Bart Ehrman vs Richard Bauckham - Round 1 

Language and Programming Channel of course it’s sarcasm

😂 Absolutely. My favorite is also when people claim that their holy books haven't been properly translated so you can't get the true meaning unless you read them in the original Hebrew, Greek or Arabic. How incompetent is this divine entity if he can't communicate his words properly to the rest of us since most of us don't read ancient Hebrew, Greek or Arabic.

As confusing as possible so that the majority of adherents believe their deity is tri-personal against all available data

Callum S What passage is that?

And who are you, or anyone else, to assume Enlightenment era evidentialism is the standard for saying what is and isn't true?

@@SaturnDreamingofMercury I'm curious, just want to be clear about this: the fact that we live in this technologically amazing world indicates that a measured "Post-enlightenment" approach to evidence actually does give us a better understanding of the world. Do you think that pre-science methods of discerning truth were more reliable? What "era of evidentialism" or era of "non-evidentialism" do you think has the most reliable methodology?

Dane Parker No reasonable person is claiming the thing you're arguing against, for a few reasons. First, it's not Enlightenment-era evidentialism, it's 21st century evidentialism, which is demonstrably more effective than its Enlightenment-era version. Additionally, nobody said it's THE standard, rather, it's A standard, but it is a really good one. Lastly, it's not an assumption: this 21st century standard of evidentialism is continually challenged, and remains robust.

@J.W. H. lol

@@SaturnDreamingofMercury I shudder to think where we would be without the enlightenment era..

It still doesn't make them true.

Or are these some kind of special Mormon cherries??? Cause I'll convert right here and now if Mormons have giant cherries.

I don't think Bart sees Richard carrier as a scholar but more a atheist apologist

That would be like Richard Dawkins debating Ken Ham. It would be an embarrassment for him.

They had a long blog exchange catalogued by Carrier.

No it wouldn't. Carrier is not in Ehrman's league. He is a crank. As Ehrman rightly pointed out, make your bones academically in something other then "Mythic-ism" and then come talk. What has Carrier done in History other then Jesus didn't exist rubbish? Nothing.

Michael Callahan : can you post a link by chance.. thanks so much..

But Ehrman is absolutely wrong from the start of his point. Ehrman is very fond of making wild assertions based on his own opinions such as in another lecture that he gave where he claims that there are "no first century manuscripts" when he knows very well that Adolf Deissmann, a leading 19th century German theologian and papyrologist who had examined the manuscript P52 shortly after its finding, disagreed with the 100-150AD dating of this fragment, and instead he placed the date in the 90’sAD. The ink was hardly dry on the original autograph by the time this copy was made. In fact, the early church fathers DO mention the authors of the books. Papias (70-163 AD) identifies by name both Matthew and Mark as the authors of the books that carry their name, and the casual way in which he does so suggests that these authors were well known at the time. The church fathers Irenaeus (120-200 AD), Tertullian (197-220 AD), Origen (185-254 AD), and Eusebius (260-339 AD) all name Matthew as the author of the gospel attributed to him. The early church fathers unanimously affirm that Mark wrote this second gospel. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp personally, identifies all four gospel authors by name. The authorship of Luke is attested to by Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory, Nazianze, and Jerome. Subsequent to Irenaeus, all the church fathers assumed John to be the gospel’s author. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) wrote that John, aware of the facts set forth in the other gospels and being moved by the Holy Spirit, composed a “spiritual gospel” (Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7). For Ehrman to state that the early church fathers did not mention the gospel authors is either ignorance stemming from a lack of research, or he is lying in order to further his case against God in desiring that all men should turn from Him as he has done.

"[...] disagreed with the 100-150AD dating of this fragment, and instead he placed the date in the 90’sAD." That's a flat out lie. What Deissmann made were mere suggestions in a newspaper that P52 could be dated at the reigns of either Hadrian or even Trajan. And when were both reigning? Hadrian (117-138) and Trajan (98-117). So even Deissmann dated P52 in the second century apart from the tiny fraction of two years.

technowizard78 Deissmann placing the date of P52 in the 90's is a quote from Dan Wallace. If the year 98 can not be considered to be in the 90's, only then can your accusation of a "lie" be even remotely possible. I am sorry if you do not like the fact that it is entirely possible for P52 to be a 1st century document, but unless you can demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that it could not possibly date to the 1st century, then you just need to accept it.

So, since I can't find your comment I think it got shadow blocked. You can quote Wallace all you want, but the problem persist. You made a claim based on a Wallace quoting Deissmann. So I apologize to you for my accusation of lying and change it to: "You should check your sources." "I am sorry if you do not like the fact that it is entirely possible for P52 to be a 1st century document, but unless you can demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that it could not possibly date to the 1st century, then you just need to accept it." First of, I don't have to demonstrate anything, because your claim is still not established. Why, because Deissmann made only some suggestions in a newspaper, not a claim in a scientific paper. So he didn't provide what you need ... evidence. Therefore, you ultimately made an accusation yourself without evidence. So, you should provide further evidence to support your claim.

technowizard78 P52 was dated by paleographers whose task it is to look at other available manuscripts and compare their handwriting and style in order to give an estimate of a date, and they have given ranges from the late 1st century to the early to middle 2nd century - that much is true. To my knowledge, the manuscript has not been dated by any other means so as to not damage it, so whatever evidence that has been presented so far has only been in the form of the opinions of men who compare handwriting, and to dismiss one date in favor of another without any compelling reason is dishonest. And why does it matter whether the claim is made in a scientific paper or not? Who cares? That has nothing to do with the truth of a statement. I don't know what other evidence that you require other than what already exists, but if you insist that it could not possibly have originated in the 1st century, it is YOU who must present your evidence. All I am doing is repeating the date range estimates from paleographers. What is it with the kickback that I get when I say it could have come from the 1st century? Why are so many people adamantly opposed to the idea with no good evidence or reason to oppose it?

And in reality most scholars think that this is exactly what John did.😂

talktomeaboutlife wow- great info, thanks for sharing.

Why is that such a stretch? There is the Jewish leadership referred to int he new testament; Paul was one of many Hellenized Palestinian Jews. And, as in our own time, the carpenters and fisherman that Jesus associated with were not illiterate lumpenproletariat, they were probably somewhat literate, as a fisherman would have had to negotiate the price of fish and a carpenter would have had to negotiate prices of time and materials with his customers; in order to ply their trade they would probably have had to have some knowledge of Latin or Greek to deal with the occupation authorities who may have been their customers as well as overlords.

+AegeanKing : because it's wishful, apologetic thinking…

rootytuners What's funny about that? Papias didn't read the original of Matthew's Gospel and thought the original had been written in Hebrew. Bauckham (just as most NT scholars do!) believes instead that the Gospel was originally written in Greek, and so disagrees with Papias. Ehrman clearly understands what Buckham is saying and, unlike you, doesn't find his statement objectionable.

Obviously you aren't very knowedgeable about biblical history; most of the Bible came to us written in Greek.

rootytuners: What was funny about that.

Well, obviously Matthew didn't write in Hebrew because that was no longer a living language at the time. At best, it would have been Aramaic. Hence, taking Papias "in the Hebrew dialect" as 100% literally true is already wrong. "In the Hebrew dialect" has also been taken as writing in a Hebrew style, so it isn't clear that Papias was not thinking of a Greek Matthew. Matthew's gospel after all has a lot of Jewish elements, beginning with the genealogy, the constant referencs to prophecies, as well as the five big speeches. Hence, despite Ehrmann's objections, the term "logia" might be appropriate. Or it's Q after all.

Yup, did catch that, too.

"So what were they called??" - Classic theist position where he makes it sound as if he is "owed" an explanation, as in those texts had to be called something, or else my belief makes no sense !! hahahaha

Sure-and maybe these varied, multiple and conflicting gospels were called by their covers-The blue gospel, green gospel...oh wait-first century books didn’t have colored covers. Whaaaat? I find it incredulous to think they did not have covers!? They MUST have had colored covers?! Nope-just sheepskin or papyrus...So maybe they were called the moldy hide gospel and the flaky chipped corner gospel...(?) Plus they could have been other lost gospels -The gospel of Gordon the farter...The gospel of Calcculm the rapist...clearly those didnt survive...LOL.

Strength in numbers I suppose and a quartet to boot. Four winds, four watches, four close friends n kin epistle writers at the back end of the NT, four horsemen, four gospels

It's numerology - four arms of the cross (lines converging from both sides of the horizon, zenith and nadir) four directions, (north, south, east, west) four elements (earth, air fire, water) four rivers flowing from the Garden, four fixed signs of the zodiac Ezekiel tetramorph, (Matthew: Aquarius, Mark: Leo, Luke: Taurus, John: Scorpio)

It's not so much they each set out to write another one in addition to the original or as time went on all the others, it's more they decided to try to write the definitive version thinking the others would be obsolete. Out of the probably dozens upon dozens of gospels that eventually existed 4 were chosen as canonical. In addition to the popularity of each among christians, 4 were settled on for numerological reasons. It made sense to have 4 as there were 4 corners of the earth, and 4 seasons so of course it was perfectly sensible to have exactly 4 gospels.

You are evil...

The moment when he agrees with Bauckhan ...

technowizard78 : that’s great point..!!!! Hahaha...!!! 😆

The moment he opens his mouth. He talks quite a lot - and faster - than Richard Bauckham.

Eusebius was born about 180 years after matthew and died around 250 years after matthew. Thats not a good witness imho. Not onky that, matthew was written only in greek, not in hebrew, so hes incorrect on that

Lol because they were all damn near illiterate dude. Ehrman mentioned this. Dont cherry pick

How many we know? Bart ... and what of Saul it does not match? Ok the guy was born in Tarsus but educated in Jerusalem...

Do you think the people of ancient times had an acute awareness of all the pagan gods around the globe? I highly doubt it. And what "method"? Bottom line: there are way fewer similarities between Jesus and the others, despite what the makers of Zeitgeist et al claim. Some cold facts: Jesus lived; his disciples - thinking he was the prophesised messiah - were SHOCKED when he was executed; they began to get scared; then they had a sudden change of professed beliefs, including James who never believed Jesus was the messiah. They spread across the near world and died martyrs, refusing to recant their claims. These are facts. If it was a conspiracy, what did they gain? Not wealth, women, or power. Eventually one needs to address these points. I wish you well. And if i could only recommend one book on this it's Cold Case Christianity by J. Wallace. If you need solid philosophy, William Lane Craig is the best Christian philosopher today IMO.

@@RottenDoctorGonzo I think the only "fact" you have listed is that Jesus lived and his disciples were shocked when he was unable to use his divine power to prevent his execution. The martyrdom narrative is vastly overplayed. See Candida Moss' book, "The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom" It's certainly the case (over the whole of history) that vastly more people were persecuted for not being Christian (or the wrong type of Christian) than were ever persecuted for maintaining their Christian beliefs.

+HE400Sfanboy because of the British accent.

Wish Erhman explained why he thought 'everyone' knew Peter didn't write a Gospel

Callum Savage l thought l was the only one who caught that

Great point!

where does bauckham show any real insight? other than launching hope upon assumption mixed with wishes? there's no basis at all other than blind possibility without a single regard to probability. he's a nice fellow and a gentleman and learned, but his attempts here, such as they are, are meaningless....

If your so smart you debate him yourself

Actually if something is a fantasy it by definition isnt consistent with reality.

In order to establish a causal link one must show both necessity and sufficiency. Consistency meets the criterion of sufficiency only

100% correct

yes it might have been talking about the q source

But the argument itself is just silly. He essentially concedes there is no evidence for the names before Irenaeus. His answer instead becomes "Well, what were they called, they must have been called something?!" which on the one hand is a reasonable question, while on the other doesn't substitute for an argument. Perhaps we simply don't know, and will never know. It's also possible that the initial circulation of these gospels did not give rise to names because people only knew of one gospel (indeed, the very fact two of the 3 synoptics use material from Mark could possibly indicate divergent geographical streams). We have no way of conclusively showing that they needed to be named (let alone named after potential authors), so the argument from incredulity can't even get off the ground. At the end of the day, we want arguments that have reasons and evidence, especially when we're talking history. If Richard can't give evidence or reasons other than "Well, something must have happened!", then he hasn't provided a solution, he's merely restating the question

@@talktomeaboutlife One should take into account that while Irenaeus is the first to explicitely name all four (Papias of course names two), it has always been these four (Tatian did use only these for his Diatessaron) and that there has never been a conflicting claim of authorship for the four. Which seems likely if the names had just been arbitrarily put on them sometime in the 2nd century. And the earlier, the four tradtional names are to be assumed invented, the less credible such an invention becomes. The earlier the names appear, the more likely is their authenticity. Finally, while naming a Gospel after John makes sense (he's Apostle #3), less so with Matthew (he's just a name outside of his own Gospel). It beggars belief to assume someone would have chosen Mark or Luke as invented authorship names.

+ChiliMcFly1 uh....

Yeshua wasn't a anti-Semite he preached love for all people and nations

When the messiah comes there will be Peace on earth and everyone will know the true LORD. Even the animals nature will be changed and there will be no more war. He will build a Temple and the LORD will prosper in his hand.

ChiliMcFly1 Yeshua is coming soon

Way to start a thread with, well, a question without any foundation. There is nothing anti-semitic in what Jesus is saying in the Bible. And given that he was a Jew himself, it would be ludicrous.

And fair enough when hes merely questioning a proposition. Naturally, the answer should be comprehensive and thus longer

+zeus He's one of the foremost New testament scholar.

Yeah, he is a good pointless babbler.

That would be your post you are speaking of - no substance at all.

It's pretty much agreed to that the gospels were preached and read by the individual commuities and churches and as the christian communities spread and the apostles who knew Jesus and the people who knew the apostles began to die out, the third generation who neither had met Jesus or the apostles began to scramble to write them down. "Mark" or "John" may have just been the name of some random guy who took all the different stories and parchments and worte them down and compiled them with posterity in mind. Weather or not they had names to begin with or when they got names atached to them doesn't take away from their validity as eyewitness accounts. A court deposition or statement by an individual may not have a specific name attached to it; it may have just a dockett number in a file cabinet and be lumped in with other statements and documents.

To add to my above point, when I say it's pretty much agreed to i mean by most (95%) pf theologians and scholars of the new testament; Ehrman and his controversial claims get publicity far in excess of their acceptance or influence in the scholarly community.

Memoir of Jesus 1, Memoir of Jesus 2, Memoir of Jesus 3, Memoir of Jesus 4. Why is that excluded?

@@kylekilleen3891 Eyewitness statements still have to be verified against the known facts before anyone believes them. People give false/mistaken testimony in court all the time. Shopkeepers misremember what a thief looked like or bystanders swear they saw a guy when in reality they were in a totally different part of town. It's also one of the least reliable forms of evidence accepted in a court. The earliest Gospels never even claim to have any information from eyewitnesses though so the entire argument is over a moot point. It's a story with characters in it.

Paul never met Jesus and never said he did; he says nothing about the preacher from Galilee because his concern is entirely with the risen Christ.

... **Paul never even met Jesus. How could you believe the testimony of a man who never met the man he writes about? On top of that, Paul used to murder and persecute followers of Jesus. If Hitler said he saw David or Solomon in a vision, then decided to write gospels about him (even though he never met him), do you seriously think the jews would accept his 'gospel writings'?!* ...🤔

95% of biblical scholars don't subscribe to Ehrman's views; Ehrman and his claims are analagous to a historian of WW2 claiming that the war was a conspiracy by the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion to wipe out the threat of Freemasonry from the earth.

Do mean JAT Robinson's book?

epic christ not written in Palestine, though.

There is compelling evidence that both 1 and 2 Peter are forgeries.

The anonymous author of Mark was a Greek- speaking Christian likely living outside Palestine. He makes some geographical errors when describing Palestine in his gospel, for example.

No one in their right mind is talking about "a couple of centuries". From the crucifixion to the last gospel you have 70 years tops.

Very interesting and valuable contribution to a scholarly debate.

+Alan W . I am a Christian, and, your points are reasonable and understandable. 3 comments: 1. The claim is not that Jesus came back to live after 3 days under the productive capacities of our universe physical laws, but that God, an omnipotent being, brought Jesus back from the death, thus, objections to any other claim is equivocating the target. 2. In the bayesian analysis, extraordinary claims taken to mean a terribly low hypothesis prior probability yields that extraordinary evidence comes to evidence that is poorly explained by the relevant background knowledge, alone (i.e. the conjunction of the statements of acts like the empty tomb finding, multiple appereances , early proclamation of the resurrection by friends and foes). 2. Since God is thought to be omnipontent, in so many words can do what is Broadly logically possible, which means he can do more than physical laws permit, (more or less similarly, a multiverse can generate many bubble universes with different laws ), one key evidence you might need to incorporate is evidence for the existence of God. Regards.

"At any rate, the problem which presents itself is how to go about determining the difference between all the claims which are false and the ones you personally would like to accept despite them being unnatural and magical and inconsistent with evidence. " Unnatural is not the same as magical. Broadly logically possible is neither. Inconsisent with what evidence? Not coming back from the death by the productive capacities of our universe physical laws, right? because, I already explained that is not the claim. In short, the answer to your main question is evidence. Regards.

I haven´t insisted on anything. I have, merely, tried to clarify what was the precise claim, so you would not equivocate when objecting to it. There is supernatural, unnatural, magic, broadly logical possibility (also called metaphysical possibility). su·per·nat·u·ral ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. un·nat·u·ral ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ adjective contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. mag·ic ˈmajik/ noun 1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. They have very closely related meanings and connotations, but, not exactly the same, they do not mean the exact same thing. Nevertheless, it goes with out saying, you are free to use them as you like. (Conceivability and possibility. Tamar Szabo) I´m just trying to offer complementaty information, that can be of help on these topics, if studied. The method you might be looking for is the historical method applied to these ancient documents, which is applied with no supernatural pressupositions ( in fact, it is a method compatible with methodological naturalism ), the approach is called High Biblical Criticism, if you are interested, you can look it up. I´m in no way trying to show , convince or anything else, this is not the place for that. What you believe , or think is your business, not mine. Regards.

am101171 The Supernatural is like alternative medicine. If science confirms it works, then it is no longer super or alternative.

Unnatural just means ( as the definitions I posted state) contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. For example, many consider cities unnatural landscapes, that have an impact in nature. Nothing Magical about cities and unnatural landscapes. Most importantly, neither unnatural nor magical mean metaphysically possible, and that was the main point, with respect to the use of words. If you attack the resurrection claim from the lack of events of people coming back from the death, by the efficient capacities of natural laws, your objection equivocates claims. If a person claims to have gone from Houston to Vegas in a matter of a couple hours, by plane, another person complaining that one can not do that on foot is irrelevant, since the later person is equivocating the claim. The claim is not Jesus came back from the death naturally, namely, through the powers of physical laws of this universe. The claim is an omnipotent being brought Jesus back from the death. Conceptually, Multiverses can produce many buble universes with many different physical laws, they are not tied to specific physical laws, God has for thousands of years been understood as an Omnipotent being that is not tied to specific physical laws, but one that is capable of doing what is (broadly) logically possible, or metaphysically possible (which comprises any physical laws ), so, it is neither an ad-hoc nor an special pleading claim, just one I haven´t given , for the time being, evidence of being true, since, that was not my objetive. Special pleading is when you ignore the evidence to reach a conclusion, when you state that conclusion is an exception to certain rules. But, I haven´t given a conclusion here, I merely stated what the claim is, I haven´t said it is true, nor that it is false, just what the claim is. So, there is no special pleading. I am just trying to help, not patronize, but, if you can´t see that. that´s fine too.

Sure, that’s the message. Of course most of the stories of the gospels are pure fiction, but apparently that’s not important.😂

I find many RU-vid comments bear the mark of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

A mad comment. Can you explain, in detail, which criteria you are using which cast doubt on the author of the books that bear Mr Ehrman's name? And why do you think that has any relevance to ancient, anonymous manuscripts?

The 'AIR' would be theology, theories, thoughts and beliefs that are nt supported by truth and facts e.g. propaganda.

Mark, Matthew and Luke were not fisherman.

Mark Could have been. Not sure we're given any details to his occupation via the bible though it also doesn't say he was a fisherman either.

You misheard what Mr Ehrman said. He said that only a few aristocrats would be literate in Greek.

Maybe because Bart is an hypocrite and White is actually trying to prove it? Bart always shield himself with "I'm not a theologian, I never studied theology" when he is questioned about theological points, *however* he uses theological points to try to substantiate his arguments all the time (especially in his later books that are *all* about theological points and have very very little to do with textual criticism; you can see this clearly even in this debate if you know a little about the topic, but I suppose 90% of the people here don't looking from the replies). So, you see, the intellectual trick is very very simple: he uses theological points to justify his claims but then if you try to argue with him on those theological points *that he himself raised* - to prove that he is, in fact, totally wrong - he then covers his ass with "I'm not a theologian, why are you approaching the argument on theological terms?". Pretty convenient, is it? Fact is: Bart knows very very little about exegesis and he often completely butcher scripture left and right, however he can do that freely because as soon as you point out his total misrepresentations, cherry picking, etc. he goes back to "I'm not a theologian" shield mode, so that he cannot be proven wrong on the points that he himself made to begin with. If that's not being intellectual dishonest then I don't know what intellectual dishonesty is. I seriously wonder how people like you can think Ehrman a good scholar when he is one of the biggest hypocrites, intellectually dishonest, convenience seeking and I-have-become-rich-just-because-I-push-the-narrative-and-if-I-stop-doing-it-I-will-become-a-nonentity-so-I-better-do-it-with-all-means-possible "scholar" I've ever seen (he represents very well the professors in academy nowadays: trying to push an agenda instead of caring about the students and teach things objectively so that they can - by themselves, without parroting the ideas of anybody - come to a *personal* conclusion on the matter). Have you ever personally tried to look at both sides of the issue? Have you ever tried to listen to the arguments of White himself on the matter? I could bet my arm on it that you never did so (or if you did you did so very superficially) since while you can impute to White many things you certainly cannot accuse him of misrepresenting the other side and not being interested in listening and studying the opposite's arguments (a thing that Ehrman and those like him never do, out of a personal pretense of "intellectual superiority" on the matter). So, the only thing I can suggest you is to look at the various reviews of White on the books of Ehrman and then come to a conclusion on the matter for yourself. I personally think that if you are objectively looking at the issue there's no way you can insist that White is the one that is wrong on this specific issue. I actually liked Ehrman very much not too long time ago but, after looking at both parts closely I couldn't but come to the conclusion that Ehrman is one of the most intellectually dishonest "scholars" existing nowadays, almost on par with Reza Aslan.

That's a flippant thing to say. 'Hope built on desperation' doesn't actually mean anything, it just sounds good if you're a disaffected teenager. Unlike you, I've actually read the 500+ pages of 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' - and it's a wide-ranging and closely argued academic text rooted in detailed textual analysis. The 'Richard guy' is an established and respected academic who has revolutionised NT study. He's not some shallow-minded desperado.

You misunderstand the point of discussion - this wasn't a Tupperware party. When there are living eyewitnesses that survive Jesus, these people act as a check to any tendency for oral history to be transmuted into hearsay. In other words - if I am a witness to events, I will correct people from adding to the facts of what has happened, and they will acknowledge my authority to correct. So... the stories weren't handed down orally over decades without check. They were shared, referencing back to the living sources of the stories, and frequently cite *by name* the living witnesses to events. What we have here is an intelligent rhetorician (Bart) talking past the academic points being made by Richard Bauckham. The study of history isn't built on "definitive statements" - a RU-vid audience may seek instant gratification in the semblance of "definitive statements", but if this were so simply explained... it wouldn't have taken 2000 years for someone like Bart to do so.

That’s your opinion

I always get a good laugh when fundamentalists make the argument that since we know some of the people, places and things in the gospels can be verified therefore they must be telling the truth concerning the things we cannot ever verify. A group of people believing an event happened has next to no bearing on whether the event actually happened. Do these same people think that Simon Kimbangu in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1920s resuscitated the dead, made the blind see, made paralytics walk and mutes talk? There's plenty of eyewitness testimony in the Kimbanguist Church attesting to exactly that.

+Inayet Hadi Have I got good news for you!! You can do both of those things by way of the controls at the bottom of the video player. ..........aaannd you're welcome. :)

+Inayet Hadi Bart Ehrman pretty much makes them a total joke. It's not even close, ever. We need to do an intense study of Biblical scholarship and use it to strengthen Islamic da'wah in the way we can.

Mustafa M You think an intense Biblical study is somehow going to strengthen Islam?? lol Good luck with that. An intense study will work about as well for Islam as it has for Christianity.

jeremybr2020 It's already helped our da'wah a LOT!

Can you provide more detailed instructions how I can automatically mute and skip certain person's voice while listening to a video ? jeremybr2020

+ChiliMcFly1 No, you're wrong. ODIN RULES!

Ken Creten; God rules not man.

+ChiliMcFly1 Man created the concept of all gods and not one shred of real evidence exists to prove any ever existed. Man rules god stays nonexistent.

why do you refuse to accept Odin?

Ken Creten The true God came down from heaven NOT born of a woman. He gave us Torah.