How I Beat the Worlds #1 Atheist New Testament Scholar w/ Jimmy Akin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2024
- 📺 Full Episode: ua-cam.com/users/live1S-r-qS47r4
Bart Ehrman is the most educated Atheist New Testament Scholar in the World. Jimmy Akin beat him in a debate, and he tells Matt Fradd how.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.locals.com/
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links. - Розваги
People often believe that a debate “settles the matter”. Really, debates should be viewed as an introduction to the issues; and a critique of the individual’s reasoning on the subject.
I look up to Jimmy so much. I wish we had more men like him he is so knowledgeable about the faith. I’m a convert as well come this Easter vigil I will be confirmed into the church and he just gives me so much hope that you don’t have to be a candle Catholic to study and know the faith.
God bless you. My family joined five years ago this Easter. Best decision I've ever made!
Welcome home,pal.
Just discovered Jimmy - and wondering where i've been all this while - Dude is so on point!
Wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove? Seems to have worked.
I wish to become wise as a dove and gentle as a serpent. Sadly I am not such good things all the time. Certainly I must pray for grace of God.
I love that Christ calls us to use our intellect for His glory, but in a gentle way.
Not really. Christians were and sometimes are clever as a serpent when you need to be, and you present the fake humility of a dove when you need to be. That is manipulation ONLY, of a kind Machiavelli would be proud. That is not different from the Fox and the Lion, that the powerful know how to do anyway. That's my objection to you.
@@charlesnunno8377 lol
@@asliketheson Make an actual argument. Or you will prove me right. Christians created the atheists they rail against. Since you both operate from the same manipulation prime directive.
I was graced to have been able to attend this one! I really enjoyed it. I remember I was quite star struck when saying hello to Jimmy, and I completely forgot what I was going to say. I ended up saying something like, “hey, I’m a really big fan of yours!” He was gracious and said “thank you,” before going back up on the stage. lol
Same thing happened to me when I met Jordan Peterson! haha. Except all I could think to say was that it was nice to meet him! What a dunce :-)
Weird. An actual star might well put you in a coma.
Nah, I’ve met celebrities. It was neat, but they’re not really that big of a deal to me. Jimmy is one of the people I’ve looked up to in the faith for decades.
The Ehrman debate was great! One of my favourites. Idk about "trouncing" but I loved the way Jimmy approached the debate and it was honestly a breath of fresh air
Jimmy was really good. He also did a lot of speculation which raises doubt as to what is actually true. His whole argument on Mary and Joseph having two homes was speculative.
So he makes up stuff not found in the Bible when in conversation with a Bible scholar?@@SergeantSkeptic686
@@SergeantSkeptic686 And rather nonsensically speculative.
Jimmy held his own, but idea that he “trounced” Earman is ludicrous.
This was awesome. So many times we are simply trying to win the argument instead of the man. I pray for Bart so much and hope God softens his heart and opens his eyes and ears to the Gospel of Jesus as real.
So you want your god fantasy to afflict Ehrman with heart disease?
James White said the same thing you did: when Ehrman is on the ropes, he resorts to arrogance and ruthlessness, and sometimes ad hominem attacks. But credentialism/appealing to an expert is in and of itself a logical fallacy, so even in Ehrman's counter to White he was wrong.
to be fair, James White does the same thing Ehrman does. See his recent debate with Leighton Flowers.
Appeals to authority aren't always fallacious. They're only fallacious when one appeals to an authority that doesn't have the required expertise on the given subject matter. It wouldn't be fallacious for me to say that a particular view on metaphysics is wrong because St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, and others disagree with you. Hence Bonaventure, citing Augustine, even remarks: "What we believe we owe to authority." If, in discussing some theological view, one said: "Well, modern empirical scientists disagree so you're wrong" then yes: THAT is an INFORMAL fallacy of appeal to authority.
The "Dr." James White that purchased a fake doctorate from a diploma mill to give himself authority and that claims that he's right because he's taught Greek all the time?
@@adamr.6889one bad Christian and one typical atheist
@@lhgihsThis is not true. It is always a fallacy. However, just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t meant it isn’t true, it just means it’s deductively flawed.
Ehh, I hardly think Bart lost. I’m not even sure we were watching the same video with the title of this interview
Jimmy literally did mental gymnastics. Joseph had 2 houses, etc
That was a pretty bad point to be honest. Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus and his family were well off, quite the opposite. To postulate that they were poor but had 2 houses in 2 different places in is wild.
I'm not sure Ehrman worked with Kurt Aland, I think he worked with Bruce Metzger.
Jimmy has real Tom Bombadil energy in some ways.
But are his boots YELLOW???
(Coldplay wants to know)
What an endorsement.
Jimmy Akin is my favorite apologist. He is one very smart dude. His podcast is great.
Best debate I've seen in a while.
This was a great debate. It was fun reading Ehrman's blog after the debate to hear his take, which was an interesting practice in copium on his part.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
?@@tomasrocha6139
@@tomasrocha6139 Nice cope bro hope it makes you feel better! Ehrman very clearly lost the debate and Luke 2:7 doesn't refute Jimmy's point about St. Joseph having 2 houses.
@@BigMan-xz3rm So Joseph owned a home but there was no room for Mary to give birth in? 🤡 And I'm the one "coping" 😂? Christians can be so funny🤣.
@@tomasrocha6139 And she brought forth her first born son and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger: because there was no room for them in the inn.
I suppose they remained in the cave for the allotted time it takes before one can present the first born to the temple (40 days). I guess that’s entirely reasonable, since there is no other scripture passage claiming they found more suitable lodgings following the abrupt need for shelter. Therefore, there is no other way to view that scripture passage. If it’s not written, it didn’t happen. Jimmy is really not as intelligent as he is thought to be.
I will say for Ehrman, he at the very least attacks Christianity on a historical and textual level. It's a more substantive approach that Dawkins and Hitchens, who basically resorted to Oxonian browbeating and straw-men.
No they argue against madness and delusion.
This is some Sun Tzu Art of War type stuff bro 🤯
2:40 You don't need a time machine. All you need is the Vatican's secret chronovisor! 🙂
(See Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World episode 299 for context.)
I love that we can make these type of references, similar to how comics did it.
With all charity, I feel bad for kids who grow up in Fundamentalist groups, or even Evangelical groups that take the Bible more literally. I think those kids often grow up to be hardened atheists because they “discover science” and get a bunch of “proofs” for why Jonah was swallowed by a whale and not a fish 🙄🧐🫠
I’m grateful for the “Baptized Imagination” and how Catholicism (and certain Protestant traditions) recognize the depth and width of God’s word and of the human soul. Symbolism and imagery are all over the Bible and I’m ever thankful for the Holy Spirit working through people who pointed those examples out to me.
And well done, Mr. Akin! You were instrumental to my conversion and baptism ✝️🙌🥰
Jimmy is smart and doesn't make personal attacks to prove his point. I could listen to him talk about anything.
I watched the debate. While putting inerrancy off the table Jimmy argued that the Bible is reliable in the “jist” of the its claims. That’s not good enough for me.
Well I guess Jimmy should just pack up shop then
I thank God for Jimmy Akin. Very wise
Debates are next to useless in persuading the other side. To paraphrase Scott Adams: Each side is watching a different movie on the same screen at the same time.
Can someone give an example of a point where Ehrman clearly lost in that debate? I felt like Bart did quite well.
The kids call it Cope.
@@gabrieledwards1066is that a no?
@@Christopher-tayso ah, yeah.
It's always like this. Each side thinks they did well.
how could a lyng man do "well?"
Jimmy Akin is so underrated… its crazy.
By whom??
But who rates him?
In what respect?
Jimmy made quick work of that cat.😂
@@LetsgoB Yes, the barely educated ZZ Top cosplayer made "quick work" of the noted, elite scholar, who teaches the material at an elite university. In a related fantasy, zombie gods are real.
Wise as serpents and gentle as a dove… and pull the rug right out underneath him.
The fundamentalist background is definitely his Achilles heel. Glad you guys discussed this.
How so? Isn't Catholicism Jimmy's Achilles' heel?
Taking the argument to its logical end, it's basically saying that the Bible doesn't have to be completely accurate for it to be reliable.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that you're saying it's possible for a book with inaccuracies to be the Book of God
I wonder how Ehrman reacts to John 14:26. Does he assume that that verse was simply added later, and that John is anyway the last Gospel to be written, so that what other scholars might be willing to think the effects of the Holy Spirit can be dismissed as further purely-human meddling in the Scriptures and traditions that we have?
Ask him. He knows scripture and the context a thousand times better than you.
I always hope that these guys would give glory to GOD for the opportunity to contend for and defend the Faith.
Speaking of Craig defeating Hitch. Hitchens has a solid pro-life argument
Hitchens IMO arguments are fairly weak. He was just SO good at debating and combined with his accent and very quick wit, created numerous moments where he sounded great...but the actually meat of his arguments were often quite weak, often boiling down to "I don't like that God did this"
@@mattm7798Meanwhile WLC is still banging the drum for the Cosmological argument and has now called out Einstein's theories as being incorrect because they don't agree with WL's preferred version of A and B time theory. WLC is nothing more than a philosophical sophist.
@@kingsman428 mst irdmable dmned one, einstein isn't right.
@@kingsman428 einstein based his rlig10n on kant's moral relativism.
@@kingsman428 All Causality Necessitates The Uncreated. All Contingency necessitates The Uncontingent.
Thanks much for this video.
Our James sounds like he does the opposite of what that other James likes to do in debates :)
Honestly as a Christian I was hopong Jimmy would win undoubtedly. However, I do not think Jimmy won. For example, Bart actually was correct about Luke's Resserection account. Jesus dies say to "stay in the city, until you are clothed with power" so Barts claim about the Apostles being told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days is actually correct, Jimmy said Luke never said that, but it is exactly what Luke said. So now I am wondering how to reconcile that with the other Gospels.
Honesty and integrity like this is so rare. 👍
How does that conflict with the other gospels?
(And no it doesnt say 40 days, it says until you are clothed with power)
@@ravissary79and when where they ‘ clothed with power’
What is that a reference to ? To Pentecost which is 40 days later
Read, Pray, and be honest in your heart with the Lord. Ask HIM for the answers and the Spirit will lead you.
We cannot become like the Gnostics that Paul warned Timothy about in 1st Timothy, obsessed with arguments and seeking knowledge just to win debates.
We should read the Word FIRSTLY to seek His Kingdom and its Righteousness.
@@user-qc9bk3nt8c Very eloquent way to tell him to ignore logic, reason, and facts and just believe blindly.
“I was shocked; I couldn’t believe you did so well”
“Thank you”
Being a popular atheist is like winning a bronze medal in the Special Olympics.
Ouch!
Being a theist gives a wide berth for being special needs.
Talk about not judging a book by it's cover. What a thoughtful and intelligent Apologist.
Ehrman is agnostic and I'm not sure Jimmy won, even though I'm on his side.
I'm a relatively fresh athiest revert. At the time that I saw that debate, I was very freshly reverted. If Bart had done well, my faith would've been shaken, but it in fact only strengthened. Jimmy used a very athiestic highly logical approach against Bart, which was super effective.
@@ultimatefactschampionship8758 You mightve inserted your comment on the wrong thread.
I'm not sure jimmy won either
@@ultimatefactschampionship8758 Thanks for explaining. Your original comment now makes complete sense. 👍
@@alisterrebelo9013 Super-effective in accomplishing what?
Omg that ad at the end 😅
Wasnt expecting that!
Please NOT OMG but omgosh.
@@simonslater9024 🤣🤣
Nice story bro.
Non believers may win a skirmish but they have lost the war.
Atheism is raising, Christianity is falling. Especially young people do not believe. Gay marriage is legal. You guys have lost already.
Amen amen amennnnnnnnn
Lmao please check your Western-centric bias. The West is in open crumbling if not collapse and Christianity is still growing in non Western areas. The war is over in the West, but the West as we know it isn't gonna make it forever, and the West is not the world.
An educated and organized minority dominates a disunited and hedonistic majority. That is why Christians internally dominated the Roman Empire. Today, we take it for granted and have become apathetic and complacent. Thus the humanists, secularists, enlighteners, communists dominated us.
Non believers don't want any part of your "wars". We just want to live our lives free of the absurd bronze age sensibilities you people want to force on society.
This was the first time I had heard of Jimmy before, and after the debate he went straight to the top of the list of trusted apologists. I'm a believer 100%, but of course we all have some unanswered questions that may not affect our faith and belief in God. I've come to like Erhman, of course he is now a heretic however he does seem genuine and honest, as most of these guys are. So I did come in to the debate thinking Erhman would come out on top, however I was left jaw dropped by Jimmy. I had never seen anyone dig deep enough or use such sensical hermeneutics in apologetics before. The topic of Joseph having 2 living arrangements was an eyeopener for me, so logical yet so overlooked. Jimmy's overtly kind and loving approach was incredibly admirable.
It's nice to see some legitimate apologetics being used in Christendom. I can't wait to see more of Jimmy in the future.
I don't know what apologetics are for. I can explain ANYTHING. Literally. Give me ANY story now matter how outrageous and I can defend it. Even ones with outright logial impossiblities.
Go ahead, write the craziest story that makes no sense at all and I will find ten different ways to defend it.
Jimmy Rocks!
Were you watching a different debate?
So I’m a little high right now because I’m getting ready for bed and I’m aware that might skew my perception here so I’ll need y’all to tell me if it’s the cannabis….
Does this guy look like Erhman with a red beard? He even sounds like him. I swear when he imitated Bart (at 5:55) it looked like Ehrman was dressed up as a farmer for Halloween.
I discovered Jimmy Akin recently. He is really cool.
Woooooow! What an enormous concession by Ehrman!
I try to look at debates both from what I know & from an audience who may not know very deeply the topic of debate. I thought Jimmy's 1st rebuttal was hefty (presenting Ehrman's own professional work). But, Ehrman is really gifted at rhetoric. I think Ehrman's stage presence & rhetoric was excellent throughout the rest of the debate.
His substance & reasoning on the other hand are incredible. He is scrapping the bottom of the barrel & trying to in desperation to find some false miniscule detail.
I think in this debate towards the end Ehrman compares the history of Jesus with either Romulus & Remus and, or the founder of Greece (I can't remember his name at the moment). That's so ridiculous. Plutarch concedes that this area is highly speculative (something like that, (I don't have the quote with me).
Romulus and I think Barts point was that jesus was not the only historical figure to claim goodhood and later ascend to heaven. Romans did believe Romulus became a minor deity later in life and that gods took him up to heaven.
The magnificent hat has a really lovely way of treating interlocutors. It's great.
And his note about James White, well, I wish James White would take to heart. White has a bit of an arrogant streak that gets him into trouble sometimes. He often assumes he's the smartest man in the room. I may grant that he often is, but it's an unhelpful trait that burns him.
I think his recent debate with Trent Horn is another example of that.
Now, I've learned a great deal from White, and I greatly appreciate his ministry, so I just want to see him improve.
Terrible neckbeard
God be praised
Guy needs to do some curls and pushups for arm strength and tone
Bart's laugh is a coping mechanism to try to affably disarm those he is speaking with. It is charming at first, but the more you listen to him, the more annoying it becomes.
It is also a way to make him seem more smart. After all if he laughed it must be going pretty easy for him, for sure he is winning the debate!
@@igorlopes7589 The test is if you ask yourself "Was that funny enough to laugh" you will realize it is more like a nervous TIC than real laughter. I wonder when he developed that? If after his apostasy, it may be an insight to the trouble of his soul.
I’m lazy, the nice thing about truth is that it makes making your position much easier to argue.
Most people confuse their belief for truth however and are waiting for their turn to speak rather than listen, so yes that is not hard.
I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman.
"I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..."
William Lane Craig
I can't believe the host is impressed with Hitchens!!
I can't believe he initially doubted William Lane Craig's ability to debate Hitchens!!
😂
I heard William Lane Craig talk about his own concerns on debating Hitchins:
Craig (and, I think, the host of this program) were not concerned that he would actually lose - I.E. that Hitchens' arguments would be superior or Craig's main points would be disproven...
They were concerned that because Hitchens is a clever, witty charismatic person, he would charm his way into "winning" the debate in the court of public opinion.
Craig didn't say that directly - that's my paraphrase, but I think it's an accurate summary 😊.
@@benschenkenberger9971Hitchen’s brother Peter spoke about this in an interview where he talked about his debate with him back in the late 90s in Michigan I think it was. I believe he said something like it didn’t really matter what his points were because everybody applauded at everything his brother said anyways.
It depends on what you wanted. Both employed different types of sophistry, and neither offered any persuasive arguments or evidence.
@@benschenkenberger9971 Well, since Craig is and was a dishonest shitbag, that concern makes sense.
Bart is a great mind, precise, knowledgeable, he knows his stuff. I'll have to find this debate.
Bart Ehrman is always trounced when he isn’t in the room
But when he is in the room .. not so much
Like when he said God can't do miracles because 1+1 can't equal 3?
Agreed. I do however feel Jimmy was the better prepared for this exchange.
@@mattm7798 that’s a correct statement
When theologians admit God can’t make a married bachelor.. or make mathematics different
For the same reason God can’t make an apple both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way .. God can’t make ‘ something from nothing’
That’s one reason the miracles in the Bible are compelling
Stopping the sun in the sky in Joshua
Shooting fire in The Book of Chronicles
Jesus healing people or turning water into wine
It’s not hard to imagine how these miracles could be done without breaking the law of
Non contradiction
But I completely understand what Ehrman was saying there
People who are bewildered by what he said, simply do not understand the implications
@@mattm7798 it’s also interesting the Bible teaches that God created the universe from pre existing matter
It’s later theologians who invented the ‘ ex nihilio “ nonsense
Um, not sure where the Bible teaches that God created the universe out of pre-existing matter. Not that it would make that much of a difference since time matter and space had to start at some point.@@keenanmiller6231
The title is Soo misleading. Bart ate their lunch for a week with ease and facts written in the fictional buybull!!!
“At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;”
Exactly. No matter what it’ll boil down to do you believe Gods Word or not. The Lord will not be impressed by anyone trying to poke holes in His Word. It’ll all come down to who is paying for your sins. You, or Jesus, but they will be paid for.
I’m an atheist and sided with Bart Ehrman on that debate. But I did think Jimmy Akin made some very good points in the debate and his friendly manner was great to see. Both debaters seemed to agree on most things except on what it means for something to be reliable. But it was a fun debate to watch.
They must be talking about a different debate. Because the debate I watched Bart Ehrman was very polite and respectful on both sides. But Jimmy Akin certainly did not decimate Bart, if anything Bart one the debate.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
I am watching the debate. The premise of the debate was, The Gospels are not reliable. I find it interesting that Ehrman was upset that he had to prove a negative. I am not at the intellectual level of these two, but I feel he is wrong. That is a positive statement. It is a tangible concept that can be supported. This is different than trying to prove the non existence of a substance.
I can't believe I just heard the equivalent of a porn addicts anonymous commercial- this world is so screwed.
As an objective viewer, no one trounced anyone. Ehrman brought forth many questions never before brought to the forefront on a large scale. Jim held his own as an apologist. Ehrman claims were not all in line as Jim claims. Ehrman put plenty of dents in the historical context of the NT.
At what point in the debate did Jimmy "win"?
That wasn't the way the debate went at all. He disagress on minor, intermediate and major.
I'm curious if this is true, I highly doubt it. But but I'll watch the source material and see.
To answer your question wondering, no, Akin didn’t defeat Ehrman.
To answer your question wondering, yes, Akin defeated Ehrman.
@@Xymage no he didn’t
@@jimurban5367 OK Lil bro whatever you say
@@Xymage What a tool.
Why this man sound like Bart himself 😂
I didn't see the debate that is referred to here, but I strongly doubt that this guy "trounced" Ehrman. As to the question of the reliability of the Gospels, what if we just use a very simple metric: that these texts describe and defend a whole series of miracles (from the small stuff like turning water into wine all the way to the large stuff, like people being raised from the dead, including of course the central claim of Jesus's own resurrection) which have never been reliably witnessed anywhere in the world, in the whole of recorded human history? If this Akin guy can provide examples -- let's say, from the last thee hundred years of historical record -- of comparable miracles occurring in the actual world we inhabit, then I might begin to have some faith in the miraculous claims of the Gospels. But of course he can't. Seas don't part (Exodus), corpses don't miraculously come alive again, loaves and fishes don't miraculously self-replicate. These things don't happen, and have never happened. QED.
"If I saw the miracles, I would believe" no miracle is enough for you, there are plenty going on every day and you still don't believe. Nuns body didn't decompose, Eucharistic Miracles, apparition of Mary over Guadalupe, so on and so forth. You don't see miracles because you are lazy and choose not to look.
I'm not sure what you mean by Jesus's resurrection has never been reliably witnessed, it's a pretty large religion 😂.
Imagine 100 people go to Walmart and watch a gallon of milk fall, they go and spread the word about the gallon of milk falling. Then because I personally don't think the milk fell [not because of lack of evidence] I say, "the milk falling was never reliably witnessed". That would be pretty silly wouldn't it
I’ve always felt like Bart’s issues with Christianity are emotional more than academic. Then once he stepped into the role of hero atheist of the elites, that really became his identity. You can see in some of his tweets that his heart is broken without the love of Jesus; this was particularly obvious in a tweet about how much he longed for the love of Jesus around Christmas.
I suppose you're right on that point. He has stated many times that he lost his faith, not for academic reasons, but inability to rationalize the problem of evil, which has nothing to do with his academic field.
@@samuelflippin1890 I didn’t know he had said that. Thanks for sharing that. I assumed he was one of those people that studies the Bible academically & loses faith because of that. From a few things I’ve heard him say U assumed he came from a “Don’t ask questions; just believe.” background. I don’t actively follow him so I only know things about him when he’s popped up national articles or mentioned in other videos, but I’ve heard of a few tweets where he just seems so sad that he’s lost his faith.
James White beat Erhman in a debate first.
But seriously, Erhman struggles to stay consistent depending on his audience because he is mostly motivated by money these days.
Jimmy was correct right at the start, Erhman doesn't like that God didn't use a divine photocopier to transmit the text of scripture, and it's silly.
What? James White whole argument was that the amount of absolute textual variants is high because there are lots of copies but the relative amount is small and Ehrman easily shot that down by pointing out that the bulk of copies we have are the work of trained copyists from the Middle Ages and that the earliest copies are filled with textual variants.
@tomasrocha6139 I don't think you understood the debate. White was correct on the issue you are trying to bring up and Erhman's response was a deflection away from White's actual argument.
Even Erhman admitted on his own blog that it wasn't his best debate, and he didn't post it for years.
@@chemnitzfan654 What? No, James White was seemingly unaware that the earliest copies were copied by complete amateurs and have far more variants than the extremely late medieval copies which were the work of professional copyists that he was trying to use to argue that the relative number of textual variants is very low.
@@tomasrocha6139 He was arguing that the number of meaningful textual variants is low. A spelling mistake, deletion, or duplication is meaningless, especially when we have so many copies with such early dating.
How to debate Bart:
1. Flatter him
2. Hug him
3. Use Bart against Bart
4. Beat him
Weird thing about Bart is he writes entire books about how the NT cannot be trusted because of all the minor variations and that it has been changed etc, but co-writes a book with Metzger which says "yeah, we basically can say we know with a high certainty what the OG NT says".
His allegations of contradictions are a separate manner(and have been answered numerous times)
Jimmy didn't beat Bart at all. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
Did he though?
"White at one point tried to make himself sound superior on a textual matter"
Well it is a James White debate. He does it in every single one.
I wouldn’t call the graves opening up in Matthew 27 or the census requiring everyone go to their home of ancestry in Luke 2 “minor historical claims”.
Bart made good points about how Christians wouldn’t trust the history of Ceasar by Seutonius as “historically reliable” the same way non Christians wouldn’t treat the gospels as historically reliable.
That argument presupposes the only evidence for Jesus is in the gospel accounts. Which simply isn't true
Maybe I’m alone on this one but I don’t see any problem in accepting the History of Caesar by Seutonius as a Catholic.
Jesus existed is a poor argument to verify the major claim of Jesus' Ascension. Jimmy picked the major claims. Bart should have rebutted with different major claims.
I just watched the debate and I don't get the clai at all that you won, or even trounced Ehrman. I mean the fact that he got you to assert that Joseph was economically deprived and yet had two properties 100 miles apart. Just weird and bizarre claims from a historical perspective.
debating an apologist is the equivalent of playing a pigeon in chess. They strut around knocking all the pieces over and then claim victory.
I watched (partially) the debate. Ehrman's position was the Gospels are not reliable on "supernatural" occurrences referenced in the bible; the virgin birth and surrounding story of stars pointing the way, the resurrection and ensuing story. He does not argue the point that Jesus existed. No, Jimmy, you did not win any debate on these issues. You won on a play on words. Are there olive trees in Palestine? Yes, there are. Do they bear fruit in winter? No, and Jesus did not cause them to be bare in winter, nature does that all by itself.
Lil bro is yappanese
To be fair, I don't think he trounced him but did do well.
Why not?
@@HunnysPlaylists Jimmy Akin tried to argue that Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem which is refuted by Luke 2:7. Since there was no room for Mary to give birth in Joseph owned no home in Bethlehem.
Another blunder of his was when he said Joseph's genealogies in Matthew and Luke are two biological lines given they name different men as Joseph's father .
Lastly he denied that Luke tells them to stay in Jerusalem till Pentecost which is just falseI am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
He also denied that in Luke the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusaelm for 40 days even though it says so plainly in Luke 24:49 .
@@tomasrocha6139 Christ being Born in a Manger fulfills The Old Testament.
@@tomasrocha6139 Joseph is Patrilineally linked to King David and Moses and Abraham.
@@tomasrocha6139 St Joseph was the true King, the last of his line.
I gotta correct you real quick Bart didnt train under Kurt alland he trained under Bruce Metzger who was the leading textual critic in the world before he passed. Metzger didnt hold Barts views on preservation, James white is a textual critics also but hes not a scholar although he did quote scholarship Dan wallace , Kurt alland & Silva but Bart just brushed them off. Bart kinda gave up on Textual critical matters a long time ago & started focusing on other issues. I thought James white won that debate & Bart kinda admitted on his Blog. James asked him to name 1 textual variant that changes the meaning of an entire book & Bart couldnt answer that question sufficiently. Was a great debate though for sure.
Jimmy is a walking encyclopedia of Christianity.
I liked the debate, although I'm not as positive on "Jimmy raking Bart over the coals" as many have asserted.
I also liked the personal touch of it. That being said, I often found the moments of recognition such that they'd easily be construed as sarcasm or as "conscious attempts of makin B. uncomfortable and not welcome."
I'd like to insert the notion of a possible interpretation of all that as "being said with a _scyte_ -eating grin", but dunno how. I know it wasn't, but the possibility of such misunderstanding sure is there.
Jimmy beat Bart? Did you see the part where Jimmy explained the contradictions about Joseph and Mary going to Egypt by saying that maybe they had a second home there? LOL. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. He did do a slick job of debating pointing out the things that Bart agrees on but it was obvious that Bart was trying to keep from laughing with some of Jimmy's ridiculous excuses.
Like my Christian friends use to tell me, “the Bible is the inerrant word of god, if you can prove one thing wrong then it’s all wrong”
The gospels are more like a friend telling a story to convey a point to you. Your friend might generalize some things, be really specific about otherthings, paraphrase some things, conjecture about some things, and leave whole events out. But that doesn't mean he's wrong or misleading you. He's catering the story to convey a point to you. People do it all the time in conversation and no one judges that as "unreliable." Bart is judging this kind of story telling by the standards of history and empirical academic enquiry. Nothing wrong with that. It just leads to a misjudgment about the gospels if you think that is what their authors were doing.
This reminds me of that dialogue from the Hannibal Lector stories.
Lecter: how did you catch me?
Special Agent: you had certain disadvantages.
Lecter: what disadvantages?
Special Agent: you’re insane.
Only with atheism, it’s….“you’re a dumbass”.
Jimmy Akin lost every exchange badly. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
Oooh.....
claiming victory when the other person isn't there to state their side......
bravo
The inability to move focus from “owning” others is the single greatest indicator of insecurity. Pretending that Jesus doles out high fives for reveling in the schadenfreude following the public mockery and disparaging of another human being rather than their misguided ideas betrays a complete lack of understanding of Him and his Word.
Assigning motive to people's actions is the single greatest indicator of ignorance because only God knows the heart. I'm not even Christian and I know that. Can you point to how it is sinful to express joy over victory in battle? Do you believe Jimmy was lying when he said he had concern for the emotional well being of his opponent? Are Christians not supposed to take up the metaphorical sword and fight? Your pedantic rhetoric gives rise to so many questions. Perhaps Jimmy should just perform some miracles next time he is in a debate. After all, that's how Christ convinced so many people.
Also on the other side of the fence it’s Dr.Ehrmans backers that thinks he trounced you. Just read the comments on the debate and on his blog. You see how this works? Each side thinks they won the debate.
One problem with Ehrman, which Akin alludes to, is that he seems to have gone directly from fundamentalism/Evangelicalism to critical thinking/agnosticism. He would have been better off had he taken a look at the Catholic/Orthodox view of things which does not take Biblical literalism and the historical-critical method to be the be-all and end-all of theological epistemology. Of course this does not mean that he would have accepted one or the other as valid, but it would have given him a broader perspective on opposing criticisms. It's as if he doesn't believe the Bible anymore, but he still believes in sola scriptura!
Bart was visibly rocked during the debate. Although Jimmy's 'High Five' was way too hard (powerplay)??
Bart was baffled by Akin's mental gymnastics. It says clearly in Luke 24:49 the Apostles were told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days, he just denied it. It says in Luke 2:7 that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room, but Akin actually said Joseph owned homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem. He said both genealogies in Luke and Matthew are biological even though Joseph has a different father in each of them. His blunders were too many to count.
These clickbait af titles only make a disservice to your followers. He didn't trounced nothing - on the contrary! Ehrman is lightyears ahead in terms of historical knowledge of these books and it was obvious in the debate.
It's super cute thinking that Jimmy won that debate.
yeah it is 😂😂😂 He was being so humble he decimated him
Not sure why it matters so much to an atheist to do well in a debate. For what reason are they trying to change minds? Make more people accepting of the ethics that flow from evolutionary theory?
The gospels can be both reliable and unreliable. People ... intelligent people ... will have differing opinions about how much is reliable, and to what degree. If Akins in fact demolished Ehrman in the debate, a logical result would have been a massive conversion to some form of Christianity (including Ehrman). Debates are more about how quickly one can think on their feet than about any right answer. It's entertainment, and generally doesn't move the needle one way or the other.
"The gospels can be both reliable and unreliable.". That kinda sucks when eternal toasting is at stake.
I think the same. Bart is not going away anytime soon, just because of Jimmy Akin's claim. People can keep their faith and scholars can keep dissecting the NT. There's room for both.
"If Akins in fact demolished Ehrman in the debate, a logical result would have been a massive conversion to some form of Christianity (including Ehrman)."
It is not a logical conclusion, at all. There are MANY people, who, when confronted with the question "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" flat out say "No."
For most people, it has nothing to do with the head... it's all in the heart.
You're presupposing people will do something because it is true. Do people avoided pre-marital sex because they could have children with a person they don't love/want a life with? Do people eat avoid junk food because it's true that it's better for your health?
Even when Jesus was here and did miracles in front of people they still didn't believe. I'm not sure why you think it's some sort of requirement that the truth will have a 100% following
He "won" the debate by conceding at the outset that the Bible was not inerrant!
Ehrman is intimidating IMO because he is such a good communicator, and does have legit credentials that make him seem very imposing...and then you get to his actual arguments and critiques, which are very rigid and superficial.
He was well but James white, Daniel wallace, marck licona was well too
Ehrman claims that Jesus wasn't buried in a grave, and yet we have Jesus' burial cloths on display in Turin.
The problem with these debates that is more about the participants and their particular views in a subject but not about the Truth of Creation, Creator and the creatures. My second book I’m writing is totally different approach, God is self evident with the Bible or without the Bible, Christianity exists before the Bible and that was put together by the Church that JC founded to continue His ministry, so my approach is that to be an atheist is just a matter of faith, not to believe in God because God is self evident. An atheist put a lot of effort in being an atheist, he or she is a person that just “ decide” that God doesn’t exist. Most of the people have the idea that something else is out there, someone who is the starting point. All the good comes from God, when I talk with an atheist I always ask them how many people they did kill apart from God, and usually looked at me as I am crazy, and then I asked them why? Because is wrong, so I follow “ How do you know is wrong? And they start to see if they are smart enough that the most of the people follow more laws that come from God not men. I end always saying you follow a commandment of a God that you said does exist, and probably you follow more commandments too but you don’t understand where good is coming. Once a gay told me that if I was implying that atheist are fake or atheist cannot be good, my answer is “ not I know for a fact that an atheist can behave good because atheists also follow God natural laws, that are Divine in nature “ to though they are deniers as spoiled children. But to me a real committed atheist would be a person that goes against all the precepts, because he is not afraid of punishment of a God that doesn’t exist. So I’m still looking for a real atheist, the killer who never get caught, the cheater, the envious, the hater of God and others, a person who breaks each commandment, never found one. God is always good, He always is.
REALLY? SNAKES AND DONKEYS CAN TALK?
I get it, people have a right to disbelieve. I don't know much about this particular chap but, generally speaking, the aggressive, condescending, vitriolic new atheist types need to give it a rest already. They want so bad for God not to exist. I'm starting to think it's not so much a disbelief in God, but rather a hatred of Him for the imposition of existence itself.
Lol atheists are the biggest time wasters on this planet. At least Christian try to convert people because they believe it will benefit non-believers (eternal happiness and a mansion in heaven, who would reject that? lol). While atheists have no basis on why they need to change people mind by spending big portion of their life doing mental gymnastics to prove something they believe doesn't even exist or even matters at all in the end . If it's true we all going into blank void and cease to exist, then why it matters whether it's true or not? Heck even everything that exists in this universe doesn't matter then. It's like little kids arguing who would win in a fight, Batman or Spiderman, even though they know they're just fictional character 🤣.
As an athiest I think your point about new athiests is correct. Arrogance is never good. I think one needs to differentiate between the reasonableness of a set of beliefs. For example it's much harder to defend evangelical beliefs compared to other forms of chistianity.
It kinda reminds me of that dialog in Tombstone where Wyatt asks Doc what makes a man like Ringo tick:
"He wants revenge."
"For what?"
"Being born..."
JP agrees with you, in the large amount of hatred of existence out there.