Thank you so much Paul, you and the good Dr make a formidable pairing. I almost feel sorry for Frank, well, I would if he wasn't blatantly dishonest and if he didn't go to colleges and mislead/indoctrinate kids. You guys are awesome. 😊 Greetings from New Zealand
*Why is this never brought up* Matthew 17 17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus. *Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth* Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE* Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua.
@@fordprefect5304 It is all most likely to be made up myth man. For all we know even the writers of the original scrolls and scriptures knew it was made up and over centuries people just started believing it. Maybe they did think it was real and sincerely thought it was true. Either way we know humans are capable of being convinced of things that aren't true, and have been known to die for those beliefs, especially when they make grand promises and threats.
In a perfect world (such as one created by some sort of all-powerful god, perhaps), Turek could be sued for slander or taken into custody for being clearly mentally disturbed, because those are the two options here; either Frank is absolutely out of his freaking mind and legitimately thinks his completely back-asswards take on reality makes sense to him, which would make him padded-walls crazy, or he knows he's full of shit and belongs in jail for defrauding all those victims of his of their time and money. God? You seeing this shit? Hello? Anyone there? Guess that settles that question, huh?
I remember hearing Ehrman’s name in seminary classes. It was used as a byword and a cautionary tale about a former evangelical who was “led astray” by textual criticism. We were all but warned off from reading him. The truth shouldn’t fear examination.
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Why is Metatron not giving this undisputed proof Jesus existed? He would be headline news around the world if he did. There is no evidence Jesus existed outside the bible, actual proof would be be world changing.
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv I thought Paulogia assumed that some preacher called Jesus lived, not that there is proof that he was resurrected after being crucified.
It's one thing to claim that apologists are misquoting a scholar, but the fact that you are able to get the mentioned scholar(s) onto the channel to specifically call them out never ceases to amaze me. Good work.
That's one of my favorite things about Paul. He's done it several times, not just with Bart. It's crazy Cuz 90%of the time, the scholars haven't even heard of the apologist misquoting him
"It probably wouldn't be hard fro Frank to look it up.." yeah. That's your first mistake. For some reason, it turns out it's incredibly hard for apologists to look up anything.
We had a pet parrot who was 30 years old when he died. In the next week or so, we and our kids at various times thought we still heard his voice, or a squawk, or another familiar noise (him tapping a bar of his cage with his beak). Each time, the one who heard to sound would look over, and even go over to his cage, just to see and verify that he wasn't still there. The sound seemed so real at that moment. No, I don't believe that our pet bird resurrected from the dead.
But just think of all the money you could make if you could convince people your parrot rose from the dead and wanted them to give you 10% of their income
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv The fundamental question is not whether Christ lived, it's whether he rose from the dead and ascended. And I'm sorry if Paulogia hurt your feelings.
I really identify with something Bart Ehrman said toward the end of this video. That being that he’s not trying to get people to convert to his beliefs or believe what he believes, he’s trying to get people to think. In my personal journey the past 3 years now of diving deep into the history of Christianity, biblical studies, doctrinal disputes, logical reasoning, and critical argumentation I’ve definitely landed on this point. We all share space in this world and have to work in conjunction with each other to make sense of things. Whether or not we differ on particulars is not important (in fact it might be an asset) but how we think about and develop our understanding of reality impacts our ability to engage with it. People like Bart Ehrman are attempting to combat dogmatic tribalism in order to help people think for themselves. This is something I can get onboard with.
The only thing atheists want, regardless of how we get here, is the truth. That's it. For me, it started with TV commercials. As a kid I kept asking why the fifth dentist _didn't_ recommend the toothpaste, and why every toothpaste was recommended by four out of five dentists. It put me on a life-long track to see through bullshit no matter where I see it, even if I generally agree with the source on other topics. It's not even about religion, at the core of it; I hear garbage like Frank Turek or Ben Stein lie right in front of me, I _don't_ side with the obvious liars. It's really as simple as that, I think. Atheists wind up atheists because theists **_always lie._** About everything. Including their cults. Maybe especially about their cults.
@@EdwardHowton FYI: it was Trident Gum not toothpaste. I think the answer was because the gum company calculated that they only needed to pay off (aka bribe) 4 dentists and have one as a contrarian so they wouldn't get sued for false representation by some dentist. Consumers would think if a majority of dentists approve it then it must be good enough. Basically, it is a straw poll that has no real meaning or significance. As for Christians, I think most of them are victims of cult mind control by various self-righteous blood thirsty (and money grubbing) cannibals (who annually eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood and convince the innocent to do it too) who have tortured (physically and emotionally) and killed billions of people over two millennia. Once someone is convinced they are hopeless sinners with original sin and Jesus is their only savior they will do anything they are told to do just to get in Jesus' good graces because they don't want to burn in Hell for ever. Then the Christian dogma tells them they need to isolate them selves from non-believers because the non-believers are really servants of Satan (ignoring the fact that the Satan actually serves God and does His dirty work). They end up in an endless echo chamber of deception, lies. and abuse. True Hell is being a Christian (or one of their victims) thinking that they are doing "good" in Jesus name.
@@greporaThat's the thing, toothpaste (or whatever the product in question is because it's ALWAYS four out of five whatever recommend whatever) companies don't have to bribe anyone. They just *_say_* four out of five. Get a quote from one guy willing to shill out and make up a number that lets them avoid being sued. "Fifth" dentist goes "hey wait I didn't agree to this" and their lawyers can say "oh well you're the fifth one the other four are fine also whatever you do don't ask anyone else that's a total waste of time". Buy off one guy, say it's most guys, dismiss anyone who objects as the "rest". Should sound familiar, too. Back in leaded gasoline days, Robert Kehoe went around saying lead was perfectly safe to anyone who would listen, and would gesture at "most scientists agree" and dismiss anyone who said lead was dangerous as "fringe". Creationists? "Science proves god actually! Teach the controversy!" Flat Earthers and all other conspiracy nutjobs? "Do your own research!" It all boils down to "four out of five facts supports our position". Any contrary evidence can be summarily dismissed and be said to be outnumbered. Fraud in a legally-protected loophole. Critical thinking skills matter, and I got mine from freaking TV commercials' bullshit.
I was a divinity student at Trinity College at University of Toronto. In the first year we all took "baby bible" in one big class including Anglicans (me) united Church, Roman Cathilic and Baptists. On the first day Professor Ann Jervis shared that the gospels were not written until decades after Jesus' death and no one was following him around making notes. At least 5 students left the class in tears and we never saw them again
The late-dating of the Gospels is WRONG. That Matthew the tax-collector became the most unlikeliest of the 12 Apostles partly because he was the most literate and was present to take notes on what Jesus said and did, is a thesis that makes eminent sense.
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh since I originallly post this comment I've had a stroke and have aphasia so my words are confusing. But I know that what is wrong to believe that first, no one was making notes while Jesus and the his followers were traveling and preaching and teaching. How do I know? Because that not how information was dissimentated - it was over the well, the fire, in the community baths.... And for your thesis - where is the information that you used to "date" Matthew?
I have an Army Buddy I was really close to, who I considered my little brother. He struggled with a lot of mental health issues that the Army exasperated and he died of an overdose. It happened almost a decade ago, but it still bothers me to this day. Every couple of years or so, I see someone on the street who, for a brief moment, looks EXACTLY like my friend. Further, I have a family member who lost her husband of several decades a few years back. Every so often an animal visits their house, such as a bird or a raccoon (their house is right on the edge of a large wooded area), and she claims that it is her husband visiting her. Why is it so hard to believe that early Christians had these exact same experiences that they misinterpreted as divine?
Same here. Mother-in-law says exactly the same thing and also claims she can still smell her husband in the house. I have suggested she remove all his old coats, boots, hats from the hallway but that's a step too far, apparently!
It's way easier to believe early Christians misinterpreted these events as divine. No science, no motivation to use critical thinking, highly superstitious, no tested & peer-reviewed hypotheses, no easy fact-checking, little time to stop and ponder anything when the next meal was the highest priority ...shall we go on?
I dont kmow if I found your channel or Mythvision first. But you are one of the main contributing channels that has helped me realize I have accepted my disbelief in amy god. I appreciate your videos and your channel for what you are attempting. I have had a strange walk through Christianity and for a decade at least; I have wrestled with some serious issues of what gave me faith. Now that I am consiously accepting of this, I have a new journey to redfine my core foundation. Thank you again.
Consider the arrogance of preachers who don’t understand the words they read, the history of their beliefs, or even be able to scientifically articulate what they believe just to tell us we have to accept what they say with a penalty of eternity in hell. What the actual fact?!
One such example is when William Lane Craig literally argued cosmological science with Sir Roger Penrose. Theologians and apologists seem to believe they’re experts on everything, including the work of actual scientists and historians when those same scientists or historians attempt to correct them.
I’m so tired of apologetics. A perfect, omnipotent and omniscient entity with an important message for us should not require translation or interpretation for everyone to have the exact same understanding of its message’s meaning. This is a complete failure to control the message and indicates that the entity, if it even exists, is nothing like what is claimed about it.
Even if this happened, he could just deny the person calling him out. Even if it was Ehrman himself there, like in the first clip, Frank could just accuse him of "changing his tune"
In a conversation with paulogia, paul literally called him on that and frank's response was 'well maybe ehrman changed his answer later'. The guy *cannot* even admit he could have got it wrong.
@@GameTimeWhyThat'd be hilarious. He'd have on the thick rimmed fake glasses with the fake nose & mustache attached. Maybe even an obvious fake accent. 😄
Ironically, Turek is putting Ehrman on the radar and selling more of his books (Ehrman's). Anyone who is just slightly skeptic would be even more curious about Ehrman's work after Turek's attacks.
I'm so glad Dr Ehrman keeps emphasizing that these are problems specifically with the inerrancy doctrine, and not necessarily Christianity more broadly. Because honestly in quite a few cases the group's pushing hardest for the most problematic shifts in society and in law are the literalists. That said, for me personally as a non-believer, these variances are crucial. Because what I'm looking for when I'm deciding whether or not I can trust a source that would require me to devote significant portions of my life to it I want to know that I can trust it. And I don't feel like I can trust a document with as many mistakes, variances, and contradictions as the Bible has. Certainly not enough trust to Merit a religious conversion, which is and should be a very serious decision.
The problem is there is no objective evidence that Jesus existed (I am agnostic about this question) and none that he was resurrected. The evidence that does exists would not be admitted into a court of law because it is all hearsay -- third of fourth hand or in Paul's case imagined. It is like believing in a religion based on Homeric epics, or Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter. You are better served by pursuing pragmatic spiritual practices like positivity (not toxic positivity), mindfulness, meditation, yoga, etc. that facilitate a healthy body and mind. Identify and evaluate your values to realistically and objectively define how you act toward yourself and others (somewhere between selfishness to altruism with situational ethics and respect for the rights of others and how you handle people who do not respect your rights). Define your boundaries (what is unacceptable to you), your standards (what is acceptable to you), and what your goals in life will be. Learn to practice self discipline. All of this is much better than pursuing an imaginary God and being told what is appropriate behavior by ancient fiction writers or by those who assume authority over your beliefs.
11:13 - “when you say something wrong to the lay community, they can’t correct you on it” - bit of a self own there on Frank’s part given that’s the basis of his entire career. 😛
Paulogia regarding Turek: "He's definitely not that sefl-aware." That is laugh out loud brilliance! People keep saying that Turek is one of Christianity's best current apologists. Turek is a joke. If Turek is the best they've got, they ain't got much.
27:30 My experience also. I finished several courses at the Prairie Bible Institute, which was the Canadian equivalent of the Moody Bible Institute at that time. The Institute offered courses where you could learn Greek so that you could read the compiled Greek New Testament, but I left before I got in that deep. However, I was taught that the New Testament had been preserved for us by God without error... no spelling errors, no changes, no doubt that we have an exact copy of the originals. Boy, that was a whopper! My observation over the 50 years since then is that fundamentalist Christians are much more interested in defending their theology than investigating the truth.
Oh, and I forgot the bit where Turek will delay things by constantly trying to revise trivial stuff like what the 'debate' is about and the precise wording on his personal engraved invitation. Like I said, Trumpian delay tactics.
I was about to leave a comment about this, when Bart said he and Frank should have a debate, I got excited about the prospect of it actually happening! I would pay good money to see an Ehrman vs. Turek debate. I don't think Bart has done a public debate in a while, I miss them. It was watching Ehrman's debates on UA-cam years ago, that helped me out a lot in my own journey, of deconversion from religion.
that's true. It is something that bothers me about live debates. But the spectacle, the feeling of it happening in person, in front of a live audience, is exciting. I feel that something is lost when it's only done online. Not the same vibe.@@jursamaj
Yeah, it happens all the time. It is infuriating, and it is grossly dishonest. The problem is no matter how much Dr: Ehrman or anyone else puts them on blast for it, their target audience will never see it because they live in an information bubble.
With how long Turek has been doing this, it's hard to say he is mistaken, and not dishonest. Maybe he picked up Ehrman's books and read them with blinding rage. Then after dealing with the massive hemorrhoids that gave him. He truly thought what he was saying to be true.
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Metatron? Who TF is that? Why does Paulogia need to in your opinion? Do you know what undisputed means? Hypothesis "proofs" are not evidence. Does your Metatron claim weak proof or solid evidence?
It wouldn't change any doctrine, right. Fundamentalists are not convincable. But I would like to know :-) So far we have this analogy to Homer, as there's this saying "we do not know whether Homer was a real person, but we do know that he was blind." And we can say "we do not know whether Jesus was a real person, but we do know that he never claimed to be God."
I saw Frank's debate with Christopher Hitchen's and he looked like a small kid arguing with is father. Hitchen's was polite, but sorta played with him the way a cat plays with a mouse.
That was the great thing about Hitch. Say what you want about the guy, but he had lived a hell of a life and learned a thing or two, and he had a strategic supply of wit to go with his arsenal of lived experience that could scare off the army of several small countries. Some soft, sheltered, limp noodle like Turek never stood a chance in the face of Christopher Hitchens. Guy was a former communist who went to Cuba to work for Castro's cause, for crying out loud. Turek struggles with papercuts.
Excellent video Paul! I cannot stress enough how important this channel has been for me during my deconstruction, and for how I apply logic to new situations/information, in general. It’s also introduced me to a world of amazing science educators, scholars, and skeptics. Much love. ❤
@@ABARANOWSKISKI I message Frank on his facebook page. I asked when he was going to do this debate. that was two three weeks ago. No response to report to date.
@@andrewschafer8986 lol! You know, its funny, I was talking to my parents today about some of the absurd things we used to believe when we were Christians, a long time ago. We just laugh about it nowdays. I continue to be interested in religion debates, now as an atheist who just finds it interesting. Bart Ehrman is one of my favourite people to listen to! I love Bart.
@21:30 "This interviewer" is The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff. I used to listen to his radio programme every week while in Bible School. I'm not sure what is credentials are, nor how he got to be The Bible Answer Man, but I do know that he has memorised the entire Book of Proverbs.
I was delivering packages last night and there were a couple times I got startled by what I thought was a person on the road but turned out to be my eyes playing tricks with the headlights. I didn't hallucinate though just thought I saw something I didn't
The job of an apologist (upon signing a statement of faith therefore upon monetary penalty) is to evangelize to the exclusion of any finding or fact they may be aware of or discover that may dissuade the believer. (We may never know if there is anything on which he truthfully disagrees with Ehrman).
No. 4. The original. Well Frank is an American and he KNOWS that the original was in American English. He knows he was given the original, not just a copy, when he was a child and he still has it safe so he can compare the new interpretations to it.
My favorite change was when a scribe change a word to something he thought made more sense, a head scribe came by changed it back and called the scribe an idiot even if the sentence was more nonsensical. All were documented in the margins while they copied the books. Sorry I’m being vague it’s been a while since I read about that story and I’m too lazy to find the source 🙃🙃
As one apartment's previous students, he is absolutely correct about how he does not use appeals to emotion or tell any of the students his position on belief. He does not try to convert/ deconvert anyone, The study of the text alone does that. It makes you question what you learned from preachers your entire life. Learning the truth of the scripture and its history does more to convert/deconvert than any apologist.
There's something I've always had a problem with Turek and other similar fundamental apologists saying accusations like: "You are gonna believe what makes you happy", or other similar accusations like "you just want to sin". Maybe it's because the bible is loaded with similar language (like one verse that says God has given them over to their pleasures) but what it often tells me is that the person leveraging such a sentence is claiming that they know me better than I know myself. I have heard some anti-theists and atheists use similar language, for myself personally though I would rather in speaking to religious people attempt to understand why they believe what they believe. I can't know what you believe without first having a conversation, and neither should I assume what you believe, unless I talk to you or witness your actions.
I’ve been trying to find out why, in all these debates, William Craig gets to use words from the New Testament as proof. We must give him stories of Jesus walking out of the tomb or people “ saying” they saw Jesus.
Great video Paul and Bart you guys are awesome! It’s clear that this apologist discounted Barts work way before he ever looked into it and likely didn’t spend much time. Which is fine for him because his congregation will believe everything he says and take it for fact automatically
So he decided to pass on information using scripture, written in a language few people understand, and expected it to be translated perfectly, and copied perfectly, and distributed throughout the entire world before everyone in it died. Sounds reasonable to me!
Apologists can invent any claims they like, but as they consistently fail to bring any evidence at all to support their claims I will consistently ignore them. Being wrong loudly and repeatedly will never make them right.
Nothing like getting the actual scholar to defend himself after being dishonestly misrepresented. Thank you Paul. Thank you Dr Ehrman. I almost feel sorry for Frank, well, I would if he wasn't blatantly dishonest and if he didn't go to schools and try to indoctrinate kids.
4:45 I think there's a pretty big gap between saying that Jesus' disciples believed they saw him after death and saying that they claimed to have seen him after death. I don't think there's any way we can definitively make any sort of inquiry into what beliefs they held, but we can at the very least make some assertions about what they told others, and that distinction is pretty important.
The elephant in the room, to me, will always be the lack of a contemporaneous, first-person, eyewitness account of that seminal event, the resurrection. But, hey, a world-wide religion was built upon decades-old hearsay; wars have been started for less.
Bart Ehrman: “Read the Bible.” Frank Turak: “He’s trying to convince his students to not be Christians!” If reading the Bible causes Christians to lose their faith that sounds like a problem with Christianity. Lol.
At 17 minutes, Ehrman mentioned how several books disappearing wouldn't be likely to effect doctrine, and the list included "Acts". Wouldn't that effect the doctrine of the Pentecostal denomination rather significantly? I'm not Pentecostal myself (former Baptist), so maybe I'm missing references to some of their practices outside of that book. I'm not necessarily assuming Dr. Ehrman is reading these comments (although if he/you are, I'd love an answer!).
I’ve enjoyed watching Turek get taken apart since I stumbled across his evisceration by Hitch. At this point though, I’m as certain as a skeptic can be that he’s a grifter.
I love how Frank spends half his time saying "look at this evil atheist Bart Ehrman, he believes X, which is stupid, so you should believe not X" and the other half saying "even evil atheist Bart Ehrman has to admit that X is true!!!"
Honestly seems like a simple misunderstanding to me. I could see how Ehrman’s words can be misinterpreted when he’s not careful enough with the wording. Glad you got him on here to clear it up!
I put apologists on a scale about how moral their use of apologetics is. At the "honest" end of the scale are apologists who believe what they are saying is a valid reason. I suppose it is good to be honest, but the honest end of the scale means you do not know the apologetic is false. You are using it in good faith. These apologists are usually quoting other apologists they have heard. At the "dishonest" end of the scale, there are apologists who know they are using is not a good apologetic. They know it is flawed. They may know it is wrong. Some of them are "Pious Frauds." They know what they are saying is a lie, but they justify it because it helps people believe. I think Frank Turek is often at the dishonest end of the scale. I think Frank is a true believer. I also think he is smart enough to see through some of his own apologetics. This puts him in the category of being a pious fraud at the time. I also think that Frank is also selling a product. He knows that his target market wants red meat. Frank sells books and views by tearing apart atheists and perceived enemies of Christianity. He portrays himself as a warrior against critics of Christianity. In those cases, I think there are times when he knows what he is saying is false, but he is supplying the red meat his audience wants.
Would a sit-down discussion between Frank and Dr. Ehrman even be possible, or has it been tried and Frank refused? What would it take to arrange one on this very subject?
Frank admitted that when you preach to lay people (instead of academics) you get little resistance as they don't know any better. He's a victim of this as he's been repeateding the same script for so long he honestly believes it and is unable/unwilling to verify his sources. If Frank were honest he'd provide a response to this video but I won't hold my breath.
Turek is not paid to respond, only to evangelize. Any honest facts are way lower on his list of priorities as a signee of a 'statement of faith.' His 'job' depends on opposing anything that doesn't promote belief (telling the truth is diametrically opposed to his job description if it goes against this edict). A list of all apologists who have signed a 'statement of faith' would be useful - a list of questionable truthfulness especially if their lips are moving.
Ugh. Heard of the Geisler. Hate to see the SMU logo. (Former Perkins student ...) I suppose he's there in the interest of topics of public interest. Blyecch.
I enjoy your content Paul. Maybe you or someone else can link me a good book or books on a complete list of non-canonical books of the Bible. Like the apocrypha, gospel of Thomas, Enoch, etc. thanks in advance
The first words I heard were "Christian apologist Frank Turek" and I instantly knew we were in for a cavalcade of misquotes, half-truths, and bespoke fabrications. Anyone would think he was writing his own gospel.
Frank won't talk to Bart directly because he knows he's being dishonest when he says the things he does. His career requires he doesn't put himself in a position to be contradicted.
== SIGN UP for BART's "Scribal Corruption of Scripture" COURSE www.tinyurl.com/BartScribe
Thank you so much Paul, you and the good Dr make a formidable pairing. I almost feel sorry for Frank, well, I would if he wasn't blatantly dishonest and if he didn't go to colleges and mislead/indoctrinate kids.
You guys are awesome. 😊 Greetings from New Zealand
*Why is this never brought up*
Matthew 17
17 Six days later, Jesus took Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 While they watched, Jesus’ appearance was changed; his face became bright like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 Then Moses and Elijah[a] appeared to them, talking with Jesus.
*Wouldn't an all knowing all powerful god know Moses is a myth*
Moses has been proven to be a myth by mountains of evidence that shows the Israelites were just another Canaanite tribe that rose to the top after the bronze age collapse. That was the 10th century *BCE*
Not a shred of evidence has ever been found support Exodus or Moses or Joshua.
@@fordprefect5304 It is all most likely to be made up myth man. For all we know even the writers of the original scrolls and scriptures knew it was made up and over centuries people just started believing it. Maybe they did think it was real and sincerely thought it was true.
Either way we know humans are capable of being convinced of things that aren't true, and have been known to die for those beliefs, especially when they make grand promises and threats.
@@fordprefect5304ya, somehow Jesus didn't get that redaction scholarship from the 21st century that you think is credible! LOL 😂😂😂
@@TheTruthKiwiyou're as blind as Paul is with or without his glasses!
The really effed up part of this is that Frank gets to say these lies in front of a captive audience with no one to fact check him on any of it.
Worse is that even when the audience does here the truth they just say Erhman is lying.
That sums up religion in a nutshell. That’s also why they want to control education. Must be in a vacuum to believe temper nonsense.
In a perfect world (such as one created by some sort of all-powerful god, perhaps), Turek could be sued for slander or taken into custody for being clearly mentally disturbed, because those are the two options here; either Frank is absolutely out of his freaking mind and legitimately thinks his completely back-asswards take on reality makes sense to him, which would make him padded-walls crazy, or he knows he's full of shit and belongs in jail for defrauding all those victims of his of their time and money.
God? You seeing this shit? Hello? Anyone there? Guess that settles that question, huh?
Turek's mendacity rises to the pathological.
“ and where does evil come from , Christopher”?
Religion!
I’ll never forget the Hitchslap Turek got that day.
Turek being dishonest??? Colour me surprised.
Of the apologists out there, J Warner Wallace is my most disliked, but Frank is up there.
Turek cant be in the same room as honesty
Grifting 101
An honest apologist? I don’t think so. 😂
Turek has no choice but to be an apologist. He lacks the integrity needed to sell used cars.
I remember hearing Ehrman’s name in seminary classes. It was used as a byword and a cautionary tale about a former evangelical who was “led astray” by textual criticism. We were all but warned off from reading him. The truth shouldn’t fear examination.
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv What's Metatron's "proof"?
@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv huh? Who is saying Christ didn't live?
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Why is Metatron not giving this undisputed proof Jesus existed? He would be headline news around the world if he did. There is no evidence Jesus existed outside the bible, actual proof would be be world changing.
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv I thought Paulogia assumed that some preacher called Jesus lived, not that there is proof that he was resurrected after being crucified.
It's one thing to claim that apologists are misquoting a scholar, but the fact that you are able to get the mentioned scholar(s) onto the channel to specifically call them out never ceases to amaze me. Good work.
That's one of my favorite things about Paul. He's done it several times, not just with Bart. It's crazy Cuz 90%of the time, the scholars haven't even heard of the apologist misquoting him
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv "unless this UA-camr looks at this one specific claim he's a coward" dude UA-cam is a big place.
@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv you sound like a bot, you've commented the same thing 3 times across 2 videos
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Until Metatron has the guts to take on my undisputed proof that Christ was secretly Mary in drag, he's a coward!
"It probably wouldn't be hard fro Frank to look it up.."
yeah. That's your first mistake. For some reason, it turns out it's incredibly hard for apologists to look up anything.
We had a pet parrot who was 30 years old when he died. In the next week or so, we and our kids at various times thought we still heard his voice, or a squawk, or another familiar noise (him tapping a bar of his cage with his beak). Each time, the one who heard to sound would look over, and even go over to his cage, just to see and verify that he wasn't still there. The sound seemed so real at that moment.
No, I don't believe that our pet bird resurrected from the dead.
Maybe he is just sleeping.
But just think of all the money you could make if you could convince people your parrot rose from the dead and wanted them to give you 10% of their income
@@grepora Pining?
Bet he had lovely plumage 🤣🤣🤣 Cheers 🍺
@@christasimon9716 pining in the fjords
There should be a whole channel that’s just Dr. Bart Ehrman laughing at stuff.
That's every video!
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv The fundamental question is not whether Christ lived, it's whether he rose from the dead and ascended. And I'm sorry if Paulogia hurt your feelings.
@@caseyspaos448 think of all the things we haven’t seen him laugh at yet!!
@@ron88303 guys please can we keep this a happy thread about the ray of sunshine that is dr Bart Ehrman 🙏
I love it when you have Bart on here. He seems to have a strict no BS rule that I find delightful.
I really identify with something Bart Ehrman said toward the end of this video. That being that he’s not trying to get people to convert to his beliefs or believe what he believes, he’s trying to get people to think. In my personal journey the past 3 years now of diving deep into the history of Christianity, biblical studies, doctrinal disputes, logical reasoning, and critical argumentation I’ve definitely landed on this point. We all share space in this world and have to work in conjunction with each other to make sense of things. Whether or not we differ on particulars is not important (in fact it might be an asset) but how we think about and develop our understanding of reality impacts our ability to engage with it. People like Bart Ehrman are attempting to combat dogmatic tribalism in order to help people think for themselves. This is something I can get onboard with.
The only thing atheists want, regardless of how we get here, is the truth. That's it. For me, it started with TV commercials. As a kid I kept asking why the fifth dentist _didn't_ recommend the toothpaste, and why every toothpaste was recommended by four out of five dentists. It put me on a life-long track to see through bullshit no matter where I see it, even if I generally agree with the source on other topics. It's not even about religion, at the core of it; I hear garbage like Frank Turek or Ben Stein lie right in front of me, I _don't_ side with the obvious liars.
It's really as simple as that, I think. Atheists wind up atheists because theists **_always lie._** About everything. Including their cults. Maybe especially about their cults.
Turek practices that dogmatic tribalism.
@@EdwardHowton FYI: it was Trident Gum not toothpaste. I think the answer was because the gum company calculated that they only needed to pay off (aka bribe) 4 dentists and have one as a contrarian so they wouldn't get sued for false representation by some dentist. Consumers would think if a majority of dentists approve it then it must be good enough. Basically, it is a straw poll that has no real meaning or significance.
As for Christians, I think most of them are victims of cult mind control by various self-righteous blood thirsty (and money grubbing) cannibals (who annually eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood and convince the innocent to do it too) who have tortured (physically and emotionally) and killed billions of people over two millennia. Once someone is convinced they are hopeless sinners with original sin and Jesus is their only savior they will do anything they are told to do just to get in Jesus' good graces because they don't want to burn in Hell for ever. Then the Christian dogma tells them they need to isolate them selves from non-believers because the non-believers are really servants of Satan (ignoring the fact that the Satan actually serves God and does His dirty work). They end up in an endless echo chamber of deception, lies. and abuse. True Hell is being a Christian (or one of their victims) thinking that they are doing "good" in Jesus name.
Well said.
@@greporaThat's the thing, toothpaste (or whatever the product in question is because it's ALWAYS four out of five whatever recommend whatever) companies don't have to bribe anyone. They just *_say_* four out of five. Get a quote from one guy willing to shill out and make up a number that lets them avoid being sued. "Fifth" dentist goes "hey wait I didn't agree to this" and their lawyers can say "oh well you're the fifth one the other four are fine also whatever you do don't ask anyone else that's a total waste of time".
Buy off one guy, say it's most guys, dismiss anyone who objects as the "rest".
Should sound familiar, too. Back in leaded gasoline days, Robert Kehoe went around saying lead was perfectly safe to anyone who would listen, and would gesture at "most scientists agree" and dismiss anyone who said lead was dangerous as "fringe". Creationists? "Science proves god actually! Teach the controversy!" Flat Earthers and all other conspiracy nutjobs? "Do your own research!"
It all boils down to "four out of five facts supports our position". Any contrary evidence can be summarily dismissed and be said to be outnumbered. Fraud in a legally-protected loophole.
Critical thinking skills matter, and I got mine from freaking TV commercials' bullshit.
Dr. Ehrman is such a fun guest! Great video Paul ❤
I was a divinity student at Trinity College at University of Toronto. In the first year we all took "baby bible" in one big class including Anglicans (me) united Church, Roman Cathilic and Baptists. On the first day Professor Ann Jervis shared that the gospels were not written until decades after Jesus' death and no one was following him around making notes. At least 5 students left the class in tears and we never saw them again
😮
Seem like you survived the trauma unharmed, well done 😀 Cheers 🍺
Oh no way! I'm at TST now (St Mike's).
The late-dating of the Gospels is WRONG. That Matthew the tax-collector became the most unlikeliest of the 12 Apostles partly because he was the most literate and was present to take notes on what Jesus said and did, is a thesis that makes eminent sense.
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh since I originallly post this comment I've had a stroke and have aphasia so my words are confusing. But I know that what is wrong to believe that first, no one was making notes while Jesus and the his followers were traveling and preaching and teaching. How do I know? Because that not how information was dissimentated - it was over the well, the fire, in the community baths.... And for your thesis - where is the information that you used to "date" Matthew?
That guy on stage is arrogantly wrong about most things.
Yeah. It's kinda his shtick.
He's a liar. He makes money lying to people, because they need to feel special.
@@pavld335they literally can’t handle the truth
Correct, without lies religion dies. Children need protection from religious groomers
"Bart Ehrman HIMSELF" - Congrats, Dr. Ehrman, one graduating to the "himself" tier!
I have an Army Buddy I was really close to, who I considered my little brother. He struggled with a lot of mental health issues that the Army exasperated and he died of an overdose. It happened almost a decade ago, but it still bothers me to this day. Every couple of years or so, I see someone on the street who, for a brief moment, looks EXACTLY like my friend.
Further, I have a family member who lost her husband of several decades a few years back. Every so often an animal visits their house, such as a bird or a raccoon (their house is right on the edge of a large wooded area), and she claims that it is her husband visiting her.
Why is it so hard to believe that early Christians had these exact same experiences that they misinterpreted as divine?
Yep
Same here. Mother-in-law says exactly the same thing and also claims she can still smell her husband in the house. I have suggested she remove all his old coats, boots, hats from the hallway but that's a step too far, apparently!
It's way easier to believe early Christians misinterpreted these events as divine. No science, no motivation to use critical thinking, highly superstitious, no tested & peer-reviewed hypotheses, no easy fact-checking, little time to stop and ponder anything when the next meal was the highest priority ...shall we go on?
I dont kmow if I found your channel or Mythvision first. But you are one of the main contributing channels that has helped me realize I have accepted my disbelief in amy god. I appreciate your videos and your channel for what you are attempting.
I have had a strange walk through Christianity and for a decade at least; I have wrestled with some serious issues of what gave me faith.
Now that I am consiously accepting of this, I have a new journey to redfine my core foundation. Thank you again.
Consider the arrogance of preachers who don’t understand the words they read, the history of their beliefs, or even be able to scientifically articulate what they believe just to tell us we have to accept what they say with a penalty of eternity in hell. What the actual fact?!
One such example is when William Lane Craig literally argued cosmological science with Sir Roger Penrose. Theologians and apologists seem to believe they’re experts on everything, including the work of actual scientists and historians when those same scientists or historians attempt to correct them.
I’m so tired of apologetics. A perfect, omnipotent and omniscient entity with an important message for us should not require translation or interpretation for everyone to have the exact same understanding of its message’s meaning. This is a complete failure to control the message and indicates that the entity, if it even exists, is nothing like what is claimed about it.
Probably the least controversial atheist channel on this platform.
Love your work.
I want someone to actively call Frank out at one of his lectures. His dishonesty knows no bounds.
Just have Erhman in disguise and then wait until after all the lies Turek makes especially about misquoting him.
I've seen it happen, but Turek ignores the question and goes into some weird non sequitur.
Even if this happened, he could just deny the person calling him out. Even if it was Ehrman himself there, like in the first clip, Frank could just accuse him of "changing his tune"
In a conversation with paulogia, paul literally called him on that and frank's response was 'well maybe ehrman changed his answer later'.
The guy *cannot* even admit he could have got it wrong.
@@GameTimeWhyThat'd be hilarious. He'd have on the thick rimmed fake glasses with the fake nose & mustache attached. Maybe even an obvious fake accent. 😄
Ironically, Turek is putting Ehrman on the radar and selling more of his books (Ehrman's). Anyone who is just slightly skeptic would be even more curious about Ehrman's work after Turek's attacks.
I'm so glad Dr Ehrman keeps emphasizing that these are problems specifically with the inerrancy doctrine, and not necessarily Christianity more broadly. Because honestly in quite a few cases the group's pushing hardest for the most problematic shifts in society and in law are the literalists.
That said, for me personally as a non-believer, these variances are crucial. Because what I'm looking for when I'm deciding whether or not I can trust a source that would require me to devote significant portions of my life to it I want to know that I can trust it. And I don't feel like I can trust a document with as many mistakes, variances, and contradictions as the Bible has. Certainly not enough trust to Merit a religious conversion, which is and should be a very serious decision.
The problem is there is no objective evidence that Jesus existed (I am agnostic about this question) and none that he was resurrected. The evidence that does exists would not be admitted into a court of law because it is all hearsay -- third of fourth hand or in Paul's case imagined. It is like believing in a religion based on Homeric epics, or Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter.
You are better served by pursuing pragmatic spiritual practices like positivity (not toxic positivity), mindfulness, meditation, yoga, etc. that facilitate a healthy body and mind. Identify and evaluate your values to realistically and objectively define how you act toward yourself and others (somewhere between selfishness to altruism with situational ethics and respect for the rights of others and how you handle people who do not respect your rights). Define your boundaries (what is unacceptable to you), your standards (what is acceptable to you), and what your goals in life will be. Learn to practice self discipline. All of this is much better than pursuing an imaginary God and being told what is appropriate behavior by ancient fiction writers or by those who assume authority over your beliefs.
11:13 - “when you say something wrong to the lay community, they can’t correct you on it” - bit of a self own there on Frank’s part given that’s the basis of his entire career. 😛
Frank's Self-awareness: 🕳️
I really enjoy Bart and Paul collabs. I know I'll be entertained while I learn something interesting.
Thank you.
Paulogia regarding Turek: "He's definitely not that sefl-aware." That is laugh out loud brilliance!
People keep saying that Turek is one of Christianity's best current apologists. Turek is a joke. If Turek is the best they've got, they ain't got much.
Frankie boy can’t argue Dr. Ehrman on facts and evidence, so he is trying to discredit him and failing miserably.
27:30 My experience also. I finished several courses at the Prairie Bible Institute, which was the Canadian equivalent of the Moody Bible Institute at that time. The Institute offered courses where you could learn Greek so that you could read the compiled Greek New Testament, but I left before I got in that deep. However, I was taught that the New Testament had been preserved for us by God without error... no spelling errors, no changes, no doubt that we have an exact copy of the originals. Boy, that was a whopper! My observation over the 50 years since then is that fundamentalist Christians are much more interested in defending their theology than investigating the truth.
Paul is excellent, & I love listening to Bart- what a source of information.
I would love to see a debate between Bart and Frank discussing the inerrancy of scripture. Only lets make it a live debate and not an internet debate.
Oh, and I forgot the bit where Turek will delay things by constantly trying to revise trivial stuff like what the 'debate' is about and the precise wording on his personal engraved invitation. Like I said, Trumpian delay tactics.
Yeah make it a written debate.
I was about to leave a comment about this, when Bart said he and Frank should have a debate, I got excited about the prospect of it actually happening! I would pay good money to see an Ehrman vs. Turek debate. I don't think Bart has done a public debate in a while, I miss them. It was watching Ehrman's debates on UA-cam years ago, that helped me out a lot in my own journey, of deconversion from religion.
Live debates are basically useless. Frank could still spew more nonsense in 10 minutes than Bart could correct in an hour.
that's true. It is something that bothers me about live debates. But the spectacle, the feeling of it happening in person, in front of a live audience, is exciting. I feel that something is lost when it's only done online. Not the same vibe.@@jursamaj
Yeah, it happens all the time. It is infuriating, and it is grossly dishonest. The problem is no matter how much Dr: Ehrman or anyone else puts them on blast for it, their target audience will never see it because they live in an information bubble.
With how long Turek has been doing this, it's hard to say he is mistaken, and not dishonest.
Maybe he picked up Ehrman's books and read them with blinding rage. Then after dealing with the massive hemorrhoids that gave him. He truly thought what he was saying to be true.
Until Paulogia has the guts to take on Metatron’s undisputed proof Christ lived (he won’t he doesn’t have the guts) he’s a coward
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Metatron? Who TF is that? Why does Paulogia need to in your opinion? Do you know what undisputed means? Hypothesis "proofs" are not evidence. Does your Metatron claim weak proof or solid evidence?
@@JasperOFlanigan-fb5lv Whether or not Christ lived is irrelevant, so no reason to discuss.
It wouldn't change any doctrine, right. Fundamentalists are not convincable. But I would like to know :-)
So far we have this analogy to Homer, as there's this saying "we do not know whether Homer was a real person, but we do know that he was blind." And we can say "we do not know whether Jesus was a real person, but we do know that he never claimed to be God."
Where did Turok get the 99% number?
**presses buzzer**
His butt.
Final answer.
I saw Frank's debate with Christopher Hitchen's and he looked like a small kid arguing with is father. Hitchen's was polite, but sorta played with him the way a cat plays with a mouse.
That was the great thing about Hitch. Say what you want about the guy, but he had lived a hell of a life and learned a thing or two, and he had a strategic supply of wit to go with his arsenal of lived experience that could scare off the army of several small countries.
Some soft, sheltered, limp noodle like Turek never stood a chance in the face of Christopher Hitchens. Guy was a former communist who went to Cuba to work for Castro's cause, for crying out loud. Turek struggles with papercuts.
17:22 An Ehrman-Turek debate? Yes please!
Excellent video Paul! I cannot stress enough how important this channel has been for me during my deconstruction, and for how I apply logic to new situations/information, in general. It’s also introduced me to a world of amazing science educators, scholars, and skeptics. Much love. ❤
Please do this debate! Would be very enjoyable to listen to.
I know, right?!!!
@@ABARANOWSKISKI I message Frank on his facebook page. I asked when he was going to do this debate. that was two three weeks ago. No response to report to date.
@@andrewschafer8986 lol! You know, its funny, I was talking to my parents today about some of the absurd things we used to believe when we were Christians, a long time ago. We just laugh about it nowdays. I continue to be interested in religion debates, now as an atheist who just finds it interesting. Bart Ehrman is one of my favourite people to listen to! I love Bart.
I want to give myself kudos for clicking on this video when it had 666 views. Just tickled me a bit! lol
Terrific episode!
@21:30 "This interviewer" is The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff. I used to listen to his radio programme every week while in Bible School. I'm not sure what is credentials are, nor how he got to be The Bible Answer Man, but I do know that he has memorised the entire Book of Proverbs.
Interestingly he’s Eastern Orthodox now, and couldn’t remain an evangelical.
I love the episodes featuring Bart Ehrman! it's always funny and insightful!, his avatar is cool.
I was delivering packages last night and there were a couple times I got startled by what I thought was a person on the road but turned out to be my eyes playing tricks with the headlights. I didn't hallucinate though just thought I saw something I didn't
Something like that happened to me also, but I think it was a hallucination. It has only happened to me when I was extremely sleep deprived.
I'm signed up for the course. I can't wait for this lecture series ❤
The job of an apologist (upon signing a statement of faith therefore upon monetary penalty) is to evangelize to the exclusion of any finding or fact they may be aware of or discover that may dissuade the believer. (We may never know if there is anything on which he truthfully disagrees with Ehrman).
My favorite joke about Jesus and the adulteress is that a stone is thrown, and Jesus turns to the crowd and says "Mother!"
I keep imagining some scribe coming across the original. 'Thou shalt not keep slaves!' 'Nah... that can't be right... make it something about pork.'
Despite being alive and we have perfectly preserved copies of Erhman's books and recordings apologist manage to misquote him.
"Christian apologist Frank Turik sure likes talking-"
Could've just stopped there.
Thanks for the video :)
No. 4. The original. Well Frank is an American and he KNOWS that the original was in American English. He knows he was given the original, not just a copy, when he was a child and he still has it safe so he can compare the new interpretations to it.
My favorite change was when a scribe change a word to something he thought made more sense, a head scribe came by changed it back and called the scribe an idiot even if the sentence was more nonsensical. All were documented in the margins while they copied the books. Sorry I’m being vague it’s been a while since I read about that story and I’m too lazy to find the source 🙃🙃
As one apartment's previous students, he is absolutely correct about how he does not use appeals to emotion or tell any of the students his position on belief. He does not try to convert/ deconvert anyone, The study of the text alone does that. It makes you question what you learned from preachers your entire life. Learning the truth of the scripture and its history does more to convert/deconvert than any apologist.
Thanks!
Welcome!
That last point good old Frankie put out opens him up for a lawsuit by Dr. Ehrman for slander if his comment in some way effects Bart's career.
There's something I've always had a problem with Turek and other similar fundamental apologists saying accusations like: "You are gonna believe what makes you happy", or other similar accusations like "you just want to sin". Maybe it's because the bible is loaded with similar language (like one verse that says God has given them over to their pleasures) but what it often tells me is that the person leveraging such a sentence is claiming that they know me better than I know myself.
I have heard some anti-theists and atheists use similar language, for myself personally though I would rather in speaking to religious people attempt to understand why they believe what they believe. I can't know what you believe without first having a conversation, and neither should I assume what you believe, unless I talk to you or witness your actions.
I’ve been trying to find out why, in all these debates, William Craig gets to use words from the New Testament as proof.
We must give him stories of Jesus walking out of the tomb or people “ saying” they saw Jesus.
Dr. Ehrman "admits" that which he did not say.
Great video Paul and Bart you guys are awesome! It’s clear that this apologist discounted Barts work way before he ever looked into it and likely didn’t spend much time. Which is fine for him because his congregation will believe everything he says and take it for fact automatically
The accusation that Ehrman is just a grifter could only be more ironic if it was Lee Stroble on that stage instead of Frank Turek.
God can create a universe, but he can't find a way to talk to the people he put in it
So he decided to pass on information using scripture, written in a language few people understand, and expected it to be translated perfectly, and copied perfectly, and distributed throughout the entire world before everyone in it died. Sounds reasonable to me!
Why is Frank so concerned about Bart's position on the scriptures .
Apologists can invent any claims they like, but as they consistently fail to bring any evidence at all to support their claims I will consistently ignore them. Being wrong loudly and repeatedly will never make them right.
Nothing like getting the actual scholar to defend himself after being dishonestly misrepresented.
Thank you Paul. Thank you Dr Ehrman.
I almost feel sorry for Frank, well, I would if he wasn't blatantly dishonest and if he didn't go to schools and try to indoctrinate kids.
In the end, it doesn't even matter! 🎶
4:45 I think there's a pretty big gap between saying that Jesus' disciples believed they saw him after death and saying that they claimed to have seen him after death.
I don't think there's any way we can definitively make any sort of inquiry into what beliefs they held, but we can at the very least make some assertions about what they told others, and that distinction is pretty important.
The elephant in the room, to me, will always be the lack of a contemporaneous, first-person, eyewitness account of that seminal event, the resurrection. But, hey, a world-wide religion was built upon decades-old hearsay; wars have been started for less.
Actually, there are no contemporaneous, first-person, eyewitness accounts for any seminal event that spawned an established religion.
Love this.
This guy (Turk) sort of reminds me of the “authors” who publish their “works” in the Amazon comments section of Dr Ehrman’’s books…
Some are good at stand up comedy, some are good at apologetics.
It’s delightful hearing Dr. Ehrman enjoying this so much lol
Bart Ehrman: “Read the Bible.”
Frank Turak: “He’s trying to convince his students to not be Christians!”
If reading the Bible causes Christians to lose their faith that sounds like a problem with Christianity. Lol.
At 17 minutes, Ehrman mentioned how several books disappearing wouldn't be likely to effect doctrine, and the list included "Acts". Wouldn't that effect the doctrine of the Pentecostal denomination rather significantly? I'm not Pentecostal myself (former Baptist), so maybe I'm missing references to some of their practices outside of that book. I'm not necessarily assuming Dr. Ehrman is reading these comments (although if he/you are, I'd love an answer!).
22:10. Is that an ad for that fruit based company?
Babe wake up, Paulogia dropped a new Bart Ehrman collab
I’m going to bet my Oceanside property in Jamestown North Dakota that this video will stop these grifters from misquoting Erhman from here on…..🙄😝
That property must have a high property value... and great weather! 😁
@@rembrandt972ifySeveral billions of dollars!
Thank you.
I’ve enjoyed watching Turek get taken apart since I stumbled across his evisceration by Hitch. At this point though, I’m as certain as a skeptic can be that he’s a grifter.
Loved the Mob Psycho percentage slide 😂 it'd be funny to include video of the percentage rising as your guests (understandably) become more frustrated
I love how Frank spends half his time saying "look at this evil atheist Bart Ehrman, he believes X, which is stupid, so you should believe not X" and the other half saying "even evil atheist Bart Ehrman has to admit that X is true!!!"
Honestly seems like a simple misunderstanding to me. I could see how Ehrman’s words can be misinterpreted when he’s not careful enough with the wording. Glad you got him on here to clear it up!
Or perhaps a simple misrepresentation. Ehrman's comments seem like they would be hard to accidently misunderstand by a rational observer.
@@ron88303 I’m tryna be charitable and not assume malice. I have a bad habit of being rather uncharitable toward apologists so I’m tryna change that.
Frank Turek has to pull this bs rather than just presenting freaking evidence.
0:18 Do I hear a chat notification of Steam in the background? 😋
Paul: are you possibly a gamer?
Also, on the Divine Hiddenness problem, remember that Turek prayed for wisdom before he gave those talks
I put apologists on a scale about how moral their use of apologetics is.
At the "honest" end of the scale are apologists who believe what they are saying is a valid reason. I suppose it is good to be honest, but the honest end of the scale means you do not know the apologetic is false. You are using it in good faith. These apologists are usually quoting other apologists they have heard.
At the "dishonest" end of the scale, there are apologists who know they are using is not a good apologetic. They know it is flawed. They may know it is wrong. Some of them are "Pious Frauds." They know what they are saying is a lie, but they justify it because it helps people believe.
I think Frank Turek is often at the dishonest end of the scale. I think Frank is a true believer. I also think he is smart enough to see through some of his own apologetics. This puts him in the category of being a pious fraud at the time. I also think that Frank is also selling a product. He knows that his target market wants red meat. Frank sells books and views by tearing apart atheists and perceived enemies of Christianity. He portrays himself as a warrior against critics of Christianity. In those cases, I think there are times when he knows what he is saying is false, but he is supplying the red meat his audience wants.
Repeating and telling lies is the lifeblood of an apologist.
Would a sit-down discussion between Frank and Dr. Ehrman even be possible, or has it been tried and Frank refused? What would it take to arrange one on this very subject?
A lying apologist? I haven't enough faith to believe that.
Frank admitted that when you preach to lay people (instead of academics) you get little resistance as they don't know any better. He's a victim of this as he's been repeateding the same script for so long he honestly believes it and is unable/unwilling to verify his sources. If Frank were honest he'd provide a response to this video but I won't hold my breath.
Like most people, Christians project a lot and never do shadow work
Turek is not paid to respond, only to evangelize. Any honest facts are way lower on his list of priorities as a signee of a 'statement of faith.' His 'job' depends on opposing anything that doesn't promote belief (telling the truth is diametrically opposed to his job description if it goes against this edict).
A list of all apologists who have signed a 'statement of faith' would be useful - a list of questionable truthfulness especially if their lips are moving.
I love Bart. He is so incredibly interesting
You mean that people would go on the internet and make up lies?
Ugh. Heard of the Geisler. Hate to see the SMU logo. (Former Perkins student ...) I suppose he's there in the interest of topics of public interest. Blyecch.
I enjoy your content Paul. Maybe you or someone else can link me a good book or books on a complete list of non-canonical books of the Bible. Like the apocrypha, gospel of Thomas, Enoch, etc. thanks in advance
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour. Oops!
Love it love it
Oh, no! A POPULAR book!
When the mumbo-gumbo and gibberish stops working you need to move on to outright lying.
The first words I heard were "Christian apologist Frank Turek" and I instantly knew we were in for a cavalcade of misquotes, half-truths, and bespoke fabrications.
Anyone would think he was writing his own gospel.
Frank won't talk to Bart directly because he knows he's being dishonest when he says the things he does. His career requires he doesn't put himself in a position to be contradicted.
Frank is what dumb people think smart people sound like.
I wouldn't consider Frank smart. Clever might be a better description.
Apologists and making up a fake "Bart Ehrman says" in lieu of evidence, name a better couple
The best statement comes in at about 21:30.