DEBATE: Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona (Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? 2018)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- On February 21, 2018, Ratio Christi and the KSU History Club cosponsored a debate between Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona on the question "Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?"
WEBSITE: www.risenjesus...
DONATE: www.risenjesus...
FACEBOOK: / michael.r.li. .
TWITTER: / drmikelicona
Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
#BartEhrman #MikeLicona
I LOVE that they just let you two go at it with little to no moderating. Two PhDs on stage does not need a baby sitter. Fantastic debate!
Sadly most PhD debates do need one
@@mustang8206 Yeah, the less a moderator needs to intervene the better the debate is going. You get a lot more out of a conversation than a formal debate imo.
It probably helps that they are friends also. Licona has even done guest host blogs on Ehrman's blog.
Seems more like the young guy was too shy. I thought the cross examination could have used some due diligence on the mediators part; they weren't following the Q and A format faithfully, with Bart becoming the questioner well before being given the floor to do so.
The thing that really bothered me though was that they were addressing the thesis in such different ways and ended up talking past each other. Would have preferred a more precise query so there wasn't a different standard on each side. 'Reliability' needed to be qualified.
@@psychee1 WRONG.
I think it’s actually legitimately commendable that Licona posts debates like this one in which - I’d argue - he doesn’t have a particularly strong showing. And also respectable that he freely allows comments on the videos
Licona won. That's why he posted it.
He probably thinks he won. Nutjobs generally do.
Whenever comments are disabled, distrust the source of the video. So yes, props for that.
Wow! Ehrman clobbers another assertion spewing apologist. This was worse than the beating Ehrman handed out to Big Bill Craig.
I absolutely agree. Kudos to Lacona for taking his beat down with dignity.
11:00 That's when the debate starts. Just in case you want to skip to it.
@@ Ehrman: "..king Herod died in the year 4 BCE"
This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a
scholar at face value, however expert or well meaning, neither pro nor
con, neither a consensus without fact checking as much as possible with a
close eye on original texts and languages or as close as possible, and
with an open mind.
To state the obvious: the bible nor Josephus says Herod died in 4 BCE.
This date is inferred from Josephus saying that Herod died soon after a
lunar eclipse before the spring Passover like the one in 4 BCE.
What many don't realize is that there was another eclipse in 1 BCE -- a
total lunar eclipse unlike the traditional partial one -- and it allows
enough time for all the events surrounding Herod's funeral to fit
perfectly unlike the problematic 4 BCE date. I've also verified this
eclipse with professional astronomy software myself.
The popular view of Herod's death in 4 BCE does not account for all the
facts we have from the historical record. However, some of the latest
published scholarship shows that when other pieces of evidence typically
overlooked is carefully considered it rather points to Herod having
died in 1 BCE.
Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?"
Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29(29)
FREE ONLINE
This new time frame fits the events like a glove from an historical,
astronomical, and biblical point of view, unlike the traditional time
frame. It fixes problems like a good solution to a problem is supposed
to. The old time frame creates unnecessary problems critics capitalize
on (a frequent 'pattern' I have come across for 15 years studying the
scriptures).
With the new date of Herod's death, scholars like the late Ernest L.
Martin were able to find the (wandering) star of Bethlehem and it fits
the descriptions of Matthew to a tee, not to mention other surrounding
details provided by Luke, and more astronomical signs mentioned in
Revelation 12.1-2 while also providing deeper Christian/Jewish
fulfillment to the festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah and even
rabbinic expectations (see the last link below).
The new date of Herod's death (1 BCE) is like a new key that opens an
old chest nobody could open before with an old key, and now new amazing
treasures are revealed but many people still insist the old key is the
best one and are keeping the treasure chest locked and the treasures
hidden from the world. This is very sad.
Further reading on the blog linked atop my channel (openthematrixDOTwordpressDOTcom)
@@AllOtherNamesUsed You are hilarious - you stated " This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a scholar at face value" and then do EXACTLY the same thing yourself!
And this person would be the evangelical PASTOR Steinmann, Andrew E. yes?
......at least Bart is an agnostic and not biased towards the subject matter.
It also still doesnt explain Quinirius starting his governorship of Syria in CE6 does it even with this new date? unless you are going to again try and say he was governor twice but that isn't backed up by the evidence.
Whats more likely , the history books are correct or christian apologist try to shorted the gap to muddy the history ? one has an agenda , one doesnt
@@AllOtherNamesUsedharold was long dead prior to josephus birth and the BCE/CE wasn't established until the 1600s
@@AllOtherNamesUsed it matters not because even if you are correct and the rest of the world is wrong and that he died 1 BC....... it STILL doesn't account for how Jesus was born when Quinirius was governor of Syria as he started that regime in CE6. Thats the point Bart is making
Ty
".....and over and over and over and over....." omg I almost threw my phone away every freaking time he did that.
And Bart says copies and copies and copies of copies........
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 Amee Medo I feel you
I could listen to it over and over and over and over again. ;-)
He’s just passionate
over and over and over and over and over and over again. I wonder if I can get commission from the cell phone manufacturers. ;-)
Here's a short oversimplified synopsis of this debate:
Dr. Licona: When we examine ancient documents such as Plutarch, and compare them with the Gospels, we find that, by ancient standards, the Gospels are historically accurate biographies. Of course, they took some liberties with their stories, and enhanced some details, but on the whole they are accurate biographies. We shouldn't apply modern standards of accuracy to ancient biographies. In 2,000 years, when technology changes, perhaps they'll say that our biographies today are completely inaccurate. I think we ought to judge the Gospels in their time.
Dr. Ehrman: What may be accurate in that time does not mean it is accurate in our time. Are we really to believe the saints resurrected and walked around Jerusalem after the crucifixion of Jesus as Matthew records? There are also many contradictions between the Gospels, and areas where they may not be historically accurate. Just because a document gets some things right does not mean we should trust it's entirety as historically accurate. The Gospels get some things right, but they have too many problems.
My take: Anyone in these comments saying, "wow! Licona got destroyed!" Or "Ehrman got demolished!" obviously didnt watch the same debate that I watched. The people who make comments like that are horribly biased and stuck in their own echo-chamber. Both of these scholars examined the same historical facts and drew two separate conclusions. Neither of them made up information or lied about anything. They both took the same evidence and made two cases. As a Christian viewing this, I think Ehrman made some good points. There are some things I think Licona missed that would have helped his case, but, in a timed debate like this, it's hard to get everything in. The people in the comments saying "Haha the guy I disagree with was an idiot and my guy easily won 1000%" are the same ones that would stutter and act incredibly nervous in the Q&A lol.
Thank you for a civil, balanced, and ordered reply. I have been interestd in; fascinated by, and have studied formally and informally, the Bible, in particular the Gospels. Over-all I agree with your summation and "take" on this debate. There always remains much to learn and understand.
@@jujojamt thank you! To me it really ruins the debate when people say things like "yeah that guy got destroyed!" Both Licona and Ehrman showed up ready for debate, and both have great education backgrounds.
It comes down to the fact that Christians claim to know the nature of reality for certain and the religion's exclusivity. That is, I believe, the cause of such comments from both parties that write them. It's the cause for disagreement, hate and condemnation between them in general.
As a human viewing this and hundreds of other cases, I am not pleased.
The gospels giving the "gist" (whatever that is) of historical accuracy and comparisons with books which don't matter in terms of who is worthy of worship ie: a trinity or triad God v One God alone without partners.
With ones soul at stake, heaven or hell, burn eternally or paradise, Licona's view is a gamble xtians go with at their peril.
He also seems unaware/unconcerned what a huge risk it is trusting the gospels as reliable.
Your comment is "incredibly biased." If you think Licona held his own in this debate, you are delusional.
Loved both speakers here. While I might be a biased atheist, I’m born-again when it comes to healthy intellectual discussion. These online debates and discussions have given me so much great information, but more importantly, they’ve taught me how to talk about these issues with greater respect for those who disagree. That wasn’t always the case, and for that, I’m dare I say…”blessed?” Thanks for posting!
It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, I say that from my own experiences.
More patience with believers actually.
@@sunvalleydrivemusicWell...I dont know...Many still believe NDE is "just "a brain process even when people born blind can see everything around in NDE.We have to accept that teaching in all Schools, Universities,all over..Who need more patience?
@@cristianpopescu78 I prefer to to see the evidence personally.
@@sunvalleydrivemusic Good luck!
Veridical perception in NDE
0:55 Intro by a student
4:05 Another Intro by Moderator Brian Swain
10:56 Mike Licona
30:43 Bart Ehrman
51:30 Mike - second round
1:04:20 Bart - second round
1:16:45 Mike - third round (repeats the second round)
1:25:12 Bart - third round (differences in the gospels)
1:34:01 Moderator under crossfire :)
1:34:37 Mike shoots - secretary argument
1:36:20 Bart responds and shoots back - not a single translating secretary 1:39:39
1:42:03 Poor Moderator :) 1:42:52 Says a word :))) please
1:43:00 Bart shoots - Mike Responds and he believes in Zombies :)) just joking.
1:45:43 Mike accepts contradictions and mistakes in the Bible
1:47:47 Mike responds with time compression. Bart shoots, no a place compression? Who is right - Luke or John?
1:48:45 Mike accepts potential errors
1:48:50 Bart asks: How many inaccurate instances?
1:48:55 Mike responds: wife argument :))
1:49:21 Bart - map argument and are the Gospels reliable? Mike responds: they are not a map - biographies.
1:49:53 MODERATOR ROCKS HERE
1:50:20 Closing statement by Mike (summary of second round plus a mini sermon)
1:55:03 Closing statement by Bart - Gospel authors are anonymous 1:56:36 Blog advertisement (which I didn't like it being promoted so long) 1:58:00 Not interested in changing your personal religious views
2:00:42 Moderator - Final Portion - Questions from audience
2:01:30 Question to Mike - historical evidence of scribal tampering that became canon? (aka any added bits into the bible?)
2:03:01 Question to Bart - your view on miracles? It's a matter of faith
2:06:20 Question to Mike - reference for divinity of Jesus in other Gospels?
2:09:40 Question to Bart - Historical plausibility of crucifixion
2:13:50 Question to Mike - Nicodemus' Conversation with Jesus. Born again thing?
2:16:32 The only woman that spoke on this debate up to this minute (definitely not many women are interested in this debate :) - Question to Mike: Are you throwing the baby with bathwater :)
Start and claims of the early church - visions of disciples
2:21:13 Question to Mike: How did Jesus view the Hebrew Old Testament?
2:23:38 Question to Bart: Crucifixion
2:25:08
to be continued...
wildly corrupted timestamp labels
@@coryc1904 Any corrections are welcome.
Very relatable timestamp labels
How many decades after the events were the timestamps authored? (Jk...)
The mental gymnastics apologists resort to to not admit that Bible has errors is both frustrating and intellectually dishonest.
How was Licona intellectually dishonest? :)
With the Bible being the type of book that it is, it's either completely true, or completely false. There is no gray area where you get to pick and choose your verses.
@@FOHguyConsidering it's a collection of stories over years and years with different authors and also people trying to forge their own manuscript alongside all of it leaves WAY more room for era then they're is actually.
That's why it hasn't been put away yet, scholars and historians y'know, even more if it ends up not true at all, it's a miracle how it's as consistent as it is
Licona: "they are not used for navigation". My instinctual answer was: even worse, "millions of people are using them to *navigate their lives*".
My question for Licona is: How do we determine which miracles in the Gospels are actual history, and which one are just artistic additions (like the zombie incident)? He already admitted the zombies were artistic, despite being described as a miracle (which could easily be interpreted as "real" if it weren't for how crazy it was). So doesn't that call all the other miracles into question? What criteria is he using to determine that the other miracles are accurate once we have concluded at least one is not? And shouldn't we approach the other claims with much more skepticism once one has already been deemed false?
That's what scholars like Ehrman do for a living. Basically analyze and study the NT and related documents. Typically they work with the oldest actual manuscript copies.
Yes, you are correct. Christians never have an answer for the people who rose from the grave at the resurrection. Also, it took 1500 years to write the bible, so why did it take only 7 days to do the creation?
@Miles Doyle : Diarrhea of the mouth, much?
@Miles Doyle : No one is reading your long posts. Try to be more concise.
@Miles Doyle
Seriously? You expect me to read all that?
If you're going to get your message out there you're going to have to learn how to be succinct.
Really good debate by 2 respected scholars. I’m a Muslim but I still respect both perspectives. I learnt a lot from this debate. Thanks for uploading.
Accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour or you will pay for your sins in Hell.
The gospels were made up by human beings, not revealed by a god. Ergo: the mythological jesus never existed, this then means that the qur'an is also human-made (because it repeats the same jesus-myth) ;-)
Mr tee And how do you know this ? Do you have friends there ? And is there an entrance fee ?
Chris Law So how do you know any of it is true ?
Chris Law The gospels are not eyewitness accounts . They were written between 4 and 7 decades after the supposed death of Jesus so you would certainly need a huge amount of faith to think any of it were true.
Licona only had one argument and he kept referring to it like it was a “gospel truth”. He wasn’t conversational at all and came off wooden. Bart’s patience was astounding during the question period.
Bart can’t put two & two together & he is completely missing the point.
@@vanessadesire7 sixth extinction dude. You’re not as special as you might like to think. No empirical evidence.
@@your_being_led_by_your_nose it’s just like when people experience demons.. you can’t scientifically prove it but if there is enough corroborated data & claims.. it’s proved to be true. Jesus’ resurrection is supported by many claims. And I’m definitely trash without God that’s for sure.
@@vanessadesire7 belief and opinion are not facts.
@@your_being_led_by_your_nose Do you have a belief in anything?
After seeing this debate, I am not sure if Mr. Licona understands what "Historically Reliable" means.
U missed the point
Bart is applying how we write now and saying the people in the past should write and record how we write and record.
That was liconas point
@@r.a.panimefan2109 you missed the point. Something is either accurate or inaccurate, it reflects what actually happened or it does not, it is the only question of interest. Not whether or not it gets a passing grade compared to other ancient near east histories.
@@AS-sn5gfagreed. The map example which Bart gave is the clearest for me. To say, yeah but the map makers at the times did their best for map makers at the time, doesn’t make it an accurate map. Then we have 4 maps for the same region, that contradict each other. One or none of them can be accurate, but not all.
The map analogy pretty much sums up the two sides of the debate.
E: Can I use it to navigate from point A to point B?
L: They didn't have satellites back then but they're the best maps that could be produced.
The best of a bad group of things doesn’t mean it’s good. I fully agree that the New Testament is the best attested ancient document in history. But even though it is the best, it is still poor, in that we actually have very few 1st century copies and so many manuscript variations among all copies that it truly is difficult to reconstruct the original with 100% accuracy.
I agree that we probably have a 99% idea of what the original authors wrote (assuming the earliest copies we have weren’t already changed by the time they were copied). But just the fact that we have better records for Jesus than Julius Caesar (or Alex the Great), doesn’t mean we have *good* records. The best of a bad set of maps does not imply a good map.
I think the map analogy is kind of interesting. Maybe a town name on the map is misspelled; Maybe a river has a few meanders that the map doesn’t. But if the map gets you where you need to go, and has the essentials right, what’s the problem with a few errors? Old maps of the Americas look odd, but they’ve got the general layout right. I feel like that’s what we’ve got in the gospels; Not an exact, bedrock recounting of events, but a reconstruction of the general truth of the events.
@@brebeaa what's your proof the map gets you where you need to go? The gospel writers don't even agree on the names of the twelve disciples. Seems like a key point. Much more important: does Jesus say divorce is okay or not? In Matthew he says under no circumstances. Other places he says there are exceptions for infidelity. The map gets you lost on many key points
@@brebeaa Most crucial for Christians, why does Mark end with an empty tomb, not anything about a resurrection? It being the earliest gospel, why did it leave out this key detail? And yes, a quick line was added about it, but by a later editor, presumably worried about this startling omission.
@@darrenkeast1543 Remember, Paul’s letters predate the Gospels, and the Resurrection is front and center in his writings. Mark’s aim, funnily enough, might not have been to retell the resurrection, but to shed more light on Jesus’ life, aspects of which may have been less discussed, and early Christians wanted to know more about. It seems odd to us leaving out the resurrection, and it obviously did to later Christians as well, thus the added ending to Mark.
You guys are both highly intelligent and listening to you exchanging opinions and ideas is always extremely enjoyable and enlightening. Been following to you both since your first debate and its a priviledge to be able to see you sharing the podium once again.
The problem with Ehrman is he's using tired old scholarship that's been corrected for about a decade now, namely that Herod died in 3 BCE and resorts to speculative conspiracy theories like Luke and the others lied about where Christ was born for religious reasons. Why no one calls him out on this is amazing to me.
_Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29(29)_
PDF FREE ONLINE
We have better data now that fits 1 BCE clearing up unnecessary problems that the problematic traditional dates bring. Plugging in the new date allows us to identify the star of Bethlehem and track what it was doing in the sky with astronomical software which Matthew describes perfectly and fitting in with Luke's account and even the astronomical information John provides in Rev 12.1-2. The new timeline answers many lingering problems just as you would expect from an accurate solution. The 3 BCE date on the other hand causes problems, and again we don't have to clutch at unfounded conspiracy theories. I give more info in my posts on this board.
Ehrman is either ignorant or something else like playing to the media bia$
Peace in Yeshua
(openthematrix*wordpress*com)
@@AllOtherNamesUsed bart spews verbal clickbait for people who desperately want christianity to be false. he is in a very small minority on many of his views listed here.
@@AllOtherNamesUsed Just because you have an article doesn't mean it debunks the consensus or corrects the date. That's not how scholarship works, the consensus is still that Herod died in 4 BCE.
@@Xenotypic He isn't, especially in academic circles. Don't lie it's unchristian.
@@somniumisdreaming I'm talking about in academic, unchristian circles. The way he talks about corruption of the new testament is misleading, he writes books about "misquoting Jesus", but most textual critics and in fact Erhman himself (in his debate with James White) admits that we are just tinkering with the text and that we have the vast majority of it uncorrupted.
I wouldnt even bother reading Nabeel Qureshi's biography after listening to Mike @1:17:59 . Not only did he say his book in not historically accurate, but he has proven Nabeel to be a liar.
Exactly LOL
Nabeel was a liar, he said he was a Muslim before converting to Christianity, he wasn't, he was Ahmadi/Qadiani (a cult that branched out of Islam in the 19th century)
Mike, I would love to ask you a question.
Of your 6 criteria you present, the first is that the authors intended to write an accurate historical account of the gospels. You also repeatedly acknowledge that there are many passages in the gospels that are not supposed to be read as if they were written as an accurate historical account of events.
How do you determine which parts are intended to be read as an account of the events and which parts are not?
Through literary analysis. It's in his book. How else?
If they read the gospels side by side and not start to finish they would be shocked at the differences in the stories, and acts account too. Don't believe it? Try it
He just finagles around it and formulates it to make sense to him and speaks in hypotheticals. Any way you can cling to this ridiculous religion. Absolute joke. It’s downright scary that people actually believe in this stuff. Just shows how far we really are from being advanced and ready for real change and progress as a species
@@anitahyche1
Everyone tells a story from their own perspective. So this can explain differences.
@@smoothtwh No sir, not in this particular case where this word is supposed to be from a supernatural deity. You can't have it both ways. Either this came from God or man. If from a god, then there shouldn't be all these different perspectives. There should be only ONE perspective and all of it should be the same. If it were derived purely from man then that would be an acceptable argument
Wonderful debate! Dr. Licona’s argument for a “gist” of what happened isn’t convincing. A gist isn’t reliable evidence to support a case for Jesus’s resurrection; after all, that is the central issue here regarding the historicity of the gospels. That event is the only thing that matters in Christianity, if Christ didn’t rise from the dead, your faith is in vain. I think this is why the historicity of the gospels is crucial to the faith. Dr. Ehrman makes a clear and concise case that we cannot claim the gospels as historical; if there are embellishments, what other events could be embellished? Both gentlemen are obviously well versed in this subject and I enjoyed learning from them.
Spot on!
This is obviously not a debate about the resurrection, I hope you are just joking that it is the only important thing that the Gospels and Christianity deal with, also I have seen from Ehrman that he only deals with some petty contradictions that may not be contradictions and has some extreme skepticism that is clearly wrong.
@kenandzafic3948 Indeed. Ehrman wants to take revenge on God who seemingly, cannot prevent pain and suffering. And let's rip at every opportunity to push his case. For example, his assumptions on oral transmission are wrong! People before printing press, had developed a strong memory for remembering long sequences of events. Rather like mental arithmetic was powerful before the advent of calculators!
I haven't finished the whole debate yet but I think it's hard when they both have different opinions on "reliable", I don't think a typo makes a text unreliable, but I would also like to gather all the parts that Ehrman consider to be "reliable" and see what is the story it tells.
Except Ehrman didn't claim a typo made the Bible historically inaccurate.
Nice straw man.
The best moderator I've ever heard in my entire life!
Already disagree with Mike since I am a woman and I really prefer getting to the bottom line. Ask my husband about his pet project, and you will get hours of details.
Those ppl who quote details about the afterlife don't even know they're all from fictional books hundreds/thousands of years later.
Religious stpdity knows no bounds.
Yes, for Licona, women are more interested in what clothes Pontius Pilate was wearing!
I was gonna punch my iPad if that guy said "over" one more time
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂👏👏👏👏👍👍👍👍 I was getting irritated by his I and over and over and over.....
Bet you anything that even Jesus is irritated at that fella Mike ;-)
I was getting sick with "over over & Over 😀😀😀😀
I got so pissed
Over.
Yes, let's make sure we don't hurt the feelings of ancient historians and writers
37:21 quite an impressive wingspan.
I really think my iPad malfunctioned when I heared the and over*20
Because he had no points to put up.
I think I see what's going on here. Licona seemed only interested in debating whether the gospel writers were at fault or culpable for the appearance of errors in the gospels, rather than talking about the actual reliability of the content of the gospels in relation to what actually happened. Personally I don't care whether they were following methodologies that were accepted in their day or not. That's not what the debate was about - yet Licona seemed convinced it was. If they were following methodologies that are today known to lead to historical inaccuracies - then yeah that's a big problem!
A simple thought experiment will show the error. Suppose the ancient world had methodologies that allowed falsehoods to be written as though they were fact. I'm not claiming this was the case but I'm simply using a contrived fictional example to demonstrate the point. By following such methodologies, a writer could portray a series of events, none of which occurred at all, and yet still be classified as "adhering strictly to the best standard of historical method for their time". But was their writing accurate according to what actually happened? no. Conversely they could have written a 100% historically accurate account that was graded poorly in their day for not adhering to their broken standards. It absolutely matters TO US whether the events really happened as described, and it absolutely doesn't matter what the ancient standard of historiography was!
The second point I found really strange was that in the back and forth questioning, Licona seemed to keep asking Ehrman for evidence AGAINST his (Licona's) views, as if his (Licona's) opinion was somehow true by default (simply because he found it "plausible"). Ehrman was not using an argument from silence to say something didn't happen - he was using the silence to show that the evidence Licona's claim required was missing! A claim is only as good as the evidence it is based on. You don't get to assume things and then say that because no one can prove it false, or because there is no evidence to the contrary, therefore it may as well be true. I don't care how plausible you think it is. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Meanwhile an argument from silence is perfectly valid if silence is not what we should reasonably expect. Licona seemed to fail basic logic on several occasions here, which was quite disappointing. Sorry to be all one-sided, but I've heard plenty from Ehrman before and he pretty much stuck to his usual points here. He was a lot more consistent and didn't do any awkward dance when asked direct questions about errors in the Bible...sorry. Yes I'm biased but I offer the above to help people see what I felt were two massive issues with the debate.
Christian position: we can explain away, one by one, all those thousands of discrepancies, together with the moral and scientific fallacies in the Bible. But the Bible is nevertheless inerrant and the true word of God.
ML's statements about Matthew 27:52 that ends at around 1:45:00 best represents this stance: the zombies didn't happen, but the Gospel is still accurate. In my opinion, people who allow themselves to be driven by such reasoning (or lack thereof) have serious problems with their understanding of what truth means and how to understand the world around us and, more important probably, inside ourselves.
That's unnecessary and just gratuitous . People are very very kind up in this. Their lives are dedicated above anything. They are GOOD people for the most part. They have been told the Book has no discrepancies since they are in baby bible class over nd over until they go to college and then most still believe it if they go to parochial schools. Be nicer man. Their lives are all about this.
Response video to Bart Ehrman's Luke 2 comments ua-cam.com/video/MyTvr5x5eHc/v-deo.html
Rajagopalan Chandu
Well, Christianity is the religion with the best evidence.
If Christianity fails then all other religions also fail.
@@ramigilneas9274
Well, Christianity is the religion with the best evidence.
What evidence ?????
You may have Faith, But NOT Facts
In the sixties I was hoping that religion would whither away
with all the Scientific knowledge we have today, that they didn't have millennia ago
But the again there are those
Hear now this,
O foolish people, and without understanding;
which have eyes, and see not;
which have ears, and hear not:
Jeremiah 5:21
KJV
Rami Gilneas christianity has the worst logic and reasoning no offence, Judaism and Islam, specifically Islam make a lot more sense
Great Debate by two scholar. Thank you for uploading videos. Respect from Indonesia 🙏🙏🙏
Seems as though, Licona literally uploaded an example of "Trolling" It's as if he knows he is trying to lose the debate. Just to tell us later, that it was his plan to say the opposite of what makes sense, just to test for gullible people.
It is refreshing to see a debate, especially one on a divisive topic, be conducted civilly and talking “with” each other and not “at” each other. I think people will say the victor is whoever they most identify with. It is debates like this that give me hope that we as a society can have differing and very strong ideas but we can legitimately talk about them together
You know, debates are a funny thing. As someone who has spent the last two decades engaged in written debates with people across the spectrum, from laypeople to academics, I find it rather easy to separate the question of who won a debate from the question of who had the better case or argument. A couple days ago, I watched a debate on the same topic between Ehrman and Peter Williams and I would say that Ehrman pretty clearly won that debate, in spite of the fact that I think Peter had the better case. The problem was that he failed to present it in its strongest form and failed rather spectacularly in effectively calling out all of Ehrman's bad and misleading arguments (some of which I pointed out in my comments on that debate). The reason I mention this is to say that if I thought Ehrman actually won this debate, I would have no problem saying it, even though I'm closer to Mike's position than Ehrman's. But in my view, Ehrman didn't win this debate. If I had to declare a winner I'd give it to Licona by a narrow margin. Licona could have won it by a larger margin if he had been more effective in pointing out Ehrman's bad arguments and done a better job of explaining why his framework for judging historical reliability in the context of scripture was a more reasonable one than Ehrman's. He didn't do a _bad_ job of explaining why his framework was the right one, but I think he missed several opportunities to make the point more forcefully and to point out how Ehrman was misrepresenting the import of certain differences and holding contradictory positions. I tend to think that the people who know less about the subject matter and who are less familiar with the rhetorical dynamics of debate are the ones who are more likely to be impressed with Ehrman's presentation and more critical of Licona's. I understand why that it is, but I'd say they're mistaken. If someone believes Ehrman narrowly edged out Licona then I'd shrug my shoulders at that (even though I score it the other way around), but if someone thinks that Ehrman "destroyed" Licona ... well, I guess this _is_ youtube.
Interesting assessment. So do you agree with Peter Williams that there are no contradictions in the new testament?
@@chad969 - Well, I think that depends on what you mean by "contradictions". Ehrman has a squishy and inconsistent definition of "contradiction". Sometimes he accurately acknowledges that an actual contradiction between sources consists of one claiming A and the other claiming Not-A in the same sense. However, at other times, when it suits him, he tries to get away with claiming a contradiction consists of one source claiming A and the other claiming B, even when A and B can be sensibly harmonized. And sometimes he properly acknowledges the first definition but then improperly cites examples that actually fall under the second definition.
People don't really tend to point to legitimate examples of the Bible claiming both A and Not-A _in the same sense_ but I would say that we definitely find examples of one source claiming A and the other claiming B where A and B can be harmonized. But with that having been said, we come to the more interesting question of whether or not there are cases of A and B where they _cannot_ be harmonized. I would say we probably have some of _these_ cases, but even if we _do_ have such cases, this is where we get into the importance of the point that Licona drew out about the literary conventions of the day and which Ehrman wrongly tried to dismiss.
As Licona pointed out, the literary and narrative conventions of the 1st century were not the same as those of scientific historical writings in the 21st century (though we still make use of some similar conventions in more informal contexts), and determinations of "accuracy" were based on what it was that the author was intending to record and convey. Again, as Licona pointed out, it was not unusual for authors to rearrange the order of certain events to draw out themes, or to condense timelines, or combine multiple similar events into one. These conventions would not necessarily have rendered the narrative "inaccurate" unless the author's purpose was specifically to accurately convey _those_ aspects of the narrative. But if the author's intent was merely to accurately record and convey the _content_ of the events and the dialog they were writing about so their readers had an accurate record of the messages conveyed and their import, then a precisely accurate recounting of the mechanical details surrounding the matters of primary interest would not have been considered vital to judging the account as "accurate". In other words, other people who were actually aware of those precise details and read the author's narrative employing the conventions of their time would not have said, "Hey, this thing is totally inaccurate! You fraud!"
The implication of the above is that we can find multiple accounts of a single event or set of events in the Bible that appear to be in tension with each other in some of their details, and they may genuinely be, but what we're usually seeing in these cases are simply examples of the conventions mentioned above. For example, one writer might give a detailed and technically accurate recounting of multiple events, in multiple locations, spanning over an extended period of time, because his purpose and intent is to make a record of all those comings and goings _along with_ the content and import of the events. Another writer, however, might recount the same series of events where his intent is more focused on their content and meaning rather than their location and time-span, so he may employ the conventions of his day and condense the timeline, the locations and even the number of events themselves to more expeditiously convey their content and import. The end result will be two accounts of the same events that differ in their logistical details, and sometimes markedly so, and yet they do not properly constitute contradictions in the sense that critics intend and would not have been considered contradictory in their own time. Attempting to label them as contradictory or "inaccurate" as Ehrman does is misleading because it judges them not _just_ by 21st century _standards_, but by the _intent_ of 21st century scientific historical chronicling, which Ehrman admits he is doing. But acting as a purely scientific historical chronicle was not the purpose of the Bible, and the very exacting sort of detail associated with that kind of scientific work simply was not necessary to the Bible's purpose in most cases ... and certainly not in _every_ case. Of course, that's not to say that the Bible never gets into that kind of territory. Rather, my point is that if one account of events _does_ approach that territory and another account makes use of the literary conventions of the day to convey the meaning of those events in a different way or to draw out a different theme, that doesn't mean the two accounts legitimately contradict each other. We might say that one of the accounts is technically inaccurate with respect to the logistics, but that wouldn't mean that that account was _in error_ or that it was "inaccurate" in the broader and more meaningful context of its actual intent.
So to come back to your original question, no, I don't personally think there are contradictions in the NT in the sense that critics mean because of all the ones that I've seen people try to cite over the years, I just haven't found them convincing. They always tend to be examples of 'both A and B' where either A and B can be reasonably harmonized or are simply the result of one writer employing common literary conventions that the other is not. More rarely they may point out a likely scribal error in a number. And in some cases they may cite what they genuinely think are examples of 'both A and Not-A' but the statements they cite are not _in the same sense_ and so aren't really contradictions after all.
Take care
@@hekskey Would you be up for a friendly discussion about this topic over Skype or google hangouts? If not that's totally fine, I'm happy to respond here in the comments. I just kind of prefer live conversation
@@chad969 - Hi Chad. My schedule is too all over the place right now for a live conversation on this ... especially because 20 years of discussing this (and a bunch of other) stuff tells me that any serious discussion on these topics ends up being extensive. If you want to have the conversation in writing in a place more conducive to in-depth discussion I can set up a sub-forum on my site (private or public, whichever you prefer) and then we can each contribute as we have time. But I want to be up-front about the fact that I'm really pressed for time right now between multiple projects, so I can't guarantee how much time I would have to dedicate to the discussion over the next few months.
Take care
@@hekskey Okay that sounds good. You can make the forum public if you wan't, makes no difference to me. What's your website?
Now I know why they are called apologist. Lucona keeps apologizing for mistakes in the bible
I pity Mike Licona. Despite all the evidence stacked against his worldview, he stubbornly and willfully refuses to accept them and tries so hard to rationalize his little doctrinal box, which is a man-made belief system inherited from 2nd-3rd century church fathers. Mike Licona and other apologists remind me of this verse in the gospel of John 12:
42 Nevertheless, many of the leaders believed in Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. 43For they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
99% of evangelicals are ignorant of all this stuff, and the minority like Licona and other apologists, despite knowing all these, they cannot admit they are true, because that means they will have to forfeit their little evangelical friend circle and get labeled as heretic by their evangelical friends.
Quid est veritas ? Ioannis 18:38
@Miles Doyle you can quote the Scripture anytime you want , but I can guarantee you. no matter how much you pray, how many bible studies you attend, how many worship songs you sing, how many sermons you listen to, it won't prevent people from being born with down syndrome and neurofibromatosis, it won't prevent Mexican cartels from dismembering people, it won't prevent racist people from hating, bullying, marginalizing other people, it won't prevent bullying and suicide, it won't prevent komodo dragon from eating deer alive, it won't prevent rape, murder.
You can quote the Scripture all you want and quote something fancy from John Piper, CS Lewis or Tim Keller, but none of that does anything to alleviate the suffering and the pain of this world.
majority of American Christians are privileged middle class people who never have to wrestle with poverty, racism, war, and they just go to the same spot once a week, sitting in a pew and just passively listening to the same guy talk for an hour or two, then just scurry back to the parking lot full of luxury cars without bothering to get to know each other. maybe once a week they gather and have some potluck and pray over their first world problems like "my gf broke up with me", and discussing childish things like "is having sex before marriage a sin", "is voting for Democratic party against God's will". what's the point of discussing a few verses with people that look just like you, think just like you, and talk just like you, while doing nothing for homelessness or orphans. that's 99% of evangelical Christians for you.
If there is a being more malevolent and sinister than Hitler, Stalin, or Kim Jong Un, that would be the creator of this world.
I agree with Marcion that whoever created life on earth isn't worthy of being called god. demiurge is a more fitting title.
There might be a transcendent god who created the entire universe, but I don't think that being is the same as the being that created life on earth, because I've never seen an engineer or a story writer as mediocre as the creator of life on earth.
I hope the day comes when people start using the word "demiurge" to describe god more often, because he is not worthy of being called god for all the suffering and pain he caused upon this world.
Likewise, I hope that Gnostics and Marcionites are right that there is a transcendent god other than the one that created this shit show of a planet. because the demiurge that created this mediocre planet deserves a much greater punishment than any war criminals throughout human history.
I love debates at this level. It shows who is portraying facts and who is not.
I don't think you are being fair to Ehrman. I thought he presented many facts.
@Ruben O. Ehrman has an easier position. Simply raise skepticism. Being an armchair critic is so frustrating to listen to so many dubious claims from Ehrman go unanswered.
@@markrutledge5855 you can address the claims
@@simaoluis9443 I think the point here is, there are many who repeatedly address his and other claims.
See Habermas on essentials list.
Reasons to Believe, so many more.
What I see over time, is Bart tends to just like was commented above, claim extreme skepticism, (extreme because there's basically NO give) ALL or Nothing, is what Bart seems to be looking for.
I don't know if an actual encounter with the risen 'zombie' Jesus would make him bow a knee.
Bart knows there are reasonable explanations to his questions, yet finds more and more questions, and seems to push reasonable possibilities aside.
That's an option and an example of our free will ❤️
@Ruben O. I don't think so. I think Licona summed it up nicely, with I'm not convinced by Bart's objections.
So Licona's argument apparently is, "Nobody in those days could write history accurately, so, because the gospels are inaccurate, like histories in those days, we should trust them". Sorry guy. That's pathetic.
strawman
that's not how history works go back to high school
That IS Licona's entire argument. He gives thensame nonsense answer over and over and over and over and ........
Not to mention on the crossfire part, mike was firm on "compressing" stuff but in the end we all know that is not accurate
Mike makes the mistake most apologist do! They confuse "Not conclusively disproven" with "probable".
Nobody cares if you can find 1 million excuses why evidence is not sufficient. Evidence is still not sufficient.
Nice debate thought.
The egregious error here is economy. What's implausible about John hiring a scribe to write the Gospel which sharply deviates from the synoptics?!? The injection of such a proposition violates economy. Why should we make such a proposition in the first place? It's simply desperate apologetics masquerading as scholarship.
Evidence is not sufficient for Mike Licona because he can't bring himself to admit that his entire life's work and mission has been based on a lie. So he tries frantically to convince himself that the Resurrection of Jesus happened at least - so that he can say to himself: "No matter what else in the Bible is false, if I can hold onto that, then my faith is not in vain!" And I bet his stupid and blatantly deceptive friend William Craig has to keep REASSURING Licona of the so-called "historical" evidence for Jesus's resurrection. I wonder whether the same ludicrous methods that William Craig and Mike Licona use would convince them that Joan of Arc was physically visited by St. Catherine and St. Margaret and the Archangel Michael, or that Bernadette of Soubiros saw the Virgin Mary. Mike ADMITTED once that he could not accept Catholic apparitions, but of course everyone is supposed to believe the Resurrected Jesus apparition. They are just self-serving hypocritical liars who conveniently pick what advances their own position of power in their communities, while dismissing everything else as unimportant or irrelevant.
1:19:17 It almost felt like Licona was doing a parody of himself at that point.
Excellent debate by both scholars. I'm well familiar with Professor Bart Ehrman's books where he presents very interesting points about the contradictions among the gospels. He's not the first individual to bring these inconsistencies out in the open, and I personally find it liberating when I accept them as such instead of trying to justify them through improbable assumptions. After all, the power of the gospel of Jesus is not dependent upon the historical accuracy of the Bible, but its ability to change lives as it still does today.
They are both master debaters.
If the gospel of Jesus is historically inaccurate and can be shown as such, it has no more ability to change lives than does Mother Goose. What you would be left with is an account of someone (who may or may not of existed) who told his followers to be nice to one another. Good advice, but hardly inspirational.
Interesting. I've only read Licona's books, and found the comparisons he made between the differences in the gospels and differences between recounting the same events in Plutarch's lives. He's very long winded, but I do like the evidence he gives.
People who red the Koran will exactly understand what Bart Ehrman is talking about. Allah the allmighty says in his last revelation.
"So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (Holy Koran 5/13)
Gerhard Löwenherz Too bad the Quran is more factually inaccurate than the Bible.
@CMK Shovv me vvhere. I converted to islam allmost 10 years agoe and since years i vvas looking for mistakes or contradictions but i never found some.
@@gottfriedhimmel3150 The Koran says Jesus never died on the cross, that event was corroborated by Cornelius Tacitus, called Rome's greatest historian.
Imagine the confluence of forces that would both constrain and define a writer's product in the ancient days: You're living in a majority illiterate universe, scholars of the day would reject ideas that strayed from accepted ideas of the time. Even today, a writer must consider his audience to sell a book. The gospels are popular low-tier scholarship of the day and must be seen as fabulist and mythic in scope and style.
Awesome debate! Dr. Brian Swain's hair won without contest!
2:28:53 Prof. Ehrman basically denies that Paul could have spoken in Aramaic to the Apostles
Acts 22:1-2 has Paul communicating to his fellow Aramaic speaking Jews in Aramaic:
1“Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you.”
2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he said,
This is the textual parallel evidence:
Acts 22:2. προσεφώνει: only in Luke and Paul, except Matthew 11:16, cf. Matthew 6:13; Matt 7:32; Matthew 13:12; Matthew 23:20, Matthew 21:40, see Friedrich, p. 29, for the frequency of other compounds of φωνεῖν in Luke.-μᾶλλον παρ. ἡσυχ: the phrase is used similarly in Plut., Coriol., 18, Dion Hal., ii., 32, and LXX, Job 34:29; on the fondness of St. Luke for σιγή, σιγᾶν, ἡσυχάζειν, and the characteristic way in which silence results from his words and speeches, or before or during the speech, see Friedrich, p. 26, cf. Luke 14:4; Luke 15:26, Acts 11:18; Acts 15:12, Acts 12:17; Acts 21:40, and for ἡσυχάζειν, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, Luke 14:4, Acts 11:18; Acts 21:14, so too παρέχειν with accusative of the thing offered by any one, Acts 19:24, Acts 28:2 (Acts 16:16). The verb is used only in Matthew 26:10, and parallel, Mark 14:6, except in Luke and Paul, Luke 6:29; Luke 7:4; Luke 11:7; Luke 18:5, Acts 16:16; Acts 17:31, and as above, and five times in St. Paul’s Epistles.
Paul speaking Aramaic is a relative certain event, and most scholars agree with this and Dr. Ehrman knows it.
I am sorry Dr. Ehrman, one of my favorite professor but you fell short yet again here.
Perhaps this is simply a lack of comprehension on my part, which may be remedied by further study of Licona’s work, but I don’t understand how Licona’s concession that John did “theologize history” (my words) by placing Jesus’ death on the day of the Passover isn’t a concession that the Gospels (at least John) aren’t historically reliable. It follows from this concession that one or both of the Synoptics and John present an incorrect picture of when Jesus actually died. Therefore, the Gospels do not provide a historically reliable account of Jesus’ death.
His argument is that historians from the 1st Century CE often manipulated various parts of the biographies they wrote. And that this was widely know and accepted by their audiences.
Since the gospels come from the same era we should not expect them to match our standard of biography and history.
@@aspektx Which is precisely why we cannot accept the Gospels as historically accurate. Licona is making Ehrman's point for him. The Gospels were written by men who took liberties with the material. By definition then, they are not accurate. The fact that the practice was accepted at the time is irrelevant.
@@kylerichardson1242
I was not attempting to say that they were reliable.
This was simply an historical insight that I found interesting.
What I posted does not suggest that they are reliable. Unless someone were to read into it they're personal fears or concerns.
@@aspektx Oh, my bad. Licona's argukent is that they are reliable. I thought you were supporting that. Sorry!
the Gospels are not history. OBTW, there are many more than 4 extant. They are designed to sell.
Mr. Licona either has his voice gone or he literally sounds like screech from saved by the bell
The authors captured the "gist" of things, although the "gist" is inaccurate? God can't get the "gist" of things correct? This cannot be holy scripture inspired by God, God is not a liar.
Tracker Who?, The best quote: God is not a Liar!
Bart’s work made me a Christian because he doesn’t disagree with what we believe honestly he just reverts to hyper skepticism. And remember, Bart is a non believer not because of Biblical issues rather the problem of suffering/evil
There seem to be more people today who deconvert rather than become Christians. Amazingly, you did it because of Bart.
Really? That’s great to hear actually
The problem of evil is a Biblical issue. Predestination is a Biblical issue. The problem of slavery both indenture and non-indenture. Christians are hyper skeptical of other religious experiences. William Lane Craig has constantly said that what Muslims or Mormons believe to be their conception of being moved by the Spirit is demonic. Christians play by double standards and look away when things get hard.
Its GOOD to be skeptical and not gullible as is demanded in Hebrews 1:1
He is a non believer because he thinks that all ancient copies must be perfectly copied.
Good video, informative from both sides. Mildly disappointing that more time wasn't spent directly on the heart of each other's objections, but I still learned a few things.
The bible is supposed to be the perfect word of god, if there is just one error it can't be perfect or the Christian god is not perfect.
@@MrEricW2008 How much of the Bible is literally not true?
words of man fully errors
No. The Bible may be full of errors and Jesus could still have risen from the dead.
The word of God will stand when everything else is gone.
You don't understand God used men to write, the error is not on God.
This debate isn't really a debate. They just have two different definitions of "historically reliable".
I completely agree. Shows that all the historians have a personal bias. And in the end it's mostly opinion. Thats why i rather call this a discussion. Cause in the end the audience side with who they think has the better opinion.
Lol, it is a debate. Erhman has facts, were as every other christian debater has opinions.
I totally agree! People will try to tear Mike apart but his points demolish Bart! Bart makes the gross error of holding ancient literature (inspired by God nonetheless) to a 21st court transcript standard. That makes NO Sense!
Interesting thought. I like that. I would agree, because Ehrman does reference something different when talking about 'reliable' and Licona continually returns back to 'we aren't comparing apples and oranges.'
"This debate isn't really a debate."
*True, 'slaughter; is more appropriate. Poor Mike.*
"They just have two different definitions of "historically reliable"."
*Yes, one rational and one irrational. Poor Mike.*
I've never read a book about the Holocaust, written 40+ years after Holocaust recording detailed dialogues in different language when they were not eye witnesses.
That my friend is the litmus test to the Gospels. Any person who wrote something about the Holocaust the way I just described would be told they're making it up. Yet the Gospels get treated differently. Why?
Debate actually starts at 17:00
Debate starts at 11:32
You’re welcome
"The Gist of the Holy Bible"
Why would Lincona post this on his channel? His answers to Bart’s questions, including the zombies, make him look like a embarrassing, dishonest fool.
I think he is a wonderful human being, it's just his religion that gets in the way... But he is not like Habermas and others.
Licona’s logic: It is plausible, therefore it happened.
At least he doesn't go as far as WLC, who claims that the Resurrection is the *MOST* plausible explanation lol.
No, his faith and belief is that it happened. At this debate, all they are dealing with is whether the gospels are an accurate record of an event, and then, only in that it is a plausible historical recording. Anything beyond that was not, and is not a part of that debate.
Historians have to do this fairly frequently when the records are scarce or missing.
1:22:01 Mike asks how many errors would it take to consider the gospels unreliable. well I'd argue that 1 error is enough.
He then asks that if your wife makes 1 mistake would that make her unreliable. well my salvation doesn't depend on my wife and she never claimed to be divine, her 1 error costs me nothing while the gospels error might cost me everything. It's an illogical comparison.
Why would 1 error cost you your salvation? It's not like thats where the error (if any) is at. The Bible didnt literally come down from heaven absolutely 100% perfect. It was written by humans with inspiration from God.
Spot on!
@@x-popone6817 sure. If it helps you sleep at night
@@TheMrpalid Your response is totally irrelevant to my comment. Has nothing to do with "helping me sleep at night." I am just pointing out that one error is not a problem. The only people who think that are people with fundamentalist mindsets who think inerrancy means 0 errors in any way whatsoever.
We want words of God with word by word accuracy.... not someone else's bullet points or as in his description...
Licona "accounts were written close to the events". I don't call 70 years afterwards "close"
I can't get past the fact Licona brought up ghosts in a different debate.
dont forget the flying trash cans - its in the debate with Matt Dillahunty
I wouldn´t say that Bart Ehrman is so good, because he knows so much. He's good because he has got common sense.
Nah, Ehrmans speech is totally bozo. Completely oblivious to subjective thinking.
@@__-bc4bsWow! you arrive at this conclusion all by yourself? What IDIOTIC NON-SENSE. Ehrman is NOT ARGUING SUBJECTIVELY. That is the point! The only "bozo" in this conversation IS YOU.
@ Olli-Pekka Lindgren
Knowing so much doesn't hurt :), and he is very good at presenting his knowledge. His lectures and discussions are always a treat.
@Pete Kondolios Also, the contradictions he mentions aren't actually contradictions. Well, they can be if you totally misrepresent what was written, but I suppose one is supposed to do that in a debate when one is determined to win points by any means necessary. Just in passing, when does John say Jesus was crucified? On a Friday. When do Matthew, Mark, and Luke say Jesus was crucified? On a Friday. How is this two different times? That was very weak and disingenuous. Mike needed to hit harder on the actual presentation by Bart, instead of repeating everything he had already said.
@Pete Kondolios The ones he mentioned I buried a long time ago, and it wasn't even difficult. (Which is why I am surprised he doesn't know. I'm no academic scholar, just did some simple research.) If you look at the gospels as parallels to the same story, there is not real contradiction. One would expect variation if you have different authorse with different intents, writing to different audiences who had various points of views. (the Jews have Mosaic laws and traditions while everyone else...doesn't. That would affect how things are recorded and written I believe.)
Believing the gospel in life is like driving using rear view mirrors only ....
Licona logic - "Nabeel Qureshi wrote his bullshit biography thus Gospels are historically accurate accounts". Whattt????
Over and over..... Therefore true.
Mike makes up his own biased criteria, to which the gospels miraculously hold up.. Amazing. 🙄
@sal john ahh the then some magic happened card played yet again. Its 2020 - wake up from that chloroform in print you believe is real.
Right off the bat, why do Christians feel it so necessary to put men and women in two different boxes all the time.
I'm a Christian, and I have to say Bart Ehrman definitely won this debate. Mike Licona did a terrible job responding to the reality of the contradictions in the Bible that Bart shared about. There's definitley a lot I don't understand, but the biblical evidence is in Bart's favor.
Yes, there's something ridiculous about theists stubbornly refusing to conceded that two clearly contradictory things in the Bible are contradictory.
@@CyeOutsiderWhat’s an example of that?
Bart Ehrman gave several examples in this very debate.@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn
@@jamesfetherston1190 No he didn’t. Every “contradiction” he brought up, there was a solution. I’d like to hear the person I responded to tell me one himself.
I suppose that avoiding the contradictions could be shoehorned into being a solution with enough effort and lubrication.@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn
When considering whether or not a text is historical accurate, does the intent of the author matter?
Nope.
yes it matters, because there is a claimed that the sources of the text is from god, by the findings of bart ehrman it proves that the text is not from god, god cannot make mistake or errors or contradiction..
@@tingnannatinnangmalaman9454 i don't think i have heard anyone say that the gospels were written literally by God.
@@nevin8604 either way..be it inspired by god. or word of god the fact that it has errors and contradicting events it cannot be from God...
@@tingnannatinnangmalaman9454 i don't think it has contradicting events, you have specify them and i have to validate them. It may have errors, which are mostly copyist errors which is very natural.
That doesn't make it not God's word or inspired by God.
God bless you Mike such a nice person
nice won`t do for true.
Most people reasonably question resurrection, but I question God dying in the first place.
"No claims of being God until 65 years later...". That was all I needed to hear. All made up. 1:14:25
and it just gets worse the more you know...it's a fantasy book based on a handful of probably real people.
Mike Licona - the guy who lost his old job for explaining why the gospels are not historically reliable - tries to keep his new job by pretending he doesn't know that.
Probably because he doesn't know it.
For the sake of the pay check bro
Bart Ehrman saying the truth in every debate and putting these corporate churches in tough position, he is making them nerves, they are like a Zebra running away from a lion. The truth hurts. An honorable human being.
I can't figure out why we need to know Joseph's genealogy when he and Jesus were not even related.
For legal reasons.
Adoption
That's confused me for years!
Bart Ehrman said the entire world but luke 2 verse 1 clearly says entire roman world. Would the supporter of bart ehmram agree that he is a liar?
@@samzwell You had better get yourself educated rather than spouting off arrogantly that someone is "a liar".....the NIV and the New living Bible etc indeed say its the "Roman world" or the "nation" , but the much earlier King James and the Tyndsdale versions, which are based on the authoritative Greek text, just says its "the whole world" so Bart is correct.
The NIV was only created in 1978, it had the sole purpose of squaring off all these kind of problematic verses, whilst also avoiding the old world language found in the KVJ so that lay people could understand and not question anything.......but lets be clear here......the early versions ARE the more accurate as to what was written.
“Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.”
Luke 1:1-2 NET. 01:26:00
Ehrman: "I was 100% indoctrinated in an oversimplified, indefensible version of Christianity that makes claims about the Bible that the Bible doesn't even claim about itself, and I have spent all of my time since then arguing with Christians about things that I found out are false but which those same Christians never believed in the first place."
I think this is half right. This exchange is somewhat frustrating because Ehrman is clearly directing his points against the view that the Gospels are perfectly inerrant and literally true in every respect. But this isn’t some silly strawman: You can find other debates on UA-cam where Ehrman’s debating apologists who take precisely that position. So I don’t necessarily fault him on that score, but this might have gotten more quickly to more substantive clash if that had been clearer in the framing.
Except that the debate was framed in terms of historical reliability rather than inerrancy. That’s not Erhman’s point here. Is it actually reliable? It was interesting to note that he specifically avoided any of the miracle claims (which are the strongest indicators of something that not only didn’t happen but couldn’t) and dumped those in the theology car park as an irrelevance.
@James G That ‘if’ in respect of Gen 1:1 is doing some seriously heavy lifting.
I have yet to see good evidence of the suspension of natural laws that would indicate that something miraculous has taken place so I remain sceptical on miracles in the here and now.
To accept that miracles have occurred in the past based solely on textual testimony that is dubious in origin and authorship and unsubstantiated outside of the scriptures is not a position that can be supported evidentially - so I discount it.
What's the point of debating a person who refuses to be logical?
Well theists are the all champion of for Disney fantasies and comedy. You have to give them that
Well, I believe the saying that you cannot reason people out of a belief they did not reason theselves into.
Yes, Bart Erhman is simply unreasonably skeptical.
Bart makes this other dude look silly. Know your Bible if you want to debate.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is so brilliant. His level of knowledge of Bible is enormous and the wisdom he has is unbelievable. I hope the open minded Christians will come forward and seek the truth.
Here is my biggest issue with Bart. He brings up the resurrection, says read the gospels for yourself, and then he goes to explain where things don't match up, but he contradicts the scripture. Instead of explaining how the gospels line up in a non-contradictory narrative, he totally throws things around. At the end of Luke, it is not saying that the disciples remained in Jerusalem and never left. It wasn't until Jesus was preparing to ascend that he told them to stay in the city until... He then proceeds to take them out of the city, as far as Bethany, and then ascends. Is this not a violation of what Jesus said, unless Jesus did not say what Bart says He said. I mean, after the resurrection, two of the disciples dared to leave the city. They then were walking with some person outside of the city, and later, while outside of the city, found out it was Jesus. Jesus never once asked them what they were doing outside of Jerusalem. Mark mentions these two in passing. There is no contradiction here, just different views of the same period of time. Nothing to see here. (Unless you want to fabricate something.)
For the crucifixion, John as well as the other authors say Jesus was crucified and buried on a Friday, the day before Sabbath. In John, the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to help hasten the death of those being crucified and take them down so they wouldn't remain on the crosses on the Sabbath. That would place the crucifixion on a Friday. I do have questions as to exactly when the seder was supposed to happen, and did Jesus and His disciples observe the feast early?
On Jesus birth, Luke omitted Jesus great adventure after going to Jerusalem, and jumped straight to Nazareth. Going by what Mike says, this is apparently something historical biographers/historians of the era did. Since both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus ended up in Nazareth, does this omission mean contradiction, or just leaving something out because it isn't part of what Luke wanted to cover in his book? (Matthew did a pretty good job of covering it.)
There is a lot more then Bart was saying, and I'm surprised that Mike did not do a better job of showing there is no actual contradiction, just different authors with different audiences and intention in covering what they cover. John was written to a Jewish audience.
I agree with you. There is a lot one can say here, although Dr. Ehrman is very educated and his research is thorough, his approach is a post Enlightened approach of higher criticism of the scriptural narratives - nothing wrong or new with this approach, he does a very good job at showing supposed inconsistencies. But, are they real inconsistencies or apparent? I have taught history for years and there are scholars who have shown otherwise. I graduated with an M.A. in theological studies in 2004 from a seminary in reformed theology. There are many scholars and a lot of resources which take Dr. Licona's approach. I understood where Licona was coming from, I would not want to take his place. I would have to listen to the debate again in a new light, but I understood what he was saying. I was wishing he would go into more detail but Ehrman came ready with so much to the contrary that I didn't feel Licona was really really ready to take him on, but he did state his position and defended it. We live in a very skeptical age and unless one is aware that his approach a modern one, which extrapolates modern skepticism back, subjecting it to modern literary criticism, it will be easy to agree with him. I have heard him say things when being interviewed by others, I shake my head at some things he says - you can't always take this approach to everything in the biblical narratives.
😅😅😅
So you take your own time to contradict yourself, in order to disprove a scholar, it's embarrassing. Just do what he says, and see if you'll not see clear contradictions, anyways, you won't, because you're smoothly Ok with God's word being inaccurate, you believe it anyway
@@morrisallensheriff5241 If God's word is inaccurate, there is no salvation in this world.
@@ralphjansen3563 that’s what the essence of the debate is about, because some part of the Bible isn’t God’s words, God Almighty doesn’t makes mistakes, he never forgets, so if a book claiming to be from God, and then has mistakes, you know definitely it’s not from God, but it’s men, who are writing these words claiming it’s from God, many have done this, and the Bible isn’t free from it, just few examples of errors in the bible
Jesus’s alleged crucifixion, in John gospel it’s the day before the Passover meal, in Luke it’s the day after, of course God doesn’t make such mistake, He’ll accurately report the exact day, also, in 1 Timothy, God is said to be immortal, but Christians like Paul told us God became man and died. There are lots and lots of mistakes of even higher degree than these, listen to the debate to get some verses that shows clear contradiction, so if a book has mistakes claiming to be from God, you don’t expect us to believe it’s, then you’re blaspheming against God, I would rather posit that it’s from men, heresies, liars claiming to convey God’s words
@@morrisallensheriff5241 You show a lack of understanding of some things. God became a man, however, if you study what that means, Jesus was both God and man, both human and divine natures, both the Great High Priest, and the sacrifice in one body. God did not die. The flesh, the humanity of Christ bore our sin in sacrifice, and God, the divine nature, the High Priest, sanctified the sacrifice on the cross. SO while the flesh died, the spirit was alive, according to Peter. God did not die. When you start second guessing God, and believing that He is incapable of preserving for us His word, that is when you start making mistakes. As James White has said, the basic message that exists behind the words in scripture, the true message of God that exists beyond the words, yet through the words, remains unchanged. God's word has been preserved.
They differed, but in the end, they hugged each other; now that is class.
A grown man dedicating his life to arguing that fairy tales and magic are real just astounds me.
Well they have to convince themselves they're real....or else.
@@nunyabusiness9056............go work at McDonald's
Coming from a laymen skeptic who believes the universe popped into being out of nothing, and group hallucinations explain away the post mortem appearances of Jesus? 😂 yeah, no scholar, including Ehrman, writes off Christianity as a fairy tale historically. They deny on physiological naturalism.
1:01:52
So according to Licona, Mathew 27:52 was just some "Special Effects" that Mathew added to spice things up. If you want to keep your faith in the Bible as the word-for-word instruction for your life, then avoid this guy!
I don't understand why people are bashing Dr. Licona. He is clearly explaining historiography and the knowledge production engaged in historicity and literature.
Unbelievable that ML would actually reference the shroud as having anything to do with Jesus!
Licona is full of love and it's admirable. It's nice to see that he can disagree with Bart but still love him and be his friend and vice versa. Licona is always open for debate and posts the results and let's people comment. He sets a great example not just for other christians but for anyone.
Yep but facts aren't in mike's side😂
@@shkoder93 Unless they are.
@@shkoder93 Except they are 😂😂😂.
Mike never wins a debate but always wants to debate
I don't see how Mike has lost the debate here, he provides reasonable criteria for historical reliability that the Gospels clearly exceed, and Barth is just dealing with some minutiae while I agree that the Gospels are correct on all major points and mid-points, and if there is a couple of little things that Bart talks about in which universe you can say that makes the book unreliable.
@@kenandzafic3948The whole debate it is hard to say, Licona did well in the opening and rebuttle. but in the cross examination he was definitely on the back foot.
I literally had to fast forward to video to stop hearing Mike say “over.” I just couldn’t take it any more.
Ehrman is a bit silly when he says Matthew could not have remembered the exact words of Jesus when he wrote the gospel fifty years later. Well of course he couldn't, but the Holy Spirit could have inspired him in such a way that it was all brought to his memory- supernaturally. What's next, Ehrman telling us God doesn't exist because he cannot imagine it?!
The Bible is clearly accurate since it is inspired by God. How do we know it is inspired by God since is is accurate. But how do we know the Bible is accurate since is inspired by God.
You see circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works
Wow - best defense revolves around- “they dont have to be accurate” REALLY! common wake up !
It's ridiculous. This is supposed to be "God's word"
If something is 90% accurate then it's 90% accurate and 10% is inaccurate. You throw away the baby with the bath water do you?
@@thesojourner7722 No, I throw away 10% of the 'bathwater'.
THE HUMBLED GENTILE
So how do you know which parts are accurate and which inaccurate? It means that your god who is meant to have inspired the writings in the bible was deceptive.
@@AsixA6 haha! Awesome
A debate a Christian can’t win. I don’t understand why they do it to themselves. Exactly why William Lane Craig doesn’t debate the contradictions and runs every time it’s brought up.
ua-cam.com/video/HiE-J6U3kCY/v-deo.html
just admit it is faith and enjoy your faith it ain't the discipline of academic study nuthin wrong with that(exceptin for fundamentalists imposing it on the rest of us) Just admit it is faith and move on
I really liked this debate. I understood both of them. I think Mike is more of a bible scholar than a textual critic, and Bart is more of a Texual critic than a bible scholar. They both showed a little bias toward their profession. If you watch this as an atheist, then you would see Bart as the winner. If you watch this as a theologian, you'll pick Mike. Both make strong arguments for reliability.
Bart studied textual criticism, and Mike studied history (though his dissertation was on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus).
This is got to be one of the best debates I’ve ever watched. Both had great points, I’ll probably have to listen a few more times to fully understand. The clear winner , I’m not sure but I think they both are winners.
Really listen to what Bart is saying. The Bible has a serious problem that people are not willing to accept.
Mike's voice gets higher and squeakier as the debate goes along.
Yes I could not help but notice the cracks in his voice as he was placed further and further into the corner by Bart.
There is an earlier debate where he was sick and lost his voice. Maybe he's susceptible to illness that affects the throat.
Dr. Mike Licona did excellent job.
He was utterly embarrassing. Not just idiotical arguments and stubbornly refusing to conceded common sense points, but doing it all in a condescending voice, as if he was in a position to condescend to Bart. It clearly shows the damage religion does to reason when you're trying to defend your beliefs instead of looking at the evidence.
Uhhhhhh
An excellent job at failing
Yes, 100% of lying. The Bible as a whole is full of scientific errors, contradictions, historical errors and mathematical errors. Even the tomb story in the bible contradict each other.
He got rolled. Bert had him on ropes the whole debate
I believe the Gospels convey important information we need for our salvation. That is sufficient.
I'm crawling towards the same conclusion.
@39:38 Ehrman: "..king Herod died in the year 4 BCE"
This is a perfect example of why I personally don't take the word of a scholar at face value, however expert or well meaning, neither pro nor con, neither a consensus without fact checking as much as possible with a close eye on original texts and languages or as close as possible, and with an open mind.
To state the obvious: the bible nor Josephus says Herod died in 4 BCE. This date is inferred from Josephus saying that Herod died soon after a lunar eclipse before the spring Passover like the one in 4 BCE.
What many don't realize is that there was another eclipse in 1 BCE -- a total lunar eclipse unlike the traditional partial one -- and it allows enough time for all the events surrounding Herod's funeral to fit perfectly unlike the problematic 4 BCE date. I've also verified this eclipse with professional astronomy software myself.
The popular view of Herod's death in 4 BCE does not account for all the facts we have from the historical record. However, some of the latest published scholarship shows that when other pieces of evidence typically overlooked is carefully considered it rather points to Herod having died in 1 BCE.
_Steinmann, Andrew E. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?"_
_Novum Testamentum, Volume 51, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 1-29(29)_
FREE ONLINE
This new time frame fits the events like a glove from an historical, astronomical, and biblical point of view, unlike the traditional time frame. It fixes problems like a good solution to a problem is supposed to. The old time frame creates unnecessary problems critics capitalize on (a frequent 'pattern' I have come across for 15 years studying the scriptures).
With the new date of Herod's death, scholars like the late Ernest L. Martin were able to find the (wandering) star of Bethlehem and it fits the descriptions of Matthew to a tee, not to mention other surrounding details provided by Luke, and more astronomical signs mentioned in Revelation 12.1-2 while also providing deeper Christian/Jewish fulfillment to the festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah and even rabbinic expectations (see the last link below).
The new date of Herod's death (1 BCE) is like a new key that opens an old chest nobody could open before with an old key, and now new amazing treasures are revealed but many people still insist the old key is the best one and are keeping the treasure chest locked and the treasures hidden from the world. This is very sad.
I will provide links for further reading in a post replying to this one (in case filters are on)
REPLACE ASTERISKS IN URLs:
Astronomy and the Death of King Herod
askelm*com/star/star010*htm
The Lunar Eclipse of Josephus
askelm*com/star/star011*htm
The Real Star of Bethlehem
askelm*com/star/star004*htm
Tertullian mentioned Roman records of censuses during the time of Christ's birth when Saturninus was governor of Syria. Does this conflict with Luke's record? No. Josephus mentioned that there were governors (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus, naming at least 2. It would seem from his background that Quirinius was a special type of governor at this time, or as Justin Martyr referred to him, a procurator, a special delegate for census taking.
More info: askelm*com/star/star014*htm
Ehrman resorts to an unfounded conspiracy theory to speculate that Luke and others (unless you think Luke was isolated and able to hide his gospel from the original apostles and disciples) lied about the birth of Jesus for religious reasons. This too relies on a popular presumption and creates unnecessary problems. Luke doesn't actually state that "everyone" had to go to their ancestor's city from a 1000 years previous:
_Luke2.3 "And all went to be registered, each to HIS OWN TOWN."_
Cf Syriac, כלנשׁ "all men"
Luke is speaking of MEN going to THEIR OWN town in this verse, but then he makes a distinction with those who were of the House of David, royal lineage, and includes Mary (which supports the idea that Matthew's genealogy is of Mary as even Matthew's text indicates in the Syriac text and also hinted at in the Greek text). This was not the normal procedure for a census/enrollment, so why assume it was an ordinary census/enrollment?
_Luke2.4 "Joseph also went up from Galilee.. to the city of David.. called Bethlehem BECAUSE he was of the house and lineage of David"_
These curious details show this was no ordinary census and was concerned with royal lineage and is distinct from the previous general statement in verse 3.
What could Jewish royal descendants possibly have to do with this?
There's a lot of background to this but in a nutshell, it was at this time that not only the Jews but also the Roman elite knew of the messianic expectations of a Jewish ruler to rise in the East and conquer the world. This is why the Roman puppet Herod had to kill off candidates to the throne when the magi came looking for the messiah and why Herod and the people in Jerusalem were 'troubled' when they heard of the news from the magi (Mat 2.3).
Herod was apparently following a precedent Suetonius mentions from the Roman Senate that said the world ruler had to come from Rome (ie, Caesar) when a group of magi made a false start coming to the Roman Senate some 60 years previously as Suetonius tells us (De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus).
The Jews had a history of mutiny by this time and Rome was sensitive to the political conditions and messianic expectations in the region (having the city-sized Fort Antonia adjacent to the Jewish temple itself, where some believe the western wall is from rather than the temple which was utterly destroyed as Josephus witnessed and Jesus foretold). This concern was even leveraged by the enemies of Christ to manipulate Pontius Pilate into doing their bidding (John 19.12). Josephus tells us this expectation is what led to the Jewish revolts against Rome and eventually to the destruction and desolation of the temple and the city. (2The 2.3 takes on a new meaning perhaps: _Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy (מרודותא rebellion, apostasy; ἀποστασί revolt, rebellion, abandonment) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction_ Note: the Caesar held the office of pontifex maximus, now held by the Roman bishop)
In light of this political situation and the new time frame mentioned above moving Herod's death to 1 BCE, we now have a new solution to Luke's census/enrollment on the table: Josephus spoke of an oath of allegiance (like a covenant) about a year to 15 months prior to the death of Herod in all the empire. The late Dr. Martin gives us information that makes the most sense of the the most data in this area of research rather than resorting to speculative conspiracy theories with little to no supporting data:
_the year 2 B.C.E. was one of the most important and glorious in the career of Augustus. It was the Silver Jubilee of his supreme rule over the Empire and the year in which the Senate awarded him the country’s highest decoration the “Pater Patriae” (Father of the Country). There was no year like it for majestic celebrations in Rome, and since the significance of the festivities _*_involved the entirety of the Empire,_*_ there can be little doubt that similar anniversary ceremonies were ordained by Augustus and the Senate for all the provinces._
_It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E. Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in the Jubilee year? If so, we could well have a reference to an Empire-wide registration of loyalty to the emperor. Josephus mentioned that Augustus demanded an _*_oath of allegiance_*_ about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod. This event would fit nicely with a decree going out from Augustus in 3 B.C.E. that all were to give an oath of allegiance to him at some designated time during the year. Obviously, the recording of oaths (where people ascribed their names) was a type of registration. That is what Luke said the census was. It was an enrollment of people._
Full chapter: askelm*com/star/star014*htm
Great information my friend. My only criticism is please use BC and AD. The non Christian modifications are desperate and nonsense.
Mr tee, I know what you mean, however when the new date is applied it wouldn't sound right to say Yeshua was born in 3 BC (3 years before he was born?) Just a technicality :) but glad you got something out of this information. I also did a 3 and a half min video related to this you may find interesting.
Powerful closing statement by Dr Ehrman. I like him a lot , he is real, genuine, knowledgeable, morally responsible and has likable personality.
lmfao, you can call Erhman a lot, but not definitely not genuine.
Me too
@@floydthomas4195 in what way?
But did you sign up for his blog?
55:17 isn't that the end of the debate? Are they 'historically reliable' and the answer is no.
I think the mistake fundamentalist Christians make is insisting that every word is literally accurate and is what actually happened. These are documents that are there to teach you spiritual truths. I do not even consider myself a Christian by the way and I still find myself learning spiritual truths from the New Testament. And then there are things I profoundly disagree with on a spiritual level.
Licona talks out of both sides of his mouth for the whole debate.
So in conclusion mike admitted that the new testament gospel writers who were supposedly INSPIRED by the holy ghost (whom is god according to the trinirarians) had made many errors in the transmission of jesus's teachings so in essence the inerrant creator of the heavens and the earth had made mistakes in his book!
If this is not blasphemy then idk what is
Mike is obviously in denial
I'm an atheist and I think that Licona won the debate. Most comments think that Bart "destroyed" him, yet these people, I'm sorry to say, are not very intelligent and got distracted by his show, he laughed, walked around, raised his voice, whereas Licona remained stiff, calm, quiet. These stupid people interpreted these signs as weakness. When it comes to the points, Licona clearly won. Bart pretty much said "there are errors, therefore it's not accurate". Someone should explain to mr. Bart that almost nothing is 100% accurate, just look at CNN nowadays, we have cameras, phones etc yet almost all they say it's a lie. And, another huge fact that Bart ignored: those eyewitnesses, I repeat, eyewitnesses, went on to getting killed for what they SAW. That's a very big evidence. People die for their ideas and beliefs all the time, but nobody in history died for something they saw if they weren't absolutely sure of what they saw.
Lucio Inncenzo: Well said.