Four different writers! read their testimony and it builds a picture that quite easy to understand! The fact that there are variations rather than just four DUPLICATE accounts is MORE credable & honest! It also the way the gospels record the mistakes and wrong attitudesof the very men who wrote the accounts! No, sorry The NT is a TRUE accout! Its backed up by Josephus & other writers who were NOT Christians! Maybe its teachings are not palatable to those who criticize it!
1:50 1. Mark Chapter 2 Sabbath. Who was the high priest ? 4:05 2. Mark Chapter 5 Jesus raises girl from the dead. In mark the girl wasn’t dead. In Mathew the girl was already dead 8:35 3. Mark- Jesus sends the disciples out with no staff Mathew- Jesus says to take a staff
You might want to go back and read Mark 5 and Matthew 9 again. In both chapters, it is plainly evident that she was dead because in both chapters Jesus said she wasn't dead, she only slept. I hope it isn't rocket science for you to deduce from the fact that they "laughed him to scorn" once he had said that because the people knew the girl was dead. I don't think it is all that much of a mystery to figure out why Jesus asked them why they were making a noise (in Matthew) or weeping (in Mark). It certainly isn't to me. In truth, the so-called church has proven time and time again that it is woefully inadequate to teach the gospel. The result is an ignorant church that continues to teach false doctrines which lead, unfortunately, to many not even being interested in learning the gospel. And sadly, there are many who would profit from that ignorance.
@@derrickpurdy7011 Your point is right on, I can't agree with you more. The scriptures use the term "a sleep in death" and to Jesus Christ the girl was asleep in death. There is a thing called perception that makes us individuals. If I was standing in a room with ten other people and we were told to write what we saw there would be ten different reports. This is evident when on a rescue mission and I have to ask witnesses questions about what they saw. All of them will have a different story and each story is not in itself wrong.
derek, you ought to be proud of yourself bro, your entire story is incredible by itself, but the fact that you took what you enjoyed and got to the point of communication and coordination with scholarly greats like Dr. Price, Dr. Ehrman, Dr. Carrier, is incredible. Theres a lot to say about you, and it's impressive.
Not only Gospel Mark contradicts with Old testament on the high priest. But OT contradicts itself on the same high priest. Ahimelech was described as the son of Ahitub and father of Abiathar in 1 Samuel 22:20-23, but described as the son of Abiathar in 2 Samuel 8:17 There are tons of such contradictions in the bible. Yet the Christians believe that the bible is the words of God. Amazing belief!
@xa4445 ♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book says it's the holy truth." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics may believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere."
0:25 "The myth--the legend himself--is joining us today". I see what you did there. Great video, by the way! Dr Ehrman is always informative and entertaining. Great energy and huge intellect. We are lucky to have him.
@@ihabgabriel4836 So, is the bat a bird or a mammal??!! Because THE BIBLE calls it a bird (and last time I checked, birds DO NOT nurse their newborns ON THEIR OWN MILK!!!). Y’know, you'd think an inerrant book, which was inspired by your Big Brother in the sky, would KNOW FOR CERTAIN if a bird was a mammal or not, becausehe SUPPOSEDLYcreated them. Y’know, you Apologetics morons can't have your cake and eat it too.
My own favorite NT contradiction: Romans 9:18 says, God has mercy on those on whom he wants to have mercy, and “hardens” those he wants to harden. 1 Timothy 2:4 says he wants all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, i.e., he doesn’t want to “harden” anybody… Yeah, that’s the kind of “big” contradiction that, as Dr Ehrman says, believers have an easy time satisfying themselves about.
I agree, but the Reformed apologist would say that "all "does not mean every person, but "all" kinds of people. Jews, Gentiles, etc.. The rationalizations are endless.
@@josephpatterson2513 Yes, when I was in seminary, I thought John Piper had the most creative explanation for such contradictory ideas- God has two levels of will. He can will that all be saved AND AT THE SAME TIME harden some to destruction. The thing that drew so many of us to Calvinism was that it took these challenges head on. I finally figured out that different men responded to events and historical circumstances of their time and place. It is not transcendent truth that we apply today.
the only contradiction is in your mind. these are two different situations, two different writers for specific audience. you are equating as if they were the same. a priest can say two sermons twice in a day on the same topic and they won't match word for word.
You might benefit from understanding what that means. 2 Thessalonian 2:11-12 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." So you might think well there it is, but you would lack context. The context is found in verse 10: "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." The only question is are you going to seek what the Bible actually says or continue to listen to a man who doesn't know what it says?
@@TheAbrahamMichaels previous lectures and debates. I live by the same standard he does "As long as Babies and Children SUFFER...there is No God" I worked in Corrections for years. I've seen and read the BRUTALITY visited up Babies and Children. Where was God to protect them? Where were these Mighty Angels, St. MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL in particular?
Well, apologetics is more about defending the questionable actions or doctrines presented in the bible than harmonising its contradictions - for example defending Gods action of 'empowering' Samson to murder 30 men so he can steal all their clothes to pay off a bet he'd just lost! (and one defence that's been offered for Samson's horrific, God endorsed, method of solving his gambling dues is that the 30 men he killed were _enemies_ of God, so the killings not only wiped out Samson's debt they also enabled God to provoke a war with the enemy nation the murdered men belonged to...............I'll let _you_ decide whether or not you think this is justifiable!)
@@cardcounter21 Of course it’s justifiable, God is always right no matter what and has a plan we can’t comprehend. That’s why he’s God, you can’t argue with that.
"It happened twice" - the apologist who said that is a genius! God created the world twice, he sent the flood twice, Jesus was born twice, he died four times on the cross, etc. This is not just an unbeatable argument, it also helps understand why there are two gods and two Jesuses in the Bible. Brilliant!
@@Nocturnalux I guess "LIFE is what happens" when you are waiting for the return of JC.... There is a WHOLE Halloween special devoted to Linus, who spends Halloween night waiting for "the Great Pumpkin" to arise from (his MOST sincere) pumpkin patch. Every time I watch THAT Peanuts special, I am desperately hoping that "The Great Pumpkin" will finally appear... :( ... but there is ALWAYS next year.... 🎃🎁🍕🤞
To the apologists who agree with “It happened twice,” that still leaves an error: on the second occasion someone would have commented that this had happened previously. The simplest explanation is that the author of the second version was trying to replace the first version. And, great job, @Lauter Unvollkommenheit on extending the logic of the apologist.
Thank you, Bart, for sharing your vast knowledge with us. I own much of what you've written, and I've learned SO MUCH from you. And thank you, Derek, for your boundless energy and commitment to this channel.
"When someone's a fundamentalist the big ones don't bother you, it's the little ones" -- so true. When I was a rigid fundamentalist it was the numerical contradictions that really ate away at me, or the different robe color at the crucifixion. These are theologically inert contradictions, but eventually broke open the dam and plunged into me mythicism for a little while. It's practically a shorter list of things that are consistent in the NT than not.
I've always explained my admittance that the Bible is not divinely inspired but humanly- derived as "death by a thousand cuts". It is never just one thing. One contradiction or problem could not account for so many people believing something that is not ultimately true (as I did for 4 decades). It starts with Genesis 1:1- El (Elohim) is the same name as the ancient Canaanite god (what? The One True God can't identify himself with a unique name if he wishes to show this book is my word?) The flood stories we now KNOW are at least 1,000 years older than the Noah story and have elements found in the Genesis version...and on and on and on... What did it for me was a contradiction I had to discover for myself when I was working on a PhD in biblical theology. The census in Luke 2 could not have occurred under Quirinius was governor as Luke takes pains to name him. To really believe that an intentional god was behind all of this history- then the story of the birth of Jesus had to happen "when times were fulfilled". In other words, the reason God supposedly "gave us his word" was to show us HE has been in control of history- that none of this is random but he is controlling all events. I went to seminary to prove such things. And yet, an obvious error proven by many sources, we now know the years that Quirinius was governor. God can't inspire Luke to at least get the name of the governor right? When I read the lengths that scholars go to explain this away- it just answered the one question "If the Bible really was man-made and Christianity was not true but so many still believed it was- what would it look like? This is what it would look like.
"It happened twice!" technically works but it's so beautifully absurd. It could also be used to explain away many other contradictions...maybe the resurrection happened 4 times too? 😉
1. Why did the women go to the tomb? 2. Who/what did they encounter there? 3. How did the tomb become opened? 4. What did the women see in the tomb? 5. What were the women instructed to do? 6. What did they do upon leaving there? 7. Did Jesus appear to these same women? 8. Did Jesus meet the disciples in Galilee? 9. Did Jesus ascend bodily into Heaven? 10. What were Jesus’ last words on Earth?
My personal favorite for the holidays is how did John the Baptist survive Herod's ordering the murders of all the tiny kids. He's only 6 months older, but they didn't flee the carnage.
@@AnnhilateTheNihilist And Luke has the family go straight to jerusalem on the 8th day after the birth, then directly back to Nazareth to live. Don't know how they fitted a couple of years in Eqypt in there.
I was in a cult for years and had my Bible beside me all the time, I also believed that this book has no mistakes but after watching one of our cult leader telling to the public we may not be the only spokesman of this book, my view changed completely about this book! My research started and your videos are so helpful to let me realize the real truth about this book. Thanks for this interview which gave me another super knowledge of the contradictions that I didn’t even noticed.
That’s it? Discrepancies? You didn’t think it was too fantastic? Didn’t think this Trinity thing is not working for me? Or maybe G-d sounds like he’s nuts 🥜? This should be followed by hmmm, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Ah, poor humans, confronted by phenomenon & possibly an encounter with a divine being they wrote it down to the best of their Bronze Age understanding. Sad, sad, sad.
I find that fascinated: it is like folk don't notice what they are reading Didn't the talking snake, virgin birth ever seen a tad odd to you. I mean if someone told you that it would seem a bit odd?
There is no contradiction guys. Too bad, all the writers of the Bible are not here to answer all your questions, but you can always look for answer if you know how to look and unprejudiced. NITPICKING IS A BAD THING - you know the word, right. 1. Since Jesus mentions Abiathar as the “high priest” in Mark 2:26, but Ahimelech is mentioned as the “priest” in 1 Samuel 21:1, it is possible that they were different priests. On the other hand, in second Samuel 8:17, Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar, but in 1 Samuel 23:6, Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech. I did not find any evidence of a copyist error. Therefore, it is possible that both men shared each other’s names. In other words, both men had two names as appears to be the case in 2 Sam. 8:17 where Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar, but in 1 Sam. 23:6, Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech. This is supported by the fact that Moses’ father-in-law is called Reuel in Ex. 2:18, yet in Exodus 3:1, it is Jethro. Uzziah is the father of Jotham in Matt. 1:9. But in 1 Chronicles 3:12, his name is Azariah. Also, Jotham’s father was known as Azariah in 2 Kings 15:7 and Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:32 2. Here is how things may have taken place. When Jairus left his house, his daughter was at the point of death; so he may have thought that by the time he was with Jesus, she quite possibly had already died. Indeed, by the time he arrived, she had passed away, as confirmed by the messenger who brought the account of her death before Jesus came to the house. That Jairus should appeal to Christ on this occasion is very remarkable considering that Jewish leaders were often the people most averse to Jesus. It is also striking that he should fall down and worship Jesus, He behaved with profound respect toward Him, as to a great teacher, known healer, and prophet. That very act of Jairus coming to Jesus when his child was past all hope of recovery, when he had reason to believe she was actually dead, as she indeed now was, affirms that he really believed that if Christ would come to his house and lay his hand upon his daughter, she would certainly be restored to life again. Perhaps Jairus, being intimately familiar with the Torah, had in mind Elijah and Elisha, whom God had given the power of being able to resurrect the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37), in both instances using physical contact with the recently deceased. Perhaps he had heard of Christ’s healing powers and dared hope they would be sufficient to the task. Luke 8:43-48 records that while Jairus was walking with Him, Jesus healed a woman with a blood issue. Jairus therefore was an eyewitness to the power of Christ even before they reached his house. In any event, the passages do not contradict each other, but just show the different focus each Gospel writer emphasized. Whether it was through just recording part of the event, or perhaps the phrases “even now dead” or “just died” meaning “imminently near death,” all three Gospel accounts bring out a slightly different emphasis. Their main point is unmistakable: Jesus had power to raise the dead as the son of God. 3. In these parallel passages, Jesus issues an urgent command to His 12 students-go and preach the immediacy of the kingdom of heaven to your Jewish brethren. Our English translations contain an apparent discrepancy in what Jesus told them to take with them-were they to take a staff or not? The issue can be cleared up studying the Greek words used for provide or take in the original manuscripts. The sense of Matthew’s provide (ktaomai) is “to get or acquire.” In this passage, Jesus seems to urge His disciples to go now, don’t take the time to find another staff, just take what you have and go. He promised that the disciples would be provided for, so they didn’t need to make elaborate preparation. Mark uses a word with a broader meaning (airo), which indicates “lift or take up.” In this passage, Mark seems to convey the idea that Jesus wanted the disciples to take what they already have and go. Those who already had a staff were to take it but were not to acquire another staff. In the same vein, they should wear the sandals they had on but weren’t to find an additional pair. They were to wear the tunic they already had on but weren’t to get another. Although using the same word for take as Mark, Luke’s passage conveys the same sense as Matthew’s. (Some scholars suggest that Luke probably gained his information mostly from Matthew’s book and didn’t have access to the book written by Mark.) Luke also conveys the idea that the disciples were to depart quickly and without taking lots of “things” with them. They needed to focus on preaching the kingdom of heaven and were to trust the Lord to provide for their needs.
You know how we know about all the contradictions and bad stuff of religions? Because each faction(religion) reads each others stuff, performs extensive linguistic, comparative mythological, and archaeological studies of each others religions to disprove one another. They've been at each others throats for the beginning of religion. And so, thanks for the data Bart Ehrman!
Jehovah's Witnesses do not. Their interest is to teach what the bible teaches in bringing the good news of God's kingdom not to one up other religions. Anyone who knows the truth will see the misinformation promoted by the worlds religious organizations. Our only purpose for familiarizing ourselves of different religions is to be a better teacher. We talk to people of all faiths and beliefs and is helpful to understand them. It is about saving lives.
@@ronhansen8471 Saving lives? JW's official policy of making parents shun and disown their children if they break away from the JW organization leads to misery for both parents and children, and sometimes causes kids to commit suicide! Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.
Listen to this. And see how lame the supposed three (3) top contradictions are. Top 3! Even the Bible acknowledges these types of errors could occur: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." (Revelation 22: 18, 19)
That last contradiction and story is so crazy to me. Fundamentalism has melted some people’s brains. It’s okay. You can still believe in god and also believe that the Bible has some mistakes. I promise you won’t explode.
Hey, I'm as enthusiastic as anyone about a good Biblical contradiction, but the whole Ahimelech/Abiathar business is not a contradiction. There were clearly multiple priests during Saul's reign - 1 Samuel 22:18 mentions "priests". The father/son team of Ahimelech and Abiathar were both among them. 1 Samuel 21:1 calls Ahimelech a priest; and 1 Samuel 23:9 calls Abiathar a priest. Now in Mark 2:26, Jesus describes the shewbread incident as occurring in "the days of Abiathar the High Priest". Obviously, the incident occurred in the days of Abiathar - 1 Samuel makes this abundantly clear. No contradiction, and no need for 30 pages of analysis to prove this.
Maybe the original instructions were not to take a 2nd staff in case the first one broke similar to how Matthew's gospel says not to take a 2nd coat. One staff would be the bare minimum so when Mark's account said not to take a staff, it may have been implied (2nd staff) to his readers but expounded upon by Matthew for clarity.
It's usually surprising to me that people can believe the Bible is inerrant. I'm a Christian, I do not think the Bible contains no mistakes at all. And it does not matter if the Bible contains mistakes here and there. The thing is, most of the things we Christians believe do not rely in any way on whether or not these contradictions can be resolved or not. I have yet to see contradictions that even when granted, changes the doctrines of Christianity, like the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins, or the resurrection of Jesus. If a few details differ between the accounts in the Gospels then I think that's evidence for the fact that these are based on eyewitness testimony. Because contradictions are /exactly/ what we would expect if the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses. An example of this is how the Titanic sank. Eyewitness reports report two contradictory accounts that we're unable to reconcile; namely reports that the Titanic sank as a whole, and reports that the Titanic broke in two before sinking. Now how on earth would you use these eyewitness reports to argue that the Titanic never sank? Because that is the type of arguments atheists use when they find a contradiction in the Bible. It's absolutely ridiculous reasoning.
Yes, and whether President Kennedy was in a two-row car or a three-row car, and there are pictures of both. We can't say he wasn't shot that day in Dallas, even though the reports are VERY conflicting on how it happened, who did it, etc.
The contradictions that were devastating to my evangelical understanding of Christianity was in comparing Jesus’ view of the criteria for salvation in the Synoptics with Jesus’ view in n John, and Paul’s view in Romans/Galatians, and James. Then there’s the whole Arminian/Calvinisitic/Universal reconciliation trilemma, then there’s the eternal conscious torment vs. conditionalism vs. universal reconciliation vs. mortality views defended by various authors. Then there’s the problem of whether Christians ought to be Torah and observant, various failed prophecies, various messianic prophecies Jesus failed to fulfil, the failed prophecy of Jesus that “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (unless you’re Preterist). Paul of course expected the end to be very soon, likewise the author of Revelation. Then you have Paul’s terrible exegesis of the OT in Galatians 3, complete bastardisation of Habakkuk 2:2-4, as well as Matthew’s rather terrible use of OT “prophecies” applied to Jesus…
@@stephencraig247 Hmm, with all those discussions about the meaning of Jesus' words and prophesies and how salvation works etcetera, all interesting theological topics, food for many discussions to come, why did those discussions convince you that Jesus never rose from the dead? The thing is, even if Paul made theological errors in Galatians, even if the theology differs irreconcilably, none of this means Jesus didn't rise from the dead. All of those things could simply mean that the people who saw Jesus misunderstood the meaning of the resurrection but still saw a risen Jesus. I'm not saying that this is indeed the case, but I'm trying to see how these theological discussions would lead to doubting the resurrection. Because I see no clear connection between those discussions and whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. And neither would all of those discussing convince me that Jesus never rose from the dead. It may convince me that some authors of the NT didn't interpret the resurrection correctly, but it would not lead me to conclude that the resurrection never happened.
1:50 1. Mark Chapter 2 Sabbath. Who was the high priest ? - There could be two high priests; "in the days of" doesn't necessarily mean during the person's time in the office, it could mean while a person is alive.
LOLOLOL SO Jairus’ daughter is the Biblical equivalent of Schroedinger’s cat, an alive/dead daughter. Read in Mark? She’s alive when the dad goes to Jesus. Read in Matthew? She was already dead.
She was sleeping in both stories: Mark 5:39 And after entering, He said to them, “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child has not died, but is asleep.” Matthew 9:24 He said, “Leave; for the girl has not died, but is asleep.” And they began laughing at Him.
This is definitely stupid. Two people are describing a car accident. They are definitely going to remember different details. The story is the same on general details. Girl sick.Girl dying. Jesus say asleep and wakes up girl. What exactly is the problem here?
@@cheryldeboissiere1851 kinda sloppy of god to allow those kinds of contradictions though. And it makes you wonder what other things were misremembered.
The problem is not the status of the girl, but what Jairus said to jesus. Mark 5:23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” Mathew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” In one Jairus thinks his daughter is alive and in the other one that his daughter is dead. That is the contradiction. He is saying two things which are opposite to each other.
My favorite contradiction is the salvation message. The most basic teaching is so contradictory. Are Christians saved by faith alone? By faith and repentance? Faith and baptism? By works alone?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌌 *Understanding the Universe* - Neil deGrasse Tyson quantifies our knowledge about the universe, highlighting the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. - Only 4% of the universe is explained by known forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces. - The expansion of knowledge leads to an expanding perimeter of ignorance, driving the pursuit of unanswered questions in science. 02:17 🤔 *Neil's Perspective on Atheism* - Neil clarifies that he doesn't consider himself an atheist, citing an example involving the Space Shuttle and expressing openness to unknowns. - Discusses the historical pattern of science replacing supernatural explanations, emphasizing the importance of seeking scientific understanding first. 04:12 🌱 *Veganism and Plant-Based Eating* - Neil engages in a discussion about veganism, pointing out contradictions and highlighting the cosmic perspective on consuming plants. - Explores the logical end of debates, questioning the focus on larger animals by some vegans and introducing a humorous cosmic viewpoint. 06:45 🧔 *The Iconic Mustache* - Piers discusses Neil's famous mustache, drawing parallels with other historical scientists who had iconic facial hair. - Neil reflects on his mustache, stating he has never shaved it, and humorously comments on the cosmic perspective of a plant-based alien observing Earth's eating habits. 08:37 🍽️ *Dinner with a Scientist* - Neil expresses a desire to have dinner with Isaac Newton and imagines the challenges of explaining modern concepts to him. - Reveals a preference for Newton's clean-shaven look, debunking the myth of his iconic curly hair. - The conversation ends with praise for Neil's ability to make science engaging and a mention of his book "To Infinity and Beyond." Made with HARPA AI
St Ehrman is engaging, erudite and passionate. He convinced me of the mythicist case. How? He was doing a question and answer and someone asked him about Jesus working with his dad as a carpenter. He took the time to reflect.. you could feel his mind whirring tto maintain the historicity... it just became absurd.
Ehrman wrote a book defending his view of a historical Jesus though, and it's the consensus for very good reasons. I suggest you read his book before assuming Jesus did not exist. And just because Ehrman cannot explain every single question about the Bible (there are millions) doesn't mean Jesus did not exist.
One could argue the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) and the New Testament (NT) contradictions ad infinitum - tho’ several can (at least in the gospel sayings & narratives) be ‘clean’d up’ by positing errors in translation (say, in the case of the Gospels in the canonical NT) from an oral Aramaic tradition (from say 36 CE to c. 50 CE) to when it was eventually translated (orally) into Greek (c. 50-72 CE) then to when the gospel traditions were finally set down in writing following the death of most of the original Aramaic speaking followers of ‘Iesous’ during the 1st Fail’d Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE)- the Jairus’ daughter pericopes (‘a man who was the chief scribe in their local synagogue’) in Mark & in Matthew do seem contradictory on the surface - but cf. the Aramaic phrase ‘Le maveto’ (‘at the point of death’ see Mark 5:23) might well have been badly translated into Greek (‘idi nekros’) perhaps whilst still in the oral stage as ‘already dead’ - Note that in Mark’s gospel it has a Greek speaking ‘ho Iesous’ pronouncing ‘she is not dead but sleeping’ (= ‘in a deep coma’ ? see Mark 5:39 and this phrase is repeated in Matthew 9:24) - One might posit that the confusion of ‘point of death’ and ‘already dead’ may also be Matthew’s desire to make the story ‘more miraculous’ or a storytelling device where a messenger relays ‘a false message which the messenger himself believes to be the truth’- only later to be found out in the story that the messenger was mistaken… There are far more glaring literary contradictions say between ‘Matthew’ (whoever he was…) and the other Greek canonical gospels (read Matthew’s glaringly fake 14 Toledoth ‘generational lists’ in chapter 1 (bas’d on the gemmatria DVD for David 4+6+4 = 14) as compar’d to ‘Luke’s genealogical Daviddic recension (whoever he was…) in his wholly contradictory birth narrative (see the Lukan list in chapter 3:23ff…) When examining these contradictory recensions between gospel narratives (over 100 can be nam’d) one always has to bear in mind the fact that these pericopes were transmitted orally at first in Aramaic then in Greek during preaching tours ‘to the lost sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro’el scatter’d amongst the Gentiles (leGoyyim, ‘amongst the nations’) before they were finally set in writing after the original Apostoloi began to die off before during & after the War of 66 CE which according to Josephus wip’d out nearly 1 million Judaean Aramaic speakers … leaving virtually only Greek, Latin & Coptic speaking Jews in the greater Diaspora within the Roman Empire in the 1st century CE…
I'll have to agree with Mr. Flip. It seems very likely everything was in Greek "from scratch". There is no need for the story to have originated in Aramaic lands. In fact its easier to conjure up fiction if its written with some distance from the place in the setting. Far away from Israel it becomes impossible to verify if this Jesus fellow and his band actually existed - much easier for a myth to spread. If you want to start a myth, don't set it in my hometown, because I will fact check you. :D
My biggest issue/contradiction: A supposedly loving God will supposedly send you to hell for all eternity simply because you misunderstand the true nature of reality (according to Christianity), i.e., you don't believe in Jesus as your personal savior. We're fallible humans born into a very mysterious reality, who lack the perspective and pertinent information to grasp what is really going on here. A loving god would understand this and not impose eternal punishment on a human being who has a very limited conception of this place. Imagine all the confused people in Hell, when asked the following question: "What are you in for?" "I thought Hinduism was the one and only truth. That's the culture I was born into." "For me it was Islam" "I thought all religion was stupid." "I for sure thought it was Scientology." LOLOL "Everyone knew that one was BS."
I'm so grateful for the wonderful synergy from having different guests! Also, in many ways this is a Process of Thinking About HOW to Think!!! There is so much Rich History and Great Stories in the Ancient Texts!! I think the great FLAW in Christianity is the Emphasis on Dogmatic Beliefs! DO NOT QUESTION or Dare Think for Yourself
When people have a distorted opinion of the truth along with religious bias they are bound to get the wrong answers. Christendom does teach dogmas with the Catholic church leading the pack. How can anyone think for themselves when they are brain washed by the church? Looking for flaws in God's word the bible as a way to reject the truth is not the answer. In my opinion the flaw is people not understanding what the bible teaches. I point my finger straight at the religious leaders for peoples bible ignorance.
@@ronhansen8471 Ron, WHY the obsession with Anachronistic Texts? Written as Stories and Folklore to create Common Culture and help with Better Living with Fellow Humans? WHY Cannot we create a more appropriately contemporary Common Culture to help us live with 21st Century and SAVE The Planet??? Theocracies based on SUPERIOR Beings Superimposing THEIR Version of Right vs Wrong will KILL US and DESTROY the PLANET...isn't that what Your BOOK Teaches??? Isn't it about Time we Face REALITY???
@@TD-np6ze WHY the obsession with Anachronistic Texts? Written as Stories and Folklore to create Common Culture and help with Better Living with Fellow Humans? WHY Cannot we create a more appropriately contemporary Common Culture to help us live with 21st Century and SAVE The Planet??? Theocracies based on SUPERIOR Beings Superimposing THEIR Version of Right vs Wrong will KILL US and DESTROY the PLANET...isn't that what Your BOOK Teaches??? Isn't it about Time we Face REALITY??? Ron's response: The Hebrew scriptures has a great deal of information that applies to our day and for our benefit. if nothing else it has practical guidance on how to live and bring up children. BUt it seems that people want to read all the gory things of the bible with no understanding. People anymore have a distorted understanding and religious leaders who are ultimately responsible do not teach the truth of God's word the bible. They would rather tickle the ears of their subjects. The bible is all about how we can save the planet and survive what is coming. The planet will not be destroyed and mans future is to live forever under God's kingdom. This will include most of the people that have lived and died and those today who survive the destruction of religion and this planets governments. Humans will live in peace and will take in knowledge for a very long time. The universe will be our playground. No one is forcing anyone to believe in a God. It is a personal choice and your life. My problem is that there is so much disinformation being generated about what the bible teaches I am compelled to set things straight with the truth whether people like it or not.
The long form stuff is great, but some more of these shorter to the point episodes showing the ridiculousness are really good for when you don’t have that length of time for the longer ones.
Here is a big contradiction. The three synoptic gospels say that Jesus' "Royal Entry" ended his career. John says it began it. It would be ridiculous for a Christian apologist to claim the Royal Entry occurred twice. John was wrong. A messianic claimant drawing such an allegedly large crowd would be crucified within a week. That event ended Jesus' career just as he knew it would.
@@richman8082 By "ending the career", I mean that it happened at the end of Jesus' public speaking rather than three years earlier at the beginning of his public tour.
is the second even a "contradiction" it's possible that both authors know the same story that she was dead and raised but one knows more than the other, the one who knew less didn't know how Jesus found the girl so he made up a simple sentence just to get jesus to the girl while the other author knew that how jesus found the girl in more detail
The problem is not the status of the girl, but what Jairus said to jesus. Mark 5:23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” Mathew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” In one Jairus thinks his daughter is alive and in the other one that his daughter is dead. That is the contradiction. He is saying two things which are opposite to each other. And the point of the first story is clearly about the dad trying to hurry up to save the girl before she dies, the point of the second story is a dad wanting to revive a girl. They are different.
Funny thing about Jesus is when He said to a multitude of people " unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh, you can have no part of being with me" something like that.... and many left at that time.... I guess Jesus really was not into fair weather type people... You know the kind that kick you to the curb if you say one wrong thing and never give you the benefit of the doubt to stick around and see what your truly about.... There are a lot of people that do this with the bible and with God in general and although I understand how that line of thinking works....... I just am a pretty simple person and Jesus hanging on that cross a bloody mess for me says all He has to say about how He feels about me personally.... This other stuff with people like Bart talking in depth about everything they don't know because they were not there.....They mean nothing to me because not one of them would be laying on a cross a bloody mess having huge nails pounded in their feet after being beat to death for my wicked mistakes.... I love you Jesus! I will always love you...... :)
"Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many contradictions" Quran (4:82)
@@eurechI haven’t read it, but it seems to me the quote does not say that the Quran is without contradictions. It says that it very much HAS contradictions, which means that believers aren’t supposed to take it at face value. They’re supposed to think about it.
Where in the NT does Jesus mention it is a sin to remarry after divorce. Oh, he dones but not one pays any heed to the one and only thing Jesus says about Marriage
In my mind, the most amazing contradiction is as follows. In Matthew 15-16, Jesus and the disciples have the Passover dinner, AFTER which Jesus goes to the garden, is betrayed, and next morning is tortured to death. In John chapter 19 however, it specifically says that Jesus was crucified the morning of the Day of Preparation, which is the morning BEFORE the Passover dinner. So, which was it? Was he crucified before the Passover dinner, or after the Passover dinner? Or maybe it was 2 different Jesus that were crucified and killed? We will never know.
Take a staff or not. Well if this is the best set of three that one of the ‘top’ biblical critics can come up with then we can be very confident in the bible being accurate, certainly well above 95% and without being clearly copied from each other, way more harmonious than any set of eye witness testimonies. I’ve yet to come across a contradiction that hasn’t been reasonably easy to see how both statements are true. Many claimed contradictions are of the nature ‘he went to the concert with John’, ‘there were 5,000 people at the concert,’ ‘look a contradiction were there two of you or 5000!’. This one may be superficially more difficult even though trivial in nature. In a culture which aurally memorised things, stories and instructions would have been repeated, having been a teacher, repeating instructions is important. To me the basic sense is ‘go now, go as you are, don’t go and get extra stuff’ so if you don’t have a staff, just go. What if you have a staff with you, should you go home to leave it behind? No, just go and take your staff with you, so if Jesus said different things to different people in the hearing of different disciples but was still not contradicting his sense of ‘go as you are’. I can’t say this is what was meant or said but there isn’t a real contradictory sense in the passages. I remember doing a chemistry experiment with a class and one pupil pointed out a small difference between what was on the screen and what was on the printed sheets, The previous classes had no problem, the rest of her class had no problem and just followed perfectly what was obvious in the instructions. Well, if that’s all….
Logically flawed thinking. Can a book contain zero contradictions and contain 0% truth? Pointing out contradictions in a book just shows internal inconsistencies. If you're implying "up to 5% of the Bible might be false", how did you determine which parts are true and which parts might be false?
@@MythVisionPodcast I've yet to find any we can definitively confirm, Derek. Thanks for your content, by the way. I'm going to do a few commentaries on your videos (hopefully) with some friends.
@@Dash_023 I figured you would take those conclusions. The Quran has no contradictions either according to Muslims. Feel free to make whatever commentaries you would like on my videos.
@@MythVisionPodcast Thanks Derek. As I've said before, I'd love to interview you sometime. I know my channel is small, but I am trying to ensure truth by examining all sides.
the funny thing about santa clause, being that he arose from the story of St. Nicholas I dont think Santa would even be a concept if it were not for Christ.
Hi Mr. Barth Erhman... Also when I was an evangelist , I did the same mistake... .. i said to the people the Bible doesn't contradict Itself .... And I were Wrong . Have a good day ....
What's wrong with some inaccuracies in testimonies ?. Does that mean the event didn't take place ? Or does it mean different people remember different things and different witnesses will give different accounts. People make mistakes. I would rather believe different testimonies with some inaccuracies than matching word for word testimonies.
It means that the bible is NOT the word of GOD, because GOD is infallible and HIS Word is perfect. Only the Holy Quran has no contradictions or adulterations and all who read it with an open heart and open mind, embrace it holistically....
Okay, i'll add my favorite contradiction: who first met Jesus out of the tomb? And if you want to add some more, the book 101 Myths of the Bible (2000) by Gary Greenberg can quote chapter and verse. No haters, please.
@@Dash_023 thank you for a nice discussion. Depending on the gospel, Mary Magdalen, other Mary, another Mary, Salome, and Joanna met him. Inside the tomb were one young man, men, one angel or 2 angels. Peter either went or he didn't. Some believe that Saul/Josephus or Joseph of Arimathea took him out and that's why the tomb was empty. But i think you are right, the most consistent seems to be at least Mary Magdalen was there, and she either recognized him or she didn't. No problem, what does an Ascended Being look like?
weak arguments. the only contradictions exist in the mind of doubters and unbelievers. besides, are they really contradictions? writers present from their own perspectives, on various situations. it doesn't mean same accounts. every listener to this piece would write their own personal account of what was discussed in the video. something that only a sloppy thinker would want to expect to be the same. 1. it may be possible the writers didn't know who the high priest was at a time. there was no internet, information travelled slowly, is this the best Bart can come up with? 2. if the daughter is sick and then dies vs. dead - what is the result? 3. walking staff - could they hear a different thing when it was said? question is where the writers were. did they hear directly? can bart answer that?
same event.. happening differently? its obviously a CONTRADICTION yes to resolve that the bible should not be INERRANT either mark or matthew's perspective is WRONG about the SAME EVENT they are talking about. 🤪
Ehrman swings and misses with his first contradiction of the NT since the text says Jesus referring to in the time of the high priest Abiathar, and Ehrman himself in his talks of this refers frequently to King David despite the fact that at the time David wasn’t king yet, but Abiathar would have been present at that time and would likely be in training to become high priest and he was known for being more virtuous and devout than Ahimelech, so Ehrman would be wrong about his own critique of the texts since he stated David was king, unless you decide to grant charity to Ehrman’s statement yet then refuse to extend the same charity to Jesus’ statement.
Bert's giant contradictions or laughable at best. These are the biggest contradictions he has with a book that is composed of thousands and thousands of sentences and many authors??? not to mention these contradictions are easily explained, as not being contradictions
Being "in training" and being more virtuous and more devout than Ahimelech doesn't make Abiathar the high priest when he wasn't at the time of the incident Christ is referencing. But keep stretching.
@@Nick-z2o No but given Abiathar was present since he was in training at the time would mean he was present at the time of David taking the offering and if Jesus referrer to him as High Priest Abiathar and he did end up becoming high priest, which clearly he did, wouldn't necessarily be wrong of Jesus to do unless you are similarly going to critique Ehrman for calling David at the time of said incident "King David" despite not being king at the time. So sorry but it's not a stretch like you claim.
@@joshfabisiak4515 Well, at the time of the incident he either was or he wasn't. Why wouldn't Jesus mention the legitimate high priest at the time? Maybe he or the author just made a mistake. In 2008 the great recession occurred. Trump was alive and in the country. Is it more correct to say "it happened in the time of Obama, the president" or "it happened in the time of Trump, the president"? Whose watch was it under?
Cognitive dissonance def. alt. How Mike Lacona deals with contradictions between The Gospels of Mark and Matthew while retaining a position of biblical inerrancy..
it's simple - two different accounts. if someone ask you and I to write accounts of this video - they perhaps would be similar, but different. not clear why this is so puzzling. i could write that bart is not all that smart, whereas you'd write he is. same video - two accounts.
@@mouthpiece200lol weather you're being sarcastic is irrelevant. I completely disagree with any notion that a unverifiable man named Matthew even existed. If he did exist and we have his original works then he most definitely is going to hell for corrupting the words of Jesus. Are you a Christian? Or an Atheist? Btw I'm neither those things.
I don't get why anyone still cares about the Biblical inerrancy issue. The only reason it was ever an issue was as something for Protestants to replace the divinely inspired authority of the Catholic Church with. Since no-one takes the divinely inspired authority of the Catholic Church seriously any more, there is no point in maintaining that the Bible is inerrant, which was obviously a silly idea in the first place.
Here's how the sick daughter story makes sense: One day Jesus is walking with Peter and Peter's friend and a man approaches and begs Jesus to come heal his sick daughter. By the time Jesus arrives he finds the daughter is dead. Jesus rlays hands on her and she rises. Another day Jesus is walking with Mathew and the same man approaches and begs Jesus to raise his dead daughter. Jesus arrives and finds her dead, again. He lays hands on her and she rises. A third day Jesus is walking alone and the same man approaches and begs Jesus to raise his dead daughter. Jesus arrives, finds the daughter dead, again. He lays hands on *her father* and the young woman rises.
Jeremiah 17:5-7 Cursed Man vs. Blessed Man 5 Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. 6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. 7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. Isaiah 26:3, 40:8 The Blessed Man and The Word of our God 3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
When we compare the OT and NW about the sabbath, there's some kind of contradiction. In the OT, sabbath violations brings penalty of death. (Man made for sabbath) in the NT, sabbath is made for man. In the gospels, there are 1vs 2 blinds, 1 vs 2 donkeys, etc. Maybe one of the disciple was always drunk!
Thousands of people around the world who do not want at all that there is One Creator, One Intelligent Mind that has the power to bring everything into existence.
@@BobSmith-lb9ncmaybe YOU missed the whole forest ? He realized the trees in that forest are artificial trees and don’t give you that breath of fresh air.
Hi - not being pedantic but it was the other way round. Mark said to 'take a staff' and Matthew and Luke said dont take a staff according to my NIV bible. Mark 6.8 says 8 These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Matthew 10.10 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, Luke 9.3 3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey-no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt. Does seem a bit odd when its thought that Luke and Mark would have used Mark as a source. ??
What is interesting is that in ehrmans mind all apologists are fundamentalists. But if you were to put ken hamm and dr william lane craig together hamm would say craig takes a more liberal view of things.
I looked into this third example as I was curious to see if there truly was a contradiction on Matthew 10:10 and Mark 6:10 verses. There is two different words used there. The word used in Matthew is the word hypodēmata which supposedly can refer to shoes. The Mark text word used is sandalia which only refers to sandals.
@@MrEVAQ I have looked into many debates trying to discredit the Bible and this one is up there as probably the hardest to explain or understand. Perhaps Matthew meant not to take extra things for your journey as in more than one and just take what you have at that moment. There are some translations that say "staffs" referring to more than one. In Luke 6 “Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God.” In Matthew's account it says “Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Although some will most likely say this too is a contradiction, I believe the context means the same thing in both in my opinion. I believe the context for this particular one being debated is to trust that God will provide for you along the way. I suppose unfortunately this might not be an adequate explanation for some. Either way thanks for your comment in clarifying that for me. Hope you have a good day.
@ 5:54 "it happened twice is of course the stupiest answer a theologian can give. It completely ignore the fact that the main importance of the story was the raising from death of the daughter of Jaïres. and the rest is just unimportant paving the road to the deed itself. That's to say if the story presented by Ehrman is correct. Well it isn't In Mark we are confronted with the daughter who died at the age of twelve, thereby symbolic dead to society. And touches his clothing seeking help getting the help The importance is not the raising of a dead girl, the importance is the banishing/curing of twelve years of uncleanless and death and reintroducing two cases of outcast again into the society through faith. selective quoting is the vice of the apologists, shame on you dr. Ehrman.
It doesnt matter about the interpretation, the fact is that Mark had her dead, and Matt and Luke have her still alive at the point Jesus was asked. That is the point he was making.
@@wandering_circles7487 Nonsense, that is apologetics. They are contradictions, get over it. And there are literally hundreds more. The gospel writers had their own reasons for deliberately changing previous authors' work. They didn't care about contradictions.
Bart didn’t cover the contradiction that I was hoping he would cover. I don’t remember the details so I wanted a refresher on it or at least a passage reference to look up. It is near the end of the gospels, one gospel says that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and another gospel says that the disciples went to Galilee.
Last time I checked, the bible had these accounts about whether or not to take "extra" stuff: Matthew 10:5 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts- no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep." Mark: 6:8 "These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt." Am I to believe a guy with a PhD can't discern between "a staff" and an "extra staff"? The passage is clear: "Pack light. God will take care of you." Its' clear the apostles went out with one staff, one pair of sandals and one shirt and no extra anything. Both verses are in agreement. No need to write a thesis.
My favorite one is all the 4 accounts of Jesus's resurrection. They contradict each other in almost every detail.
Four different writers! read their testimony and it builds a picture that quite easy to understand! The fact that there are variations rather than just four DUPLICATE accounts is MORE credable & honest! It also the way the gospels record the mistakes and wrong attitudesof the very men who wrote the accounts! No, sorry The NT is a TRUE accout! Its backed up by Josephus & other writers who were NOT Christians! Maybe its teachings are not palatable to those who criticize it!
@@kiwihans100 Sure buddy. Tell that to a judge
@@exaucemayunga22 are you athiest now?
@@I_am_T00FAN yes
That's not true!
1:50 1. Mark Chapter 2 Sabbath. Who was the high priest ?
4:05 2. Mark Chapter 5 Jesus raises girl from the dead. In mark the girl wasn’t dead. In Mathew the girl was already dead
8:35 3. Mark- Jesus sends the disciples out with no staff Mathew- Jesus says to take a staff
You might want to go back and read Mark 5 and Matthew 9 again. In both chapters, it is plainly evident that she was dead because in both chapters Jesus said she wasn't dead, she only slept. I hope it isn't rocket science for you to deduce from the fact that they "laughed him to scorn" once he had said that because the people knew the girl was dead. I don't think it is all that much of a mystery to figure out why Jesus asked them why they were making a noise (in Matthew) or weeping (in Mark). It certainly isn't to me. In truth, the so-called church has proven time and time again that it is woefully inadequate to teach the gospel. The result is an ignorant church that continues to teach false doctrines which lead, unfortunately, to many not even being interested in learning the gospel. And sadly, there are many who would profit from that ignorance.
@@derrickpurdy7011 Your point is right on, I can't agree with you more. The scriptures use the term "a sleep in death" and to Jesus Christ the girl was asleep in death. There is a thing called perception that makes us individuals. If I was standing in a room with ten other people and we were told to write what we saw there would be ten different reports. This is evident when on a rescue mission and I have to ask witnesses questions about what they saw. All of them will have a different story and each story is not in itself wrong.
@@derrickpurdy7011 it doesnt matter if she was actually dead, but what jairus told jesus
@@cyc2818 Perhaps you can tell me what Jairus told Jesus.
@@derrickpurdy7011 that her daughter was agonizing (or however you say that in english) in mark, and that she had died in matthew
1:52- abiathar or abimelech?
4:07- jairus daughter
6:16
8:39- take staff or don't take staff?
derek, you ought to be proud of yourself bro, your entire story is incredible by itself, but the fact that you took what you enjoyed and got to the point of communication and coordination with scholarly greats like Dr. Price, Dr. Ehrman, Dr. Carrier, is incredible. Theres a lot to say about you, and it's impressive.
Well Said
I love what you said ❤️👍
derek's a good egg
Ditto 👍💕
Thank you Dr .Bart Ehrman's for bringing the truth to the publics attention. You are Honorable.
Not only Gospel Mark contradicts with Old testament on the high priest. But OT contradicts itself on the same high priest.
Ahimelech was described as the son of Ahitub and father of Abiathar in 1 Samuel 22:20-23, but described as the son of Abiathar in 2 Samuel 8:17
There are tons of such contradictions in the bible. Yet the Christians believe that the bible is the words of God.
Amazing belief!
@xa4445
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book says it's the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics may believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free the religious fools from the chains they revere."
0:25 "The myth--the legend himself--is joining us today". I see what you did there. Great video, by the way! Dr Ehrman is always informative and entertaining. Great energy and huge intellect. We are lucky to have him.
Your contradictions have been answered by many others. I pray for both of you.
@@ihabgabriel4836 So, is the bat a bird or a mammal??!! Because THE BIBLE calls it a bird (and last time I checked, birds DO NOT nurse their newborns ON THEIR OWN MILK!!!).
Y’know, you'd think an inerrant book, which was inspired by your Big Brother in the sky, would KNOW FOR CERTAIN if a bird was a mammal or not, becausehe SUPPOSEDLYcreated them. Y’know, you Apologetics morons can't have your cake and eat it too.
My own favorite NT contradiction:
Romans 9:18 says, God has mercy on those on whom he wants to have mercy, and “hardens” those he wants to harden. 1 Timothy 2:4 says he wants all men to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, i.e., he doesn’t want to “harden” anybody…
Yeah, that’s the kind of “big” contradiction that, as Dr Ehrman says, believers have an easy time satisfying themselves about.
I agree, but the Reformed apologist would say that "all "does not mean every person, but "all" kinds of people. Jews, Gentiles, etc.. The rationalizations are endless.
@@josephpatterson2513 Yes, when I was in seminary, I thought John Piper had the most creative explanation for such contradictory ideas- God has two levels of will. He can will that all be saved AND AT THE SAME TIME harden some to destruction. The thing that drew so many of us to Calvinism was that it took these challenges head on.
I finally figured out that different men responded to events and historical circumstances of their time and place. It is not transcendent truth that we apply today.
the only contradiction is in your mind. these are two different situations, two different writers for specific audience. you are equating as if they were the same. a priest can say two sermons twice in a day on the same topic and they won't match word for word.
You might benefit from understanding what that means. 2 Thessalonian 2:11-12 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." So you might think well there it is, but you would lack context. The context is found in verse 10: "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." The only question is are you going to seek what the Bible actually says or continue to listen to a man who doesn't know what it says?
@@derrickpurdy7011 what does this have to do with this conversation?
I have a Great Respect for Bart. I discovered him about 3 years ago.
He confirmed EVERYTHING I was thinking about the Bible, etc..
Former Catholic.
What did he confirm? I am really interested - I am a christian and I have no idea why people take this guy seriously.
@@TheAbrahamMichaels there is No God. That's what he confirmed.
@@danscalone8110 How did he do it? Did he do it in this video?
@@TheAbrahamMichaels previous lectures and debates.
I live by the same standard he does "As long as Babies and Children SUFFER...there is No God"
I worked in Corrections for years. I've seen and read the BRUTALITY visited up Babies and Children. Where was God to protect them? Where were these Mighty Angels, St. MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL in particular?
@Dan Scalone but this is his/your opinion - you said that he confirmed everything you were thinking about the bible.
what did he confirm?
Love it, great chat as always
If the Bible is the perfect word of God, with no contradictions or apparent contradictions, we wouldn’t need apologetics 😏
Well, apologetics is more about defending the questionable actions or doctrines presented in the bible than harmonising its contradictions - for example defending Gods action of 'empowering' Samson to murder 30 men so he can steal all their clothes to pay off a bet he'd just lost! (and one defence that's been offered for Samson's horrific, God endorsed, method of solving his gambling dues is that the 30 men he killed were _enemies_ of God, so the killings not only wiped out Samson's debt they also enabled God to provoke a war with the enemy nation the murdered men belonged to...............I'll let _you_ decide whether or not you think this is justifiable!)
@@cardcounter21 Of course it’s justifiable, God is always right no matter what and has a plan we can’t comprehend. That’s why he’s God, you can’t argue with that.
@@arnoldjohnson3317 are you being facetious?
@@dustinellerbe4125 The sad part is that is what is taught and believed.
If the theory of evolution is without contradictions and makes sense, we wouldn't need teachers to explain the theory ;-)
"It happened twice" - the apologist who said that is a genius! God created the world twice, he sent the flood twice, Jesus was born twice, he died four times on the cross, etc. This is not just an unbeatable argument, it also helps understand why there are two gods and two Jesuses in the Bible. Brilliant!
And he's coming back, right? Third time's the charm.
@@bozo5632 Any time now...any time...now...waiting...waiting...still waiting....
Yeah.
@@bozo5632 Yes, the second coming has already happened and is going to happen!
@@Nocturnalux I guess "LIFE is what happens" when you are waiting for the return of JC.... There is a WHOLE Halloween special devoted to Linus, who spends Halloween night waiting for "the Great Pumpkin" to arise from (his MOST sincere) pumpkin patch.
Every time I watch THAT Peanuts special, I am desperately hoping that "The Great Pumpkin" will finally appear... :( ... but there is ALWAYS next year....
🎃🎁🍕🤞
To the apologists who agree with “It happened twice,” that still leaves an error: on the second occasion someone would have commented that this had happened previously. The simplest explanation is that the author of the second version was trying to replace the first version.
And, great job, @Lauter Unvollkommenheit on extending the logic of the apologist.
Thanks for all your work Derek, these interviews are always fascinating and helpful!
Thank you, Bart, for sharing your vast knowledge with us. I own much of what you've written, and I've learned SO MUCH from you.
And thank you, Derek, for your boundless energy and commitment to this channel.
Have you heard the good news of the Holy Dopamine Ghost via Placebo Faith?
"When someone's a fundamentalist the big ones don't bother you, it's the little ones" -- so true. When I was a rigid fundamentalist it was the numerical contradictions that really ate away at me, or the different robe color at the crucifixion. These are theologically inert contradictions, but eventually broke open the dam and plunged into me mythicism for a little while. It's practically a shorter list of things that are consistent in the NT than not.
I've always explained my admittance that the Bible is not divinely inspired but humanly- derived as "death by a thousand cuts". It is never just one thing. One contradiction or problem could not account for so many people believing something that is not ultimately true (as I did for 4 decades). It starts with Genesis 1:1- El (Elohim) is the same name as the ancient Canaanite god (what? The One True God can't identify himself with a unique name if he wishes to show this book is my word?) The flood stories we now KNOW are at least 1,000 years older than the Noah story and have elements found in the Genesis version...and on and on and on...
What did it for me was a contradiction I had to discover for myself when I was working on a PhD in biblical theology. The census in Luke 2 could not have occurred under Quirinius was governor as Luke takes pains to name him. To really believe that an intentional god was behind all of this history- then the story of the birth of Jesus had to happen "when times were fulfilled". In other words, the reason God supposedly "gave us his word" was to show us HE has been in control of history- that none of this is random but he is controlling all events. I went to seminary to prove such things. And yet, an obvious error proven by many sources, we now know the years that Quirinius was governor. God can't inspire Luke to at least get the name of the governor right? When I read the lengths that scholars go to explain this away- it just answered the one question "If the Bible really was man-made and Christianity was not true but so many still believed it was- what would it look like?
This is what it would look like.
Yours is a very sad story. Some pity, not much. Bible literalists are a pain in the ass...
You will answer to God
@@lightninja4795 bing bong
"It happened twice!" technically works but it's so beautifully absurd.
It could also be used to explain away many other contradictions...maybe the resurrection happened 4 times too? 😉
Seems to work out nicely. Or maybe the gospel authors were just living in the multiverse our meek minds are too feeble to grasp.
"Jesus help my daughter died again"
"MEDAMNIT JAIRUS CAN'T YOU KEEP HER ALIVE FOR 10 MINUTES???"
1. Why did the women go to the tomb?
2. Who/what did they encounter there?
3. How did the tomb become opened?
4. What did the women see in the tomb?
5. What were the women instructed to do?
6. What did they do upon leaving there?
7. Did Jesus appear to these same women?
8. Did Jesus meet the disciples in Galilee?
9. Did Jesus ascend bodily into Heaven?
10. What were Jesus’ last words on Earth?
His last words :"i ll be back"
My personal favorite for the holidays is how did John the Baptist survive Herod's ordering the murders of all the tiny kids. He's only 6 months older, but they didn't flee the carnage.
@Yvonne except it never happened and is a copy of Moses’ life in OT
@@AnnhilateTheNihilist And Luke has the family go straight to jerusalem on the 8th day after the birth, then directly back to Nazareth to live. Don't know how they fitted a couple of years in Eqypt in there.
Derek’s like the Led Zeppelin of religious mythology, delivering hit after hit.
It's amazing how much fun Dr. Ehrman's stories are
Great video! Thanks!
I was in a cult for years and had my Bible beside me all the time, I also believed that this book has no mistakes but after watching one of our cult leader telling to the public we may not be the only spokesman of this book, my view changed completely about this book! My research started and your videos are so helpful to let me realize the real truth about this book. Thanks for this interview which gave me another super knowledge of the contradictions that I didn’t even noticed.
That’s it? Discrepancies? You didn’t think it was too fantastic? Didn’t think this Trinity thing is not working for me? Or maybe G-d sounds like he’s nuts 🥜? This should be followed by hmmm, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Ah, poor humans, confronted by phenomenon & possibly an encounter with a divine being they wrote it down to the best of their Bronze Age understanding. Sad, sad, sad.
I find that fascinated: it is like folk don't notice what they are reading
Didn't the talking snake, virgin birth ever seen a tad odd to you. I mean if someone told you that it would seem a bit odd?
There is no contradiction guys. Too bad, all the writers of the Bible are not here to answer all your questions, but you can always look for answer if you know how to look and unprejudiced. NITPICKING IS A BAD THING - you know the word, right.
1. Since Jesus mentions Abiathar as the “high priest” in Mark 2:26, but Ahimelech is mentioned as the “priest” in 1 Samuel 21:1, it is possible that they were different priests. On the other hand, in second Samuel 8:17, Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar, but in 1 Samuel 23:6, Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech. I did not find any evidence of a copyist error. Therefore, it is possible that both men shared each other’s names. In other words, both men had two names as appears to be the case in 2 Sam. 8:17 where Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar, but in 1 Sam. 23:6, Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech. This is supported by the fact that Moses’ father-in-law is called Reuel in Ex. 2:18, yet in Exodus 3:1, it is Jethro. Uzziah is the father of Jotham in Matt. 1:9. But in 1 Chronicles 3:12, his name is Azariah. Also, Jotham’s father was known as Azariah in 2 Kings 15:7 and Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:32
2. Here is how things may have taken place. When Jairus left his house, his daughter was at the point of death; so he may have thought that by the time he was with Jesus, she quite possibly had already died. Indeed, by the time he arrived, she had passed away, as confirmed by the messenger who brought the account of her death before Jesus came to the house.
That Jairus should appeal to Christ on this occasion is very remarkable considering that Jewish leaders were often the people most averse to Jesus. It is also striking that he should fall down and worship Jesus, He behaved with profound respect toward Him, as to a great teacher, known healer, and prophet. That very act of Jairus coming to Jesus when his child was past all hope of recovery, when he had reason to believe she was actually dead, as she indeed now was, affirms that he really believed that if Christ would come to his house and lay his hand upon his daughter, she would certainly be restored to life again.
Perhaps Jairus, being intimately familiar with the Torah, had in mind Elijah and Elisha, whom God had given the power of being able to resurrect the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37), in both instances using physical contact with the recently deceased. Perhaps he had heard of Christ’s healing powers and dared hope they would be sufficient to the task. Luke 8:43-48 records that while Jairus was walking with Him, Jesus healed a woman with a blood issue. Jairus therefore was an eyewitness to the power of Christ even before they reached his house. In any event, the passages do not contradict each other, but just show the different focus each Gospel writer emphasized. Whether it was through just recording part of the event, or perhaps the phrases “even now dead” or “just died” meaning “imminently near death,” all three Gospel accounts bring out a slightly different emphasis. Their main point is unmistakable: Jesus had power to raise the dead as the son of God.
3. In these parallel passages, Jesus issues an urgent command to His 12 students-go and preach the immediacy of the kingdom of heaven to your Jewish brethren. Our English translations contain an apparent discrepancy in what Jesus told them to take with them-were they to take a staff or not? The issue can be cleared up studying the Greek words used for provide or take in the original manuscripts.
The sense of Matthew’s provide (ktaomai) is “to get or acquire.” In this passage, Jesus seems to urge His disciples to go now, don’t take the time to find another staff, just take what you have and go. He promised that the disciples would be provided for, so they didn’t need to make elaborate preparation.
Mark uses a word with a broader meaning (airo), which indicates “lift or take up.” In this passage, Mark seems to convey the idea that Jesus wanted the disciples to take what they already have and go. Those who already had a staff were to take it but were not to acquire another staff. In the same vein, they should wear the sandals they had on but weren’t to find an additional pair. They were to wear the tunic they already had on but weren’t to get another.
Although using the same word for take as Mark, Luke’s passage conveys the same sense as Matthew’s. (Some scholars suggest that Luke probably gained his information mostly from Matthew’s book and didn’t have access to the book written by Mark.) Luke also conveys the idea that the disciples were to depart quickly and without taking lots of “things” with them. They needed to focus on preaching the kingdom of heaven and were to trust the Lord to provide for their needs.
Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?
Bart has such a contagious laugh!!
You know how we know about all the contradictions and bad stuff of religions? Because each faction(religion) reads each others stuff, performs extensive linguistic, comparative mythological, and archaeological studies of each others religions to disprove one another. They've been at each others throats for the beginning of religion. And so, thanks for the data Bart Ehrman!
Jehovah's Witnesses do not. Their interest is to teach what the bible teaches in bringing the good news of God's kingdom not to one up other religions. Anyone who knows the truth will see the misinformation promoted by the worlds religious organizations. Our only purpose for familiarizing ourselves of different religions is to be a better teacher. We talk to people of all faiths and beliefs and is helpful to understand them. It is about saving lives.
@@ronhansen8471 Saving lives? JW's official policy of making parents shun and disown their children if they break away from the JW organization leads to misery for both parents and children, and sometimes causes kids to commit suicide! Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult.
I am a Christian, but this is really Fun!
Bart is Brilliant
Listen to this. And see how lame the supposed three (3) top contradictions are. Top 3!
Even the Bible acknowledges these types of errors could occur: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." (Revelation 22: 18, 19)
That last contradiction and story is so crazy to me. Fundamentalism has melted some people’s brains. It’s okay. You can still believe in god and also believe that the Bible has some mistakes. I promise you won’t explode.
Hey, I'm as enthusiastic as anyone about a good Biblical contradiction, but the whole Ahimelech/Abiathar business is not a contradiction. There were clearly multiple priests during Saul's reign - 1 Samuel 22:18 mentions "priests". The father/son team of Ahimelech and Abiathar were both among them. 1 Samuel 21:1 calls Ahimelech a priest; and 1 Samuel 23:9 calls Abiathar a priest. Now in Mark 2:26, Jesus describes the shewbread incident as occurring in "the days of Abiathar the High Priest". Obviously, the incident occurred in the days of Abiathar - 1 Samuel makes this abundantly clear. No contradiction, and no need for 30 pages of analysis to prove this.
Another great show Derek! Dr. Ehrman is always interesting.
Maybe the original instructions were not to take a 2nd staff in case the first one broke similar to how Matthew's gospel says not to take a 2nd coat. One staff would be the bare minimum so when Mark's account said not to take a staff, it may have been implied (2nd staff) to his readers but expounded upon by Matthew for clarity.
It's usually surprising to me that people can believe the Bible is inerrant. I'm a Christian, I do not think the Bible contains no mistakes at all. And it does not matter if the Bible contains mistakes here and there. The thing is, most of the things we Christians believe do not rely in any way on whether or not these contradictions can be resolved or not. I have yet to see contradictions that even when granted, changes the doctrines of Christianity, like the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins, or the resurrection of Jesus. If a few details differ between the accounts in the Gospels then I think that's evidence for the fact that these are based on eyewitness testimony. Because contradictions are /exactly/ what we would expect if the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses. An example of this is how the Titanic sank. Eyewitness reports report two contradictory accounts that we're unable to reconcile; namely reports that the Titanic sank as a whole, and reports that the Titanic broke in two before sinking. Now how on earth would you use these eyewitness reports to argue that the Titanic never sank? Because that is the type of arguments atheists use when they find a contradiction in the Bible. It's absolutely ridiculous reasoning.
Yes, and whether President Kennedy was in a two-row car or a three-row car, and there are pictures of both. We can't say he wasn't shot that day in Dallas, even though the reports are VERY conflicting on how it happened, who did it, etc.
The contradictions that were devastating to my evangelical understanding of Christianity was in comparing Jesus’ view of the criteria for salvation in the Synoptics with Jesus’ view in n John, and Paul’s view in Romans/Galatians, and James. Then there’s the whole Arminian/Calvinisitic/Universal reconciliation trilemma, then there’s the eternal conscious torment vs. conditionalism vs. universal reconciliation vs. mortality views defended by various authors. Then there’s the problem of whether Christians ought to be Torah and observant, various failed prophecies, various messianic prophecies Jesus failed to fulfil, the failed prophecy of Jesus that “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (unless you’re Preterist). Paul of course expected the end to be very soon, likewise the author of Revelation. Then you have Paul’s terrible exegesis of the OT in Galatians 3, complete bastardisation of Habakkuk 2:2-4, as well as Matthew’s rather terrible use of OT “prophecies” applied to Jesus…
@@stephencraig247 Hmm, with all those discussions about the meaning of Jesus' words and prophesies and how salvation works etcetera, all interesting theological topics, food for many discussions to come, why did those discussions convince you that Jesus never rose from the dead? The thing is, even if Paul made theological errors in Galatians, even if the theology differs irreconcilably, none of this means Jesus didn't rise from the dead. All of those things could simply mean that the people who saw Jesus misunderstood the meaning of the resurrection but still saw a risen Jesus. I'm not saying that this is indeed the case, but I'm trying to see how these theological discussions would lead to doubting the resurrection. Because I see no clear connection between those discussions and whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. And neither would all of those discussing convince me that Jesus never rose from the dead. It may convince me that some authors of the NT didn't interpret the resurrection correctly, but it would not lead me to conclude that the resurrection never happened.
1:50 1. Mark Chapter 2 Sabbath. Who was the high priest ? - There could be two high priests; "in the days of" doesn't necessarily mean during the person's time in the office, it could mean while a person is alive.
LOLOLOL SO Jairus’ daughter is the Biblical equivalent of Schroedinger’s cat, an alive/dead daughter. Read
in Mark? She’s alive when the dad goes to Jesus. Read in Matthew? She was already dead.
This was great!!
Dr. Bart is a brilliant man who is well spoken. His sense of humor is great.
She was sleeping in both stories:
Mark 5:39 And after entering, He said to them, “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child has not died, but is asleep.”
Matthew 9:24 He said, “Leave; for the girl has not died, but is asleep.” And they began laughing at Him.
So Jesus isn’t a miracle worker, he just woke her up lol.
And, that doesn’t really explain why her father thought she was dead already in one story and sick in the other.
This is definitely stupid. Two people are describing a car accident. They are definitely going to remember different details. The story is the same on general details. Girl sick.Girl dying. Jesus say asleep and wakes up girl. What exactly is the problem here?
@@cheryldeboissiere1851 kinda sloppy of god to allow those kinds of contradictions though. And it makes you wonder what other things were misremembered.
The problem is not the status of the girl, but what Jairus said to jesus.
Mark 5:23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.”
Mathew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”
In one Jairus thinks his daughter is alive and in the other one that his daughter is dead. That is the contradiction. He is saying two things which are opposite to each other.
This is the channel you need when your sinfulness no longer wants Jesus to be Truth.
🤦🏿♂️😅
Lol you're crazy
@@timcarbone007 hell yeah lol
John's day of the crucifixion is in contradiction with the sinoptics.
My favorite contradiction is the salvation message. The most basic teaching is so contradictory. Are Christians saved by faith alone? By faith and repentance? Faith and baptism? By works alone?
More great stuff from a great channel. Thank you
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌌 *Understanding the Universe*
- Neil deGrasse Tyson quantifies our knowledge about the universe, highlighting the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy.
- Only 4% of the universe is explained by known forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces.
- The expansion of knowledge leads to an expanding perimeter of ignorance, driving the pursuit of unanswered questions in science.
02:17 🤔 *Neil's Perspective on Atheism*
- Neil clarifies that he doesn't consider himself an atheist, citing an example involving the Space Shuttle and expressing openness to unknowns.
- Discusses the historical pattern of science replacing supernatural explanations, emphasizing the importance of seeking scientific understanding first.
04:12 🌱 *Veganism and Plant-Based Eating*
- Neil engages in a discussion about veganism, pointing out contradictions and highlighting the cosmic perspective on consuming plants.
- Explores the logical end of debates, questioning the focus on larger animals by some vegans and introducing a humorous cosmic viewpoint.
06:45 🧔 *The Iconic Mustache*
- Piers discusses Neil's famous mustache, drawing parallels with other historical scientists who had iconic facial hair.
- Neil reflects on his mustache, stating he has never shaved it, and humorously comments on the cosmic perspective of a plant-based alien observing Earth's eating habits.
08:37 🍽️ *Dinner with a Scientist*
- Neil expresses a desire to have dinner with Isaac Newton and imagines the challenges of explaining modern concepts to him.
- Reveals a preference for Newton's clean-shaven look, debunking the myth of his iconic curly hair.
- The conversation ends with praise for Neil's ability to make science engaging and a mention of his book "To Infinity and Beyond."
Made with HARPA AI
St Ehrman is engaging, erudite and passionate. He convinced me of the mythicist case. How? He was doing a question and answer and someone asked him about Jesus working with his dad as a carpenter. He took the time to reflect.. you could feel his mind whirring tto maintain the historicity... it just became absurd.
DR Ehrman..
I don't get it. Why did Jesus working as a carpenter with his dad stump Ehrman and make you adopt a position of mythicism?
@@Apanblod it was that he was so earnest and detailed in his answer when there is hardly anything to consider
Ehrman wrote a book defending his view of a historical Jesus though, and it's the consensus for very good reasons. I suggest you read his book before assuming Jesus did not exist. And just because Ehrman cannot explain every single question about the Bible (there are millions) doesn't mean Jesus did not exist.
Amazing job boss
One could argue the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) and the New Testament (NT) contradictions ad infinitum - tho’ several can (at least in the gospel sayings & narratives) be ‘clean’d up’ by positing errors in translation (say, in the case of the Gospels in the canonical NT) from an oral Aramaic tradition (from say 36 CE to c. 50 CE) to when it was eventually translated (orally) into Greek (c. 50-72 CE) then to when the gospel traditions were finally set down in writing following the death of most of the original Aramaic speaking followers of ‘Iesous’ during the 1st Fail’d Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE)- the Jairus’ daughter pericopes (‘a man who was the chief scribe in their local synagogue’) in Mark & in Matthew do seem contradictory on the surface - but cf. the Aramaic phrase ‘Le maveto’ (‘at the point of death’ see Mark 5:23) might well have been badly translated into Greek (‘idi nekros’) perhaps whilst still in the oral stage as ‘already dead’ -
Note that in Mark’s gospel it has a Greek speaking ‘ho Iesous’ pronouncing ‘she is not dead but sleeping’ (= ‘in a deep coma’ ? see Mark 5:39 and this phrase is repeated in Matthew 9:24) -
One might posit that the confusion of ‘point of death’ and ‘already dead’ may also be Matthew’s desire to make the story ‘more miraculous’ or a storytelling device where a messenger relays ‘a false message which the messenger himself believes to be the truth’- only later to be found out in the story that the messenger was mistaken…
There are far more glaring literary contradictions say between ‘Matthew’ (whoever he was…) and the other Greek canonical gospels (read Matthew’s glaringly fake 14 Toledoth ‘generational lists’ in chapter 1 (bas’d on the gemmatria DVD for David 4+6+4 = 14) as compar’d to ‘Luke’s genealogical Daviddic recension (whoever he was…) in his wholly contradictory birth narrative (see the Lukan list in chapter 3:23ff…)
When examining these contradictory recensions between gospel narratives (over 100 can be nam’d) one always has to bear in mind the fact that these pericopes were transmitted orally at first in Aramaic then in Greek during preaching tours ‘to the lost sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro’el scatter’d amongst the Gentiles (leGoyyim, ‘amongst the nations’) before they were finally set in writing after the original Apostoloi began to die off before during & after the War of 66 CE which according to Josephus wip’d out nearly 1 million Judaean Aramaic speakers … leaving virtually only Greek, Latin & Coptic speaking Jews in the greater Diaspora within the Roman Empire in the 1st century CE…
I'll have to agree with Mr. Flip. It seems very likely everything was in Greek "from scratch". There is no need for the story to have originated in Aramaic lands. In fact its easier to conjure up fiction if its written with some distance from the place in the setting. Far away from Israel it becomes impossible to verify if this Jesus fellow and his band actually existed - much easier for a myth to spread. If you want to start a myth, don't set it in my hometown, because I will fact check you. :D
@@flipflopski2951 Exactly. If you are going to "posit" you need to back that up with evidence, or it sounds like apologetics.
My biggest issue/contradiction: A supposedly loving God will supposedly send you to hell for all eternity simply because you misunderstand the true nature of reality (according to Christianity), i.e., you don't believe in Jesus as your personal savior.
We're fallible humans born into a very mysterious reality, who lack the perspective and pertinent information to grasp what is really going on here. A loving god would understand this and not impose eternal punishment on a human being who has a very limited conception of this place.
Imagine all the confused people in Hell, when asked the following question: "What are you in for?"
"I thought Hinduism was the one and only truth. That's the culture I was born into."
"For me it was Islam"
"I thought all religion was stupid."
"I for sure thought it was Scientology."
LOLOL "Everyone knew that one was BS."
Love Bart! Learn so much from historians.
Amazing content, thank you
I'm so grateful for the wonderful synergy from having different guests!
Also, in many ways this is a
Process of Thinking About
HOW to Think!!!
There is so much Rich History and Great Stories in the Ancient Texts!!
I think the great FLAW in Christianity is the Emphasis on Dogmatic Beliefs! DO NOT QUESTION or Dare Think for Yourself
When people have a distorted opinion of the truth along with religious bias they are bound to get the wrong answers. Christendom does teach dogmas with the Catholic church leading the pack. How can anyone think for themselves when they are brain washed by the church? Looking for flaws in God's word the bible as a way to reject the truth is not the answer. In my opinion the flaw is people not understanding what the bible teaches. I point my finger straight at the religious leaders for peoples bible ignorance.
@@ronhansen8471 Ron, WHY the obsession with Anachronistic Texts?
Written as Stories and Folklore to create Common Culture and help with Better Living with Fellow Humans?
WHY Cannot we create a more appropriately contemporary Common Culture to help us live with 21st Century and SAVE The Planet???
Theocracies based on SUPERIOR Beings Superimposing THEIR Version of Right vs Wrong will KILL US and DESTROY the PLANET...isn't that what Your BOOK Teaches???
Isn't it about Time we Face REALITY???
@@TD-np6ze WHY the obsession with Anachronistic Texts? Written as Stories and Folklore to create Common Culture and help with Better Living with Fellow Humans? WHY Cannot we create a more appropriately contemporary Common Culture to help us live with 21st Century and SAVE The Planet??? Theocracies based on SUPERIOR Beings Superimposing THEIR Version of Right vs Wrong will KILL US and DESTROY the PLANET...isn't that what Your BOOK Teaches??? Isn't it about Time we Face REALITY???
Ron's response: The Hebrew scriptures has a great deal of information that applies to our day and for our benefit. if nothing else it has practical guidance on how to live and bring up children. BUt it seems that people want to read all the gory things of the bible with no understanding. People anymore have a distorted understanding and religious leaders who are ultimately responsible do not teach the truth of God's word the bible. They would rather tickle the ears of their subjects. The bible is all about how we can save the planet and survive what is coming. The planet will not be destroyed and mans future is to live forever under God's kingdom. This will include most of the people that have lived and died and those today who survive the destruction of religion and this planets governments. Humans will live in peace and will take in knowledge for a very long time. The universe will be our playground. No one is forcing anyone to believe in a God. It is a personal choice and your life. My problem is that there is so much disinformation being generated about what the bible teaches I am compelled to set things straight with the truth whether people like it or not.
how many high priests did jesus testify to on the night before his death? he's a phd can't seem to put two and two together
The long form stuff is great, but some more of these shorter to the point episodes showing the ridiculousness are really good for when you don’t have that length of time for the longer ones.
Just what I was looking for
Here is a big contradiction. The three synoptic gospels say that Jesus' "Royal Entry" ended his career. John says it began it. It would be ridiculous for a Christian apologist to claim the Royal Entry occurred twice. John was wrong. A messianic claimant drawing such an allegedly large crowd would be crucified within a week. That event ended Jesus' career just as he knew it would.
What do you mean by ending the career?
@@richman8082 By "ending the career", I mean that it happened at the end of Jesus' public speaking rather than three years earlier at the beginning of his public tour.
Good thing we have these super wise men to correct Gods word.
It must have been a quantum staff. Both there and not there at the same time.
is the second even a "contradiction" it's possible that both authors know the same story that she was dead and raised but one knows more than the other, the one who knew less didn't know how Jesus found the girl so he made up a simple sentence just to get jesus to the girl while the other author knew that how jesus found the girl in more detail
The problem is not the status of the girl, but what Jairus said to jesus.
Mark 5:23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.”
Mathew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”
In one Jairus thinks his daughter is alive and in the other one that his daughter is dead. That is the contradiction. He is saying two things which are opposite to each other. And the point of the first story is clearly about the dad trying to hurry up to save the girl before she dies, the point of the second story is a dad wanting to revive a girl. They are different.
We Are MythVision!
Funny thing about Jesus is when He said to a multitude of people " unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh, you can have no part of being with me" something like that.... and many left at that time.... I guess Jesus really was not into fair weather type people... You know the kind that kick you to the curb if you say one wrong thing and never give you the benefit of the doubt to stick around and see what your truly about.... There are a lot of people that do this with the bible and with God in general and although I understand how that line of thinking works....... I just am a pretty simple person and Jesus hanging on that cross a bloody mess for me says all He has to say about how He feels about me personally.... This other stuff with people like Bart talking in depth about everything they don't know because they were not there.....They mean nothing to me because not one of them would be laying on a cross a bloody mess having huge nails pounded in their feet after being beat to death for my wicked mistakes.... I love you Jesus! I will always love you...... :)
"Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many contradictions" Quran (4:82)
There are many books without contradictions. The Quran is not special. Find better arguments, you're getting old!
@@eurechI think that’s quite irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the Quran is the only religious book without contradictions.
😂😂 lol wtf man you joking now @@restassured.3932
Quran is the one with the most contradictions xd
@@eurechI haven’t read it, but it seems to me the quote does not say that the Quran is without contradictions. It says that it very much HAS contradictions, which means that believers aren’t supposed to take it at face value. They’re supposed to think about it.
Ah, the wonders of ad hoc hypothesis. Like magic! :)
Mike Licona should take up promoting internet investment and romance scams. The dude is a complete tool.
Where does Jesus, in the bible say that we should read the New Testament?
Where in the NT does Jesus mention it is a sin to remarry after divorce.
Oh, he dones but not one pays any heed to the one and only thing Jesus says about Marriage
In my mind, the most amazing contradiction is as follows. In Matthew 15-16, Jesus and the disciples have the Passover dinner, AFTER which Jesus goes to the garden, is betrayed, and next morning is tortured to death. In John chapter 19 however, it specifically says that Jesus was crucified the morning of the Day of Preparation, which is the morning BEFORE the Passover dinner. So, which was it? Was he crucified before the Passover dinner, or after the Passover dinner? Or maybe it was 2 different Jesus that were crucified and killed? We will never know.
I was told by a desperate christian that there are sometimes 2 passovers in the year.
Interesting thx!
Take a staff or not.
Well if this is the best set of three that one of the ‘top’ biblical critics can come up with then we can be very confident in the bible being accurate, certainly well above 95% and without being clearly copied from each other, way more harmonious than any set of eye witness testimonies. I’ve yet to come across a contradiction that hasn’t been reasonably easy to see how both statements are true. Many claimed contradictions are of the nature ‘he went to the concert with John’, ‘there were 5,000 people at the concert,’ ‘look a contradiction were there two of you or 5000!’.
This one may be superficially more difficult even though trivial in nature. In a culture which aurally memorised things, stories and instructions would have been repeated, having been a teacher, repeating instructions is important. To me the basic sense is ‘go now, go as you are, don’t go and get extra stuff’ so if you don’t have a staff, just go. What if you have a staff with you, should you go home to leave it behind? No, just go and take your staff with you, so if Jesus said different things to different people in the hearing of different disciples but was still not contradicting his sense of ‘go as you are’. I can’t say this is what was meant or said but there isn’t a real contradictory sense in the passages. I remember doing a chemistry experiment with a class and one pupil pointed out a small difference between what was on the screen and what was on the printed sheets, The previous classes had no problem, the rest of her class had no problem and just followed perfectly what was obvious in the instructions.
Well, if that’s all….
Logically flawed thinking.
Can a book contain zero contradictions and contain 0% truth?
Pointing out contradictions in a book just shows internal inconsistencies.
If you're implying "up to 5% of the Bible might be false", how did you determine which parts are true and which parts might be false?
I don't find these three "contradictions" to be contradictions. One has to check one's assumptions.
You don't find any contradictions anywhere im assuming.
@@MythVisionPodcast I've yet to find any we can definitively confirm, Derek. Thanks for your content, by the way. I'm going to do a few commentaries on your videos (hopefully) with some friends.
@@Dash_023 I figured you would take those conclusions. The Quran has no contradictions either according to Muslims.
Feel free to make whatever commentaries you would like on my videos.
@@MythVisionPodcast Thanks Derek. As I've said before, I'd love to interview you sometime. I know my channel is small, but I am trying to ensure truth by examining all sides.
Prophecies + contradictions = prophedictions
🤣🤣good one mate
@@jhalcricket2376
👍
Being an armchair soldier for human rights, is a full-time job. I got to take them where I can get them.😉
the funny thing about santa clause, being that he arose from the story of St. Nicholas I dont think Santa would even be a concept if it were not for Christ.
Hi Mr. Barth Erhman... Also when I was an evangelist , I did the same mistake... .. i said to the people the Bible doesn't contradict Itself .... And I were Wrong . Have a good day ....
Men of little faith who don't understand what they read so their faith come crashing down when a critic misinterpret the Bible.
Yes, best to be like most Christians and don't read the Bible. @@edward1412
What's wrong with some inaccuracies in testimonies ?. Does that mean the event didn't take place ? Or does it mean different people remember different things and different witnesses will give different accounts. People make mistakes. I would rather believe different testimonies with some inaccuracies than matching word for word testimonies.
Agreed, that would be collusion...
It means that the bible is NOT the word of GOD, because GOD is infallible and HIS Word is perfect. Only the Holy Quran has no contradictions or adulterations and all who read it with an open heart and open mind, embrace it holistically....
Brilliant - Ehrman is so entertaining.
The conversation about the Lord of the Sabbath happens on in two different places on in the book of Luke
Okay, i'll add my favorite contradiction: who first met Jesus out of the tomb? And if you want to add some more, the book 101 Myths of the Bible (2000) by Gary Greenberg can quote chapter and verse. No haters, please.
Mary Magdalene
@@Dash_023 thank you for a nice discussion. Depending on the gospel, Mary Magdalen, other Mary, another Mary, Salome, and Joanna met him. Inside the tomb were one young man, men, one angel or 2 angels. Peter either went or he didn't. Some believe that Saul/Josephus or Joseph of Arimathea took him out and that's why the tomb was empty. But i think you are right, the most consistent seems to be at least Mary Magdalen was there, and she either recognized him or she didn't. No problem, what does an Ascended Being look like?
Go check out the recent interview between Dr. Ehrman and Muhammad Hijab!
weak arguments. the only contradictions exist in the mind of doubters and unbelievers. besides, are they really contradictions? writers present from their own perspectives, on various situations. it doesn't mean same accounts. every listener to this piece would write their own personal account of what was discussed in the video. something that only a sloppy thinker would want to expect to be the same.
1. it may be possible the writers didn't know who the high priest was at a time. there was no internet, information travelled slowly, is this the best Bart can come up with?
2. if the daughter is sick and then dies vs. dead - what is the result?
3. walking staff - could they hear a different thing when it was said? question is where the writers were. did they hear directly? can bart answer that?
@@greg5023 obviously you are jaded. why?
@@greg5023 you are silly. that's not an argument.
same event.. happening differently? its obviously a CONTRADICTION yes to resolve that the bible should not be INERRANT either mark or matthew's perspective is WRONG about the SAME EVENT they are talking about. 🤪
The DENIAL is astounding! 😆
@@terminusadquem6981 denial of what?
Ehrman swings and misses with his first contradiction of the NT since the text says Jesus referring to in the time of the high priest Abiathar, and Ehrman himself in his talks of this refers frequently to King David despite the fact that at the time David wasn’t king yet, but Abiathar would have been present at that time and would likely be in training to become high priest and he was known for being more virtuous and devout than Ahimelech, so Ehrman would be wrong about his own critique of the texts since he stated David was king, unless you decide to grant charity to Ehrman’s statement yet then refuse to extend the same charity to Jesus’ statement.
Bert's giant contradictions or laughable at best. These are the biggest contradictions he has with a book that is composed of thousands and thousands of sentences and many authors??? not to mention these contradictions are easily explained, as not being contradictions
@@JohnnyLang-dw8ll Lol-Inerencey delusional's unite. You are a deluded fool...
Being "in training" and being more virtuous and more devout than Ahimelech doesn't make Abiathar the high priest when he wasn't at the time of the incident Christ is referencing. But keep stretching.
@@Nick-z2o No but given Abiathar was present since he was in training at the time would mean he was present at the time of David taking the offering and if Jesus referrer to him as High Priest Abiathar and he did end up becoming high priest, which clearly he did, wouldn't necessarily be wrong of Jesus to do unless you are similarly going to critique Ehrman for calling David at the time of said incident "King David" despite not being king at the time. So sorry but it's not a stretch like you claim.
@@joshfabisiak4515 Well, at the time of the incident he either was or he wasn't. Why wouldn't Jesus mention the legitimate high priest at the time? Maybe he or the author just made a mistake.
In 2008 the great recession occurred. Trump was alive and in the country. Is it more correct to say "it happened in the time of Obama, the president" or "it happened in the time of Trump, the president"? Whose watch was it under?
Cognitive dissonance def. alt. How Mike Lacona deals with contradictions between The Gospels of Mark and Matthew while retaining a position of biblical inerrancy..
it's simple - two different accounts. if someone ask you and I to write accounts of this video - they perhaps would be similar, but different. not clear why this is so puzzling. i could write that bart is not all that smart, whereas you'd write he is. same video - two accounts.
The Lord of the Sabbath part where Jesus heals on inside of a synagogue happens in the synagogue and inside of the Pharisees house
Mathew's going to hell for not writing down the account accurately.
That's not true. Because Matthew didn't exist. What's his second name? And where was he born?
@@Anonymous-411 Sarcasm ain't your thing, eh?
@@mouthpiece200lol weather you're being sarcastic is irrelevant. I completely disagree with any notion that a unverifiable man named Matthew even existed. If he did exist and we have his original works then he most definitely is going to hell for corrupting the words of Jesus. Are you a Christian? Or an Atheist? Btw I'm neither those things.
@@Anonymous-411 Its completely relevant that I was sarcastic because you're wasting your time attacking claims that were never made.
@@mouthpiece200 I'm not even attacking you 😂 I was picking your brain. Clearly you can't handle little back and forward.
I don't get why anyone still cares about the Biblical inerrancy issue. The only reason it was ever an issue was as something for Protestants to replace the divinely inspired authority of the Catholic Church with. Since no-one takes the divinely inspired authority of the Catholic Church seriously any more, there is no point in maintaining that the Bible is inerrant, which was obviously a silly idea in the first place.
Here's how the sick daughter story makes sense:
One day Jesus is walking with Peter and Peter's friend and a man approaches and begs Jesus to come heal his sick daughter.
By the time Jesus arrives he finds the daughter is dead.
Jesus rlays hands on her and she rises.
Another day Jesus is walking with Mathew and the same man approaches and begs Jesus to raise his dead daughter.
Jesus arrives and finds her dead, again. He lays hands on her and she rises.
A third day Jesus is walking alone and the same man approaches and begs Jesus to raise his dead daughter.
Jesus arrives, finds the daughter dead, again. He lays hands on *her father* and the young woman rises.
Jeremiah 17:5-7 Cursed Man vs. Blessed Man
5 Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.
Isaiah 26:3, 40:8 The Blessed Man and The Word of our God
3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
When we compare the OT and NW about the sabbath, there's some kind of contradiction.
In the OT, sabbath violations brings penalty of death. (Man made for sabbath) in the NT, sabbath is made for man.
In the gospels, there are 1vs 2 blinds, 1 vs 2 donkeys, etc. Maybe one of the disciple was always drunk!
Thousands of people around the world who do not want at all that there is One Creator, One Intelligent Mind that has the power to bring everything into existence.
Bart looks much happier in this video than the last one that was posted lol.
Bart has whipsawed from strict/extremist fundamentalist to a confirmed non-believer. A great scholar who misses the forest for the trees.
It's not true that he went directly from fundamentalism to non-belief (if that is your meaning), very far from it.
@@luke-alex O.K., but he still misses the forest for the trees.
@@BobSmith-lb9ncmaybe YOU missed the whole forest ? He realized the trees in that forest are artificial trees and don’t give you that breath of fresh air.
@@LezariaBonner Reductionism is a strange religion. Like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But none of these points contradict the core points/messages.
Hi - not being pedantic but it was the other way round. Mark said to 'take a staff' and Matthew and Luke said dont take a staff according to my NIV bible.
Mark 6.8 says 8 These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.
Matthew 10.10 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff,
Luke 9.3 3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey-no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt.
Does seem a bit odd when its thought that Luke and Mark would have used Mark as a source. ??
Goku for the win
How about Josephus and what he says?
Bart is a hoot.
I wonder what his personality would be like if he still thought the bible was inerrant as a fundamentalist.
What is interesting is that in ehrmans mind all apologists are fundamentalists. But if you were to put ken hamm and dr william lane craig together hamm would say craig takes a more liberal view of things.
❄️☃️❄️☃️❄️☃️
I looked into this third example as I was curious to see if there truly was a contradiction on Matthew 10:10 and Mark 6:10 verses. There is two different words used there. The word used in Matthew is the word hypodēmata which supposedly can refer to shoes. The Mark text word used is sandalia which only refers to sandals.
The contradiction is with the staff though, not with the sandals
@@MrEVAQ I have looked into many debates trying to discredit the Bible and this one is up there as probably the hardest to explain or understand. Perhaps Matthew meant not to take extra things for your journey as in more than one and just take what you have at that moment. There are some translations that say "staffs" referring to more than one.
In Luke 6 “Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God.” In Matthew's account it says “Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Although some will most likely say this too is a contradiction, I believe the context means the same thing in both in my opinion.
I believe the context for this particular one being debated is to trust that God will provide for you along the way. I suppose unfortunately this might not be an adequate explanation for some. Either way thanks for your comment in clarifying that for me. Hope you have a good day.
@ 5:54
"it happened twice is of course the stupiest answer a theologian can give. It completely ignore the fact that the main importance of the story was the raising from death of the daughter of Jaïres. and the rest is just unimportant paving the road to the deed itself.
That's to say if the story presented by Ehrman is correct.
Well it isn't
In Mark we are confronted with the daughter who died at the age of twelve, thereby symbolic dead to society. And touches his clothing seeking help getting the help
The importance is not the raising of a dead girl, the importance is the banishing/curing of twelve years of uncleanless and death and reintroducing two cases of outcast again into the society through faith.
selective quoting is the vice of the apologists, shame on you dr. Ehrman.
It doesnt matter about the interpretation, the fact is that Mark had her dead, and Matt and Luke have her still alive at the point Jesus was asked. That is the point he was making.
@@SilverSixpence888 You could be dead inside but still breathing. "Dead" used in two different meanings.
@@wandering_circles7487 Nonsense, that is apologetics. They are contradictions, get over it. And there are literally hundreds more. The gospel writers had their own reasons for deliberately changing previous authors' work. They didn't care about contradictions.
Bart didn’t cover the contradiction that I was hoping he would cover. I don’t remember the details so I wanted a refresher on it or at least a passage reference to look up. It is near the end of the gospels, one gospel says that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and another gospel says that the disciples went to Galilee.
He talks about this in other of this talks, and books.
An apologist will say "they stayed in Jerusalem, then went to Galilee"
Next please : Dr. Richard Carrier's Top 3 Dr. Bart D. Ehrman Contradictions
Last time I checked, the bible had these accounts about whether or not to take "extra" stuff:
Matthew 10:5 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts- no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep."
Mark: 6:8 "These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt."
Am I to believe a guy with a PhD can't discern between "a staff" and an "extra staff"? The passage is clear: "Pack light. God will take care of you." Its' clear the apostles went out with one staff, one pair of sandals and one shirt and no extra anything. Both verses are in agreement. No need to write a thesis.
This is hilarious 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣