The Defenders Conference 2019 - Gospel Differences Panel Discussion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 жов 2019
- Kurt Jaros interviews speakers Mike Licona, Rob Bowman, Bart Ehrman, & Craig Keener. This panel discussion took place at the end of The Defenders Conference on October 18-19, 2019 located in the Christ Church of Oak Brook in Illinois. It is an annual event hosted by Defenders Media, geared toward equipping evangelical Christians on issues in theology, apologetics, and worldview formation. Dr. Ehrman had the opportunity to present his analysis of why there are differences in the Gospels.
The Defenders Conference discusses the differences between the Gospels. It’s undeniable. But do those differences mean the Gospels are historically unreliable? How can we reconcile these differences? Harmonize? Ancient literary devices? Is it something else? Come hear 4 different perspectives on why there are differences in the Gospels so that you can be prepared to defend your faith.
Used by permission, copyright 2019, Defenders Media. All rights reserved.
The tragedy of it all, is that Dr Ehrman is the only scholar willing to sit with these apologists and debate them and with the fluidity of his logical explanations that you and I can understand. There was none before him and I’m afraid there will be none after him. Thank you Dr Ehrman.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of the difference between an actual, credentialed and tenured academic scholar and expert in his field; and an apologist.
Bart is on level of scholarly integrity that on a different level.
Bart you speak the truth and when you talk people should listen. Thank u
You’re a good sport Dr. Ehrman. It was a 2 year process for me but your work played an integral part in my deconversion from Christianity. Thanks for all you do.
So what or in whom do you believe now? Make sure you didn't fall for the old serpents lie: Has God said?
Now, go find the truth. It's out there. Start with yourself. If you ponder upon your own creation, knowing yourself, the way will become clearer.
You didn't deconvert whatever you believe now is what you have converted to - nobody can deconvert.
actuary 1776 I’ve wondered many times why it takes around two years for so many people to deconvert. It took about two years for me as well. It was very difficult.
For me Ehrman helps me to understand how reasonable Christianity is.
Bart, you are the star on a clear dark sky. We need more scholars like you, keep up the good work.
I love how this was basically a 3v1 and Bart Ehrman still won :P
Watch Bart get destroyed by William Lane Craig in their debate! Bart is so rattled that you 'll be shocked while you watch him flail his arms while shrieking his thiroughly dismantled argument. Bart was so dominated that he has refused to ever face Craig again.
Surely this is sarcasm.
@@derrydylanger8994 Ummmm....He didn't loose the debate what are you talking about? WLC literally said nothing of substance in the debate except "Itz da best explunashun derefore rezurukshun!" At least Bart Ehrman knew about the historical method while Craig literally ignored accepted professional methodology,
@@derrydylanger8994 : I highly doubt that.
were we watching the same conference?
15:15 "It depends on what you mean by 'historically reliable.'" "Historically reliable" only means one thing and the phrase itself is perfectly self-definitive.
Glad to see Ehrman harpoon the myth of "oral tradition."
The sad thing is, or maybe the silly thing depending on your current mood, is how little it would matter if it weren't for their bloody claims, i.e. infinity. I mean talk about polarizations! (39:41)
No. It doesn't. "Reliable" as almost any other adjective, like "beautiful" or "faithful", pressupposes a standard. You gotta be blind to miss that. Sorry.
Natã Oliveira da Costa, historicity is not like an ”adjective”. There are many criteria to be followed to determine if an event is true or not. History isn't a precise science, nonetheless, it has an OBJECTIVE methodology to figure out what really happened.
Bart. You were the only one who made any sense on the panel, the rest were clutching straws.
zafar butt We are screwed if Bart is the only one that makes sense.
exactly, oh lets have low standards, its good by our low unreliable standards. scholars of Alexander the great and Plutarch say its unreliable!
Three believers and a thinker.
Bart Ehrman is the best and most articulated Gospel scholar that I know of...
There are others, an easy recommendation is N.T. Wright. However because Bart is willing to put things in more hard terms, it does expose some of the weaker arguments of his colleagues on the conference.
They are not willing to simply state that the gospels are wrong. There are many reasons for this some of them valid, but they are nevertheless, unwilling.
Once the boards came out I just knew things would get sketchy... boy did it.
Hearing them affirm the doctrine of inerrancy then answer the questions the way they did was eye opening for sure.
What they really affirmed was the doctrine of "inerrancy".
@@thomasoneill9940 Yup. The Doctrine of Inerrancy states specifically, "...When all the facts are known, the Bible, in the original autographs, when properly interpreted, will prove itself to be without error in all matters that it covers. These include areas of theology, history, science, and all other disciplines of knowledge-they will be in perfect accord with the truth. The Bible, therefore, is totally trustworthy in everything that it records or teaches."
That specify means all it records AS WELL AS what it teaches. They left the first part out.
So so happy to see you doing debates again!!!
No, I prefer to listen Bart all by himself
Thank you for posting this. I believe these types of conversations are important and needed. Please post more of these.
Dr, Ehrman, your understanding of the Bible, what it says, how it was written, how it has changed, who wrote it, etc. is truly remarkable. It is a pleasure to listen to your approach to biblical studies through the lens of history and not the fundamentalist's blind acceptance of the words on faith alone.
There is something disingenuous about your protagonists arguing the inerrancy of the Bible based purely on their individual personal beliefs. Although I suspect that they have their doubts about whether what they say about the Bible is truthful and accurate, being as heavily invested in the doctrine and dogma of their various religions leaves them very little wiggle room for reason and rational thought on the subject.
Thank you for your enlightening work.!
Bart, you are a National Treasure........!
At least they invited Bart. Without him this conversation would have been a complete joke.
Yup. It's always white men, white men, white men, and they have no idea how pathetic they appear.
C
@@dmann1115 Who cares? As long it is people who know what they are talking about.
Licona: "Let's say Matthew is doing his genealogy for artistic purposes and his objective is not to do precise historical recounting..."
Sure, let's say that. But if the genealogy is not historically precise, the genealogy is not historically reliable. Easy. Every time I watch Licona in such conversations (as I have for many years now), it seems he's acknowledging more and more every year that certain historical *details* described in the gospels are not necessarily historically reliable. He just can't seem to make the next logical step and acknowledge that it is fair to describe the gospels as *historically unreliable*. He just needs to see that these details add up.
Yeah, I have noticed this with Licona as well. He seems the most sensible Christian apologetic and consequently has the most problems.
scottbignell, that's a great assessment of Licona. The problem with making that next logical step is that he loses his job, an entire community of friends and his network of colleagues. It's no small step for a Christian who is in the latter years of his life to deny the historicity of the Bible. It's akin to social suicide. He may be envying Bart's ability to speak his mind.
@@ianrwood21 but then again he believe in flying trashcan and ouija board lol
Indeed, Licona gave in when he said that he believes in inerrancy concerning what the bible teaches, but is open to contradictions in peripherical issues. This is a limited view of inerrancy and is a hard step to make from a fundamentalist view of scripture
While jumping on Licona for not making the leap is understandable, it is obvious why he doesnt do it.
Because your next would be to say "good, lets dump this text in the dumpster then".
Poetic licence so to speak, was incredibly common at that time when writing about past events. He just doesnt want you to dump the whole thing away because of it.
If we look at these different versions of Spiderman, we can see that they agree on multiple issues, of course there will be differences, as you always see when getting the story from two different sources, but overall it is obviously based on fact, especially when we consider the fact that New York is a real historical place, they are describing actual streets, so there is no doubt Peter Parker was a boy from Queens, living with his aunt and uncle, bitten by a radioactive spider and transformed into a superhero. That's just obvious fact.
The amount of mental jujitsu these guys are going through to try to justify the historicity of the stories in the bible is astonishing.
particularly when in their own belief system it does not matter
@Tareq Naser Me too , Ex Sunni Hanafi.
Keep doing these please!
Even if jesus was present and agreed with Bart,Mike would still be like " I dont care..."
I know CCOB; much of the congregation aligns with Defenders and the speakers who aren't Dr. Ehrman. Honestly surprised that Dr. Ehrman was invited back then. That said, I'm glad that Dr. Ehrman consistently raised incommensurable contradictions and pushes listeners to think critically yet generously. I've been quite jaded with suburban Protestantism, but Dr. Ehrman always is able to keep my interest and force me to engage with theological criticism.
Bart you are the only one among these people who can think logically and analytical. I've got the same way of thinking and that's why I have to agree 100%
When faced with the obvious contradictions at the end (the circumstances of Judas' death and whether or not Jesus asked the disciples to take a staff), Bowman falls into "Oh we just don't have enough information to really know". Funny how when it comes to affirming their theological beliefs, the Bible is a viewed as a beacon of reliable information! But when it comes to an obvious contradiction, oh well I guess we just don't have enough information!
Good to see Dr. Bart E. again. I hope you'll have a great health all the time.
I would love to see you have a debate in Columbus Ohio people here really need to hear the truth.. You are breath of fresh air in debate and knowledge that needs to be heard. ❤❤
This is brilliant. Grown men saying in public what their minds told them where perfectly rational justifications at home but realizing as the same words hit the air how insane and irrational it makes them look in reality and the obvious guarded internal conflict that follows.
Christianity is not rational....it is a supernatural phenomenon that taps into another dimension, in my view as an experiencer
Dr. Ehrman..this panel looks like you are stuck in a movie Dodgeball, Idiocracy, Zoolander.. you are the voice of reason..
Thanks for sharing Bart, Cheers
No one is as thorough as Dr. Ehrman.
I almost fell out of my chair when the first guy said he thinks the infancy narratives are rooted in fact.
The only fact they are rooted in is the fact that they need a story that gave OT prophecy cred to a guy named Jesus of Nazareth. Much simpler if his name was Jesus of Bethlehem.
The only thing these stories have going for them is that the necessary fiction points to there being an actual physical Jesus.
equinox project The OT doesn’t mention a “Jesus of Nazareth”, it simply stated that the messiah would be of the house of David (from Bethlehem in other words).
he was brainwashed as a child
These people will close their eyes when confronted with contradictions and tell themselves over and over that the bible is literally and factually true, if common sense says it's wrong then you lean on your faith. It even says that in the bible, and it drives me up a wall!
He’s visibly tired because he can’t counter their arguments and obviously back-peddles through out the debate. Inspiring philosophy has many videos on the so called contradictions of the New Testament and refuted them pretty easily and he’s not even a historical scholar but out argues and debates all faulty atheist arguments. Even I can counter Barts arguments and I’m no where near as intelligent as the other men on this debate panel and IP.
Wow. Not sure if this kind of platform or company brings the best out of Bart, who seems like a lonely light surrounded by dogmatic ignorance. But I guess reaching as broad an audience as possible is what it's all about, so thank you for your good work in that regard.
"It's the gist of it". Thank you.
It's amazing to me that Mike, Rob, and Craig could ever feel confident in their thinking or want to speak in public again. Their answers to the trivia questions (lack of a clear consensus, different "facts") totally proves the point Bart tried so hard to make at the beginning....a case for historical accuracy. I know I would never trust those 3 men to explain to me the "jist" of anything......I will surely just get their brainwashed opinion.
Bart was great very concise and to the point.
Lincona: 44:30 - “if the Bible has any errors I don’t care, but I see the Bible without errors”.
This guy is no real historian. Spoken like someone deep into their cult, covering their ears saying “blah blah blah” anytime someone drops truth on him.
He said he didn't care if it got the number of people in an invading army right or not, because it doesn't matter. No 'real' historian cares about useless things like that. Grow up.
One of the four seems rooted in reason.
Hey, long time no see. Been waiting for new content from you.
It would be great if Ehrman and Carrier could get along, park their key differences and tag team on these debates.
Bart Ehrman must be tired destroying their mythology over and over again
Three against one, Ehrman in the Lion's den
...Yeah, it’s so unfair - for them!
Jafet Martínez twenty to one would be fairer
It could be fifty against one and my money would still be on Bart.
Yet Bart still wins. The only unbiased view there. The other three are apologists.
These biblical apologist(s) are truly shameful .. Continue knocking em down Dr . E
How can Joseph be Jesus' father anyway? Isn't he supposed to be born of a virgin which should 'prove' God was his father? Making the whole genealogy kinda pointless?
Researchers actually tested the oral tradition with tribes. Stories from tribes were recorded in the 20s, and when researchers came back later 50 years later, the stories had changed quite a bit.
💯 **Well then if that makes him God's son, and Adam didn't have a mother OR father, then that would make Adams existence more miraculous - Making him God's son even more so, and Jesus's older brother!*
you are so right, I never thought about it that way .
The need for and the idea of the virgin birth developed independently from the gospels being written.
Wild Woody: Genealogy in the ancient world isn't being used to prove direct genetic relationships but to establish a hierarchy of who the people are to be considered lawful representatives of a family. Adopted sons' had the same legal rights to inheritance as natural born offspring. If you need a reference, in the book of Ezra relatives returned from the exile in Babylon could not prove their kinship in order to claim their abandoned family lands in Israel because those Temple records had been destroyed.
Bart covers the divinity argument in his lecture "on how Jesus became God".
Obi Wan Adam was a created being and in Adam the entire mankind was in seed form. Hence Jesus should not have skipped being born of Adam. But He had to . Because of the fall. He had to skip being born of Adam with sin nature. Jesus being sinless had to be born of a virgin with no earthly father.
I think it quite noteworthy that the idea of biblical inerrancy has been jettisoned completely. Dr Ehrman plainly states the case while the three others just re-define it into oblivion. Good to see.
All four scholars are great and consistently coherent. It is not a question of who won or who was more eloquent, but rather a brilliant opportunity for each to expose their opinions and the results of their research.
I have particularly studied this subject for years and without a doubt, I believe that there are inconsistencies in some reports that are difficult to reconcile, which probably means that the author made a mistake, but in general the context of the reported event is genuinely historical and reliable.
Can someone explain to me the whole putting on sunglasses thing?
OhManTFE enlightenment? ?
Bart you are simply awesome.m your big fan
This is what confirmation bias looks like..
This took place in Oak Brook, man that's so close to where I live, wish I knew about it last year. Is there a way to stay up to date with upcoming speaking events, debates, and discussion?
You have Bart Ehrman, a renowned biblical scholar and author, against bible believing thumpers!
Dr. Ehrman schooled them
Not....
it seems to me that some of the people on the panel are talking about reliability but actually meaning validity.The difference is very important for the debate.
Dear Bart, I would like to say that you have great courage to go against 3 historians that agree each other. Even if they have bias. I am so happy happy and proud for what you are doing. I learn so much. Thank you!
In summary Mike Licona says "I believe the Bible is inerrant and conveys truth. Any errors or inconsistencies are unimportant and can be ignored." - This is simply a theistic statement that confirms his theology and nothing about the accuracy of the events in the gospels. If the events recounted are a mixture of truth and fable then anyone relying on inerrancy must show which are which and why.
TY Brat Ehrman. 🙏
Ehrman my god you was on fire dude excellent!!
Dr. Ehrman rides again! :)
This was very confusing. I think we should just toss out the term "historically reliable" (which the scholars apparently don't agree on) and simply ask "Can we read the Christian Bible and believe Jesus actually said what was recorded and that the account of events happened exactly as they are described?" If there are discrepancies in the narratives, then the answer is No and it becomes the "burden" of those who think Yes to find a way to reconcile the discrepancies. Then it is up to us individually to examine the gospels and the scholars' proposed solutions and to decide on the plausibility for ourselves. The IMPLICATIONS of a No answer to the question above is a DIFFERENT debate (or at least so I thought). If the question is stated clearly at the start, maybe we could make more progress and move onto different questions or more interesting ones.
These guys know as much about god as everyone else knows about god: nothing. Thx 4 the convo.
These apologists give new meaning the idea that it is difficult for someone to understand or recognize something to be true when their livelihood depends on their not understanding or recognizing that truth.
The only one that is correct here is Bart. History consistently repeats itself, including the present. Man corrupts information.
Paul s writings are enough for salvation but studying them all don t detract from the true message of christ and the. Father.
How long did people live in the first century?
For me, irrespective of reliability , gospel of Jesus made so much of changes to human lives.
Never forget that. Hold onto God all.
Excellent
Love the way that around 25:30 the two protagonists who wish to discuss oral memory turn their bodies to square up to each other. OK guys, you draw first! (And Kurt Jaros goes to get sun glasses!)
What happened to the other video?
Seems like 4 brilliant minds got distracted by the moderator’s need to focus on the minutia of gospel discrepancies rather than the more important discrepancies resulting from different oral traditions and beliefs about Jesus 40 to 70 years after his death. For example, what about the 4 distinctly different gospel “memories” claiming specific knowledge of the 7 last things Jesus said from the cross? We cannot simply ‘squish’ the 7 sayings together and say they are collectively inerrant, yet that is precisely what the church has done instead of educating the masses about the complex making of the Bible. Churches and clergy alike are surely guilty of failing to enlighten their congregants.
The moderator is a mook.
I'm not a learned man, but I'm unaware of any religion whose goal is to " enlighten their congregants". Knowledge typically works against the goals of the religious...
The 7 statements of Jesus can easily be harmonized. I don't think Ehrman would disagree with that.
@@konroh2 He definitely would... as he did in one of his books ;-)
4 brilliant minds?? LMAO!!!!
The attempt to harmonize Judas’s death is pretty funny/sad and that questions shows the intellectual integrity of the one scholar and three apologists. I thought it was a silly question, but I was wrong.
It pretty much sums up the positions of the four speakers accurately.
One argument I have to make about the oral memory argument. The magnitude of an event is a parameter that should be considered. Its always easier to learn a song you love and remember it for the rest of your life. By the same token an event that is special to you may be easier to remember than others. Another argument is that comparing oral memory capabilities of today, to an era when books were rare, is not a good comparison. Its not easy for us to remember a phone number, but was it for people in the first century?
I happen to believe that the Gospels are allegories. They were changed to match the audience they were written for. This helps explain why there were so many of these allegories floating about the Mediterranean, and why some believers favored their brand of story versus another brand. What's missing from this particular debate is the influence that "immigration," "assimilation," and "syncretism' had on the origins of the Christian religion. Jews who completely assimilated were always out numbered by fully assimilated non-Jews. This was true of society at large and within the early church. Meaning that the only Jews who would've had much to do with Christianity were fully assimilated Jews who had already renounced their ethno-religious origins. The other group would've been God-fearers, or non-Jews who attended Jewish Synagogues, but had not completely converted. So, what you had within many early churches were congregations of fully assimilated Jews and non-Jews worshiping together. However, because non-Jews fully assimilated in greater numbers than Jews, it wouldn't be long before the non-Jewish population within the church out numbered fully assimilated Jews, just as it had in the larger Greco-Roman culture. Beginning with Alexander the Great, Hellenization had a profound influence on the cultures and peoples in the East, and vise-versa. What we have with Christianity is the end result of Greek influence, not only on the non-Jews of the East, but the Jews as well. The Gospels are simply allegories that got changed to match the reading audience's theological perspective at particular locations in the Mediterranean. And by the time the Gospel of John is written (clearly the most anti-Semitic) the number of Jews within many of the churches had been out-stripped by non-Jews. In my mind not enough attention has been given the importance of "immigration," "assimilation," and "syncretism' where the coming together of cultures and peoples required a more "universal" way of viewing God, and a less nationalistic and tribal view. Christianity aside, these issues are still with us today, and are still debated. At a time when a more universal approach to God might be helpful, we find Christianity reverting to a more tribal, even more nationalistic approach both from within the Christian community and without. which is presently failing. Whether the Gospels are "historical," or whether Jesus actually existed becomes less and less relevant, because most of us haven't a clue about "why" it happened. Immigration, assimilation, and syncretism pretty much explains it. Otherwise, we're left with Gospels that suddenly appeared about a universal Savior, but without the "context" that only immigration, assimilation and syncretism provide us.
I love to see these Christians say that clear contradictions are not contradictions and that 2 or 3 separate and different stories are both historical . They just can't see past their God glasses. Neither scholarly nor honest.
Does Bart have bias?
Good discussion
I'm a Christian, but it always feels disingenuous when apologists immediately jump to "yes" when it comes to the accounts in the Protestant Canon. They don't do this with the deuterocanonical books that are traditionally Christian, or The Book of Mormon, the Quran, etc etc etc. It's a selective skepticism yet feels like special pleading.
Keep questioning.
Book of Mormon 1800 years later, Quran 700 years later. Deuterocanonical books were examined by those closest to the events and deemed non-canonical.
I don't know why they believe it in the first place, except if they were raised in Christian families and have been brainwashed from the get go.
What does it mean to be a skeptical Christian? Could you explain your position please?
One thing I have learned from religious people is that there is no limit to the mental contortions they will exert to reconcile their beliefs with reality.
Why did he pull the other new video?
Mike Licona is an absolute joke
👍👍👍
Totally denial...
A Liar too
You must mean the fellow on the far right? Because what a whack-a-doodle. These people have to deny common sense and clutch at ANY straw because they know they have built on sand. The more I see of this sort of thing, the more I think religion is a mental virus.
Amazing hermeneutical gymnastics about the genealogies. Luke was probably trying to supplant Matthew's account and, therefore, was not thinking it had to agree or be compatible. Both seem like mythical contrivances to establish Jesus' divine pedigree.
As a Christian, I wish these guys would stop. Bart destroys them every time.
I used to take care of the elders and i had grandmas tell me in detail about their life and childhood and they would remember everything , street names , favorite coffee shop in detail, human memory can be really precise
I’m sure they could tell you all those things but how would you know they were remembering them accurately?
The apologists' -- especially Fundagelical apologists' -- insistence on arguing for historical validity is maddening. The issue of genealogies in this discussion is a perfect example. No matter the obstacle they'll jump through hoops to maintain the Bible is factual.
Matthew was thru Joseph!
Luke was thru Mary!
A complete waste of Bart’s time
It clearly depends upon the quality of evidence that you are prepared to accept. Some will accept any reference that fits their belief while others are more selective. Can you see which are which?
Did the guy on the right shoot in "Sexist!" while Licana was talking? :)
Try go back 14 generations in your own family tree, see how far you can go back in this day and age (with computers), try and do the same exercise 2020 years ago when people had no surnames - good luck.
‘Reliable” is an opinion on the evidence given. What do you want it to mean? Back to faith ultimately can decide for you.
Well said
Bart apparently never heard the expression "you can't make this stuff up!" In the real world, things happen all the time that fit that description. When the events are retold, the details may vary a bit, so does that mean the event did not happen?
Bart is like hulk
In which language does "harmonization" mean "inventing excuses"?
Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek?
Christianese.
Well said lol
LOL "If you harmonize them, then they can be harmonized." -Christian Theologians 2019, Masters of the Tautology
Why is it so hard for us as humans to let go of presuppositions when engaging in: listening, thinking, dialogue, research, etc....
How easy is to just assume for the sake of the conservation that one of the most important things in your life is fake?thats what happens...
Because we're not wired for that. It takes too long. Superstition is easier and insures our survival. Would you sit and scientifically wait to prove the presence of a sabertooth behind those bushes or would you run faster if you thought there was a ghost moving those leaves? Superstition has kept us alive for as long as we've had it. Science is barely a blip in our history. Try to be forgiving of human nature. We would not be here without it.
Sports, Politics, and Religion are in my opinion that really piss people off when you don't agree with them. I'm an atheist and my wife is catholic, I'm a cubs fan, her a sox fan, I'm progressive and she's populist Republican. We had our conversation several years ago. Religion and politics are no go zones for us. We accept and respect each other's differences, but our love is much more important and meaningful to us. But that's just us.
Meant it more as a rhetorical question but you're both absolutely right.
supergripas Because radical claims require extraordinary evidence. You can’t just assume things are true without evidence.
The part where they try to defend the geneology is beyond ridiculous
...thou shall have tribulation 10 days...
This number 10 is symbolic in Hebrew thinking! It just means a short duration that is not forever!
Shalom...
We don't start with ALL historical sources that "they're unreliable" but we remain skeptical until verified. So, when we see they contradictions in the Bible....we ignore those and call it historically accurate, right?
most speakers forget when they said luke think this way mathew think that way its a book inspired by god ? lol thats mean its base on what they think eventually . what a joke
newsflash, every book in the bible has intrinsic point of view of the author all over it, and that exactly the way they wanted it. Heck, some books have different perspectives probably by different author in the same book. And it has never been altered to make them harmonious either.
How about the fact that god apparently went missing for 18 years? God's on earth, but after age 12; the whole middle east suddenly gets collective amnesia?
But he is not supposed to have done anything important to the narrative until he stars his ministry. Are we to learn about the cool chairs he made in his carpentry gig?
Anyone commenting here who IS NOT already a Bart's follower???
It's insane how much people need to believe in fairy tales and defend them so differently and defiantly.
Because of this video, I am now a skeptic of "scholars".
If they're Christians then bias is a problem