dead if it had happened, especially on a significant scale as it seems. I dunno, it's not the kind of thing you see everyday. I'm pretty sure that if my mom resurrected for instance I'd leave pretty darn unambiguous testimony of it and I'd shout it from every last rooftop I could find.
This was amazing. Please do more videos like this on NT debates!
One of the best things about this video is how Bart brings up the pointless nature of a debate, because it doesn’t actually coax people out of their echo chambers and their preconceived beliefs. Each side just hears what they want to hear. As a species we need to learn to outgrow the debate mentality and overcome the tendency to want to double down on our foregone conclusions. We need to replace that tendency with openness to the possibility that we are the ones who are wrong. If everyone did that, the folks arguing for the weaker side would be able to recognize their side is weaker without feeling threatened or embarrassed or like they’re the loser.
Trying to contextualize Acts as a historical document to affirm its veracity would be like trying to contextualize the old practice of blood letting and "balancing the humors" as medicine to affirm that they actually work, even though they don't. "People believed they worked" does not equal "they really worked" just as "people believed this was true at the time" does not equal "this is true".
My concern on the affirmative side is that I don't think it really addressed the issue of the contradictions with Paul very well. The opposed side conceded the archeological facts and made a case even given that. The affirmative side never really addressed the other side and just said, hey, they agree about the archeology.
Yep. In my experience a pretty accurate representation of a true debate with someone who actually holds that position. They kinda have no way through other than to sneak in minor wins and pretend they're big wins (the archeology), or take the points they lost on and just bull ahead saying they won anyway (eyewitnesses). You see both a lot from apologists.
Bouncing Bart Banter, Beautiful!!
Because bonus Barts being better broadcast.
The nonsensical sudden emphasis on certain words that doesn't respect the context of what BartBot is talking about shows that the source recordings of Bart don't match to the word choices of the writer of Bart. Therefore there is no historical Dr Ehrman.
I think you should ask people to vote both before and after your self-debate, especially if you previously taught your audience about the topics you present.
"One of the earliest extant inscriptions to use the term "Politarch" was located on the Vardar Gate in Thessaloniki. The Gate was unfortunately destroyed in 1876 but the inscription, which dates to the 2nd Century AD, can now been seen in the British Museum in London."
I'm not sure what bias it would be, but fascinating how people can be susceptible to the idea that: "we didn't think x was historically accurate, but then we discovered it was." The original author would have had NO way of knowing which details would be lost to time, nor would they likely even consider such a concept as helping prove their case!
There's a great paper from like the 1920s that basically debunks Luke as a physician.
I often debate myself masterfully.
Skeptics and apologists arguing with one another isn't really my thing. I only clicked on this video because the thumbnail is the best thing I have ever seen in my life.
I especially enjoyed when the bot would just START YELLING A random few words and then lower the volume again 😂
I really enjoy Bart's stuff. I've watched so much of his content starting with the 30 hour section he did on the Bible and Christianity. I learned more there than all my time in church. I was never a big memorizer of scripture and I rejected organized religion at a young age so my knowledge had many big holes. More recently I found Paulogia and am also impressed by him. Great admiration to you both.
"Slippery works". Guess the US is learning that anew this week.
Listening to this without watching which puppet is moving makes this really funny and kinda confusing
I don’t want to take anything away from Dr. Ehrman, who I’m sure is an excellent instructor. But philosophy professors engage in this kind of exercise all the time, both with and without costume changes 😉 (Just needed to rep for my favourite discipline!)
I would think, probably due to the inerrancy dogma that I was brought up in, that Acts should be hyper factual and exceed even our current day standards for accuracy, especially considering the uniqueness of the message and consequences of the rejection of said message.
In other words, “Where’s the beef?” Not much substance for the affirmative position here.
Maybe Bart’s students need to take a logic class as well seeing they missed the straw man and appeal to authority arguments.
The main blunder of historians is extracting historical truths from what are pieces of fantastic fictional literature: it is either fiction or historiography. Acts, gospels, or Marvel comics cannot be both.
The problem is that ancient texts often blurred that line... and that is something historians have to take into consideration.
Alexander the great was often considered to be son of zeus, like hercules or whatever. But of course we do beleive that alexander the great is a historical figure while hercules is not.
So... when some historian is talking about a battle fought by alexander the great, and he says that he is the son of zeus.
What should we make of it? should we throw the entire account in the trash?
No, we compare with other sources to see if other people are talking about this battle or if there is some arqueological evidence for it, and discard the fantastical part of him being the son of zeus.
The novel “You Only Live Twice” gives accurate descriptions of Japan as it was in 1959. This proves that James Bond really existed.
Why not accept that Spider-Man is historically reliable if we know that New York exists and that they are high schools. He visits the New York Public Library, the Bow bridge in Central Park, the Chrysler building, Tudor City Place and many, many more existing places. So this confirms that Spider-Man is real and the multiverse. 🤣
Or at least Spider-Man was based on a "real Peter Parker". Sure, that Peter was not able to walk up walls, just like flies, but since a photographer for a newspaper is a mundane thing, we should therefore accept that there was a real Peter Parker that is behind the myths we see written down as the Spider-Man stories.
Spider-Man is a known made up figure, made known by the creator himself. Stan Lee. That man was born and lived in New York! So he should know New York pretty good, right?
And New York is not that big in one sense, and today we have all kinds of resources to know it more or less ourselves. Almost 2000 years ago is very different, they did not have what we have with internet, computers, phones etc and the scope is much much greater. Remember that Acts or Paul's trips are much of the then "roman world", suddenly in Thessalonica, Jerusalem, Athens, Malta, Ephesus, Italy to name a few. If you get different things right about such diversity of places, people, ways of life etc you should be considered pretty legit. That you don't fool around but takes things seriously. That should indeed make the other claims be taken more seriously. Why even bother to be so detailed in such a broad sense if all the other claims is fairy tales, nonsense, lies or magic tricks? What's to gain when you remember Acts is written to one man? Luke sure took his time to convince or reassure one man, writing those 28 chapters that at time wasn't a cheap UA-cam comment. I came over this.
"Letters were also a costly investment. Richards estimated the cost of producing Romans or 1 Corinthians adjusted to 2004 would have been around $2,300 (or $3,100 today)" (in 2020). So Acts would not be cheap.. He did not have what we have. Imagine that. The author was serious.
@ so writing was very expensive? We have thousands of writing from this time and before.
Let’s take the Epic of Gilgamesh.
A very detailed narrative as detailed as any scripture written way before the bible.
Why even bother to be so detailed in the stories of Gilgamesh?
I have no idea. Do you?
@@robertjimenez5984 If Romans and 1 Cor cost over 3000 dollars that is quite a lot of money imo. I don't know the contents of Gilgamesh, what kind of people made it or how it was made. The claimed reason for making it etc. Is it like Acts?
Acts was still written to one named person, and it was still expensive. That's boost's the argument that the author is serious about the contents provided to him.
This expensive point is just a part of what I wrote, my main thing is to not equate it with Spider-Man, since that to me is anachronistic and out of line.
Wish you a good day, Sir.
@ well look it up, read it and then tell me.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a story written in the 1,500BC and is well documented.
1,500 years before the book of Acts.
Paulogia has officially synthesized Bart Ehrman (also how did you manage to get an AI to create plosives like a human breath)
Affirmative Bart is capping so much 😂
38:10 It threw me off for a second to hear Bart’s voice say “One Thessalonians” instead of “First Thessalonians” 😂 Then I remembered it was AI
Thanks for posting this
We have a genre for stories told with historical figures in historical locations... it's called "Historical Fiction." My favorite thing to bring up when this argument comes up is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I shouldn't have to explain that just because Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States when this movie is set, doesn't make it a documentary.
That the students thought that the affirmative side won shows that Ehrman presented that side fairly.
Imagine arguing in the shower and losing. To yourself....
But ... that would be in conflict with winning. From yourself...
if someone argues to me that acts is historically accurate I'll just laugh and say "it can't be since jesus wasn't resurrected, if he even existed"
The speakers in this video believe Jesus existed
@@ThisDonut yeah and they're wrong but either way my point stands
@@Soapy-chan why dont u think he existed? Its nothing remarkable
@@ThisDonut because there is no evidence. pretty good reason to not believing it i'd say
@@ThisDonut Not existing is even more unremarkable. countless trillions of people didn't exist.
maybe he's like Dr Who; every time he comes back he has a different face?
Which software did you use for this?
PAULogia speaks a lot about the Book of ACTS. Guess I should be surprised.
Bart: "People hear what they want to hear in a debate." He posts this two days after the 2024 US elections.
"He" meaning the Canadian guy who doesn't live in the US or vote in US elections, what with his being all Canadian and stuff?
Wow that is a damn good impression
Hey paul, this is just an audio suggestion but the p's are enunciated quite intensely. Listening in my car it feels like a kick drum. A low shelf eq below 200 hz might fix this in the future! Its just a bit distracting to me. Thanks for the work as always.
My only complaint is everything after 10:13 should be done by No Bart or at least in a post debate or debate review. Here it feels like Professor Bart is telling us why No Bart was correct which i understand is his opinion but the audience should really come to this conclusion on there own
*The Bible : **_Gods Big Book Of Multiple Choice Answers_** ;*
As evidenced by thousands of versions/denominations of Christianity,
that disagree on the interpretation of almost everything in the Bible.
Paul, I hope you do more of these with Professor Herman.
Idea for a future video: Contemporary stories of the period (ie. from 2000 years ago) that make similarly supernatural claims about well-known figures but that Chistians reject.
Thank you.
Not demanding modern standards from ancient historians to consider them reliable is like accepting whatever nonsense Aristotle said about four elements and humors in the body and alchemy, because hey you can't hold an ancient naturalist to modern scientific standards!
“The author of acts follows the historical writing practices of the day” and yet there are so many aspects of ancient history that we have tentative confidence at best actually happened as historians then described them!
Tacitus was a valuable historian. He was not perfect.
Might as well rename this channel to "Bart Ads"
What software did you use, Paul? Funny how he’s popping his P’s. Great job!
Are you aware of the criticism that Andrew Ter Ern Loke has made of your and Bart Erham's skeptical positions? He has also criticized other skeptical scholars on his UA-cam channel.
Hi Andrew!
@@Paulogia Just in case, I'm not him. But Andrew is my name in English, I'm from Colombia. I am new to this type of debates, I mentioned it because I would like to know if you have already responded. On the other hand: Can you please recommend the bibliography and authors in general that argue for and against the resurrection?
@@Paulogia Just in case, I'm not him. But Andrew is my name in English, I'm from Colombia. I am new to this type of debates, I mentioned it because I would like to know if you have already responded. On the other hand: Can you please recommend the bibliography and authors in general that argue for and against the resurrection?
@@Paulogia Just in case, I'm not him. But Andrew is my name in English, I'm from Colombia. I am new to this type of debates, I mentioned it because I would like to know if you have already responded. On the other hand: Can you please recommend the bibliography and authors in general that argue for and against the resurrection?
I see the 40 days as a reflection of Jesus' 40 days in the cave with satan. In which case, the author of Acts is saying the apostles are "satan." Which could be a callback to Matthew 16:23.
We got a YapDollar Bart Erhman fusion before GTA 6, insane
At least with the explosion example, we could archaeologically test for residue, and papers dated before that date under rubble buy not after then. Giving a speech or having a meeting is much less testable, but at least they're pretty mundane claims. A miraculous event _could_ be slightly testable archaeologically if there was a claim about a sustained residue: perhaps some kind of healing or permanently glowing object, or a material not composed of the atoms but of some completely different substance with which we can interact. There could be other explanations, but at least I'd be open to claims about them if we had something concrete as a starting point. But there are no confirmed findings of that nature (and they're rarely claimed, to be fair). Take each claim as independently as they are different. Different in nature, location, conditions, scale, sourcing, corroborators, concordance with your own experience and prior worldview, timing, duration, etc.
Thanks 😊
Point of reference: How do we know that Saul of Tarsus is who he says he was? Where do we get the “I persecuted Christians” narrative from?
its all hearsay pretending to be authoritative
At least he does not chuckle every other sentence.
Internal consistency does not mean an event happened either, so why is Bart going down this road. I can write a fictional story that is consistent.
Points of disagreement, missed opportunities and agreement.
Agreement.
1. History in the first century was poor. Historians generally showed bias.
2. There were 2 ascension accounts in Acts.
3. The author of Luke poorly represents Paul
Missed Opportunities.
3. Passion narrative is derived from Mark, Marks passion narrative is flawed, it contradicts Paul’s account. The Q source lacks any information on the PN. The narrative is not two source, but is based in a flawed account.
4. The Birth Narrative appears to have been added later. When we scrape off the birth narrative and much of the hyperbole in the resurrection account we essentially have Marcion’s Evaggelion.
5. Dr. Steve Mason shows that at five points Luke-Acts parallels Josephus histories. 2 of those points are in the Birth Narrative, the remainder lean heavily into Acts. This indicates there is a significant amount of story crafting using verisimilitudes in Acts.
6. While we have three sources for the material in Luke which the author holds closely to, for acts we have one source, the epistles, and he drifts away from that source. He does not give a list of sources concerning Stephen, the major events in the life of Peter, we can surmise the execution of James is from Josephus. Thus we are left wondering, in the early second century what sources the author is using.
Points of disagreement with Bart.
1. The author of Luke, as Robin Faith Walsh, has pointed out that Luke was a master at writing texts, and in this case a biography of an important person. Give Luke 2 points
2. However, the author of the text claims that he has set out to order the accounts. Indeed he has two big sources. Luke scores two points for telling what he is going to do.
3. Luke uses Mark as a source, but uses less of Mark’s account even though they have similar theologies. Instead he uses a much more reliable representation of the Q source than in Matthew. Luke gets two more points.
4. It now appears that Luke used at least three sources as well as Josephus for Luke, though many scholars believe he had yet a forth source. Score 2 points. Luke now gets a B+
5. Luke however makes a few errors worth noting.
a. He does not disclose the Roman Emperors at the time the text was written, even though he gives great detail of the Syrian officials at the time of Jesus birth. - 10 points.
Thus the major flaw of Luke Acts is the author is using his great literary skill to hide the fact that he is cobbling together information which he neither first or second knowledge of, but at times acting as he did.
6. The ascension accounts and the epiphany on the road to Damascus may represent different accounts of the same event. Again it’s a good idea, but Luke does not disclose his sources.
“Accurate” is a gradient
oh dear 'i flesta laget' the movie about the guy making clones of himself like one might print copies in the old days XD i remember that movie , dam i wish i hade grabbed a dvd copy of it back when dvd's was on the 'last years' aka got extra cheap because it was a good premise for some life reflection comedy ^^
I'm did the AI reproduce Bart's audio pops? That voice sounds quite real.
This is how AI should be used.
classic clothing-based debate. Bart Daytona, normal human bartender.
I like "Not historically accurate" Bart. He has kinder eyes.
Please do this for the each area of the bible pleaseeeeeeee
The machine doing all the debating gives us the perfect proof of the non-existance of any God who cares to act to allow humans to worship it, once the AGI takes over all worship.
Bart totally lost this one.
Too often we get stuck in our little cocoons of expertise. Theologians talk theology. Philosophers, philosophy. Historians, history. But if we want to know whether a book is "historically accurate", the absolutely most solid confirmation that it is would be physical evidence, an _archeological record_ that corroborates the book.
So, what do we have in the way of physical evidence, an archeological record, to support Acts, or any part of the Bible for that matter?
Yes, it's helpful if a book is internally consistent, etc. If it's not, that's a red flag. But even if it is, if there is no archeological evidence to support it and little to no corroborating and independent sources, then the book is still rather flimsy evidence.
Of course, Acts is reliable, reliably fantastical.
If Bart finds frustrating that people are swayed by the “shouldn’t be held to modern historical standards” argument, then he’d be better to shift to a different standard - if the Bible is an inspired text that is communicating from God his most important message, then why does He allow such errors? Does God inspire just the impetus to write something but without any direct hand in what is written, or does He take an active hand in ensuring that His message is accurate? Then choose to argue with whichever option the opponent chooses.
I think it would be interesting if Bart polled his class before and after the debate. I'm sure there's a selection bias since Christians are probably a lot more likely to take his class.
Since Luke completely fabricates a worldwide census at the start, that makes the rest of Luke Acts dubious
Not reliable by modern standards; and that's what I care about when judging truth claims.
MMO grinding time