When Bart says 35 years is an unreliable time for historical accuracy I always think of old Holocaust survivors being interviewed. Surely no one will say that their memory is faulty?
exactly.... to a great extent Bart, it seems, chooses to be dismissive of such obvious points.... he discredits simply because he was not there to see it with his own eyes.... tries to treat Luke as if he was some incompetent guy with brain issues who couldn't possibly have done things right, like someone today would do interviews to write about - as you put it - the Holocaust or 9\11....
but we can interview them directly and ask questions and see if it lines up with documented evidence and physical evidence. This is much better than hearsay. In fact, if we'd compare what a survivors exactly says with what an interviewer remembers, there might be already some discrepancies.
Memory can shift over time, it is not a matter of being faulty. My grandmother was in Auschwitz and her stories did shift somewhat. Also, it is generally understood that the authors of the Gospels did not meet Jesus and so the 35 years span is not their own memories, but rather the writings of someone who has heard the stories from someone else, maybe after passing through several people. The real question is over whether or not a story can be seen as true even if the details are not 100% factual in every case. The "truth" is the takeaway. The details may be totally incidental.
@@ronwidelec7258 unfortunately that’s not the same as the Holy Spirit bringing to them the memory and to remember correctly to record it. Everyone keeps ignoring that all scriptures is God breathed.
I either have amazing studio headphones, or ..... Y'all should put a high-pass filter over 60hz. I keep thinking that when either of the speakers puts their hands on the table, someone is stomping on my floor. I would even settle for a low shelf. Love the content though. I've been watching a lot of it.
[The supposed Judas Contradiction About Hanging] I was taught many years ago, and have since explored it myself, that "hanging on a tree" also referred to being impaled on that tree. Take Galatians 3:13 for example (which refers back to Deuteronomy 21:23) "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" Jesus Christ was hung on a tree. That did not involve rope. It was impaling. He was impaled on a tree using iron nails. It makes sense to me that Judas threw himself onto a tree protruding from the ground, like a stump with a jagged point, and impaled himself. This means he hung himself on a tree. To do this would seem to require a fleshy area of the body --- his stomach. This would result in his intestines spilling out.
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it works. The word used in Matthew for "hanged" is ἀπήγξατο . The term in Galatians 3 is κρεμάμενος. So one may specifically refer to rope. I think the explanation that the body rotted and fell is better, since that is actually been documented in the case of a Polish man named Mateusz Kawecki
@@Motivationeer Though I don't think it is that likely, I really like your creativity! I'm curious as to your thoughts on a few other purported contradictions if you don't mind me asking. What day/time did Jesus die?
Erhman's conflating oral "tradition", with oral "sources". Luke's eyewitness oral sources would be unaffected by oral tradition... because they were eyewitness.
@@plasticvision6355 Luke says it: 1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2. Even as they delivered them unto us, *which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;* 3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4) He even writes a purpose: to show certanty in things that we (christians) are surely believing. Eyewitnesses are not "oral tradition", even if it is 30 years later.
Павел Коровин - You entirely miss the point of what you quoted. The Lukan author is reviewing TEXTS, none of which he believes were written by eyewitnesses, but which he believes contain things that ultimately go back to some unspecified sources that were eyewitnesses, regardless of whether they actually were, and he is stating that he, too, is now writing his own such text. There isn’t a word here of interviewing or speaking with anyone directly, let alone eyewitnesses.
@@Steve-hu9gw "none of which he believes were written by eyewitnesses" - That's exactly my point - HE believes that first were eyewitnesses and servants. "which he believes contain things that ultimately go back to some unspecified sources" - Read it again, it's plain if front of your eyes. You giving me someone else's wishfull thinking based interpretation, but the text is right there. "and he is stating that he, too, is now writing his own such text. " - There you, here is your mistake: he is NOT saying that THOSE OTHERS who are making text are his sourses. That is the point - he ain't. "There isn’t a word here of interviewing or speaking with anyone directly," - I believe there is, but that aside, he says: there were EYEWITNESSES and MINISTERS in the beginning, THAT is the sourses. He says it.
Since I've watched several of Bart's videos and read one of his books, I feel he made some very good points. I've heard that the recording of the Bible can be compared to a court room, nobody remembers events the same. This has been proven time and time again to be true. Fundamentalist view the Bible as inerrant and consistent through out. If every word is true, how can the various and differing reports of the empty tomb all be correct? How many angels were there? Were they angels? Was there anybody there at all? Did Mary go report the empty tomb to the apostles or did she run away? And I can give other examples. My point is, if the Bible is consistent throughout, how can there be any differences in the stories? Shouldn't they all mirror each other? If the telling of the stories don"t reflect each other perfectly (of course written in different voices but containing the same facts) then the text isn't consistent nor is it inerrant. Final question (I heard this once and believe to be very telling): Is your faith in the Bible or in God? If it's in the Bible then it must be perfect in every way. To question it brings everything into question. To have faith in God, it all becomes irrelevant since God is God and men are imperfect narrators.
I really appreciate your comment because I think it's important to clarify some things that other people and even Christians assumes of Christianity I would say that as J Warner Wallace said, the apparently contradictions in some cases is more likely to be an evidence for the reliability of the gospels, if they were all exactly the same you would think that they obviously did some complot or something but if you consider that every eye witness remember the things in a different way in the details, it makes a perfect sense. Now, the inerrancy of the Bible is more to the message than the semantic. I think the Bible could obvious be different in some semantics and the gospels are testimonies of people who remember different details about a particular event so it would be different in the minimum narrativa but same in the important questions. Also our faith I think it's not in the Bible but in one particular event, and that's the resurrection of Jesus Christ off course I Believe in the Bible but in the early days of Christianity people didn't have a copy of the Bible and they still were Christians because they believed in the resurrection. but obviously not 100% perfect. And as I said before, you should expect some minor differences in the eye witness story because they're different persons and that's an indicator that every eye witness is telling a honest story. So the Bible is consistent but its not 100% perfect Christianity is based on the resurrection not the Bible
@@danielfelipeurrego2976 If the Bible is God breathed, if the Bible is consistent throughout, I would conclude the facts would be the same, that the theology would not vary. The events of the empty tomb are a prime example of this. I can understand they can be told in different voices and in different styles, but if God is using humans to write down the story, wouldn't he make sure the specific facts are the same? Take the story of what Mary did after she was told of the resurrection. Did she go back and tell the apostles or did she run away and not tell anybody. This is a huge discrepancy. They both can't be right. I guess you can say she ran away and changed her mind. But this isn't what's written. Then there is the law. Jesus makes it quite clear in Matthew, he didn't come to destroy the law and not to change it or turn any one away from it. Paul says, the law isn't in play anymore (except the Ten Commandments and the homosexual being a sin, the other 600 or so don't matter).Paul is contradicting Jesus. Isn't Jesus the central figure of Christianity? Since he is, shouldn't the entirety of the law still be in effect? From my experience as a former fundamentalist, I was around a lot of people who made up excuses to allow for the contradictions. I did this as well even though I had problems reconciling them. I put aside my rational mind so there was no problem. This isn't how God made us. God isn't in the minute details which need to be absolutely true; he is in the essence of the text. Dogma gets in the way of this. Fundamentalist get so wrapped up in the perfect performance of others in keeping with the word but give themselves allowance by saying no one's perfect. They even fight each other over the right interpretation (how many denominations are there). I think if the text is from God, it would be clear with little room for other interpretations. Sorry for the rant. I think the truth of God has been lost due to being blinded to the text (which, in some ways, is an idol).
@@wesleymarsh263 If the gospel accounts were being written by people without certainty, they would make sure that they were all perfectly the same. The fact that they were written and read by people around the same time without any issues implies that they were sure about those accounts and that the parts that seem contradicting merely seem so. That they allowed those supposed differences to remain rather than correct them is a good argument for gospel reliability rather than fabrication. Besides, Jesus in his argument with the Sadducees on the resurrection quotes OT scripture from Moses as from God. (Matt 22:32, Luke 20:38) Jesus had a high view of the Old Testament scrolls that were available. The rest of your questions regarding law and stuff are also easy theology questions actually. The blame partly falls on the poor teaching you received at your church. The Bible is reliable. God bless!
@@bensonmathewsabraham5943 Question: Is the Bible God breathed? Did God write the Bible through his followers? From my understanding this is the arguments for the inerrant Bible. So why are their so many contradictions? Don't you think God would have proofread it to make sure it was the same throughout? One other problem is you can't use the Bible to support that it is a real representation of the time period. The argument, its true because I say so without verification isn't a valid one.What ever Jesus supposedly said as recorded in the Bible is suspect. Also, the 4 gospels were not written after his death but decades later. It is also well accepted that the names associate with the books are not the writers of the books.. It's easy to deny proven historical facts when they contradict ones beliefs. This, however, doesn't make them any less true. These blinders are dangerous on many levels. The anti-science movement is one such danger. To deny science when it's convenient isn't rational when the same science made the computer you're commenting on or the MRI you might use to scan for a medical problem.
@@wesleymarsh263 I work in R&D on X-Ray CT machines very similar to MRI. Please don't let pop science fool you into thinking that considering the Bible and its content true is anti science. Some interpretations of the Bible may be wrong and contradict scientific consensus, but that is no reason to reject the Bible. The so called contradictions are mostly trivial. The fact that they remain shows how carefully the accounts are written, without efforts to 'fix' anything. They're also tiny points, which change nothing in the overall account. Do the number of angels actually affect the meaning of Jesus resurrection? Why did God have it this way you ask? Why not? It isn't a real issue, you're just projecting. What do you use to judge the 'real representation of the time'? This is just bias, the biblical account is actually well corroborated with culture and other factors that we know of through available sources. Besides, why do you think that other sources are the 'real' representation and the biblical manuscripts aren't? Think carefully here and you will notice your bias to believe anything else no matter how flimsy, except the biblical account. If there was a single torn piece of manuscript that contradicted it, you would be inclined to believe that flimsy thing rather than the established account. Sort of like today's conspiracy theorists. The real reason you find it difficult is because the Bible makes quite strong claims, so you think it should have extraordinary evidence to be trusted. But if God exists, why do you think he has to follow your rules for how the Bible should be? Wouldn't it be possible for him to have done it exactly this way?
Why did the Apostles need to remember everything? Jesus told them in no uncertain terms that the Holy Spirit would help them remember everything He said (in John 14). And if we believe Paul, the Apostles didn't write scripture. God did thru the Holy Spirit. Do we believe Jesus and Paul? These skeptics have us arguing over the reliability of oral traditions. That shouldn't matter if we truly have faith in Jesus.
Some of them are also literate. People then, just like today, keep notes. I don’t know why people don’t consider that, for the very important points he wanted to make, they could’ve easily have taken notes. People compile notes from journals all the time, back then, and now.
[Oral Tradition? Listen to timestamp 1:20:14 to 1:20:27] Why the hang-up about oral tradition. History was already being written during the time of Jesus. People were already capturing events in writing, on papyrus and leather scrolls. Even though the synoptic gospels (Mat, Mar, Luk) were written 40 years after Jesus died, we know the written sources they referenced were not (often referred to as Q). We know the gospel of John wasn't written four decades later. It was written within the lifetime of John, who walked with Jesus. That means oral tradition was not the ONLY way to capture a story. Go to timestamp 1:20:14 - 1:20:27 and you'll see Bart actually state the following: "and you'll see that Luke tells you he is basing these things he has heard and read." You'll notice a little light goes on inside of Bart as well. He recognizes in that moment that he just said, "Luke used written accounts that were captured much earlier." Having said all of this, I do not believe that the Bible is 100% error free but the amount of "errors" are minute. I do believe, however, it is 100% perfect in God's plan to reconcile the world to Himself and wonderfully shows us how "the word became flesh and made His dwelling among us."
@@colinc892 Mark used Q to write his accounts. Matthew and Luke used mark and Q to write theirs. Since Matthew and Luke are so similar, some scholars believe the Q source to be more detailed.
@@Motivationeer Q is literally defined as the material in Matthew and Luke but NOT in Mark though. Also, I'm pretty sure it is a hypothesis and hasn't been proven as of yet
I love Bart but I feel he used too many 'get out of jail free' cards'. What I mean is that he uses pithy aphorismic insights that he reckons offer a knockout punch, when, on closer look, they don't. So Bart is convinced the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts by old men who knew Jesus, but instead, floating oral traditions. But oral traditions stretch back hundreds of years. And you need a big culture, with plenty of grandkids sitting on grandparents knee for the oral tradition to get passed down. Another way of passing down an oral tradition is the singing bard. The Iliad was past down over generations by professional bards. So was early Buddhism. And here is Bart's clever insight, each Bard sang the Iliad slightly different. But 50 years is really not long enough for oral traditions to be floating around. The trouble is with articulate guys like Bart Ehrman is their prestigious position and their imagine time portal which they think they know better than people living 2000 years ago. It's so obvious that very old men told the Gospel writers their eye witness stories. Sorry for rambling.
Bart Erhman doesn't have biblical understanding. *In regards to the death of Judas* Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5 In desperation Judas *threw down the pieces of silver in the temple* where only the priest were allowed to go, then he went out and committed suicide. Comparing this with Acts 1:18, we understand that he hung himself on a tree, and that the rope or branch broke, causing his body to be hurled over a precipice, resulting in disembowelment. Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Acts 1:18, 19 There is no contradiction between the manner in which Judas died as described here and the manner in which he died as described in Matthew 27:3-10. After giving the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priest and elders, Matthew says that he went out and hanged himself. The money was then used to buy a burial ground by the chief priest.
Yes we can trust oral traditions because not everyone is going to be wrong And God would make sure his word was passed forth He is God after all Anything is possible.
Then why didn't he preserve the original text? It would have been very easy for an all powerful being to do that. Other texts from that time were preserved, why not this one?
The very end is the best. Haha. Also Bart’s reconciling problem with Judas is terrible, very soft point that can be easily disputed. Basically Bart is saying that Judas body could not have been seen hanging in a tree by one person than on the ground by another. Bart should be aware of how his biases are effecting rational thought
Don't distort his words. What does your god say about lying and being dishonest? Absolutely appalling of you. Bart clearly describes in the full interview how there are irreconcileable inconsistencies with the stories about of Judas. Please let the world know how you credibly dispute his statements and observations - please do. You should be ashamed of yourself and I already feel sorry for your kids of being forced to be led by a blind shepherd like yourself.
Bart’s PHD and his intellect are irreconcilable If Bart believes that a man who hangs himself cant later be found laying head forward on the ground with his intestines out than we have a serious problem with his ability to reason. I’m not kidding when I say I am concerned Bart may be ill. This argument was so weak that Bart fans might actually start seeing why his biases have compromised his ability to think logically.
@@vinbelmonte5951 The stories are different. It doesn't say "I saw Judas do this and then later I saw his guts spilling out". Although a minor example to which Bart admitted, the events and chronology dont match up nor does it mention what youre assuming.
WhatWeCall Life. The point is there are no contradictions in chronology or events Bart mentions. The money Judas received for betraying Jesus was given back to the chief priests. The priests then bought the potters field with the silver. Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. Acts 1:18. The priests say they can not accept the blood money so they purchase the field on Judas behalf. Let his days be few, let another take his office. Psalms 109:8. This scripture is stating that Judas blood money will be used by someone else assuming his office (finances). This is all plainly in the scripture. If you would try reading and studying rather than trying to poke holes in the text you wouldn’t trip up so easily like Bart. Don’t follow the blind if you want to avoid walking over a cliff.
1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
The all powerful god that created the universe and came to earth in the form of Jesus could not be bothered to write important stuff down for humanity to learn from without endless interpretations - still going on 2,000 years later? Really? It would be more miraculous that Jesus was literate and captured his wisdom in many ancient languages and ensured originals of his words were kept for future generations. A little rotating angle hallmark on note paper from heaven's department of human affairs and marketing might have been useful as well to ensure authenticity!
surely to goodness, if we're talking about a part of God himself coming down to planet earth in the form of Jesus with a message for all humanity all over the globe, does it make sense that he would ensure the best way to communicate his message would be initially, by oral tradition ( knowing how unreliable it is), and then by having it written down by different authors who it seems were unknown.. those names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were added much later many scholars are to be believed.. it's all very mysterious and vague if you ask me.
God never had intent to save, preserve, give SURE communications - that is unbeliever nittpicking. Even the message itself is far more important, than how preserved it is. You say it's not preserved and then blame God, while it is preserved and you in particular speak very orbitrarly.
@@myjciskate4 What is unconvincing? Rulers, territory, places, money values - all of that is correctly depicted in Bible (Gospels). How can you accurately depict kings, rulers, territories, way of life, money value, if you're making Gospels up later in time? Just HOW? Remember: those who supposely wrote Gospels later and invented it did not had internet, they can't Google 1st sentury money values, and Jerusalem was DESTROYED in 70 A.D., and all jews scattered. How would you know about what was there anyway without being an eyewitness or talking to them at THAT time otherwise? Add to that that at THAT time - it were PLENTY witnesses, who can correct those who got it wrong. It all was well known, God did established that this is all preserved at THAT time, it's not His fault you nittpick today. And many have died for Jesus, showing that they did not lied: people don't die for a lie, if they claim that Jesus is risen AS EYEWITNESSES (not as just believer), means they are most likely not lying.
@@sgorgardr227 You have a lot of fallacious reasoning here. Why do you weaken your god and make it seem like your god is less capable of effective communication than a flock of sparrows?
Yes, and God, if he existed, would know that humans are not always honest,(being sinners) plus they exaggerate, mishear, embroider or misinterpret what others have said etc, and which wouldn't much matter with most stories ,but with this one as important as this one is (our believing it is supposed to be the only way to avoid eternal torture,) you would think a god (as you say) would use a more reliable method ,
Sticky Steve different world my friend. Plus, people wanted to speak, see and socialized with the people who saw Jesus. Moreover everyone knew where he was laid to rest and could validate the claims. Not sure what you mean by Zombies.
@@onestepaway3232 It's impossible anyone could "aocialise" with people who "saw Jesus". They were all dead. The first gospel is Mark. We know this for a fact because he refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. (Mark 13:2). Jesus died in 33 AD. And I suppose the reference to zombies is because in one of the accounts of the Cruxifixion is that people arose from the cemetry and walked into town. Nobody bothered to record this either until 80 years later....
Andy Watkinson None of the gospels or epistles speak of Neo’s destruction of the second temple. Jesus speaks to the event as a future event, prophecy. Matthew’s zombie reference is not a historical event. It’s more symbolic in nature to associate it with the death and resurrection of Jesus. None of the other gospels or epistles refer to it. Neither do any other secular writings outside the Bible. People knew where the tomb was. The location and owner is documented throughout the writings. The apostles were alive well after 40 to 50 years after the death of Jesus. The first gospel was Matthew. We have outside writings from early church fathers that confirm this. He was a Jew who wrote to Jewish Christans. Mark was not an apostle of Jesus. His gospel is based on the preaching of Peter, which has been clearly documented through history.. Bart is very dishonest historian. Never talks about the outside writings of the church fathers in the first century.
I think 100 % of the Christians in all the debates are protestants or CS Lewis like (just christians). You'll be surprised with the Catholic view on all those topics! Bring some!!!
We don’t need the pagan view. Catholicism is just the result of when Rome couldn’t kill and torture and imprison enough real Christians to stop the true message, so they pretended to join them finally, but gave them a very twisted version, just taking all the Roman gods and goddesses and using Bible names and calling them “saints“ and Mary“, but any pagan can tell you that it’s just paganism wrapped in some Christian wrapping. Jesus Christ is the ONLY intercessor. Attempting to use any one else as a “intercessor“ is trying to kick Jesus aside and tell him you don’t really care what he says, you’re gonna try to get around him and go to other people. God said “call no man “father”, for I AM your Father”. He also said to go to your own closet to confess your sins and he is quick to forgive. Not to drive down the street, to a man who calls himself your father, to his closet, where he tells you some things to do to “earn” your forgiveness that Jesus already paid for 2,000 years ago. So what did Rome do? That’s right, one more, two more slaps in the face to what God says not to do. Rome also keeps their people from doing what God said TO do. Keeping Catholics at it, making them pay in prayers and penance for something that Jesus paid for in full, insulting God, insulting Jesus‘s place as intercessor, not telling them they’re supposed to go directly to God, although the Bible tells them, so I don’t know why they don’t seem to know that. Attempting to contact dead people for “intercession” is called necromancy, and it is pagan, pagan, pagan. God calls all of this “whoring around after other gods”. Catholics can call it whatever they want, but that’s what God calls it. Having little statues and shrines to them, God also calls that “whoring around after other gods.” Just look what he says about having statues of things that have lips that do not speak, hands that cannot serve… And so on. But it is a nice “poppet“ or “spirit house” for a demon spirit to come hang out. Ask a witch, he or she will tell you. In that vein, it’s a good time to remind them that “Satan comes as an angel of light“, and can perform works of wonder, so all the warm, fuzzy, little wondrous things that happen… In their case is probably coming from a demon. See Hollywood has programmed people into thinking that demons only come, as demons ready to rip your face off. They do not tell you that they more often come as your best buddy, or a miraculous angel, just the way Satan was quoting the Bible to Jesus when he was tempting him. And how many Catholics say that it just “feels so good“ to go do their whatever it is they are doing at church and at home. That’s why God says not to go with what feels warm and fuzzy, but to go with the word of God, because the heart is wicked and will lead you astray, and make you falsely believe you are doing the right thing. It’s how it led the Pharisees to murder Jesus. They actually were jealous and upset that he was demonstrating constantly how they were in violation of God’s law, but to everyone around them they were going through all the perfect little rituals. And it all “felt right“ to them. But it’s not what it’s about feels right, it’s about what God says. What’s astounding is how very little Catholics seem to know about the parts of the Bible where they are in extreme violation and insulting God, and Jesus, and Mary. Mary herself knew that Jesus was her savior. She would be mortified if anyone were appealing to her for anything, knowing that she was the focus of people engaging in necromancy. Saul and his sons were struck dead for that, because Saul just couldn’t stand that Samuel was dead, and just had to consult with him one more time. And whether or not a witch conjures up the dead, or you keep trying to talk to them yourself, and get them to do anything on your behalf, or contact the dead in any way for anything, it’s all necromancy to God. And whether you call it “praying“ or not, God calls it praying to a false god. there is biblical precedent for appealing to God to be able to contact the living, but never, never the other way around. And that appeal was denied on the grounds that the people that the dead man wanted to contact would not listen to the prophets God already sent, so it wasn’t because they aren’t generally allowed. They would have to give God a good reason, and he would have to agree to it. That’s the precedent. There are no “patron saints” of anything. God is the God of everything, and he doesn’t have a little minions to be his “patron saints”. That’s what the heathens have. Mary is not the “Queen of Heaven”, the “Queen of Heaven” is a pagan goddess in the Bible, and abomination to God. She is also not a “perpetual virgin”, because Jesus had siblings, and they are referred to in the Bible. She is not anyone’s “Blessed mother” except Jesus’s and his siblings’s blessed mother. Yes, the Bible said everyone would call her blessed, but they didn’t say she would be their blessed mommy. And to all of this I constantly hear Catholic saying that people are “persecuting” them. When you care about someone, you correct them when they are in grave error. But when you’re full of the spirit of religious pride, it will block your ears. And it’s not ultimately decided by anyone but God. And it’s in his word, so it’s not what I’m telling them or other people are telling them that decides whether it’s right or wrong, it’s whether or not we are telling them what God said, and we are. The things Catholics do cannot be backed up biblically… at all. They don’t even know their spiritual rights and responsibilities. They don’t know jack about being born again, even though Jesus said you’re not getting into heaven without being born again. And that’s what Rome wanted. They didn’t want people knowing how to fight against evil, they didn’t want people knowing how to engage in a spiritual battle, no they took that right and responsibility away from their people, and told them they had to go to priests, and bishops, and cardinals, and a pompous ass calling himself a stand-in for God, himself… a pope, who these days sits in an audience hall, right between two columns shaped like the fangs of a serpent, to show exactly who he speaks for. I could go on for hours about all this satanic stuff the Vatican does, it’s right in your face for anyone who has eyes to see. We can start with the audience hall. It’s shaped like a serpent head, has crossbeams representing snake skin, serpent eyes for windows, a red carpet up the center, representing the tongue of the serpent, and then the aforementioned columns shaped like fangs, flanking the “throne” of the pope, which also sits in front of a very demonic sculpture that supposed to be a Jesus rising up, with a serpent’s head in his flowing hair. This way, he literally and figuratively speaks from the mouth of the serpent, while the audience is literally and figuratively deeper into the head of the serpent, deeper into its mouth, being consumed by it. Then they mindlessly chant “amen“ meaning “I agree, let it be so, I declare and decree it“ to anything sung to them in Latin, including a mass that exalts Lucifer about Jesus Christ.
And speaking of Lucifer, there’s project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., a project partnered with the Vatican, guess who would fund that? Yes, that would be the Vatican that funded it, pretending they have “no idea where that acronym could’ve possibly come from”, and they had “no say in the matter at all”, (never mind the world leaders that bow down to that…man, and kiss his ring, just look up the whore of Babylon in Revelation, no other can fit that description, only one place on earth could possibly fit the whore of Babylon to a T), and as soon as it was all brought to light, they did their best to backpedal from all of that. And what it is is a telescope that is looking for… Well I will let you do your own homework there. That’s a whole other rabbit warren. Then we have the obelisk, an homage to the Egyptian fertility god and the dome, to the Egyptian fertility goddess, the obelisk rises in the Vatican Square like a big middle finger to God, just read the Bible again if you’re wondering about how God feels about false gods, let alone Egyptian ones. And then of course there’s the statuary depicting arts of pedophilia, bestiality, and self-pleasuring… I am pretty sure no “man of God” would want to collect such art, but the Vatican has no problem with that. That’s because they aren’t against pedophilia that’s why they shuffle their priests around, rather than “defrocking“ them, although none of them should be “priests“ anyway. Big difference between a preacher or pastor… and a “priest“ or “vicar“. Definitions count, and Catholicism just makes up its own dictionary, like “revering“ Mary and saints…instead of what God calls it “worshiping and whoring after other gods”. See, all that time and attention given to “Mary” and “saints”, trying to get their attention for “intercession” is all time that’s supposed to be spent with God, he is supposed to get that time and attention from his children. And no, we are most certainly NOT “all God’s children”. (But it IS a satanic lie, probably to lull those agnostics, apathetics, and atheists into thinking that deep down, “we are all God’s children“, and so therefore, he might probably cut them slack if they are sort of as good as they think they can probably be). But no, we are absolutely NOT “all God’s children”. We are all of his creations, but most certainly not all his children. The Bible is quite distinct about that. The entire Old Testament is a series of stories about the children of God…and everyone else. Catholics, (and Mormons), read it as many times as you need to, there’s the children of God, and everyone else… the children of God, and everyone else…the children of God, and everyone else. Jesus was clear about this as well. The Gospel of John tells everyone what it takes to be called a child of God. And yes, there’s a requirement. Jesus confronts genetic descendants of Abraham, who think they can ride on the coattails of Abraham to be called children of God. He sets them straight. He tells them they are “children of your father, the devil, the father of lies”. AND the synagogue of Satan. He uses that more than once. So, the Jews and the Pharisees who followed all the little rituals, but also the added stuff…Jesus called them satanic. See? You can’t be a child of God AND a child of the devil. You simply can’t be both. Can’t have 2 daddies. If you haven’t deliberately made yourself a child of God, you are, by default, a child of the devil. And no, “baptizing babies“ isn’t going to do jack for them. It doesn’t do anything more for them than “forcing a conversion“, no one comes to the father unless he draws them. “Forcing a conversion“ is pagan, evil, satanic, and people aren’t converted at all. Conversion comes in the heart and it has to come quite on ones with no duress from someone else. It is a choice made out of love for God, not fear of man. Parents could personally dedicate their child to God, at home, or anywhere (God abides IN his born-again, real children, so he is never part from them), in front of other real Christians, that’s more of probably what a christening is though I would really have to look into what the beliefs are behind a christening, it’s fine to take your baby and dedicated to God, but baptizing it… First of all a baby can’t sin, so there’s that, and all that nonsense about baptizing against “original sin”, also made-up rubbish, just like “purgatory”. But what it has done was what it was intended to do from the beginning. Take anyone who might want to follow Jesus, and lead them over to paganism but make them believe they are following the real Gospel, but nothing could be further from the truth, and for the rest of the world, after all the killing sprees and “forced conversions“ and all the torturing, imprisoning, and brutal, sadistic murders, the millions, millions, and millions of gallons of blood spilt, trillions, trillions and trillions of dollars spent on lies and all manner of evil and deceitful activities, even having a hand in creating Islam, which is so obvious, they even wear the same ugly outfits for women, the burka and the nuns habit have very little difference, but there’s actually a great deal of evidence for anyone that actually wants truth, the truth is out there to be found. Once Rome had established a good false religion for their people to follow, they did the same for the Arab nations. They couldn’t have the Arabs getting the favor of God by coming across the real Gospel. They’re dedicated, sincere people. Of course, it was too late to pretend Jesus didn’t exist, so they had to work him into it and acknowledge him, just like they do with Catholicism, only give them a fake Jesus. In Islam, Jesus gets demoted to just being a “prophet“. In the case of Catholicism, Jesus kinda gets shoved to the side, removed from his post as intercessor, reinserting priests, which God got rid of on the day of crucifixion, in case they missed that the temple veil was torn into from top to bottom, signifying that we don’t have priests go back here and converse with God, and come out and talk to the people anymore, because Jesus just established direct lines for everyone on the face of the earth forever. So, inserting stumbling blocks and re-inserting things God himself destroyed that are actually the roles of Jesus Christ and of God himself to perform is the height, or shall we say the depths of arrogance, and has led many very well-intentioned and horrifically misguided people off a cliff. Rome has been very successful at this deception. Just like the Bible says, the way is very narrow, and Satan‘s ways can deceive even the very elect, the most sincere people, if they do not stick to the word of God, and keep sticking to what people tell them about the word of God, they will be led off a cliff, just like Catholics, Muslims, Mormons.
Mormons have a satanic version, too. It’s just as pagan. God doesn’t need you to wear special underwear to protect you, Jesus does not have a satanic brother, and Satan never tried to “force anyone to be good”. Ever. satan also was not part of the conversation on how to run earth, I don’t know where they get their cockamamie ideas, actually I do, they’re from the Luciferian Freemasons. And bless their hearts, if they looked into it, they would see this is true. But religious pride (and all pride) makes people afraid to look at the truth. But the truth is the truth, and searching for it, and being willing to look for it, being willing to tear down false beliefs in favor of the truth, being willing to compare it to the word of God, and I know that’s hard for Mormons because anytime something doesn’t match up with their screwy beliefs, they’ll just say that the Bible got it wrong, even though they’re over 5,000 manuscripts to document that it isn’t wrong, being willing to try to destroy one’s own beliefs and see what stands after the burning off of the dross, that is the only way to be sure one isn’t deceived. After all, that’s what God‘s going to do on judgment day, burn away everything that isn’t gold. And that’s what he does with us every day if we let him, to keep refining ourselves. But if Catholics aren’t willing to read the Bible and find out where they’ve been horrifically led astray. They may not be happy with the result. Their choice, religious pride, or the truth. And they can stop being offended by people who are trying to point them to the truth, so they can serve God for real, instead of serving a false and pagan religion. And for Mormons, Satan wasn’t “kicked out of heaven for trying to force people to be good”, but for thinking that he could rise up and be God… and guess what the Mormons teach? If their men are good enough, and dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s, and jump through all the right hoops, they too can get their own world to rule…at least the men can, the women get to be perpetual spiritual babymaking machines for that new world forever and ever. In their eyes everyone else gets a different kingdom, their kingdom will be better, so they could go visit the other people but why would they? They have lots of conflicting doctrines. They also teach that God was a human that lived a perfect life so he was made God, and they can hold that belief well you tell them that God has always been and always will be, and they will agree with that at the same time that they agree he was a human, which, of course, is impossible. You can’t be a human if you made the humans, and you made everything because you’re God, and you’ve always been and you always will be. Their image of God is so convoluted, I don’t know how they can even grasp it. I guess they can’t. So they talk about how excited they are that they can be a god someday, “just like God did”. Well, the men do. The women, not so excited. Mostly nervous and pensive about that part. Hoping they’ll be a good enough “heavenly mother”. Total paganism. And a lot of Mormons are very nice people, and they think they have “extra“ information, and they think they have “restored“ gospel, when Jesus warned about anyone coming along trying to sell a different Jesus. Well their different Jesus has a satanic brother. The Catholic’s different Jesus is not an intercessor, they have removed him as the one and only intercessor and put his dead mommy and dead friends in his place, forcing their people to engage in necromancy, and insulting Jesus’s rightful position, and also insulting God‘s position as the hearer of your confessions and the God of everything (no “patron saints“. The true God HAS NO PATRON SAINTS!, they are in actuality just re-named Roman demi-gods and goddesses, and gods and goddesses, just go look them up yourself, a little god for this and a little god for that.) God hears your confessions from you directly. Well, he’s supposed to. It’s up to you to go to him. Not only are you not commanded to do what Catholics do, you’re often commanded not to do it as well. So, try to point them to the biblical truth, and they often get offended, they say they’re being “persecuted“, they’re saying they’re “under attack”, that people are “bashing them“, (although more and more are being willing to do their own homework and come to realize they have been lied to all this time, and that the TRUE Gospel really DOES set you free, rather than enslave you to ritual and false gods), and all people are trying to do is tell them where they’re being led, that they keep trying to pay for something that Jesus already paid for, trying to earn things you can’t earn, and are whoring after other gods, and no matter what they want to call it to themselves, that’s beside the point. God described it, and they are doing what God calls whoring after other gods, so they can take it up with God if they don’t like the definitions. They can take it up with God if they don’t like people pointing it out to them. Rome has conned them into making God very angry, insulting God, insulting Jesus, harassing Mary who should be resting in peace, not getting hollered at constantly by Catholics trying to “hail” her (but it was a way for Rome to try to retaliate against her, tell people that they need to be trying to contact her instead of contacting God himself like God said to do), and being led astray. Once again they are trying to get people to pay for something that’s already paid for. The New Testament drives the point home again, and again, and again, we are not “all God’s children“. Some people are “children of your father the devil, the father of lies. He was a murderer from the beginning…”. Satan comes to steal, kill, and destroy. The first thing he does is steal the word of God. Then he has basically ripped the engine out of your vehicle and taken the steering wheel, too. Now you are going nowhere, and if you decide to push your car, you got no way to steer it. Once he has stolen the word of God, either by keeping people from ever wanting to hear it, or giving them twisted, contorted versions like Catholicism, Islam, and Mormonism, and other isms, then he can swoop in for the killing and destroying part. And since people aren’t armed with the word of God, then they have no defense against the killing and destroying and stealing of other things part. They don’t even know about the full armor of God. So even if they do go into battle, they are completely unarmed in every way. And they hand their power over to their formal organizations. They have no idea the meaning of the “one true church”.
The “one true church“ can only ever be the spiritual collective of every individual worldwide who reads, studies, follows, and takes action, and takes action upon the true word of God as God teaches it, as the Holy Spirit teaches, not by following an organization that stamped itself as the one true religion, just the fact that they did that put them in the kingdom of man and directly out of the kingdom of God. The minute you put a man-made label on it, you keep it in the kingdom of man. The church is a spiritual collective, not a building. No formal organization can claim in truth that all of their doctrine follows the Bible, because none of them do, or that their members all adhere to the teachings, nor can they claim that all of that occurs to the exclusion of anyone else in the world. Therefore none of them can be the “one true church“. It’s just each person in the world who lets God’s word be the final word, not some human leader’s words. And God hates the repetitive prayers of the heathen. They are an abomination to him. God is not interested in a recital, how many times you can repeat something over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over…as nauseam. Demons love it, though. So the next time you’re using your little rosary, you’re making some demons very happy. God does not need trinkets of any kind. No little protective medallions of demons calling themselves “saints“ so you will give them your devotion and time and focus and attention that belongs to God. In the same breath that Catholics insist they “don’t pray to Mary or saints“, you can go do any Catholic store, or go online and just search for Catholic prayer cards, and see what you come up. And the Catholics think that all the ritual and man-made, non biblical, rule-following is going to be of any use to them, first of all you can’t “earn” a gift that Jesus already paid for, you don’t need “absolution” and “last rites” and all that kind of crazy insanity, God is the one that forgives you directly when you go right to him personally yourself. Jesus stands up for you, but God is supposed to be your Abba Father, you should be going directly to him, climbing into his lap and conversing, which is where each of you talks and each of you listens. Yes, you enter his courts with clean hands and a clean heart, forgiving and having forgiven anyone and everyone, but coming because you are washed clean by what Jesus has done for you, not for anything you’ve done. And you come, with forgiveness for all, including yourself, no matter what others have done, you forgive them, and you come with gratitude and thanksgiving for what you have, and with joy because you know whatever it is that you need from him, he is on your side and he’s there to help you solve it. You can go to God directly, you are a good man commanded to go to God directly. He wants to hear from you. Again, Satan comes as an angel of light. He comes to steal, kill, and destroy. And the first thing he wants to steal is your knowledge of God, your direct and very personal relationship with God, and your knowledge of salvation, and your knowledge of your power and authority over the kingdom of darkness, and that the power of blessing and cursing, and life and death are in the tongue. Just look at how the media has people repeating over and over and over and over and over all their worst fears, all the most negative things. They cannot accomplish the evil without all the TV watchers letting the teleprompter-readers vomit all over them, as they swallow it all, and then puke it all back up over everyone else who will listen. Can’t tell you how many times people try to puke that vomit all over me, but I will not allow it. I do not watch the news, the word of God tells me not to engage in that, but to use his word to battle the works of darkness. And I don’t need a TV to tell me what Satan does all day every day. He attacks everything that God loves, so that would be everything from an an egg and a sperm, every human, every living thing, all of creation, the home, the family, men, women, children in their innocence, I know what Satan goes after, all I need to know is how does God want me to combat it. I don’t need to know about every little fire that he sits to distract the people of the world. Those are done to steal the time of people who could be putting the word of God to work, as he commanded. They will be held accountable for every idle word, every time they repeated those curses to others, or just to the wall. every time you say “so-and-so won’t amount to much/is dying/has a big bad illness”, or you say anything negative about them, you are speaking a curse over them. The satanic media doesn’t want you to know that you shall half what you say, they want you glued to everything they keep saying with their tongues. They know the power of creation, and they cannot create the chaos that we see around us, without your help and participation. don’t even listen to them, just look at what God said to do about evil. Every second the people are watching the news they could be doing that instead, using the power of their tongue, combined with the breath of God that comes out of their lungs, to create what he said to create on earth. And Catholics and Mormons and Muslims have ZERO knowledge of any of this. They have been taught to get their power and authority away to human leaders. And that’s satanic, too. So Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Satan thanks you for refusing to learn about your rights and responsibilities given in the name of Jesus Christ to all who truly believe (enough to take action upon that power and authority as well). If you have a human leader, who claims to have more contact with God then you can have, you’re in a satanic organization. That would be your first clue. It’s not your only clue, the Bible has the rest of the clues.
Religious oral tradition is a messy business passed from master-preacher to as many of his choirboys as possible, Church Elders, with ye finger in yerear...
Please address his arguments instead of forwarding the feeling in the bottom of your right testicle please. Bart had some very great observations and his adverary had absolutely nothing to counter those.
You realize he changed his mind once going from fundamentalist to liberal christian based on his research. I'm sure he'd happily go back if the evidence lead there.
@Jared D No they aren't preserved from being changed, if that's what you mean by "corruption". Firstly, we dont even have originals, secondly there are books that are not considered canon even though they are "inspired by god", third there were edits that were made like the ending of Matthew IIRC, fourth once you translate something you tend to lose some of the cultural context for phrases although you can recover these meanings through anthropology, fifth there were lilely scribal errors that were made that were copied along with everything else.
Islamic Defense Most information those days were from oral sources and well preserved, so what? And we are talking a time span of a couple decades. Then things were written down.
Colin C Peter and Paul were buddies. Peter was a buddy of Jesus. So before Paul wrote things down the oral tradition was very short, not even a generation.
@@evangelistkimpatrik I wasn't asking about anything in particular. I was asking how you know "most information" was "well preserved" as you claimed. What can you use to verify its accuracy? In the debate they are talking about oral tradition surrounding the gospel story, which has nothing to do with Paul
NOT FOR THE MASSIVE CLAIMS THAT ARE MADE!! There are better, very ordinary explanations! How obvious is that? You don't need a degree or letters after your name!
@@20july1944 Told you before I don't subscribe to any particular naturalistic explanation. The jury is still out. Definitely not magic incantations though!
Why can't Christians accept the truth that the Gospels are the stories of Christ. If you have read Pilgrims Progress or Hinds Feet on High Places you will have got some truth that gave you insight to God. If fiction books can do that then it's possible for the Gospels to do the same whether they are the true words and true events or not. Faith in the Bible is not faith in God and seems to reject truth when confronted with it.
Fiction books give that only in developed soceties of late senturies. Becuase theya re influenced by christianity, higher standarts. Example you gave - what truth is there? Love your enemies, because we are all brothers and there is no need to kill to survive, because you will die anyway, and those who you protect would too? And that as we are not animals we can comprehend that mere not dying is not main target of life? doubt such wisdom is there. But it is in the Bible, and about what comes after life and what to do about it.
@@sgorgardr227 Some animals mourn their dead and have a sense of death without the Bible. I totally agree that the Bible is profound and there are many answers in it. If I was to tell you about my father in that he's exercised every day of his life you would instantly have an image of my dad in your mind. You would be surprised when you met him because he will not be what you imagined and your imagination of my dad would not be my dad. When we read the Bible we get an image of God and that image is not God.
Sorry. We just read the stuff and the verifiably correct points within the writings points to a truth that cannot be ignored- unless one forces a willful ignorance of the truth. And that, as we often note, does not negate factual truth.
@@islamlies5687 I take it you mean the truth in the bible as opposed to the truth of what we see as common sense. We used to believe the world was flat because of the Bible even though at the time their were people sailing the world and they knew it to be a ball but that truth was rejected but now we know it's true and nearly every Christian accepts the world is round and the sun does not travel across the sky. It only appears to because the world is spinning. If we didn't believe that then we would reject using the internet and GPS which uses satellites spinning around the planet. We would have to conclude it's all a lie
@UCusIFvHjxcO1pXnw-X2Twhg "Some animals mourn their dead" - Animals have WAR against each other, their own kind. Bears eats little bears-kids just to sleep with their mother - animals are NOT example. They live by INSTINCTS, not rationality like us. " have a sense of death without the Bible" - You making it even more complicated: where did they get it from? Christians teahc that God made world GOOD, and our nature, and animals nature are from the beginning are good - you only proving chirstian point. No one says you cannot be good without God, you Hitchens worshipper: you have no STANDARTS for what is actually good or bad without God as orbitor. "When we read the Bible we get an image of God and that image is not God." - Your example is so flaud. Bible is DIRECT with these things, it is not imagination or describing something. AND, means you did bad description of your father. UPD: Why are you such deliberately STUPID person? POINT where Bible says world is flat. People COULD knew world is a ball, but not really - every culture has it's own beliefs, and Bible was not everywhere. No christian BELIEFS in flat earth - it's just some flatearthers happen to be christians and henceforth interpret Bible in such a way.
Muslims are actually correct. They follow the prophets are worship the same one god as all the prophets did. And if anything, the quran is still in tact and memorised by thousands of people from cover to cover.
@Sticky Steve we not claiming your claims. The main doctrine of Christin was passed down as it was since begining as studies show. On the other hand, not only qoran fails on many aspects and it refers back to the wrong heretical stories in its 50%, it is now failing history test when looking to archeology, coins, external sourced ..it is a product of an evolution of 200 years. Please stop the dumb comparison process and look at each story separately. Islam is not a religion, it is an empire that came up with a book and made it's leader a profit.
@@danmurphy988 on the other hand; u must be a Muslim. No one claim this unless he absorbed the poison since childhood where brain doesn't function on this subject
When Bart says 35 years is an unreliable time for historical accuracy I always think of old Holocaust survivors being interviewed. Surely no one will say that their memory is faulty?
exactly.... to a great extent Bart, it seems, chooses to be dismissive of such obvious points.... he discredits simply because he was not there to see it with his own eyes.... tries to treat Luke as if he was some incompetent guy with brain issues who couldn't possibly have done things right, like someone today would do interviews to write about - as you put it - the Holocaust or 9\11....
but we can interview them directly and ask questions and see if it lines up with documented evidence and physical evidence. This is much better than hearsay. In fact, if we'd compare what a survivors exactly says with what an interviewer remembers, there might be already some discrepancies.
Memory can shift over time, it is not a matter of being faulty. My grandmother was in Auschwitz and her stories did shift somewhat. Also, it is generally understood that the authors of the Gospels did not meet Jesus and so the 35 years span is not their own memories, but rather the writings of someone who has heard the stories from someone else, maybe after passing through several people. The real question is over whether or not a story can be seen as true even if the details are not 100% factual in every case. The "truth" is the takeaway. The details may be totally incidental.
@@ronwidelec7258 unfortunately that’s not the same as the Holy Spirit bringing to them the memory and to remember correctly to record it. Everyone keeps ignoring that all scriptures is God breathed.
@@godloves9163 no one is "forgetting that." Many if us simply don't believe that.
I either have amazing studio headphones, or ..... Y'all should put a high-pass filter over 60hz. I keep thinking that when either of the speakers puts their hands on the table, someone is stomping on my floor. I would even settle for a low shelf. Love the content though. I've been watching a lot of it.
[The supposed Judas Contradiction About Hanging]
I was taught many years ago, and have since explored it myself, that "hanging on a tree" also referred to being impaled on that tree.
Take Galatians 3:13 for example (which refers back to Deuteronomy 21:23) "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"
Jesus Christ was hung on a tree. That did not involve rope. It was impaling. He was impaled on a tree using iron nails.
It makes sense to me that Judas threw himself onto a tree protruding from the ground, like a stump with a jagged point, and impaled himself. This means he hung himself on a tree. To do this would seem to require a fleshy area of the body --- his stomach. This would result in his intestines spilling out.
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it works.
The word used in Matthew for "hanged" is ἀπήγξατο . The term in Galatians 3 is κρεμάμενος. So one may specifically refer to rope. I think the explanation that the body rotted and fell is better, since that is actually been documented in the case of a Polish man named Mateusz Kawecki
@@calebjackson99 Thanks for the reply, Caleb. I am stunned I didn't think to compare the original Greek words. Much appreciated. I'll keep digging.
@@Motivationeer
Though I don't think it is that likely, I really like your creativity! I'm curious as to your thoughts on a few other purported contradictions if you don't mind me asking. What day/time did Jesus die?
Erhman's conflating oral "tradition", with oral "sources". Luke's eyewitness oral sources would be unaffected by oral tradition... because they were eyewitness.
EVIDENT one9teen How do you know?
@@plasticvision6355 Luke says it: 1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, *which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;*
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
(Luke 1:1-4)
He even writes a purpose: to show certanty in things that we (christians) are surely believing. Eyewitnesses are not "oral tradition", even if it is 30 years later.
Павел Коровин - You entirely miss the point of what you quoted. The Lukan author is reviewing TEXTS, none of which he believes were written by eyewitnesses, but which he believes contain things that ultimately go back to some unspecified sources that were eyewitnesses, regardless of whether they actually were, and he is stating that he, too, is now writing his own such text. There isn’t a word here of interviewing or speaking with anyone directly, let alone eyewitnesses.
@@Steve-hu9gw "none of which he believes were written by eyewitnesses" - That's exactly my point - HE believes that first were eyewitnesses and servants.
"which he believes contain things that ultimately go back to some unspecified sources" - Read it again, it's plain if front of your eyes. You giving me someone else's wishfull thinking based interpretation, but the text is right there.
"and he is stating that he, too, is now writing his own such text. " - There you, here is your mistake: he is NOT saying that THOSE OTHERS who are making text are his sourses. That is the point - he ain't.
"There isn’t a word here of interviewing or speaking with anyone directly," - I believe there is, but that aside, he says: there were EYEWITNESSES and MINISTERS in the beginning, THAT is the sourses. He says it.
@@Steve-hu9gw I was wondering if someone would call this person out for quoting a passage with no context.
Since I've watched several of Bart's videos and read one of his books, I feel he made some very good points. I've heard that the recording of the Bible can be compared to a court room, nobody remembers events the same. This has been proven time and time again to be true.
Fundamentalist view the Bible as inerrant and consistent through out. If every word is true, how can the various and differing reports of the empty tomb all be correct? How many angels were there? Were they angels? Was there anybody there at all? Did Mary go report the empty tomb to the apostles or did she run away? And I can give other examples. My point is, if the Bible is consistent throughout, how can there be any differences in the stories? Shouldn't they all mirror each other?
If the telling of the stories don"t reflect each other perfectly (of course written in different voices but containing the same facts) then the text isn't consistent nor is it inerrant.
Final question (I heard this once and believe to be very telling): Is your faith in the Bible or in God? If it's in the Bible then it must be perfect in every way. To question it brings everything into question. To have faith in God, it all becomes irrelevant since God is God and men are imperfect narrators.
I really appreciate your comment because I think it's important to clarify some things that other people and even Christians assumes of Christianity
I would say that as J Warner Wallace said, the apparently contradictions in some cases is more likely to be an evidence for the reliability of the gospels, if they were all exactly the same you would think that they obviously did some complot or something but if you consider that every eye witness remember the things in a different way in the details, it makes a perfect sense. Now, the inerrancy of the Bible is more to the message than the semantic. I think the Bible could obvious be different in some semantics and the gospels are testimonies of people who remember different details about a particular event so it would be different in the minimum narrativa but same in the important questions. Also our faith I think it's not in the Bible but in one particular event, and that's the resurrection of Jesus Christ off course I Believe in the Bible but in the early days of Christianity people didn't have a copy of the Bible and they still were Christians because they believed in the resurrection.
but obviously not 100% perfect.
And as I said before, you should expect some minor differences in the eye witness story because they're different persons and that's an indicator that every eye witness is telling a honest story.
So the Bible is consistent but its not 100% perfect
Christianity is based on the resurrection not the Bible
@@danielfelipeurrego2976 If the Bible is God breathed, if the Bible is consistent throughout, I would conclude the facts would be the same, that the theology would not vary. The events of the empty tomb are a prime example of this. I can understand they can be told in different voices and in different styles, but if God is using humans to write down the story, wouldn't he make sure the specific facts are the same?
Take the story of what Mary did after she was told of the resurrection. Did she go back and tell the apostles or did she run away and not tell anybody. This is a huge discrepancy. They both can't be right. I guess you can say she ran away and changed her mind. But this isn't what's written.
Then there is the law. Jesus makes it quite clear in Matthew, he didn't come to destroy the law and not to change it or turn any one away from it. Paul says, the law isn't in play anymore (except the Ten Commandments and the homosexual being a sin, the other 600 or so don't matter).Paul is contradicting Jesus. Isn't Jesus the central figure of Christianity? Since he is, shouldn't the entirety of the law still be in effect?
From my experience as a former fundamentalist, I was around a lot of people who made up excuses to allow for the contradictions. I did this as well even though I had problems reconciling them. I put aside my rational mind so there was no problem. This isn't how God made us.
God isn't in the minute details which need to be absolutely true; he is in the essence of the text. Dogma gets in the way of this. Fundamentalist get so wrapped up in the perfect performance of others in keeping with the word but give themselves allowance by saying no one's perfect. They even fight each other over the right interpretation (how many denominations are there). I think if the text is from God, it would be clear with little room for other interpretations.
Sorry for the rant. I think the truth of God has been lost due to being blinded to the text (which, in some ways, is an idol).
@@wesleymarsh263 If the gospel accounts were being written by people without certainty, they would make sure that they were all perfectly the same. The fact that they were written and read by people around the same time without any issues implies that they were sure about those accounts and that the parts that seem contradicting merely seem so.
That they allowed those supposed differences to remain rather than correct them is a good argument for gospel reliability rather than fabrication.
Besides, Jesus in his argument with the Sadducees on the resurrection quotes OT scripture from Moses as from God. (Matt 22:32, Luke 20:38) Jesus had a high view of the Old Testament scrolls that were available.
The rest of your questions regarding law and stuff are also easy theology questions actually. The blame partly falls on the poor teaching you received at your church.
The Bible is reliable. God bless!
@@bensonmathewsabraham5943 Question: Is the Bible God breathed? Did God write the Bible through his followers? From my understanding this is the arguments for the inerrant Bible. So why are their so many contradictions? Don't you think God would have proofread it to make sure it was the same throughout?
One other problem is you can't use the Bible to support that it is a real representation of the time period. The argument, its true because I say so without verification isn't a valid one.What ever Jesus supposedly said as recorded in the Bible is suspect.
Also, the 4 gospels were not written after his death but decades later. It is also well accepted that the names associate with the books are not the writers of the books..
It's easy to deny proven historical facts when they contradict ones beliefs. This, however, doesn't make them any less true. These blinders are dangerous on many levels. The anti-science movement is one such danger. To deny science when it's convenient isn't rational when the same science made the computer you're commenting on or the MRI you might use to scan for a medical problem.
@@wesleymarsh263 I work in R&D on X-Ray CT machines very similar to MRI. Please don't let pop science fool you into thinking that considering the Bible and its content true is anti science. Some interpretations of the Bible may be wrong and contradict scientific consensus, but that is no reason to reject the Bible.
The so called contradictions are mostly trivial. The fact that they remain shows how carefully the accounts are written, without efforts to 'fix' anything. They're also tiny points, which change nothing in the overall account. Do the number of angels actually affect the meaning of Jesus resurrection?
Why did God have it this way you ask? Why not? It isn't a real issue, you're just projecting.
What do you use to judge the 'real representation of the time'? This is just bias, the biblical account is actually well corroborated with culture and other factors that we know of through available sources. Besides, why do you think that other sources are the 'real' representation and the biblical manuscripts aren't? Think carefully here and you will notice your bias to believe anything else no matter how flimsy, except the biblical account. If there was a single torn piece of manuscript that contradicted it, you would be inclined to believe that flimsy thing rather than the established account. Sort of like today's conspiracy theorists.
The real reason you find it difficult is because the Bible makes quite strong claims, so you think it should have extraordinary evidence to be trusted. But if God exists, why do you think he has to follow your rules for how the Bible should be? Wouldn't it be possible for him to have done it exactly this way?
Thank you. Great discussion
Why did the Apostles need to remember everything? Jesus told them in no uncertain terms that the Holy Spirit would help them remember everything He said (in John 14). And if we believe Paul, the Apostles didn't write scripture. God did thru the Holy Spirit. Do we believe Jesus and Paul? These skeptics have us arguing over the reliability of oral traditions. That shouldn't matter if we truly have faith in Jesus.
Some of them are also literate. People then, just like today, keep notes. I don’t know why people don’t consider that, for the very important points he wanted to make, they could’ve easily have taken notes. People compile notes from journals all the time, back then, and now.
[Oral Tradition? Listen to timestamp 1:20:14 to 1:20:27]
Why the hang-up about oral tradition. History was already being written during the time of Jesus. People were already capturing events in writing, on papyrus and leather scrolls. Even though the synoptic gospels (Mat, Mar, Luk) were written 40 years after Jesus died, we know the written sources they referenced were not (often referred to as Q).
We know the gospel of John wasn't written four decades later. It was written within the lifetime of John, who walked with Jesus. That means oral tradition was not the ONLY way to capture a story.
Go to timestamp 1:20:14 - 1:20:27 and you'll see Bart actually state the following:
"and you'll see that Luke tells you he is basing these things he has heard and read."
You'll notice a little light goes on inside of Bart as well. He recognizes in that moment that he just said, "Luke used written accounts that were captured much earlier."
Having said all of this, I do not believe that the Bible is 100% error free but the amount of "errors" are minute. I do believe, however, it is 100% perfect in God's plan to reconcile the world to Himself and wonderfully shows us how "the word became flesh and made His dwelling among us."
I thought Q was hypothesized to just be a list of sayings, not the activities of jesus?
@@colinc892 Mark used Q to write his accounts. Matthew and Luke used mark and Q to write theirs. Since Matthew and Luke are so similar, some scholars believe the Q source to be more detailed.
@@Motivationeer Q is literally defined as the material in Matthew and Luke but NOT in Mark though. Also, I'm pretty sure it is a hypothesis and hasn't been proven as of yet
When preachers try to prove they haven't wasted their entire life
I love Bart but I feel he used too many 'get out of jail free' cards'. What I mean is that he uses pithy aphorismic insights that he reckons offer a knockout punch, when, on closer look, they don't. So Bart is convinced the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts by old men who knew Jesus, but instead, floating oral traditions. But oral traditions stretch back hundreds of years. And you need a big culture, with plenty of grandkids sitting on grandparents knee for the oral tradition to get passed down. Another way of passing down an oral tradition is the singing bard. The Iliad was past down over generations by professional bards. So was early Buddhism. And here is Bart's clever insight, each Bard sang the Iliad slightly different.
But 50 years is really not long enough for oral traditions to be floating around.
The trouble is with articulate guys like Bart Ehrman is their prestigious position and their imagine time portal which they think they know better than people living 2000 years ago.
It's so obvious that very old men told the Gospel writers their eye witness stories.
Sorry for rambling.
you have not rambled... appreciated your comment...
Bart Erhman doesn't have biblical understanding.
*In regards to the death of Judas*
Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Matthew 27:5
In desperation Judas *threw down the pieces of silver in the temple* where only the priest were allowed to go, then he went out and committed suicide. Comparing this with Acts 1:18, we understand that he hung himself on a tree, and that the rope or branch broke, causing his body to be hurled over a precipice, resulting in disembowelment.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Acts 1:18, 19
There is no contradiction between the manner in which Judas died as described here and the manner in which he died as described in Matthew 27:3-10. After giving the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priest and elders, Matthew says that he went out and hanged himself. The money was then used to buy a burial ground by the chief priest.
I read parts of the Bible and decided it was too confusing to be useful.
I prefer science, reason, and direct experience as my teacher.
Yes we can trust oral traditions because not everyone is going to be wrong
And God would make sure his word was passed forth
He is God after all
Anything is possible.
Then why didn't he preserve the original text? It would have been very easy for an all powerful being to do that. Other texts from that time were preserved, why not this one?
Christian God being a myth is also a possibility.
Did the discussion manage to get off the ground?
The very end is the best. Haha. Also Bart’s reconciling problem with Judas is terrible, very soft point that can be easily disputed. Basically Bart is saying that Judas body could not have been seen hanging in a tree by one person than on the ground by another. Bart should be aware of how his biases are effecting rational thought
love the name
Don't distort his words. What does your god say about lying and being dishonest? Absolutely appalling of you. Bart clearly describes in the full interview how there are irreconcileable inconsistencies with the stories about of Judas. Please let the world know how you credibly dispute his statements and observations - please do. You should be ashamed of yourself and I already feel sorry for your kids of being forced to be led by a blind shepherd like yourself.
Bart’s PHD and his intellect are irreconcilable
If Bart believes that a man who hangs himself cant later be found laying head forward on the ground with his intestines out than we have a serious problem with his ability to reason. I’m not kidding when I say I am concerned Bart may be ill. This argument was so weak that Bart fans might actually start seeing why his biases have compromised his ability to think logically.
@@vinbelmonte5951 The stories are different. It doesn't say "I saw Judas do this and then later I saw his guts spilling out".
Although a minor example to which Bart admitted, the events and chronology dont match up nor does it mention what youre assuming.
WhatWeCall Life. The point is there are no contradictions in chronology or events Bart mentions. The money Judas received for betraying Jesus was given back to the chief priests. The priests then bought the potters field with the silver. Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. Acts 1:18. The priests say they can not accept the blood money so they purchase the field on Judas behalf. Let his days be few, let another take his office. Psalms 109:8. This scripture is stating that Judas blood money will be used by someone else assuming his office (finances). This is all plainly in the scripture. If you would try reading and studying rather than trying to poke holes in the text you wouldn’t trip up so easily like Bart. Don’t follow the blind if you want to avoid walking over a cliff.
1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
The all powerful god that created the universe and came to earth in the form of Jesus could not be bothered to write important stuff down for humanity to learn from without endless interpretations - still going on 2,000 years later? Really? It would be more miraculous that Jesus was literate and captured his wisdom in many ancient languages and ensured originals of his words were kept for future generations. A little rotating angle hallmark on note paper from heaven's department of human affairs and marketing might have been useful as well to ensure authenticity!
Bart is asking us to trust his oral tradition that he has it right.
Is he this blind to truth?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "According to Luke" added around 3 or 400 ad? Isn't it an _anonymous_ account?
surely to goodness, if we're talking about a part of God himself coming down to planet earth in the form of Jesus with a message for all humanity all over the globe, does it make sense that he would ensure the best way to communicate his message would be initially, by oral tradition ( knowing how unreliable it is), and then by having it written down by different authors who it seems were unknown.. those names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were added much later many scholars are to be believed.. it's all very mysterious and vague if you ask me.
God never had intent to save, preserve, give SURE communications - that is unbeliever nittpicking. Even the message itself is far more important, than how preserved it is. You say it's not preserved and then blame God, while it is preserved and you in particular speak very orbitrarly.
Павел Коровин It’s all very unconvincing.
@@myjciskate4 What is unconvincing? Rulers, territory, places, money values - all of that is correctly depicted in Bible (Gospels). How can you accurately depict kings, rulers, territories, way of life, money value, if you're making Gospels up later in time? Just HOW?
Remember: those who supposely wrote Gospels later and invented it did not had internet, they can't Google 1st sentury money values, and Jerusalem was DESTROYED in 70 A.D., and all jews scattered.
How would you know about what was there anyway without being an eyewitness or talking to them at THAT time otherwise?
Add to that that at THAT time - it were PLENTY witnesses, who can correct those who got it wrong. It all was well known, God did established that this is all preserved at THAT time, it's not His fault you nittpick today.
And many have died for Jesus, showing that they did not lied: people don't die for a lie, if they claim that Jesus is risen AS EYEWITNESSES (not as just believer), means they are most likely not lying.
@@sgorgardr227 You have a lot of fallacious reasoning here.
Why do you weaken your god and make it seem like your god is less capable of effective communication than a flock of sparrows?
Yes, and God, if he existed, would know that humans are not always honest,(being sinners)
plus they exaggerate, mishear, embroider or misinterpret what others have said etc,
and which wouldn't much matter with most stories ,but with this one as important as this one is (our believing it is supposed to be the only way to avoid eternal torture,)
you would think a god (as you say) would use a more reliable method ,
Yes, oral communication can be trusted. People live this out everyday. So it is both logical and coherent to say yes.
Including Hindu and Muslim oral history, right?
Sticky Steve different world my friend. Plus, people wanted to speak, see and socialized with the people who saw Jesus. Moreover everyone knew where he was laid to rest and could validate the claims. Not sure what you mean by Zombies.
Aisha Miles Yes. But need to understand the claims and assertions behind them as they obviously contradict each other
@@onestepaway3232 It's impossible anyone could "aocialise" with people who "saw Jesus".
They were all dead.
The first gospel is Mark. We know this for a fact because he refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. (Mark 13:2).
Jesus died in 33 AD.
And I suppose the reference to zombies is because in one of the accounts of the Cruxifixion is that people arose from the cemetry and walked into town.
Nobody bothered to record this either until 80 years later....
Andy Watkinson None of the gospels or epistles speak of Neo’s destruction of the second temple. Jesus speaks to the event as a future event, prophecy.
Matthew’s zombie reference is not a historical event. It’s more symbolic in nature to associate it with the death and resurrection of Jesus. None of the other gospels or epistles refer to it. Neither do any other secular writings outside the Bible.
People knew where the tomb was. The location and owner is documented throughout the writings. The apostles were alive well after 40 to 50 years after the death of Jesus.
The first gospel was Matthew. We have outside writings from early church fathers that confirm this. He was a Jew who wrote to Jewish Christans. Mark was not an apostle of Jesus. His gospel is based on the preaching of Peter, which has been clearly documented through history..
Bart is very dishonest historian. Never talks about the outside writings of the church fathers in the first century.
I think 100 % of the Christians in all the debates are protestants or CS Lewis like (just christians). You'll be surprised with the Catholic view on all those topics! Bring some!!!
We don’t need the pagan view. Catholicism is just the result of when Rome couldn’t kill and torture and imprison enough real Christians to stop the true message, so they pretended to join them finally, but gave them a very twisted version, just taking all the Roman gods and goddesses and using Bible names and calling them “saints“ and Mary“, but any pagan can tell you that it’s just paganism wrapped in some Christian wrapping.
Jesus Christ is the ONLY intercessor. Attempting to use any one else as a “intercessor“ is trying to kick Jesus aside and tell him you don’t really care what he says, you’re gonna try to get around him and go to other people.
God said “call no man “father”, for I AM your Father”. He also said to go to your own closet to confess your sins and he is quick to forgive. Not to drive down the street, to a man who calls himself your father, to his closet, where he tells you some things to do to “earn” your forgiveness that Jesus already paid for 2,000 years ago. So what did Rome do? That’s right, one more, two more slaps in the face to what God says not to do. Rome also keeps their people from doing what God said TO do.
Keeping Catholics at it, making them pay in prayers and penance for something that Jesus paid for in full, insulting God, insulting Jesus‘s place as intercessor, not telling them they’re supposed to go directly to God, although the Bible tells them, so I don’t know why they don’t seem to know that. Attempting to contact dead people for “intercession” is called necromancy, and it is pagan, pagan, pagan.
God calls all of this “whoring around after other gods”. Catholics can call it whatever they want, but that’s what God calls it.
Having little statues and shrines to them, God also calls that “whoring around after other gods.” Just look what he says about having statues of things that have lips that do not speak, hands that cannot serve… And so on. But it is a nice “poppet“ or “spirit house” for a demon spirit to come hang out. Ask a witch, he or she will tell you. In that vein, it’s a good time to remind them that “Satan comes as an angel of light“, and can perform works of wonder, so all the warm, fuzzy, little wondrous things that happen… In their case is probably coming from a demon.
See Hollywood has programmed people into thinking that demons only come, as demons ready to rip your face off.
They do not tell you that they more often come as your best buddy, or a miraculous angel, just the way Satan was quoting the Bible to Jesus when he was tempting him. And how many Catholics say that it just “feels so good“ to go do their whatever it is they are doing at church and at home. That’s why God says not to go with what feels warm and fuzzy, but to go with the word of God, because the heart is wicked and will lead you astray, and make you falsely believe you are doing the right thing. It’s how it led the Pharisees to murder Jesus. They actually were jealous and upset that he was demonstrating constantly how they were in violation of God’s law, but to everyone around them they were going through all the perfect little rituals. And it all “felt right“ to them. But it’s not what it’s about feels right, it’s about what God says. What’s astounding is how very little Catholics seem to know about the parts of the Bible where they are in extreme violation and insulting God, and Jesus, and Mary. Mary herself knew that Jesus was her savior. She would be mortified if anyone were appealing to her for anything, knowing that she was the focus of people engaging in necromancy.
Saul and his sons were struck dead for that, because Saul just couldn’t stand that Samuel was dead, and just had to consult with him one more time. And whether or not a witch conjures up the dead, or you keep trying to talk to them yourself, and get them to do anything on your behalf, or contact the dead in any way for anything, it’s all necromancy to God. And whether you call it “praying“ or not, God calls it praying to a false god. there is biblical precedent for appealing to God to be able to contact the living, but never, never the other way around. And that appeal was denied on the grounds that the people that the dead man wanted to contact would not listen to the prophets God already sent, so it wasn’t because they aren’t generally allowed. They would have to give God a good reason, and he would have to agree to it. That’s the precedent.
There are no “patron saints” of anything. God is the God of everything, and he doesn’t have a little minions to be his “patron saints”. That’s what the heathens have.
Mary is not the “Queen of Heaven”, the “Queen of Heaven” is a pagan goddess in the Bible, and abomination to God. She is also not a “perpetual virgin”, because Jesus had siblings, and they are referred to in the Bible. She is not anyone’s “Blessed mother” except Jesus’s and his siblings’s blessed mother. Yes, the Bible said everyone would call her blessed, but they didn’t say she would be their blessed mommy.
And to all of this I constantly hear Catholic saying that people are “persecuting” them. When you care about someone, you correct them when they are in grave error. But when you’re full of the spirit of religious pride, it will block your ears. And it’s not ultimately decided by anyone but God. And it’s in his word, so it’s not what I’m telling them or other people are telling them that decides whether it’s right or wrong, it’s whether or not we are telling them what God said, and we are.
The things Catholics do cannot be backed up biblically… at all. They don’t even know their spiritual rights and responsibilities. They don’t know jack about being born again, even though Jesus said you’re not getting into heaven without being born again. And that’s what Rome wanted. They didn’t want people knowing how to fight against evil, they didn’t want people knowing how to engage in a spiritual battle, no they took that right and responsibility away from their people, and told them they had to go to priests, and bishops, and cardinals, and a pompous ass calling himself a stand-in for God, himself… a pope, who these days sits in an audience hall, right between two columns shaped like the fangs of a serpent, to show exactly who he speaks for.
I could go on for hours about all this satanic stuff the Vatican does, it’s right in your face for anyone who has eyes to see. We can start with the audience hall. It’s shaped like a serpent head, has crossbeams representing snake skin, serpent eyes for windows, a red carpet up the center, representing the tongue of the serpent, and then the aforementioned columns shaped like fangs, flanking the “throne” of the pope, which also sits in front of a very demonic sculpture that supposed to be a Jesus rising up, with a serpent’s head in his flowing hair.
This way, he literally and figuratively speaks from the mouth of the serpent, while the audience is literally and figuratively deeper into the head of the serpent, deeper into its mouth, being consumed by it. Then they mindlessly chant “amen“ meaning “I agree, let it be so, I declare and decree it“ to anything sung to them in Latin, including a mass that exalts Lucifer about Jesus Christ.
And speaking of Lucifer, there’s project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., a project partnered with the Vatican, guess who would fund that? Yes, that would be the Vatican that funded it, pretending they have “no idea where that acronym could’ve possibly come from”, and they had “no say in the matter at all”, (never mind the world leaders that bow down to that…man, and kiss his ring, just look up the whore of Babylon in Revelation, no other can fit that description, only one place on earth could possibly fit the whore of Babylon to a T), and as soon as it was all brought to light, they did their best to backpedal from all of that. And what it is is a telescope that is looking for… Well I will let you do your own homework there. That’s a whole other rabbit warren.
Then we have the obelisk, an homage to the Egyptian fertility god and the dome, to the Egyptian fertility goddess, the obelisk rises in the Vatican Square like a big middle finger to God, just read the Bible again if you’re wondering about how God feels about false gods, let alone Egyptian ones.
And then of course there’s the statuary depicting arts of pedophilia, bestiality, and self-pleasuring… I am pretty sure no “man of God” would want to collect such art, but the Vatican has no problem with that. That’s because they aren’t against pedophilia that’s why they shuffle their priests around, rather than “defrocking“ them, although none of them should be “priests“ anyway. Big difference between a preacher or pastor… and a “priest“ or “vicar“. Definitions count, and Catholicism just makes up its own dictionary, like “revering“ Mary and saints…instead of what God calls it “worshiping and whoring after other gods”.
See, all that time and attention given to “Mary” and “saints”, trying to get their attention for “intercession” is all time that’s supposed to be spent with God, he is supposed to get that time and attention from his children. And no, we are most certainly NOT “all God’s children”. (But it IS a satanic lie, probably to lull those agnostics, apathetics, and atheists into thinking that deep down, “we are all God’s children“, and so therefore, he might probably cut them slack if they are sort of as good as they think they can probably be). But no, we are absolutely NOT “all God’s children”. We are all of his creations, but most certainly not all his children. The Bible is quite distinct about that. The entire Old Testament is a series of stories about the children of God…and everyone else. Catholics, (and Mormons), read it as many times as you need to, there’s the children of God, and everyone else… the children of God, and everyone else…the children of God, and everyone else.
Jesus was clear about this as well. The Gospel of John tells everyone what it takes to be called a child of God. And yes, there’s a requirement. Jesus confronts genetic descendants of Abraham, who think they can ride on the coattails of Abraham to be called children of God. He sets them straight. He tells them they are “children of your father, the devil, the father of lies”. AND the synagogue of Satan. He uses that more than once. So, the Jews and the Pharisees who followed all the little rituals, but also the added stuff…Jesus called them satanic. See? You can’t be a child of God AND a child of the devil. You simply can’t be both. Can’t have 2 daddies.
If you haven’t deliberately made yourself a child of God, you are, by default, a child of the devil. And no, “baptizing babies“ isn’t going to do jack for them. It doesn’t do anything more for them than “forcing a conversion“, no one comes to the father unless he draws them. “Forcing a conversion“ is pagan, evil, satanic, and people aren’t converted at all. Conversion comes in the heart and it has to come quite on ones with no duress from someone else. It is a choice made out of love for God, not fear of man. Parents could personally dedicate their child to God, at home, or anywhere (God abides IN his born-again, real children, so he is never part from them), in front of other real Christians, that’s more of probably what a christening is though I would really have to look into what the beliefs are behind a christening, it’s fine to take your baby and dedicated to God, but baptizing it… First of all a baby can’t sin, so there’s that, and all that nonsense about baptizing against “original sin”, also made-up rubbish, just like “purgatory”.
But what it has done was what it was intended to do from the beginning. Take anyone who might want to follow Jesus, and lead them over to paganism but make them believe they are following the real Gospel, but nothing could be further from the truth, and for the rest of the world, after all the killing sprees and “forced conversions“ and all the torturing, imprisoning, and brutal, sadistic murders, the millions, millions, and millions of gallons of blood spilt, trillions, trillions and trillions of dollars spent on lies and all manner of evil and deceitful activities, even having a hand in creating Islam, which is so obvious, they even wear the same ugly outfits for women, the burka and the nuns habit have very little difference, but there’s actually a great deal of evidence for anyone that actually wants truth, the truth is out there to be found.
Once Rome had established a good false religion for their people to follow, they did the same for the Arab nations. They couldn’t have the Arabs getting the favor of God by coming across the real Gospel. They’re dedicated, sincere people. Of course, it was too late to pretend Jesus didn’t exist, so they had to work him into it and acknowledge him, just like they do with Catholicism, only give them a fake Jesus.
In Islam, Jesus gets demoted to just being a “prophet“. In the case of Catholicism, Jesus kinda gets shoved to the side, removed from his post as intercessor, reinserting priests, which God got rid of on the day of crucifixion, in case they missed that the temple veil was torn into from top to bottom, signifying that we don’t have priests go back here and converse with God, and come out and talk to the people anymore, because Jesus just established direct lines for everyone on the face of the earth forever.
So, inserting stumbling blocks and re-inserting things God himself destroyed that are actually the roles of Jesus Christ and of God himself to perform is the height, or shall we say the depths of arrogance, and has led many very well-intentioned and horrifically misguided people off a cliff. Rome has been very successful at this deception. Just like the Bible says, the way is very narrow, and Satan‘s ways can deceive even the very elect, the most sincere people, if they do not stick to the word of God, and keep sticking to what people tell them about the word of God, they will be led off a cliff, just like Catholics, Muslims, Mormons.
Mormons have a satanic version, too. It’s just as pagan. God doesn’t need you to wear special underwear to protect you, Jesus does not have a satanic brother, and Satan never tried to “force anyone to be good”. Ever. satan also was not part of the conversation on how to run earth, I don’t know where they get their cockamamie ideas, actually I do, they’re from the Luciferian Freemasons. And bless their hearts, if they looked into it, they would see this is true.
But religious pride (and all pride) makes people afraid to look at the truth. But the truth is the truth, and searching for it, and being willing to look for it, being willing to tear down false beliefs in favor of the truth, being willing to compare it to the word of God, and I know that’s hard for Mormons because anytime something doesn’t match up with their screwy beliefs, they’ll just say that the Bible got it wrong, even though they’re over 5,000 manuscripts to document that it isn’t wrong, being willing to try to destroy one’s own beliefs and see what stands after the burning off of the dross, that is the only way to be sure one isn’t deceived.
After all, that’s what God‘s going to do on judgment day, burn away everything that isn’t gold. And that’s what he does with us every day if we let him, to keep refining ourselves. But if Catholics aren’t willing to read the Bible and find out where they’ve been horrifically led astray. They may not be happy with the result. Their choice, religious pride, or the truth. And they can stop being offended by people who are trying to point them to the truth, so they can serve God for real, instead of serving a false and pagan religion.
And for Mormons, Satan wasn’t “kicked out of heaven for trying to force people to be good”, but for thinking that he could rise up and be God… and guess what the Mormons teach? If their men are good enough, and dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s, and jump through all the right hoops, they too can get their own world to rule…at least the men can, the women get to be perpetual spiritual babymaking machines for that new world forever and ever. In their eyes everyone else gets a different kingdom, their kingdom will be better, so they could go visit the other people but why would they?
They have lots of conflicting doctrines. They also teach that God was a human that lived a perfect life so he was made God, and they can hold that belief well you tell them that God has always been and always will be, and they will agree with that at the same time that they agree he was a human, which, of course, is impossible.
You can’t be a human if you made the humans, and you made everything because you’re God, and you’ve always been and you always will be. Their image of God is so convoluted, I don’t know how they can even grasp it. I guess they can’t. So they talk about how excited they are that they can be a god someday, “just like God did”. Well, the men do. The women, not so excited. Mostly nervous and pensive about that part. Hoping they’ll be a good enough “heavenly mother”. Total paganism.
And a lot of Mormons are very nice people, and they think they have “extra“ information, and they think they have “restored“ gospel, when Jesus warned about anyone coming along trying to sell a different Jesus. Well their different Jesus has a satanic brother. The Catholic’s different Jesus is not an intercessor, they have removed him as the one and only intercessor and put his dead mommy and dead friends in his place, forcing their people to engage in necromancy, and insulting Jesus’s rightful position, and also insulting God‘s position as the hearer of your confessions and the God of everything (no “patron saints“. The true God HAS NO PATRON SAINTS!, they are in actuality just re-named Roman demi-gods and goddesses, and gods and goddesses, just go look them up yourself, a little god for this and a little god for that.) God hears your confessions from you directly. Well, he’s supposed to. It’s up to you to go to him.
Not only are you not commanded to do what Catholics do, you’re often commanded not to do it as well.
So, try to point them to the biblical truth, and they often get offended, they say they’re being “persecuted“, they’re saying they’re “under attack”, that people are “bashing them“, (although more and more are being willing to do their own homework and come to realize they have been lied to all this time, and that the TRUE Gospel really DOES set you free, rather than enslave you to ritual and false gods), and all people are trying to do is tell them where they’re being led, that they keep trying to pay for something that Jesus already paid for, trying to earn things you can’t earn, and are whoring after other gods, and no matter what they want to call it to themselves, that’s beside the point. God described it, and they are doing what God calls whoring after other gods, so they can take it up with God if they don’t like the definitions. They can take it up with God if they don’t like people pointing it out to them.
Rome has conned them into making God very angry, insulting God, insulting Jesus, harassing Mary who should be resting in peace, not getting hollered at constantly by Catholics trying to “hail” her (but it was a way for Rome to try to retaliate against her, tell people that they need to be trying to contact her instead of contacting God himself like God said to do), and being led astray.
Once again they are trying to get people to pay for something that’s already paid for.
The New Testament drives the point home again, and again, and again, we are not “all God’s children“. Some people are “children of your father the devil, the father of lies. He was a murderer from the beginning…”. Satan comes to steal, kill, and destroy. The first thing he does is steal the word of God. Then he has basically ripped the engine out of your vehicle and taken the steering wheel, too. Now you are going nowhere, and if you decide to push your car, you got no way to steer it. Once he has stolen the word of God, either by keeping people from ever wanting to hear it, or giving them twisted, contorted versions like Catholicism, Islam, and Mormonism, and other isms, then he can swoop in for the killing and destroying part.
And since people aren’t armed with the word of God, then they have no defense against the killing and destroying and stealing of other things part. They don’t even know about the full armor of God. So even if they do go into battle, they are completely unarmed in every way. And they hand their power over to their formal organizations.
They have no idea the meaning of the “one true church”.
The “one true church“ can only ever be the spiritual collective of every individual worldwide who reads, studies, follows, and takes action, and takes action upon the true word of God as God teaches it, as the Holy Spirit teaches, not by following an organization that stamped itself as the one true religion, just the fact that they did that put them in the kingdom of man and directly out of the kingdom of God.
The minute you put a man-made label on it, you keep it in the kingdom of man.
The church is a spiritual collective, not a building. No formal organization can claim in truth that all of their doctrine follows the Bible, because none of them do, or that their members all adhere to the teachings, nor can they claim that all of that occurs to the exclusion of anyone else in the world. Therefore none of them can be the “one true church“. It’s just each person in the world who lets God’s word be the final word, not some human leader’s words.
And God hates the repetitive prayers of the heathen. They are an abomination to him. God is not interested in a recital, how many times you can repeat something over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over…as nauseam. Demons love it, though. So the next time you’re using your little rosary, you’re making some demons very happy. God does not need trinkets of any kind. No little protective medallions of demons calling themselves “saints“ so you will give them your devotion and time and focus and attention that belongs to God. In the same breath that Catholics insist they “don’t pray to Mary or saints“, you can go do any Catholic store, or go online and just search for Catholic prayer cards, and see what you come up.
And the Catholics think that all the ritual and man-made, non biblical, rule-following is going to be of any use to them, first of all you can’t “earn” a gift that Jesus already paid for, you don’t need “absolution” and “last rites” and all that kind of crazy insanity, God is the one that forgives you directly when you go right to him personally yourself. Jesus stands up for you, but God is supposed to be your Abba Father, you should be going directly to him, climbing into his lap and conversing, which is where each of you talks and each of you listens. Yes, you enter his courts with clean hands and a clean heart, forgiving and having forgiven anyone and everyone, but coming because you are washed clean by what Jesus has done for you, not for anything you’ve done.
And you come, with forgiveness for all, including yourself, no matter what others have done, you forgive them, and you come with gratitude and thanksgiving for what you have, and with joy because you know whatever it is that you need from him, he is on your side and he’s there to help you solve it. You can go to God directly, you are a good man commanded to go to God directly. He wants to hear from you. Again, Satan comes as an angel of light. He comes to steal, kill, and destroy. And the first thing he wants to steal is your knowledge of God, your direct and very personal relationship with God, and your knowledge of salvation, and your knowledge of your power and authority over the kingdom of darkness, and that the power of blessing and cursing, and life and death are in the tongue.
Just look at how the media has people repeating over and over and over and over and over all their worst fears, all the most negative things. They cannot accomplish the evil without all the TV watchers letting the teleprompter-readers vomit all over them, as they swallow it all, and then puke it all back up over everyone else who will listen. Can’t tell you how many times people try to puke that vomit all over me, but I will not allow it. I do not watch the news, the word of God tells me not to engage in that, but to use his word to battle the works of darkness. And I don’t need a TV to tell me what Satan does all day every day. He attacks everything that God loves, so that would be everything from an an egg and a sperm, every human, every living thing, all of creation, the home, the family, men, women, children in their innocence, I know what Satan goes after, all I need to know is how does God want me to combat it. I don’t need to know about every little fire that he sits to distract the people of the world. Those are done to steal the time of people who could be putting the word of God to work, as he commanded.
They will be held accountable for every idle word, every time they repeated those curses to others, or just to the wall. every time you say “so-and-so won’t amount to much/is dying/has a big bad illness”, or you say anything negative about them, you are speaking a curse over them.
The satanic media doesn’t want you to know that you shall half what you say, they want you glued to everything they keep saying with their tongues. They know the power of creation, and they cannot create the chaos that we see around us, without your help and participation. don’t even listen to them, just look at what God said to do about evil. Every second the people are watching the news they could be doing that instead, using the power of their tongue, combined with the breath of God that comes out of their lungs, to create what he said to create on earth.
And Catholics and Mormons and Muslims have ZERO knowledge of any of this. They have been taught to get their power and authority away to human leaders. And that’s satanic, too. So Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Satan thanks you for refusing to learn about your rights and responsibilities given in the name of Jesus Christ to all who truly believe (enough to take action upon that power and authority as well). If you have a human leader, who claims to have more contact with God then you can have, you’re in a satanic organization. That would be your first clue. It’s not your only clue, the Bible has the rest of the clues.
Religious oral tradition is a messy business passed from master-preacher to as many of his choirboys as possible, Church Elders, with ye finger in yerear...
God saved it intackt
Is the bible inerrant?
Bart ehrman seems overly determined instead of open
Please address his arguments instead of forwarding the feeling in the bottom of your right testicle please. Bart had some very great observations and his adverary had absolutely nothing to counter those.
You realize he changed his mind once going from fundamentalist to liberal christian based on his research. I'm sure he'd happily go back if the evidence lead there.
You should always be skeptical about a book that's been "preserved" over time in a corrupt system not saying that it's invalid either.
Jay, there are many who paid with their lives to preserve this book because of the corrupt system.
@Jared D thus why we have the manuscripts, just look for them and compare
@Jared D No they aren't preserved from being changed, if that's what you mean by "corruption".
Firstly, we dont even have originals, secondly there are books that are not considered canon even though they are "inspired by god", third there were edits that were made like the ending of Matthew IIRC, fourth once you translate something you tend to lose some of the cultural context for phrases although you can recover these meanings through anthropology, fifth there were lilely scribal errors that were made that were copied along with everything else.
Bart Ehrman was not very convincing. Oral sources?
Yes oral sources. The stories in the gospels come from oral sources I don't understand your objection.
Islamic Defense Most information those days were from oral sources and well preserved, so what? And we are talking a time span of a couple decades. Then things were written down.
@@evangelistkimpatrik how do you know most information those days was well preserved?
Colin C Peter and Paul were buddies. Peter was a buddy of Jesus. So before Paul wrote things down the oral tradition was very short, not even a generation.
@@evangelistkimpatrik I wasn't asking about anything in particular. I was asking how you know "most information" was "well preserved" as you claimed. What can you use to verify its accuracy?
In the debate they are talking about oral tradition surrounding the gospel story, which has nothing to do with Paul
As usual, emotional and unlearned Christians here reject Bart without giving their own proofs... Humorous as usual
NOT FOR THE MASSIVE CLAIMS THAT ARE MADE!!
There are better, very ordinary explanations!
How obvious is that? You don't need a degree or letters after your name!
You are the reason why exactly one would need a degree in such questions)
AY: let's continue our cosmology/thermodynamics discussion.
You wouldn't defend Penrose's CCC -- please remind me what your cosmology is.
@@sgorgardr227
Some have common sense and are free from indoctrination.
That's all you need to see the stupidity of the arguments!
@@20july1944
Told you before I don't subscribe to any particular naturalistic explanation. The jury is still out.
Definitely not magic incantations though!
@@_a.z So it may well be God, for all you know.
Why can't Christians accept the truth that the Gospels are the stories of Christ. If you have read Pilgrims Progress or Hinds Feet on High Places you will have got some truth that gave you insight to God. If fiction books can do that then it's possible for the Gospels to do the same whether they are the true words and true events or not.
Faith in the Bible is not faith in God and seems to reject truth when confronted with it.
Fiction books give that only in developed soceties of late senturies. Becuase theya re influenced by christianity, higher standarts.
Example you gave - what truth is there? Love your enemies, because we are all brothers and there is no need to kill to survive, because you will die anyway, and those who you protect would too? And that as we are not animals we can comprehend that mere not dying is not main target of life?
doubt such wisdom is there. But it is in the Bible, and about what comes after life and what to do about it.
@@sgorgardr227 Some animals mourn their dead and have a sense of death without the Bible. I totally agree that the Bible is profound and there are many answers in it.
If I was to tell you about my father in that he's exercised every day of his life you would instantly have an image of my dad in your mind. You would be surprised when you met him because he will not be what you imagined and your imagination of my dad would not be my dad.
When we read the Bible we get an image of God and that image is not God.
Sorry. We just read the stuff and the verifiably correct points within the writings points to a truth that cannot be ignored- unless one forces a willful ignorance of the truth.
And that, as we often note, does not negate factual truth.
@@islamlies5687 I take it you mean the truth in the bible as opposed to the truth of what we see as common sense. We used to believe the world was flat because of the Bible even though at the time their were people sailing the world and they knew it to be a ball but that truth was rejected but now we know it's true and nearly every Christian accepts the world is round and the sun does not travel across the sky. It only appears to because the world is spinning.
If we didn't believe that then we would reject using the internet and GPS which uses satellites spinning around the planet. We would have to conclude it's all a lie
@UCusIFvHjxcO1pXnw-X2Twhg "Some animals mourn their dead" - Animals have WAR against each other, their own kind. Bears eats little bears-kids just to sleep with their mother - animals are NOT example. They live by INSTINCTS, not rationality like us.
" have a sense of death without the Bible" - You making it even more complicated: where did they get it from? Christians teahc that God made world GOOD, and our nature, and animals nature are from the beginning are good - you only proving chirstian point.
No one says you cannot be good without God, you Hitchens worshipper: you have no STANDARTS for what is actually good or bad without God as orbitor.
"When we read the Bible we get an image of God and that image is not God." - Your example is so flaud. Bible is DIRECT with these things, it is not imagination or describing something. AND, means you did bad description of your father.
UPD: Why are you such deliberately STUPID person? POINT where Bible says world is flat. People COULD knew world is a ball, but not really - every culture has it's own beliefs, and Bible was not everywhere.
No christian BELIEFS in flat earth - it's just some flatearthers happen to be christians and henceforth interpret Bible in such a way.
Muslims are actually correct. They follow the prophets are worship the same one god as all the prophets did. And if anything, the quran is still in tact and memorised by thousands of people from cover to cover.
Memorization and headcount does not make something concordant with reality.
You don't know anything. It is the most forged book ever
@Sticky Steve we not claiming your claims. The main doctrine of Christin was passed down as it was since begining as studies show. On the other hand, not only qoran fails on many aspects and it refers back to the wrong heretical stories in its 50%, it is now failing history test when looking to archeology, coins, external sourced ..it is a product of an evolution of 200 years. Please stop the dumb comparison process and look at each story separately. Islam is not a religion, it is an empire that came up with a book and made it's leader a profit.
@@alexassali3628 Ok, prove it that the quran is forged?
@@danmurphy988 on the other hand; u must be a Muslim. No one claim this unless he absorbed the poison since childhood where brain doesn't function on this subject
first.. always wanted to say that :-)
Uh.....No