I'm a police officer. People lie to me alllllllll day. When two people tell me similar statements with minor differences, even with some parts not mentioned by one person but mentioned by the other, those are believable statements of an event.....When both people's statements match PERFECTLY, they rehearsed their story or are giving the absolute minimum detail to try and avoid getting caught in their lie.

@SeraphsWitness

8 ай бұрын

Sounds like you'd enjoy J. Warner Wallace's book "Cold Case Christianity", if you haven't read it already.

@zachjohnson5348

8 ай бұрын

This is definitely the best comment to prove the point

@kellyanne7225

8 ай бұрын

Exactly! My husband recently left LE, (I’m sure I don’t need to explain why). I remember him saying often was that the first you do with the witnesses is separate them-for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The same goes for the Gospels. The Apostle’s versions may be slightly different, but they never contradict as if said event never happened. It proves their accuracy all the more! Stay safe, friend! 🖤💙🖤

@oftin_wong

8 ай бұрын

Police are paranoid ...because of their distrust of society always painting everyone as some type of criminal and only associating socially with other police It affects them over time

@c.m.6487

8 ай бұрын

Excellent point, sir. I would add that Mr. Ehrman is just a dishonest actor. If the Biblical accounts were identical, he would just claim that one copied the other, and wasn't an actual eyewitness account. His position is unfalsifiable either way!

Imagine calling yourself a Bible Scholar, and dont even knowing how to treat the text you are studying

@upittman1

8 ай бұрын

this is foolery on so many levels.

@Acts-1915

8 ай бұрын

And expecting respect for it!

@Nighhhts

8 ай бұрын

Ironically, these “scholars” are often more stupid than those who aren’t.

@TheGreatGonzales777

8 ай бұрын

Again, it’s just bringing false assumptions to the text.

@mikea.3972

8 ай бұрын

Ehrman is kind of famous for his skepticism. Unfortunately, he has had a tremendously negative impact on people, causing them to head towards liberalism in the church.

My favorite part is that today’s scholars assume no one else noticed these issues in the last 2000 years AND that someone in that time didn’t find a reasonable explanation.

@SeraphsWitness

8 ай бұрын

Right. He has no interest in seeking an answer to his question. The questioning is his goal.

@mattr.1887

8 ай бұрын

Where's the reasonable explanation?

@TheRastacabbage

8 ай бұрын

​@@mattr.1887there are 4 gospels. If all 4 were the same, you'd know it was false. 4 different perspectives of the same story. Doesn't change any of the stories. It illuminates. Do you think that you and I would write down or speak about the same events in the exact same way?

@tomasrocha6139

8 ай бұрын

@@TheRastacabbage Look up synoptic problem most of the text is word for word the same because they copied each other.

@TheRastacabbage

8 ай бұрын

@@tomasrocha6139 that's a simplification, but yes I'm aware of this so called problem

People forget that Jesus was a person who lived every day of his life. The gospels are akin to biographies, and like any biography the author chooses what events to focus on. We don't know everything Jesus told his disciples, and we don't know everything that happened in Bethlehem. That's okay. Having the exact sequence of events isn't the important thing.

@lennoxnderitu3659

8 ай бұрын

Isn't that a problem for your all powerful god that he couldn't even make sure the most important message he has for his creation is messed up and seems to have contradictions?

@derekallen4568

8 ай бұрын

We don't even know if Jesus existed or not. That's how flimsy the evidence is.

@wonderbuilds6523

8 ай бұрын

@@derekallen4568what are you talking about? The evidence is concrete! He was a real person absolutely, that is a historical and scientific fact. The question is whether he was God or not, not if he was real or not.

@wonderbuilds6523

8 ай бұрын

@@lennoxnderitu3659You’ll have to actually give some examples of “contradictions” before you can make that kind of claim.

@daveonezero6258

8 ай бұрын

The message lasted over 2000 years. What was left out? @@lennoxnderitu3659

Smart student: "Why does my copy not have the word 'immediately' in it?"

@robmc120

8 ай бұрын

All ehrmans students are looking for is confirmation of their bias, not truth, logic or facts.

It’s actually scary to hear someone present that as a contradiction who is also supposed to be considered some kind of authority on the text.

@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep

7 ай бұрын

Far less something serious worthy of mention and to bring it up to students for a whole project lol. Sounds so petty and God hating.

@bretwalker2295

6 ай бұрын

Not just an authority, one who teaches the New Testament. Producing a generation of Biblical critics who question everything about scripture without faith, and then going on to teach others the same. This is why the church is in such disarray these days. SMH

@ryanrevland4333

6 ай бұрын

Just one of many contradictions and failed prophecies in the Bible. It's actually scary that Christians haven't read the book.

@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep

6 ай бұрын

@@ryanrevland4333 false you've clearly as you just demonstrated not read anything lol

@tomasrocha6139

3 ай бұрын

It's not just one contradiction, there are several just in the Nativity Narratives.

Like Craig once said (if I am not mistaken), Bart has two faces: one scholarly face where he is reserved and meticulous in his research, and one publicity face where he is brash, unthoughtful and caters towards atheists and new atheists. Often, the publicity face comes at the cost of not taking seriously or distorting the very thing he is studying, the Bible and Christianity. Fallibility is a hallmark of us humans, so that's not something new or shocking.

@dilbertfish

8 ай бұрын

@stefanmilicevic5322 Yes he sucks the money.

@colinmatts

8 ай бұрын

Ehrman calls himself an agnostic. He has ridiculed many atheists who've tried to make mythicist arguments. He's hardly "catering towards atheists"

@stefanmilicevic5322

8 ай бұрын

@@colinmatts He seems to be both agnostic and an atheist, he himself is not quite sure but he emphasizes his agnostic side more. So my comment still stands true regardless. Here his explanation of his status: "I actually consider myself to be both an agnostic and an atheist. I am agnostic because if somebody says to me, is there a greater power in the universe? My response is, “How the hell would I know!? I don’t know!” So, I’m an agnostic. If somebody were to ask me, do you believe in the god of the bible? Do you believe in a god that interacts with the world, who intervenes in the world, who answers prayer? Do you believe in the supernatural divine being? No! I don’t believe it! So, I don’t believe, so I’m an atheist. But - I don’t know. So I’m an agnostic. And since I’m a scholar I prefer to emphasize knowledge rather than belief. And so, I tend to identify as an agnostic." Source: ffrf.org/outreach/awards/emperor-has-no-clothes-award/item/21383-ffrf-s-emperor-honor-to-truth-telling-bible-scholar

@thefriesens1071

8 ай бұрын

Yeah. I think the two-faced part of it is because he knows he can make far more money off of the brash unthoughtful persona among the new atheist fanboys than he does from his scholarly work.

@colinmatts

8 ай бұрын

@@stefanmilicevic5322 Of course a person CAN be both. Nobody knows if a God exists. So were all agnostic in that regard. Atheism is just about BELIEF.

Your logic, makes my brain work better. Please know that this man is greatful.

What greatly disturbs me is that a very dear friend of mine is completely sold on Ehrman because he was supposedly once a "die hard Christian" and then "he wised up because he doesn't believe the Bible is truth anymore". He doesn't understand why I haven't "grown up" yet, since I am an intellectual individual. Being smart and having faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ do not have to be mutually exclusive realities. I pray that his eyes, heart, and mind will one day open to the the real truth of The Lord's Word.

So the “scholar” forgot one of the most important aspects of the Gospels; different perspectives. Goodness. Different men, wrote from different perspectives, regarding the same story. As always, great video Mr. B!!

@tomasrocha6139

8 ай бұрын

Look up the Synoptic Problem, most of the text of Synoptic Gospels matches perfectly word for word because Matthew and Luke clearly used Mark as a source, the story is definitely "rehearsed".

The difference is Bart reads the Scriptures to find ways to disrespect it, whereas believers read Scripture in order to understand God's revelation to us. We don't "work around the errors" - when something seems problematic, we just read more carefully until we understand how it all fits together. Which is how all of us read anything written by someone we trust. That's the thing - Bart doesn't trust the Lord.

@justanothergmailaccount1353

8 ай бұрын

In all honesty, based on how he acts when he talks about religion, I think he just didn’t want to be a Christian when he was questioning his faith.

@colinmatts

8 ай бұрын

No. Bart reads the scriptures from a historical critical viewpoint. "Believers" read from a devotional viewpoint. Bart follows the evidence. Believers try to lead it.

@HonestlyNow4Real

8 ай бұрын

@@colinmatts Of the two ways of approaching the two texts in question, Bart chose the one that ascribes deceit to one or the other of the authors. What "Red Pen" here did was start from the assumption that two accounts can be different without being irreconcilable. Bart is the one jumping to the conclusion that best serves his purposes.

@nathanielalderson9111

8 ай бұрын

​@@colinmatts Nope. You got that wrong. Scholarly he might. But publicly, he says fallacious trash every time I hear him speak. And it's getting worse the older he's getting. The sad thing is Alex will take some of what 'The Expert' says and run with it, nor realising that Erhman is deceiving Alex. By this point I no longer consider Erhman to be a valid scholar.

@phoenixgamer1565

8 ай бұрын

@@colinmatts Nope. Many have debated him and explained to him that there are no errors or contradictions just like in this video. He does not want to accept he is wrong.

Bart is a master at taking what actually is STRONG evidence for the authenticity of these historical documents being exactly what they claim to be: recollections of real, historical events by different authors-and spinning it to make it seem like evidence against their historicity. He does this with textual variants as well. The only reason why there are “more variants than there are words in the New Testament” is because we have SO MANY manuscripts to compare and detect when things changed. The very art of textual criticism makes us ABLE to tell what has changed, and more importantly, when, to reconstruct what was the original text reliably. Bart knows this, but famously twisted it to imply that we can’t know a single word of the original text. This argument is no different. The fact that the accounts emphasize different aspects but don’t directly contradict lets us combine the accounts to reconstruct the real timeline of events. This (a) proves there was no collusion between the Gospel writers to all tell the same exact story without variation, and therefore (b) lends credence to them being independent accounts of real historical events.

@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep

7 ай бұрын

Agree it's VERY disingenuous is the word to put it how he presents the information.

@ryanrevland4333

6 ай бұрын

Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and added birth narratives that aligned with the legends of their community.

@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep

6 ай бұрын

@@ryanrevland4333 You haven't the vaguest clue what you are talking about. The differences in the synoptic gospels matthew mark luke, can be explained as a concept we see with how Plutarch writes. Plutarch who writes biographies of people we can see where he says one thing in the person biography, then if said person is referenced on someone elses biography Plutarch telescopes the facts as in condenses them down in a way. That is the kind of evidence that some scholars call discrepancies we see in the synoptic gospels which is absurd. How authors wrote in that day was focusing on the gist of what was being said to get across. furthermore the early church creeds were 0-2 years after Christ and established deity death and resurrection, high christology. there was no progression of myth. The highest level of Christianity came immediately. You are utterly ignorant to this conversation.

@robertpreisser3547

6 ай бұрын

@@ryanrevland4333 //Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and added birth narratives that aligned with the legends of their community.// Not wholly accurate. The actual mainstream scholarly theory is that all three, Matthew, Mark and Luke, used a now-lost source known as “Q” for capturing commonly repeated teaching and sayings that were already in wide circulation by word of mouth at the time. But there are still differences between Mark and Matthew and Luke, with some unique or independent content in all three. What is even more inaccurate is the assertion that Matthew and Luke added birth narratives that aligned with legends. That’s not what Luke said he did, which was he asked the living eyewitnesses and interviewed them extensively to verify the truth of what he had been told. There was no legend that they added. There were real, historical events that were directly told to Luke by Mary, who John was taking care of, for example, and whom Luke interviewed. The “legend” idea is pure speculation, rooted solely in the refusal to admit the possibility that any supernatural events are even possible in the first place. Most modern scholars have a worldview that is rooted in naturalism and materialism, and their presupposition is that because that worldview prevents them from allowing the possibility of the supernatural in the first place-as an up front bias held on an a priori basis-before even looking at any evidence. All evidence of actual supernatural events must therefore be explained away, by inventing just-so stories with no evidence whatsoever to back them up, such as later legendary development or even going so far as to claiming Jesus was a made up, non-historical figure. None of these theories are based on EVIDENCE. They are based on BIAS, and are proposed solely for the purpose of explaining away all references to the supernatural. If you think that’s incorrect, I would ask you to provide me what independent evidence from outside Matthew, Mark or Luke, that proves that they did what is being claimed (inserted legends that were known to be in that culture and were independently documented elsewhere in other extra-Biblical writings. You will find that no such documentation exists. This is an empty theory presented as fact, but is really pure unfounded speculation.

@ryanrevland4333

6 ай бұрын

The Q document is specific to Matthew and Luke. These shared sayings are absent from Mark. The actual consensus of scholars is Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary source in conjunction with Q as well as other material. And no, Luke doesn’t say he interviewed specific eyewitnesses. To claim that he got this directly from Mary or John is disingenuous. He gives a very general claim about his source material that suggests it was “handed down” over the decades. _Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word._ And yes, historians reject supernatural claims. And you should be glad they do. If we teach children that Jesus walked on water as historical fact, then we have to teach them that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse as well. We can’t special plead for one book of magic over another. @@robertpreisser3547

1. The Bible scholar isn't even sure of how to read The Bible, and is definitely putting doubts in his student's minds. This could very well lead many of them astray. 2. Suppose Mr. B, Bart and I go to a Wal-mart, and someone robs the store, and we testify to the event, having witnessed parts of the crime. I witness that the thief took some DVDs because I saw him while shopping in the DVD section. He also stole some candy. Mr. B says he saw that too, but also saw him steal some socks. Bart says: "I didn't see him steal movies or socks, but he definitely stole some candy in the front of the store. " Would this immediately invalidate Mr. B and my account on the robbery? No, we just know different details about the same event. Matthew and Luke are 2 different writers inspired by God to write about an event in Jesus's life that the Holy Spirit has inspired them. They're not going to share accounts, they're going to notice/write about different things.

@TheCableStrain

8 ай бұрын

Bart isn't a Christian, and he definitely is putting doubts into his students minds.

@tomasrocha6139

8 ай бұрын

Look up the Synoptic Problem, most of the text of Synoptic Gospels matches perfectly word for word because Matthew and Luke clearly used Mark as a source, the story is definitely "rehearsed".

@Nov_Net

8 ай бұрын

​@@tomasrocha6139and what is the issue with that?

@tomasrocha6139

8 ай бұрын

@@Nov_Net The original comment asserts that there are differences because they are independent accounts, they're not.

@Nov_Net

8 ай бұрын

@@tomasrocha6139 That however is ireelevant to the point being made. If I recall correctly, the Christmas story only exists in Matthew and Luke, meaning that unless some lost document of a Christmas story in mark exists, Matthew and Luke couldn't have rehearsed anything from Mark. So, within the context of the video specifically debunking the alleged contradiction regarding the Christmas story, his points still stands since mark doesn't include a Christmas story. On another note, even of we granted that Mark indeed had a Christmas story and both Matthew and Luke used it as a reference or guide when establishing their own gospels, that doesn't negate his point either. Unless you assume that everything present in Marks Christmas story is also present in Matthews and Likes Christmas account solely, then your rebuttal doesnt work. For example, Mark contains A in his account. Mathew and Luke both take guidance from Matthews A, but Luke adds on B and Mathew Adds on C. B and C are still seperate accounts from Mark in which the original commenters argument is still valid. Saying that you agree with everything someone says doesn't mean you cannot add information or chose to leave out said information from such source, so unless you are willing to make unfounded assumptions, your refutation wouldn't work if Mark had or didn't have a Christmas story.

Ehrman grew up in a very fundamentalist tradition that didn't sufficiently take into consideration the nuances of how ancient people wrote history. Thus, he assumes whenever he has debunked a fundamentalist reading, he has therefore shown the text to be unreliable. So often, Erhman says, "Gotcha!" while I'm still waiting for him to present the problem.

@mattr.1887

8 ай бұрын

It's supposed to be the inerrant word of God. Nuances indicate a human origin - not divine.

@JezielProdigalSon

8 ай бұрын

You just proved Craigs point. Most christians do not believe the Bible to the inerrant word of God. They believe it to be texts, written by humans who are a product of their time and culture, inspired by divine wisdom.@@mattr.1887

@craighoekema8609

8 ай бұрын

@@mattr.1887 Hey Matt. Thanks for engaging. The Christian understanding of the Bible is that it is of both human and divine origin. Which is to say that God inspired the writers of the Bible in such a way that what they wrote communicates God's perfect will...while still containing all of the unique characteristics of the genre of literature they were writing (and even of their individual personalities). Thus Christian interpreters certainly must pay attention to those nuances in order to properly understand the Bible.

@mamaliamalak7825

8 ай бұрын

​@@craighoekema8609 Yep, its a problem to treat the Bible like a science book, when it wasn't intended to be a science book. If God had revealed to Moses the exact process he used in the creation of the universe, Moses wouldn't have understood. We wouldn't understand it. The event took place, what scripture reveals is the reason why an event took place. And the meaning behind it.

@thadofalltrades

8 ай бұрын

@@mattr.1887 it's inerrant in perspective, not necessarily inerrant in miniscule detail. When people cite the Bible's inerrancy and then point out a problem it's very clear they have no real understanding of what is meant by inspiration.

If I were the institution where he got his degree, I'd publicly denounce him to shield from such embarrassing statements.

@grantbartley483

8 ай бұрын

It's worse than that. He's a professor at a Christian college

@MrSheepishLion

8 ай бұрын

@grantbartley483 Which one?

@toomanyhobbies2011

8 ай бұрын

@@grantbartley483 UNC Chapel Hill is most definitely NOT a Christian college. Wiki treats him like a debunking hero for his attacks against Christianity.

@toomanyhobbies2011

8 ай бұрын

Princeton Theological Seminary is, at best, far-left christian (lower case) and are probably proud of this guy.

@grantbartley483

8 ай бұрын

@@toomanyhobbies2011 ok thanks for the correction

Should we tell Bart that the events of Matthew take place two years later?

@KingdomInterest

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, a little frustrating that even this video didn’t address that.

@RoxanneR8375

6 ай бұрын

In the verses immediately following their return to Nazareth in Luke, it says it was the family's custom to go up to Jerusalem every year for Passover. It makes sense to me that they would return immediately to Nazareth, then two years later return to Jerusalem for Passover. That's when the Wise Men arrive, and they warn the family to flee into Egypt from Herod.

@tomasrocha6139

3 ай бұрын

So in Matthew they were Bethlehem 2 years later whereas in Luke Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room? Do you think they bought a house in the meantime, after returning to Nazareth?

So hyped when I saw this episode. If you have time, keep making them.

@Acts-1915

8 ай бұрын

I 2nd that! ❤❤❤

Thank you for the clarification! Keep up the good work!

Thank you Mr. B. I was reading up on this after coming across an article stating this same problem. I didn't have a clear cut answer until just now and now I'm kind of even encouraged to read both texts to try and gain more of an understanding of the sequence of events

I would invite Bart Ehrman to make similar lists that show just how many details are corroborated, mentioned later by different people, or supported by corresponding arguments in the NT. Even the OT is chalk full of that kind of thing. But the best, by far, is the connection from OT over to NT. That's the prophetic and supernatural stuff.

@littlefishbigmountain

8 ай бұрын

But obviously prophecy was just written back into ancient copies of ancient Jewish texts by Christians after the fact to prove Jesus!! (sarcasm)

@colinmatts

8 ай бұрын

How do you know it's "prophetic and supernatural stuff"? How do you know the N.T. authors weren't just matching their story to the O.T. verses they would have known well?

@littlefishbigmountain

8 ай бұрын

@@colinmatts Because they are all either exactly fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled. Not a single one has ever been wrong. And not because they’re vague like fortune tellers; they are incredibly specific

@zkeletonz001

8 ай бұрын

Just a bit of basic knowledge about the Bible, like how a lot of it wasn't written in chronological order, goes a long way in debunking a lot of the so-called 'contradictions.'

@otaKUsportsJP

8 ай бұрын

@@colinmatts The problem with this is that in the New Testament you have the most seemingly random details fulfilled as prophecy. For example, "Out of Egypt I called my son..." (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15). That verse in the OT is clearly speaking of Israel, but it is said to be fulfilled in Jesus. There is absolutely no reason for a NT author to make this up by pulling a random verse about Israel in the OT and then saying, "How can we prove this was fulfilled in Jesus? I got an idea, let's have an angel appear to Joseph in a dream and send them down to Egypt. Then when they come back we'll say it was fulfilling the verse in Hosea 11:1 talking about Jesus and not Israel." The same could be said about many other seemingly "random" verses in the OT that the NT tells us are actually direct fulfillments. If anything, someone making it all up and matching stories to the OT would just stick with the major prophecies as being fulfilled.

The account of Jesus' birth that we've all been told doesn't match up 100 with the Bible; therefore, the problem is with the Bible. Makes perfect sense. These "scholars" infuriate me. If you hate the Bible, admit it. Don't claim to study it if you don't try to understand it.

For someone so adept in history and the Bible, you would think Bart would know how to read it by now

@justanothergmailaccount1353

8 ай бұрын

It’s willful. He doesn’t care about how the authors intended to write it, their customs, or anything. He’s just studying just the words and saying there’s a contradiction, while ignoring all the background information.

@colinmatts

8 ай бұрын

Why don't you write to him and tell him where he's going wrong?

@zkeletonz001

8 ай бұрын

I think calling him "adept" is a stretch.

The nativity scene has ruined many people's supposition of the actual events. The shepherds and Magi do not come at the same time. The shepherds saw Jesus in a manger (in Luke's account), while the Magi (in Matthew's account) came to their home and saw Jesus there. So here is another possibility that the "Bible scholar" can't fathom: 1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew and Luke). 2. Shepherds come to worship Jesus and see Him in a manger (Luke). 3. : Joseph along with Mary possibly decides to buy or rent a house in Bethlehem since he is from there and Mary needs the rest, and they also have to perform the purification. 4. Purification according to the law (Luke). 5. : They continue to live in Bethlehem possibly for practical reasons, sentimental reasons, good jobs, or the schools in Bethlehem were highly rated. Whatever the reason they continue to live in Bethlehem. 6. The Magi come to Bethlehem looking for The King. The text in Matthew makes it pretty clear that Jesus is already born, unlike the Shepherds who were told, "today... a Saviour is born..." (Matthew). 7. The Magi see Jesus in His house (Matthew). 8. The Magi leave being warned in a dream (Matthew). 9. : Herod decides to kill all the male children under two years old. Why not under one year? The text in Matthew lays out that Herod enquired about the timing of the star, and that from all his calculations and his talks with the Magi he assumes Jesus is less than two years of age. 10. Joseph has a dream, and he flees to Egypt (Matthew). 11. After Herod's death Joseph along with Mary and Jesus come back to Bethlehem to live in their house, but they are warned in another dream (Matthew). 12. They go to Nazareth (Matthew and Luke).

@SeraphsWitness

8 ай бұрын

Exactly. The Nativity scenes act as good movie posters, showing a series of events crammed into one setting. But it's not precisely accurate. My kids' bibles show Jesus as roughly a 2 year-old when the magi show up, which is a really nice touch.

@hellonewman5855

8 ай бұрын

In Luke, the family returns to Nazareth from Jerusalem. In Matthew, they go to Nazareth from Egypt.

@SeraphsWitness

8 ай бұрын

@@hellonewman5855 sounds like you didn't watch the video.

@SumithMathew

8 ай бұрын

@@hellonewman5855 I understand your issue here. But consider this scenario: A family arrives late to a party. Husband's perspective: I was late from work, came home, showered, got the family, and came to the party. His reason for being late: him being late from work. Wife's perspective: Husband came home, and we left, but realized we did not have a gift for the party, so we had to stop to get the gift and we came to the party. Her reason why the family was late? Because they forgot to get a gift for the party. Now if you run into the husband and the wife and hear both perspectives and why they were late, you would have a holistic view of why they were late, but hopefully, your conclusion won't be, that they are lying. Of course, not all examples are perfect, but you get the idea. So, what could have happened with Matthew and Luke's accounts: 1. Historian: Luke was not an eyewitness account, but rather wrote the account as a historian. So, Luke made a careful investigation and wrote an orderly account. He may not have been aware of the Egypt episode, or he was aware of it and decided it was not needed for his account. 2. Audience: This leads me to the second point; his key audience. Matthew was writing his account to the Jews. Jesus was the promised prophet by Moses. So, Matthew is drawing a parallel between Moses and Jesus while Luke was writing to the Gentiles, and therefore drawing parallelism between Moses and the promised Messiah was not necessary. 3. He just forgot. Why does this not matter to a true born-again believer? Because of the extraordinary claim of these eyewitnesses. They claim, Jesus a man who claimed to be God, was born, lived a sinless life, and did extraordinary things like healing the sick, raising the dead, and forgiving sins. They claim He was killed on a cross by the Romans, was put in a grave, and on the third day, He rose from the dead. They further claim that they saw Him, talked to Him, ate with Him, and then saw Him ascending to heaven. What's crazy is that even under the danger of extreme persecution and death, they did not recant this extraordinary claim, but gladly lived it, spread it, and went to their death without hesitation. THIS CLAIM is extraordinary and cannot be discredited because of a few differences between accounts, spelling mistakes, or anything else the "experts" come up with. Because between you and I, no one will die for a lie they are concocting. If you read it till here, good job. Peace!

@hellonewman5855

8 ай бұрын

@@SumithMathew If the husband's and wife's travel itineraries were as diverse as Matthew's and Luke's itineraries, then I would question the veracity of one or both their stories. Their (Matthew and Luke) motivations don't interest me. Nor do I care about their audiences. My interest is in the content of these two stories, and in particular the travel portions since these are the main parts which are in conflict and cannot be reconciled. "Red Pen" makes an attempt: but he does so by cheating. He invents a transitional bridge between Luke and Matthew by manufacturing a journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. This is not in the text; it's pure invention. And the trip from Jerusalem to Nazareth, which is in the text, he renders lip service to and then ignores it, making no effort to provide an explanation. He pretends as though the only trip to Nazareth is the one out of Egypt. This matters because it is characteristic of the unreliability of the entire Bible, e.g., Exodus chapter 20 and chapter 34. Bartholomew, Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, etc. No one knows how these people lived, and certainly no one knows how they died. The propaganda that the disciples died proclaiming Jesus is just that: propaganda. We have no reliable historical reporting upon which to base a reasonable decision regarding the manner and occasion of their deaths.

Thank you soo much for work 😊

It feels like common sense that omission does not equal denial, but I guess sometimes everyone falls to a fallacy at some point for silly reasons. That's why it's always important to have humility and be open to correction, and to also be compassionate and understanding towards others.

@robmc120

8 ай бұрын

Problem is Ehrman HAS been corrected in formal debates, but still teaches it bc $......

@cnault3244

8 ай бұрын

"It feels like common sense that omission does not equal denial" And it's common sense that contradictory accounts of the same event equal contradictions. Here is what the gospels of Luke, John, Mark, and Matthew tell us about events at Christ's tomb. How many people first visited the tomb? Matthew 28:1 The first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two). Mark 16:1 Both of the above plus Salome (three). Luke 23:55 - 24:1, 24:10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “other women” (at least five). John 20:1 Mary Magdalene only (one). What time of the day did they arrive? Matthew 28:1 It was toward dawn when they arrived. Mark 16:2 It was after sunrise. Luke 24:1 It was at early dawn. John 20:1 It was still dark. Was the tomb open or sealed when they arrived? Matthew 28:1-2 The stone was still in place when they arrived. It was rolled away later. Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1 The stone had already been rolled (or taken) away. Was anyone there when they arrived? Matthew 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb). Mark 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb. Luke 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb. John 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb. Where did the resurrected Jesus first appear? Matthew 28:8-9 Jesus’ first Resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb. Luke 24:13-15 It was in the vicinity of Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem). John 20:13-14 It was right at the tomb. After they had seen him, we are told: Matthew 28:9 On his first appearance to them, Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and the other Mary hold him by his feet. John 20:17 On his first appearance to Mary, Jesus forbids her to touch him since he has not yet ascended to the Father. John 20:27 A week later, although he has not yet ascended to the Father, Jesus tells Thomas to touch him.

Great video! Exactly the conclusion I came to in my video on this topic 3 months ago.

@rijoab

8 ай бұрын

Looks like every christian who looks into the bible get to this conclusion. I first thought it will take days to understand. It was pretty easy didnt that long. Thanks Jesus for that.

@arcguardian

8 ай бұрын

Well then let's pay ur channel a visit.

You nailed it! The timing of the events did not have to occur immediately after one another. Also, you raise an excellent point on the 'two years and under' killing by Herod. The events took a couple years to unfold and did in fact happen. No contradictions whatsoever.

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

except they didn't. The historian Josephus did not record the slaughter of the innocents. jesus was not born in Bethlehem. There was no 'return home' census. Virgin birth is pagan. Matthew and Luke don't even know jesus grandfather. Mary did not have a genealogy. Worse still, David had at least 7 wives. Suspiciously, Matthew puts four dodgy women into Josephs genealogy. Dreadful nonsense.

@RustyWalker

7 ай бұрын

_"The events took a couple years to unfold and did in fact happen. No contradictions whatsoever."_ What evidence can you provide that the events described here, "did in fact happen?" Because I know of absolutely none that show the slaughter of the innocents "did in fact happen."

Imagine one testimony doesn’t mention one thing and you’re like, “HERE IS THE CINTRADICTION!” Like bro the reach is real

@thedude0000

6 ай бұрын

It's not just one contradiction....nice try though.

Amen!

The 4 different but similar accounts Matthew Mark Luke and John make me believe the Gospels even more Any Police officer will tell you when getting eyewitness accounts they always always differ

For a textual critic Bart is ether lying or just incompetent!

@danielblair4413

8 ай бұрын

Bart is an atheist lying or just being incompetent is an atheist trait. They will do anything to have their excuse to deny the existence of God and the truth of the bible.

@ChristAliveForevermore

8 ай бұрын

He's too pompous to be incompetent. Thus, he must be lying, not just to us, but most of all to himself.

@SweetPappyJones

8 ай бұрын

@@ChristAliveForevermorebeing pompous certainly doesn’t exclude someone from being incompetent! But yes, on this level, I would be inclined to agree. This seems more like doing the work of Satan. I would probably call him a “Biblical critic” instead of scholar, because that is some high school level reading and critical thinking, at best, that he is messing up.

@stevenfrasier5718

8 ай бұрын

If it wasn't for Textual Critics like Bart, then your precious Logic leader wouldn't have a reference point to contrast to. "Christianity" NEEDS an "Enemy" because they have lost the true foundation centuries ago.

@jeremydyck2601

8 ай бұрын

It has to be lying. To be that incompetent, he would also have to be very stupid and he's clearly not stupid.

Great video mr B as usual💝

It is easy to reconcile the events from the two Gospels. Not difficult at all - unless you have a stake in trying to confuse people and make them doubt the Bible.

I just love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman. "I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..." William Lane Craig Without his massive ignorant unlearned public Bart would be a nobody.

@jimfarnell5813

8 ай бұрын

Lane also rightly contends that the church, in general, much of the leadership & congregants have been in intellectual neutral for many years… they dismiss critical studies of the Word & apologetics…. especially to young people in youth groups who are abandoning the faith within 18 months of graduating high school at a rate of 67%… They are thoroughly taught WHAT to believe but not WHY it’s believable… When they meet a Bart Ehrman, they are entirely unprepared and are convinced of his lie…

@tomasrocha6139

3 ай бұрын

The same Craig that recently defended genocide on Alex's show? I'm sure Ehrman is very concerned with his respect.

as always great job bro

Kinda odd how the scholar doesn’t talk about how each of the four gospels were written with a different audience in mind and thus focus on or emphasis details of the story of Jesus’s birth that would be important or relevant to the audience they would be circulating around.

@CyberManor

8 ай бұрын

That's EXACTLY what Bart Ehrman thinks though lol. Keep following that logic through.

I’ve had someone argue the same thing on the gospels talking about the women visiting Jesus tomb. They were saying that because one says there were 3 women and the a different gospel only mentioned 2 women then it’s a contradiction. And that one said the stone was rolled before they got there and another said the stone was rolled when they got there. And they also said one said there was 2 angels while another only states 1 Angel in the tomb.

@cnault3244

8 ай бұрын

Do you know what a contradiction is?

@dragondogemaster

8 ай бұрын

@@cnault3244 yeah? That’s why I’m stating another example of a belief of contradiction someone has stated to me. It can be argued away with the same logic used in the video

@cnault3244

8 ай бұрын

@@dragondogemaster The fact is the Bible contains contradictions. Anyone who says it does not either does not know what a contradiction is or is lying.

None of those things are contradictory. That’s like saying “how can you go to the grocery store and the bank at the same time?” Obviously things are done in an order.

@vladtheemailer3223

8 ай бұрын

Inconsistencies

@HunnysPlaylists

7 ай бұрын

@@vladtheemailer3223 there aren't any.

Nice work bro

You are very good, you. I am glad you are doing what you do. Thank you for sharing your hard scholastic work and exceptional speaking ability with me.

It's pretty telling that Bart had to add to scripture in order to make his case. Bart, the Bible doesn't have the word "immediately", you assumed that based on your presupposition, which is a blatant case of begging the question.

@thefriesens1071

8 ай бұрын

Yes. Some scholars are saying now that that word doesn't necessarily mean "immediately." It probably just means "later."

@theeternalsbeliever1779

8 ай бұрын

I'm not trying to start an argument, but YECs are guilty of the same thing in the way they read Gen. 1. Despite the amount of texts that shows the history of events that occurred between Gen. 1:1 and verse 3, YECs read all of Gen. 1 as events that happened immediately after the other.

@brando3342

8 ай бұрын

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 You’re not starting an argument with me, as I’m not a YEC. That said, that isn’t the same as *adding* words to scripture. That’s merely having a different interpretation. So, it’s not exactly the same.

There you go Bart... There's your answer!

Your awesome brother. Don’t ever stop the red pen logic channel. It’s perfect!

These types of apologetics are so silly. Just trying to smash all the stories together.

To Bart's credit, he did settle on "I don't know," which is much better than a fully fledged false assumption.

I mean Matthew’s gospel is an eyewitness account and Luke’s is from the different accounts of the apostles told to him while traveling with Paul.

@John-fk2ky

8 ай бұрын

I think you might be missing some eye-witness stuff with Luke. Luke mentions enough details involving Mary and her relatives that it seems likely he spoke with her directly.

@theeternalsbeliever1779

8 ай бұрын

Luke's gospel is based on him interviewing as many eyewitnesses as he could, not just the apostles. I'm pretty sure he got the information about Christ's genealogy and His childhood from Mary.

Yeah, this discrepancy has bugged me a lot because Luke definitely sounds like he's saying there wasn't any time wasted getting back to Nazareth. My assumption is that Luke was unaware of Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt or the extended stay in Bethlehem, so he wrote it like that assuming they didn't take long to get back.

@NevetsWC1134

8 ай бұрын

Luke’s story is most likely being told by Mary. Luke’s gospel is also written after Matthew’s. So he doesn’t need to have all the same details as matthews

You are Spot ON !!

Man I'm not that familiar with the Bible and listening to Erhman even to me it occured that those events happened gradually just as you've explained lol. It's simple logic.

The blasphemers and deceivers play an essential role! They force us to defend our faith with the word of God alone! Christ is King!

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

First prove your god. Actually, that will be very difficult for you if you are a "christian" because your religion invented an amoral one.

@Sola_Scriptura_1.618

8 ай бұрын

@@rf7477 Do you believe in science?

@robmc120

8 ай бұрын

@@rf7477 Romans 1:18, all creation is proof of a creator. Repent of your sin & trust in Jesus (Mark 1:15/Acts 3:19) before it's too late (Hebrews 9:27), eternity is a long time to be wrong (Revelation 20:15).

@Sola_Scriptura_1.618

8 ай бұрын

@rf7477 the foundation of science (physics, biology, chemistry) is the law of cause and effect. This law can only remain true in the existence of a God almighty. Either the foundational law of science remains true, and God exists, or the law is false, and the law of cause and effect is false and God does not exist. I chose to believe in God and the laws of science. I would love to hear how the fundamental law can be valid in a Godless world. Not to mention what is the Genesis of Morality and Logic. I am happy to hear how nothing created everything in direct violation of the foundational law of cause and effect.

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

@@Sola_Scriptura_1.618 You are attributing infinite wisdom to an invisible menace. "christianity" says that its amoral god is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. According to "christianity" the natural universe and the organic world are both inferior and subservient to an invisible but sinister sky tyrant. Thus our Earth is merely a holding paddock where the 'faithful' await their heavenly reward. There is no morality or logic in that ugly and dangerous idea. "christianity" became fatally corrupt when it attempted to deduce morals and ethics from this repugnant notion. The 'something from nothing' idea is usually only spouted by dishonest "christians". Physicists are already working on theories to explain what happened before the big bang.

You presented your argument so clearly and so logically

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

Except he didn't. Matthew squeezes the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, the sojourn and the return from Egypt into 40 days because Matthew has the Magi visit jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents. Oops. BTW the slaughter of the innocents was not recorded by the historian Josephus.

@user-rf9mx4qf7z

8 ай бұрын

@@rf7477 Except that nowhere does Matthew say this all happened in 40 days, you just made that assumption based on - what? "Not recorded by Josephus" is a very weak argument from silence. Bethlehem was a small town, we're probably talking about tens, not hundreds or thousands. In other words, this probably wasn't a big enough event to get a lot of attention throughout Judea compared to other events in Herod's life.

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

@@user-rf9mx4qf7z Josephus recorded most of Herod's crimes including the murders of Herod's own family members. Luke very clearly says that after the forty day period jesus is taken to the temple, a sacrifice is made and then a return to Nazareth. Matthew has to cram every thing into forty days because Matthew says the magi visit jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents. Oops. I understand why "christians" don't like an 'argument from silence'. For example the NT has about a dozen or so authors. Only two of them ever mention virgin birth. The nonsense written by Matthew and Luke is wildly contradictory and full of falsehoods. Luke never met jesus. Matthew was probably not an eye witness to any of jesus work. They both 'quote' jesus as some sort of first hand account. Stupidly, the virgin birth, which is clearly pagan and a much later addition to "christian" dogma, is a fatal contradiction to jesus being a direct male descendant of David. Paul (who also never met jesus) very clearly says jesus is both flesh and seed (sperm) of David. The writers of the NT were very sloppy liars who quite often copied each other, sometimes hundreds of years after the death of jesus. How this become gods holy and infallible word is atrocious.

Thank you.

Honestly I am getting tired of non-believers looking for any and all excuses not to believe Is it because living in sin is easier than having faith? Pray God shows them the Truth

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

If truth ever emerges it will not come via the sinister and amoral "christian" god.

@godswill2260

8 ай бұрын

@@rf7477

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

@@godswill2260 "christians" very often make wild assumptions. It goes along with their superstitions, delusions, judgmental tendency, piety and general misanthropy.

@bigblick101

8 ай бұрын

​@rf7477 the irony of you making wild assumptions about Christians supposedly making wild assumptions.

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

@@bigblick101 Damn, you've done it again.

Is it sad that I can figure that out just from listening to the supposed scholar speaking? 😂

Wow this was really good 👏

Woah is this guy Canadian? "Silence a-bowt an event"

I was listening to a debate with Bart E. last night, and I was shocked at all the assumptions he makes about the Bible. Granted, they are some of the same assumptions I made when I was an atheist, but he’s supposedly a scholar. It’s really odd.

@thefriesens1071

8 ай бұрын

He knows he can make more $$ by selling pop atheist books instead of his scholarly work. I get it. In seminary I had to read a lot of scholarly stuff. It's just not appealing to the masses. It's technical, thorough and often boring. I read some articles that were 20 or 30 pages long just studying one word or verse in the Bible! Most people will not understand the technicalities. I myself often got bored reading certain articles. The vast majority of people don't have the time or the energy for it. They want something easy to understand that supports their belief. That's where Ehrman comes in.

Calling bart ehrman a bible scholar is like calling homer simpson a nuclear physicist 😂😂😂

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

The term 'bible scholar' is an oxymoron. There is nothing scholarly about superstition.

@pipoulapiquette7804

8 ай бұрын

@@rf7477 You're a splendid speciman of an animal not knowing what superstition or scholar mean.

Interesting points

Incredulous times we are in; Some men think they are women, Some men without much reasoning ability or wisdom think they are scholars. Preposterous!

The intent of the prosecutor is to find guilt, the intent of the defense is to find innocence, and the intent of the court is to find Truth.... So tell me Bart Ehrman which one are you?

@nucreation4484

8 ай бұрын

the accuser. He's the accuser.

@malchir4036

8 ай бұрын

The jury, he's a scholar. What a stupid dichotomy you set up.

@GSpotter63

8 ай бұрын

@@malchir4036 Even scholars can have an agenda.

I regularly come across Bart Ehrman's lectures. I yet have to come across one without major mistakes in it. It amazes me every time. To me he is quite incompetent as a Bible scholar, let alone a Bible teacher.

@justanothergmailaccount1353

8 ай бұрын

It’s like when he tries to claim that Jesus has a copy from another religion. Oh yes Bart, being born from a rock is totally the same as a virgin birth. Oh they both were preaching a message? That totally must mean it was only from one particular religious group that ever existed and Jesus was copied from that. If you look at all the icons from the new atheist movement, you’ll find that it’s never about facts or the truth. How many of them hate God because their worldview isn’t affirmed (Dillahunty), or because they had issues in their lives and think they deserve better? How many of them just want to be able to indulge in whatever they want to and not suffer consequences?

@piage84

8 ай бұрын

Yeah I'm sure you know more than him. Lol

@atfaithvalue1728

8 ай бұрын

@@piage84 depends on the subject 😉

@piage84

8 ай бұрын

@@atfaithvalue1728 new testament

@atfaithvalue1728

8 ай бұрын

@@piage84 one simple example Although I am Dutch, I know more about English grammar than you. You should have written: "... more than he" instead of "... more than him". 🤣

Thank you for the excellent video 😊 The Lord’s love + grace be with you Hope you are all well and resting in Jesus saving love + grace 😊 Blessings friends 😊

Pen dropped. Most coolest moment ever. If this was anime. This is the moment the protagonists destroids the villain

Bart: "You have to make something up!" Red Pen Logic: "No problem!"

@robmc120

8 ай бұрын

RPL points out his logical fallacies & what COULD have happened is possible, not that it FACTUALLY did....Repent of your sin & trust in Jesus (Mark 1:15/Acts 3:19) before it's too late (Hebrews 9:27), eternity is a long time to be wrong (Revelation 20:15).

@JW-ri9oy

8 ай бұрын

@@robmc120 You could be wrong about an infinite number of religions and their hells. Eternity is a long time for YOU to be wrong as well.

@robmc120

8 ай бұрын

@@JW-ri9oy I COULD be wrong but no one has yet to present any counter evidence/logic/foundation cohesive with reality, more validated than the Bible or rise from the dead as JESUS has, so I'm not least but worried. How about you? What foundation for truth do you have that cohesively explains reality more than Christianity? What facts do you have? HOW do you KNOW those facts are true?

@JW-ri9oy

8 ай бұрын

@@robmc120 I don’t need to counter/present evidence against Christianity. Christianity needs to meet its burden of proof, and it has not. Christianity also has ZERO explanatory powers. We don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Does the Christian god explain this? Nope. No more than the Hindu gods or Allah or Zeus, anyway. I could make up an infinite number of things that might explain the gaps in our knowledge, but until I can prove any of them, they are just as fucking useless as the Christian worldview. And no sir, the Bible has not been validated, that’s a flat-out assertion that I can dismiss as easily as any other holy book, mythology, or fairytale.

Dishonest editing. Cut out multiple parts of Ehrmans explanation and even the part right after where he talks about what this guy here says... Also this: "It may be possible to reconcile these accounts if you work hard enough at it. I suppose you’d have to say that after Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth, as in Luke, they decided to move into a house in Bethlehem, as in Matthew, and a year or so later the wise men arrived, leading to the flight to Egypt, and a later decision, then, to relocate again to Nazareth. But if that is the way you choose to read the two accounts, you should realize that what you’ve done is create your own “meta-narrative” - one not found in any of the Gospels. That is, you have decided to write a Gospel of your own! Moreover, this approach doesn’t solve other historical problems posed by the texts, problems that appear nearly insurmountable, no matter how many meta-narratives one decides to create." This includes completely ignoring the logistics of moving these length in that time. I guess Christians believe that they were riding rocket-powered horses or something.

The fact that Ehrman pretends to have no idea how the two accounts could be reconciled shows what he is not.

@vladtheemailer3223

8 ай бұрын

Inconsistencies, not contradictions.

I don't read that much and not great at full understanding of the Bible; and yet I could've told him this. I picked up real quick that just because a writer doesn't mention the same events the exact same doesn't mean they happened differently, it just means they experience it from a different point of view with different context or details. Even then they still manage to describe events pretty similarly.

Praise the name of Jesus Christ! Thank you LORD for Your Son Jesus, Thank you LORD for The Holy Spirit! 🙏🙌🙏 May HE Bless Red Pen Logic, and Mr. B!

There is a difference between Godly wisdom and worldly wisdom..Very good explanation

I don't know how out of the 2000 years Christianity has been around people couldn't see this contradiction

@Nighhhts

8 ай бұрын

It’s not a contradiction at all, that’s why. Bart is just an idiot…

@arcguardian

8 ай бұрын

​@@Nighhhtsi think/hope they were being sarcastic. The dilemmas presented today to discredit the Bible have been defeated for almost 2000 years, if it was going to defeat Christianity, it already would have. Nothing beats The Word Of God.

As a lawyer, I know this from a daily basis that silence does not mean denial. I have taken precognitions from clients that have seemed pretty comprehensive but later it emerges that major details arise that they failed to provide in the initial statement. This is because their thought processes and my questioning may create greater focus on some details but not on others. I took a statement from a client recently covering details spanning 20 years. This statement was 8 pages long. I could have written 1000 times more pages and still not covered all the details of this person's life. We often forget that the Christmas account is likely to have occurred over 2 years - as Herod gives orders to kill all children under 2 based on the time that the star first appeared. A lot can happen in 2 years. If someone is giving a short summary of this time, it may appear like it's all bunched up into a shorter timeframe and many major details could be omitted.

@hellonewman5855

7 ай бұрын

Silence does not mean denial; that's why Ehrman never makes an argument from silence. That's Red Pen's straw man. Ehrman invites readers to compare and contrast the texts and evaluate their relative consistency. Ehrman is not exploiting silence; he is, however, drawing attention to the actual contents of the texts, which are indeed inconsistent and problematic.

I think Bart is one of those guys whose full of himself, enough to disrespect what does not fit the narrative within himself. He wants Jesus to be real and not be miraculous, to be a teacher but a liar, a narcissist. To be crucified and yet not to have risen in order for him to just have existed a natural life with just overzealous disciples. Well wether Bart likes it or not Jesus claimed to be Son of God, wether he agrees with it or not the disciples seemed to believe that he was the son of God. The disciples were witness to His ability to perform miraculous acts which Bart wants to see personally to believe and wether he wants it not to be true, the disciples believed Jesus had risen and went off to do his biding although it costed them their lives ( literally).

As usual. The Bart Ehrmans' tactics. He's been called out for recycling same objections that has been refuted. He's just seeking relevance

Good job!

I've been watching Cold Case Christianity and he makes a great point about eyewitness testimony. Two people can be at the same event but witness very different things and still be telling the truth. The Scriptures are God-breathed, so God guided them in what to write, but they are still witnesses with different accounts of the events. God worked through these men, not turn them into puppets. For if all four Gospels were exactly the same, why would we need the four? It's to give us accounts from four different people, and just like a court we piece together what's there to get the full picture.

@tomasrocha6139

8 ай бұрын

Look up the synoptic problem, most of the text is exactly the same because they copied each other, they are not independent accounts

Bart Ehrman is some piece of work. I call him a Bible Scholar Atheist. Muslims have caught on to his bad teachings and now use him as a source for why the Bible is not God's Word.

@josecarlosramolete6109

8 ай бұрын

That's true. Muslims are so shameless in using other people like Ehrman. They also SHAMELESSLY use Jesus to get people into Islam.

It's not that hard to understand that! But people who are looking for a problem tend to miss the simple Truth of how life is and stumble it over the possibility of different ways the events are expressed. Some people are always looking for a way not to believe. Bart Ermin is a classic example

Further reading I'd recommend if someone is interested in identifying how Dr Ehrman tends to mistreat the text and even the greater history of Christianity. The heresy of orthodoxy, and truth and a culture of doubt identify how he really leans into of the arguments from silence to try to make his points.

Right. It is what one's personal assumptions that leads to differing interpretations

Bart does this on purpose. He knows it’s not a contradiction, but twists it to look like one, in order to sow doubt and confusion. He is a really bad guy, the Lord rebuke him.

Ah, I see. When I say "After I went to the groceries I went home" could actually mean "After I went to the groceries I made a two year vacation trip around the world and then I went home". Sure. That is what everyone assumes to be a realistic occurrence of events when hearing the first statement.

@Ayverie4

8 ай бұрын

More like me saying, "I lived in Virginia after I lived in Texas". Skipping entirely over North Carolina, because it's irrelevant to the point and I was only there a year. Remember, the Gospels are a summary of Jesus' entire life. Do YOU remember everything that happened to you in your life? And would you put it all in your biography? If your parents wrote it, would they put all the same details that you did?

Yep! Well said.

I didn't recall the dream warning Joseph not to go back to Bethlehem, but there it is, Matthew 2:22b. Thanks for pointing that out. Another interesting difference (not a conflict) between Luke and Matthew is that Luke says from the get-go that Joseph came from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census, whereas Matthew does not mention where Joseph and Mary came from, but that after coming back from Egypt they settled there, so that Jesus would fulfil the prophecies of the Messiah being a Nazarene.

Bart Ehrman is primarily a textual critic. He's surprisingly simple-minded and unsophisticated when it comes to looking at literary concepts and ideas. It's as if Bart takes everything at face value. He's the sort of person who would read Animal Farm by George Orwell and think "This is ridiculous! Why are pigs walking on two legs and animals talking?" Or read a poem like "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Robert Frost and not understand deeper meanings beyond the surface text and instead think "The fact that this poem repeats the last line twice is surely redundant!" In short, Bart has a tin ear. So it's no surprise to me that Bart can't adequately grasp literary concepts and ideas like themes, motifs, metaphors, similes, allusions, word plays, style and tone, and so on and so forth. He wouldn't see much value in a discipline like biblical theology which seeks to trace, say, the Messiah, the temple, redemption, atonement, or the like from Genesis to Revelation. Apart from the fact that he doesn't see the Bible as a unified book, even if he did, it'd still all be nonsensical to him because he can't appreciate the literary. (Of course, literary doesn't mean fictional. There are many finely written historical or scientific books, for example.)

One of the worst arguments someone tried to tell me that the nativity didn't take place during the winter months because they never talk about snow. I just looked at him and said "it doesn't snow in the middle East."

Yes & Amen

The required *MENTAL GYMNASTICS* required by christians to reconcile the errors in their bible.

As much as Bart Erhman is a very smart guy, when it comes to the Bible he all of a sudden throws out standards for textual criticism and instead uses deception. He does this all the time and yet people cant see that.

@arcguardian

8 ай бұрын

He ain't the only one. If ppl were consistent they'd have to erase half of history just to discredit the evidence for Jesus Christ, but instead they just raise the standard for Him and no one else.

@jlj547

8 ай бұрын

@@arcguardian Right it's very sad but also its on par for humans to do such a thing.

It don't change the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, let alone that Jesus walked on the earth, and died for us in Jerusalem, and rose again

What book would you recommend to learn more about logic? You always amaze me with your logical arguments

@emmavolpe5488

8 ай бұрын

Hello ^^ im curious, when you say logic, what are you refering to? Logic about how to read the bible? Or just logic for life in general?

@emryswilliams9190

8 ай бұрын

I am loving "The Last Superstition". It's a great book that looks through philosophy and history to understand the flaws of what we call "the new atheism," or the drones of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

@johnnysaturdaze35

8 ай бұрын

@@emmavolpe5488 books on logic. But theology books are welcome too. You have any suggestions

@emmavolpe5488

8 ай бұрын

@@johnnysaturdaze35unfortunatly i don't have any recommendations, i was more just curious about what you had meant, thank you for clarifying ^^

Bart says this as if it’s a shocking revelation and Christians haven’t thought through the differences in the gospels for 2,000 years.

@rf7477

8 ай бұрын

Correct. 2000 years of sludge and fudge by the "christian" religion of something that is supposed to be gods holy and infallible word. You know, inerrancy.

Question The gospels of Matthew and Luke do have a pretty significant historical inconsistency in regards to Jesus’ birth. In Mathew he was born during the reign of Herod the Great who died in the year 4 BC However, in Luke he was born during the census of Quirinius which happened in the year 6 AD That’s at least a decade apart! So it seems to me that someone has inaccurate information. I have yet to hear a good explanation so what do you all think?

Hey Tim. You actually share a first and last name with a childhood friend of mine. Anyway I've been trying to get a question answered for a very long time. Is there any way you can do a video or lead me to resources dealing with I suppose it contradiction between Matthew and Mark's account of the withered fig tree. Thanks for all you do. God bless.

*“Professor pretends not to know things in order to mislead students”*

I've always wondered how people miss that the Magi visited almost two years after Jesus was born. It's right there in the text!

I think something that messes people up is our modern perspective on travel. We can go from city to city in hours, not days. They don’t think about the level of undertaking it would be to travel the distances involved, on foot, with an infant. Not very long ago, people stayed places longer; you didn’t go on a one week vacation, you went and stayed somewhere months, or even years. But people don’t think of that, they look at these biblical events through a modern lens, where a trip between Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Egypt could be done in less than a day or two, and this colors their understanding of the events.

Keep looking to Jesus, leaning on Him in all things, rejoicing and resting in His hope, strength, saving love and grace 😊 Our gracious Lord bless you, strengthen you + keep you, as He SO FAITHFULLY does 😊 Every blessings + love in Jesus, our wonderful loving, living + gracious Saviour 😊

Where'd you get that cool hat, Tim?

and one more comment... great explanation.