The best point in the debate was the beginning when Ehrman asked Mcgrew if he believed in divine inerrancy and pointed out the confirmation bias with which McGrew approaches the text, and McGrew answers the question like a professional politician.

@theyeticlutch3486

5 жыл бұрын

Ive listened to a lot of these debates and a lot of the great courses lectures on stuff like this and it always seems to come down to whether or not you want to have faith in that the claims are true or not. Can you link me to a debate between 2 neutrals on this subject. I.E. someone who holds Tims positions that isnt a christian. All ive found is the only people arguing for the claims being true are christians every time

@xinzhewu6082

5 жыл бұрын

@@theyeticlutch3486 It's hard. If people did believe Gosple is totally true, why not be a Christian?

@ramigilneas9274

3 жыл бұрын

@@theyeticlutch3486 Even most Christian historians wouldn’t claim that the gospels are inerrant or that everything the gospels describe actually happened as described or happened at all.

The continuation of Dr. Ehrman's debate with Ned Flanders.

@IIIRDWIII

4 жыл бұрын

Tal Moore HILARIOUS!

@oaktreet4335

3 жыл бұрын

Classy comment. Says a lot about you.

Yet again, I admire Bart's patience...

Lol this guy accuses Bart of reading things into the gospels that aren’t there...just seconds after suggesting that John slipped in to overhear Pilot and Jesus 🤦‍♂️

@mrmorpheus9707

3 жыл бұрын

Wasnt that crazy

@greglogan7706

3 жыл бұрын

Yup

@patrickambler749

3 жыл бұрын

He was making the point that because probable possibilities exist that there were others who overheard Pilate and Jesus talking, it wasn't correct for Bart to say that they were alone. Which in fact is what Bart posited. Saying John "could" have slipped in to overhear the conversation is just logical. (So 🤦🏽‍♂️ to you)

@ramigilneas9274

3 жыл бұрын

@@patrickambler749 It’s even more likely that Pilate wouldn’t waste his time with a lowly criminal like Jesus and that this conversation never happened at all.

Brierly is very good at this and keeps the discussion flowing. Too often, hosts have an axe to grind and their bias will skew good interaction.

@myopenmind527

7 жыл бұрын

Andrew Berry to be honest he seldom impartial in his handling of these discussions. He pro Christian bias is very thinly disguised at best.

@myopenmind527

7 жыл бұрын

Andrew Berry I'm speaking generally having listened to many of his interviews and these discussions/ debates. Bart is too well versed to allow either Tim or Justin to get the upper hand. In many other talks on his channel my comments still apply.

@WolfestoneManor

6 жыл бұрын

I agree! He's very solid especially compared to other hosts. And I have no dog in this fight since I'm a Pagan. Lol

if the story was so well attested, why did the overwhelming majority of local Jews reject Christianity? If Jesus was half as amazing as the gospels make out, most of Jerusalem would have converted by 35AD.

@tim57243

5 жыл бұрын

Agreed. For example, the zombie horde wandering around Jerusalem in Matthew 27:51-53 should have caused rapid belief change, if it actually happened.

@johnallenii9279

4 жыл бұрын

People chock that up to the depravity of the human heart - i.e. they refused to believe in Jesus even though they saw the miracles because their hearts were hardened by sin.

The nerve of Tim to accuse Bart of "cherry-picking" when his "undesigned coincidences" theory is based entirely of cherry-picking!

@stevehays5029

8 жыл бұрын

+mugdays Thanks for illustrating the fact that you don't understand the concept of undesigned coincidences.

@mugdays

8 жыл бұрын

steve hays So you're stalking me from video to video now?

@arnoldwayne5402

8 жыл бұрын

+mugdays bart lost this debate

@mugdays

8 жыл бұрын

arnold wayne I'm sure you believe Mayweather beat Pacquiao too

@arnoldwayne5402

8 жыл бұрын

mugdays?

The host is pretty good. Really like him.

@greglogan7706

3 жыл бұрын

@Him Next Door I have a difficult time is true I find Tim breaux to be at best disingenuous really dishonest I didn't see that had opposed I felt He interacted with both mad with respect and fairness

Tim...I don't see how my views on inerrancy effect my opinion on the reliability of the gospels.

39:15 - Wait, if Tim agrees that John probably had access to the other gospels, then that's the explanation: the author of John took his information from them.

@theyeticlutch3486

5 жыл бұрын

Thats what im saying. I think John is debatable but all the stuff ive read and heard from scholars is Mark was first Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source, therefore they are called synoptic. That is the consensus view, so idk how accidental concidences is even relevent..

@Heretical_Theology

4 жыл бұрын

He definitely stepped on his own foot here. It's a very, very plausible explanation- more so than his explanation in my opinion.

I have never heard any Christian apologist explain why the corporeal Jesus, who had decades of opportunity to do so, never took the time to write his own Gospel, which would have been 100% perfect and would have eliminated the need for any and all debates of this type.

@conner200

4 жыл бұрын

He probably couldnt read or write. Only about three percent of people at that time could read and they were mostly rich. Jesus was a jewish peasant from Nazareth (very poor town) so he was almost certainly not in that three percent.

@beastshawnee4987

3 жыл бұрын

Jesus must have been illiterate. God certainly is.

@rhamlyn100

3 жыл бұрын

@@conner200 God could have conferred that ability on him at any time. Arguably more useful than the water/wine carnival trick.

The gospel writers were habitually truthful? Thanks for that Tim. It was a real knee-slapper.

Around 45:00 - 53:00, it becomes clear that Tim is assuming the Bible is accurate to prove its accuracy.

John slipped into the room while Pilate was talking to Jesus? That's one of the more ridiculous apologetic arguments I've heard. I would expect that from lay Christians, but this guy is a professional academic.

@equinoxproject2284

4 жыл бұрын

It sounds like an episode of Veggitales.

I don’t get it, if the good doctor Tim believes that the writer of John had Matthew, Mark and Luke, how can that be an “undesigned coincidence”? Wouldn’t that rather be a “designed complement”?

@archangel7052

6 жыл бұрын

The ww2 story of two accounts writing about the same event answers your question unless you weren't paying attention.

@sebp5488

5 жыл бұрын

No the point is the details aren't there in order to back the other up, that's why they aren't designed

@macroman52

4 жыл бұрын

@@archangel7052 Two second hand accounts based on an earlier single story that both writers use (and each author leaves out different bits of the single story) doesn't prove the second hand accounts are from eye-witnesses or that the first single story was an eye-witness account.

Great debate! Well done by Ehrman and McGrew;) Thanks for sharing Bart.

@parkerflop

8 жыл бұрын

+bazzahaug Congratulate Tim for getting utterly demolished.

@Petterpetterhaug

8 жыл бұрын

hehe,no he didnt:) Ehrman and Tim did a great job. None got demolished, dont be stupid;)

@parkerflop

8 жыл бұрын

bazzahaug Tim did a horrible job, rude throughout and pathetic.

@Petterpetterhaug

8 жыл бұрын

hehe, if thats the way you see it, no problem, hehe;)

@mistahaych9552

4 жыл бұрын

@@Petterpetterhaug he was definitely rude and had double standards on agreements made on the beginning and he goes against them while disallowing bart to do so .

Leave it to Christian apolagists to argue that the mistakes and contradictions in their scriptures are proof or evidence to the contrary...

No, what Tim McGrew is doing is extemporaneously creating ad-hoc explanations for discrepancies in the Gospels non of the Gospels record that guards reported the conversation between Pontius Pilate he's adding information he wants to.

@kevintyrrell9559

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly...well said. Tim obviously hasnt heard of Ochams Razor...the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Which is simpler...these conversations are actually not fiction and are the products of second hand info from Roman guards or some guys wife who is handmaiden to Heroes wife...or they are just made up to tell a story??? Its like watching any movie about a historical figure...the conversations are made up to express the narrative. They arent second hand accounts. It's ridiculous to claim they are.

Tim is so out of his depth in this debate, it's embarrassing.

@Mentat1231

4 жыл бұрын

What are you talking about? What's wrong with the points McGrew is making?

@garyjaensch7143

3 жыл бұрын

Where do you think Tim was out of his depth?

@Thornspyre81

3 жыл бұрын

@@garyjaensch7143 where he is saying that Jesus rising from the dead can be historically verified. Its impossible

wow I'm always surprised at how knowledgeable Ehrman is on biblical historicity. Tim would do himself a favor to study under Bart's wing......

@myjizzureye

8 жыл бұрын

+Ray Wing I think Tim feels Bart needs to study under his wing. Isn't the dunning kruger effect a magical thing :)

@parkerflop

8 жыл бұрын

Tim failed, epically.

@archangel7052

6 жыл бұрын

Seriously? Tim ruled Bart unless you're deaf and looking at subtitles made by one of your athiest friends lol

How could this Tim be a Professor???? Unbelievable!!

@Mentat1231

4 жыл бұрын

You should try reading his work. It's extremely impressive, especially when it comes to probability calculus and epistemology.

Timothy McGrew is a Fundamentalist. He doesn't have to tell me that, I am not stupid enough that I can't see it. When he debates Ehrman it becomes obvious very quickly that Tim is the bread and Bart is the toaster, and the toaster is dialed to "dark". He is no match for Bart Ehrman when it comes to the history of the NT. It reminds me of a Little League team playing the New York Yankees.

Tim sounds more like a politician or lawyer than a scholar.

@Bart Ehrman- this is the problem with an academically-based discourse when you go up against a well-rehearsed apologist. They request special pleadings on their own arguments/assertions while decrying a solid historically-based analysis.

Wow! This is the first time I've seen a Christian scholar who is not intimidated by contemporary scholarship that Bart Erhman brandishes about during debates. Tim McGrew - much respect sir!!!

Ah. The old "Your problem is that you didn't read closely enough!" Pretty arrogant to say to a New Testament historian.

Tim, you can't use the bible to corroborate the bible.

@2ezee2011

8 жыл бұрын

+Joshua Jones He can too ...it is a miracle proving another miracle proving more miracles that proved other miracles .....etc... Kinda like putting a mirror in front of another mirror LOL

@stevehays5029

8 жыл бұрын

+Joshua Jones Sure you can. It's a collection of separate documents by multiple authors. That's no different in principle than using Gen. Grant's autobiography to corroborate Gen. Sherman's autobiography (or vice versa) regarding the Civil War.

@2ezee2011

8 жыл бұрын

except General Grant and Sherman are both citing instances of history that are attested to by literally thousands of contemporary accounts of the same events. (including pictures LOL) and all written by the authors that are claiming to be the authors. And none are claiming supernatural events.

@stevehays5029

8 жыл бұрын

+2ezee2011 It's nice to see your confidence in testimonial evidence. To be consistent, you should apply that to the Gospels.

@2ezee2011

8 жыл бұрын

The last time I looked you can still find physical evidence of accounts by most authors. It is especially easy when none of the events claim miracles. The few places that superstition claims physical verification (tangentially) Jericho, Red Sea, Jerusalem, Mt. Ararat, worldwide flood, blah blah blah ..there is ZERO. But if Grant/Sherman discuss Vicksburg, Shiloh, Gettysburg .... The Bible is a cobbled together propaganda document. It was collected by folks 300 years after events that were written anywhere from 60 to 200 years after the events they claim to have witnessed. From what other authors would you accept such distant and contradictory testimony. Especially when it comes to claiming that the SUN AND MOON stood still in the sky so Joshua could finish his little sand lot brawl in the Levant? Absurd!

This was a surprisingly good debate. I've never heard of this scholar but he really did hold his ground well.

@canaanitetreasures8071

8 жыл бұрын

If you mean McGrew, holding ground is not the point. This fellow debates like a child, accepting whatever pleases him as truth.

@grant7476

8 жыл бұрын

I think he acted foolishly when questioned about inerrancy but Bart did not respond adequately or debunk the argument of "accidental occurrences" of different gospels filling in the blanks in the other ones. That's just my opinion and I think it's a good peice of evidence for Christians.

@parkerflop

8 жыл бұрын

+grant mohler Are you crazy? The Gospels CONTRADICT. EXPLICITLY.(Caps for emphasis, not yelling.) It's absurd......Tim has nothing.

@myjizzureye

8 жыл бұрын

+grant mohler This is good evidence for Christians? So it would be impossible for me writing a book about the invisible magic unicorn, to add in some seemingly "accidental occurrences" in latter parts of my book to explain things I left out in the first half? Would you call this "miraculous" and suggest it was good evidence for my unicorn god? If not why not? Now apply that to the gospels and wait for the penny to drop.

@reidhattaway4989

7 жыл бұрын

Kevin Rogers Actually, it is addressed quite well. McGrew may think he has something there, but only if (and he seems to) he assumes that the majority of critical scholars are actually arguing that there is no historical truth in the gospels. In the example given, it is entirely possible that Jesus turned to Phillip and asked him where food could be procured. Knowing the provenance of Phillip is irrelevant if the event actually occurred. Ehrman does not and would not dispute such an historical fact. Ehrman is not a mythicist. McGrew's argument, and he should be smart enough to realize it, is against mythicists. If the Gospels were completely fabricated, then undesigned coincidences would be an interesting phenomena. As such, all McGrew is essentially saying is that there are multiple sources for events that likely happened. Ehrman response is a very long winded but polite and learned way of of sayin "DUH!"

I don't understand why an otherwise reputable school would hire a christian apologist to teach.

23 K views. Only thumbs up counted? McGrew clearly won this debate.

Pretty sure the trail by Pilote in Mark makes a point that Jesus didn't talk much, contradicting John giving him a speech.

Tim argument is that he believes what the Bible says, therefore is true, ha ha ah ha ha ha...that's funny.

Love the silence Dr. Ehrman . . It'stelling

When the talk of miracles came up Tim showed exactly what Bart wanted to know earlier on.. he does clearly think IMO that the gospels are all true

Think mcgrew answered barts question that he was so willingly trying to avoid i.e are you biased in your view (paraphrasing -episode 1) mcgrew - yes i am a fundamentalist and i am biased! . He also comes across quiet rude

How come Ehrman believes that the blame to Jews from Christians, evolved through time, when one of the first Christian texts the Epistle of Paul to 1Thess 2:14-15 says "You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone" And I guess that Ehrman believes that the Epistles of Paul are written prior to the Gospels. And by the way the passage in Matthew where Pilate washes his hands and the Jews take the blame to them and to their children is much stronger than the passages in Luke and John.

I'm not sure what to think of the "undesigned coincidences' argument, but I think there are some clear misunderstandings of it, and therefore strawmen arguments put against it.

@sebp5488

5 жыл бұрын

Indeed there are

Tim did extremely well in this debate first time ive seen bart on the defensive

@EyeIn_The_Sky

7 жыл бұрын

Its all relative. I suppose that good beating is a relief from the usual severe beating Bart hands out to these apolagists.

@TimothyBukowskiApologist

7 жыл бұрын

Oh, I think Licona has shown Bart he is incompetent in the philosophy of history

@EyeIn_The_Sky

7 жыл бұрын

Timothy Bukowski Oh and what philosophy is that then? You mean the one where your argument is dismantled and exposed as the ludicrous delusion that it is and then making up new rules about what is real and what is not? You mean that one?

@TimothyBukowskiApologist

7 жыл бұрын

EyeInTheSky ....The process of history, inference to the best explanation, but best of all Miaracles and history! Licona absolutely dismantles Ehrman in his doctoral dissertation. I highly recommend it.

@EyeIn_The_Sky

7 жыл бұрын

Timothy Bukowski I can't imagine someone who believes that Jesus was God almighty would understand the difference between winning or loosing (Or being "dismantled" as you put it)

The best moment of this video that shows Ehrman's arguments are so much more critically thought out than McGrew's is their discussion on Luke's account of the trial and what "You have said so" means. Ehrman presents his case saying that Jesus is said to be innocent by Pilate because the overall narrative is showing Jews being at fault for the trial and execution.... and the McGrew just doesn't say anything.

I still, after 30 years of listening to apparently intelligent people, how they can be so removed from good epistemology and standards of evidence

Wow-what did timothy just said.......? Is this guy ok?

Salute Prof Ehrman...4 your honesty. Others keep spinning..imposing their believe..plus guessworks..but NOT what is fact or what is in scripture exactly.. They even capable of reconcile the irreconcilable..imagine that..

Ehrman went extaordinarialy easy on this guy. You can't cut and copy details from one gospel and paste them into another gospel because it helps in harmonizing a problem.

@gustavgus4545

6 жыл бұрын

gls600 Why? Varios accounts of Napoleon (for example) are sometimes used that way. Why not for jesus?

Great Tim... do you really want to read the bible horizontally. Ok lets start with the nativity shall we. Did Mary Joseph and Jesus go to Egypt or Nazareth after Jesus was born.

@jonfromtheuk467

4 жыл бұрын

the big problem is that in one gospel they are warned of Herod the Great killing of the innocents at the same time as the Census under Quinirius , but Quinirius started his governorship in CE6 and Herod the great died 4BC ........so how can those both be true?

Great debate. Love when two people can just share their sides of an issue and not talk over each other and try and bring the other down. Just focused on the facts and kept ridiculing out of it. Heard of and listened to Bart Erhman on lots of other stuff. But Tim is new to me and was very interesting, new his stuff. Even seemed to correct Bart on certain passages. Went out and found a 5 part video lecture Tim has out there and he has made me a believer. Great information, great sources I haven’t seen anywhere else. Great debate worth the listen. I would suggest going and listening to Tim’s lectures before listening to the debate, it would have really helped me.

@Vindsus86

4 жыл бұрын

Haha, you're definitely a plant.

Heard this when broadcast and glad to have found it again. Annoying things - 1) as mentioned in Round 1 Tim won't just way whether he believes the Bible inerrent. think quite likely he does... 2) 28:20 Tim says Pilate abdicated responsibility but that means he thinks what is reported as being said is what actually happened, whereas Bart is trying to explain he thinks the increasing innocence of Pilate is gradually brought in to promote a particular narrative. Tim won't take that on board and refers to the gospel as a factual event that shows Pilate's actions need explaining so look across the gospels. Then Tim says it's Bart who has a particular view he follows! 3) again as mentioned did wonder if Tim might have a point regarding the Phillip example - think in courts piecing the evidence together is an accepted way of comparing what probably happened? - but here Bart showed the confirmation bias at work in this case, which again are not eyewitness (or victim) testimonies or to be treated as such (unless it's inerrent... ?) 4) Why is it most often 'believer' who gets most irritated? Always seems they need to finish their points, won't take on board or address challenges, get aggressive. Not sure it helps their case. Good debate though.

Oh my... just looking at dishonesty alone you can tell who's the Christian in this talk.

The only remotely interesting coincidence Tim brought up was the one about Jesus asking Philip (the Bethsaidian) in the Gospel of John when they might find food, with the coincidence being that when the miracle is described in the Gospel of Luke, it is said to have happened near Bethsaida (John doesn't mention it happened near Bethsaida. Luke does, but doesn't say Jesus turned to Philip). But what does this show? My hunch is that it's just a meaningless coincidence - the kind of thing you will find when you compare *any* four stories to each other. But beyond meaningless coincidence, what might it show? At most it might show is that there was a pre-existing tradition that once had these two details pieced together - that Jesus turned to Phillip because they were in Philip's hometown, and that for whatever reason they were never rejoined when Luke and John told their narratives. Anything more than that? Does it show the story is historical? Nope.

The amount of special pleading that Tim does right from the get go is astounding

Cracks me up that this is “christian” radio. Totally gonna lose christians by getting them to look honestly past their belief system and examine actual history! Tim: blah blah blah. Bart: “What? Where are you getting that?! Tim: but but but. Bart:What? Where does it ever mean that? Show me.

Tim McCrew is a pain in the ass. He takes most of the talking, and keeps interrupting Bart Ehrman. :(

Great debate. Normally Ehrman steamrolls everyone, this is the only time I heard someone really hold their own.

Timothy J. McGrew he's good at dodging the issue with some other point of view ,and being a bit condescending toward Bart , I don't see Bart and Tim be friends anytime soon. Tim would do good to run for a political office he would be right at home

When believer believes in un designed event he/she should challenge that particular religion.

Miracles happened? And you can show this to be true? Really Tim? How do otherwise intelligent people lose their minds when it comes to religion? Time for Bart Ehrman to teach Tim a lesson on first century history. My goodness, amazing stuff. That historians can prove miracles?

First time I've seen Bart tied up in his area of expertise, good job Tim.

50:00 Epic smack down.... Bart's the MAN!

Professor Ehrman creamed another one! Takin Ned Flanders back to Sunday School

Maybe Luke was happy to leave his trial narrative somewhat ambiguous so long as Pilate was obviously exculpated (and all Romans involved -- "Father, forgive them for they know now what they do"), but John sought to remedy this ambiguity by filling in some blanks (from his "inspired" imagination).

Tim McGrew is just like any random christians i've watch at Hyde Park Speaker Corner with some childish argumentation without any basic critical thinking at all. Such a lame apologetic approach.

@garyjaensch7143

3 жыл бұрын

What do you think was childish argumentation?

Bart Beat up up!!! Tim arguments are full of , maybe, it could be, its possible.. barts are..DIRECT!!!

This timothy mcgrew guy is rude and fairly delusional.

I thought Tim McGrew was never seen without his cowboy hat made of licorice.

41:51 "Just out of interest, Bart, what is the D for?" Those Christians are so sheltered. :)

@Nocturnalux

8 жыл бұрын

+Calmont Kuma yuriiiiiiiiiiiiiii.......arashi! Sorry, I couldn't help it.

@calmont34

8 жыл бұрын

That was Kuma Shocking. :D

@Nocturnalux

8 жыл бұрын

Kumalia is real!

@calmont34

8 жыл бұрын

They spell it Kumalia in the English sub?

@EyeIn_The_Sky

7 жыл бұрын

It stands for Devil!!

So the people who think that NT scholars are impatient and don't want to deal with exotic ideas, is another apologist. That's not a unbiased source at all...

@Jan_von_Gratschoff

4 жыл бұрын

NT "scholars" as a term should raise some serious alarm bells. Just like "Biblical archaeologist", or "Biblical historian", NT Scholars are not actual scholars of anything except for a few critical scholars like Ehrman.

Tim won the dialogue debate with Bart, he was informed of internal and exterrnal evidence!

@jonfromtheuk467

4 жыл бұрын

we just be listening to two different debates then!

McGrew dominates Ehrman

If God has given his words why don't he preserve those words rather Anonymous writter written gospels of 4x books.

The Jewish leaders had bigger worries than a group of nobody’s going around proclaiming jesus specifically ROME. Going back to the 40s and onward Acts is not an accurate document from the 30s

A heady debate introduced by EMF dance club tune. Ugh...

Wow.. I'm amused how alike they are in my opinion. Tim keeps fighting about John the Baptist, but in relation doesn't Jesus state that John the Baptist was Elijah?! According to Elijah in malachi I think his second coming was the sign of the messiah.. the messiah in the old testament. And Jesus didn't fit the definition of the messiah. Exactly like Ehrman said, he was crucified because he was thought to be the messiah.. the king of the Jews.. just my twist on the subject.

Atheists seething in the comments over the smallest of things, such strong confirmation bias.

For decades people, like Bart said, are telling and sharing stories. Some of the details stay the same, some are left out, some change and some are made up. And on top of all that were don't have the original manuscripts, and what we do have are fragments of manuscripts written decades after the originals we purported too have been penned. If you want to blow a Christians mind ask them if they know when all of the books of the bible were officially canonized. 393AD. 360 years after the death of Jesus.

The Romans were friendly with the Jews up until the 50s ad. If Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism. Romans wouldn’t single it out because they would have no idea what messiah meant.

Unfortunately it appears that most people commenting really don't understand the argument well. Many also ignore instances where Bart is refuted. I think mcgrew did much better in round 2, better than Bart as accidental corroboration (not from the other source) is not something you expect in unreliable or made up accounts

No. Supposedly, in 10th. century CE., people would though that worldly trees were from moon ... which some of it fell down to earth. But in 20th. century CE., we would know (at least from TV.) that there's no even single tree ... at moon. Not coincidence moon is above us; b not related either ... in some ways. Hz..

McGrew is saying, in effect, that the gospel authors were incompetent story tellers.

Bart blunder ideas did not worked, it crumbled down

Well, that was a frustrating listen. You have the patience of the saint to confront something so badly argued while at the same time presented by someone arrogantly claiming you -an expert in a field he is not- don't know what you're talking about. I salute your fortitude sir, and would like to hear a more thorough going through of his obviously flawed arguments at tour leisure.

@parkerflop

8 жыл бұрын

+John Smith Think Bart is maybe getting some sick sadistic pleasure in slaughtering his opponents? Tim got wrecked....

@skalite3

8 жыл бұрын

Mustafa M​ I would say almost certainly not. Prof. Ehrman was far, far more restrained than I would have or likely even could have been in the face of such frustratingly bad argumentation, fallacious reasoning, and lack if self awarwness in that he repeatedly accused Prof. Erhman of the same. I would have, to put it mildly, gone off on such a person, especially one who is speaking on an area outside their expertise.

@parkerflop

8 жыл бұрын

John Smith Yeah, I think Tim here is getting the equivalent of theological genocide. I mean, he's getting totally owned. If there is something worse, well let's appreciate Bart didn't show it. Bart is restrained-and he is STILL owning Tim.

I have to commend Prof. Ehrman for appearing so often in venues biased against him. Unfortunately I found it difficult to stay to the end. Prof. McGrew's arguments are truly awful! Cherry picking, failure to recognize the fact that these texts were compared, revised, and edited by many hands, bias throughout. To use the minuscule comparisons to explain miracles, events of extraordinary improbability is truly absurd. I'm very sorry for the students at his university who have to try to learn logic and philosophy of science from him.

Tim made more sense Pilot had authority over the Jews and it is ridiculous to think that Luke intended to blame the Jews for Jesus ' death.

@Heretical_Theology

4 жыл бұрын

Why is it ridiculous? have you not read acts? The Jews (and occasionally random pagans) are the bad guys and the Roman leaders frequently actually protect Paul and his crew... And acts is simply a continuation of Luke, so yeah, not ridiculous.

Lost this one Tim..sorry! Nice try tho..

@reevertoun

3 жыл бұрын

Lol you come back every few months to make the same comment. Sick life man.

Bart made a big blunder at the end when he basically says that the early christians were just telling their family and friends. In all actuality they were telling strangers as well because that was the whole point of being a christian; u were supposed to spread the faitth and get converts and u werent going to do it if u were just telling family and friends. Paul himself claims to have been persecuting the early christians and imprisoning them

@kobi2002

8 жыл бұрын

That's not a blunder. Smdh.

@arnoldwayne5402

8 жыл бұрын

+kobi2002 It is

Tim is such a colossal fail...

Tim McGrew is damn smart... Debate won , Bart lost

@GodlessGubment

5 жыл бұрын

He is smart. He loses because he can't admit his clear bias.

Sorry Tim..you can't prove your case...

Tim does an excellent job of exposing Bart's surprising unscholarly position on the actual material.

@endofscene

4 жыл бұрын

What is Bart's unscholarly position on the material?

@jonfromtheuk467

4 жыл бұрын

citation??????

Notice how Bart just moves on to the next thing to try to justify his unbelief...

Jesus and his miracles stand aside,let divid blaine take over.

23 min Tim dunks on Bart ...

This dude is insufferable and soooooo dishonest.

Prof. Timothy McCRINGE

is there any valid reason why Mr Ehrman gives His whole life to denying the existence of Jesus unless he hates the real Jesus

If you follow Jesus you follow Rome. Deu 13:1 (13:2) If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams - and he give thee a sign or a wonder, Deu 13:2 (13:3) and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee - saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; Deu 13:3 (13:4) thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

this announcer guy is so f annoying, he doesn't know the meaning of being quiet and letting the guests talk

The best point in the debate was the beginning when Ehrman asked Mcgrew if he believed in divine inerrancy and pointed out the confirmation bias with which McGrew approaches the text, and McGrew answers the question like a professional politician.

@jonathonpeterson6203

7 жыл бұрын

What about Ehrman's confirmation bias? Sometimes I wonder if skeptics would have any standards if they didn't have double standards...

@drumrnva

7 жыл бұрын

Well, skeptics aren't trying to prove anything. There usually is no positive assertion by atheists that gods don't/can't exist, and i know for fact that Ehrman does not make such an assertion. So yes, the standards are different. By the way, is it "confirmation bias" to be skeptical of something that can't be detected, or even falsified?

@ReasonableFaithSA

7 жыл бұрын

Well said.

@strategic1710

7 жыл бұрын

This is a common error in reasoning that christians use, similar to when they accuse atheists of having faith in response to being criticized for having faith. You are actually unwittingly admitting that christians have confirmation bias, admitting that it's a flawed method of reasoning, but are simply using a classic human defense mechanism to deflect criticism away from yourself. I understand why because nobody wants to be criticized.

@drumrnva

7 жыл бұрын

To be fair- we *all* have confirmation bias. But I share your suspicion that Jonathan Peterson wasn't just trying to say that. I think he was drawing a false equivalency, as you suggest.