Bart Ehrman vs Justin Bass • Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 кві 2023
- The Big Conversation - Episode 1 | Season 5
The rise of Christianity has shaped the modern world, but are its historical origins best explained in purely naturalistic terms, or the explanation the first followers gave - that Jesus had risen from the dead?
New Testament historian Bart Ehrman doesn’t believe in the miraculous claims of the New Testament, including the resurrection of Jesus. New Testament scholar Justin Bass argues in his book ‘The Bedrock of Christianity’ for a number of facts concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus, that point to its truth. They debate scripture, history and the resurrection.
• For bonus content, updates, and early access to new episodes, register now at: www.thebigconversation.show
• Take our survey! survey-star.net/bart
The Big Conversation is a video series from Premier Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier Unbelievable? in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
For your free ebook, more bonus content, and early access to new episodes, register now: www.thebigconversation.show
❤u need a secret before u can experience blood wine the illuminati aka fallen angels aliens NASA what ever you want to call them in there flying tin cans. Can't leave lower Orbit because of the vacuum. That's what space x Star ship with all the thrusters to try to punch through. An destroy Mars moon were heaven is. Now u can experience Jesus healing energy an who ever u show these words can also experience all old aches and pains will be washed away takes 30 minutes best to relax and shut yr eyes😊
Justin, can you tell us who persuaded you in this debate?
Our knowledge of life is limited to death!. I Thought the same too, I thought i got everything.
A quick Google will reveal ten resurrections other than Jesus.
@@christopher7725 I don't even have to watch to vote for Bass because I know the Truth of Christ
I’m a Christian, but man, Bart’s patience here is almost Christ-like.
Bcoz he still embodies the image of God
I’m atheist. 2 days ago a customer asked if I was a Christian, he was so impressed with my work. I ignored his inappropriate question, focusing on the job. The third time he asked, I finally told him no. He was surprised, “You aren’t a believer? You seem so Christian.”
I can think of no worse insult than telling an atheist that they seem Christian. It says that I have no internal decency.
Totally agree. The other guy, whose name I don't know, was very aggressive and annoyingly disruptive.
@@hjeffwallace and everyone clapped and gave you 500 dollars each
Because being blinded by beams on your eyes is so Christ-like brudda🙏
Justin Bass and his actions of continously interrupting Bart Ehrmam convinces me that Justin Bass might be afraid that his argument isn't strong enough.
Justin Bass reminds me of Ben Shapiro. They are both really really irritating d*cks.
Yeah. This is hard to listen too. If I was Christian, I would not want this guy to be arguing for my faith. All of his “facts” are so tenuous and portray the evidence for his case as so threadbare and weak. Justin has basically made the case that Christianity is like a house of cards built upside down.
Religious people are so conditioned they don't like to hear the truth . Justin Bass knows that Dr Bart Ehrman is absolutely right : Jesus didn't even Existed , it's mythology ! religions are man made , dogma mental enslavement and mythology.
I think you should watch the debate, because that is not what happened. Bart changed the topic and interrupted and insulted Justin constantly.
No I disagree with you that's not true Dr Bart Ehrman is very calm and patience with Justin Bass ! He' s behaving very professionally !!!;
Please, for the love of god, never allow Justin bass to debate ever again. Bart Ehrman deserves so much respect for the amount of patience he had with this guy. Put Justin Bass and Ben Shapiro in a room together to discuss any topic and maybe they’ll leave everyone else alone.
It sounds like a debate between a college professor and an elementary school kid 😂
At around 47.30 Justin gets a bit creepy. Pushing and pushing and pushing the bogus argument that the phenomenal number of followers is somehow statistically significant proof of the resurrection.
Theology is not a proper academic subject and Bart shouldn't waste time debating with creepy charismatics who are after parochial power.
college professor and elementary school kid high on crack
As a teacher, I take issue with you insulting elementary school kids. :-)
loooooool so true🤣🤣😂😂😂
I’d like Satan vs humanity
Bart Ehrman: "are you really using that as an a historic argument???" 😂😂😂😂
i know that was so funny
This was an absolute bloodbath…. Justin was more interested in trying to “score points” than actually listening and engaging with Bart
And all the while spouting fallacies, acting smug and cocksure, and continually interrupting. Not a good look.
Hahaha, He's got crucified by Bart. big time. Maybe he forgot to be washed by Jesus' blood before the talk. Hey, try krishna's blood next time.
Probably not to bias are you.
@GSP looking at it from. An objective point of view is not bias.
Bart didn't faulted and was tactful.
The other guy used fallacies , talked over tge person and had no evidence but "a feeling"
As Christian I was disappointed. Bart's arguments do not dissuade me but Justin was just unprepared and anxious I feel. I would even say defensive.
I tried to watch this a second time but still can't stand listening to Justin Bass talk in circles. Dr ehrman wins hands down.
Agreed - bass is a buffoon- was he drunk? He was all over the place with such weak, laughable middle school points - sad .Well done Bart
Bart Erhman wins! Former Christian here. I looked up Justin Bass and was shocked to see he has a PhD degree! His argument really does not reveal that type of education. Thank you for this debate!
As an ex-mormon, I loved Bart's points against Justin's uniqueness claims. Bart was more accurate about mormon theology than most religious debaters.
Good for you and ex-Mormon.
The Bible has some illogical fallacies- but Mormonism was way worse
I am an ex- atheist
Jesus is my Lord
@@veranochick Can you explain a syllogism for biblical Christianity that cannot be used by the Latter-day Saint movement?
Mormon theology, started by some guy from the 1800s , lol , so many types of christianity, ya just can't take any of it seriously lol
@@veranochick lol. whenever is see someone say they used to be atheist i wonder how that can be, cos atheists think is a way religists can't understand, and they are not allowed to understand. what was your "atheist experience" i wonder, cos my experience of ex atheists is they always believed there was a god but weren't sure one week. also my motto in life is "never trust a christian" cos, well, they can't be trusted.
@@kevwhufc8640 "do it yourself" religions. if you don't like what god does, don't dare disagree, start a new spin off religion. cowards, that's religists, they don;t have the guts to stand up to god.
Wow, Bart, it just amazes me how he can be so calm, cool, and collected while Justin is sweating and losing his mind!
Satan is supposed to be cool and collected too 😅
Bart has zero training in physics and yet he dares talk about thermodynamics.
@@veranochick i have a crappy art degree, but i do understand (most) of thermodynamics, it';s not impossible to be educated outside your field. and satan, if you read the bible, is actually a much, much pleasanter character than god. i defy you to find anywhere, any amount of information that makes satan a worse moral character than god. satan never lied, whereas god has deceived, satan killed five people, three in a bet that god made with him, whereas god has killed everybody. satan trades your soul for a life skill, god demands it with menaces - satan gets my vote every day of the week over god - a dictator who will kill anyone who disagrees with him. christians are sick minded fools.
and both satan and god are imaginary.
@@veranochick who are you trying to convince? 😅
@@veranochick, I do. What is your point? Thermodynamics? What?
Bart knows the Bible inside and out. As a former evangelical and someone who debates them regularly, I’m sure he’s heard every argument they can use against him and knows how to dismantle it while providing biblical receipts. He’s got nothing to prove and a solid base to start from.
"To claim that something is historical requires a critical evaluation of all the sources and all the information and to establish levels of probability."
Ehrman's patient and unfailingly logical approach to establish what is truth is the real "bedrock" in this conversation.
Listening to this Bass guy, would turn the most devout Christian to question their prior beliefs. He's a great advocate for stopping talking about this mad crusade.
Bart Ehrman demonstrates the beauty of rational and polite discourse. His knowledge of history is impressive.
Bart Ehrman IS A DISCIPLE OF SATAN & WILL BE IN HELL'S FIRE WITH HIM.
Mary appearances are not Historic facts. He made his whole argument on a non-historical claim - not facts- and never mind, Mary appearances are Not Biblical either.
Bart argument falls apart, there is no equivalency between Mary appearances and Jesus appearances
Bart didn’t use historica facts to support his arguments
@@veranochickNeither Jesus or Mary appearances are historical
fact..Bart's whole point is if Xtians dismiss Mary appearances
they should do the same with Jesus instead of applying the usual
'special pleading' crapola.
@@veranochick yeah sure.
@@veranochick and you quote einstein, jesus.
It is beyond me how a guy like Justin Bass can be called a scholar. I was able to rattle off the names of the logical fallacies he committed as he spoke. I'm so glad I took my blood pressure medicine this morning.
His special pleading is nauseating 😷
A shallow apologist of Christian doctrine
To Bass’s point about Muslims claiming to having dreams/visions of a man in white, isn’t it generally accepted that that might be the case because Muhammad isn’t allowed to be painted or portrayed? And wouldn’t it be more of the case that Jesus would show up more since Jesus is portrayed a whole lot more then Muhammad, Krishna or Buddha are? Mary as well, so that’s why she shows up in dreams and visions as well more often then even Jesus in some cases?
he's unbearable...
@Esteban17777 Lol, no. It never says you can’t dream of Mohammed, it says you can’t draw him. And that’s not limited to just him, it goes for ALL the prophets, INCLUDING Jesus, so your argument doenst hold. Also, you got any sources or evidence of your claim that Jesus and Mary “show up” more in dreams than other figures, and why that should mean jack squat? Maybe, shocker, it’s because you live in a Christian country, therefore most people aren’t thinking about krishna? Lol. Or maybe because Christianity is the largest (barely the largest, just ahead of Islam, and will soon be overtaken) religion (which doesn't mean it’s true) and jesus is a much more central figure in the religion, and claimed to be literally god, as opposed to literally every other religion?
Bart Ehrman has forgotten more about Religious History than Justin Bass has ever learned
Ryan Hart is that you?
I lost a son in a car crash years ago, I saw his face in every kid, I knew non of them were him because I am a rational person, but I think it is common to think they saw a loved one's face although that person is dead. The mind plays tricks.
I'm sorry to hear about your loss, that must've been horrific. But yes, you're right that it's a well-established phenomenon that people see deceased loved ones in dreams or even waking apparitions. It's just your mind struggling to internalize that they're no longer there and the completely understandable human desire to see them again manifesting in the brain misfiring.
Bart is more convincing. He listens more, does not cut off the other speaker, brings more evidence-based points, and says "I don't know" more often. To me that makes him a much more honest conversationist, and Justin seems to be looking for a "Gatcha moment". I am a Christain, and I said this.
Justin is a very typical apologist imo. A meme.
13:49..📘Another Ehrman Correction:...It was not "4" eyewitness...it was 3 witnesses ..who claimed they prayed, in the woods, and an angel showed them the Mormonite gold plates...these 3 never claimed to have touched them or held them...nor was Joseph Smith with them at the time.. Nor is their Testimony described in their own words, but a single statement mutually signed by all three.
Religious folk have to interrupt, talk loudly ,ad hominem because they know their argument don’t hold water and they hate having to think for workarounds
Thank you!
I'm a Christian too and I hate when other believers act like assholes because they think they need to "win" a "debate."
God is bigger than that. Maybe just be charitable and leave the rest to Him.
@@jamescornelison6384 great advice imo
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” -Mark Twain
"Stupid is as stupid does"
Forrest Gump's mom.
Who is stupid here?
Probably the guy rushing to defend his faith instead of *listening*@@jonathonlafond3255
@@jonathonlafond3255 the one not listening and just wanting to argue
@@midnightmcguire9897
The one who calls your bluff
Bart is so methodical in his answers and research. Justin comes off as a Ben Shapiro clone....interrupting as much as possible with mindless claims. Justin gets shot down right off the bat.
That’s what happens when you teach so many young people all the time. Bart was very professorial and knows the reality of Jesus book writing.
I googled Justin Bass's claim that there is no literature on post-mortem visions of enemies. There are multiple pshyciatric and psychological studies on exactly that topic. If I were a Christian, I would be extremely annoyed that someone like Justin Bass was arguing my point
Feels like Bart is trying to have a honest discussion and Justin is trying to win an argument
I agree
Justin is a moron.
Siempre es así con los apologetas😢
Hes desperate to live forever and hes prepared to be rude in the hopes it prevents him from growing up.
I wish hell had come up as I think hed also say Bart should/will burn - and in this he has the texts on his side - despite him being an obviously more decent person than him. Certainly less credulous.
*NO DOUBT 100%ISLAM FAKE RELIGION*
Watched this again. Two things stand out: Bass's close mindedness, and Bart's compelling arguments!
Jesus and Mary lived 2,000 years ago. The people who lived 2,000 years ago saw Jesus and Mary and knew what they both looked like. When Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to all of those people 2,000 years ago, they all knew it was Jesus, because they all saw him before he died, and therefore they recognized him after he rose from the grave and appeared unto them. But the Catholics who say they saw Mary, the Mary who lived 2,000 years ago, they never saw her, because they did not live when Mary was alive 2,000 years ago. So if those Catholic people who say that they saw Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, did NOT see Mary 2,000 years ago, because those Catholic people were NOT alive 2,000 years ago to see Mary, then how do they know if what appeared to them was Mary, if they don't know what Mary looked liike, 2,000 years ago? In order for them to recognized that it was Mary who appeared to them, the Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, they would have had to been alive 2,000 years ago, and saw Mary with their own eyes, 2,000 years ago.
Nice fallacy, you are obviously a Christian not a catholic. Brother, join us on the light side, atheism.
@@marvinberry295Nice straw man buddy.
To Bass’s point about Muslims claiming to having dreams/visions of a man in white, isn’t it generally accepted that that might be the case because Muhammad isn’t allowed to be painted or portrayed? And wouldn’t it be more of the case that Jesus would show up more since Jesus is portrayed a whole lot more then Muhammad, Krishna or Buddha are? Mary as well, so that’s why she shows up in dreams and visions as well more often then even Jesus in some cases?
@@marvinberry295But this goes back to Bart’s point about people believing that they saw their dead relatives. Knowing what they looked like doesn’t exclude them from the possibility of being mistaken.
Anxious body response gives away the believer’s inability to admit that he has no historically objective proof.
Justin Bass thinks he is a whole lot smarter than he actually is. He cannot seperate speculation from history and Dr. Ehrman held the mirror up to that fact. As others have said, I don't know how Bart Ehrman is so patient and calm with people like this who refuse to actually be debated and just insist on yelling over any opposing viewpoint.
Bass was in over his head it seemed. Not just where knowledge is concerned, but also in forming and presenting his arguments, Ehrman is at another level.
That's absolutely true...Bart approached this discussion from a position of well rounded scholarship...Justin argued it from a belief perspective (his own) and didn't really care to be educated about other faiths and perspectives or the parallels they draw in respect to this question because he doesn't believe them and therefore they are unimportant...obviously biased and very unfortunate for someone claiming a pedigree of scholarship...
You'd think he would have been more prepared seeing that he had debated Bart once before. I wonder if that was just as bad.
11 of the 12 disciples died, in some cases horrific deaths for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead - when it comes to forming compelling arguments, I would completely disagree that Bart Ehrman is another level (his knowledge yes, very knowledgeable - but that's 2 different things)
@@stephenhanley3400 Where is the reliable historical evidence for any of this? Also, why does it even matter? People have died for falsehoods throughout history and even today. Even if someone is convinced of something does not make it true.
@@bigbrointhesky can you prove reality is not false? How do you know all of reality isn't just a dream you conjured up? Can you prove you believe what you say you believe? If nature can manifest complex designs that seem to be far beyond our understanding even today then would it not seem likely that nature could also manifest a codex book of why and how though the words of complex beings that of which were also manifested by nature? nature has dominion over all life on this planet, i see no reason why the human word would be beyond His reach considering how complex life on this planet is, You say nature i say God.
Justin is more focused on getting a gotcha, rather than listening to the argument. Barts points were clear and they somehow went right over Justin’s head.
Justin never heard a word Bart said as he was just thinking of his next stupid thing to say.
@@motherofcatsnz Absolutely true
@@markandrzejak997
Is there such thing as an absolute truth? Who owns the truth?
@@veranochick no one "owns" truth, you must be a religist is you talk gibberish like that.
@@veranochickso said Pilate
Dr. Bart Ehrmann demonstrated exceptional patience and tolerance towards Justin Bass, often waiting for his opponent to finish speaking before responding calmly and logically. He consistently pointed out that Justin's assertions regarding evidence were theological rather than historical. Conversely, I find Justin's claims about mass conversions to Christianity in Jordan, a predominantly Muslim country, to be unfounded, especially considering the global trend of Islam as the fastest-growing religion and the decline of Christianity, evidenced by the emptying and selling of thousands of churches, often to Muslim communities, particularly in European countries.
Let me tell you something which is a fact, countries like UK have empty churches and lots of churches don’t even open anymore, yes some churches are now mosques, the churches that do exist are only attended by very few Christian’s, you’ll hardly see them open in the week days like before and Sunday church service is not in every church like before. However in UK other religions combined are less than 10%, but if you go to a Sikh gurdawara temple then there open everyday and are full and there’s only 1% Sikhs in UK, with Hindu’s it’s same story with around 2% but there mandir temple is open everyday and full, Muslims are around 7% and mosques are open everyday and full. I’m not saying there’s 90% Christian’s but there was a time when there was but now Christianity is falling apart and a lot of people have no religion at all, the ones that do call themselves Christian’s do not practice there religion, there’s obviously some there do but very little. If you was to ask 100 random Christian’s in UK what was son of Virgin Mary’s actual birth name, some would reply they don’t even know who son of Virgin Mary is but the ones that do know will say his name was Jesus and Virgin Mary called him Jesus, they wouldn’t have a clue what language Virgin Mary spoke, out the 10 commandments they wouldn’t even know 2 of them.
So can we really call these people Christian’s ?
From what we can see Christianity is declining now only in UK but quite a few western countries, and in North America and new Zealand also Australia. So maybe in 50 years time it will not be the biggest religion due to people becoming not wanting to be part of any religion and data shows islamic countries have more children but also more serious about there religion
You are delusional!
The Islamic is growing??? in what world?
I appreciate that there was at least one Justin there that knew when to let others talk.
If you're looking for good examples of using logical fallacies, Justin gives an absolute MasterClass.
What a jock
@@truthmatter9972Bart makes a historical error and a logical error. Historical error: All jews, apocalyptic or not believed in body soul separation (check 1 Samuel in which the soul of Samuel appear to James)
Logical error: His argument with marian apparitions work only if he proves that those were hallucinations. He did not do that. He only assumes that
I'm embarrassed for him and I'm an atheist
@@farcenter same here. yikes!
Straw man being his fav. Gross.
When you want to know what’s true, you speak like Bart. When you’re anxious to prove what must be true, you speak like Justin.
yeah
Very well said.
Logic, reason and rationality have a framework that is constraint within the limits of the 30-40K years old human brain. The Christian movement historical context is the beginning of a 2000 years old tradition and one of its creeds is about 1600 years old. "The God that surpasses all understanding." Some monkeys with 30-40 thousand years old brains living on a piece of rock that spins around a star believe that they can comprehend everything there is. Having said that it was surprising to hear Mr. Erhman said that the claims of some of the witnesses are probably historical statements. Perhaps some of them were either delusional or intoxicated. I wonder why the anti-crowd do not make that case. Certainly what is really display on this presentation is the lack of intellectual philosophical skills by both participants which makes this exchange at best limited.
Jesus is still risen from the dead, though...
@@JM-jj3eg Yes, correct good sir
Five Hundred people, no one came forward to tell this story no witnesses not one name.
1000s of people fall for miss information all the time. Just because mass amounts of people believe something isn't evidence it happen.
What Professor Bart Ehrman is showing us is the result of a lifetime of the highest level scholarship and research. It is a thing of beauty, like a Bach concerto, or a great athletic achievement. Bravo!
Wow,! David, that's a nice tribute to a sincere scholar in search of truth
which has been buried under layers and layers of invented fiction by faith driven writers.
How about the church father who believe Jesus resurection? They live in first century.
Barth live in 21st century. Do you believe man who never meet and dinner with Jesus?😂
@@Sungaisurgawi1976what is written is no evidence to anything but the writing itself.
Also, there are no primary written sources, only accounts decades after the fact and compiled through oral recounting traditions.
Only the convergence of evidence can have any bearing on the hypothesis. And in the context of said convergence, the written of about the church father will be weighted in.
I understand that it may feel cold to pick a part the book that supports your belief, but there's nothing being said about the belief itself, therefore no one is attacking what you believe in, you don't need the bible to believe in your faith.
Jesus and Mary lived 2,000 years ago. The people who lived 2,000 years ago saw Jesus and Mary and knew what they both looked like. When Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to all of those people 2,000 years ago, they all knew it was Jesus, because they all saw him before he died, and therefore they recognized him after he rose from the grave and appeared unto them. But the Catholics who say they saw Mary, the Mary who lived 2,000 years ago, they never saw her, because they did not live when Mary was alive 2,000 years ago. So if those Catholic people who say that they saw Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, did NOT see Mary 2,000 years ago, because those Catholic people were NOT alive 2,000 years ago to see Mary, then how do they know if what appeared to them was Mary, if they don't know what Mary looked liike, 2,000 years ago? In order for them to recognized that it was Mary who appeared to them, the Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, they would have had to been alive 2,000 years ago, and saw Mary with their own eyes, 2,000 years ago.
Jesus and Mary lived 2,000 years ago. The people who lived 2,000 years ago saw Jesus and Mary and knew what they both looked like. When Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to all of those people 2,000 years ago, they all knew it was Jesus, because they all saw him before he died, and therefore they recognized him after he rose from the grave and appeared unto them. But the Catholics who say they saw Mary, the Mary who lived 2,000 years ago, they never saw her, because they did not live when Mary was alive 2,000 years ago. So if those Catholic people who say that they saw Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, did NOT see Mary 2,000 years ago, because those Catholic people were NOT alive 2,000 years ago to see Mary, then how do they know if what appeared to them was Mary, if they don't know what Mary looked liike, 2,000 years ago? In order for them to recognized that it was Mary who appeared to them, the Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, they would have had to been alive 2,000 years ago, and saw Mary with their own eyes, 2,000 years ago.@@conradbulos6164
It always makes me cringe when they chose a mere preacher to debate an actual scholar
The problem with preachers is they like preaching. Shame he doesn’t have a clue what feck actual evidence is!
@@kieronbrowne7881The SHROUD of TURIN is Scientific Material evidence of the RESSURECTION of Jesus Christ. I am a PhD level Physicist that worked in the development of ionizing radiation detectors to detect nuclear weapons and I developed Medical Cancer radiation detectors. The SHROUD was written by an amazing ionizing radiation that only penetated 1 part in a thousand of the diameter of a human hair!! The only way to do this type of shallow image formation is to use 1980s high energy charged particle accelerators. Obviously this didn't exist at 32 AD or so.
Material proof of Jesus Ressurection!!
Enjoy...
Justin Bass is also a Professor
@@tomasrocha6139 You could have fooled me. He’s got the critical thinking level of a child. I found him unbelievably gullible.
@@Sumwhere-N-Betweenit’s the way that they approach. They don’t care about the history, the science, anthropology, translations, and historical contexts. That’s when you get this bozo. It’s embarrassing that you’re defending him and proselytizing in the comments. That’s not the purpose of the discussion. Shows the insecurity, arrogance, and ignorance. You are doing it for yourself and your ego, even if you don’t see it
I'm a Christian but wow. Justin Bass can't debate worth a damn.
The distinct impression of an adult talking to a child.
Looking at Bart's facial expression every time Justin gives his "bedrock" argument throughout this whole debate is hilarious. 😀
brierly is such an ass.
Are you Muslim?
I had to pause the video when Justin conflated, 1.8 billion people believed in Jesus, so maybe he did raise from the dead, with a strait face.
Bart has to rely on making faces because all of Bart's argument are pathetic.
I’m sure he felt like he’s talking to one of his second or third year students. He’s discussed this stuff for a living for a long long time.
I'm a Christian and I have to say...Bart won this debate hands down. I can't help but feel like Bass didn't give the proper respect to Bart's expertise on this subject. I admire Bart's courage in willingly doing these debates, as well as not being afraid to concede points even if they help the Christian. Bart is generally an intellectually honest guy
And with all you know, how are you still Christian?
The lesson here is, you just can't outargue a smart encyclopedia. Bart is a scholar of ALL the relevant research.
Yeah I think that is a big problem in a lot of these debates and discussions I've had with christians. That the christian is not willing or able to concede any point at all that might make their religion look a little weaker. Because they run on like an axiomatic basis while the scholar runs on evidence. So the scholar is happy to say that sure, something might have happened and it is maybe a satisfactory explanation of the events, just one that lacks sufficient evidence. While I've had some christians arguing with me that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for any aspect of the bible to even be slightly wrong, or any small deviation of the historical jesus that is not supported by the christian tradition. At that point where are not having a discussion... he is just repeating to me the christian tradition and saying that it is true. Of course some atheists are sometimes guilty of the same thing and some christians are not guilty of it. But I think there is an important distinction nonetheless, given of what types of evidences are valued by the different groups.
The only problem with Bart is that he sometimes uses bad arguments like "Jesus didn't resurrected since it would violate the laws of nature."
@@Terrestrial_Biological_Entity That is not what he says. He doesn't know if jesus resurrected or not, he might have resurrected. It is just simply the case that historically one cannot establish that jesus resurrected because historians are only concerned with what most likely happened.
And miracles are the most unlikely events.
All Christians feel this way when someone dares challenge their beliefs. Some just don't act like it.
“As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’
that is wonderful. thank you for that comment.
Bart had smoked Bass for dinner. Wow. Bass came across arrogant, defensive, and condescending. Not to mention, his arguments were full of holes. I laughed at how exasperated Bart got. I admire his patience in dealing with all of Bass's interruptions, sarcasm, and inability to just shut up and listen.
Bass seems extremely overmatched here. He may be a fine scholar, but here he seems like a spoon in drawer full of knives (dull in comparison).
Agreed, he seemed cocky at points, not even understanding that he was getting owned. And I was rooting for him on principle.
I find it astonishing that Justin Bass is a professor (but there may be a difference between US and UK professors).
I am not impressed with either of them. I remember when Bart claimed that Mark was in error because he wrote that all Jews purified themselves. I pointed it out to him on his blog that he was plainly wrong. To be fair, Bart later corrected himself. However, what that shows is that Bart doesn’t care about the facts- his popular books are littered with factual errors. When I pointed out to him all his factual errors he responded saying “you attack me on historical grounds but what theory do you have?” I attack Bart on historical grounds because I am a historian who cares about facts and I get annoyed when Bible scholars demonstrate their complete ignorance of Ancient Rome, first-century Jewish culture, and geography.
He is like Christopher Hitchens- beautiful prose and powerful rhetoric but poor scholarship and lazy research. Hitchens wrote a book called God is not Great, which is powerfully argued but contains factual errors on literally every page.
@@Sarah06294 Then why don't you publicly debate Bart?
Bart totally dominated the debate. Conducted himself professionally and respectfully.
That's not what I'm seeing, he was beat badly and he knew it. 57:47
@@counterstrike89 it doesnt answer the question on historically did Jesus come back to life. Justin is speaking theologically based off claims Jesus made and other people “seeing” Him. Ok cool. Bart rebuttled prior to, by saying paranormal experiences of that kind isnt uncommon, and isnt limited to Jesus.
@@Ladybugluv2 No, he was trying to control the narrative, it is not common for the Christian religion to be as big and covering the entire world and yet that's what Jesus literally said and commanded to happen, that's not normal, that hasn't happened in any other religion, and Bart knows that, and it upset him, you could see it in his face.
@@counterstrike89 literally doesnt answer the question of if his body was resurrected. And theres reasons for that…one of them being colonialism. Either forced conversion or volunteer. Half of the world at different time periods was ruled by the british (which brought Christianity to new regions) and by the Romans.
This is the most disturbing comment I’ve seen. Counterstrike, u can choose to believe whatever u want. It’s already a given (to people who know what they’re doing unlike u) that the conversation should be in good faith. As everyone can see, bass has been a smugly rude throughout the discussion and worryingly didn’t recognize the irony and contradiction in his taunts. Bart wasn’t beat badly at all. The facial expression wasn’t a sign of defeat rather than frustration from exhaustion for bass to actually cooperate to a connection... that’s what the point of dialogue is.
If u want to make a point about current conversions for the Christian religion... it should go without saying, but ur clearly an ignorant person, that it’s only so far. What was the dominant religion before Jesus was born stupid? Oh wait that’s the old covenant so it doesn’t matter but I can be rebellious too and believe Scientology is true in the middle of the direction for this reply.
Bart is confirming why it is pointless for a historian to debate a Christian theologian about the truthfulness of Christianity.
The logic here. The circular reference evidence is mind blowing.
If Bass thinks only one person in history rose from the dead, he hasn't read his Bible very well
I’d highly doubt Bass thinks that. The argument for your statement is that Jesus is the only supporter historical figure with claims of dying, being risen, and then never having died again. Yes, the Bible has numerous accounts with people being resurrected, but they had then died again later (a natural death) and stayed dead. Just because what you’ve stated wasn’t discussed doesn’t mean Bass thinks Jesus was the only person who rose from the dead. A very arrogant claim
I guess Bass has never heard of Lazarus of Bethany.
Sorry but Justin Bass is exactly the reason why I do not go to church. I wish he had the intellectual integrity and honestly to say the three courageous words “I don’t know.”
Thank you, Professor Urhman! My hats off again!
You're just ONE OF MILLIONS Who WILL RECEIVE Their 'Wages' = HELL FIRE & Eternal CONDEMNATION.
@@Diligent-dp7gi single greatest selling point of Christianity. FUCK OFF. You will die and remain dead just like Jesus.
@@Diligent-dp7giI don't know how you'd think one would see that as a threat 😶
If you dare study physics- You will learn Bart is a con artist
A lot of blah blah
Bart talks about the Laws of physics and the Laws of mathematics. Pure blah blah
Newtonian physics? Which laws of mathematics?
In mathematics we BElLIEVE that two points determine a Line. We believe the line extends both directions into INFINITY. This means the line keeps extending beyond the universe
By the way, physics cannot prove the universe is infinite. We have no idea how far this universe goes. The theory of Big bang is a Theory based in many models.
Mathematics is based on BELIEFS and assumptions that only exist in our head, God is the same.
As a Christian, since Ehrman has not proven historically to prove that Jesus resurrection never happened, Ehrman never used facts by the way, I continue to Believe, by Faith, that Jesus resurrected.
Faith is not logical. I don’t need a logical explanation for it
I took calculus in university- I learned the basics of infinity. I had to believe in infinity- Otherwise I would’ve failed the course. 😂. I got an A.
And Jesus is my Lord
I love these debates and as someone who was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic High School and Catholic College, Justin’s basis for proof is the exact thing that solidified my departure from the faith. “Evidence” is not hearsay taken from a few people’s accounts that had been translated from what, 2 dead languages? I don’t trust testimony taken 2 hours ago let alone, fragmented transcriptions of oral history from 2,000 years ago.
Believe what ever you are comfortable with but to attempt to enter “Paul’s writings” as evidence is preposterous. Im not an atheist and would be best described as a Deist. I’d would be 100% open to accepting Catholicism again if I was convinced of a single component of the above topic. I haven’t heard a single argument that has even come close to doing so. Justin doesn’t have the ability to separate his faith from his arguments. Smart guy but he’s essentially asking realists to accept magic as physics.
11 of Jesus's disciples died a horrible death for preaching the new testament. Ask yourself. If Jesus hadn't risen from his death, would you stand in the middle of town preaching while you're being wanted?... That's just approaching from a logical outlook.
i have a theory for the story of God giving his only Son/Sun going way back before "the Sun". Where God needed a lake of fire to light and warm the earth. He needed sinful souls to fuel the everlasting light that rise in the sky. God sent his only Sun to make the ultimate sacrifice and create sin by turning against his father God, giving up his throne in heaven
and becoming Lucifer the keeper of light creator of all sin and the forgiver of all sin. Gods only Sun has been witnessed by not only 1000s of people but by every human soul ever to live earth from the first to the last. The Sun is the lake of fire we call Hell where the unforgiven sinful souls continue to fuel the blessings of Gods only beloved Son. the story of Jesus is mans intellectual attempt and example of struggle to understand and explain its history and cause and effect of good and evil. It is a very logical and true theory,
Jesus Chist, when put in proper perspective.
@danhtran6401 All that can possibly prove is that they genuinely believed it to be true, not whether it *was* true. People can genuinely believe things that aren't true. All that's necessary to risk life and limb for a claim is for a person to genuinely believe it to be true, not for it to actually *be* true.
And we have countless examples of people dying for things you'd say weren't true. Think of Jim Jones and the Jonestown massacre. Think of the people who committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
I'll happily conclude that they genuinely believed it, but that doesn't make it true. You seem to mistakenly assume that willingness to die for a belief is predicated on the truth, not on the person's conviction.
And all of that is even only if I grant you the truth of those claims that they all died horrible deaths etc. because that evidence is already shaky. But even if they were martyred like you believe they were, that still would only prove the strength of their conviction, not the truth of their claims.
People generally don't die for a lie if they *know* that it is a lie, but they *can* be willing to die for a lie if they don't know that it is a lie and genuinely believe it to be true.
@@MerelvandenHurk you have to look at the contexts. Jesus's disciples were all hiding after the crucifixion. Then something happened and they weren't afraid of death. I can choose to believe in a man that would rather die than tell a lie. As for the terrorists, no God would order them to kill innocent people. Using God's name to commit evil acts in my view contradicts God's teachings. The other ones are nut cases. People willing to die for their cult leaders do not disprove God in any way.
@@danhtran6401 Yeah, something happened - they became convinced. That still only goes to their conviction, not the truth. You're arguing as if it's simply impossible to be mistaken, especially at a time when supernatural beliefs were way more common than in the modern age.
As for your second argument, I never said that that disproves God, mate. I don't know who you're arguing against with that point but it ain't me.
The greatest challenge of this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you are right, but not knowing enough about the subject to know you are wrong…
14:03 I 😁 😍 loved Prof Ehrman's statement about appearances in other religious traditions eg Muslim, Mormon, Greek, Roman etc
Which reminds me of how once the Norse god of thunder Thor decided to leave Valhalla for a long weekend on Earth. As you do.
So he's walking along the banks of a fjord when he meets a beautiful Viking blonde maiden who he picks up, being in human form a handsome Norseman.
They spend several days in a fjord side hut 🛖 making nonstop passionate love.
Finally he decides he has to get back to Valhalla, but before he goes, he'll tell the girl how honoured she was, making love to a god. So he turns towards her and says :
By the way, I'm Thor.
And she says :
Tho am I, but I'm thatithfied.
@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gwwell done 😂
Very true I am a polymath and can support that.
On the second part about knowing enough to know you were wrong.
I like to substitute for most people accepting when you are wrong.
The conversation behind the conversation the 9 out of 10 of the people who debate things like even these two guys the one who is in more knowledge is paying attention to the other person while the other person is thinking more on their rebuttal in their head then listening to what the other person is saying. So the person not listening is like a kayaker rowing backwards on a river.
Are you sure it isn't getting enough to eat and decent health care?
Dunning-Kruger effect. Bass is an example of it here.
When Bart has to correct Justin about Josephus being anti-apocalyptic, I think Justin realizes just how outclassed he is on New Testament history. Whether you're a Christian or not, you cannot deny that Bart Ehrman is a scholar of the highest level. I have yet to see anyone he has debated rival his unbelievable knowledge on this issue.
To Bass’s point about Muslims claiming to having dreams/visions of a man in white, isn’t it generally accepted that that might be the case because Muhammad isn’t allowed to be painted or portrayed? And wouldn’t it be more of the case that Jesus would show up more since Jesus is portrayed a whole lot more then Muhammad, Krishna or Buddha are? Mary as well, so that’s why she shows up in dreams and visions as well more often then even Jesus in some cases?
Bart is either confused or he is dishonest. Arrogant for sure
He talks about the Laws of physics and the Laws of mathematics. Pure blah blah
Newtonian physics? Which laws of mathematics?
In mathematics we BElLIEVE that two points determine a Line. We believe the line extends both directions into INFINITY. This means the line keeps extending beyond the universe
By the way, physics cannot prove the universe is infinite. We have no idea how far this universe goes. The theory of Big bang is a Theory based in many models.
Mathematics is based on BELIEFS and assumptions that only exist in our head, God is the same.
As a Christian, since Ehrman has not proven historically to prove that Jesus resurrection never happened, Ehrman never used facts by the way, I continue to Believe, by Faith, that Jesus resurrected.
Faith is not logical. I don’t need a logical explanation for it
I took calculus in university- I learned the basics of infinity. I had to believe in infinity- Otherwise I would’ve failed the course. 😂. I got an A.
And Jesus is my Lord
@@Esteban17777 you can have images of muhammad. They just can't be portrayed negatively.
William Lane Craig vs Bart was way better. Bart has nothing on Craig!!
Absolutely. Justin realises he's being successfully challenged in terms of his claims. Justin keeps moving the goal posts. This is typical for Christians making these claims. Bart's reasoning is simpler. So in my view Bart's claims are more plausible than Justin's claims. This is always the case. Bart's evidence in support of his claims is stronger than Justin's. Justin's claims and the others making the same claims are weaker simply because of how complex and creative their interpretation of the evidence is. They have to stretch everything to the limits and beyond. They controvert the evidence whereas the evidence of Bart is clear and uncontroverted.
55:40. That’s when Bart realized he was debating a muppet 😂
Which Muppet he's most like will be our next debate. And then whether I'm more Statler or Waldorf.
@@credenzabelladonna-fatale2487 😂😂😂 Yes. You got it. I was thinking maybe animal or Oscar the grouch.
I need to know what Bart takes before these debates to stay so calm and patient.
I know. It’s the confidence of being right.
Bart is simply amazing. So logical and incredibly patient.
# JUST LIKE SATAN, HUH??!! DON'T BE A FOOL!!
But Wrong!
Bart missed the mark alot, but the other guy did too
I agree I’m trying to be impartial (I’m not superstitious (agnostic 🤷) but Justin’s child like behavior ,sarcastic interjections are making me exhausted, poor Bart. Maybe having a historian debate an evangelist is a bad idea. May be a Muslim, who also believes in magic would be more interesting. This is a sidenote I actually think there are more Muslims in the world. For instance, I’m not a Christian but I’m sure I’m still counted as a Catholic. I never formally left anything.
In fact, I went to church weekly for a year or 2 BC after 25 years bc a friend lost his wife. I was just trying to be compassionate. (Was easy ) I grew up in the church. It’s not weird to me. Just saying
@@Zuzuboy1218 there's a lot of flack around that term "Historian". Barts made an issue about this in multiple videos. Bart has a master's in divinity. This is what an evangelist would have, if not a doctorate. So they have the same scholarly training. Now, what they beeline their specific focuses on past their degree can differ, but at the same time... The majority of Barts arguments are based off of textual "criticism". This same "criticism" the evangelist is familiar with by reading the text in its original language, and noting differences between manuscripts aand what is being written about them in academic journals.
What it boils down to between him and an evangelist is what they choose to believe. The problem with most evangelists is they'll ignore facts bc it conflicts with tradition or theology or because they can't personally reconcile it between their tradition or theology. ,(usually Theology being influenced BY the tradition ....this is a big issue to me) and you have others who don't believe the text like Bart that take criticism and then twist aspects or ignore counters and supply you with what reinforces their view, and in many cases with Bart its not accurate... There have been a couple of debates that demonstrate this well. I'll see if I can find then
Bart’s patience in this conversation is a better example of miracle than any claims Justin makes. Also, I would like to add that I thought the moderator did a poor job of moderating.
Well put.
How did the moderator do a poor job
@@jordanduran859 I think there were times where they talking over one another and he could have intervened.
@@jordanduran859 poor may have been a poor description, I just felt like the conversation got derailed a few times and he could have brought it back.
I do agree the interruptions are frustrating while listening. Let each finish their point then if they go too long that’s where the moderator should cut in.
Surprised that Lazarus wasn't brought into the debate? ..
Here’s some problems for the idea that Mary received an appearance…
- Paul records no appearance to Mary.
- The only time she is mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament (outside of the death and empty tomb story) is when Luke says she was a women frequently stricken by demons.
- Mary received no appearance in Luke or Mark as well.
- Mary is never mentioned in Acts
Bart for the WIN! I spent 30 years as an Evangelical Pastor and Justin is suffering from Christian Confirmation Bias!
Congratulations on shedding the "faith" virus. I'm in the same boat, personally.
@@JesusRodeADino It wasn't until I broke free from it that I recognized just how toxic the belief system was (is)! I talk about my journey on my podcast, The Timmy Gibson Show.
Now you're a proud apostate. Congratulations. As an "Evangelical pastor" I hope you read the book of Hebrews and the warnings there about apostacy. It'd be better for you to go to hell as a native in the Amazon who never heard the Gospel than knowing it and rejecting it.
@@timmygibsonkc
_"...that I recognized just how toxic the belief system was (is)!"_
It's literally the worship of ritual human sacrifice.
@@twitherspoon8954 I always had questions about that since childhood. If a loved one died by a gun, would it make sense for me to wear a necklace with a golden bullet dangling from it?
Justin Bass is a New Testament “Scholar” and professor and teaches this exact subject to hundreds of people a year. Let that sink in as you watch this 👀👀👀👀👀👀
AND KEEP AWAY FROM HIM;he`s a danger to your souls...
@@misscameroon8062what soul?
what do you think they teach at all those charter schools and christian universities?
Something left out in this conversation was that the Mormons recanted what they swore to that's a lot different than leaving the faith
It all comes down to "are you treating other evidence equally?" - Bart is a genius
I am a Christian, but it is hard not to notice how humble and soft-spoken Bart Ehrman while Justin Bass maintains an air of smugness throughout the debate. That is usually a sign that the person is not very confident in their arguments and the arrogance is a defense mechanism.
@SquanchTuber There may be a video somewhere that you can watch to understand. Like, maybe try scrolling to the top of this very page Copernicus.
No, it's a sign of someone who has practiced that appearance more.
True
@SquanchTuber Show us EVIDENCE that Jesus resurrected. There is NONE !!
Yes, I also think Justin doth protest too much which undermines his credibility.
as an exmormon, I just love that mormonism is used as an example of the absurd for both theists and atheists alike 😂
Self-deprecation gets riiiiizpect
@@axismundi2142 Christianity and Mormonism are so incredibly different on even the most basic fundamental of beliefs. That's why Christians will jump in on clowning it.
Would an atheist be self-deprecating for clowning on Jesus mythicists?
Mormonism is God’s way of getting the Christians back for what they did to the Jews. 😂
@@jdnlaw1974 And Tadaism is Good Wizard’s magical new religion making old religions disappear
@@jdnlaw1974
Nah.
If you know enough about what they all believe, you'll know that that's basically a stupid comparison that sounds intelligent to the unlearned.
Ehrman came to debate a historical topic - Bass came to proselytize.
Ehrman: “the apocalyptic Jews didn’t believe in a separation of body and soul”
Bass: “But we wouldn’t say that if we say our dead grandmother that she’d been resurrected.”
Ehrman: “Because we have a different belief than the apocalyptic Jews on the body and the soul.”
Bass: “But we wouldn’t say that if we saw our dead grandmother…”
Justin is every smug, first year pastoral student who thinks they're the smartest person in the room. He's already formed his conclusions on what Bart says before poor Bart even gets a chance to get his points across. Bart is such a patient guy but you could tell he was having a hard time maintaining his characteristic saint like patience.
BART DOESN'T DEBATE ANY GOOD APOLOGIST ...TRY GARY HABERMAS OR WILLIAM LANE CRAIG... SOME GUYS WITH BETTER SCHOLARSHIP AND DEBATE SKILLS.. THIS GUY JUST LET BART DISMANTLE HIM
@@andrewmeneely9774 Good apologist is an oxymoron
@@andrewmeneely9774 wait I’m rereading this, you actually think Bart wouldn’t wipe the floor with Craig? Craig still thinks the cosmological argument is good……
@@andrewmeneely9774he debated mike Licona.
In fact he has debated Craig. It went similarly to this one.
I have to say that before I viewed the debate I wanted Bass to win as he is a Christian. Lol! But it has to be said that Bart won it. He was always calm, and made his points very clearly. Justin was too immature and jumped the gun on many occasions; he was also obviously looking for that “Gotcha!” moment.
Me too, and I don't share his superstition. Please provide a description of a YT discussion where the superstitious speaker presents better evidence than the opposing sensible person.
Well, this is the point, and so good of you, as a Christian, to be honest. The problem is, Ehrman does history, apologists like Bass just don't.
Hi Athos. Your remark strikes me as one that shows humility which I hope you take as a compliment.
He's not a historian, he's an apologist. It's like asking Johnny Cochran (OJ Simpson's defense lawyer) if actually, truly, OJ did it. He's not looking for truth, he's looking to advocate for a position at all costs, come what may. That's not a reliable pathway to truth.
@@martifingers Marti, your comment strikes me as someone who's very observant, and thinks deeply on things, even when they feel uncomfortable.
Bart's conclusion contains pure rationalism, Justin = Faith
Thanks Justin. The more I listen to you, the more I realise that I made the right move to leave the church. I think that you truly believe that you’re saying. That’s your right.
I don’t know how Dr Erhman kept his cool…, amazing patience !
The patience of Job
Notwithstanding things becoming somewhat contentious from time to time, Bart has the patience of a saint. Wow.
I thought he was going to reach over and kill him 😮
A person who only hallucinates seeing dead people will not change his character from a coward to a person who bravely faces torture and is sentenced to death. The argument that Peter, Paul and Jesus' disciples only experienced some kind of hallucination is a very weak argument and cannot be defended
@@usep9260 You have to really want to hear both sides my good fellow.
@@usep9260 Why not? Hallucinations can be extremely convincing, people have jumped off buildings to escape them, they have killed because of them. Besides that, who says he was a coward before? Who says he faced torture and death sentences? Christians often claim that the eye-witnesses were persecuted and tortured and despite that they still didn't renounce their believes which proofs there sincerity.
1: There is no evidence for early Christian prosecution and there are no individuals that can be named that have been prosecuted for their believe in the resurrection of Christ. People could be convicted for not paying abeyance to the Roman Emperor, but the Romans didn't care what you believed about Jesus, Yahweh or the tooth-fairy, that is why they were so successful in maintaining a large empire. The Christian persecution that happened centuries later was due to Christians refusing to follow Roman laws.
2: The fact that they didn't renounce their believes only confirms their sincerity in believing it, not that it actually happened. There are people all over the world that truly believe they saw aliens or ghosts or that the Earth is flat or that Obama is a Lizard. That doesn't mean they are right. Hallucinations are very powerful and can lead to sincere feelings...
You are making a theological argument, not an historical one. Which is exactly why Bart was getting frustrated with Justin, Justin doesn't understand the difference (or he does and he deliberately tries to confuse listeners with them).
@@usep9260 you do know its just a story in an old book
It’s funny to me that Justin Bass seems so concerned by what Bart keeps writing down, everytime he starts writing Justin’s eyes go straight to the paper
If the Holy Spirit were real every single Christian apologist would wipe the floor with anyone who questioned Christian theology.
I don't think that's how it works
@@sabinegiannamore8711 why not
Bart's patience and ability to remain cool and collected in the face of Bass' absurdities here is the real miracle. Wow! Talk about a one-sided debate!
It didn’t take long for me to change from “this might be a really interesting conversation” to “damn, Justin is a tool.”
Haha I felt the same. It takes about 10 minutes once Mormonism gets brought up
Feel the exact same way! This was just painful
Jesus chose a wrong tool to use!
@@raysofsun8625 🤣 Justin is so sure of his faith and "facts" that, instead of listening and having a fruitful conversation, he resorts to defensive retorts smugly delivered and childish gotcha questions. Sure signs that his faith and "facts" can't be defended with open honest dialogue but instead must win on self-righteousness and dismissing oppositional thought.
He's not very bright, sadly.
I believe the audience was misled. I watched the debate because I thought it was about whether one had evidence that Jesus was risen from the dead. What I heard instead was Justin Bass ramble on about his Christian faith. Bart Ehrman exhibited scholarship and emotional control. As a curious christian person, Professor Ehrman won this debate hands down.
Other than Paul's testimony, no other disciple directly claimed to have Jesus appear to them.....!
Who else laughed outright when Bass brought up humility?
ive been laughing the whole debate,,lol,,Bass is just a presuppositionalist without facts,,but theres millions of them
@@bonvivant5251 The man to our left wants black and white answers, but that is not how things work, specially when the debates or arguments obviously can not be answered with a yes or a no: reason and knowledge dictates these debates and so there must be bases for every turn of rationalization to conclude, the projections backed up by the whatsoever evidence. This must be handled as a serious courtroom case being discussed, no shortcuts, no simple yes and no simple no.
@@markuse3472 Dr. Ehrman never wanted "yes or no answers." He simply wanted to know where the purported historical "evidence" was that would be of sufficient quality to overturn the high improbability of a reanimated corpse in antiquity. Bass was huffing and puffing, got increasingly flustered, and sadly, imploded.
@@markuse3472 Erhmans point i think was Bass was claiming the resurrection was historical,,and thats based on a claim of faith,,there is no evidence the resurrection happened ,,,we know humans after being dead 3 days do not live again,,
I would've liked to hear a response to Erhmans last point, the entropy one.
Question. You're at a bus station anxiously waiting to get home (heaven) the bus schedule (bible) guarantees the timeliness and efficiency off the bus line schedule. The didn't arrive on time and is late and it's been hours and hours the bus (Jesus) won't show up. How long are you going to waIt for the bus before you start walking home? How much faith do you have in the bus schedule (bible) its only a piece of paper.
I hope to one day reach the level of grace and patience that Bart consistently displays.
Jesus and Mary lived 2,000 years ago. The people who lived 2,000 years ago saw Jesus and Mary and knew what they both looked like. When Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to all of those people 2,000 years ago, they all knew it was Jesus, because they all saw him before he died, and therefore they recognized him after he rose from the grave and appeared unto them. But the Catholics who say they saw Mary, the Mary who lived 2,000 years ago, they never saw her, because they did not live when Mary was alive 2,000 years ago. So if those Catholic people who say that they saw Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, did NOT see Mary 2,000 years ago, because those Catholic people were NOT alive 2,000 years ago to see Mary, then how do they know if what appeared to them was Mary, if they don't know what Mary looked liike, 2,000 years ago? In order for them to recognized that it was Mary who appeared to them, the Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, they would have had to been alive 2,000 years ago, and saw Mary with their own eyes, 2,000 years ago.
A lot of blah blah
He talks about the Laws of physics and the Laws of mathematics. Pure blah blah
Newtonian physics? Which laws of mathematics?
In mathematics we BElLIEVE that two points determine a Line. We believe the line extends both directions into INFINITY. This means the line keeps extending beyond the universe
By the way, physics cannot prove the universe is infinite. We have no idea how far this universe goes. The theory of Big bang is a Theory based in many models.
Mathematics is based on BELIEFS and assumptions that only exist in our head, God is the same.
As a Christian, since Ehrman has not proven historically to prove that Jesus resurrection never happened, Ehrman never used facts by the way, I continue to Believe, by Faith, that Jesus resurrected.
Faith is not logical. I don’t need a logical explanation for it
I took calculus in university- I learned the basics of infinity. I had to believe in infinity- Otherwise I would’ve failed the course. 😂. I got an A.
And Jesus is my Lord
Congrats to Bart for this amazing, informative and patient conversation.
No one will convince me that Justin Bass didn't know that his own arguments were bullshit and desperate moves done in order to not concede the points to Bart.
It almost feels like I'm in Justin shoes and can experience the anxiety for knowing (although not admitting to himself) that he was giving nonsensical arguments.
I've been in similar situations (and I'd argue we've all sustained discussions in which, at some point, we knew we were defending position that we didn't believe ourselves, but we didn't want to lose the argument against our opponent), and I felt really stressed out watching this.
I don't think the man was prepared. It was fairly embarrassing.
@@JamesJohnson-sl2nx Not only not prepared, but also completely wrong.
HOW COME BART JUST TAKES ON WEAK DEBATERS. HE DOESN'T PRESENT WELL
@@andrewmeneely9774 So now it's Bart's fault that his debaters are weak? Maybe Bart is stronger because it's easier to defend the truth than to twist yourself into pretzels to defend the indefensible, like Bass does.
@@JamesJohnson-sl2nx part of the lack of preparation is going to a theological school and being told that any other idea or interpretation is false outside of what you're being taught. Can't debate well if you can't recognize the weaknesses of your own arguement.
This guy seems like he's used to people listening and obeying, hence repeating his same irrelevant point over and over again.
Latter-day Saint here. Interesting to hear them discuss my religion. I feel Bart brought up some very good points. There were multiple witnesses to the plates and the Angel Moroni (pronounced with a hard I at the end). I believe this is solid evidence for the reality that this happened. I also believe that the literal resurrection of Christ occurred, based on the witness accounts, but also based on modern day revelation that supports it. As a Latter-day Saint, I don’t have to simply rely on old historical accounts as the basis for my faith.
Bart just sits there quietly and lets Justin blather and stutter his arguments out. I bet Bart was having flashbacks to having undergrads argue with him.
I appreciate how Bart is not only clear in his explanations but also how organized he is in his thinking. He is not flawless, of course (there are certain things that he could've explained better), but the way he addresses Bass's claims, trying to separate what topic is at dispute, and in which order, reveals that he is capable or organizing the discussion in a logical/rational manner, or at least he tries. He avoids mixing theology with history, or to mix claims that are separate but that can be perceived as one by rhetorical means. Bass, on the other hand, is not even aware of how his theology mixes arguments of different categories under the same discourse.
13:49..📘Another Ehrman Correction:...It was not "4" eyewitness...it was 3 witnesses ..who claimed they prayed, in the woods, and an angel showed them the Mormonite gold plates...these 3 never claimed to have touched them or held them...nor was Joseph Smith with them at the time.. Nor is their Testimony is not in described their own words, but a single statement mutually signed by all three.
Yes, Bart did a lot of cognitive work just to keep the debate on track -- dealing with all of Bass's diversions and sidetracks, sorting the issues out clearly for the audience -- all while coping with Bass's interruptions and insulting demeanor. I admire that skill. I would've gotten angry and flustered in that situation, probably. It would've been better had Justin Brierley been more active in his moderation, but I suspect he was caught by surprise and didn't know how to intervene.
@@Arven8 I used to avoid listening to Bart. Maybe I was being too judgemental toward him. We need to be somewhat open-minded to the views of various scholars.
I'm a Christian believer.
Respectfully...
Problem is Ehrnan conceded that the appearances did happen, but he is not able to provide a credible naturalistic explanation.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I've read and watched a lot of Bart's stuff. He tries to keep the lines clear between history and theology, but he's not out to attack anyone's faith. He's very respectful of people's faith. See his debate with Jimmy Akin for a good illustration of that (and Akin did a much better job than Bass, btw -- actually gave him a run for his money).
Bart deserve a medal for patience and calmness. That other guy needs to learn about how a conversation works. Didn’t his mother ever tell him that interrupting was rude?
Well, it's not in the bible, so he doesn't care. And talking over agnostics and atheists seem to be his bread and butter. So believers buy his shit books.
Yeah, probably so. But if you know the background, Erhman and his arguments are not new, nor are they as good as he's able to present them. In fact, his best points are found in the footnotes of any good Bible. Honest anger and outrage is really the right response, though it scores low in debates.
@@carlosreira413 Yes, his points are obvious. Shame that believers have to ignore facts.
@@terranman4702 Obviously wrong to those who know better. Facts are good, but they're only factual IF they're true. And truth is a much higher standard of reasoning.
@@carlosreira413 Nonsense
I am watching this as a Christian man. I sincerely hope the "story" in the bible is true(especially the key parts). I do question if it is. I watch this and other debates hoping to build confidence that the essence of the bible is correct. After watching this and other debates my confidence continues to be weakened. I have yet to see a debate that gives me that confidence. This is no exception.
Where do you see the results of the survey?
Never get tired of listening to Bart - we are lucky to have such a fair minded and knowledgeable scholar.
Ehrman uses the red herring fallacy throughout the debate.
@@les2997 and what is that?
@@les2997 can you give specific eamples of this
I watched and I didnt catch them
@Les he doesn't give answers just comments.
Bart claimed people see their grannies 2 weeks after they died - how many of those died for that belief I wonder and claimed that it was a real bodily resurrection?
I don't get tired of listening to Bart either, I like him, and 100% respect his knowledge and his desire for truth and I watch him as well because I like being challenged on my faith - but I don't find his arguments persuasive and one reason is what I've written above.
I was dying laughing watching Bart's face as Justin was making his argument that because the gospels end with a call to action to spread its message to the ends of the earth, and that coming true, is somehow good admissible evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The fact that he kept persisting with it and refused to acknowledge the many fallacies in his line of argumentation was both frustrating and hilarious.
Justin: The prediction of the gospel spreading has come true, and this proves the authority of the predictor.
Bart: But it hasnt spread everywhere yet.
Justin: But it will.
...
...
He had one of those paused puzzled looks where someone says something so stupid you don’t even know how to proceed lol.
Who care ? God will sort it out in the end . I wouldn't would want to be in the non Christian position in any way
What's going on here has no bearing on the salvation of the lost here. To them it's only a discussion of no real importance except to debate the topic . It's almost like watch a golf match on TV
Bart may have actually expressed more evidence. on the topic than Justin. But boring. Neither stayed on topic much. I I would have had to get up and walked of this waste of valuable time . Sorry
There is nothing more despicable than a host of a debate that breaks for sponsors or tries to make light of the situation JUST when the debate is getting to a crucial point of contention.
As soon as I heard Bass’ outline of his “bedrock arguments” I was like, this debate is over. And as an atheist, it’s disappointing. I’d love to hear a good, strong argument for the existence of God but over and over again, from Bass to William Lane Craig, ultimately there is just no good, solid argument.
Justin’s approach must have been embarrassing after he rewatched this debate. I admire Barts patience. I couldn’t handle a person like this. If this is what a Christian is I will pass. He doesn’t realize he damaged his own cause.
He probably thinks he won.
I doubt Bass would be embarrassed. He's interminably lost in confirmation bias, the frontispiece of Christianity.
Guy is a troll.
Well said. People that are dishonorable don't win points.
Jesus and Mary lived 2,000 years ago. The people who lived 2,000 years ago saw Jesus and Mary and knew what they both looked like. When Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to all of those people 2,000 years ago, they all knew it was Jesus, because they all saw him before he died, and therefore they recognized him after he rose from the grave and appeared unto them. But the Catholics who say they saw Mary, the Mary who lived 2,000 years ago, they never saw her, because they did not live when Mary was alive 2,000 years ago. So if those Catholic people who say that they saw Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, did NOT see Mary 2,000 years ago, because those Catholic people were NOT alive 2,000 years ago to see Mary, then how do they know if what appeared to them was Mary, if they don't know what Mary looked liike, 2,000 years ago? In order for them to recognized that it was Mary who appeared to them, the Mary, who lived 2,000 years ago, they would have had to been alive 2,000 years ago, and saw Mary with their own eyes, 2,000 years ago.
Bart clearly won this hands down. As usual fundamentalist try to argue ten different things at once conflating one argument with another. Bart tried to keep it focused on a single argument at a time but his opponent could not argue the single argument so he had to continually introduce another argument to camouflage the weakness of his original argument. It’s not worth arguing with a fundamentalist.
And yet Bart gave the examples of two religions that fell apart at their core. There were only three eye witnesses to Smith the fourth is Smith himself in the book he wrote. Two got kicked out of the Mormon church, and the other two left of their own free choice, all four recanted their eye witness claims of seeing that diety and Smith together at all.
@@kyebanman4044lol you obviously didn’t watch the whole thing. And also, how the hell did that fall apart? It looked like Justin was dancing around in his ballerina slippers trying to prove it was only Smith when Bart shows that at least 4 to 5 people definitely “saw” the golden plates given to Joseph Smith. This was RECENT! Bart’s point here is that if people that had this written down so recently had something so ridiculously written then what about one guy, not 500, not Peter, not Mary, but Paul who wrote it down a couple of thousand years ago? Bart says he believes that Peter and Mary think they saw Jesus but as for anything, you pray to something long enough and believe in it, that something is going to start talking back and even showing up. The actual truth is that if Jesus was the son of a god, why isn’t there better evidence? What kind a-hole god allows people to go to a hell because they don’t believe in this fairy tale sounding nonsense whether it happened or not (it didn’t, the supernatural crap)? Some historical figures become deified over time and that is the case with Jesus.
@@kyebanman4044Exactly and Bart is totally wrong in arguing that apocalyptic jews did not believe in the separation of body and soul. That would mean jews did not believe in their own bible (samuel appearing to saul or the souls being in "sheol" after death. Not to mention that Paul belive in body soul dualism)
@kyebanman4044 and yet with all that being true you still cannot demonstrate your magic rabbi rose from the dead
@@Soviet_Saguaro Well it depends on ehat everyone mean by reasonable evidence. Our worldviews have impact on what we establish. I think that is not necessary to be so disrespectful about others belief and to call Jesus "magic rabbi". If you are an atheist you probably think that the historical facts about Jesus are not sufficient evidence that he was raised. I respect that. I think it is, becuase I have other standards. It so hard for us to respect one another?
When the young guy said he agrees with Pascal I kinda heard all I needed to here
I have just listened this debate which convinced me that to believe in God, the Creator of heaven and earth is all about that which is referred to as FAITH. Hence, I am a follower of my Lord and Saviour, JESUS, the Christ.
Believers of all faiths are simply desperate for certainty and thus choose the faith that closely aligns with that underlying fear.
Bart was having an actual conversation, Justin just wanted to interrupt and get “gotcha!” moments
Bart Erhman...patience of a saint.
Justin Bass...outmatched.
Bart was schooled in Princeton seminary. You got to be well behaved in a Christian school.
Love to see Bart bringing the argument of the Mary appearances, because it's much more closer to us in terms of timeframe, and also because, in Fátima's case, the description of the so called miracle, seen by hundreds, is very different from person to person and some of the witnesses present at the place, saw nothing at all. One of those witnesses was my great grandmother, who was a pious woman, a very fervorous believer. She told us she was in the place and heard everybody shouting "Miracle, Miracle" looking to the sky. There was nothing to see in the sky.
He could have kept bringing that up rather than the Mormon argument. Bass hangs alot on the apparitions but doesn't believe in Marian apparitions that have the same level of credibility
@@dvc1867 The mormon argument I think was more painful for the christians, because they hate mormons lol.
While with the marian apparitions the christian was willing to concede that they were worth looking into them, and if they were to be true that they would only support his arguments.
I think most christians would rather concede marian apparitions 99 times out of a 100 before conceding that joseph smith is legitimate in any way
Fervent is the word not ferverous. Thats a word you made up. Alot of Americans seem to make up words that sound a little similiar to the correct english word. They need to read more books to acquire better vocabuary.
@@Ghtr5623 thank you for correcting my English. The extra lines you wrote seem to me a little hard of you on my person, especially because I am a Portuguese speaking guy, you could have figured it out in the text above and also I was careful enough to look up before writing the words and... I found the expression "fervorous believer" written in a lot of places and I copy them for you:
" feelings of great warmth and intensity. synonyms: ardor, ardour, fervency, fervidness, fervour, fire. types: zeal. excessive fervor to do something or accomplish some end. type of: passion, passionateness."
Anyway, thanks for the tip, and pardon me my French!
@@Ghtr5623 and the word is "fervorous" not "ferverous", just to make clear, I was born in the 50's, and to read real books was my life. In French, in Spanish, in English and in Portuguese. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine was my top, and if you are curious enough you can look up and see for yourself- twelve times I've read this book - all of the 1200 pages, more or less. Enough for you?
One thing I noticed that Justine tried to change the debate when he was presented with uncomfortable information. He also seemed a bit nervous from time to time. I also find it interesting that Justine wants to believe that the bible's story of a resurrection is the only one that can be believable. Also, I'm impressed how well read Dr Ehrman is.
Now that I have watched the whole thing, not simply Bass' opening statement, I am assuming that he only debates as advertisement for his book because he never actually addresses an argument that Erhman puts forth, he either moves the goal post when cornered or straight up denies facts. A person who engages in debates for the purpose of actually convincing an undecided audience, or for the sport of it, would have been much better prepared.
The best exampis when he claims that there is nothing in the literature of fallen enemies appearing before people and there is certainly records of people having sensory, and quasi-sensory, experiences of people they have guilt over, and this has indeed included "enemies." However whether it be when he is confronted with this, or in his lack of knowledge of the literature surrounding Mary, he simply makes arrogant statements of "well thats not in the literature", when it is.
I just got to that bit. "I'm pretty sure that's not in the literature. Not in the literature." So insufferable.