--DEBRIEF w Trent Horn | Bart Ehrman Debate on Gospels Reliability
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 04. 2022
- From the Counsel of Trent (4/13/22): • Has Bart Ehrman dispro...
In this episode Trent sits down with Jimmy Akin to debrief his recent debate on the reliability of the Gospels with renowned scholar and critic Bart Ehrman.
I'm not catholic but I have to say this was a great debate, I really enjoyed it. I've watched just about every debate I can find from Ehrman on youtube and this was by far the best one. Thank you for what you do Jimmy.
Become Catholic...just do it. Go. Now. Do it. 😉
@@ryanrogers3610 What a compelling argument you've laid out 😜
Jimmy's one of the smartest guys I've come across in my journey through debates. And it's just one big confusion for me, that he is catholic. How can I have confidence in my decision in reformed protestantism while I know that he is on the other side. I frequently check my presuppositions and my conclusions because I am aware of the strength of psychological illusions, but it just seems to be one of the more obvious things to me, that roman catholicism is not true. I'd push to see Jimmy Akin and James White debate.
was a good approach. Ehrman gets stale in his debates like a comedian who never changes his act. But Jimmy had to make Bart Think, and that annoyed him. lol. Was cool debate
I liked Jimmy's fresh approach in the debate.
Earlier today I watched the debate because "Great Courses" sent their catalog. One of the courses is by Bart Ehrman. Recognizing his name I typed it in the CZcams search, found the debate between Jimmy and Bart and listened to it. I ended up with questions which have been answered by this discussion between Jimmy and Trent. Thank you for making the video, thus completing the debate.
Glad you found it helpful!
@@JimmyAkin What an honor for you to respond to my comment! Thank you! I liked the heart ❤, too. Keep doing what you're doing. It is so needed.
If only Joseph knew a carpenter who could have helped him build that little 2nd home. Oh wait...
“because he was of the house and lineage of David (Luke 2:4).” This passage says specifically that he returned because he was of the house of David. The passage gives that as the reason for his return. If he had a home there, the wording would not be the same. Obviously, I understand this is a translation, but it isn’t suggested at all that he has a home there, let alone that it’s his primary home. It specifically says he goes back BECAUSE he is from the house of David.
Jimmy, What a great job, I wish the church would rise up millions of people like you. Thanks
About the two residencies, if they owned property in Bethlehem, would they have to look for (booked out) accommodation and then crash at a barn? (Based in my general understanding of the birth story, didn’t read up the gospels)
As a general remark, as an atheist ex Catholic (who didn’t watch the debate for acknowledgment) I found it very interesting and Jimmy very sympathetic and would love to have a friendly talk on believe and what it is based on (or not)
With Joseph, it makes perfect sense to have homes in both Nazareth and Bethlehem, not even necessarily for work related purposes. He was born and raised in Bethlehem, ergo location of his family/ancestral home, and he moved to Nazareth upon adulthood, likely for employment and even more likely to have a home and raise his own family with his first wife before she died.
The only thing that doesn't seem to fit is the stable
@Gordon Larrikin good point, but even that has a reasonably plausible explanation.
For the census all peoples were required to return to their ancestral homes. While it *is* speculation, I'd say it's likely Joseph was from a large family, all of whom were now inhabiting the probably modest family residence in Bethlehem - along with all of *their* own families. It could also be the case that he was the last to return, ergo no space left, especially for an expectant mother.
I can say I don't like the one obvious implication to this scenario, namely that out of all Joseph's family members no one would make room for a pending mother-to-be, but that could still very much be how it happened, especially if Mary was going into labour just as they were arriving and there simply wasn't time to rearrange accommodations for her. The stable could've been the only practical option available.
The stablefits.There emwould be a lit of familymembers coming back.Most likely the census would have something to do withland rights........and so everything would be full.Once the census was over,probablyhe was toying with the idea of raising the baby in Bethlehem
If he did have an owned legal residence it could have been legally rented out. Or he bought a place after the birth of Jesus. Either way, by law he had to be there for the census
And why would he have to register at his other property when the whole point of a census is to register people at their place of residence?
Erhman makes a living over asking unanswerable questions about a text written 2000 years ago. Akin challenges his claim by defining the difference between reliability vs. Inerrancy. Erhman arguments couldn't provide enough evidence to sway any reasonable person. VIVA CRISTO REY!
where can I find this debate? I can only find the one "are the gospels reliable" Not one titled "Are the gospels unreliable"
God bless Jimmy Akins.
Looking forward to reading your articles about how the Gospel infancy narratives fit together Jimmy, as Bart's point of an possible inconsistency between the flight to Egypt and presentation in the temple does bear further thought. Thanks!
Why didn't you talk about the geanology part?! That was the best part of the debate!
Really? Can you explain how someone can have a father who has a father who has a father etc, that have different names in different stories?
As I recall from the debate Jimmy was trying to suggest that Joseph was descended from numerous people from the same family which only works if it isn’t a direct line.
You have 4 grandparents for example but only one of those is the father of your father which is why I didn’t understand or hear Akin explain this problem. I think the mediator moved them along before this could be discussed further when Ehrman was pushing back on this point.
Re Mark apparently there are other examples of ancient writings where the author ends rather abruptly but expects his readers to know what happens later, in this case the resurrection of Jesus and the beginning of the church. So I wouldnt agree that Mark was somehow incomplete. That also isnt the impression that Papias gives about Mark - he is firm that Mark is accurate and is largely from Peter's eyewitness testimony but that it is not in a good literary order, including chronology (hence the 'and').
Have you read Richard Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' (2nd ed)? It's excellent and well researched.
James white talks about Bart like he's the boogeyman. Jimmy had him beat from the opening statement
Wow at 44:16 he said $2000 for the book of Matthew. That equates to around $.11 per word. That is approximately $86k to make bible or a mere $20k for the NT. The fact we have any at al,l much less the thousands of copies of MSS, is a miracle.
Define miracle
@@digitalblasphemy1100 hi used miracle when I should have used miracle some thing that can't be accomplished in a natural way is how I would define it.
@@Papasquatch73 Okay that's fair, I would pretty much agree with that. Do you believe the people that authored the bible, taught it, shared the gospel/bible believed what it said was true?
I'm interested in the dating of the gospels. The idea that it didn't occur to the apostles to write down God's words until 30 or 70 years later seems preposterous. They were literate , including Matthew and Paul, and it would have helped other discovered spread the good news from day one by having a written script to use in teaching and preaching. All I've seen of dating gospels methodology seems heavily based upon assumptions and weak science (analyzing writing styles and inferences). Just my 2 cents
Paul for example wrote his letters as he traveled (not after being martyred).
@@jamesflynn4741which is what everyone says. Who suggested Paul wrote his epistles after he was dead? This is why Paul’s writings are believed to have been written up until not long before his death in the 60s CE.
Paul’s letters are believed to have been written from the late 40s to the 60s CE. Sadly most of the remnants of copies are from much later so we can’t date them physically.
I was surprised how disingenuous Bart was. It also seems he is using arguments that he has not worked on refining since the 90’s. The other issue regarding definition framing, other than reliability, is definition of “historical”. Regarding Luke all happening the same day seems to be very unrealistic. That would have the two disciples on the road close to sundown 7 miles from Jerusalem. Have a meal with Jesus, head back to Jerusalem walking the 7 miles back in the dark. Then Jesus appearing to them again in Jerusalem, Jesus teaching and preaching to the apostles, then walking about two miles outside of the city and ascension takes place at night, Then the apostles worship him, then head back to Jerusalem about two miles away, then go to the temple. It’s not likely this is what Luke was intending to write.
I just found out about ehrman, but from the little I've seen he is best in a debate where you can't point out where he is wrong, misquoting or blatantly falsifying the bible. Like his story of Mark and Luke crucifixion story.
I think Jimmy’s weakest point was that his list of “big claims” doesn’t include any miracles. Like, we wouldn’t care about the gospel if it weren’t for the miracles! I would at least have liked him to have proudly put forward that the miracle claims (regardless of the truth, since Bart puts that outside the scope of a historian) are internally consistent and line up with each other properly. This would have dramatically improved my impression of Jimmy’s case. It felt cheap in a way- I still think he won point for point though.
I thought this as well, but I think that they would have had to be addressed in a distinct way. Part of why to believe in the miracles in Scripture is that all of the rest of it is correct, and the reporting on miracles holds up in the same way. But it should have been addressed at least
I don’t know about Christian’s but for atheists, being internally consistent is a terrible argument. To me it’s as convincing as the Harry Potter books are internally consistent.
This was a silly debate. Ehrman clearly believes the gospels are historically reliable to an extent. So everyone agrees on that. Saved you 2 hours.
Reliability should mean whether the message they convey is true or not. For example, the salvation. Contrary to the Jewish belief, Christianity pins the salvation on the death and resurrection of Jesus, whereas the Torah's salvation be achieved by believing in God and keeping the commandments.
Bart and Danielle Wallace are good friends who come to different conclusions.
You’ve got copies of letters, written by a guy named Paul, never met Jesus when he was doing his ministry before the alleged crucifixion. That guy claims that he met his brother James. And if he had wanted to say, James was a cousin step, brother, or any other pile of garbage. That you will assert without providing anything more than well that word could mean that’s not good enough. Could a should a would a possible isn’t good enough. Don’t make excuses for the text.
Based
Trent, you misrepresented the position on errors contained within the text of the Bible and the history of its transmission. Just because you can use the discipline of textual criticism to try and figure out what was most likely the originals we don’t have the originals to compare them to so all you can do is compare it to the oldest available manuscripts, and what we have has been altered overtime which is the point. Some Bibles have more books some have less books some have different variance and stuff has been changed every time it’s transferred into a different language because you can expand the meaning of something by instead of saying man, you say mankind. I saw the debate and I was not impressed reliability place names big deal prominent names that could’ve been sourced from prominent historians of that era try doing it without presuppositions, except copies from some guy name Paul everything is hearsay so-and-so, said that so-and-so said. Claims and assertions may contain evidence, but you have to demonstrate the validity not just claim and assert without showing how you got that conclusion. US courts generally don’t except hearsay evidence. The cherry picking of the text to make the thing say anything you want it to. I sense the autographs don’t exist. You have to work with the oldest Copies, and not the corrupted text that made it into our modern translations.
I like that Jimmy Akin seems to have a large collection of stuffed animals for some reason
They belonged to my late wife. She gave them all names and personalities, and I keep them in memory of her.
@@JimmyAkin Beautiful thing to do, very sorry for your loss and will keep you and her in my prayers. I am Eastern Orthodox but admire your work.
@@my-spinning-wheel Thank you, and God bless you!
This is very frustrating to watch. I’m 20 minutes in and so far it’s a lot of 2 Catholics asking questions about what Bart would say. Just ask Bart. Interview Bart and ask him these questions.
Watch the debate
I’m a believer in Jesus, and I saw Bart demolish Jimmy. Bart more then proved the bible is not infallible or historically reliable. The authors weren’t trying to be historically reliable, which is part of the whole problem. If believers could understand they’re not historical texts, but religious texts that happened in history…all these useless debates would end.
The bible doesn’t claim to be a scientific explanation for the world, nor does it claim to be an authentic historical record. It’s a religious book about Gods interaction with a certain people group.
Talking about someone who's not there and giving their history 1,000,000 views.
Good job fellas😅😂
Bart is a poor debater unfortunately. He is a nice guy and a great scholar. His books communicate the mainstream scholarship very well to a lay audience. But debating is a skill in itself. And Bart doesn't have it, unfortunately. This is the reason he gets outmaneuvered by Christian Apologists constantly.
This was a poorly selected topic.
Spiderman takes place in NYC. It references many individuals that are historically confirmed. It discusses events that are historically confirmed. It has spiders in it. It shows NYC suffering from crime problems and bad traffic issues. These are all things we ALL agree to be true, therefore Spiderman is a reliable record of historical events.
Nope lol: czcams.com/video/IDu4iVb9jgE/video.html
Another guy punching above his weight class
I will say that since Bart had the burden of proof, Jimmy didn’t need to do much. Bart made a mistake by picking the affirmative position in the debate.
It seems that what you are saying is the Bible is not God inspired (as God does not make mistakes) and is subject to human lies, misconceptions, hallucinations, embellishments or combinations? Since the resurrection is extremely unlikely from our personal experience, how do you assign a higher probability it is true rather than "human lies, misconceptions, hallucinations, embellishments or combinations"?
That's an exaggeration, but I think you can be inspired by God and still make moderate innocent human errors.
@@gordonlarrikin9683 "Moderate Innocent Human Errors"? Like the Earth being 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Spelling mistakes? 500 year old men building boats? Talking serpents? Commands to kill babies? People walking on water? Leaving out punctuation? People coming back from the dead and walking the streets?
@@gabrielteo3636 They never mentioned any of this, so I simply assumed you were talking about the resurrection and birth "contradictions". About the age of the earth, I recommend checking out Jimmy Akins mysterious world episodes 119-121, as well as a debate with Gideon Lazaar on the subject.
@@gordonlarrikin9683 Then what did you mean the bible can make "moderate innocent human errors"? Maybe including some books and not others? Grammatical errors?
@@gabrielteo3636 I meant apparent contradictions in the gospels, did you watch the video or not?
So the comics of Spiderman are not inerrant but they are reliable?
Ehrman won the debate hands down. This guy tores to argue that Jesus being God or being the son of fox or being born from a virgin or being resurrected were minor details on which disagreements could be accepted. That was weird.
The conclusion of Akins shows that Bart couldn’t counter fact the number of claims that’s pretty clear, the number of true claims is bigger, why you don’t agree ?
@@Netomp51 Because I 'm not a cretin.
@@thierryf2789 I guess you just don’t like those facts, but facts don’t care about your feelings friend.
@@Netomp51 Well they do; for instance, we're not friends. That's a fact that cares about my feelings.
@@thierryf2789 thanks for confirming your personality lol.
21:40 - Jimmy pats himself on the back for coming up with "Joseph owned two homes", while totally ignoring the larger point -- that the "census" never happened.
So, right off the bat, you share an honest situation, then slightly twist it. You say it was his publisher than decided on the more alarmist title of “misquoting Jesus,” then insinuate that it was Bart who was purposefully putting forth the racier idea. Bart, himself, has said he didn’t want that title. These post debate analysis videos are often frustrating because they reframe a number of things to fit the perspective of one side of the argument. It ends up being a bit disingenuous and dishonest. Just have this conversation with Bart, then it’ll be more useful.
Jimmy was pretty clear that popular books are by definition less scholarly, but he also agreed that his popular writings have a more pessimistic tone which isn’t necessarily justified by the text or the state of current scholarship. And Trent was referring to an alarmist tone in his writings, and just used the title of the book as an example of what he was talking about, even if the that title in particular wasn’t picked my Bart.
You're reaching in order to maintain your faith. The average reader for over a 1000 years read the gospels as if its actually true. They had no clue of what you are talking about.
Between them, Rabbi Tovia Singer and Bart Ehrman have disproved the entire new testament
No troll
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 The New Testament is a work of antisemitism. Vatican archives prove the Pope & Hitler worked hand in glove.
Debate on reliability for religion seems nonsensical. It's a faith. Facts are not necessary for faith. If all facts come to be know as contrary to faith, faith will remain.
That’s funny…I don’t seem to remain in faith of Santa, tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Mother Nature & Darwinism Evolution…
I do believe in invisible stuff…gravity, mind, God………
Ehrman has a very black and white view and doesnt accept nuance.
Like what?
I couldn't even make it through the beginning. This dude with the beard seemed to have such an exaggerated opinion of himself I just couldn't stomach listening to more than a couple mins.
You played a very nice trick on Bart by negating the question. I find it surprising that he fell for it. By the way, a big spaceship landed in my home town yesterday. I wrote an eye-witness account in my diary. Can you proof my diary is not accurate?
Was your sighting of the spaceship confirmed by multiple witnesses as the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was? And were those witnesses so transformed by the experience that they dedicated their lives to proclaiming it? Did some of them accept a painful death rather than deny what they experienced concerning the spaceship?
@@blakemoon123 Yes. 550 people saw it at the same time! Amazing. It's all written in my diary. There are even three independent sources: My diary and 2 CZcams comments. Currently there are no painful deaths, unfortunately. These legends take a few 100 years to grow, as you might know.
@@thomaslehner5605 yep. I saw it as well
Well children…you have a huge problem with so many witnesses and todays modern technology…this one wouldn’t miss world wide media boy’s…sorry.
@@blakemoon123 "Did some of them accept a painful death rather than deny what they experienced concerning the spaceship?" We have no record of any such thing.
I don't understand why you guys promoting an atheist to the world, especially to your audiences???
Because most believers know athiests who will at some point challenge us on our faith. It is helpful to have the arguments of apologists in the back of our minds 1. so we can give good responses to the unbelievers we know and 2. because if we don’t know there are good responses to their points we might think they have disproved our beliefs and lose our own faith
They're not. Jimmy debated Ehrman a couple of weeks ago. This is a debrief for that event.
When you study natural law & physics, you understand atheism is irrational & lazy.
@@shanesilverstein287 I knew that. I watched the debate.
@@myrrhsolace5875 It's better to challenge Bart Ertman why he became agnostic or atheist!
christianity makes sense as metaphor... that's it...😅
This is real simple. Once a source says magical stuff happened, it becomes unreliable.
Fatima
@Think Through It hypotheticals are useless. Magic is supernatural. How would one go about proving the supernatural?
@@Psalm34rws because magic isn’t real. Do I really need to explain this?
by that standard, almost all of antiquity would unreliable. all the history of Julius Caesar would be unreliable
@@Psalm34rws everything that we’ve ever seen, experienced or studied has been bound by physical laws. Before we can even begin to accept magic (which defies physical laws) as a cause for anything, it needs to be shown to be possible. Until that happens, magical stories cannot be taken seriously. Being skeptical of magic is the only logical position.
When i read the comments that both are catholics debating an atheist,bye bye...when catholics promote their own form of religion and do not understand the gospels and the book of Hebrews then its a waste of time unless you are catholic/atheist...lol