New Resurrection Book Misrepresents Scholarship: What You Need to Know (feat Dr Bart Ehrman)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2024
- With Gary Habermas' new thousand-page book serving as both a potential doorstop and a source of debate, Dr Ehrman helps unpack what it truly means to argue "Argumentum ad Bartum" and dissect whether the size of one's work directly correlates to its credibility.
=== !! FREE !! SIGN-UP FOR BART'S NEW COURSE - www.tinyurl.com/BartHate ===
Featured videos: • Why do biblical schola... • The Resurrection Argum...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
=== !! FREE !! SIGN-UP FOR BART'S NEW COURSE - www.tinyurl.com/BartHate ===
BartHate 💀
J e s u s P o w e r S t a r t I n g
All who read will receive Jesus healing energy all old aches and pains will be washed away. Those that ground yr spirit by self worship are allowed
thanks, sound interesting! I just signed up and blocked out some time to watch!
This is the first one I've signed up for. I've liked Bart for quite a while and there ain't no better price than free.
Gary is using Bart the same way that Paul used Peter. He only acknowledges what Bart says insofar as he can use it to show that he was right all along.
LOL great point
In that way Gary is being so Biblical!
I'm a PhD in history who has published quite a bit. The clear sign that Habermas is not doing true scholarship is that he openly admits to paying to have this book series published by a non-peer-reviewed press. This book is not scholarship.
You are right. And, remember, Ehrman's book "Did Jesus exist" is also non peer-reviewed.
@@theemptycross1234I don’t think that’s true. I searched Barts book and it is peer reviewed.
@@j.a420 Are you sure? I remember Ehrman in an interview (I think Mythvision) where he said that the publisher asked him to write a pop market book about Jesus historicity, he wrote it, it was reviewed by the publisher (not by peers) and then Ehrman said he was glad to go back to do scholarship (because his book is not peer-reviewed scholarship).
@@theemptycross1234 I didn't think it required peer review since it is almost a nonsensical argument that Jesus never existed. No brainer.
@@acircharo you are right: if you don't use your brain, you will always think Jesus existed 😆
Oh, good gods. There is only one "evidence" that someone "resurrected," and if it is valid, then SALEM'S LOT is evidence that vampires exist.
Utterly stunning that Salem's Lot was his second book.
He wrote several other books before hand which were later published as Richard Bachman novels.
It is insanely impressive either way, one of his best hands down.
I wish I could excuse Gary. But he does have an earned PhD in history. His misquotations of Ehrman strike me as lying by omission and quote mining. Gary is not an honest person in this regard. His faith has blinded him.
"[F]aith" is a weird way to spell "wallet."
A classic case of blind faith. 🙄
Fundamentalist Christian academics are rife with piss poor academic standards. Gary Blabbermass teaches at Liberty University, an absolute morass of academic and moral standards. That alone should be enough to discredit him. But most Christians don’t care. They think Gary and Bart are on equal footing as scholars and view academics like a sports game. In reality it’s like an amateur basketball player getting dunked on by a pro athlete. Ehrman demolishes Gary at every level but they don’t understand.
Do what u like is his way. Maybe he can't find his way home. Well alright in his sea of joy presence of the lord 😁@@Amazing_Mark
Hmm. Did Habermas misquote though?
"I should stress in addition that Paul indicates on several occasions that the traditions about Jesus are ones that he himself inherited from those who came before him. This is clearly implied when he says that he “handed over” what he had earlier “received,” technical language in antiquity for passing on traditions and teachings among Jewish rabbis. Even where Paul does not state that he is handing on received tradition, there are places where it is clear he is doing so. I have mentioned, for example, Romans 1:3-4, an ancient adoptionistic creed about Jesus that indicates he “became” the son of God only when he was raised from the dead. This creed was not written by Paul: it uses words and phrases not otherwise found in Paul (for example, spirit of holiness) and contains concepts otherwise alien to Paul (that Jesus was made the Son of God at the resurrection). He is using, then, an earlier creed that was in circulation before his writing.
Where did Paul get all this received tradition, from whom, and most important, when? Paul himself gives us some hints. He indicates in Galatians 1 that originally, before his conversion, he had been a fierce persecutor of the church of Christ, but then on the basis of some kind of mysterious revelation he came to see that Jesus really was the Son of God, and he converted. After three years, he tells us, he made a trip to Jerusalem, and there he spent fifteen days with Cephas and James. Cephas was one of Jesus’s twelve disciples, and James was his brother. I will stress the importance of this fact in the next chapter. **For now I simply want to point out that this visit is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions that he refers to and even the received traditions that we otherwise suspect are in his writings that he does not name as such.** And when would this have been Since Paul sometimes provides a time frame (“three years later” or “after fifteen years”), it is possible to put together a rough chronology of Paul’s life. To give us a rock-solid start, we can say that Paul must have been converted sometime after the death of Jesus around 30 CE and sometime before 40 CE.
The latter date is based on the fact that in 2 Corinthians 11:32 Paul indicates that King Aretas of the Nabateans was determined to prosecute Paul for being a Christian. Aretas died around the year 40. So Paul converted sometime in the 30s CE. When scholars crunch all the numbers that Paul mentions, it appears that he must have converted early in the 30s, say, the year 32 or 33, just two or three years after the death of Jesus.
This means that if Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them, and received the traditions that he later gives in his letters, around the middle of the decade, say the year 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death."
--Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist 131-132.
I gain all of my understanding of English from cross-reference Tolkien's use of the words in TLOTR. From this I understand that the word 'ring' is nearly always used in reference to magical powers. This informs my understanding that my wedding ring holds literal power binding me to my spouse and, should we ever separate, it must be destroyed.
You are a loyal servant of the Tolkien faith my brother.
Oh hilarious! Gary interviewed 250 scholars in "appropriate fields".. but managed to bypass the acknowledged leading NT authority - Dr. Bart Ehrman - despite quoting him heavily throughout the text.
Cherry picking scholars and quotes to support a specific view of Christianity? Inconceivable!
Right?
Obviously he couldn’t find enough historians who agree with his minimal facts so he had to add a few theologians and philosophers… maybe even lawyers, journalists and cold case detectives.😂
he might write popular books, popular because so many want to cast doubt on Jesus, but that doesnt make him the leading NT authority. And who has 'acknowledged' that? In reality there is no leading NT authority. Just quite a few scholars.
@@PC-vg8vn
Well… Habermas talks about Ehrman as if he is the leading authority that gives his minimal facts argument some weight.😂
“They added nothing to my message” could also mean that they told him a bunch of things that Paul chose to ignore and not include in his version of the story.
Also, Paul could be (and possibly is) lying about never hearing about his message from anyone else, and may very well have heard it from someone adjacent to them, and thus would be more similar to their message than not. It's probably some combination of both, honestly: Paul acknowledged the parts he was fine with ("They only asked that I remember the poor," though based on other letters that sounds like a veiled indication that Paul promised them money), and just pretends they didn't say anything else. Who's going to double-check over in Greece?
@@Uryvichk It seems to me, based upon my observations of cult formation in the current era, and assuming that human nature has not changed radically in the last 2000 years, that the simplest explanation for everything Pauls says and does is that he joined the Jesus movement to make a living preaching. Maybe he persecuted Jesus followers, maybe not (...do we have anyone's word about that other than his?) but at some point he was struck with how easy it would be to just take this message into the virgin (...so to speak...) territory of non-Jews and build from there. We see preachers of all sorts (not just Christian) do the same thing to this day, so why not Paul?
(If we are going to accept his vision as literally true, why are we not Mormons?)
All that said, it's interesting to ponder the relationship between Peter and Paul (...as reported by Paul, apparently ...) for much the same reason as pondering the relationship between Vecna and Orcus. Either way, for a Christian author to deliberately misstate a source, as is done here, is strong evidence against his sincerity.
It could mean "They agreed with me" or "They disagreed with everything I said so here's my version", so Have-a-massive-lie goes with the interpretation that suits his agenda.
Definitely how I always interpreted that line too.
I love when Dr Ehrman is on.
He's so easy to love, such a happy presence.
He's the most reliable new testament biblical scholar.
@@arnulfo267No hes not😂
Why? How do you know what he is saying is correct? He has been caught many times simply speculating, if not being downright dishonest.
@@jamiehudson3661 Dishonest?
Okay, but if I don't like "Did Peter Hate Paul?", I'm gonna want my money back.
No refunds!
You'll need your receipt for proof of purchase. Lol
Maybe you can get a Cheerios' coupon. (It's a "zero," get it?)
No surprise that a self proclaimed Chistian "scholar / expert / apologist" misrepresents the facts / scholarship. It's basically all they do.
I can see the headline now: Person Whose Job Consists Entirely Of Misrepresenting Facts Accused Of Misrepresenting Facts
It's a feature, not a bug.
Have you seen bart do the exact same thing or do you just see what you want to see?
@@joe5959 I think you missed the 'Christian' bit. Bart is a scholar of Christianity not a Christian scholar.
@@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillaryes, and a shit one at that
I'm a lay person and I have never thought that pre-Pauline meant 'before Paul's conversion'. It has always been obvious to me that it was about the Pauline letters. So if a learned apologist makes such a mistake, it's very embarrassing.
Pre-Pauline was when Doris was my girlfriend. Pauline doesn’t like me to refer to that time.
Perhaps Gary's book should be titled, "Misquoting Bart."
It would be worlds better than using "evidences" in the title.
Misrepresenting scholarship is exactly what I expect from Garry Habermas. Thank you, Paul, for taking the time to read and review the book.
Misrepresenting is what Bart does. But those who blindly follow him would not know that.
@CRoadwarrior Did you not watch the video to see how Dr. Habermas really misrepresents Dr. Ehrman? I have read books by Ehrman and other scholars. I haven't seen him misrepresent any mainstream views. Most of what he says is the same as what Dale C Allsion Jr. would say. Maybe I am missing cases when Ehrman quotes or explains someone else's view incorrectly. Can you give examples of such cases? I would be happy to know if I am wrong.
@@Nexus-jg7ev One of Ehrman's problems is that he does not interact with scholarship that would refute his claims. He acts as if it either does not exist, or straw man's the position so he can easily knock it down. There are numerous videos on YT showing such things.
I believe I already pointed out in comments here how Bart will misquote the Bible and add words not in the text. He adds the word "babies" in Revelation 2:23 when no Greek word for "babies" is there, as seen in the MythVision podcast video called "Jesus in Revelation is EVIL." The Greek word in that text is properly translated "children."
Now either Bart is woefully ignorant of Greek, or he's being dishonest at Rev. 2:23. But either way, he was very wrong.
@@CRoadwarriorSo the example you provide is a mix up of babies and children? 🤔
I'd agree that this would be something he'd want to have corrected in future prints of a book, but it was a podcast. Was he reading it? Just pulling it from memory?
That seems like such a trivial thing for anyone to care about.
@@dwo356 Podcast or not, we would expect people we trust to give us accurate information to actually do that. It is not "trivial" to use the wrong word while explaining something about a passage of the Bible, especially when the word used is more emotionally charged.
A "child" and a "baby" are two different things, just as my 6 year old is no longer a "baby" and can no longer be regarded as such based on biological fact. So no, it is far from "trivial." It is part of the problem when people like Bart make such mistakes, but people don't get the important implications of them.
If he's such a "scholar," why can't he get basic facts of Greek text content correct?
Peter probably hated him, since people were always robbing him to settle debts with Paul.
🤣
But later they joined forces and started making candy together.
And don’t get me started about when Mary met up with them.
Funny
Peter hated Paul because Paul's name came up first alphabetically.
Except "Cephas" would beat "Paul."
^^an argument still waged to this day
They must have both despised Mary then. Folk singers huh, All ego man...ohhhhhhhhhhh
Just like Japan got Korea to change its name from “Joseon”. This is an actual thing that happened.
I still don't understand how the minimal facts argument is supposed to work at all. At base, there is the assumption that we should accept what the scholarly consensus is, but 'Jesus resurrected' isn't part of that consensus.
Then why did Bart say this, was he misleading others? 1 Cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance
Bart Ehrman "Paul indicates on several occasions that the traditions about Jesus are ones that he himself inherited from those who came before him. This is clearly implied when he says that he "Handed over" what he earlier had "received," technical language in antiquity for passing on traditions and teachings among Jewish rabbis... where did Paul get all this received tradition, from whom, and most important, when? Paul himself gives us some hint. He indicates in Galatians (Gal 1-2)... Paul must have been converted sometime after the death of Jesus around 30CE and sometime before 40CE (Bart puts it to AD 32-33)... Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter) and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them, and received the traditions... say the year 35 or 36" [Did Jesus Exist? Pages 130-131]
The "supposed to work" bit is about a lot of hand-waving, misquoting, making up stuff out of whole cloth, that is supposed to dazzle you with . . . "baloney." Just make sure you pass around the collection plate.
@@jobinkoshy8197 what does this have to do with the post you replied too?
I believe the idea is that if we take the minimal facts the most reasonable explanation for those facts is the Resurrection.
I agree with you that it does raise the question of why we should come to that conclusion when it isn't the conclusion of the consensus of experts.
I think Habermas' answer to that one is that scholars aren't "allowed" to affirm the resurrection.
@@jobinkoshy8197People join the flat earth society and must have bern converted by people who truly saw the flat earth. Paul is surely not the brightest candle and he surely had other to think for him and come up with a savious found in scripture. We dont know but we see stuff in Philo of Alexandria and others. It was around at the time.
It isn't fair to hold Gary to the standards of a real professor. He teaches at Liberty University, which was just fined millions of dollars because female students who reported sexual assaults were punished for violating their ridiculous code of conduct. How is he supposed to know any better? If academic dishonesty is the worst crime you can pin on him, he should be in the running for professor of the year.
Look up the prior history of the institution Ehrman teaches at. You'll be amazed that it's turned around enough to even have Bart there.
@davidhinkley so they're both bad researchers and we should probably believe the more rational and likely claims ("people told an incorrect story about a magical resurrection" vs. "A magical resurrection definitely happened.")
I love it, when there's no way to defend the apologist, just pretend pointing out flaws in one or two people who criticize the apologist proves the apologist was correct
Non sequitur.
@@rossgalbraith3878 congrats on knowing words 👏
@@adamcosper3308 congrats on the logical fallacy
"they added nothing to my message" could also be true if he was uncompelled by all arguments made to him. this vague message could be taken as "I already knew everything they said" and "I didnt believe a word they said" and "everything they were right on I already knew, everything else I rejected"
When I think that Bart agrees with me then I don’t need to provide any evidence for my claims.
But when Bart disagrees with me then I will provide all of the evidence for my case and ignore almost everything that Bart says.
That's a lesser-known fallacy called Argumentum Ad I'm-Always-Rightum
Bart does speak out his ass quite often it seems. Look at the data yourself.
@@joe5959what data was collected about the resurrection?
That's what most religious people do with academic information and science.
@@joe5959
The data is that 4 anonymous authors who don’t claim that they are eyewitnesses and don’t claim that they spoke with eyewitnesses invented a narrative about Jesus based on the hearsay they collected.😂
Early Christians were very similar to QAnon today. They all think they have the same ideas, and if they speak together, they'll think they agree, but if you go and talk to each of them individually, you'll find they have wildly different ideas from each other.
Still true today, honestly.
I love Paul and Dr Ehrman videos tbh. They always seem to have so much fun
Exactly! reviewing scholarship does not have to be dull.
Bart *fracking* Ehrman needs a lightning sound effect when he enters ⚡⚡⚡
🤣🤣🤣
I'm not sure if Peter hated Paul, but when they sang Puff the Magic Dragon with Mary all was right in the world.
It was the harmonies.
It seems like the minimum facts proof is less of a silver bullet and more like using buckshot at 200 yards. There just might be a factual element in all of these books. And if we follow the WLCraig school of thought, you can't possibly lower the epistemic bar any further.
I love seeing Dr. Ehrman on. He's misquoted so often, so it's nice to hear him refute idiotic and dishonest claims about him.
It's not surprising that Habermas's channel is closed to comments.
Oh yeah! I'm so glad you brought Ehrman in for that ridiculous Paperweight book that Habermas wrote.
I feel like Bart Erhman starting getting super active just after I read his book. I never knew about him before. But now he shows up alot. The man is quick to laughter. Hes downright bubbly. I like him.
Big book energy. I love it!
Sounds to me like Habermas has wasted 14 years of his life.
Until you see his net worth.
He who dies believing the most lies wins.
@@ModernCelt
And the vast swaths of gullible sheep that eat it up uncritically.
@@TinesthiaDoes your knees hurt from gargling on paulogias balls?
Do you own a fedora?
There is an adage about how the news seems reliable about every subject with which you are unfamiliar, but then becomes much less reliable about subjects for which you have some knowledge. This seems relevant to the reference about the eyewitness nature of the nightly news. I have literally been interviewed for the news only to find that they then use a quote from me and then move on to get lots of details wrong by ignoring other things that i said that are not shared with the audience.
This seems relevant to claims about the resurrection somehow.
@PrometheanRising - As an RN, I'm here to confirm the near absolute truth of this adage.
I don't understand how apologists can find Habermas to be a good source in favour of their side.
Because apologists don't need good sources. They just need a source with a string of initials after their name they can cite.
Especially since, to my understanding, biblical scholars don't take Gary seriously.
because they cling to anything that seems to support them.... having no evidence supporting your case at all, while desperately insisting you're right anyway, will do that to you...
@@KenS1267And if you can't find one, use a diploma mill to make one.
Good Old John Ankerberg! I was their babysitter when their daughter was very tiny and he was a budding apologist/tv personality. His wife sang? I think? My sitting jobs for them were in, like, 1970-81? Somewhere in there. Then they moved to Tennessee. John went to the same high school as me-though he was in one of the first graduating classes, and I graduated much much later. Every time I see him on tv, I’m like, yup! He’s still at it-misleading the masses!
How so? Any proof of that?
I have the Bart Ehrman Text book. It was recommanded by Dr. Dale Martin when he taught New Testment History and literature at Yale. The course is now on Yale open course.
I honestly thought that George R R Martin would finish A Song of Ice and Fire before Gary Habermas finished his book. If Gary can do it, then George is running out of excuses.
Well, there's just a quarter of the project out so far. Race is still on.
Well "they" can't write both at the same time. Have you ever seen them in the same room together?!
I always enjoy listening to Bart's perspective. He inspired me to reread Mathew and Mark even though I'm a nihilist.
Habermas always comes off like he’d be happier as a Dungeon Master or Star Wars nerd. He prefers reading interpretations into the facts than actual scholarship.
and if he becomes a DM, I will play as a priest.
epic loot guaranteed?
That's not what a DM does.
@@jursamaj I wasn’t saying he’d specifically do that as a DM. It’s about how being a DM requires the ability to extrapolate an interesting story from the existing material.
And honestly, it’s hard writing concise comments that also explain everything fully. Nobody likes that guy who nitpicks comments to tell them why they’re wrong. I was writing a short UA-cam comment, not an essay.
‘O Lord, let my enemy write a book!’ :)
“They added nothing to my message,”
That is how someone who refuses to acknowledge anything he didn’t already agree with talks, as in “Anyone who preaches another gospel is anathema to God.”
There are so many signs of what really happened at that meeting. People got mad at Paul, Paul argued with them, tensions rose, and they finally struck a deal that Paul would leave their congregants alone and they would leave his congregants alone, and everyone would do their own thing, EXCEPT that Paul would pay the Jerusalem church money donated from his churches ("They only asked that I remember the poor," coupled with Paul's repeated statements in later epistles that he was gathering donations for Jerusalem).
This perfectly explains Paul's dismissal of the "so-called super-apostles," his tendency to stay in Greece, his fixation on money and defensiveness at the idea he was misappropriating it or spending it on himself, and his anger in Galatians because he clearly thinks that Cephas's Jewish Christian faction broke the agreement they made and were trying to convince his converts in Galatia to get circumcised. The whole letter has very strong "WE HAD A DEAL, CEPHAS!" vibes, and it explains why he'd put an anecdote in there about Cephas being a hypocrite and refusing to eat with gentiles: "See you guys, that Cephas guy doesn't even really like you, not like I do!"
@@Uryvichk Those look like good points. I’ll check those out.
It probably means what he meant for it to mean. That they were all on the same page.
@@jamiehudson3661 If he meant that they were in agreement, he could have said that. Given all he writes about Peter, they were not. See @uryvichk post above yours
Im so excited to talk to bart, i think thats one of the greatest gifts to give anyone who has known just what these people can do to a person. my mother was traumatized, my family is religiously manipulative, and i never have felt comfortable spiritually with them around. Paul, thank you.
22:32 I love that photo just as the trinity reference comes up.
Yeah people think Paul thought Jesus was god there are a few verses Trinitarians point too but if you read them carefully like the one in Philippians he couldn't have been god or preexistently equal with god.i think Paul thought of Jesus as a prexistent being just like people thought Moses and the patriarchs were pre-existent and for his suffering me was made lord king over all humans and angels and is gods viceroy not equal to god or the same as god.this is the view of the book of Enoch and a lot of other Pseudepigrapha views on the messiah not god but gods representative and servant and all humans will serve the messiah and he will be able to command the angels etc.some jews believed in a pre-existing exalted divine messiah but not a equal to god messiah.
I LOLed at the image used at 15:29 to illustrate what Bart was saying.
So refreshing to hear you guys counter crazies like Habermas. Thanks so much
First and Second Peter: "Paul never called Peter a lunkheaded doofus who couldn't catch fish in the Sea of Galilee if they jumped into the net, and Peter never said 'Nuh-uh' back, stop saying that or go hang out with Marcion, gosh!"
Truly I can’t say how infuriated i would be if people misquoted my research or like claims to read it and try to ascribe positions to me that I never said
Bart’s bewildered “what?” at 13:10 cracks me up so much.
I love Bart's chuckle and his humor, it really resonates with me! I am laughing and smile along. I would love to see him do like a funny biblical scholarship stand-up routine.😂
It's actually annoying and unnecessary.
@@jamiehudson3661 I can appreciate your perspective for sure. I just happened to get a humor, but yeah I can see how it could be annoying for sure Cheers
It’s here! Been waiting for this video for weeks.
Thank you so much for this video.
It's amazing that so soon after the "resurrection" the whole thing went off the rails yet Jesus didn't come back down to clarify it to everyone.
Whether or not you're an Ehrman fan (I'm a fan), one thing his friends and foes would agree is that he is probably the hardest working Bible Scholar on the planet. Whether it's teaching at UNC, his books, the MJ podcast, his own blog, appearances on shows like this, his output is prodigious.
Awesome episode always good hear from Bart
Signed up for the free course. Thank you for the present. Being unemployed, bodily disabled and suffering from chronic illness, i am not able to afford any course. Thank you.
Excellent. Thank you!
I watched another video of Habermas' where he seems to also refer to 'pre-Pauline' as pre Paul's conversion, though he says there are different senses to pre-Pauline amongst scholars. But despite Ehrman's criticism in this video, he himself has said regarding Paul's visit to Jerusalem, in around AD37/38 - " This visit is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions that he refers to and even the received traditions that we otherwise suspect are in his writings that he does not name as such." And of course it is unlikely that these 'traditions' suddenly appeared at their meeting, but rather developed significantly earlier such that they were well-known within the Christian community. So despite what Ehrman says in this video, anyone reading his earlier book would conclude he was referring to early credal traditions that are contained in Paul's letters because Paul quotes them. And these date to within a short few years after Jesus.
I signed up. Can't wait.
Can't wait for this 👏
Outstanding graphics!!!!
I am on a limited income, so thank you very much for letting me join your class. 😮
"If you don't believe his argument, at least it'll be a good door stop" sent me. 😂
This guy really wrote four volumes on his minimal facts hypothesis? God I would hate to see the tome produced if he had a reasonable number of facts.
If this series was needed to explain the gospels, it surely points out that all-knowing god did NOT write or oversee the biblical account - because if god had, it would have been clear to everyone at the get-go, without needing a follow-up 2,000 years later.
@@johnnehrich9601 Absolutely
I am so happy about this video.
My phone broke earlier this week, I was quite happy to have a 750 page book ("Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" - I quite enjoyed it) on hand to hold the replacement screen in place as the glue set. A 1000 page book would probably do even better.
I never noticed how much Gary sounds like WLC with a muffle. Is it possible that Gary ate WLC, and that explains where all of this is coming from? Has anyone seen Bill?
Has anyone seen them in the same room together?
Thanks!
Gary misrepresented Bart?
Shocked, I'm shocked.
Well, not that shocked
Minor chagrin?
I loved how Bart introduced himself.
I was watching your video earlier about that guy who said if there is a one in a million chance Christianity is right then that's good enough to devote your entire life to it. And he tried saying, "If Christianity is wrong then what have you lost?" Gary has lost 14+ years of his life writing about his unfounded biases. 14+ years he's never going to get back.
Had a opportunity years ago to ask Habermas a question in the hallway of a conference after he’d finished his presentation. He got very irritated and dismissive. It was just a question not a challenge. That’s not why I’m no longer christian though. The question was just one of many that weren’t adding up in my tiny mind in regards to christianity and the bible.
Clearly "pre-pauline" means before Paulogia
clearly
"Soylent kombucha"...noice
Big difference when quoting each other. Gary will cite a lot of Bart’s work while Bart doesn’t even mention Gary’s name at all.
"Big book energy" 😂
Was it Bart who said that Paul met with John to discuss whether Peter should be replaced by Ringo?
Awesome video as always. The audio sounded a little puffy for some reason.,
‘Big book Energy,” lol, that’s a good one
he needs a 5th volume. The one about all the medical evidence for necromanc... I mean, resurrection.
So Paul had 500 witnesses and Habermas has 250 experts. I'm so convinced!
Gary, what are the names and addresses of the 250?
We want to interview them!
New video just dropped! Happy Friday ❤🎉
Ooooo... free course
Preach it.......
The only evidence for the Resurrection that matters is if the apostles really saw Jesus alive and walking around again after his death (because how else was one supposed to verify a resurrection actually occurred?).
Unfortunately for apologists like Habermas, Paul's early testimony casts doubt on the veracity of the "appearances" because Paul's experience was purportedly a vision after Jesus had already gone to heaven! But this didn't keep Paul from saying Jesus "appeared" to him like he "appeared" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8.
The physical appearances where Jesus is a revived corpse who is touched only develop later, particularly in the gospels of Luke and John. These stories look like apologetically motivated inventions. There is no evidence these stories existed or were believed in the earliest Christianity. They look like they evolved later from what were originally spiritual experiences of Jesus up in heaven.
I would say even that wouldnt be evidence, there is a reason why the quote 'the rumors of my desth are greatly exaggerated' is so used.
But yeah, it is impressive how apologists dont have even that low bar.
If I knew beforehand of this guy named Jesus and then say him walking around after his supposed death, the immediate thought for me was that he wasn't really killed. Coulda' swooned or maybe someone else was crucified in his place, or aka like Mark Twain's “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” (Wikipedia has a FULL page of premature obituaries.) Any of the above, over a resurrection.
Actually, I think Paul COULD be considered an eyewitness to a resurrected Jesus - IF he was NOT delusional, mistaken, or lying. (Mountain-sized "IF.") The only true eyewitness in the full meaning of the phrase. Of course, we don't have his statements uttered under oath, or any background of how much a wackadoodle he was.
I don't mean witnesses to the (later) stories in the gospels but that Jesus was actually divine. If (again IF, which I don't for a moment believe) this vision was heaven-sent, it won't matter if the entire city of Jerusalem did or did witness the empty tomb. Or if Jesus was not a blood-n-guts human but some archangel who somehow met whatever crazy conditions god set down to serve as the ultimate atonement done in heaven. If the human-Jesus did or did not perform miracles, did or did not preach any sermons. Proving you were an message of god would be the real issue, not whether you stopped off on earth on your way.
But IF Paul really believe he talked to a holy ghost, it would carry no more weight that anyone else claiming they talked to Gabriel, Moroni, or Casper.
Now if some figure, complete with halo floated into the UN and addressed everyone, and answered lots of questions, I might believe.
@@johnnehrich9601 This also makes the response of the authorities in Acts seem very weird. Let's say Jesus was indeed (thought to be) executed, and then a few months later people start saying he was raised from the dead and that people have seen him. If you were the Sanhedrin or Roman prefect, wouldn't your first thought be "Crap, we must've killed a stand-in, or he survived somehow and got away, or someone's pretending to be him to rally support for his own claims"? Seems like priority number one would be arresting and torturing the guy who is preaching in Jerusalem that he was raised from the dead until you find out what he means and where this executed criminal is now.
EVEN IF the preachers just meant some kind of invisible spiritual resurrection, why would the authorities go "Ah, he's just speaking metaphorically, nothing to worry about" and not just assume there might be some kind of rebellious speaking-in-code going on here? Yet they don't seem the least bit concerned with recapturing Jesus, as though the author didn't think about that and/or knows that it never happened because nobody had any reason to think anyone had been raised from the dead to begin with.
there is zero evidence that the accounts as recorded in the Gospels 'developed later'. Yet you state it as if fact.
@@PC-vg8vn Except for the legendary development you can see throught mathew's humble jesus, mark's multiple endings until jhon's fanfic.
Sorry dude, but it is academic consensus the fables in the gospels were 'developed later'.
If you have evidence the gospels' accounts were like that since the beginning of christianity, now is your time to show the evidence.
Until then, all you have is your fri nge opinion vs academic consensus.
When is the course available? 🤔
Nice Soylent Green reference there...
Paul, I love your content. This speaks to where I am in my personal faith journey.
I wanted to offer some constructive criticism about your videos, because I find them a little difficult to watch or listen to when compared to other similar podcasts or videos, and maybe it's my brain, but maybe others find it difficult too. My standard mode is to listen to content like this, but I find that the audio levels between your voice and your guests and the content you react to to be too similar, I don't know if it's the eq or levels or editing, but it's hard sometimes to process if what I'm hearing is you or what you're reacting to. So I thought maybe watching the video would help, but here I found a different but similar issue, I like your animated buff version of you, but the simple mouth moving doesn't draw my eye, and so it's sometimes hard to tell if it's you talking or your guest talking. And the fact that the image of the video simply pauses isn't enough of an image change to clue my brain into an edit happening until a few seconds after the change happens.
I do not have these issues with other react type programs, where the presenter general has a much more booming presence when compared with the videos that they play. And webcams allow them to convey the full emotion to me so I can tell when someone is using deadpan humor or just telling straight.
Again I love your content, but I find it hard to watch sometimes. I should add that I'm on the autism spectrum, in person registering emotions in people seems to be harder for me than other people, so this may be an accessibility issue.
Theory: Peter was like a DM who had a story in mind, but heard Paul's reasoning and changed it low key because Paul's was better.
Oh my gosh I love that the url is /barthate
Great Vids! Signed up for the course & waiting for Bart's Armageddon book to arrive from the US
Awesome! Thank you!
Paul you and Dr. Bart are really GodSent. Pun intended lololol I love this page man .
Also worth remembering that along with there being 4 books planned, this last one cost 72 dollars (42 for an E-book). A hardback copy of "A Dance with Dragons" which has 16 more pages than that cost 18 bucks (8 for an E-book). And Habermas is withholding showing his scholastic work till book 3.
It's good to hear Bart's side.
The Paul, galatians 2:6 could also have been added later by someone trying to harmonize the various accounts.
Bart's explanation on the meaning of the Greek word Historeo "in context" of the 1st Century reader/hearer is logical and precise, and it illustrates just how absolutely, disgustingly and shamelessly craven is the apologist's need to lie at any cost, even at the price of their own integrity. It is EXACTLY what Richard Carrier means when he writes about how they lie by withholding. How can I pity Habermas for devoting his "life's work" to what is basically an exhaustive lie?
The moment I heard the title, and the word "evidences", I knew all I needed to. 'Evidence' is plural. Only the most blinkered Christians seem obsessed with this bizarre phrasing.
Personally I’m okay with it. I see it as a short-cut way of saying “different kinds of evidence.” It’s a common practice to shorten cumbersome phrases.
But if you want to argue it shouldn’t be used in the title of a supposedly scholarly work, I would agree.
The mere incontrovertible fact that Paul’s writings say NOTHING about the vast majority of Jesus’s teachings, including all his parables, the Sermon on the Mount, or any of his miracles, is a HUGE problem for the breezy evangelical assumption that there has only ever been ONE kind of Christianity, and it’s Paul’s Christianity.
I am willing to bet that Volume 3 NEVER comes out!!!
I'm reminded of the bits I know about modern church history. Many new churches have started because two men in leadership positions didn't get along.
@RikardPeterson - It's like AA. The only things you need to start a new meeting is a coffee pot and a resentment.
"1796, a fiercely determined band of pioneers leaves Maryland after misinterpreting a passage in the Bible. Their destination? New Sodom."
I'd love to know the name of the big-budget movie with jesus absolutely glowing while meeting while meeting Paul. The one that was apparently broadcast on NBC. Looks epic and totally convincing.
Paul/Bart fighting it out with Andrew/Carrier!