@@PInk77W1 Jimmy is a Christian, so that’s to be expected Bart is an Atheist and has no allegiance to the faith yet chooses to be respectful. Key difference
Years ago, Erhman shook my Protestant faith to the point I almost reverted to Atheism before I found the beauty and truth of the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is the only religion that makes sense. In my opinion; either Catholicism is true, or no religion is.
@@lewkor1529 In my opinion, it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments for the existence of a one true God. If a one true God exists, then Catholicism is the only religion that makes logical sense. If a one true God does not exist, then the only thing that makes logical sense is that no religion is true.
@@lewkor1529 How long were you Catholic for? Are you a cradle Catholic who fell away, perhaps even after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation or were you a convert that later lost faith?
If the one "true" God exists then he surely used a terrible way to communicate: an accurate, fiction sounding, error-filled book. That would include the fake Paul epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, etc.) and the 7 additional books (Apocrypha,etc.) in the new catholic new testaments. If the one true God exists, I am not sure he would vouch for Catholicism but I agree that resurrecting people from death would be child play for them. I doubt such a God exists though
I used the same approach as Jimmy when I was still a skeptic, yesterday I was officially received as a catechumen to be baptized the sunday after easter.
@@kyriosbooks8400 Here is what Christ says about the likes of Jimmy Akin, who believes that man “evolved” from beasts, a total absurdity and impossibility, and who denies the truth of scripture that man was formed out of the dust of the earth by God, and became a living soul after receiving the breath of life from God: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” This is not a debate between a Christian and an infidel , that we should take sides, but it is one between two apostates who trust more in the foolish wisdom of the world than in the truth which was revealed by God to the prophets and in the Christ whose sheep hear his voice and follow him.
@@malachi7948 The fact that humans and chimps have a common ancestor is proven by DNA. In fact scientists have determined it occurred 6 million years ago. I don't know if scientists have determined when humans and sheep had a common ancestor.
I'm a student at UNC-Chapel Hill and took Introduction to the New Testament with Dr. Ehrman the same semester that I was finishing RCIA and got baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church. Needless to say, I struggled to open my Bible for several months and I was extremely confused, but I made it through with my faith intact. This debate would have been so helpful to me back then! It felt like a spiritual battle to go to that class each week.
@@dannielz6 "Have you read any of Bart Ehrmans books?"---- Have you ever eaten food from a trash can? There are valid circumstances when certain individuals must examine the contents of a trash can, but they do not offer it to their children for supper.
Never confuse paper & ink with the Person of Christ, the Word Made Flesh. ""The LORD said, This is the resting place, let the weary rest, and, This is the place of repose- but they would not listen. So then, the Word of the Lord to them has become nothing but: do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there- so then as they try to move forward, they fall backward and are injured and snared and captured" (Isaiah 28) Peace be with you.
Excellent debate. God bless Bart Ehrman. He is a class act, very respectful, and very well read. I'm still a catholic, but I think Bart did a great job.
No. His arguments were pretty garbage.. they would only work against a fundamentalist protestant. They are arguments from silence, and arguments from ignorance. He also doesnt realize that humans can choose what to write and are not fax machines. His whole intro was absolute cringe.
What if your friend was in an accident and you just say his mother was there when you know the names of 10 other people who were there, are you speaking falsely if you only mention his mother? Bart is deceptive and you have to think deeper. Don't let him steal eternal life from you -- stay Catholic, choose life. Also, Bart just made up his comment on Jesus appearing to his disciples "on that day." Go to hour/minute 1:24, and then read for yourself Luke 24. It seems like "on that day" he saw the men on the road to Emmaus, but not likely his apostles because he did not appear to him until after the men on the road to Emmaus returned to Jerusalem. Also, when Jesus tells them to stay in the city, does he mean don't pack your bags up and permanently give up your upper room in Jerusalem. Bart wasn't there and he doesn't know the details or intent of Jesus' words. Bart wins and causes souls to to choose death because people don't bother to think deeply or research what he said and pray. Christianity is not easy and the weak will fall away as Jesus says in a parable. The women visiting Jesus’ tomb as recorded? • Mark 16:1- Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome • Matthew 28:1- Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and another Mary • Luke 24:10- Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.” • John 20:1- John mentions Mary Magdalene.
I found Bart a very useful empty brand. I thank him for introducing me to speakers like Jimmy Atkin and Timothy Grew. I also watched a documentary about Mormons because he uses them in comparison to the testimonies by St. Peter, Paul, James and Mary Magdalene, I think he acknowledges these four. I am not sure he realises what makes the difference between signing davodites in an era of religious experimentation and to preach in Jerusalem where your master.and Lord has been crucified. Let alone St Paul s conversion.
Lol what were you impressed by? As soon as he said the brain dead theory that Joseph had 2 houses, he lost all credibility, at least other apologists agree that their are differences in the gospels that can’t be reconciled
@@limsun3814 his presentation destroyed bart by the end of the opening statement. Bart was uninformed, and unprepared. His arguments only work against a fundamentalist protestant. He didnt do his research
@@limsun3814 Jewish culture and learning Biblical Hebrew would be a good start to understand the Old Testament. You do realize that Scripture (authors) are at odds with one another? English is a poor translation of the Old and New Testaments. "At least other apologists agree that there are differences in the Gospels that can't be reconciled." The problem is, which Scholars and who, many academic Scholars hold the same views with minor nuances, many others don't.
Really enjoyed this debate. Good to see two respectful, smart and engaging debaters share their knowledge and perspectives. Never seen Jimmy before but I’ve become an instant fan. Kudos to Bart for stepping outside his comfort zone to take part in this discussion.
There was only one person speaking historically and accurately....and then there was some dude named Jimmy who has no idea what the hell is going on and repeating the same old ignorant, absolutely irrational, claims. Amazing the level of blatant denial an ignorant sheep will engage in to feel better about living it's lie. Even more frightening is the fact that many of the sheep who viewed the "debate" can't even tell or critically and sincerely approach the topic. They also look to confirm their denial to feel better about their lie. What a time to be alive.
There is more to it there.If it eas from Peter.,remember he was a coward and ran away.Possibly he was not near enough to hear it.directy.Maybe he heard it from someone who was there But remembering his denial of his master the previous night he must have been haunted by these words when it came to his ears.oh,no he was not likely to ever forget it Which is why We hear Go tell the disciples and Peter
Мне понравилось, что неверующий Барт Эрман тоже встал и склонил голову в молитве. Вот это уважение и солидарность, которому надо поучиться нашим российским скептикам.
I am so tired of the soft people in our Church who don’t appreciate apologetics. Jimmy (and Tim, Karlo, Joe, and Trent) are doing so much to bring souls home to God.
Apologetics CAN BE used as a form of SPIN, public relations and manipulation. The thing is between these two, they BOTH may be right. There are elements of the Gospels that are historically accurate AND there there are writings in the New (and Old) Testament which are theological writing devices to make a claim or statement with the style of the time. The Goal is now, to tease out which is which in Scripture.
Opening: Bart gets double points for being in a "hostile" audience and assuming the burden of proof. He offers several challenging points that each could be separate debates. It's a strong open, and a seasoned debate move: he sows doubt. Jimmy made the right move contrasting Inerrancy and Reliability - and focusing on defining "reliable". That makes Bart's burden incredibly heavy. Then, using Bart's own words to prove **63** points...THEN answers Bart's opening *in his opening* ...That is the best example of strategy and preparation that I have ever seen.
If you frequent CA open forums. You'd have an idea how Jimmy prepares for Bart. And yes, it must be suggested that audience tickets should be evenly distributed. And the organizer always inform they've done it. I remember what they did to Fr. Pacwa decades ago. No guest should be ganged up like that.
I don't know if I agree the power point was the best idea. It was immediately obvious where that was going as a viewer and I mentally checked out of Jummy's opening and closing pretty quickly. In fact since I was watching 30 minutes behind (watching most of this at 1.5 speed), I hit the right arrow several times in Jimmy's opening and closing when he was droning on in the opening and repeating himself in the closing. I agreed with Jimmy more, but found it less engaging then Bart actually speaking to the audience.
Seen in London, UK. Very useful and helpful to get a better understanding of the Bible and look forward to the shape of things to come via faith and no-faith. God bless.
Jimmy's tactical framing of the debate made Bart's position basically impossible to defend. Even if we reject biblical inerrancy, and completely accept all of the points Bart brought up as true contradictions, the Gospels would still be historically reliable. Bart was forced to argue whether or not Mary and Joseph always living in Nazareth or moving to Nazareth, or whether Jesus telling people to go to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem was a major contradiction. His protestant fundamentalism is showing through his atheism.
They also aren't contradictions. A contradiction is A=B and at the same time, A=/=B. Both can't be true. For the egypt vs nazareth, there are multiple logical explanations that fit within the way we would expect people recounting a biography to report but to sum up, nowhere does it say the Magi visited Jesus at or even near his birth. This is important because it is THIS event which starts the ball rolling on them fleeing to Egypt, not Jesus's birth. In fact, there is evidence that it was as much as 2 years AFTER Jesus' birth since Herod gives the order to kill all 2 y/os and under...seems a bit odd if the Magi had even been there a even couple months after Jesus birth. There are plenty of logical plausible scenarios one can google that explain this very neatly.
You’re spot on with viewing this debate. Jimmy Akin just explained his motive and tactics he used in the debate and some of the stuff he said is word for word to what you commented here. Bravo
They are calm and charitable because neither is afraid of the other. They are comfortable with their worldview and see no threat from those who disagree. Only people who feel threatened, who act out with hostility.
Erhman has a special on Netflix about this. I sometimes worry that it may cause some to stray from the faith, and for some it may. After watching Barts arguments I'm not so worried anymore. Viva Cristo Rey!
Is he your brother who is an idolater? From the apostle Paul: “now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” To be sure, he is an idolater who believes in a God other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And that is precisely what Akins is, an idolater because he disbelieves in what was revealed by God to his servant Moses. He accepts the impossibility that man evolved from the beasts of the earth. He puts his faith in the lies of Satan over God’s revelation to the prophets.
@@danaharper9708 if that were the case. The left would disappear in shame. But they only have the ability to shout down opinions. Since discourse means defeat
@@mike-cc3dd Every Catholic apologist readily admits large numbers of young people are leaving the Catholic faith for some other version of worship. It literally has nothing to do with “left” or “right” it has to do with _disbelief._
@@danaharper9708 Young people where? Because here in Asia it is all in the upscale, it is even estimated that 30-40 years from now China will be a majority Christian even with the government persecution. The same thing is happening now in Indonesia, which forced the Indonesian government to regulate the Christian churches. Now, what i predict is that the Western institution will collapse after majority of it's populace will be an athiest, you can see the moral decline today and it's a tell tale sign of a fading empire.
Great debate! I’m glad Jimmy countered Ehrman’s use of Jesus’ words “Why have you forsaken me.” Totally misleading to use the phrase to suggest Jesus lost faith in the end.
Sometimes it is a mystery some intellectuals such as Bart easily falls to that. Where in that moment, we are called to ascent to Psalm 22 from that phrase. Not to descent from it.
@@kynesilagan2676 exactly! Jesus is showing us how to pray when we are at the very end of our rope. Ehrman has a Great Courses lecture series on the New Testament. He uses the same quote at the end of the series, again without mentioning the line is the first words of the Psalm. I don't know if he uses it cynically as a sort of coup de grace against faith or if he really thinks his interpetation of the words is the correct one. If the latter, he seems to me to be a little simple.
@@huh451 that statement alone refutes the doctrine of trinity and I don't know how lost can one be to still insist on ascribing divinity to Jesus despite him clearly calling for help. A God won't ask himself for help unless that God is not a true God. How contradictory and ridiculous the doctrine of trinity is. And yet you still cling on it as if it's something divine!
Love this!! I especially love how calm Bart is comparably with other debates he has been in. I believe the opening to his closing statement accurately conveys why this is. My take is that it's a Catholic context and in this respect he literally: felt the love!! Most importantly, this was less a debate than a dialogue. A genuine exchange without the intuitive undercurrents of reactionary overtones typically expressed as subtle jabs at Bart's character/identity. Lastly, loved the hug at the end!! Grateful to be a budding Catholic (I'll be 1yr old this Easter - 2022)
I respectfully disagree. I think we are so use to the vicious attacks on the internet, that we do not know what a good debate is like. One should be able to decide not based totally on emotion.
First rebuttal: Bart presents in a style that would be recognized in any Protestant church: Dynamic vocals - from a soft whisper with small body language to near shouts and wide gesticulations. I may have to rewatch because it's giving me Evangelical flashbacks. But he didn't seem to *directly* address any of Jimmy's points. He just attempted to sow further doubt. Jimmy Brings the focus back to "Major/Intermediate/Minor" issues Shows further preparation with an unexpected web page for the audience to explore later. Offers explanation of ancient writing practices by using further points Bart agrees with. Uses StarTrek as an analogy. 1 bonus Geek Point. Using an analogy makes the point "sticky" for the audience and is a powerful technique.
Interesting debate. As a practicing Catholic myself, I have no problem with any main point that I heard professor Ehrman say about the gospels and his point of view seems very similar to (mentioned) Fr Raymond Brown who was the head of the Pontifical Bibical Commission for a number of years and recognized by Pope John Paul II. So I hope Catholics can approach this topic with an open mind and without fear.
This critical thinking approach to the New Testament, which has needed to be done for 1800 years, is taught in Jesuit Schools and also by Irish New Testament Scholar John Dominic Crossan. Get beyond Tribalism and let's aim for what's true and real.
You had no problem with faulty arguments from silence? False dichotomies? Fundamentalist protestant mentality used as a reference toward catholic belief system? Thats too bad. Otherwise you would have not stopped cringing while listening to bart's opening statement .
@@mike-cc3dd How about Deceptive Information and Bad Theologies by Catholic Magisterium which has and does happen. Bart took the Context of Scripture into view which disqualifies him as a fundamentalist. Speculation vs. Assessing LIkelihood at a given time has informed assessment winning. The search for Biblical Truth has a value but in the end it all comes down to how it's applied apart from the paper.
Listening to Shelby Foote talk about writing his narrative of the Civil War helped me understand the gospels. Sometimes, a narrative can give you a more accurate feel for the characters and events than a hyper accurate and specific recording.
but jimmy didnt regard gospel as innerant only got the gist as he agree with bart in qa session, and he not on scholars consensus side which agree that earliest gospel didnt have jesus said he was god its a development and john have a lot of different story and preach taht not overlap in synoptic so john have a different stuff here that historically innacurate
@@Deto4508 so ep sanders and many scholars agree taht the gospel of john this vast big saying of jesus is god is made up because none of them overlap in synoptic and we see gospel change a lot of stuff th earliest gospel didnt say he was god if jesus really said he is yahweh like in john no way the earliest gospel didnt say that
@@monotheist.. If I’m not mistaken, there’s no mention of Jesus saying He is Yahweh in the current gospel of John . But throughout the whole NT, there is a clear distinction being made from Jesus as He is not like any other king or prophet or angel and that He is off The Father. There’s bigger hints some places than others but from the whole NT, I think it’s plausible to say even the Apostles, from their writings, didn’t fully know who Jesus was like, like we do today and The Church that Jesus established helps us understand more of who He is and His relation to The Father.
Very compelling debate. Both made me think and even Ehrman in trying to disprove the reliability of the scriptures, just by repeating the scriptures, filled my heart and built my faith! Thank you.
Also LOL, Bart is simply wrong about Jesus telling the disciples not to leave Jerusalem THE DAY OF THE RESURRECTION...Luke just says v36 As they were talking about these things... It doesn't say it was the same day. I'm sure the disciples talked about the events of the resurrection a ton in the 40 days from rising to ascending.
note also that Christ Himself "led them out" of Jerusalem to Bethany (v. 50) after allegedly forbidding them to leave Jerusalem (v. 49) typical "Spock moment" by skeptics
I’m a huge Bart Ehrman fan and an atheist/skeptic myself, but with Jimmy admitting that The Bible isn’t inerrant, it makes Bart’s job much harder to defend than against someone like an evangelist who thinks it’s inerrant. I thought it was a great debate and Jimmy was very thought-provoking, but even if the gospels were 100% reliable, it’s still not proof of a supernatural to me. I enjoyed the debate though. Jimmy made some good points, and I’ve seen Bart debate many times before so I already knew what to expect from him.
Whether or not the miraculous happened is a matter of faith, but it's likely that the Gospel writers did in fact record what they saw and they did not intend to deceive anyone with what they wrote down.
Jimmy did a great job of surprising his opponent with the approach he took. Bart seemed confused and like he didn't know what hit him . 😳 Thank God we have smart brothers Ike him in our Church. 🙏
@@hanskung3278 Bart answers with scripture. Jimmy answers with Star Trek references. Jimmy even goes as far to mock a Catholic scholar who Bart is quoting from.
With Ehrmans approach, all ancient history is mute. I find it strange how all of history, including the Early Church fathers, all agree on the authorship of the Gospels, but somehow 2,000 years later that just is unimportant.
Incorrect, for example the Alogi said Cerinthus wrote the 4th Gospel and the earliest fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement said nothing about Gospel authorship. Which makes sense since the Apostle John was illiterate according to Acts (4:13) and so were all 12 according to The First Apology of Judtin Martyr, Chapter 39. Likewise most of Matthew is copied from Mark so it's not written by an eyewitness either.
@@tomasrocha6139 Hey man, a couple additions to your comment: 1) For John’s gospel, it’s actually likely a group write the Gospel, John the apostle was the primary source, so got the title. It’s more nuanced, but it seems commonly accepted. :) 2) On Matthew copying Mark, there is also quite a few unique Matthew elements not in Mark, so it seems more like the scribe copied Mark where the group agreed on the passage, and moved on to others. This makes sense of all the facts simply, for the claim of having no eyewitnesses would not explain why we have unique eyewitness material. :)
They didn't get formally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until Iranaeus in the late second century. Until they point they were all referenced by other names, not related to a specific person.
@@hello21467 Ok, what other names are you speaking of? :) Let's go through and crack this code since, from what I know of said early attributions, it isn't anything contradictory (outside of later contestations, such as which John mainly wrote John).
Jimmy did a good job here. I am a protestant but I'm glad to see many modern Catholics now participating in apologetics. I think as Christians of different traditions we can at least unite on the shared belief in defending the Christian faith. Jimmy won this because from the onset he wasn't debating inerrancy but reliability and bart kept trying to make it about inerrancy.
If it is the word of God and is not inerrant in everyway how can it be reliably called the word of God. Any less than that, just points to how human the book is.
@@readmore4178 that's a loaded question if i ever heard one. So in order to be Christian, you have to be catholic? Didn't Jesus say to repent and believe and you shall be saved?
@@rafaelrodriguez648 You're confusing reliability with inerrancy. Those two are not the same thing. Second, I do believe the bible is inerrant. It is inerrant in the message it teaches from beginning to end and is perfectly consistent in what it teaches.
I've heard it mentioned somewhere else that Bart refers to himself as a historian but that he is actually not a trained historian but rather his focus is textual criticism.
Cordial ecumenical debate; well done to all involved. However, a better debate, one that would address Mr Ehrman’s particular view of New Testament reliability, indeed veracity, would necessarily be with Gary Habermas, who developed the minimal facts argument.
Not a Christian (yet), but I wanted to add that when it comes to Jesus referencing a psalm it seems very reasonable to me that he would be referencing it in full context. Don't we still see this today where quotes from TV shows, movies or books carry more content and meaning than the literal words alone? If a man were to say, "my name is Maximus Decimus Meridius", he might say no more and yet clearly mean that he will not rest until he has his "vengeance, in this life or the next". The more knowledgeable a person is about a book or film, the more fleshed out their use of a reference might be. I might quote "I drink your milkshake" in a literal sense when drinking a bit of someone else's milkshake because I know that's a famous quote but I don't know what it's from, but a big cinema buff might use it to refer to a business deal where we've stolen a major client from under a competitor's feet. Or, I just looked up a list of famous film quotes which could illustrate the point: "We're not in Kansas anymore", "Rosebud" or "I'm the king of the world." That last one could be an illustration of the inverse. Say society collapsed and a wise man were crucified in the chaos. Perhaps he has a sense of humour and decides to quote Titanic because his crucified pose resembles Leonardo di Caprio at the bow of the ship. It may clearly be sarcastic because he isn't actually the king of the world. But if his works survive 1000 years and testimony of his final words exists, then all that context might be lost.
Bart: Jesus din't say those words in Mark! For real? Just have a look: Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”Mk 14:62; “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” -But note he said "I am"
The messiah was never equated with God by 1st century Jews. Also, I am waa a common way of answering those particular yes or no styled questions. When Jewish leaders ask the blind man healed by Jesus, if he is that man, he uses the same verbiage I am. Did he claim to be God?
Erhman is fundamentally mistaken that the Gospels are anonymous. We know that Polycarp spoke with the apostles and he still exclusively quoted from our current new testament. He knew the Gospels were written by the apostles. Also we know that Matthew wrote his first Gospel in Aramaic not Greek, so no it wasn't written in another language.
You have any evidence that Polycarp, a man who was born around 70 years after Jesus, met any of the apostles except the writing of people born around a hundred years after polycarp like tertullian or the 4th century Jerome who said John had made Polycarp a bishop?
Barts initial laugh is very odd. Practically shaking… then I see him get pulverized. I feel for him. Praying he can just let go. There’s really no point in trying so hard for so many years to disprove what really shouldn’t matter to him all. He probably believes deep inside but some Christian most likely hurt him before. See dr. Hugh Ross content, he can explain better. Anyway God Bless you and be well family ✌🏽🙏🏽❤️🔥. After listening to Dr Barts concluding statement, he stated an amazing fact about changes in states of being dealing with now and then contextually. Very well put and thought out. He’s very bright. God is working on him. And I have faith he’ll pull through in the end.
Overall Akin did a good job, but he stumbled on a key point. When Bart brought-up the alleged contradiction of Joseph living in both Bethlehem and Galilee, Akin kinda stumbled in his response. In another video I remember see Akin address this same point much more effectively. In that other video Akin said that it was likely that Joseph had a family residence and a work residence. It's like a modern day construction contractor who has a regular family home and a small apartment / dormitory for where the construction site is located. That's a good way to address this alleged contradiction and I'm surprised Akin didn't defend it in that way this time around since I've seen him defend it in this kind of way before.
He did say in another RU-vid video that he didn’t have time during the debate to address it. But referred to an article where he explained that and where he also explains other points.
I believe the Gospels and Acts were written before 70AD, primarily because none of the writers seem aware of the most cataclysmic event for Jews of the first century, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. And Luke in Acts, isn't aware of how Paul and Peter's time in Rome ends, with their deaths during Nero's persecutions, about 64AD. If Luke were writing after that time, wouldn't he have included their deaths as being Acts of the Apostles? And if Luke wrote Acts before 64AD, then that means both Mark and Luke, at minimum, would have been written before 64AD. And since Matthew and John also didn't know about the destruction of the Temple, so that would have placed them before 70AD.
@@UrsaringKrusherX Just for being as veiled as he was about it, it still got him crucified. Most of the Apostles, for preaching that Jesus is the Son of God, were persecuted and killed. There was no 1st Amendment right to free speech back then, and of course the Jews (and we) have a commandment saying that there is only one God.
@@Davcramer you miss my point. You're implying that the exclusion of an important event gives credibility to the timeframe of the bible, but at the same time the exclusion of Jesus' explicit mention that he was God, which the message of his divinity is of utmost importance and the key message of the gospel (according to protestants), doesn't disprove his divinity. You're applying a double standard. With regards to his apostles martyrdom, there's hardly any actual documentation or evidence, much less the reasoning. Execution was rampant at the time and people were executed for all sorts of reasons. In fact, Sean McDowell concluded only 5 of the apostle's were more probable to have been martyred than not. Unless there are explicit official documentation of the execution and the reasoning, the martyrdom can only constitute speculation at best.
@@UrsaringKrusherX Catholics have understood from the 1st and early 2nd century that James was beheaded by Herod (as recorded in Acts), Paul was beheaded by Nero, and Peter crucified upside down by Nero. Now I suppose you think we should have some sort of arrest warrant, conviction, and death certificate proving that this was what happed? Is that the official documentation you expect we could find? The New Testament strongly implies that Jesus is the Son of God and some references that he participated in creation. But Christians don't require him to spell out everything in bold black and white. That might be necessary for you to believe, but our standards aren't as stringent as yours. You may think that's stupid on our part, but your opinion isn't binding on us.
At 38:24 Jimmy said "But, we are not here to debate faith tonight. At Bart says, we are looking at the gospels from a historical perspective and what a historian can make of them." later at 1:41:04 Dr Ehrman and Jimmy have the following exchange "E: I thought you started out your talk saying that you weren't going to be talking, that nothing you say is based on a statement of faith. J: I didn't say that . I'm looking at it from both perspectives..." I think Jimmy should have conceded that point to Dr Ehrman.
I find the passage in Mark about seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven convincing evidence that Jesus claimed divinity. Ehrman's claim is that Jesus wasn't referring to himself. But then why do they want to kill JESUS for a claim he made about someone else? They asked JESUS about what he thought about himself. And his reply was that they would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, and then they think Jesus has condemned himself as worthy of death due to blasphemy. It makes not sense if they thought he was referring to someone else.
Bart ends on “the message has to change in order to accommodate what we(secular culture) believes now.” Isn’t the whole point of Religion to subject what we believe now to eternal truth? If religion is constantly changing what it claims in order to accommodate what secular culture says, then why not just discard religion and be a secular humanist? I think Bart is tipping his hand that his objections to the faith might not be entirely historical and evidentiary.
I will presume that Bart thhinks that least the central messages were said by Jesus. And if that is the case all that was adjusted to the audience were the surrounding stories in which the messages were build into.
You are absolutely correct. Barts objections to his faith are not entirely historical and evidentiary. He freely admits that. He has told his deconversion story many many many time in lectures, debates, and his writings. Many times. However, the reasons for his lack of belief do nothing to disprove the facts he presented that prove the bible is not historically accurate. That was what he did in this debate. That is what he has done in his numerous lectures, debates and writings. As a catholic, I can be honest and say that the bible is not historically accurate without it affecting my faith. The evidence and facts are there. Bart presented some of that evidence and facts tonight. His lack of faith, for reasons other than the accuracy of the bible have no bearing on the facts and evidence. It disheartens me that so many of my fellow catholics, like many of those who have posted, choose to ignore facts and evidence. It shows that your faith is fragile and I pray that you will learn to accept facts and evidence that point to the truth. You do it in other aspects of your life. Right? Why ignore facts and evidence when it comes to your faith as well? Don't we call it it faith afterall? The truth is, the bible is not accurate or reliable. There is nothing wrong with that. It does nothing to falsify the truth that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Bart lost his faith because of the problems he found with the christian God's mercy. I found my faith because of God's mercy. But that has zero bearing on the accuracy or reliability of the bible. I urge you to listen to his evidence and don't be afraid to accept it. It should have no impact on your faith.
@@outtatrue3733 Don’t deceive yourself. You are not a Catholic. Like “Pope” Francis, you are no part of the actual Catholic Church. Actual Catholics embrace the actual Catholic religion, of which belief in Holy Scripture is an essential part. See Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus encyclical.
During Bart’s cross-examination of Jimmy, Jimmy displayed one of the most demonstrable examples of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. Jimmy literally made things up to reconcile the gospel accounts. He demonstrated exactly what Bart warned about in his rebuttal about combining the accounts to reconcile differences/contradictions and thereby missing/ignoring the respective message that each Gospel writer intended to convey. I get it now, Bart. Thank you.
• one thing that became increasingly annoying was that neither had a copy of the Gospels at hand. @1:25:48 if you just read the text neither would have to rely memory. Also, • Bart really struggled with inductive and deductive logic at so many points during the debate. Just because Mark didn't record Jesus saying something while carrying the cross or while on the cross, does not mean Jesus was silent. That is not how logic works. Put another way, 'not recording that Jesus spoke' is not the same thing as recording 'Jesus was silent.' Barts equates the two but that is a logical fallacy of a sophomoric nature. • Bart's recollection of what Mark writes about Easter Sunday is just wrong. Go read it. MARK Ch. 16 1 When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him. 2 Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll back the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” 4 When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large. 5 On entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white robe, and they were utterly amazed. 6 He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him. 7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’” 8 Then they went out and fled from the tomb, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (This is where Bart stops and this is what he uses to indicate the women said nothing which Bart points is unreliable because of what Luke says, but~~ why stop here? When....) 9 When he had risen, early on ****the first day of the week***** (my emphasis), he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and ****told***** (my emphasis) his companions who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe. 12 g After this he appeared in another form to two of them walking along on their way to the country. 13 They returned and told the others; but they did not believe them either. 14 [But] later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. - - - - And just in case you were wondering if the women Mark mentions who were silent might be different women than the women Luke mentions who weren't silent: LUKE Ch. 24 1 But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb; 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were puzzling over this, behold, two men in dazzling garments appeared to them. 5 They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living one among the dead? 6 He is not here, but he has been raised.* Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners and be crucified, and rise on the third day.” 8 And they remembered his words. 9 Then they returned from the tomb and announced all these things to the eleven and to all the others. 10 The women were *******Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James****** (my emphasis); the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles,
Really? He isnt showing any reason why the gospels are realiable. He is simply wiggling around the definition of "reliable". You dont need a time machine to corraborate a document, just compare it to other documents which talk about the same subject. The more documents corraborate withe eachother, the more reliable they are.
Using *63* points your opponent agrees with to support your opening statement - that's smart. Researching so well you rebut your opponent's opening statement *in your opening* - that's brilliant.
Being able to convince your supporters by wiggling around a definition without showing any evidence to your point is a smart move on a dumb fanatical supporters who would agree even on the sound of your farting.
Although the gospels are much more than history books, Jimmy nailed it and proved that they are historical books in this debate, starting with his opening statement. Apart from being historical books, the gospels have instrumented or helped millions of people throughout history to change their lives, including the saints. I love Jimmy and his knowledge of almost every subject, apart from his vast knowledge of Christianity, which had helped tens of thousands of followers and newcomers of the CA. Thank God.
I think it is Steve Ray, in one of his talks, who tells who the authors were writing to. The how and the why the Gospel writers wrote how they did and what the writers were trying to get across to their audience. Unfortunately , Mr. Bart hasn't fully researched this. Also, he is unfamiliar with ancient Jewish customs and behaviors, which Dr. Brant Pitre and Steve Ray are experts on.
Why can't our universities hire someone like Jimmy Akin? Why always people like Bart Ehrman? Personally, I thought Bart pretty well got owned in this debate.
Bart is a great scholar. I had never heard of Jimmy and I thought he was a cowboy who who be torn apart by Bart. I am Catholic so I was elated to watch the clear victory of Jimmy. It was the first loss of Bart I have ever seen and I have seen many of Bart’s debates. Well done Jimmy. You are the master and I was proud to see such a fine Catholic scholar & apologist. Well done.
@@vejeke Jesus calls Himself the "Son of Man" (a title of divinity in ancient Judaism because of the prophecy of Daniel) in all the Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. They even stoned Him for "blasphemy" when He said this according to Mark's account. Claiming "Jesus didn't claim to be God in Mark" is absurd.
As far as memory goes, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will help them to remember. That doesn't mean that all the accounts have to be exactly matching.
Bart: Luke says he appeared only in Jerusalem. Jimmy: Luke does not say he ONLY appeared in Jerusalem. Bart: Oh yes it does. You all look it up. Well, I looked it up. He does NOT say Jesus only appeared in Jerusalem.
@@torreyintahoe That's not what he said. Even to this day, the poorest of people leave their home for employment while still having a home in their native land.
@@StringofPearls55 It's a glaring contradiction. It's one of many that Christians try to ignore or explain away. It's one of many facts that demonstrate that the gospels are fiction and were manufactured by people who never knew christ long after he died .
I was really impressed with Bart here. While I disagree with him, he's very sharp and articulate. I appreciated the respect he showed as well. Something as simple as him bowing his head during the closing prayer speaks to this. Good debate, gentlemen.
Bart bowing his head was just an empty gesture because he prefers the approval of man..There's no reason to respect someone who denies GOD and tries to get others to deny GOD as well..
@@whitevortex8323 that's my point my friend...The only reason he's listening is because he wants to call Scripture a lie , hoping he can get folks to believe him..Hes the definition of evil..Tjose who deny CHRIST rose from the dead are of the antichrist spirit according to Scripture and unlike him I believe Scripture is true and reliable..
Jesus did talk about who he was in the other Gospels and letters many times : 2018 Jesus Christ, divinity of The equality and identity of Jesus Christ as God is clearly stated in the NT, and is also implied by the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. The OT prophecies also point to the divinity of the coming Messiah. The NT writers affirm Jesus Christ’s divinity Heb 1:8 See also Ps 45:6; Jn 1:1-2,18; Ro 9:5 NIV footnote has alternative translations: “Christ who is over all. God be for ever praised!” Or: “Christ. God who is over all be for ever praised!”; Php 2:6; Tit 2:13; 2Pe 1:1 Statements which imply Jesus Christ’s divinity Mt 1:23 See also Isa 7:14; Lk 1:35; Col 1:15; 2:2,9; 1Ti 1:17; 1Jn 5:20 Jesus Christ’s unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead Mt 28:19 See also Jn 14:16; 2Co 13:14; Eph 1:13-14; 2:18,22; 3:14-17; 4:4-6 Jesus Christ’s eternal nature indicates his divinity Jesus Christ precedes creation Col 1:17 See also Mic 5:2; Jn 17:5,24; 2Ti 1:9; 1Pe 1:20; 1Jn 1:1; 2:13 Jesus Christ is everlasting Jn 8:58 See also Heb 1:12; Ps 102:27; Heb 7:3,24; 13:8; Rev 1:8; 5:13; 22:13 Jesus Christ’s pre-existence indicates his divinity Jn 6:62 See also Jn 3:13,31; 6:41-42; 13:3; 16:28 Jesus Christ’s manifestation of God’s glory indicates his divinity Heb 1:3 See also Mt 17:2 pp Mk 9:2-3 pp Lk 9:29; Jn 1:14; 1Co 2:8; 2Co 4:4; Jas 2:1 Jesus Christ’s divinity in the OT The divinity of the coming Messiah Isa 9:6; 40:3; Jer 23:6; Mal 3:1 NT passages which apply OT passages about God to Jesus Christ Ro 10:13 See also Joel 2:32; Jn 12:40-41; Isa 6:10; Ro 9:33; Isa 8:14; Eph 4:8; Ps 68:18 Jesus Christ’s claims to divinity He claimed to be one with the Father Jn 5:17-18 See also Jn 10:30-33,36-38; 12:45; 14:7,9-11; 17:11,21 He demonstrated his authority to forgive sin Lk 5:20-24 pp Mt 9:2-6 pp Mk 2:5-10 See also Lk 7:47-48 Jesus Christ’s actions imply his divinity Mt 8:26-27 pp Mk 4:39-41 pp Lk 8:24-25 See also Mt 12:8 pp Mk 2:28 pp Lk 6:5; Lk 8:39 pp Mk 5:19-20 Jesus Christ’s resurrection confirms his divinity Ac 2:36 See also Ro 1:4; Php 2:9-11 Jesus Christ’s names and titles point to his divinity Jesus Christ as judge Jn 5:27 In the OT, final responsibility for judgment is assigned to God. See also Mt 25:31-33; Mk 8:38 pp Mt 16:27 pp Lk 9:26; Ac 17:31; Ro 2:16; 2Co 5:10 Jesus Christ as “I am” Jn 11:25 “I am” is the meaning of God’s name in the OT (see Ex 3:14). See also Jn 6:35; 8:12; 10:7,11; 14:6; 15:1; 18:5-6 Jesus Christ as Saviour Ac 5:31 According to the OT, God alone can save. See also Ac 4:12; Eph 5:23; Heb 7:25 Jesus Christ as Lord Ro 10:9 “Lord” was equivalent to God’s name in the OT. See also Lk 1:43; 2:11; Jn 13:13; 1Co 12:3; 2Co 4:5; Rev 19:16 Jesus Christ as creator Col 1:16 See also Jn 1:3,10; Ac 3:15; Ro 11:36; 1Co 8:6; Heb 1:2,10; Ps 102:25 Jesus Christ as shepherd Heb 13:20 “Shepherd” was a well-known OT name for God. See also Jn 10:11-16; 1Pe 2:25; 5:4 Those who recognised Jesus Christ’s divinity The disciples Jn 20:28 See also Mt 16:16 pp Mk 8:29 pp Lk 9:20 The demons Mk 3:11; Lk 4:41 pp Mk 1:34 The consequences of recognizing Jesus Christ’s divinity Jesus Christ is worshipped as God Lk 24:52 The fact that no-one but God may be worshipped is fundamental to Judaism. See also Mt 2:11; 28:9,17; Jn 9:38; 2Ti 4:18; 2Pe 3:18; Rev 1:5-6; 5:12-13; 7:10
The two-houses hypothesis seems an unnecessary leap and overcomplication. It seems much simpler and more plausible to think that Joseph went to live with extended family who lived in the area of Bethlehem.
I think that could be the same thing -- Joseph had a little house of his own in Nazareth so he was near work (and Mary), and the family home in Bethlehem was his for being related to the home-owners. That would work.
Can we just have both of these brilliant scholars sitting around a table smoking cigars and drinking brandy just talking for hours about the discrepancies and contradictions? I find it more fascinating and effective at hearing their position doing this then having a formal debate.
@@slik_sean6346 First and last what ? What's the context talking about ? We can say adam is first and last since he was only one created directly by dust and last one since eve was created by Adams rib But that doesnt make adam almighty God
It only SEEMS like Ehrman lost, because Ehrman unfortunately concedes WAY too much than he should, because he grew up in a time where scholars just naturally accepted what was written, but today we realize it’s actually mythology. So Ehrman is stuck in the past, and therefore it gives theists room to seemingly debunk him and then beat their chests.
Ehrman claims that the Gospels need to be taken separately and that the uniqueness of each Gospel proves they cannot all be true because they are irreconcilable. Yet, Ehrman's own argument - that the Jesus presented in Mark is a Jesus who had lost all hope by the time he was crucified because of Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, my God why have you abandoned me?" - is irreconcilable with other parts of Mark's Gospel. The Jesus of Mark, Ehrman claims, was silent through his trial because he did not comprehend what was happening to him and had begun to lose hope because he did not expect that he would be put on trial and executed. How does Ehrman reconcile with that notion that the Jesus in Mark prophesied three times his death and resurrection? Mark 8:31 Mark 9:30 Mark 10:32 It would seem Jesus was fully aware of his impending death, and resurrection. This awareness on the part of Jesus is more consistent with reading Jesus' dying words in light of Psalm 22 which ends with the whole earth and all the families of nations coming back to God. Hardly the words of a despairing man. Clearly, Jesus was fully aware of his fate and accepted it as the act that would reconcile all humanity to God. There are alternate ways of reading Jesus' silence before the Sanhedrin in Mark than Ehrman's dogmatic separation and parsing of the Gospel narratives.
So much of what Ehrman argued about is found in the Church Fathers and reconciled by them. It’s not that he had bad objections. Again, it’s just that much of what he questioned has already been answered.
Augustine wrote a whole book on his mistakes or misunderstandings. Retractions (Retractationes). So I would not argue the Fathers are without error. They do show integrity in self correcting and correcting each other.
@YAJUN YUAN I like this. I think if a person is holding to Peter being the Rock you need to have a “both and” approach. Was Christ not the Rock that Israel drank from when wandering the desert. So yes, good citation of Augustine. Again I hold to both but remaining Christ-centric is a priority.
@1:20:00 ... regarding the genealogy of Jesus .... bart is really really lost... his refutation has been answered by jimmy to the point that he no longer wants to stay on that topic but rather move on...
BART brought up excellent points, but Jimmy “creamed him” with reasonable and reliable assumptions and logic. Loved the very appropriate tardis and Star Trek references.
I am coming from the opposite camp being very familiar with Jimmy's work but having not listened to Bart. I would echo your statement of enjoying Bart and find he has some good points.
When Jesus cried out from the cross, " Eloi Eloi lama Sabacthani" (in Aramaic it meant "My God, My God, why have you abandoned me") he was referring to Psalms 22 written 1000 years before him). It was common practice among Rabbis to quote a sentence to refer to an entire passage from the Torah or the Ketuvim ( Psalms and other poetic books). Jesus was alluding to the psalmic prophecy of the suffering Messiah being fulfilled in him. What is striking in these verses is the prophecy about a person (Messiah): 1) Verse 13 and 17: surrounded by evil doers 2) Verse 8: jeered and ridiculed by the ones who have surrounded him 3) Verse 9 : taunted and challenged by tormentors that let God save the victim because he put faith in God 4) Verse 15: whose life is ebbing away from him 5) Verse 17: whose hands and feet have been pierced during the torment 6)Verse 18: whose body has been subjugated to extreme punishment 7) verse 16: who is extremely thirsty from the torment he is subjugated to 8) Verse 19: for whose garments the tormentors are casting lots. The Gospels clearly depict the torture, Crucifixion, and the ridicule Jesus had to undergo before his death on the cross, which fulfill the prophecies accurately. Psalm 22: 1-19: For the leader; according to “The deer of the dawn.” A Psalm of David. 2My God My God why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish? 3 My God, I call by day, but you do not answer; by night, but I have no relief. 4 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the glory of Israel. 5 In you our fathers trusted; they trusted and you rescued them. 6 To you they cried out and they escaped; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. 7 But I am a worm, not a man, scorned by men, despised by the people. 8 All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer; they shake their heads at me: 9 “He relied on the LORD-let him deliver him; if he loves him, let him rescue him.” 10 For you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother’s breasts. 11 Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since my mother bore me you are my God. 12 Do not stay far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help. 13Many bulls surround me; fierce bulls of Bashan encircle me. 14 They open their mouths against me, lions that rend and roar. 15 Like water my life drains away; all my bones are disjointed. My heart has become like wax, it melts away within me. 16 As dry as a potsherd is my throat; my tongue cleaves to my palate; you lay me in the dust of death. 17 Dogs surround me; a pack of evildoers closes in on me.They have pierced my hands and my feet 18 I can count all my bones. They stare at me and gloat; 19 they divide my garments among them; for my clothing they cast lots.
Jesus’ words in the gospel of Matthew, prefigured in Psalm 22, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” are beautifully explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church article 603: Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".
I think....it is Dr. Brant Pitre that has a talk out (sort of new) about Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. In ancient Jewish times, genealogy was very important and a lot of attention was paid to it. Joseph (and Mary) came from the line of King David. The true line of kings had been in a sort of exile, but it would have come down to Jesus. Jesus is the King of heaven and the true King of earth. Before the birth of Jesus and even when Jesus was a child, It was Joseph who was in line to be King. Joseph knew this. And the Word was out among the people that the arrival of a new king would be taking place, Herrod was not happy and was having people killed and especially after the slaughter of the innocents, when the angel said it was safe to return, they chose Nazareth. Joseph knew that he had to be careful and not draw any suspicions. Nazareth was a very poor little town and out of the way.
Why can't it be the case that someone's "home" is always wherever one has family? During that era, and for that class, I would imagine that would be the case.
That’s an interesting thought. I know when I was in college, I would always refer to my childhood town as ‘home.’ While I ended up moving to my college time after graduation, my friends and family know when I refer to “heading home” I’m referring to my childhood town. And Jimmy does raise a point that it could be family property. People still have property and areas that ‘belong’ to the family, so it would make sense that Joseph had ties to both areas but preferred one location.
How about the authors had THEIR OWN ideas about the story. These are stories. They have beginnings, middles, and endings. None of the authors were eye witnesses and they used each other as sources. Even the Catholic encyclopedia states this.
@@dustinellerbe4125 That isn't necessarily the case for John. And it isn't necessarily the case that the Gospels weren't orated by a first hand account.
@@brendansheehan6180 more than likely, these were not orated by anyone who had been a witness. These are occasional documents for Jesus groups. They are theological in nature, and fall under a literature category. The johanine group wrote in the late 90s. That's 60+ years after the supposed crucifixion. The life span of most Judeans was less than 40 years. Those who would have been alive with Jesus would've been in their 80s or 90s
The guy debating with Jimmy forgets the disciple were enlighted by the Holy Spirit, that even Virgin Mary gave testimony of what happened during the crucifixion. Man kind does not have enough enlightenment to understand his ways, nor we are allowed to refuse his designs and commands…
Ehrman was best when he was humble, which wasn’t often. Jimmy was best when he was logical, which was throughout. I would prefer a different format for this debate topic, as this format severely limited what could be covered and frankly gave the edge to Bart because he introduced many topics which would require much length to be dedicated to each issue. However, that being said, Jimmy was much more clear and direct in his approach and consistency to arguing the topic of reliability. Jimmy won. But the truly odd part of the debate was Bart’s closing statement regarding his desire that the Gospel needs to conform to man, not man to the Gospel, which really shed light on his bias.
Ehrman repeatedly misrepresents the Gospel of Mark by saying Jesus is forsaken and distraught at the cross. Ehrman suspiciously left out how even in Mark, before His death, Jesus told His disciples He would be crucified in Jerusalem and raised again the third day. Dishonorable. Deceptive. Manipulative. I would not have clapped for Ehrman’s performance, it was in service to the devil.
@@everlightministries What were Jesus' last words? That is the issue, and the answer is that we don't know what Jesus' last words were, and that's because we have 2 Gospels that give starkly different accounts of what Jesus' last words were. That is why Prof Ehrman said that the Gospels are not a reliable source of historical info on precisely what Jesus said and did. Now if you like, tell me more about how the Devil is behind all this.
@@joeoleary9010 A contradiction only exists when multiple records say different things happened that are impossible to reconcile. And since it’s easy to see how Jesus could have said all those seven statements, a gospel record mentioning only one (or different ones instead of all seven) does not show contradiction, or make them unreliable.
@@everlightministries That's a fundamentalist interpretation of the NT -- that every single word of each 4 Gospels is a precisely correct record of what Jesus said and did, even when there are stark contradictions in what each Gospel says, bit nevertheless, we can mash them all together to get a big and wholly accurate picture of Jesus's words and deeds. I don't find that an acceptable way to historically interpret the NT. That kind of methodology is equal to saying that everything written in the ancient world has an equal historical value and all of it must be believed as fact.
The point is that not all the witnesess saw and wrote same detailed events of the story, some other writers tells almost complete story, BUT AT THE BOTTOM LINE THEY ARE BOTH TALKING SAME EVENTS AND HISTORY with their own view and perspective.... meaning HISTORY was happened because writers saw it and record it.....😅
Jesus’ words in the gospel of Matthew, prefigured in Psalm 22, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” are beautifully explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church article 603: Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".
I understand in Catholicism, these documents are held in high regard, but I question why. The article you reference seems to be a post hoc rationalization, it doesn’t seem to have any evidence to justify that conclusion
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j I'm surprised it doesn't mention that he is quoting Psalm 23 much as one may call a poem to memory by speaking the first line. his persecutors know this Psalm by heart and it prophesied the crucifixion.
Kudos Jimmy Akin! Several commented on the amicability of the debate, and that’s fine - I understand that perspective. However, when it come to defending the tenets of Christianity, I wouldn’t mind an aggressive approach at all. Have you listened to some of the atheist debaters? They are very aggressive. Nothing wrong when Christians “earnestly contend for the faith.”
Yeah Christians are victims. There are no more angry people then religious people, especially Christians. There is no question that the new testament is completely unreliable and untrue.
