Exactly. No long openers from each side. No waiting another round to see if person B will address one of person A's 12 points & finally it's good to have a moderator who is seamless.
Yeah this is the first one on this program I’ve came across and it would help even more if it was a debate between scholars instead of a scholar and an educated nitwit. Goddamn man, try taking one class where they teach you how to build an argument with evidence and avoiding logical fallacies. I think my 2nd semester English covered it?
"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." Sam Pascoe
Like wise atheism moves in and out places as quality of life cycles up and down .People seek refuge in religion when current science falls short on deliveries. Is it a strange coincidence or the unseen forces controlling the human minds working the earth since human kind event ?
rovidius2006 with 279 gods everyone's an atheist, the Roman's persecuted the Christian's calling them athiests to the Roman religions and tossed them to the lions.
You are spot on correct. just go into any christian book store, and you'll see how big a business christianity actually is. Our civilization is a copy of the roman empire.
@@rovidius2006 science doesnt have to have every answer.. It isnt a dogmatic approach at arrogantly claiming it knows the origins. It's simply the best understanding given the purported evidence; it's the most unbiased way humans have come to determining truth. Passive aggressive much?
Yes, Bart is honest and he has tons of knowledge but he still argue that Jesus actually existed with some strange logic where he assume a lot. There is no evidences at all for this Jesus on the planet and Bert agree that the evidences preachers bring up is fake.
@@ytbabbler Actually the vast majority of historians agree that Jesus was most likely a historical figure. There are few historical figures better attested than Jesus, especially from that period. The idea that Jesus never existed is a hold-over from the hyper-critical approach to religious sources that flourished among the baby boom generation of scholars. But based on the normal historical criteria Jesus' existence is very well attested. Apart from the vast Christian literature about him that circulated only decades after his supposed death (including the authentic letters of Paul, who started persecuting Christians only a few years after Jesus' death) Jesus is mentioned by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Jospephus mentions Jesus twice, one of the passages is controversial and a likely Christian interpolation but the other passage is widely considered authentic), he is mentioned by the Roman historian Tacitus in his Annals and he is mentioned by Pliny. Jesus is also mentioned in early Rabbinic sources. All of these writers were fiercely anti-Christian, if they had suspected Jesus never existed they would surely have mentioned it. The real question is not whether Jesus lived and died (he certainly did) but whether he died and lived (probably not).
I love this exchange. Always held Ehrman in high regard but he takes it another level here. Williams I can't help but feeling a bit sorry for. He is obviously an intelligent man but it's hard not to get a feeling that his belief just holds him back from allowing his mind to think freely
Mr. Ehrman's analysis of Mr. William's argument starting at 29:35 is absolutely correct. Having some provable details in a story does not necessarily constitute confirmation that every aspect of the story is accurate or reliable. For an argument of such enormous implications relying on fallacious reasoning is not helpful.
Thank you D. Ehrman for the tremendous work you do in helping people have a more informed opinion about their beliefs. Thank you Bart for making people think about what they believe.
Dr Ehrman, I know this sort of stuff must take years off of your life due to the frustration of having to deal with the inanity/dishonesty of people like Mr.Williams. Just know that your integrity and efforts are DEEPLY appreciated.
Peter is afraid of his own death. Therefore he must believe that Jesus rose from the dead. You cannot talk him out of it with logic, reason or critical thinking because it is gut fear.
This is the problem of theology that it is essentially reasonably intelligent people playing word games in order to make a square peg fit through a round hole.
@@JamesRichardWiley And the scientific reality is that 95.5% of the universe is Invisible Dark Aether Energy and Invisible Dark Aether Matter (IDAE + IDAM), neither of which is directly detectable, nor do they know what they are, they're just tagged with some names.
In such a touchy subject to find 2 people that can at least SPEAK AND LISTEN to each other is very commendable. I wish we could all have a discussion at this level of respect for many subjects that affect us today.
That was the biggest spanking I've seen since Sean Carol obliterated William Lane Craig. The guy even admits he's not doing history. Amazing. Well done Bart Erhman.
Patty Well, the historical method is the least flawed and least biased method we know... so all other methods lead to less accurate and less trustworthy conclusions.
Craig got obliterated because he is not a physicist. He has no business being on a stage debating Carroll about physics, a subject he has no demonstrated expertise in.
About 14 minutes in and I can allready tell that Williams is desperately trying to make the evidence fit his narative. Or in other words: Not a serious scholar...
@Shawn Espenlaub He's the Warden of a denominational Christian college. He's not a scholar, he's a theologist - a professional Christian apologeticist. That's all.
@Shawn Espenlaub You already made an error most non believers don't take an absolute claim that God does not exist. We take the claim that the burden of proof from religious people have not been met. Second truth has to make sense and have consistency. This does not mean human's will have the whole or reality figured out.
@@sammygoodnight He's not forcing the evidence to fit his narrative, he's saying you can't know as there are discrepancies and there isn't the evidence to prove one way or the other. I find this a very interesting debate, because you can be a Christian and believe the outline of the stories in the Bible without having to believe that every single word is the word of God and by doing that the stories in the gospels don't have to match up as it doesn't matter. The problem I believe with proving anything in the Bible one way or the other is that the institution of the Roman Catholic church in Rome controlled very tightly the narrative and anything that went slightly off script or didn't suit their narrative was discarded or destroyed. Each writer embellishes their stories in a slightly different way. The stories are not eye witness accounts, even Peter J Williams accepted this at the start of the debate, but he still believes every word of all of the gospels even where they are inconsistent. This is the problem. Even the earliest Bibles we have are not the originals and are copies, all that lay people know are translations and there are errors and changes that were made throughout the centuries so even if the very earliest one is the word of God the ones we have now aren't and shouldn't be taken literally. The Bible should be an inspiration as to how to live a good life, it shouldn't matter if they are historically accurate, but Peter J Williams isn't willing to even concede that anything, any story, any word written might be just a story. It wouldn't invalidate it as being historically significant, except this is what he seems to think is important, it's very sad.
"I'm deliberately non-committal on the dating of the gospels." Oh I bet! Because if you actually took a stand on the dating of the gospels you would have to defend it, and you know you can't defend a set of dating that doesn't undermine your theological position. This is a perfect example of dishonest scholarship.
Zechariah12.10 ...nailing down NT dates maybe not within grasp of an academic like Williams (he seemed much more evasive than I’ve seen any Christian debater on this subject) - but most New Testament SCHOLARS are largely in agreement about the range of NT dates, easy to see if you watch as many debates as I have.
@Zechariah12.10 There is very little debate among scholars about the dating of the gospels anymore. Mark is almost universally dated to between 65-70, and basically everyone agrees these days that Mark is the first gospel. No serious scholars argue for apostolic authorship anymore. You are almost a century behind in scholarship.
The look on Bart’s face throughout this “debate” is very similar to the look my cat would have watching a mouse with three broken legs hobbling along on crutches...like, “am I really seeing this?”
"I just wonder what it would take, if you're already committed to the idea that there can't be any mistakes [in the Bible], then how would you be open to the idea that there might be a mistake." GAME. SET. MATCH.
Cognitive bias is humanities greatest flaw in my opinion. So many people waste their entire lives determined to prove that they are correct, instead of determined to learn the truth.
A historical document can have mistakes and still be true. One can defend the historicity of the gospels without accepting the gospels as divine and inerrant.
@@jamesveerdog2723 No one can not as Walking over water and turning water into wine are in every other story of antiquity considered to be fantasy. Not to mention all the contradictions in the various gospels.
Well darn. That is unfortunate. I had high hopes to hear a Christian scholar who could intelligently argue for the accuracy of the gospels. Peter just said he had to start with his world view that the gospels could not be wrong. So he is just another apologist. He stated clearly that he did not intend to come at the subject as a historian but as a theologian.
Wikipedia: "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the Divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries. It occupies itself with the unique content of analyzing the supernatural, but also deals with religious epistemology, asks and seeks to answer the question of revelation." Further Clarification: Theology is the study of religious belief. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. All man made. No god ever appears to settle the argument.
Williams' argument is essentially this - "KIng's Cross Station is mentioned in Harry Potter, King's Cross is a real place, therefore Harry Potter is a wizard and can do supernatural stuff".
That is not his argument at all. His argument is that the New Testament fits a supernatural world view, and that a non supernatural stand will cause problems in accepting the texts. It's a bit like flat earthers, they have to ignore all evidence that the earth is a sphere, and that evidence such as photographs from space are all CGI. Plus you need a huge conspiracy theory about NASA to make your flat earth narrative possible. The gospels contain accounts of supernatural events - you can either take them at face value (become a supernaturalist) or come up with endless conspiracy theories to explain away the gospels. You can't have any gospels without accepting the supernatural - and some people would do or believe anything rather than admit that. Richard Dawkins when pressed about intelligent design, actually came out and said that (paraphrased) _"if the evidence shows intelligent design then it could have been advanced aliens"_ He would argue for aliens rather than believing in God. Most people don't want there to be a God, for varied reasons.
@@nicerperson1 I have seen plenty of magic shows on telly. I know magic is real I have seen it with my own eyes, and have told my friends. Therefore true.
Pretty Epic. Bart really pushed Peter towards the end and Peter looked really flustered. Peter's bias was overwhelmingly shown. Anytime Peter was told scholarly consensus, he just basically said it's a conspiracy due to skepticism and naturalism. I also liked how he pointed out that Peter didnt even tackle any of the actual contradictions in his book. Also, if you start with the bible is true, (rather than we dont know) then you, by default, are required and have to come up with a reconciliation. Judas was perfect example. Did he die by sword or hanging? Well both duh! Lol
"if they got geographical details correct, their story must also be true" "If their stories contradict on some details, that doesnt matter because the details dont matter and dont have to be right"
11:33 "if it weren't for the gospels of Mark and Luke, the names Mark and Luke would be nobody's, so I can't see a reason for people to stick those names on unless those are authentic" - you've got to be kidding me. I can't take this guy seriously.
This clip is absolutely priceless!! Thank you!! To me, it confirms again that the major reason why the christians cannot be rational is because it takes such an emotional toll to accept that they can be (actually quite possibly they are) wrong! Confirmation bias is very deep in the religious community.
@Zechariah12.10 if a books from God, there can't be one error or contradiction!! I've read many holy books and they all have contradictions (however I couldn't find one contradiction in The Quran!!
I'm glad that isn't the title, actually. Titles that tell you what to think of the discussion are getting rather stale, in my opinion. Much better to go the more neutral route.
Zechariah12.10 I think what Ehrman was getting at here was that in contemporary accounts of Jewish ‘prophets’ etc. (i.e. but not appearing in the Bible) healing claims were commonplace. It’s much the same idea as many of the other elements of early religiosity, especially miracles.
It's interesting to me that Williams says that Christianity "just makes sense". For me as rational as I would like to believe I am, the truth is I am not a Christian, because it makes no sense whatsoever. Perfect god, creates everything. Perfect God create vastly inferior beings that are expected to praise and glorify him in everything they do. Perfect god's perfect creation doesn't act perfectly and god gets mad and destroys almost everyone. Perfect god's perfect creation still doesn't act right. Perfect god sends himself as human sacrifice to himself as a loophole for rules he created. In the end of time perfect god lives in heaven with all the inferior beings he created praising and worshipping him, while all the inferior beings that perfect god created that don't act right are tortured for all eternity. This is what makes sense to Williams.
Biggest. Strawman. I've ever seen. I'm fairly confident you have not studied what the scriptures say holistically. Rather than just skimming and partaking in agnostic or atheist scholars. I could be wrong, but this is definitely a strawman.
Hmmm... it's almost as if you wanted to make up a fairy tale to get people to fall in line you would have chosen something simpler. But they didn't. Reason? Always the chance that there is truth to it, and we simply don't understand a being vastly superior to ourselves. I also think there are some false assumptions you are making in that line of logic.
This is coming from one who thinks the universe magically exploded out of nothing and unwittingly arranged itself -- resulting in infinitely complex lifeforms (yet at the same time are soulless meat machines with no culpability for their own actions) because...just because
Yet proceeds to argue again and again that things claimed about Jesus happened in history outside of what is stated in the gospels. Yeah, okay - at least Bart is honest.
Peter is engaged in a Faith Based intellectual exercise. From such a perspective, any claim, from mundane to miraculous, regardless of evidence to the contrary, is considered True by default. This is not the way accurate history is compiled.
Which begs the question what exactly is he doing? If he already knows that everything is true what is he trying to find out? Does he just like reading the original Bible text in Greek.
52 .40....Peter Williams says he's "never tried to claim he's doing history"..but he claims the scriptures are true..This debate is about "are the gospels historically reliable....how can a man be so deluded.
All in all I found this debate to be highly informative and excellently moderated; kudos to Justin! And I, too, think this debate format is far superior to the stilted and rigid style often employed across the Western world. As an atheist, I naturally found myself siding with Bart's arguments but I did try to give Peter's points due consideration; however, it is clear to me who had the better arguments and the more sound epistemology. Case in point: how to reconcile the two accounts of Judas' death? Peter made himself look foolish when trying to propose that Judas first hanged himself, then the rope broke and his body somehow flipped over in mid-air so the he ended up plunging headlong onto the rocks below and spilling his guts. Ridiculous, and it helps illustrate the fallacy of Peter's presuppositional thinking.
53:12 "I would never try to claim that I am doing history" Peter Williams. Thanks for admitting that you are not looking for historical answers but just believing what you want to believe. Everything else was just a dishonest attempt to justify his beliefs.
@@taylorjeremy71 Bart presupposes manuscripts have been changed to fit the story of Jesus Christ but he has no evidence of it. He takes it as a game of telephone and that the manuscripts have been changed but when the early Christians collected the letters from each church the apostle's preached at and the first father's knew and were apprentices of the apostles and apprentices to the appearances of the apostles and so on the lattters were accurate compared to each other and what the churches had.
He has evidence. Do u think he will bring the manuscript with him to let ppl see it by theirselves?! Even Danyal Wallace agreed with him. he read them too.
@@kccgurl how could you not when you see someone deliberately lying or dismissing facts to maintain their position. It’s insulting to intelligence, evidence and facts
@@JamesRichardWiley So true. I noticed the same thing. I love watching theological debates but they are always the same. One person is a logical thinker and the other fails to see that they are in fact irrational and have a deep emotional belief to a fairy tale. And live life with an exuberant attitude because they are “Christian” and think god loves them even though there is substantial suffering all around them
@Zechariah12.10 These types of debates, viewers tend to think the person they agree with won. Occasionally, I've seen an atheist that I concede lost a debate. In this particular case, I can't see how anyone could think Williams won.
Peter Williams is the master of misdirection, strawman arguments and red herrings. He is all smug and smirking when he's allowed to get away with his dishonest arguments, but it's so gratifying to see his façade crack under the slightest pressure when Dr. Ehrman doesn't let him squirm out of a question.
Peter: You can’t explain the resurrection without making up implausible things. Bart: If you’re hanging and the rope breaks, how do you fall? Peter: Well, it depends...
@@JamesRichardWiley Dead people stay dead huh? How do you explain so many paramedics, doctors, etc., bringing so many people back to life? You should really work on the wording of your argument.
"What is the evidence . . .? I have yet to hear an Ehrman opponent present actual evidence in support of their argument. They do what Williams does which is to go back and try to rehabilitate a refuted position.
re: " I have yet to hear an Ehrman opponent present actual evidence in support of their argument." And you likely never will. These Christian Conservatives invariably argue points which simply can't be proven or disproven...there is simply no evidence on either side (or precious little, that is). That being said, try to explain Occam's Razor to a conservative mind (!) It's easier to understand this phenomenon by looking at analyses of the conservative thinking style...he's politically-based, but read Lakoff for more on this. Just one example...he explains that this mindset typically doesn't test for consistency of one's ideas, or as he puts it...they have a high tolerance for ambiguity. You can't even begin to have a logical discussion with someone who won't question their ideas when it becomes clear that their ideas are inconsistent with other known realities. These are people who rely upon their "knowns" to understand the world (knowns bestowed upon by their trusted superiors, not by testing/interacting with the world itself). It's a whole different process.
I originally watched this on another FB page several weeks ago. There were Christians declaring how Dr. Ehrman has no idea what he was talking about. Their cognitive dissonance was astounding.
Shawn Espenlaub you’d think with how often you use this, you’d have refined it and removed the many glaring flaws you keep presenting. But you’d be left with nothing..my mistake, carry on I guess.
I would encourage Peter to read some Stephen King, one can have amazing accuracy in detailing the places one is writing about while writing complete fiction
Also, Paul himself is evidence that there was movement of Jews between countries within the Roman Empire. It's entirely possible that the gospels were written by or influenced by Jews living outside of Judea who were familiar with geographic details.
Aside from some of the historical accuracies it’s impossible to prove the doctrines, or some other details, upon empirical grounds. He conceded this. Christianity, taken as a system of philosophy, has its own unique presupposition - just as every other system of philosophy. Which is, of course, that the Bible is the word of God.
I have enjoyed this academic, professional and insightful debate. I'd suggest looking into the authenticity of the 2 sources of Islam; Quran and Sunnah. What Christianity and Jewdisim missed is reluctantly offered in Islam. Thank you for a great debate, I have learned a lot.
The gospels very clearly give us insight into the evolution of the early traditions of Jesus. How these traditions are understood by Christians are completely dependent on dogma from a modern Christian worldview.
Is is such a shame the church of the late fourth century and later, destroyed the writings of the earlier christian sects and has made the original doctrines and beliefs impossible to recover. At least we now have artifacts that show they were originally called Chrestians with an eta and not an iota, and were the followers of Jesus Chrestos(Jesus the Good).
CompelledUnbeliever That is if you want to follow a modern Christian worldview. True Christians follow the words of Jesus and only the foundation layed by him.
We know that "Moses" took liberties when penning his accounts regarding the "flaming blade of a sword", and "sin crouching at the door", and have you noticed the rivers which flowed from the Garden of Eden apparently still existed and maintained their original courses during the time of his writing, despite the flood which should have wiped them out completely. It is almost as if the flood account had not yet been incorporated into the narrative.
Ehrman did not destroy Williams as everyone here seems to think. In fact, the two of them agree more than they disagree, at least in regard to what they spoke about during this particular discussion. The moderator should have done a better job steering the conversation to places where they truly disagree. Williams did a pretty good job defending a difficult position. I thought Ehrman's arguments relied upon trivial examples. This discussion was a minor skirmish, not the full blown bloody battle that it could have been.
Did Willians really claim that "skeptics have a more implausible view on the resurrection"? What!? Surely, that there was a resurrection at all must be the more implausible view? What view would a skeptic have exactly? If they're really a skeptic, the only view they'd have would be that they're unconvinced.
Well, the starting point isn’t that Jesus got resurrected. The starting point is that resurrections are impossible. So of course Theists have always the better explanation from impossible events that didn’t happen. Somehow it’s always the same lazy answer: God did it.😂
Agree. If someone comes and claims that he's heard about a person who's been resurrected after being dead for a day or two, I'd say that skepticism is a pretty sensible default position.
Ehrman is very impressive and intimidating. He overpowers all apologists with his knowledge and logical, unbiased approach. If I was a religious fantasist (aka apologist) I would not like to debate him.
There are other myths pre-Jesus, which offer similar occurrences. Egyptian religion contains many such miracles. As do the ancient Sumerian religions. You’re right, I do want to captain my own ship, just like you. I just don’t use a book of mythology to do so.
did you believed what you have in your bible now?I just want to loss your confidence..just answer by Yes or No... if your answer is Yes you are ignorant for your Bible.. if your answer is No,you are seeking the Truth...I challenge you read this verses KJV.2 - Samuel 24:1 against 1 Chronicle 21:1 -2 Samuel 24:13 against 1 chronicle 21:11,12 -2 Chronicle 36:9 against 2 Kings 24:8 -2 Samuel 10:18 against 1 chronicles 19:18 -1Kings 7:26 against 2 Chronicles 4:5 -2 Chronicles 9:25 against 4:26..then start to wondering why!!
@Dd S we ARE the captain of our own ships and according to YOUR god we are all BORN sinners. So wanting to sin isnt what we want. Wa are already sinners by BIRTH and it was YOUR God's decree.
It has to be incredibly frustrating for Bart to have these interactions with people that are so lacking in critical thinking. The real tragedy is this guy Peter and many millions like him have no idea how stupid they truly are and will go on through life with that smug look on their face.
lol I love watching this guy squirm when Dr. Ehrman pins him down and makes him actually articulate the claims he seems to know on some level are ridiculous. Also would like to say Dr. Erhman I love the way you approach the debate here, as contrasted with some earlier ones. When there is a premise being evaded or obvuscated, I love how you just stop and ask direct questions to clarify the premise, before proceeding.
@@zamiel3 That Jesus, wether he existed or not, was no more divine than me or you, and that the gospel is just a compilation of legends about him (if he existed), not actual accounts of his life, let alone trustworthy accounts, and finally that Yahweh, both as described in the Bible and the Quran, and how he is commonly defined by the Christians (omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent) doesn’t exist or likely doesn’t exist and that belief in it is unwarranted even if he did exist.
My big question is: If I write a book now about a man called Susej who lived about 40 years ago and who was a great guy who did certain fantastic things but was tortured to death by the KGB but revived by the CIA and given asylum. Clearly it would be fiction. How does this compare to the NT? How can we say that anything in the NT is accurate or true? Why is it clear that my story is fiction but the NT stories are historical?
Christopher Kennedy Centuries of Christianity spreading by political force or by the sword. It could have been any religion really that a savvy believer gained a position inside the sphere of influence of a Roman emperor. At a time when Roman influence was widespread. Pagans could be convinced that there was a top god. Just like in their lives there was the surf, the liege lords, the king above all. Not a stretch to slide in a top god and “hold no other gods above me”. The majority of the population were not intellectually sophisticated. And with this top god you can live in paradise for eternity after you suffer through a short and brutal life. Sound good? Just bend the knee, listen and do what you’re told.
@@curttinney9291 Exactly, well said. Plus an answer to why and how we exist, meaning to life, prayers answered, good morals provided (we'll ignore the atrocities) and a sense of community. How could one say no?
Great conversation. You can't start a historical conversation when you presume that the bible must be true so the history, evidence, and known facts must agree. If the books were written by the title authors, then they were written at the time of Jesus. But they weren't written by those people and the books don't claim to be. The earliest and best manuscripts don't have a name at all attributed to them. Great job Bart!
Even if we KNOW 100% that every word of the bible is unchanged and was perfectly translated to represent the EXACT words of each author, I STILL WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE MIRACULOUS CLAIMS!!!
Plus, The New Testament has many contradictions. From saying that the Roman census obligated to go to their ancestor's land to say that the Tribe of Manasseh (Joseph's Son) was separate from Joseph's Tribe.
Williamson’s reasoning and logic is like the story of Baron VonMunhausen trying to save himself from drowning by lifting himself above water by pulling himself up by his own hair.
Peter's argument that the stories of the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan are so well thought out and so deeply influenced by the OT that they can only have come from Jesus is baffling. How good does a story have to be that the only possible explanation for its existence is that it was written by God? Could the same apply to other authors? Was Shakespeare the second coming?
Two thousand years from now will we be debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Harry Potter and how his life and miracles have blessed and changed our lives, how much of the original Harry Potter manuscripts are still in existence and how reliable are stories and did the writers really know Harry Potter?
This is a very bad take, if you don't think his arguments are bad maybe it's an emotional attachment stoping him seeing sense, but it's not a con to take money. I'm assuming you're American? In the UK where Peter J Williams is from Christianity can't make you rich like in the US. There is literally one writer in the UK who makes their money exclusively from selling Christian books, everyone else who writes Christian books in the UK has other work. That was certainly true a few years ago anyway, I'm assuming it still is.
As an atheist I would have to say that if I was sitting on the fence neither man would have convinced me. As usual the christian side of the argument involved a lot of fluff that contained a a lot of words and no facts, while Ehrman missed a golden opportunity to point out glaring historical errors in both the nativity and the the crucifixion.
I wonder how many Christians can listen to this debate and come away thinking "Peter J Williams sure made a good case for the historical accuracy of the NT gospels. He won the debate" ? I mean, I've been surprised before by Christian ability to get 2+2 to equal 5, but still? Can anybody truly convince themselves that Peter made the strongest arguments in this debate?
Peter’s face around the one hour ten minute mark is exactly the face people make when they know they’ve been caught and are desperately trying to think of a way out of it.
I thought Bart was exceptional in this debate, however I was disappointed that Peter Williams had no interest in looking at this from an historical perspective and acknowledged that he is looking at this theologically. He's obviously entitled to do that, but don't weigh in on the historical reliability of the Gospels if you aren't looking at it from an historical perspective.
Islam for all Never worship a man Never worship Jesus ( the prophet) because he was a prophet only , but not God Worship only the Creator who created you God does not accept to associate partners with him Jesus Never said himself" I am God or worship me" Jesus Said "God is One, Worship the Lord your God " "The father is greater than I " "By my self I can do noting" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.Allah stated " I'm the only God to be Worshiped, I'm One, No Trinity" Islam for all , Allah accepts only final revelation ( Islam ) Crystal Clear "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All¬Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. The Messiah will never be proud to reject to be a slave to Allah, nor the angels who are near (to Allah). And whosoever rejects His worship and is proud, then He will gather them all together unto Himself. "Quran 4:171
