If the body was hanging or a few days in the sun and was swaying in the wind before the rope snapped he could of easily ended up on his head and burst open because he was decomposing in the sun

Very weird to think that in only 40 years Bart thinks the story gets so distorted. Not even a life time of one person. Oral tradition isn’t your dad telling you what we saw.

@@robertbethel4341 Who saw the body bursting or whatever?

Rembrandt972 didn’t mean to post under unbelievables thread. So I’ll answer one time as to not ruin his thread. The gospels don’t tell us who saw his body burst. That’s information collected by Luke. Here is what happened to Judas: Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Felt remorseful and tried to return the silver. They didn’t accept it so he threw it to the ground. Judas went and hung himself. This is around a holiday and the sabbath so Judas body was hanging for a couple of days in the sun before anyone noticed or anyone cared to take it down. With the holiday, sabbath and commotion of Jesus tomb empty early Sunday they probably didn’t tend to Judas until Monday/Tuesday. Judas body eventually fell down wether the branch or the rope broke it caused him to fall in a way that he appeared head down. He could of been swaying in the tree also from wind and after decomposing for a few days in the sun from hanging his body burst from the fall when it hit the ground. The elders could not keep the 30 pieces of silver since it was blood money so they purchased a field in Judas name since it was his blood money and it became known as the field of blood. That is why in Mathew he records Judas died and the elders bought a field because he was an eye witness. Luke after doing research saw that Judas bought the field because it was purchased in his name. So it is not irreconcilable like Bart says. Mathew was an eye witness and saw Judas killed himself and saw they used the money to buy a field for burial. Luke did research and finding that the field was in Judas name assumed it was bought before his death but it wasn’t. He just didn’t know the full story because he was not an eye witness.

@@robertbethel4341 Bollocks.

Bart Erhman is doing a deception clearly here compare : 1:03:43 onwards and what he says about 1:09:15

@@urfriend919 Even if this is the case I don't think that's really an appropriate response to this guy's comment. Should have written this as your own standalone comment. Weird reply.

@@vinchinzo594 I replied here so that all who liked this comment could see it

@@urfriend919 It's very inconsiderate.

@@jestes7 of what

Yeah I came here from that debate... That was such a poor showing from Justin Bass it was honestly embarrassing, this on the other hand is excellent.

Yeah I did the same. This is a very thought out and well done debate. And though I am not convinced by Peter in the least, I do respect his approach and knowledge. I disagree with him, but we disagree honestly. And I do appreciate how both Bart and the moderator did work to keep to the core relevant features of the discussion.

Same here! The other debate was awful. This one is much better.

lol, lmao

I agree. Justin seemed unable to express himself in a rational, logical way. He MUST be able to think logically since he has a PhD, but I couldn't follow his arguments.

I always get a smile and sigh of relive when I see him as moderator for a debate, not only is he good at keeping biases in check but he knows how too comprehend both sides and ask good questions and lead the conversation to great places.

R u really truly an atheist tho? U believe that there is no higher power or spiritual realm? I mean life can only come from pre existing life.. so how did life begin without someone creating it? Do u truly believe deep down in ur heart that life spontaneously generated from dirt or “primordial soup” for no apparent reason and without a cause? Even tho science tells us that is impossible? Do u also not believe in science? Bc science surely points to a God. I think science will vanquish atheism someday soon.

@@amandacarmel6084 as an atheist "I don't believe in god " rather than "believe that there's no god ". My stance is that the gods that humanity claim to exist do not have substantial and in some cases, rational evidence. Evidence that can be observed, tested, questioned without the threat of burning in a fiery pit and evidence that can be falsifiable. In regards to science, if god did in fact create science then he's created the one tool that might just actually disprove his existence. Reason being? There's a lot of pseudoscience in the bible which doesn't comply with the natural laws of science as we know it. Case and point, god is quoted in Leviticus when he's talking about clean and unclean animals, as classifying bats as birds. This isn't true bats are not birds and god who supposedly created them would know better.

@@proculusjulius7035 that’s terrible I’m sorry u have to go through life like this. I can’t imagine living and not experiencing a relationship with God and feeling His presence and knowing He’s there. And seeing evidence of his existence in every aspect of nature it’s overwhelming!! I can’t imagine believing that when I die I will cease to exist. I don’t just believe in God I know He exists bc there’s so much more to life than the “material” there’s a whole other realm out there for u to experience. It’s indescribable unless u experience it yourself. I can’t imagine not being able to look forward to dying and moving into eternity. I’d be terrified of death and would feel like I have no purpose in this life and it’s all just gonna end one day so what’s the point?? We’re all just animals and star dust so why would anyone even care?! There’s so much more to life and love to experience in life. U will never know true love unless u know God, the author of love. What even is love is there’s no God and we’re all just one big accident? Why are things evil or wrong if there is no God? Who’s to say hitler was evil? Who says?? Why is anything beautiful or pure? Everything is meaningless truly without God. There’s no rhyme or reason for existence so why are we even having this conversation

@@amandacarmel6084 why your God though? Why not one of the multitude dreamed up before and after Yahweh? Is it possible that it's the time, place and parents you were born to? That's not good enough reason to believe in the preposterousness of the old and new testaments, think about it.

completely agree. you can tell they both wanna toss on the gloves and duke it out

Sorry no. The moderator used loaded language on multiple occasions in support of one side over another.

@@AbuYusha01 sorry but you have no evidence and therefore thy opinion has no credibility. But thanks for the comment

@@strive4252 no evidence? He loads up for PJW to give him a scaffolded question that is geared towards generating a response that he would like to hear. He also used language like "you like to rattle off examples of contradictions and disparities in the text..." Best moderator lol. Just how many debate moderators have you observed?

@@AbuYusha01 That’s better, be sure to give examples and evidence before you attack a comment on KZfaq. I would still like more specification as you have not yet convinced me. In my personal experience as both a religious studies and politics inquisitor I have found that every moderator reveals a bias. Though I watched this video four months ago and barely remember it’s contents, I remember the feeling of refreshment after listening to what I believe was a fair moderator. I was so satisfied by his performance that I left a comment showing my subjective joy at his work. You can subjectively think otherwise, but if you would like objective evidence to show his failures, the burden is on you for concrete specific evidence.

​@@strive4252 you just contradicted yourself. It's all good I choose to disagree subjectively. Bye.

And aethists never strawman? 😱 They do it all the time! Your bias is clearly evident.

​​@@kelrogers8480Im an atheist myself but not anti theist, or against religion. To me it cuts both ways and I have seen very confrontational debates and also podcasts which clearly play to a crowd by both atheists and christian apologists. The internet and podcasting / youtubing etc just creates camps and many atheists and Christians play provocateur and attempt to "destroy" the opposition and their arguments while usually just trying to score points with their tribes and hardcore followers. In fairness Justin only invites the more civilised Christians and sceptics onto his show and he keeps it civil and also moderates extremely well and doesnt let his own Christianity overshadow the atheists points or elevate the Christian points. These are very well thought out debates with well chosen debaters who aren't there to score points or "destroy" anyone but to discuss interesting points of view on a deep basis with lots of nuance on both sides. They are very enjoyable, entertaining and thought provoking. I actually have a lot of respect for many of the Christian apologists who come on and debate and many of their arguments are very well constructed, deeply researched and passionately delivered...the same with the sceptics and their points of view. 👍

@@kelrogers8480 where does Ehrman strawman Williams here? Give me a time stamp.

@@drzaius844 if you read my comment properly without projecting, you will see I say it is common for atheists to strawman in debates. I don't accuse Ejrmamn here specifically. It is however std aetheist practice. They are not neutral nor open minded, and thoroughly convinced they're right and everyone else is an idiot!

So why are you here? Still have doubts?

Yeah just interrupt everyone to prop oneself up. Forget basic courtesy that out mothers taught us.

@@shiroganeadventurer1574 hm?

@@EEeE3771 she’s commented several times on this video just complaining about Bart being rude and interrupting. She’s just butt hurt that he laid the smack down in the most cordial way it can be delivered in a debate.

His posture actually worries me. Intellectually it’s good of course but I wonder if he has some back problems from the way he sits

@@chaseray8224He didn’t though. It’s sad when Believers fall away and trust in man’s understanding and not Gods. You have to trust and have faith in God. I know that seems crazy to most. With all that said even in man’s world he didn’t lay a smack down at all in this debate. I wish you the best in your search for truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!

Yep, Bart has said on his blog many times that his work in no way defends atheism, but is more about history and methodology.

@@michaelnelson3652 well sure I agree, he may not intend to defend atheism or anything if the sort, but the argument that the Bible isn’t historical and the resurrection isn’t a true event is at least an obstacle for Christianity, if not incompatible. It may not directly defend/support atheism, but it can certainly raise questions about the religion

Why being a Christian at all if your own holy book is unreliable about the very same things it preaches?

@@jonr9467 It's important to understand the context. Ideas change and develop over time, and religion is the same. For a set of ideas or principles to be valid, doesn't require a text to be accurate in the same way a history book has to be accurate to be of value. As Michael points out in his comment above, it does raise questions, and that's good. People should question their ethical positions on many things, as well as their religious or cultural beliefs. Whether or not that means they ultimately abandon those beliefs is up to the person, after a period of reflection.

Ehrman is more credible and analytical? Man , you have NO idea! Read Misquoting jesus and his scholarly work he did with his mentor Bruce Metzger in the same frikkin year!!! He contradicts himself a lot in the same year!!! Watch David Wallace vs Bart Ehrman debate

Amen

It keeps the conversation close and intimate 😁

The good ole days before Covid 😁

First thing I noticed when they pulled the cameras back

Report it...it is not covid compliant!!! 😂😂😂😂

Not sure. Is this sarcastic?

I agree. He is great.

He's always amazing, underrated channel for sure just because he's a Christian.

Correction, didn't enjoy a shit listening to the fundamentalist Peter !

@Stefan Urban Please demonstrate how you're smarter than desert people, my anti-Semitic little friend. Also which old book? Current year current year current year!

Dr. Ehrman himself has pointed this out many many times, in both his books and his speaking engagements/interviews. The Bible does in fact have both, with the former being _far_ more numerous throughout its developmental history.

@@kvjackal7980 It's almost always contradiction of terms as like words and descriptions can be used to portray totally different context so it almost always ends up being different context so not actual contradiction it just looks like it at face value without bothering to understand it.

Read their books.

@@TreBrickley I did. But you can say that with everyone whom they had on this podcast, all of them had books one could read.

@@strynevanzelk4944 Wright would win

@@logans.butler285 I agree; I think his mind is sharper than Bart's.

@@jjroseknows777 judging by most of Bart's debates they need to quickly book Wright, but I don't think he's willing to potentially tarnish his legacy because he will struggle with some of the Christian claims that require one to have faith when logic would be equally supporting.

Peter doesn't know anything.. he just doesn't want to lose. What a shame

If you don't believe the Bible is God's word and inerrant, then you're not a Christian and you will fall away. You've been deceived by the liars of our time, of which bart is simply one of many. His book the introduction to the new testament, which I took at a secular college, it's full of so many lies, that I did an oral presentation for 30 minutes refuting it. I got a standing ovation from a giant room full of mostly non-Christian people. They wanted to arrange a debate between me and bart, and I said if you can do it go right ahead. Bart's a liar, plain and simple

@@kingjames5527 you just proved my point. the gospel does not include the necessity of believing in biblical inerrancy. Of course a Christian has good reason and ought to believe in inerrancy; it would be foolish to think otherwise, but it is not a prerequisite belief to receiving salvation. As a Christian, I whole heartedly believe the Bible is the word of God without error. The thief on the cross probably didn't, largely because he was likely unfamiliar with Hebrew scripture, but he recognized the authority of Christ and placed his trust in him. Many non-Jewish who did not even know about scripture saw Christ for who he was, and Jesus himself proclaims that their faith it's what saved (heals) them. There's a reason why the bible does not expand the simple gospel message to include the belief in inerrancy. It would behoove you to follow the Bible's lead on this. Again, I believe in inerrancy. And Bart may be everything you say he is. These are not the argument here. The gospel proclamation does not include inerrancy.

Just curious, why did you say you are "a follower of Jesus"? Why not just say you're Christian or Catholic or Protestant? I myself, like you, am a follower of Jesus, and refused to call myself Christian.

I totally disagree. I saw Bart making leaps just as often, if not more so than Peter. For instance, Bart says the Judas accounts are irreconcilable because all explanations are implausible. That simply isn’t true. There are explanations that are perfectly plausible. On another case, Bart uses a fallacious argument that Jesus did *say* He was God in certain books, so His divinity must have been a later view. This is silly, obviously. I think Bart has several other very strong arguments where Peter’s faith is clearly coloring his analysis, but I don’t think Peter was soundly defeated.

you say you are a believer , but accept someone who denies the scripture ...there are no 2 sides . you have to chose a side GOD or satan .

@@lesliematyas1921is accepting reason over myth is satan?😂😂

@@TheHaqtivist disproving one religion does not prove another.

@@TheHaqtivist "Muslims believe that Jesus js a prophet and the promised Messiah" - Muslims believe in Isa the counterfit Jesus of the qu'ran who is merely a prophet. Muslims do not believe in the Historical Jesus of the bible who is the promised Messiah. Also nowhere in the qu'ran does it say why Jesus is the Messiah or what Messiah mean. "This video proves the islamic christolgy" - firstly there is no christology in Islam and furthermore how did you come to that conclusion based on this video?

@@TheHaqtivist no it doesn't. Islam is a stupid death cult full of one lie after another. You follow a lying false prophet who was a pedophile.

@@Thanos-kp5jr Exactly quite literally the Jesus of the bible is their anti-Christ and their messiah is Christianities anti-Christ and Islams Jesus is the false prophet described in the bible. It's freaky how much Islam took from the bible and reversed it, quite satanic indeed.

And rude and interrupting.

@@shiroganeadventurer1574 you must not have watched many debates. This is about as cordial as it gets.

I’m not sure knowledgeable and big brained are synonyms. Peter certainly is intelligent but he openly admits the circular reasoning of his presuppositions as a basis for his argumentation, and funny thing is you can almost hear the second guessing and wavering in his voice as he does so before the moderator changes the topic. That’s not a very big brained move. Bart remains honestly analytical.

Jesus the carpenter built that table in his workshop in Nazareth.

And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war. Joshua 14:15 KJV

@Kuffar Legion this is demonstrably wrong...

@Kuffar Legion ok I didn't know that

@Kuffar Legion Deletes Atheist comments that are vile and mean-spirited, or contain common village Atheist memes and slogans

@Kuffar Legion Probably because of people like you. Many are family friendly channels that don't want kids being exposed to swearing and mean-spirited rhetoric from tribal village-Atheists who don't come in good faith. If you're gonna claim they're trying to keep their audiences "brainwashed", you're gonna have to provide some evidence for that

@Kuffar Legion How did you get that out anything l said?

Are you a sophisticated atheist now?

Ignore 20july1944. He's a well known troll in the Unbelievable comment sections.

@@timediverx I'm just eager for scientific discussions about God's existence with anyone who knows enough science for an intelligent discussion. You didn't do well when we chatted.

@@20july1944 No you aren't 😉 and I never argued any science with you.

@Christian Slayer My cosmology requires God. What is your cosmology that does NOT require God? Do you think there was a big bang? I do.

Why do you miss him. Isn't he still alive?

@@equinoxproject2284 Yes he is still alive, but I think such debates have not been active lately!

Except that he was refuted so many times. Watch Ehrman v Wallace or Ehrman v Licona.

@איתן ברוך lol… who exactly did he sell out to? He’s an educated thoughtful man snd i LOVE his lectures and the fact that he is true ti his beliefs.

Licona got bodied😂😂​@@les2997

Bart Ehrman is not to bright when it comes to the Bible, im a nobody and i would destroy him in a debate...He says that Jesus never said he is God..well if ur God in human form, would u tell anyone ur really God? ofcourse not, no one would believe you, so what would u do to infront of people to have them figure out who u are? hmmm i dont know maybe for starters ill go to someones funeral and raise that person , u cant argue with that kind of miracle ..and also all humans sin, but if u was God in human form would u ever sin once? would u ever break any of ur own commandments? well did Jesus ever sin? duuuhhhhhh

@@freddytorres4573 i agree with bart that jesus was not God what he did was power pf faith as jesus said if u have a little faith and say to a tree to walk it will if a tree starts walking on ones order will he be a God???? and yes a God has many more attributes and power and glory he can say every thing openly without any fear whether people believe or not first of all u should learn the definition of miracle that is impossibility of happening of something simply and so many prophets performed miracles like as u know moses Pbuh performed more than this when he hit his stick on the ground and divided the sea into 2 parts and made a way for his people this is impossible to think even ! did not moses also raised the dead person after 3 days of his death was he God???or silently trying to prove himself God??? as bible say Moses was God to pharoh ! and all prophets do not committed sins just a very much little error bcz of human nature if God commit sin there is no problem bcz no one can punish him these things are not sufficient to prove a man to be a god first learn who is God His attributes His power His glory His Grace then go ahead

freddy torres freddy torres but you do realize you’re projecting your own thought processes onto why Jesus wouldn’t say he was god? The question wasn’t “what could be the reason Jesus didn’t say he was god” but if there were ever any kind of record saying that he confirmed that. At any rate, it would only be beneficial for Jesus to say he was god because people believed that even demons could do miracles, so wouldn’t it be good to clear things up so there wouldn’t be a chance of misattribution? His whole ministry counted on whether or not he was god sent to earth to cleanse people from their sins, so why wouldn’t he proclaim this? And not even to his disciples? Also in other writings Jesus is portrayed to kill the people that opposed him during his childhood, so was he actually totally free of sin?

@Papito Rey JESUS is GOD....AND KING OF UNIVERSE.

Papito Rey hey your ignorance is showing. Read the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and get back to me

So sour

Lol

@@spellboundty Look of trying to work out what's just been said, not that he doesn't believe it! He's my brother.

LOL

Lol

Detached from bias? Pffffft. Bias exists in every man on this planet. Ehrman is just as invested as the bloke sitting opposite him (and quite a bit richer thanks to his bias).

Yeaa he wants the bible to fit his logic only 🙄

thanks bart. convey the truth and falsehood of the bible. grateful you are an atheist or agnostic, if you are a muslim, surely the christians will criticize more severely. as usual

​@@sembarangan7091 Surely, you should welcome criticism. Iron sharpens iron - don't be afraid of criticism...

@@killablooz maybe he can make more money as a secular scholar but Bart Ehrman was a Christian when he started his field of study

As a Christian, I agree wholeheartedly. This was just a great discussion as a whole.

@@TheHaqtivist Saying Jesus is the Messiah is to claim his deity.

@@ombandajeanpaul7117 the messiah was never meant to be “divine” the Hebrew Bible is pretty clear on that. This is why Jews struggle to see Jesus as that figure.

@@izrealtruefelicis3309 Either they are in bad faith or they are unable to read and understand what is written. The MESSIAH (Psalm 110:1-5) is the Lord (Adonaï) of king David. The same is sitting at the right hand of Adonaï Yahweh. The SON of Man that Jesus is referring to is a divine Figure as he is worshipped (PELACH) by all the nations and all people (Daniel7:13-14). PELACH is used 10 times in the Bible and it is used to mean ''Worship'', ''Serve God'' or ''achieve a service to God uniquely ". This Word is used in Daniel 7:13-14 in relation to the Son of Man.

​@@izrealtruefelicis3309I have read a few Jewish scholars who wrote books about Jesus and from what I remember it was rather that the messiah was expected to be a political leader supposed to bring peace to the world not to be crucified. Not so much the question of his divine nature (which they wouldn't accept of course). I once read that a lot of the misunderstanding between ancient Israelite religion and Christianity comes from the process of "hellenization", the Greek influence that led to the problem that the metaphorical thinking was translated to the ontological thinking of the Greek philosophy which already began BC. So "son of man" became ontological and not metaphorical. It might be a oversimplification but it does explain some of the problems.

I agree. Good moderators are hard to find.

I think Bart is agnostic not atheist.

@@carlanderson2468 Call it what you will. My level of convinced-ness about any supernatural beings is very low, and I think Ehrman says roughly the same. I don't carry out my day as if there is an omniscient being watching me.

@@drumrnva Earth is a conscious living entity do you believe that??? Everything that makes us what we are comes from earth, Iron, dust, sweat that taste like salt water, calcium and that includes consciousness, it to comes from earth. But you don't see it. Whatever created all existence from the very beginning of whatever time was is god. It's not a male, it's not a female and for more respect, it's not an it. Earth connects with us consciously but god may have no connection, for all we know, god is the very first atom that expanded the universe therefore we are all connected energy, connected to a god we know nothing about.

@@carlanderson2468 Earth is a "conscious living entity"? How does consciousness come from earth?

Can you also see that the exercise of his brilliant mind brings him into spiritual limbo because the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. Analysis of words vs subjective experience of the eternal life of and in Christ.

I agree I think he was great work in the field in Texell criticism and the historical Jesus especially historical Jesus, but not when it comes to Christian theology, I think his understanding Christian theology is quite bad especially his theory of how Jesus became God it’s not good.

I am not of the same opinion. Please read my statement. His arguments are in no way proofs. He carries himself as more pragmatic but, is merely creating a preferential argument.

If one thinks that repeating 50 year old theories about the gospels that have been utterly debunked dozen times over is "excellent" then yes, I guess Ehrman is excellent. I mean honestly - this is all first semester stuff when studying theology. I know because I had to read those books, too 😊.

Or we could applaud Christ-followers in the January 6 ,2021, fascist coup in U.S.; I think God says nothing about 'Faith' but 613 statements about 'Doing'.@@jimhealy4890

Additionally, it's a credit to Bart to be so transparent about his views on Christianity given that religion thrives of predicating fear to validate its claims.

Did you even watch the video? Bart was bumbling back and forth while Peter was tripping him up constantly

@@carsonianthegreat4672 Bro I'm a Christian and even I can see Bart was destroying Peter. Just look at Peter's body language and how many times he crosses his arms to defend seld sooth himself, and how often he struggles to make a point.

@@carsonianthegreat4672 Really not the case! And I'm coming from a similar place to Peter.

I think you’re mistaking calm eloquence for strong argumentation and the occasional fumbling nervous answering as weak argumentation. If you would read the transcript you’d probably find Bart constantly evading direct arguments to come back with a tangential point. Strong rhetoric competence, which may even win you the debate for audience / entertainment point of view. But I think he presented very weak arguments against the historic veracity of scripture.

What's going on there? I just heared something on the fly but didn't have time to read further into it.

@@user-bq3eo1xh2n It's hard to explain, even to me living it. It seems that there are two different groups of social movements. On the one hand, there are those who got tired of the level of social injustice in Chile. You really wouldn't believe it, but it is shameful. It all exploded last week, when the authorities decided to raise the subway fare (which was already very high). When complaints began, the secretary of economy said that people should just wake up even erlier (fares are cheaper early in the morning). That was the last abuse in a long chain of abuses, so protests rose up. But on the other hand, there are groups of barbarians that always appear during protests and destroy, burn or stone whatever they can. Chilean authorities have long tolerated those behaviors, I think because we are all a little traumatized by the dictatorship we endured, so it is hard for us to see police officers instituting order. But never before had we seen such level of destruction. Stores and many of the subways lines were destroyed. For example, I tried to go to work yesterday and it took me 3 hours to get there, plus 2 and a half to return home. Of course, it is all much more complex than what I have written... I just hope we get back to normal life and that our authorities are smart enough.... I doubt that last comment though...

@@simonlealbarria6550 Thanks for your elaboration and your time. I read some years ago several journal papers on the dictatorship and the Chicago Boys since I studied Economics. It's one thing to read about those things theoretically and another thing to hear it from someone who lives and perceives it. I hope all the best, my friend. I believe that everything can be overcome if be believe in God and follow his Messiah, no matter if we are dealing with a Pinochet or some other politicians who continue his legacy and that of the Chicago Boys with other means and make the live of people hard. God bless you.

@@simonlealbarria6550 wena, un chileno aquí! Saludos desde Chile 😉

@@simonlealbarria6550 yo escucho estos videos mientras hago algo de aseo 🤣

He’s not acting as a historian. He’s just a theologian. That seems like a semantic issue. He’s claiming his focus isn’t history.

Maybe they were kicking each other under the table 😂.

@Modern-Day Debate ayyyy

Quite a step up from the silly Tom Jump discussions. Laser brains not laser eyes.

All debates should be like that.

@@bomb1232: Ditto that!

yes it was a polite discussion but - Peter seems completely oblivious of any scholarship

I don't share many of Justin's beliefs, but I think he is also a huge factor in why discussions on his prog seem to go so well.

Gréât quote

Does anyone see that Bart is rudely not giving Peter basic courtesy to finish what he was saying?

Does anyone see that Bart is rudely not giving Peter basic courtesy to finish what he was saying?

Wait, you do realize that "it's a short book" is NOT all he's pointing out right? He could have gone through so many valid points but Bart already cut him off. And repeatedly at that. We can't discredit someone without allowing them to give their side of the story. But that's what happened here because nga Bart was acting very rude, cutting Peter off every time. Is that a fair debate? I thinks not.

@@shiroganeadventurer1574 Come on, it was cross examination time. By that point they had plenty of time of their own to get their arguments across. Peter also interrupted Bart at other moments and that is ok, because they were engaging in a back and forth. There is no point in letting someone continue with long argument if you have an issue with the premises, for example. Or if the person committed an error, it is useful to correct it promptly. It is not rude, it is common in conversations. It would be different if it was during opening statements or rebuttals. In this particular moment, Peter was trying to squirm and stutter his way out of answering Bart's questions. So he was pressing Peter, that's all.

It's not a discussion It's a debate!

Ehrman is a genius

Or change your perspective

@@sagebias2251 it’s perfectly conceivable that a hanging gone wrong could end with disembowelment.

@@sagebias2251 apparently Ehrman is now an expert on the history of hangings. No doubt he has spent 5-10 years reading all of the “scholarly” literature on the “physics” of hangings; and all the “authorities” agree that hangings never result in unexpected injuries,…

@@josephstrauch8116 Was he hung over a set of spikes or something? How could you fall headfirst? Why didn't the Bible authors mention this? What is wrong with thinking one of the bible authors heard a different account of the death?

I would rather see someone like James white having a discussion w Bart

Yes he really showed how dishonest religion can be but not answering that at least there are errors but I still have faith At the least

@@chrislanglois3598 The serious problem with literal interpretation of Scripture is that it neglects and suppresses all truthful understanding of what the authors were saying to their specific communities at specific moments in their history. Literal interpretation also seriously denies the many errors obviously made over millennia through redaction and transcription.

Yep thats the impression i got as well.

Christians don't like direct questions.

difference is however the gospels were written decades after the events or stories, while the Iliad was written centuries after (although I know that isnt the point you are trying to make)

​@@mamelu711the quoran was written decacdes after Muhammad's death. Do you believe he split the moon into two?

Yes it's all true, but the crucial point is that the faith in these gods was real and there is a strong possibility of real living beings in the far past of Greek civilization. Maybe people with special abilities, or because of their beneficial works to humanity became divine entities. That's the essence of this debate : when so many people believe in the existence of Jesus then it's not legitimate enough to say you can prove the falsehood of writings even if you almost feel confident for the evidence because many times before (including the Trojan war, for example before Evans the official history culture thought it was a fairytale) science proved wrong or when you read that Homer wrote in the 7 or 8 century B. C. that is wrong! Nobody really knows when Homer lived. If you focus in the ancient names of the cities he gives (these cities where already under the water in 8 cent. BC) or when he says that the island of Faros is 5 days shipping trip to the port of the later Alexandria (in the years of Roman occupation the distance was 150 meters so in nowadays it absorbed with the main land) its clear that maybe he is much more older writer. And also every time i had to look myself into a matter or subject i often find that the official story around are full of contradictions and lies!

I am still waiting for a contradiction that is a game changer......in other words, one that MATTERS

@AnarchoRepublican exactly, because it's strikes me as much ado about nothing

@Daniel Paulson yes, there is a world beyond our wildest aspirations, and it has been revealed BY the bible.

@Daniel Paulson you don't get grandfathered into the Kingdom. You have to enter it yourself. If you think you were limited by it, you were not in it. It has no limits.

@Daniel Paulson say what? come again? you aren't making sense. Sorry, I really want to understand what you are saying. Can you rephrase it please?

He constantly interrupted and changed the subject before Peter had a chance to respond.

It wasn't the contradictions that finally broke the camels back re his faith - it was the realisation that an "all loving god" simply couldn't exist whilst there was so much suffering in the world, the tsunamis , rape, babies with cancer, poverty, hunger etc etc so he now identifies as an agnostic atheist.

@@jonfromtheuk467 thanks 👍

@@Ogdensnutgoneflake78 I wasn't going to reply at first given your name ........I'm a season ticket holder at St Marys -LOL

@@jonfromtheuk467 haha well I’m glad you did so thank you. My best mate is a Saints fan. I don’t buy into the hate part of it all

@@Ogdensnutgoneflake78 me neither - jesting is fine , hate/violence is pathetic and despicable.

Yup. If only the bible is as reliable as the most unreliable hadith category, it will be a much more reliable source of information than it is currently

I didn't know this about Bart. That's interesting. I always thought he turned from the faith after further study of the NT Also thanks for the headsup on NT Wrights podcast episode

@@orangecountyrealtor Bart turned away from Christianity because it fails to explain why there is so much suffering in the world. He covers this topic in his book, God's Problem.

@@clinchleatherwood1012 That is so very odd as no one is a Christian because such reasons like it just makes sense or even that it's true. It's because of personally knowing Jesus. So such people that so easily claim to lose their "faith" makes me wonder if they ever knew Jesus to start with and this "faith" of theirs if it was just their own or from Jesus like it's supposed to be. We have faith from not ourselves but from Jesus because we know him. He is the source. To deny the tangible reality of Jesus a Christian has because of a theological issue one might have is unfathomable to me. Makes me question if Christ was ever part of someones Christianity.

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep that's something you'll need to take up with Bart. But, a lot of us find it "so very odd" that people will blindly follow something that they don't care if it "makes sense" or "even that it's true" and who claim to know someone who's been dead for 2000 years, never met and never spoken to. (You can claim you've spoken to and met Jesus but if you can't prove it is merely a claim). Not everyone's brain functions like that. Like me, I need facts or I will not accept it as true. Peace be with you!

@@clinchleatherwood1012 I can help it make sense for you. Christianity is indeed an evidence based and not blind faith. Faith is the product of truth, and truth is ultimately a person Jesus Christ who said I am the truth. Faith not from truth is blind faith, an aberration of the fundamental concept of faith which unfortunately has been popularized as the standard definition which is absurd. Paul wrote test everything and hold fast to that which is true. Being a Christian isn't about blind faith. Hebrews 11:1 Paul wrote the Greek "hupostasis." It means an internal unseen tangible substance of assurance, of the person of Jesus he gives as an "elegchos" which basically means like a clinical evidence like given in a court of law. It is the most important evidence one can have to give ones life to Jesus. Ultimately nothing else is or can be sufficient. Jesus, God could appear infront of you right now and do miracles and that wouldn't be enough for you or anyone to give their lives truly to him. It wasn't enough for the disciples. All the disciples denied Jesus on the cross. All the miracles and evidence Jesus was God like walking on water raising the dead, hearing God from heaven speak and say this is my Son was not enough. So why would it be enough for you? It wouldn't. Christianity should have died on the cross with Jesus. But Pentecost happened. God the Holy Spirit came and his promise is to reveal Jesus and make him real to you. That is when all the disciples would rather give their lives for Jesus than deny him, hundreds of thousands would die as martyrs in the Colosseum than deny Jesus who was then made real to them more real than walking on water or raising the dead infront of them in person. Just a reminder the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species. The New Testament shows with the physician Luke telling that they knew and understood and had the same objections we do today that a miracle goes against the laws of nature and addressed it with the story of Zechariah that a God that created it all with those laws of nature and intervene into them. To assume miracles can't happen is to wrongly assume this universe is a closed system, science does not tell us that. You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you use to argue with. So there is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God, and there is only one ultimate type of truth that you or anyone can accept to not just belief of God but accept and give your life to him and know him, and that's from him giving that evidence personally as he promises and does for all those that seek him.

What about his mentor, Bruce Metzger, who’s reached the opposite conclusion? Ehrman is known to make claims that are conjecture, hyperbole, or downright dishonest, but confirmation bias guarantees him a large fan base, none-the-less.

@@juanventer5145 Okay, let's call them anonymous. Who cares? My life doesn't depend on it. Those are just interesting historical dilemmas. You guys claim the Bible is inspired and infallible and our eternal destinies rely on it. Yet we don't know who wrote it. We just have traditions of later Christians telling us who did. Yet you guys reject their other traditions such as baptismal regeneration. No early Church father rejected this doctrine.

@@retrograd332 That might work on an impressionable little child. Don't try such abusive scare tactics with me. Where is your evidence of hell and heaven and Yahweh and Jesus? You guys are great at making such outrageous and frightening claims to scare people. And when you try to reason with them you fail. Face it. You believe by faith alone and the evidence is secondary. Only used to prop up the faith.

@@juanventer5145 I asked Ehrman about this once. It was one of the big questions for me. He showed me that other Christian groups also claimed to know the Apostles.

@@juanventer5145 We know that Thomas went to India? Do we? How? Certain Gnostic groups claimed Apostolic Succession.

Yes I agree, and I'm the same way - it's based on faith, and I believe the Gospels to be true.

⁠​⁠​⁠@@soulosxpiotov7280I wouldn’t be bragging about that.

@@grimknight1452 anything gift given by God's grace cannot be bragged about.

As always

What I gather from your comment, I think it implies that you think that the Gospels are not accurate? If so, who do you think that Jesus of Nazareth is?

@@patrickoconnor8192 I think parts of the Gospels are demonstrably inaccurate, I have no idea who Jesus of Nazareth was, if he did in fact exist

Simon O'Dowd But the majority of historians do not doubt that Jesus existed, including Bart Ehrman.

@@patrickoconnor8192 okay, my position is not that he didn't exist, I have no way of confirming that he did in fact exist, it is an "I don't know". My position is that the Gospels are not historically reliable, that is irrelevant to whether Jesus existed or not.

where do u get the notion from that A) Luke wrote the part and B) he is a physician?

@@wouter2754 The church tradition attributes the Gospel and Acts to Luke. While he himself is never mentioned by name in these bookse, he is thought to be a companion of Paul on his second trip (the text switches in the first person here). Paul mentions him in 3 of his letters, Colossians, 2Timothy and Philemon (in Colossians he says he is a phisycian).

This is what YOU think happenend right?

He is not.. he is like a 5 year old pushing his will to his parents

Likewise with Bart, he has done his research and followed the evidence found. unlike his interlocutor, never did any research and just didn't want to be beaten. What a shame

​@@sembarangan7091😂 sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Everything and anything I saw Ehrman argue in a debate ever is basic theology "introduction to the new testament 101", first semester stuff, to 90 % taken from the German theologians of the beginning of the 20th century. That's not "research" that plagiarism at best. Or let's by nice and call it influence. It's a certain school of thought which has deeper roots in philosophy than in historical science. Or research. Ask me how I know, because I studied theology, philosophy, sociology and religious science and got an M. A. in all those subjects. From the University of Bamberg, Germany. So I had to read those books. Form what Ehrman has as talking points, I can pretty much guess what the exact line of thought is, from what school it is, which scholars have influenced him, etc. So, not saying he isn't a good debater or has zero good arguments but he's neither a historian nor does he follow evidence without a very strong bias. And that's not even arguing about supernatural claims or the useless question whether Christianity is "true" or not.

You've just described professional apologetics to a T

That's a very great observation I think all Christian apologists should read this comment we all do this

Bart Ehrman (as most atheists) is doing the same though when he doesnt allow for the possibility of the supernatural...

@@Enwabi Bart doesn't reject the possibility of the supernatural. He brings up the fact that miracles were commonly recorded in ancient texts; indeed, miracles of healing and breaking the rules of physics are found in every major human tradition. Bart simply asks 'given everything we know, what is the most likely scenario?' If our issue with this approach is that it tends to disregard the impact of miracles, then we ought to look to God for an answer. God is the one who chooses not to make these miracles common every day. God dictates a skeptical approach by virtue of his lack of direct influence in our world, and the fact that the only times miracles have occurred we have all heard about them as hearsay; if not from people who were decades and cultures distant from the actual events. This results in the fact that nothing Biblical is truly proveable (i.e. if God wished, he could prove it all to everyone right now; it's God's choice to leave the possibility of doubt). Perhaps God will one day decide to prove it to us in a satisfying way. Until then, if God is intentionally sending people to hell for being skeptical, that's 100% on God. After all, every single thing is dictated by God including who I am and every moment of my human experience that leads to me being a believer or skeptic. If am born Hindu, this must also be God's will, no?

@@sethjshapirowhat we know is a verifiable miracle story of the death and resurrection of Jesus based on 1st and 3rd party eyewitness accounts (christian en non christian) of which we have around 6000 manuscripts. Even Bart acknowledges the fact that Jesus died and that the eyewitnesses saw him alive. But because he rules out miracles, he rules out the resurrection. Tell me what is more plausible? Eyewitnesses actually seeing Jesus alive or mass hallucination? Also remember that these witnesses were willing to die and endure torture for what they SAW (not what the heared second hand).... Btw jews and christians don't believe in predestination...that's a muslim thing. And a miracle wouldn't be called a miracle if happend every day right? It would hardly be evidence of God if it did happen every day

@sue badunas You do realize that if it were demonstrated TODAY we'd have some precedent that we can then use to go back and analyze EVERY mythology right?

@sue badunas I think youve misunderstood my point. My point is not that "these things cant happen", my point is that we have ZERO good reasons to accept certain things that we do not have a precedent for. For example, before the discovery of bacteria, it would be unreasonable to believe that microscopic organisms exist that are in and around the environment as well as inside the bodies of other organisms and that these microscopic organisms interfere with biological processes which causes the other organisms to become ill. Once this was proposed, TESTED, AND DEMONSTRATED, it then became reasonable to interact with the world with this understanding.

@@whatwecalllife7034 I think you should watch the John Lennox talks.

@@oprophetisfake9482 Yeah, most of John Lennox arguments is just him admitting that he desperately wants Christianity to be true and that he would be very sad if it wasn’t.😂

@@ramigilneas9274 No. Most of John Lennox is him talking about evidence that unguided evolution and even the beginning of life by pure chance in the time since the scientifically estimated time since the big bang is scientifically untenable. What is sad is that you are still trying to pass the same argument from 70 years ago. Very very sad.