Never forget when Brant Pitre got Dr. Ehrman to admit that Jesus makes a divine claim in Mark's Gospel during the trial

@gurigura4457

Жыл бұрын

Strictly speaking, Ehrman says that Mark describes events to Jesus is making a divine claim in a roundabout way - and even then he is not claiming to *be* God, only to be the Son of Man.

@lior38

Жыл бұрын

Yeah it was so good😂

@johnbrion4565

Жыл бұрын

@@gurigura4457even ehrman in this video says that Son of Man is blasphemous as it implies Jesus divinity. Ehrman just argues that Mark made this up.

@illyrian9976

Жыл бұрын

@@gurigura4457 That doesn't matter, since Ehrman claimed that the Gospel of Mark had no divine claim of Jesus at all and that it was devoloped over time, culminating in the Gospel of John. By admiting that the Gospel of Mark has divine claims of Jesus, he confirmed that his theory of a gradual development is wrong.

@estebanmarquez6636

Жыл бұрын

Came here to say this, you beat me to it lol

20:12 So Ermhan claims that Mark misrepresented the trial, because Jesus wouldn't have actually been accused of blasphemy because He wasn't making divine claims. That is, Mark edited it to indicate Jesus claimed divinity. Which means that by Erhman's own logic, Mark thought Jesus was divine. Edit: for those claiming I don't understand or misunderstand Ermhan, here he is saying Jesus never claimed to be divine in the Synoptics. kzread.info/dash/bejne/dYSej6N9Zq68gJc.htmlsi=d65-1oFttkXfjxRx

@michaelstanet7453

Жыл бұрын

The author of Mark does not identify himself, does not state when and where he is writing, what evidence he has access to, but what methods he envaulted the evidence to determine what was true, and writes in a different language than what the subjects spoke. In fact, the writing is religious text with a clear theological agenda that does not even claim to be a work of history, in that writer is not attempting to determine what actually happened vs. create a narrative of belief for existing and new followers). Scholarly consensus is that it was written in Rome about 40 years after the crucifixion based on oral tradition. On top of that, on the trial it is discussing proceedings none of the apostles would have had first had info about. So given all that, I wonder why you ascribe such high confidence that this text is accurate representation of what occurred.

@billcynic1815

Жыл бұрын

@michaelstanet7453 That is all irrelevant to my point. I was referring to the oft-repeated claim, which Ehrman himself has said, that the author of Mark did not believe that Jesus was God, that this was a later belief that is now read into the text. But with the trial in Mark, we have two options: Either it is an accurate representation, which means Jesus made a divine claim in Mark. Then, regardless of whether Mark believed Jesus was divine, he records Jesus making a divine claim. Or it is not an accurate representation of the trial, and the author inserted that text. Which means the author deliberately inserted Jesus claiming divinity into the Gospel, which is a clear indication the author thought Jesus was divine. In either case, Mark indicates Jesus is divine, which clearly contradicts Ehrman's oft-repeated claim.

@susand3668

Жыл бұрын

Dear@@michaelstanet7453 I think, perhaps, you are using out-dated scholarship. The best modern scholarship indicates that the Gospel of Mark was written by a man named Mark, who was writing down notes for Simon Peter's memories of what happened. I forget what the word is that describes such notes. The other Gospels are so much more polished, they are really complete "biographies" in the way biographies were written in the first century. Mark is a "rough draft", so to speak. Further, at this point, scholars are giving weight to the fact that every New Testament book was written the destruction of the Temple -- not one mentions the actual destruction as accomplished ("and so it was", or "and it is ruins to this very day"-- the way the Old Testament indicates the truthfulness of its historical claims.) That destruction of the Temple would have been the best p.r. possible for a "new" Jewish sect to prove its God-given validity!

@michaelstanet7453

Жыл бұрын

@@susand3668 Really, because you seem to be using church tradition regarding authorship. I have no idea "what best modern scholarship" you are referring to establishing the identity of the anonymous written text, what his sources were, that it was meant as a rough draft or supporting the earlier dating. Do you have a source?

@legron121

Жыл бұрын

“Mark thought Jesus was divine”. That’s exactly what Ehrman says. The question is whether Jesus himself claimed to be divine, not whether Mark thought he was. Ehrman actually changed his mind (he now thinks that Mark saw Jesus as divine, in contrast to his earlier statements), but it’s irrelevant to whether Jesus claimed it for himself.

I think Bart Ehrman's arguments are interesting but not compelling. "Jesus never claimed to be God" "He does so in X, Y, Z spots, all of Jesus' disciples appear to have understood him to be claiming divinity, and this is basically the consensus position of all the Biblical authors and the Sanhedrin" "X, Y, Z spots can't have happened because they contradict my position."

@apubakeralpuffdaddy392

Жыл бұрын

​@robertstephenson6806 "Origen was influenced by Plato and incorporated his concepts of saints in heaven, sinners in eternal torment in hell, and man has an immortal soul into church dogma in the 3rd century - none of which are supported by Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity was developed in 325 at Nicaea and 381 at Constantinople. Mary was decreed theotokos in 431 at the Council of Ephesus, and a perpetual virgin in 531 at the Council of Chalcedon". Matthew 3 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. 16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” Sounds like the Trinity to me. Luke 1:39 39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” Sounds like Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate, the 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity, to me. John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. If Mary had other children, why did Jesus give Mary, His Mother, to John? Sounds like the Perpetual Virginity to me. Councils affirm what Christians already believe to be true; Councils are called to combat heresy. And Council declarations are rooted in Scripture. After all, the Councils affirmed the Canon of Scripture.

@eulldog

6 ай бұрын

Actually no, he doesn't claim that in XYZ spots. Those are only the modern english translations written after the fact they assumed he claimed to be God. All references are saying 'son of man' or are embellished/implied by the other figures. Jesus only ever claimed to be A son of God (and that we all are).

@tomasrocha6139

5 ай бұрын

Since none of Jesus' followers attended the Sanhedrin trial it's all speculation.

@mattm7798

3 ай бұрын

Ehrman also has no idea was a true contradiction is.

@tomasrocha6139

3 ай бұрын

@@mattm7798 Yes he does and he constantly points them out

Bart Ehrman brought me to Christ. I was spiritually inclined towards Hinduism so I sought bias against Christianity. While reading one of his books where he exposed the discrepancies in the gospels, I was struck with the truth the gospels proclaimed. Nice work, Bart. Wouldn't have happened without you.

@highroller-jq3ix

11 ай бұрын

What a bizarre and broken path to ideology. You clearly have the critical thinking skills of the average tree frog.

@BaggerFood101

9 ай бұрын

Yeah sometimes the people who are actually capable of critical thinking come across these videos and they have a counter effect our Father is so amazing he turns the enemies attacks against them. Welcome to the family brother or sister you will see just how many people truly care about this decision very soon

@highroller-jq3ix

9 ай бұрын

@@BaggerFood101 People who are capable of critical thinking never critically think their way to god fantasies. How is Ehrman the "enemy," psycho?

@BaggerFood101

9 ай бұрын

@@highroller-jq3ix didn’t call him the enemy read between the lines and again

@highroller-jq3ix

9 ай бұрын

@@BaggerFood101 Yah, you pretty much did. Learn how to punctuate a basic sentence, and then read your actual lines again.

God is an outside force that can act on this universe. If I spin a wheel and then stop it with my hand, I didn't break the laws of physics, I was just the outside force that acted on the wheel to make it stop spinning.

@Mark-cd2wf

Жыл бұрын

Unless _of course,_ you beg the question by assuming that no God exists to stop the wheel. Which is pretty much David Hume’s Argument against Miracles in a nutshell. Hume is second only to the sainted Charles Darwin in worship and adoration by online skeptics and atheists. And his “argument” was shredded by his own contemporaries almost before the ink used to write it was dry.

@dogsnout

Жыл бұрын

@@Mark-cd2wf Agreed. If we assume that no God exists then we are left with generating a naturalistic explanation

@omegaxx7777

11 ай бұрын

@@dogsnoutwhat is the problem with a naturalistic explanation? There is absolutely no evidence that anything exists outside of the realm of naturalism.

@omegaxx7777

11 ай бұрын

@@Mark-cd2wfyou are question begging when you assume god exists in order to explain miracles. It is more rational to assume god does not exist when trying to explain natural phenomena because unlike god, we actually have evidence natural phenomena exist.

@dogsnout

11 ай бұрын

@@omegaxx7777 No issue with a naturalistic explanation. Look into how we get life from no life. How does water magically create RNA? If you are happy with the explanation then that's great. Best of luck

Please read The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre, a catholic New Testament scholar. He tackles every single one of this issues and more.

@kennethogorman5436

2 ай бұрын

Only an idiot listens to clown apologists lol

@waterenthusiast4721

2 ай бұрын

@@kennethogorman5436and yet here you are, listening to an apologist. So you admit you’re an idiot

@dominikdurkovsky8318

Ай бұрын

​@@kennethogorman5436 ad hominem doesn't make your belief right. Neither will selective skepticism.

@kennethogorman5436

Ай бұрын

@@dominikdurkovsky8318 Doesn’t make your belief right either. Nobody knows what the truth is nobody . There’s no data to prove any of it

At this point, the most powerful part of a modern atheist’s argument is how they perform. It’s a performance. Dawkins mastered the smirk. Even as Dr. John Lennox picked him apart.

@katholischetheologiegeschi1319

Жыл бұрын

I think the number 1 is/was Hitchens

@annmariefinnigan3096

Жыл бұрын

👍

@thatsriiiiight4170

Жыл бұрын

Cosmic skeptic is now trying to copy the same mannerisms, hard to take them seriously anymore

@Piercetheveilnow

Жыл бұрын

@@thatsriiiiight4170 Their identity as an atheist is all they have. It has become their religion.

@CaptainHyperverse

Жыл бұрын

@@thatsriiiiight4170wait really? When did this start?

Jimmy Akin v Bart is still one of my favorite debates

@jordondaniels9276

5 ай бұрын

Bart mops the floor with him

@bluckobluc8755

4 ай бұрын

​@@jordondaniels9276 Not really... Re-watch it a few times and you will see Jimmy did equaly as good or even better and Jimmy eveb gave Bart a high five... Not a good look for a "floor moper"

@jordondaniels9276

4 ай бұрын

@@bluckobluc8755 Not really

@georgenassif5777

4 ай бұрын

@@jordondaniels9276I would beg to differ on that. Jimmy did quite a good job countering Ehrman’s claims.

@jordondaniels9276

4 ай бұрын

@@georgenassif5777 That's just not true though.

I found this video by searching for Bart Ehrman response because I’ve been watching his podcast series and I wanted to hear someone who thought differently. I really like how you quoted him and his book, you clearly put a lot of time and effort into this video. I’m not Catholic (or even Christian), but I appreciate the video and made sure to give it a like

Thanks for doing this, Trent. I was very frustrated seeing these arguments get so much (seemingly coordinated) airtime. I was hoping someone else noticed. Appreciate you digging into this!

@extract8058

Жыл бұрын

I lost it when Ehrman appeared as a cartoon character on Paulogia instead of his true appearance 😂😂😂

@TenMinuteTrips

11 ай бұрын

@@extract8058Maybe when you get how Paulogia built his channel, you’ll understand.

@chrisjoseph4088

11 ай бұрын

Bart's arguments are exactly great. It always makes me laugh when ppl take these stories seriously.

@tomyossarian7681

11 ай бұрын

Trent can only dig his head deeper into his arse. Nice to se he made enough space for other people too. 🤭

@highroller-jq3ix

11 ай бұрын

@@extract8058 Why?

The Son of Man is a divine figure in Daniel, "coming on the clouds of heaven" is what God does in the Old Testament. That's why they sentenced Jesus to death, they knew that He claimed to be the divine figure from Daniel.

@EasternOrthodox101

4 ай бұрын

🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️But you DO know the correct literal interpretation of those verses on Daniel, right?

@conradbulos6164

2 ай бұрын

Jesus was condemned to death because they read about him in Daniel which was written 100 years later?

@EasternOrthodox101

2 ай бұрын

@@conradbulos6164 It wasn't 100 years later, blasphemer, so shut your trap & repent please

@EasternOrthodox101

2 ай бұрын

@@conradbulos6164 Shut your trap, faceless bot & repent

Thank you Trent! I appreciate this podcast as I’m just now about to take my first rites at Christ the King here in Tulsa ,Oklahoma. You give me a lot of insights . Again , much thanks

@TheCounselofTrent

Жыл бұрын

Praise be to God!

@parchment543

Жыл бұрын

Have you seen vatican catholic refutation of Trent Horn?

@461weavile

Жыл бұрын

​@@parchment543 no I haven't. Link?

@jeremias-serus

Жыл бұрын

@@parchment543 Vatican Catholic, who’s name is Peter Dimond, is living in heresy as he is a Sedevacantist-he believes that the Catholic Church has gone astray as the current and/or current and previous popes have been incorrect appointments. Trent has already made a video about Peter Dimond and a separate one on why Sedevacantism is wrong.

@jeremias-serus

Жыл бұрын

@@461weavileRead my above reply.

We need a Trent Bart debate to settle this once and for all.

@Joker22593

Жыл бұрын

I'm almost positive they've debated before. Is they haven't, I hope they find time to do so.

@grubblewubbles

Жыл бұрын

​@@Joker22593 you might be confusing this with Trent vs Richard Carrier

@michaelstanet7453

Жыл бұрын

What new ground or arguments do you think would be covered in a trent/ehrman debate that was not already covered in the Craig and Lacona debates that have already occurred.

@jeremias-serus

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelstanet745399% of debates are not new ground. They’re nailing in the coffin one specific person’s arguments for a belief against another specific person.

@jeremysmith7176

Жыл бұрын

Have you seen Jimmy Akin's debate with Bart from last year?

I remember when Bart wrote off the numerous testimonies of Christ's resurrection as "group hallucinations".

@universalflamethrower6342

Жыл бұрын

Yes, because Bart was there

@susand3668

Жыл бұрын

@@universalflamethrower6342 😂

@michaelstanet7453

Жыл бұрын

Just curious, but specifically when did he say a written account describing group apreanace was in fact a actual event where a group of people all reported seeing Jesus but it was really a haulucantion they all shared. I say this because the argument I have seem him give is that stories of group apperance are not referencing actual events.

@michaelstanet7453

Жыл бұрын

Also what group testimonies? Paul reported in his letter Jesus appeared to him (post ascension), does not specify others were there. The author of revelation also says Jesus (post ascension) appeared to him, does not say anyone else was there. What testimony of group appearances needs to actually be accounted for?

@tafazzi-on-discord

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelstanet7453 1 Corinthians 13 mentions the 500 witnesses. Paul had 0 reason to make that up because people would have gone out to look for those 500

Dr Ehrman has debated many Protestant Biblical scholars like Dr James White (who said after a debate, i paraphrase, 'that Dr Ehrman did not really consider his (Whites) argument, but just rehashed his arguments from his own books). Dr Ehrman claims that he lost his faith when faced with the problem of suffering. Thanks Trent.

@susand3668

Жыл бұрын

We need to pray for him.

There’s a difference between doing something that is logically impossible and physically impossible. We cannot imagine a reality in which a square circle can exist, because the definitions of such words are diametrically opposed to each other. Just because you can string two words together doesn’t mean that you have made a coherent sentence or has said something that can logically exist in reality. God is entirely logical and orderly. Christ is the divine logos - it is essential to his being. Thus, since God is immutable, true logic is immutable and unbreakable. However, since we can imagine a world in which physical laws are suspended, altered, or entirely different, it is not of necessity that they exist in the same way they do currently. Thus, they are not absolutely immutable in the same way logic is. We, since we are bound by physical laws, cannot suspend them. However, for beings that exist outside of physical laws, it is entirely possible that they can interact with this world in a way that defies physical laws since they are not bound by them. God, being the author of this physical universe and it’s laws, is entirely capable of suspending them in a miraculous event that is intended to give credence to his existence. Ehrman’s take is so easily refuted that it is a wonder why he still uses these arguments as if they just hit the ball out of the park. As it turns out, they’re missing the point.

Clearly that guy does not know the laws of thermodynamics. Just cause a thing has an a very small probability, doesn't mean it's impossible.

@josephclancy3528

11 ай бұрын

But is it truly likely that an invisible magical figure that no can even remotely provide 1 piece of credible evidence as to its existence; created the world and monitors 6 billion people on earth every second of every day forever to make sure they are being good or bad ??? Yeah thats possible !! Doesn't Santa Claus do that ??/

@SkepticShay

5 ай бұрын

lol, and what law of thermodynamics proves raising a human from the dead?

@dariuszgaat5771

5 ай бұрын

@@SkepticShay Poincaré recurrence theorem.

@SkepticShay

5 ай бұрын

@@dariuszgaat5771 that theorem's still not relevant to reincarnation as the same being. And it applies to an isolated system.

Which particular law of physics is supposed to make the Resurrection impossible?

@robertbach9376

Жыл бұрын

I'd imagine that the entropic (2nd?) law of thermodynamics would be cited. It doesn't, but it's likely what they'd think.

@WaterCat5

Жыл бұрын

It's just a phrase. There's simply no reason to suspect a miracle occurred because some people dozens of years after the fact claimed it. If that's your criteria, I have plenty of modern miracle workers that I can sell you, and they have better evidence.

@Giant_Meteor

Жыл бұрын

​@@robertbach9376If resurrection violates the law of entropy, abiogenesis is definitely impossible.

@461weavile

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, very curious which physical laws dictate ensoulment, lol.

@sirkamyk9886

Жыл бұрын

@@461weavile Pretty sure souls are understood to be non-physical, so the laws of physics would not apply to them.

7:48 "This would be like Christians saying Jesus rose from the dead because Pope Gregory the Great said that he did 500 years after the fact." The earliest source of Moses is 1000 years after he allegedly lived...

@mattm7798

3 ай бұрын

We aren't comparing Jesus to Moses(btw, whom Jesus corroborates). He was responding to Ehrman's fallacious comparison of Jesus to Romulus.

Hey Kyle, thanks again for reaching me a couple weeks back. I’m still working out a few trials but I’m holding firm to my beliefs. I pray that I have the strength, faith, and intellect to put myself and my home back on the path of Truth.

@TheCounselofTrent

Жыл бұрын

Just keep praying and keep growing in holiness. God wants the best for you even if it doesn't feel like it at times. -Kyle

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

_"...but I’m holding firm to my beliefs. I pray that I have the strength, faith, and intellect to put myself and my home back on the path of Truth."_ Why is literally worshiping cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice based solely on a fictional character so important to you?

@jackross5698

Жыл бұрын

@@twitherspoon8954 I could certainly engage with you about what I believe and why I believe it - but before we could even get there I want to ask you what would it take to convince you that the person of Jesus Christ is not only real and true, but so true that His gift of the sacraments are essential for eternal salvation? What would it take to convince you of that? If you would say there is nothing that would convince you, then I cannot engage with you about my beliefs. Anything I would say would fall on deaf ears and only those who listen can find the Truth.

@halleylujah247

Жыл бұрын

God bless you Jack. I will pray for you.

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

@@jackross5698 _"I want to ask you what would it take to convince you that the person of Jesus Christ is not only real and true..."_ This isn't complicated; just provide the single-best evidence you have that Jesus existed.

In fact mathematicians like myself know that mathematics is not as absolute as people think. Mathematicians change the axioms of math all the time. If human beings can change the axioms of math, God certainly can

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

_"Mathematicians change the axioms of math all the time."_ Provide an example.

@Michael-bk5nz

Жыл бұрын

@@twitherspoon8954 the law of commutativity 2+3 = 3+2 3*2= 2*3 Unless you are in non-commutative group such as matrix multiplication, with matrices, A*B almost never equals B*A There is an entire branch of mathematics called Abstract or Modern Algebra where the researcher begins by taking one of the axioms of arithmetic and says “suppose I remove or modify, what happens?” The answer is “ all sorts of interesting things”

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

@@Michael-bk5nz _The answer is “all sorts of interesting things”_ But those "interesting things are immutable. That's the point. Wiki: Records of the implicit use of the commutative property go back to ancient times. The Egyptians used the commutative property of multiplication to simplify computing products. Euclid is known to have assumed the commutative property of multiplication in his book Elements. Formal uses of the commutative property arose in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when mathematicians began to work on a theory of functions. Today the commutative property is a well-known and basic property used in most branches of mathematics.

@Michael-bk5nz

Жыл бұрын

@@twitherspoon8954 very few mathematicians believe that mathematics is immutable, most mathematicians are constructivists, and non-commutative and even non-associative structures are very common, non-commutative algebra and non-commutative geometry are very broad fields and are an active area of research

@Joker22593

Жыл бұрын

You're missing the point. The axioms can be arbitrary, but the pursuit of math is still pure logic applied to platonic forms. You can't actually construct a mathematics where 2+2=5, for example. Instead, you can only equivocate on symbols to represent the same platonic interactions.

Your videos are just awesome. Thank you for all your efforts. God bless you.

Hey bae heat up the waffle iron this one’s going to be 🔥🧇

@johnthetenor

Жыл бұрын

I joke but just want you to know your podcast is wonderful and essential. Also the last clip from William Lane Craig looks like he's about to do a carpentry demonstration at the local Home Depot.

@halleylujah247

Жыл бұрын

We all love your jokes thanks for posting them.

Ehrman talks about later interlopations but if the gospels did not give a clear message about Jesus truly saying he is God why didn't they simply place the words in his mouth as he claims they have already done in other sections of the gospels?

@truthseeker9163

11 ай бұрын

good point

@88mphDrBrown

5 ай бұрын

This makes no sense. Ehrman doesn't claim John was written then amended with added claims of divinity. So why are you pretending his argument implies that should've happened with the other gospels?

@igorlopes7589

4 ай бұрын

​@@88mphDrBrownEhrman once claimed that the earlier gospels didn't have a Jesus who proclaimed Himself as Divine.

@igorlopes7589

4 ай бұрын

@@88mphDrBrown It is part of his idea that a Divine Jesus is a development that only appeared in Jonh. It appearing in Mark disproves the whole idea he proposed

@88mphDrBrown

4 ай бұрын

@@igorlopes7589 You seem to be having trouble understanding the substance of my argument, so let's try this again. Ehrman never claims John was changed or that any gospel was dishonestly written. He never claims they "placed words in his mouth" as if they were choosing themselves what Jesus should say.

Babe wake up, new Counsel of Trent dropped

I think I remember Dr. Bergsma said Ehrman’s breaking point was the Last Supper (Passover) being celebrated at two different times, but that can be explained by different sects of Jews having different liturgical calendars.

@gurigura4457

Жыл бұрын

No, the problem is the Jesus' death takes place either before or after Passover, depending on which gospel you read. And if you mean deconversion when you say "breaking point", Ehrman himself says that it had nothing to do with the problems he sees in the NT.

@namapalsu2364

Жыл бұрын

Ehrman's reason for apostasy is the problem of evil.

@shlamallama6433

Жыл бұрын

It's not two different calendars. Read Dr. Brant Pitre on this in Jesus and the Last Supper

@mavrickglo

Жыл бұрын

It’s simple, in the early church one group of Christians believed that the resurrection should be celebrated with Passover which is based on the lunar calendar which changes. Another group of Christian’s wanted to celebrate on the anniversary the resurrection happened.

@tafazzi-on-discord

Жыл бұрын

@@mavrickglo so...?

I remember, VERY WELL, when I was in grade-five school class that our physics teacher explained to us that for every mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, grammatical, etc...rule there is, AT LEAST, one exception. Further, I learned, later on, that our GOD is capable to BREAK or temporarily SUSPEND these rules whenever, HE wishes to and without jeopardising the ALL or PART of the nature of our EARTH.

@jazzffer

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that God out regret and anger decided to kill men, women, and children because they belong to a different tribe...and drown the many of them out of regret and anger.

@ibatan7243

Жыл бұрын

@@jazzffer When you comment, try not to be intoxicated with your shitty addictive substances. Do comment when you are awake and have a sense of reason (it may be NOT Applicable in your case).

Mathematics is not a science, it's a language, that's why saying 2+2=5 is gibberish like saying a square circle

@awasteofsalt

9 күн бұрын

If it’s just a language then you actually could just say 2+2=5. Language is not logical. It changes and mutates according to those who use it. Mathematical principles are logical and do not change. I mean, just tell me you’ve never taken any higher mathematics if you don’t think math is science…

The best way, as far as I can tell, to demonstrate the fundamental difference between scientific impossibilities and logical impossibilities is to compare the mathematical physics of a video game to the mathematical physics of our reality. A video game designer could program a video game where the gravitational constant is larger, and thus all the playable characters in the video are also programmed with superhuman strength so that they don't die when they jump off cliffs when on a planet that is governed by a gravitational constant larger than that of Earth. Heck, the designer of this game could even design characters that can travel at speeds greater than that of light. In other words, the designer of this game would be defying the laws of physics, at least the laws in the reality that we know of. However, the designer of this video game could never create a right triangle that violates the Pythagorean Theorem, nor erect hills and valleys that violate the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, nor intererrupt the multiplicative relations between those hills that violate the Product Rule, for these laws are LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and therfore impossible in our own reality, in any possible reality (e.g. a video game), or even abstractly.

@acr164

11 ай бұрын

Which is greater? Nature or nature's creator? Who are we to put limits on God when we don't even comprehend all the laws of nature.

@DartNoobo

11 ай бұрын

So, how does this apply to the whole argument?

@igorlopes7589

4 ай бұрын

​​@@acr164God is Omnipotent, but Omnipotence means to be able to do all that are possible in an absolute sense. And possibility in an absolute sense is defined by the absence of logical contradictions.

What is Ehrman's goal? To make money? To convert everyone away from religion? I can understand why one would want to talk about religion because it promises to save people. But why would you want to talk about atheism? What does it promise? Nothing. The person arguing might just feel better about their own choices if someone agrees with them.

@awasteofsalt

9 күн бұрын

To share the truth. He explicitly says he isn’t trying to convert anyone, he just shares his journey and his scholarship. We talk about atheism because the default is always to start with skepticism and critical thought. The truth doesn’t promise you anything. The truth doesn’t care about your feelings or whether you agree. It just is. Con men and grifters care about you, though.

THANK YOU. I watched around half of the interview with Cosmic Skeptic and Dr. Ehrman just left a bad taste in my mouth. I was in the midst of a comment tirade on that video, but I deleted because a) KZread comments have never convinced anyone of anything, b) I'm not good at debates, and c) man was it uncharitable.

@Brian-qt6su

11 ай бұрын

Have you ever considered that you’re bad at debates because your positions aren’t well thought out? You literally believe in fairy tales and are wondering why you have a tough time defending it.

@aclark903

11 ай бұрын

Do you have evidence for (a)?

@wesleystafford8521

4 ай бұрын

He's pretty blech, isn't he?

Bart is ironically great for Christianity because his reasons for atheism are fooling and yet he admits jesus' god claims and also admitted that the bible manuscripts are the best resources of any writing's of the ancient world

@JimmyTuxTv

11 ай бұрын

Let me get this straight what’s good for anyone who says this Christ did and said a thing, in this book we need a deciphering from a Catholic apologist like Trent proves anything thing. If a King in a far away place requires you to love them in exchange for future rewards… it’s a scam. Trent doesn’t pass the threshold this isn’t a scam and Bart strengthens that threshold by pointing out the centuries past reason many follow this scam. Eliminate the possibility your holy book isn’t deception, it’s important.

@vandalayindustries8036

11 ай бұрын

I don't get it. Acknowledgement of Jesus potentially claiming to be God, has no real bearing on wether or not he was. There have been many people that claim to be Jesus. Does us acknowledging that this is their claim, make it any more likely they are in fact Jesus?

@brianburke1551

11 ай бұрын

@@vandalayindustries8036 not necessarily but the claims of being god along with all the miracles and resurrection make a solid case for it

@vandalayindustries8036

11 ай бұрын

@@brianburke1551 I disagree, since the claim of a resurrection and the claim of supernatural miracles are spurious at best themselves. This is wanting to have your cake and eat it to. The suggestion one supernatural claims for which we have no good evidence is slightly better than another super natural claim for which we have even worse sets of evidence, does not speak to the validity of the first claim. Comparison in this sense.....does not matter.

@ramigilneas9274

11 ай бұрын

@@brianburke1551 Unfortunately there is no evidence that any of the stories of the gospels happened at all. It isn’t even certain that Jesus said any of the stuff that the gospels claim… which were written 40-80 years after Jesus died in a language that Jesus didn’t even speak. Ehrman would say that about 15% of the sayings in the gospels were actually said by Jesus… and even most Christian historians would agree that it’s at best a paraphrasing or interpretation of what Jesus said but not his actual words.

His claim that reading the trial narratives gives clear indication that he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews makes no sense. When Pilate asks him, "are you the King of the Jews?" And Jesus says, "you say so." Pilate immediately tries to release him saying that he finds no fault in him. He's either lying or just has terrible reading comprehension.

@alisterrebelo9013

11 ай бұрын

This occured to me as well, but because I was driving at the time, I couldn't be sure of myself. Thanks for reminding me to come back and double check that.

@mikev4621

11 ай бұрын

Does Pilate say this in every gospel?

@tomasrocha6139

10 ай бұрын

Why else would he be crucified by the Romans? The idea that the subjugated Jews somehow forced their imperial overlords to crucify one of them when they had the power to stone blasphemers is ahistorical

@joemiller7082

7 ай бұрын

@@mikev4621that’s part of Bart Ehrmans problem. In one of the gospels, Jesus answers “hell yes” and pulls out a Tommy gun.

@mikev4621

7 ай бұрын

@@joemiller7082 Was Tommy an apostle?

Jesus doesn't have to directly say he is the son of God, because God himself says so, at his Baptism and Transfiguration.

Thanks for what you’re doing Trent.

Time-stamp 11:55, 12:08 - authority to forgive sins 12:08 - While Jesus gave the disciples authority to forgive sins in John 20, a key difference is that eternal life is found in the **name** of Christ (John 20:31). We never see forgiveness of sins found in the name of disciples, but we do see forgiveness in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38). And this is the rule of the First Testament: we don’t find salvation in the name of an agent/representative of God, we only find salvation in the name of the true God (Joel 2:32). Notice in Exodus 23:20-21, that forgiveness of transgressions is connected with the true God’s name, not paired with the name of an agent or representative of God (Exodus 23:20-21). Now in the New Testament, we find forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ. 12:35 - priests and the sacrifice 13:00, 13:30 - an important detail 14:08 - 1 Kings 8:39, 1 Corinthians 2:11… Besides God, only a human being can know his own thoughts.

@axderka

Жыл бұрын

The Name theology is key. Think of the Angel in Exodus 23, the one who makes an appearance in Joshua, who had the authority to "pardon transgressions."

@Tzimiskes3506

Жыл бұрын

​@@alonzoharris9049Christ and not the islamic Al-lah

We all have our favourite James White debate, and mine is his against Bart Ehrman. Say what you will about White, but he won that quite handily.

@LuciferAlmighty

Жыл бұрын

James white is extremely bottom barrel and couldn't win a debate to save his life.

@lexodius

Жыл бұрын

@@ProtestantKing7 You're wrong. We also love him when he is speaking on Catholicism.

@lexodius

Жыл бұрын

@@ProtestantKing7 If they do they should go to confession.

@LuciferAlmighty

Жыл бұрын

@@ProtestantKing7 James white is as bottom barrel as they come. He can't even accept demonstrated facts.

@susand3668

Жыл бұрын

@@lexodius I second your statement about loving Bart, whatever he is doing!

Jesus does claim to be God in Mark 14: 62-63. Jesus responds to Caiphas: And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. That's a reference to being God because God rides on the clouds of heaven. Caiphas responds with an accusation of Blasphemy - why blasphemy? And all the other members of the Sanhedrin concur.

“This biblical account doesn’t fit with my own narrative…. Therefore, the authors are wrong.” - Bart, essentially.

@thisisit2878

Жыл бұрын

Also Protestants, essentially.

@EmberBright2077

Жыл бұрын

​@@thisisit2878Can you explain/back that up?

@ScottPalmer-mp1we

Жыл бұрын

" . . . but when the account does agree with my ideas, it is valid."

@reaganlecroy7773

Жыл бұрын

@@thisisit2878Also Catholics, essentially. Wow, I can do it too. I destroyed Catholicism!!!!!!!

@davidjanbaz7728

11 ай бұрын

@@thisisit2878 LOL 😆

Thank you for your eloquent response to Ehrman. I genuinely appreciate the effort and integrity you put into your work. Keep up the good work, Trent.

@lewkor1529

11 ай бұрын

What was so "eloquent" in Trent's response? Can you please be specific and provide 1 or 2 examples? Isn't this the same reheated Trent's "attack" lines? No eloquence to speak of here

@highroller-jq3ix

11 ай бұрын

How can there be any integrity in the Catholic position? That's a contradiction in terms.

@joemiller7082

7 ай бұрын

“Eloquent.” Lol. He sounds like any random guy.

Atheists are in a conundrum - to prove God's existence, they demand miracles, but when miracles are presented, they mock them.

Even if god appears in fornt of them they will still not believe.

@jackieo8693

Жыл бұрын

So true

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

_"Even if god appears in fornt of them they will still not believe."_ So provide the single-best evidence you have that Jesus existed.

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

_"Even if god appears in fornt of them they will still not believe."_ Yet you believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.

@jackloo7233

Жыл бұрын

@@twitherspoon8954You are all over these comments, my guy. Seek help.

@bearistotle2820

Жыл бұрын

Just jumping in to remind people not to engage with Twitherspoon. He is a troll who uses a series of copy/paste arguments and will prefer insane theories like Paul and Josephus "likely" being the same person to any reasonable interpretation of the evidence we have.

Variants in texts are only a problem for Protestant Fundamentalists and inerrantists. If your religious epistemology is more sophisticated ,it's not a huge problem, because you aren't drawing on just a few phrases in the Bible to create a doctrine.

Im a former Christian, pretty well studied, yet i do think Ehrman’s arguments are pretty bad. I also don’t totally enjoy his attitude about religions in general

@Forester-

Жыл бұрын

My main issue with Ehrman is that he really seems to have an ideological slant in his popular work but pretends that he doesn't. I think a lot of it is in response to his fundamentalist upbringing which is understandable.

@Forester-

Жыл бұрын

@@bengreen171 of course he's biased. I never said he wasn't.

@Forester-

Жыл бұрын

@@bengreen171 I don't actually and I never said Ehrmans arguments are tainted. I merely said that he has a bias but isn't open about it. Would you like to keep telling me what I think?

Claims about divinity are not only in John's gospel; in fact, Mark 1:1-9, the very first sentences to me are the greatest claim of Christ's divinity in the whole NT.

@davidlamb1107

Жыл бұрын

The question related to Jesus himself making claims of divinity, not the gospel authors. Jesus doesn't say or do anything in Mark 1. (And for the record, John the Baptist makes no divine claim on Jesus' behalf in that passage either.)

@Mooseouma

Жыл бұрын

@@davidlamb1107 1. John doesn't make any claim, Mark refers us to two different prophesies of God coming to earth 2. You aren't to fully aware of Bert's argument. His main argument is that the narrative of Christ's divinity grows with Time and reaches its peak in John's gospel. Not true. In Mark, we see the strongest suggestion of Christ's divinity 3. Jesus' claims in Mark. Did Jesus claim to fulfil the prophets and the law according to Mark? If he did, then Mark 1 is part of that claim to divinity.

Comparison between mathematics and physics is just ignorant at best. Mathematics is an axiomatic truth, one plus one always equals two that is fundamental. However, physics is our best approximation at discovering what the baseline mathematics are to set universe. The fact that physics can change over time as our understanding deepen negates the possibility that physics in and of itself is axiomatic. Even our best understanding as of now in physics comes from an incomplete picture when considering something like the Grand unification theory or the fact that we still don't understand how gravity fits into quantum physics. Plus at a fundamental level even our understanding of physics does not negate the possibility of bodily resurrection. Because I believe it was Fineman, and since I'm using voice typing I'm sure that got misspelled, who said there is no fundamental difference between moving forwards and backwards in time so really just locally moving the energies and matter from one state to another would resume or could resume biologic functioning of a body. Plus, I've never understood the inability for people to grab the concept that a being that exists literally outside of our natural world would not be subject to the same limitations as someone who is in our natural world. The term supernatural literally means above and beyond the natural, so by definition would not be subject to the same limitations.

@tomasrocha6139

9 ай бұрын

Erhman only brought up physics to argue immediately after that an event that cannot be explained or understood by physical law cannot be explained by historical methods, Trent just cut that part out.

@BradWhite25

5 ай бұрын

How can something exist outside of our physical world, I.e. outside of space and time, when the definition of the word “exist” is to occupy space and time?

I have to admit that this was a good analysis of Bart's bad arguments, despite the fact that I disagree with much of Roman Catholic doctrine. Excellent work!

@ibrahimalharbi3358

9 ай бұрын

Your books has written by Jews and Roman Catholic. Have you ever thought about it even for a moment?

@stevecinneide8183

9 ай бұрын

Does "bad Trent" know we don't have a single original MSS of ANY biblical book and so it is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to verify claims that we have the "original wording" of the NT?

@roblangsdorf8758

5 ай бұрын

The old and new testaments were completed before the Bishop of Rome took over the church of Western half of the Roman empire. So please don't confuse the Roman catholic church with Christianity in general.

@azrael516

5 ай бұрын

​@@stevecinneide8183This does not invalidate reliability at all, we know about the stories of Alexander because of the copies, but they are late, and while the Bible is only decades after the stories of Jesus, this does not invalidate anything.

@WMedl

5 ай бұрын

Only Scheinargumente - spurious arguments - as all of roman catholics arguments. Especially the misuse of mathematics and the christian narratives of appearances as historical facts!

I long for the days when organized religion is no more than a bad memory. Just because you disagree with an atheist does not mean you speak the truth.

There are serious arguments to contend with as to whether mathematics are necessary truths, its not so closed and shut. This also goes for how contingent they are compared to some physical truths. Yes there is a difference between induction and deduction but you stated a much bolder and more difficult claim (though it is the mainstream one)

Thank you for your work for the Kingdom!!!

Great Video! Thank you.

Hiya Trent, I had a question i can't find the answer to. I checked catholic answers as well but no luck. Why did Pope Clement 13 ban the French Encyclopedia in 1759? I understand you are busy and this is just one of many comments, but if you see this, please drop a response. Thank you.

Wow! I appreciate Trent’s calm serious delivery for his arguments for the Resurrection and his arguments against the position of Ehrman that there is no resurrection! Thanks be to God that I was baptized Catholic and stayed! Ever-Virgin Most Powerful, Mommy, bring our brothers like Ehrman to the One True Faith! Saint Benedict, pray for us especially all atheist and non-believers! Monday, July 10, 2023

@w4rsh1p

11 ай бұрын

Thank Humans that I was born into the only true religion! What are the chances!

To add to the physics argument, physics is incomplete. We simply may have not arrived at an understanding of physics that would not contradict the law and still allow for the resurrection.

@alisterrebelo9013

11 ай бұрын

I'm sorry but this is irrelevant. The very definition of a miracle is that it somehow breaks the laws of whatever you're discussing. Otherwise, we are left with Dawkins claim that everything that is claimed to be a miracle is really 'aliens'. Why couldn't an all powerful creator break the laws of nature for His purposes? It seems like Bart is making a fanciful assertion, as if he knows the mind of God.

Well, as a Catholic i find listening to Ehrman more informative and helps me understand Jesus more. Apologists just want to prove themselves right than explaining for you to truly understand Christianity. That Ehrman-Bass debate was actually won by Ehrman by a mile if you watch it in full. Be informed people.

Bart’s claim that Jesus claimed that he is God in John is laughable , he uses phrases like , “I and father are one” but Jesus also said disciples are one like they are

At Mk 14:61 Jesus' purported blasphemy was His declaration that He was the son of the Blessed, for a son is equal to his father. So Ehrman misses the fact that a son is equal to his father (and that the Jews understood this) and therefore that Jesus was claiming to be God. This then accords with John 5:18, and both Mk 14:61 and John 5:18 accord with Paul's declaration at Phil 2:6 that Jesus was equal with God. Ehrman doesn't know how to join the dots (doesn't know how to rightly divide the word) for spiritual things cannot be discerned by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14).

I agree with Ehrman actually! If you throw away the gospel of John and the letters of Paul and you also throw away all the passages in the synoptic where Jesus claims to be God, then yes: Jesus never claimed to be God. Sounds like pretty solid logic to me.

@susand3668

Жыл бұрын

Good one!! 🤣😂

@calebadcock363

Жыл бұрын

That’s pretty much what he did with some of the divine claims in Mark. He just says that they were made up.

Wikipedia: Bart Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His degrees in Bible study include: September 2, 2014 - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor · Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1985 M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981 B.A., Wheaton College, 1978 After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned a master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. Two experts disagree over what the Bible says and Proverbs 3:5 says “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” This is why I don't believe any of it.

Looking forward to Barts response! Keep it up Trent

De Consensu Evangeliorum. Augustine Most of Ehrmans arguments were answered approximately 1700 years ago. Maybe Trent is about to point this out. Good subject matter.

I greatly appreciate your content, Trent. In an age of lack luster apologists your content stands among the greats. I was raised Baptist, but became an atheist/agnostic for most of my high school/college years. I recently came back to Christianity in a more Reformed Baptist tradition, then I found your videos that strengthened my faith in Christ, but also challenged my beliefs about Catholicism. I'm starting to lean towards possibly converting or atleast attend a few masses (as my only real experience with the Catholic Church was being a groomsmen in a friend's wedding). I would greatly appreciate prayers that God would lead towards what I should do.

@susand3668

Жыл бұрын

Dear @wilbert9567, yes! Please do attend a Mass! I would say to sit up front, and never mind if you miss the cues about when to stand and when to sit and when to kneel, but you might not feel comfortable there! For my first Mass, I sat in the back. I had no idea of what was going on, and couldn't hear a lot of it either. But there was a of Scripture!! (We stand for the Gospel reading, by the way, out of special respect. Also, before the Gospel is read, we make the sign of the cross with our thumbs -- on our foreheads -- that God would enlighten our minds -- on our lips -- that He would control our mouths to only speak the Gospel -- and over our hearts -- that Christ's Word would enter our hearts and fill our hearts and move our hearts.) Enjoy!!

@blaketmoran

Жыл бұрын

Hi Wilbert, just want to wish you the best on your faith journey! Seek good counsel from others and pray without ceasing! Don’t fall for triumphalism on both sides of the Protestant and Catholic debate! May Gods face shine upon you friend!

@w4rsh1p

11 ай бұрын

What made you lower your standards of evidence? What a sad story. Get better. You don’t need god.

@highroller-jq3ix

11 ай бұрын

So you are a vacillating waffler, desperate to make the god fantasy work no matter how many sects you need to windowshop.

@highroller-jq3ix

7 ай бұрын

Cool. So much for the nonsense notion of free will.

I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS

Thank you, brother. Kind regards Kim

28:44 Trent, with regards to Jimmy Akin responding to Bart Ehrman, Jimmy on his website did a good written response with many sections. However, in the section Who was Jesus's Grandfather? is a comment that is worth responding to. Other than that Jimmy's rebuttal to the claims of Bart Ehrman are pretty solid.

I don’t think Bart understands the difference between logical and nomological necessity. God can easily break the laws of nature because he contingently decided what they’d be. That’s not true of logic nor metaphysics.

@hooligan9794

5 ай бұрын

So logic exists apart from God. He is an element in a logical universe that only doesn't require God but can't be overcome by God.

Mathematics is tautological but physics is not. That’s not a difficult argument to grasp. This is three hundred years-old philosophy.

@LomuHabana

11 ай бұрын

Mathematics is a language and physics is basically an application of this language to the physical world. And what do you mean by mathematics is tautological? That it is internally consistent? It better is yeah.

Love your content. Thank you, Trent!

Good video. But one thing I'd say is why not just argue for the reliability of John? It is a good source. Also I think Ehrman could reply that Elisha knew what Gehazi said to Naaman, that doesn't make him God. I think we are better off bucking up and defending John as an eyewitness.

@Molotov49

Жыл бұрын

Because the synoptic gospels came earlier and tell similar stories. John is a work of literature.

@TestifyApologetics

Жыл бұрын

​@@Molotov49John distinctly calls himself a witness multiple times and writes in a historical genre. He's not just 'literature''. Also, earlier doesn't necessarily mean better, and later doesn't equal embellished.

@tomasrocha6139

9 ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics John is explicitly described in Acts of the Apostles as unlettered meaning illiterate which is most certainly accurate as only around 3% of the population of Roman Judea could read and they were not fishermen, and an illiterate fisherman dictating advanced theology in advanced Greek to scribes is quite unlikely.

@c2s2942

2 ай бұрын

@@tomasrocha61391) your entire premise of “unlikely” requires assumptions that you can’t substantiate. 2) the Sanhedrin called them “uneducated”(Acts 4:13) not illiterate. Again, you require assumptions to make your point. Even if you make the assumption that John didn’t know how to write, it’s very possible that in his old age, he not only was more intelligent and wise from decades of ministry and experience, he also would have been able to communicate that to a scribe. If Obama were to write about his college experience decades later, does that mean it would be unreliable because he’s older and decades removed from that time? No. There’s no reason to doubt the authenticity of John or his ability to potentially have learned to write, or at the very least, dictate his eyewitness account along with his theology taught to him by Christ that he preached and taught for decades.

@tomasrocha6139

2 ай бұрын

@@c2s2942 Agrammatoi (ἀγράμματοι) is very often used to mean unlettered or illiterate and the vast majority of people were illiterate. The Gospel of John is a carefully composed Greco-Roman biography in good Greek, it's nothing like spoken eyewitness testimony.

This is a timely episode considering today’s Gospel

The problem with the number of Apostles,as Ehrmann suggests, lies in the fact that Jesus included Judas amomg those judging Israel.

In case of the Sanhedrin trial with Jesus it's more than obvious that Ehrman is either lying or grossly manipulating. Mark 14:61-62 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” [62] And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (cf. Matthew 26:63-65; Luke 22:67-71; 24:25-27) Of course the Sanhedrin understood the relevance of this as the "Son of Men" prophecy in Daniel shows the messiah coming out of heaven and to say he will sit and the right hand of God was surely blasphemy for the high priest but Ehrman still claims he was crucified for claiming a "political titel" King of the Jews" which was the tactics the Sanhedrin used to make sure Pilate sentenced him to death. This issue shows that Ehrman is willfully lying and manipulating. It appears Ehrman is filled with a false pride that gets obvious in his repeated reference to himself as "scholar" and his claim that "scholars know this" "scholars say this" as if a scholar is automatically right- which is ridiculous. Its seams Ehrman has taken in the big liar into his spirit and he is therefore already judged. We must understand the spirit motivating Ehrman is that of the great liar

I watched the debate in the first clip and was cringing a bit when he made the "resurrection violates the laws of physics" argument. In addition to Trent's objection, I don't think it's necessarily even true in the first place, and he certainly didn't cite a law of physics that would supposedly be violated. Bass didn't really pick up on this issue with his argument either, or at least he didn't point it out clearly. In other places, Ehrman argues that miracles are occurrences that are so unlikely they cannot be confirmed by historical methods, and that is still a strong argument that can actually be supported much better. I don't know why he switched to the physics argument here. Ehrman is definitely not a physicist, so he should probably be a bit more careful.

@alisterrebelo9013

11 ай бұрын

I 100% agree here. The very definition of a miracle is the breaking whatever naturalistic law under discussion. The impression that in got is Bart seems to claim to know the mind of God as well as sufficient knowledge of physics to know for certain that it holds true under all circumstances.

@OldScrewl1928

11 ай бұрын

That is on top of the fact that humanity doesn't have a complete understanding of the laws of physics anyway. The most brilliant physicists that we have still can't fully explain gravity.

@mikev4621

11 ай бұрын

Trent himself says the resurrection would require reverse entropy - so it would defy the laws of physics.But that's what a miracle is anyway, isn't it?

@montagdp

11 ай бұрын

@@mikev4621 Trent isn't a physicist either. Entropy can decrease in a system if energy is supplied from outside the system. That's how air conditioners work, for example. In principle, if humans understood everything about how biology works and had the right technology, there's no law of physics that would prevent us from bringing a dead body back to life. Of course, that's not something we can do today and certainly not something anyone could have done 2000 years ago, so it would still require supernatural intervention (my definition of a miracle). I'm just saying Bart should be more careful about saying miracles break the laws of physics, since he is not a physicist and probably can't back up that statement. It's straightforward enough to make the argument that divine intervention can't be demonstrated historically, so he should just stick to that.

@mikev4621

11 ай бұрын

@@montagdp Good points, thanks.But Trent mentioned Entropy, not me- perhaps he shouldn't comment on matters beyond his competence. Yes, advanced science could bring a body back to life, but only be reversing the things that caused it to die in the first place.Ultimately they would tire, or run out of money, and that person would have to die at last, as we all must. Yes, perhaps Bart shouldn't cite The Laws of Physics; but that doesn't mean he isn't right- a capable physicist would be worth hearing. Personally, I believe a God could perform miracles, but I have heard of no believable instance of it ( apart from the fact that we are living in an ongoing miracle right now)

Ehrman is verifiably wrong on one point. The Jewish priest in the Temple would merely announce that sins has been forgiven. They had visual proof that God was accepting or rejecting the sacrifices. See my references from the Talmud below, thanks to Sam Shamoun. This is also confirmation that after Jesus' public ministry began, God stop accepting sacrifices. This is further proof of Jesus's divinity. Talmud Yoma 39b The Sages taught: During the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the lot for God always arose in the High Priest’s right hand; after his death, it occurred only occasionally; but *during the forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple,* the lot for God did not arise in the High Priest’s right hand at all. So too, *the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel did not turn white, and the westernmost lamp of the candelabrum did not burn continually.* Talmud Yoma 9b However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, *why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period.* This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.

Hi, I’m a Christian who believes in the resurrection. I will never for the life of me understand why people think Bart is making an argument about the laws of physics-do people just not listen? What he’s critiquing is the methodology of horrible apologetics, and the inconsistency of saying “well this text says a miracle happened so it did” while on the other hand dismissing texts/accounts of miracles that don’t fit into our beliefs. To say you have HISTORICAL evidence for the resurrection, an occurrence that never happened again or before, you need to have better sources than accounts written by Christians. The other thing I’m confused by is the selectivity of historical scholarship. Apologists will gladly accept more “realistic” dating methodologies for texts outside of scripture, but rarely agree with scholarly consensus on scripture dating. The whole thing just feels like arguing backwards.

@spencerd8504

3 ай бұрын

True. I think it's the devil playing his hands.

I would suspect that Trent would have a different take on the accuracy of books written hundred years after the events described (see discussion regrading Appollonius and Romulus) if we were talking about the Old Testament ... specifically the Pentateuch that was composed in parts during the 8th and 9th centuries BCE and edited into final form in the post-exilic period.

Of course God can break the laws of physics. How silly.

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

_"Of course God can break the laws of physics. How silly."_ Provide an example.

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

@@magnetar28 _"...as New Jerusalem will be almost the size of Earth itself."_ Fun fact: Heaven is a cube, twelve thousand stadia (1,380miles or 2,220 kilometers) on a side. "And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal." Revelation 21:16

@jackieo8693

Жыл бұрын

@@magnetar28 the scriptures never specifically address the laws of physics, to my knowledge. Then how would you explain Christ's resurrection? Or the taking up of Elias? You are taking things out of context and interpreting only a few things literally.

@twitherspoon8954

Жыл бұрын

@@jackieo8693 _"Then how would you explain Christ's resurrection?"_ Because Jesus is a fictional character and the resurrection never happened.

@cosmicnomad8575

Жыл бұрын

Exactly! It’s one of the worst objections and I see it all the time

Sam Shamoun did a thourough destruction of erhmans arguments as well. Its interesting if you have the hours to spare

Ben Wirthington III, The Christology of Jesus (1990) builds a strong case for Jesus self-identifying as divine from the Synoptics, critically assessed by the tenets of form and redaction criticism.

Hey man which Icon is in the background I love it.

I’ll confess I was a bit surprised at how bad Bart’s arguments were here, and I don’t think that watching any more of the original videos would actually help his case. He seems to be a smart guy (tbf I’ve only seen 3 other major clips from him), but made some of absolutely terrible arguments here. They straight up assured me even more of the Bible’s accuracy lol (also do equip yourselves properly with the word of God). Then i thought - he’s probably a bit of a showman. When you included the WLC clip and I was like “oh yeah, that’s it” 😂

@highroller-jq3ix

11 ай бұрын

The only way you could be "assured of the bible's accuracy" on anything except for a few trivial geographic details is to abandon honesty and critical thinking.

@schnitzelfilmmaker1130

11 ай бұрын

@@highroller-jq3ix and there it is, the random asserting and assumption that you, the random atheist online, have enough knowledge and intellectual capability to confidently make this declaration and undo 2000 years of thinking without actually adding a single new thought to the discussion 😂. A belief is already there -> you see arguments made by a scholar who is recognized as one of the best opposition to your beliefs but despite his general intellect, those arguments are genuinely terrible -> you’re left more convinced of your beliefs because the argument made against it was so weak that you feel more confident in your beliefs not having been discredited by such arguments I would say that’s a pretty fair, no need for dishonesty. Maybe I’m not the best critical thinker, that’s possible. But in this case I’ve found Ehrman’s arguments to all be easily defeated. That’s where my thinking has led. No offense, I’m sure you’re a pleasant fellow in person and probably a fairly smart individual, but some of you guys have seriously lost sight of the sheer magnitude of history and cosmic reality to the point where you’ve simplified your thinking and come up with this current brand of atheism.

@johnpro2847

7 ай бұрын

Miracles have never been demonstrated with any veracity on earth..only claims from antiquity which cannot be verified

@vandalayindustries8036

7 ай бұрын

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 "magnitude of history and cosmic reality"......is quite the interesting phrase. I'm not sure that it makes very much sense. What is "cosmic reality" and how would recognizing it be the opposite of simplified thinking as you put it? Arguments can be good and be bad on both sides of the concept of God debate. I'm sure not all of Barts are great. But his work in textual criticism is quite thorough. I'm curious what argument you found particularly bad? This video seems to cherry pick strangely. The reality (not sure how cosmic it is), is that God claims do not have real evidence, and one must resort to magical thinking outside of our shared reality. In particular the Bible makes so many demonstrably false claims and big fish tales, that it takes some serious mental gymnastics to not fall into cognitive dissonance. I am sincerely interested in what particular argument you found so flawed that it strengthened your faith.....faith not being a n actual tool to determine what is most likely so by it's very biblical definition.

@schnitzelfilmmaker1130

7 ай бұрын

@@vandalayindustries8036 sorry mate, I’m not going into this video again 😂. If I remember correctly, though, Trent does acknowledge that much of Bart’s scholarly work is respectable. If not, oh well I guess I remembered wrong. Or maybe it was William Lane Craig that said that. Was WLC’s acknowledgement included in this video? And I’m sure it is respectable, I haven’t taken a look at it in quite a while if I ever did. I know his reputation, but if I ever bother to rewatch this video I’ll let you know which arguments I found laughable, especially coming from someone of the reputation of Ehrman and even if i never dove deep into it, I definitely looked at some of his work before at least a bit and found them respectable. That third paragraph, though, of “big fish tales” and “magical thinking” is precisely what I mean by simplified thinking. You’re approaching the Bible with the assumption that it’s as simple as “magic” with all it’s attached stigma. It assumes so little of those who came before us on this planet (the magnitude of history) and I don’t know what assures you so much that God claims have no real evidence or what you specifically mean by that (the claims specifically about God and Israel in the Bible, the characteristics attributed to God such as “omniscience”, or claims that God exists in general) but int case I feel there’s a good chance you’re not really assessing the weight of how remarkable it is to be alive, to think while on this tiny planet amongst billions upon billions in one among trillions upon trillions of galaxies, how significant it is that we can love within that reality, how nonsensical it all could be at times. If science had not already told you about these things, or if you had not already known we do love and think (pretend you were somehow simply observing that), you might think it’s magic. The current brand of atheism simplifies it’s thinking so much that it sees something outside our ordinary reality and then mocks by saying as you said that it appeals to these “magical” things outside our “shared reality” but I would say a more precise phrase would be that it is outside our “ordinary” reality. It mocks without considering there are things they simply cannot understand, and that it’s knowledge is temporal and finite - and a very, very finite that is. Don’t you also know how much has been lost to history as of our temporary knowledge? The original experience of being alive in the ancient city of Ur is something that we cannot recover no matter what archeological evidence we might eventually uncover unless we pull off something magical and find some way to visit or see the past or something absurd along those lines or discover some reality-breaking truth about consciousness and time. There is your magnitude of history and cosmic reality.

As soon as Bart spoke of, "violating the laws of nature" I was like, ah ha! an eighteenth-century argument coined by Hume that has been debunked numerous times! How original!

@mikev4621

11 ай бұрын

But Trent himself admits that Entropy would have to be reversed for resurrection to occur

@tomasrocha6139

5 ай бұрын

A bit odd coming from someone that believes in Ancient Age books that have been debunked numerous times.

@c2s2942

2 ай бұрын

@@tomasrocha6139*attempted to be debunked There, I fixed it for you.

The first point you made is unfounded. We don't have any evidence to suggest that it is possible for the laws of physics to be different than what they are, nor is there anything that intrinsically prohibits the laws of mathematics or logic from being different than what we understand them to be in our world. It might be more difficult for our minds to conceive of a world that operates under different logical axioms than the ones we accept, but unless you can demonstrate that there are some metalogical rules that exist that prohibit certain axioms from existing, it does not follow that words with different logical axioms are impossible.

So, no one has ever gone to a funeral and the person just gets out of the coffin? It has happened. It was so bad in the past, people would be buried with a bell in their coffin in case they woke up.

Bart's career reminds me of the gynecologist who loses all interest in sex.

@Alien1375

Жыл бұрын

Weird way to state that Christianity is a yeast infection.

@andys3035

Жыл бұрын

@@Alien1375 How do you equate sex with a yeast infection?

@user-uc1yb7hy2n

Жыл бұрын

Might be the comment Bart needs to read the most.

@sirkamyk9886

Жыл бұрын

@@Alien1375 Does sex usually involve yeast infections for you? :|

@andys3035

Жыл бұрын

@@sirkamyk9886 science bruh lol. You know those atheists love their science.

Without lies, atheism dies.

@hooligan9794

5 ай бұрын

The irony of that comment is delicious.

We shouldn't be surprised about people like Ehrman. We can imagine the spirit moving Ehrman to lie to this extend. Claiming Jesus didn't claim divinity is a definitive lie as we can see in the Gospels. Mark 14:61-62 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” [62] And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (cf. Matthew 26:63-65; Luke 22:67-71; 24:25-27) Matthew 28:20 “…I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. (cf. 28:17; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20) Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man… will repay every man for what he has done (cf. Revelation 22:12; Psalm 62:12; Isaiah 40:10; Ezekiel 34:17; Matthew 25:32).

Perhaps because of his training, Ehrman does not understand the fundamental difference between the "laws" in mathematics and "laws" in physics. In physics, laws are descriptive of regular observed in the natural world. In doing this, physics may USE mathematics to do so, but this does not make the "laws" of nature prescriptive. They do not cause things in nature to occur; they merely describe what occurs. The laws of physics do not in any way prohibit the miraculous, or such miracles as the resurrection. Physics and mathematics are not the same thing.

@fredharvey2720

6 ай бұрын

He's just setting up a gotcha. He had difficulty with the question so pivoted and tried to put the questioner on the defensive as a help

As a Protestant who routinely keeps track of apologetics, I want to applaud you for being one of the first to upload a video in response to Ehrman’s errors, even before other prominent evangelical apologists, they’re supposed to have more time on their hands.

@davidjanbaz7728

11 ай бұрын

Protestants have been debunking Ehrman for years now! Michael Laconia had a 7 hour debate with Bart Ehrman. You're either uninformed or lying about being a Protestant that keeps track of Apologetics!

@ibrahimalharbi3358

9 ай бұрын

Your books has written by Jews and Roman Catholic. Have you ever thought about it even for a moment?

@Lambdamale.

7 ай бұрын

​@@ibrahimalharbi3358There was NO Roman Catholic Church. It was Orthodox. Rome were the first Protestants.

@isoldam

5 ай бұрын

@@Lambdamale. That is a very ignorant statement.

In all honesty, as a Christian i think Bart's "argument from silence" concerning Jesus referring to himself as God is a very good argument and is a true exception to the general rule of arguments from silence. I find this a very difficult question. It surely presents a type of anomaly in the Gospels that demands a quality thoughtful explanation that i have not seen anyone satisfactorily answer.

@maxspringer01

5 ай бұрын

Absolutely. This is not a typical "argument from silence" situation. Additionally, Jesus being God as well as the Father being God would have been a radically different God than the Jews understood (not the unbelieving Jews, but even the believing ones), and yet there is zero explanation of anything like "hey, I know this is different from what your concept of God has been, but here's this mysterious multipersonal God that has three persons yet one essence, etc...." There was contention and resistance about all kinds of things the Jews weren't used to, and yet this massive thing that has been fought over for centuries to this day.....just wasn't discussed at all and apparently was accepted without a blip. It just doesn't make sense.

@angelicashen

5 ай бұрын

There’s a terminology “messianic secret” refers to Jesus’s subtle way of claiming to be divine. Because he had to wait till the exact time to be sacrificed, and if he once revealed his identity openly, he would be immediately put to death according to the Torah (e.g. the case in John 8) But being subtle doesn’t mean he never explicitly claimed to be God. He actually did it multiple times even in the synoptic gospels, however in a very Jewish way, just as his methodology is Jewish. And readers in 21st century like Bart simply cannot understand those Jewish self-claims if they don’t spend large amount of time to genuinely study the OT and NT.

It's interesting but the more ehrman and others doubt the existence of God the closer I cling to my faith in God. I've not been a very religious man in the past but I've grown to the point of praying every day.

This argument at 14:00 is a bit flimsy: just because God and Jesus can read minds doesn't mean Jesus is God. Secondly, Ehrman completely agrees that Jesus sees himself as more than a prophet: he is the king of the kingdom to come. I don't think that Jesus' statements about vines and winegrowers indicate that he thinks of himself as God.

Ehrman when you tell him he's not himself because his body has orders of magnitude more errors

Was my comment deleted? I'll type it again. 1) Bart Ehrman isn't hiding anything. Misquoting Jesus was basically written in response to the fundamentalist viewpoint of scripture -- think KJV fundies. Ehrman's point is that you can never get back to the originals. In the Introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman literally says that the differences in the manuscript are largely insignificant, but the fact that you cannot get back to the originals was a huge problem for the fundamentalism of his youth and put him on the path to doubt. "Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today (and they didn't even have dictionaries, let alone spell check.) -- Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, Introduction, Page 11. 2) Are there two Ehrman's? Trent quotes Ehrman's scholarly work with Metzger. Apparently this is such a common charge, that Ehrman has already answered this question on his blog about that particular passage of the book. Here is his answer (ehrmanblog.org/can-we-reconstruct-the-entire-new-testament-from-quotations-of-the-church-fathers/): "These are Metzger’s words (kept from his first edition, I believe), not mine, but I would agree with them for the most part. The problem is that some readers completely misunderstand what they mean (especially conservative evangelicals who want Metzter to be saying something he’s not). He is / we are NOT saying that we can know ACCURATELY what the NT originally said based on Patristic citaitons; he is saying that most of the verses can be found in quotations of church fathers. MANY (most?) of these quotations are highly inaccurate though. I’m not sure if you know, but this is the topic of my PhD dissertation written under Metzger. He knew as well as anyone that we would not come up with OUR Greek New Testament (i.e., to look the same way as it does) simply by looking at Patristic quotations. Not even close. We wouldn’t even know whwere to start - even those of us who spent many, many years on the problem. (The apologists who say otherwise: do you know if any of them has actually done any research in the field? I don’t believe so. If they had, they wouldn’t be saying these things. Are they imagining that we have church fathers who quote the Gospel of John chapters 11-14 or something???) The one point I would reword of Metzger’s statement (this particular one) if it were up to me (to make this more clear) is that we would be able to reconstruct (inaccurately or not) “practically the entire NT.” That’s not exactly true. There are lots of verses in the NT that are not attested well or at all in Patristic citations. So it depends one means by “practically” the entire NT. Metzger meant that you could find most of the important passages attested. He didn’t mean 99% of the words of the NT!! Moroever, in almost every instance, a church father who quotes a passage doesn’t tells us where it’s from. So we wouldn’t be able to strng together our NT from their quotations even if all the verses WERE quoted, let alone know WHICH of the many quotations of this or that verse is actually the way it was orginally worded. But when I helped him revise his book for the 4th edition, I decided not ask him to change it, since I knew what he meant (having talked with him about such things for over a decade!). To my knowledge I have never contradicted myself between my popular and scholarly work. People who want to attack me say I ahve, but I don’t recall ever seeing an instance of it. In almost every case, it’s simply a matter of them not reading what I say carefully enough - a bit ironic, given the fact that they are stressing the importance of my words!"

@Tzimiskes3506

Жыл бұрын

Testify already did a response to this.

@clarkjenkins316

Жыл бұрын

@@Tzimiskes3506 Another apologist? Great. Which part did he respond to and please provide a link?

@Tzimiskes3506

Жыл бұрын

@@clarkjenkins316 Nice psychoanalysing. Go cope more with ehrman blogs, clark. Also could you send your phd dissertation.

Really appreciate this video.

When someone asks if God can break the laws of physics, its best to answer with an analogy. Can a ball roll up hill? No. What if its kicked? Then yes. God resurrecting someone is no more a violation of physics than a person kicking a ball up hill. With modern medicine, we actually sometimes have the power of resurrection, not after a three days of course, but to say modern medicine can't do it, therefore no person could have done it is absurd.

It seems like Ehrman says that something “didn’t happen historically,” even if it comes from our earliest and best sources, simply because it doesn’t fit his theory. (Such as the high priest accusing Jesus of blasphemy.) It seems clear from Paul’s letters that the earliest Christians thought Jesus was God, and obviously the Gospel writers want you to think he associates himself with the Son of Man. So, why not go with the easy unifying theory that Jesus made such claims about himself, which would explain both the record of the Gospels and the earliest Christian beliefs?

Superb video Trent.

Can you please bring Bart Herman’s on your podcast?

Well done video. Excellent points. The point on the massive amounts of quotes from the early church fathers is an important one.