I have (what is probably) a dumb question: If Joseph had a home in Bethlehem already, why were they looking for a room at an inn for Mary to give birth? (Lk. 2:7)
I believe Ehrman says, in a lecture video, that the Old Testament is included by the Christians because it makes Christianity more convincing, looks "older" and has more weight. Back then I just listened to it, but now I laugh at it that he actually says that because it makes me think he doesn't know in-depth about Christianity or Christian theology after all. We include the Old Testament because Christianity is the fulfillment of the Scripture, where the prophets and writers prophesied about Christ. "Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures," (Luke 24: 44-45)
I want to make sense somehow though, of “the law, prophets and psalms” that Christ would open their minds to…would seem to be Greek, and not the authoritative text they would expect; just as now, it’s not enough to go to popular translations, people ask when doing exegesis what the koine and Hebrew says. It seems really odd to say that the NT works WERE referencing the Hebrew, but in the case of Gospels were depending, translated to Greek, for readers/hearers sake, given the actual language of the text as received is authoritative, especially pertaining to the Law. But they diverge in many well known ways from the Hebrew text (it does not matter in this sense that the Greek translations appealed to were by Jews), even as they appear in most Catholic bibles; just flip back and look, that many fulfilled verses aren’t fulfilling what the Hebrew says, so what Christ would have fulfilled would be different from what the Greek translations as Gospels SAY he fulfilled, and those fulfillments would seem to be lost.
@@NGAOPC Hi, can you point to some concrete examples of the divergences you are talking about? The Jews (certainly in the Middle Ages, perhaps today) would be shouting from the rooftops if there was some big discrepancy between the 3rd-Century Masoretic and the LXX (which was not translated by Christians, of course).
@@tiagorodrigues3730 sure; Hebrews 10:5; the MT reads in translation “you have opened my ears”, the Greek Translation used for the psalms quoted by the author of Hebrews reads “a body you have prepared for me.” The Gospels and Epistles *typically* follows Greek translations. The New Testament typically does not quote what came to be “the” MT (also a text tradition, which only since printing became most uniform), not all divergences are significant (or inexplicable within modes of Jewish writing and citing at the time), but some are. Many listings online of divergences between the MT and the Greek translations that came (out of convenience), to be called “the” Septuagint. Also the Jews in debates in the Medieval era did point out these divergences. Too much CAN be made of them (and was, especially in the Medieval era when Jewish Greek translations were on the main not considered by Jewish disputants to have been “Jewish”). Daniel J. Lasker, a modern scholar of the Medieval debates (and most often appealed to by Rabbinically-based critics of Catholicism for the period, particularly by Orthodox Jewish anti-[Messianic Protestant] missionaries of the 90s and early ‘00s), has come more recently to a new view of the meaning of the debates, which Catholics and their current Jewish interlocutors should be more informed of; “Jewish Critique of Christianity: In Search of a New Narrative”, available online on the Boston College SCJR journal site.
@@NGAOPC Thanks for the resources; I'll study them with more care. That being said, Hebrews is a later book, and probably not written by St Paul; it's likely that the author of Hebrews was a Greek-speaking Jew converted to Christianity who in fact only knew the LXX text, not the Hebrew one. Thus he may have taken a relatively flawed translation, which might weaken the purpose of the book as a Christian apologia to Jews, but not necessarily compromise the edifice of Christian theology. I'll look with care into the other examples in your references, however.
@@tiagorodrigues3730 certainly. I don’t k ow that texts should always be taken as we latter-day readers frame or have reserved them as framed - Hebrews as apologetics to [rabbinic/perushim]Jews *narrowly*, etc. regardless, all the best!
Ehrman's constant reminders to the audience that he is an atheist and therefore he can take a scholarly look at the biblical works is silly and its like hes pandering to the lowest common understanding of scripture. However, his pure disdain for Jesus mythicists is an absolute treat to experience.
He actually has been useful despite lack of faith. He had a discussion with a Muslim apologist who did not believe that Jesus died on the cross and His resurrection. Ermahn unironically believed and stated that Jesus actually died on the cross (in historical sense) and it made Muslim apologist fell flat hard (as you can see his reaction). God is good always, regardless of a person. Here's the video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JozODvCuvdo.html
@@NCSiebertdesign I agree. When I first had what I'd describe as an epiphany of faith this year, it was to do with the historical case (I'll be honest, this was in response to Islamic claims about Jesus which I found to be erroneous from a historical point of view). Ehrmans Historical Jesus book is a rebuttal of mythicist arguments, and although Erhman himself subscribes to the idea that Jesus' divinity was emphasised more over time and that Jesus' was a apocalyptic prophet, the fact that he is unequivocal in affirming that Jesus was a real person is useful. It's easier for the sceptical atheist mind to digest (I think Jordan Peterson has a similar effect as he has credentials that people have a bias in favour of, against the religious. Atheist society is elitist and appeals to authority, of certain kinds at least). Once one has accepted that Jesus was a least real and was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius everything else falls into place. You then have to consider the accuracy of the gospels and also that people like Apostle Paul were committed enough to leave everything to preach about Jesus - why? When you consider the possibility of did they make the rest up, you soon realise that your are suggesting a conspiracy which is too extensive to be realistic. Ultimately though, the final step is a question of faith and humility.
Your objection is silly. Only someone without personal investment in the answer can objectively engage the question. It's like he is refusing to pander to the ideological predispositions of gullible devotees.
What ever so called, "Contradictions," there might be within Scripture, the overall MESSAGE, along with the History, and, Prophecy, and what we have discovered in the arena of Archeology....Have MORE than made up for a few alleged discrepancies. GOD even warned us that men like this would speak against truth, having, "Itching Ears, believing every Wind of doctrine..."
I would add Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn, and John Bergsma to that list. "How to Be Christian" is also great channel for dealing with Protestant misinterpretations of Scripture. As far as the classics are concerned, you can't go wrong with G.K. Chesterton. There are others, but I'll restrain myself from bombarding you for the moment. God bless!
He hasn't disproved the Gospels because he is coming at them with preconceptions and baked answers. The rational (reject anything supernatural) part of his thinking process here is making him irrationally reject any evidence that might prove the supernatural. He is closed minded ergo irrational. He should be more Bayesian in his approach perhaps, and consider the psychology behind the evidence as well. Imagine the sheer outrage and pushback all witnesses of the Resurrection would have received if they made it all up? 500+ people in 40 days say they saw him, and went around themselves telling everyone they knew. This is documented, historical evidence. The 12 were TORTURED to death (save John) because they strongly believed they saw the risen Christ. Paul was not an idiot, why would he throw away his rank and position of power to join a ragtag band of heretics? No man throws away power and joins a group of misfits hoping to reclaim that power or even exceed it. I defy you to find ONE. At any time, they could have said, "Sorry, no you're right. We made it all up. Mercy Please."
Jimmy did very good in his debate with Ehrman. A lot of atheists manifested in the comments section saying Ehrman won. But nothing can be further from the truth.
"Atheism is a lack of belief bro" *swarms comment sections, follows atheist creators, attacks theists and makes their atheism their identity* Lol yeah ok
@CJ P. I mean yeah, they're clearly just trying to seek validation at this point. All we do is promote our faith amongst ourselves and then they end up on the offensive for what ever reason. That being said however, I do like Bart a lot. Though I disagree with his Scriptural analysis, he has a sense of sincerity and dignity that make me comfortable listening to his opinions. Unlike people like Aaron Ra and Matt Dillahunty who are just plain awful.
@CJ P. There's a huge difference between online atheists and real life atheists. My atheist friends are pretty cool, nice people. They absolutely have no problem with my faith.
@@brentstewart2150 Oh Brent! No offence but clever wordplay and dismissive contempt are clearly not your strong suits, let alone evincing any discernable concern for the lost. Unless you actually are the sophomore pre-seminarian you sound like. Far more indicative of a mind being transformed to that of Christ would be politely explaining why anyone should accept the word of increasingly powerful, wealthy & politically influential religious leaders when declaring themselves to be infallible and thus absolutely incapable of error regarding matters of faith and morals.
Jimmy’s opening argument was so well executed because of the predictability of both atheist arguments in general and to use Bart’s own affirmations of what he believes from the bible in particular that it was hilarious to see how stunned Bart was and he never recovered his frame of mind to make and strong argument after. The sad thing is that Bart teaches religious studies in a university where he has probably turned Christian’s away from their beliefs because they mistakenly think he has world class theological knowledge he doesn’t.
Why do you use the nonsense qualifier "atheist arguments" when the vast majority of those who reject and argue against the validity of Christian claims aren't atheists at all. Can Christians ever be intellectually honest?
@@carnivalwholesale9809 over a billion people who have studied and pulled apart the bible and it’s historicity, which includes the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion, the rise of Christianity despite severe prosecution and martyrdom for no personal gain by any of them other than faith in Christ. The downfall and restoration of Israel as prophecized in spite of the statistical odds that it should have been wiped out. Private revelation and miracles which are scientifically impossible. All of these events and books studied at length providing the crumbs needed to reinforce faith. You have no proof God doesn’t exist. Anyone who actually knows scientific process knows that science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. You stand as though science paints a picture of the universe that says God isn’t needed yet cannot explain the basics of how the universe or life actually came to be.
The "that same day" part of the debate was the most awkward part to watch for me. So much so that about halfway through, I paused the video and went to read Luke 24 to see how there could be such a drastic discrepancy. After reading it myself, it seems to me like Dr. Erhman was falling into the same trap that he was accusing Christians of doing, in reading what he wanted the text to say rather than what the text actually said. The only time Luke 24 says "And that same day" is when it jumps from what Mary Magdalene saw at the tomb to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, so we know that that resurrection appearance was happening on the same day that the women found the tomb empty. When he's with those disciples, he talks with them, then they get to the village that was their destination. They ask Jesus to stay with them because it's getting late and at dinner he reveals himself to them. It then says "at once they got up and returned to Jerusalem" to tell the Apostles what they saw. So at most charitable to Dr. Erhman's view, they couldn't have gotten back to the apostles well into the middle of the night, and a more reasonable reading IMO is that they went back to Jerusalem first thing in the morning. So then it says they get to Jerusalem and talk with the apostles when Jesus appears back to them again. Dr. Erhman seems to think that this final appearance of Jesus at Jerusalem is a short one, but from that point, there's really nothing in the text itself that implies how long he was there with them in Jerusalem before they went out to Bethany. I really don't think if you gave Luke 24 to a person who was not very familiar with the Gospels at all and were to ask them to tell for you what the timeline of events described there you would reasonably get Dr. Erhman's assertion that these things all happened on the same day.
Gospels are greco-roman biography so compression happens That day i went to my dad we made my resume together and then we practiced interview Now it's reasonable for anyone all of this is happening in one day but i went to dad that day the next day out of fear I asked me i wouldn't get the job he motivated me so we talked for hours after weeping enough we decided to make the resume The thing is we should always check our assumptions the previous account is just summary of what happened
I agree with you. Actually if we read Luke 24 in the way Erman does we would have to conclude that in that same day Jesus ascended to heaven. But Luke itself tells us in Acts that Jesus was appearing to the disciples for 40 days. So we can’t interpret that Luke is trying to say that in chapter 24 that all that happened the same day.
@@paulywauly6063 It's the style of writing and it fits. That's how the Greeks made their bioi and the Romans their vitae. Notable to these biographies (or historiographies) are: - Events are roughly chronological but this is flexible as some priority is given to grouping events into themes - It focuses on one person only and focuses on what made them notable - Like all Ancient texts, any quotes are given with some flexibility but with very high focus that the message itself (aka the voice) is carried as faithfully as possible - Any events that can be omitted and are otherwise irrelevant to the achievements of the person and the theme of the bookare omitted by default. This is seen by the jump from the birth of Jesus all the way to the start of his ministry. - No focus at all on the physical appearance, instead focusing on the character and personality. This is in stark contrast with modern biographies, which could often spend pages narrating clothing and haircut. Tell me it doesn't fit the style. You can't. The gospels are as typical as Greco-Roman historiographies go.
I was a spray painter for ~300 apartments that had to be done in two months. Of the 100+ workers there, over 90% came from a three hour car drive away.. so they HAD to temporarily stay near the site. That, plus the danger of returning home, plus the probability of help from others in a time of crisis, clearly immediately showed me at the live debate Ehrman was wrong. And his "I hadn't thought of that" underscores his lack of interest in getting to the truth as much as real professional scholars do imo. He doesn't think like Raymon Brown at all, so for a atheist-leaning scholar like Ehrman to quote that source was insulting to me.
Honestly, I don't find Bart arguments convincing to lead to his conclusions. The way he judges the Bible is not the way we judge reports, news and written documents today or intuively. In our daily conversations, reports of events informally or formally as in news reports we don't reject that an event happened just because the eye witnesses give a slightly different account or one gives more detail than the other. No we don't do that as Bart does with the new testaments.
When I was in an Evangelical seminary in the early 1980s, it was still getting over the inerrancy debates of the late 1970s. Those who argued for inerrancy had an idea that if you found one error, no matter how minor, the whole Bible would unravel. My observation about Bart Ehrman, is that he never got over being an inerrantist, he simply turned into a disillusioned one.
I wish this was clearly communicated to young people like myself! It seems to me that so many leave the faith largely because they are taught an oversimplified view of Christianity (through no fault of their own). That simplification is shown to be false and then it seems like Christianity has been shown to be false.
@@ronaldbobeck1026 I actually went the academic route and teach in a seminary part-time, and work for a project that photographs ancient inscriptions from the biblical world. I never felt called to the ministry.
That’s what I always thought- not unusual for family to stay with extended family. And the Jews were by nature nomadic, where they not? Is it so inconceivable that Joseph and Mary stayed in Bethlehem for a while and Joseph found work, then went to Egypt, then to Nazareth? I was taught they stayed in Bethlehem for a few years until the Magi came, that’s why Herod had all the males up to age 2 killed.
Isn't the issue here that he had to stay in a manger if he had friends and family? And even supposing that he had friends and family but there was no room, why not make room for a pregnant woman? We know a proposition is weak when we have to keep adding wings to make it work. The simplest explanation is that Luke or Matthew is simply mistaken.
@@christianandrew1037 Because we aren't talking about Bethlehem at this point. The Holy Family went to more than one city/town. It also took them more than one day to travel.
@@christianandrew1037 That is the simplest explanation when you don't make an effort to work through situation. Sounds like you already made up your mind.
@@christianandrew1037 Like I tell my friend you are thinking like a 21st century person about a 1st century situation. First of all, it wasn't such a big deal in those days to stay in a barn as opposed to the thinking of today. Second, Yes Mary was pregnant but who says that the inn keeper cared about that. Back in those times people were a little harsher and women held a lowly place in society.
In response to Ehrman's statement that all history is unreliable, I think I would have given a short quippy retort like, "Yes, but you only wrote a book titled misquoting Jesus." If he really thinks all history is unreliable, why not write a book debunking large and important historical events.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here: I would assume he doesn't write books on historical events because his expertise isn't on general ancient history. It's on New Testament textual criticism. He knows he isn't in the position to make such claims. At the same time though this is contradictory. Why would you make such an audacious claims to begin with when you know it lacks authority? I have a feeling someone actually pushed Erhman on his position. They'll find tons of holes with this line of thinking.
At no point in history has Bart Ehrman ever said or implied that "all history is unreliable." Fallible, maybe, and subject to scrutiny, but nothing close to the absurd straw man you are trying to paint him with. That is an outright fabrication of your own imagination, and I really wish you people would learn how to engage HONESTLY with actual arguments.
@@AntiCitizenX You're correct that Ehrman doesn't *explicitly* say that all history is unreliable. However, he does call into question the reliability of ancient accounts that involve Jesus. This would include the works of Tacitus and Josephus. What I find quite interesting is that Erhman himself admits that he's not an expert on Tacitus or Josephus; he's an expert on the New Testament. So effectively undermines his own argument. It seems to me that Ehrman wants to have his cake and eat it too. Another thing is that Ehrman also criticizes the textual reliability of manuscripts of the Gospels. In that, the manuscripts we do have date decades if not centuries after the original events. Problem is, is that most if not all accounts on ancient history are the same, if not worse. The manuscripts we have of the Gospel are surprisingly textually pure and recent to their respective events compared to other ancient manuscripts. Ehrman, wanting to be consistent, throws the baby out with the bath water on this point. So yes, Ehrman doesn't outright say "All history is unreliable." But he does lay the foundation and ground work for this claim to be implied. Which is a dangerous slippery slope.
If you presuppose Christianity is true, you can "sophist" your way through any inconsistencies (within the Bible) and inaccuracies (relative to reality) in the Bible. That's what apologists are gonna do! In fact, that's core to what they do!
Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn never made a debriefing video! One source claimed that the video was posted on Trent's channel and another source claimed the video was posted on Akin's channel! They can't both be right!
I always thought of the ending of the Gospels as the ending of Exodus: Exodus has this little coda that wraps up Numbers and Deuteronomy in case whoever is reading it doesn’t have access to those. I mean only so much fits on one scroll, that’s why Isaiah and Jeremiah sometimes appear in different orders, because ordinarily the entire work wouldn’t fit on one scroll
I will never understand why Bart is such a boogeyman for so many Christians. He is a cool guy but has some flat-out awful takes. Hume and Kant feel like people are worthy of being intimidated by and possibly rebutting because they are just great philosophers. Nietzche possibly could be a boogeyman too, but the way his life ended makes his philosophy really unappealing
The two homes hypothesis is very interesting. Reminds me of my grandad. He was a carpenter (not rich) who had his family home in Ireland and then lived in Scotland for months at a time to work and send money home. It would sound crazy describing him as having 'two homes' but that's the way it was.
Joe didn't become a carpenter until after the Bethlehem fiasco. Joe's Dad was so angry that Joe dragged Mary to Bethlehem on Christmas Eve with no reservation that he made Mary the Trustee of the Saint Joseph Aspirin Trust, which received 1% of the profits from the children's aspirin brand that bore Joe's name. Joe's Dad made her swear not to disburse income from the trust to Joe until he had spent 5 years earning his bread by the sweat of his brow.
@@josephconnelly5195Being Mexican I absolutely agree with this. Its actually pretty crazy how common it is. Lots of people stay years away from their families in Mexico.
Akin did alot of reading of Ehrman's material. Ehrman clearly did not do the same for Akin, which I found disrespectful and reflected poorly on Ehrman.
Families lived in inter-generational arrangements, so their houses were like often a bit more like family compounds. Joseph’s family was in Bethlehem, so Joseph had a “house” there among his family, where he was welcome to stay and where his father or grandfather was the head. He might have moved to Nazareth and lived there more permanently in a house of his own, or (similar to seasonal farm workers whose wife and kids stay in Mexico while they come to the US for seasonal work) he may have simply had a place to stay in Nazareth while he worked in the area. This is plausible in light of the fact that Joseph is described as a tekton, which refers to a woodworker, stoneworker, or day laborer of some sort, and we know that tektons often had to be itinerant, going where the work was. Maybe Joseph had a house in Nazareth that served as his home-base when he worked in that area.
@@TheBurningWarrior from what I have read the term is pretty broad. It refers to a worker of some sort: woodworker, stoneworker, or both-maybe also metal. Tektons built houses and other buildings (with wood, mud brick, and stone), in addition to farm tools and furniture. Who knows what exactly Joseph did. Justin Martyr says he made plows and yokes. That’s plausible.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Linking two groups that make similar arguments is not a strawman. Protestants many times use very similar arguments against Catholics that Atheists use against them, in fact Trent Horn is busy writing a book about it and discussed it on his channel. I do not try to portray either all protestants or all atheists as evil, many protestants love Jesus a lot, I was one until last year, many atheists are very sincere people with real questions, neither am I saying that they have similar values or something of the sort, I merely noted that the two groups many times follow very similar arguments against Catholics.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I have been debating a friend of mine that calls himself a "deist". That's all he looks at are Atheist sources and uses all their arguments even if they have already been refuted.
If I was in place of Jimmy Akin I would much more emphasis on fact that gospels are targeted to certain groups of people, certain demographics that explains the difference between them.
As a convert from Methodism to Catholicism, I just don't understand determinists. I suppose there must be a way to look at it where it sounds less insane, but when RC Sproul and others talk about Irresistible Grace I can't help but hear the flimsy justifications which try to make the illogical make sense. It isn't a leap from reason to faith, it is a leap from blind faith to ignoring all sense.
@@jasonwolfe2991 right I keep forgetting that there's more than one kind. It's not like churches usually say on the sign whether it belongs to a particular convention or if it's independent. It's just 1st, 2nd, Baptist Church usually. You'd think they'd want to differentiate themselves a little since there are so many.
@@jasonwolfe2991 it seems like YT doesn't want me to post links to Google maps which is sort of weird, but search for second Baptist Houston, TX and you'll see some examples one is even a "mega church."
very sloppy way of communicating to people esp for a god .The issue could be sorted in minutes..but no, confusion embedded in ancient celestial stories is what we have to deal with ..amen
What I found most revealing was Ehrman's response at 22:37, "That's an interesting thought, that hadn't occurred to me". I suspect a lot of modern Biblical scholarship is hampered by the scholars own perspectives and lack of knowledge, and he (Ehrman in this case) doesn't even realize it. I suspect most if not all of Ehrman's so-called 'contradictions' could be resolved by just being aware of simple bits of information like having two homes. But he's looking at these 'contradictions' from a 21st century perspective, trying to resolve them from that, he can't and so he sees an insoluble problem. Thus he decides the Gospels are untrustworthy.
Hi Trent, big fan here. This is off topic. I was wondering if you can do video commentaries on Ryan Reeves lectures on Church history. Especially those dealing with the early church and protestant reformation. Thanks
The phenomenon of slums or informal settlements in urban areas in the developing world perfectly shows how low income people can have 2 homes ( one in the urban area n another in the ancestral village). Ancient Israel was definitely an equivalent of a developing country today in terms of economic n Social security set ups.
They were most likely staying with family in Bethlehem, because Joseph was from the line of David and that's how the census worked in those days. I don't remember the details, and I'm not looking to get into a long debate here.
@@fortunatomartino9797 He calls himself an agnostic. "Liking" has nothing to do with it. You obviously don't understand atheism. It is not a creed, has no principles, or any set of beliefs - it is simply not believing in god/s. Why don't you stop straw manning your pet adversary.
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered... he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing...[for] he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements... Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language" (Papias, Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, c.110 AD)
That's what Papias said. Two things to think about though. He "did not omit anything he had heard", but Mark is the shortest Gospel we have (even considering Mark 16:9-19 was added much later and was not originally in the Gospel)? If this included everything, why is it the shortest Gospel? Just an interesting thought experiment. And two, where did Papias get this information? Well, according to Papias himself he heard it from followers of John, who heard it from John, who heard from Mark, that Mark heard it from Peter. Not exactly the testimony most people use it as. Why can't we just say it was divinely inspired to whoever the author was who wrote it down? Just saying.
@@nickbrasing8786 The excerpt from Papias is offered to those interested in historicity only. If one has however somehow mistaken the Person of Christ for pen & ink then even a time machine would not suffice to alleviate that assumption.
@@andrewferg8737 But historicity is what was being talked about? I'm simply pointing out its limitations. And pen & ink is all we have for Christ beyond personal revelations. But a time machine? That would be better than the pen and ink because we could hear Jesus himself speak the words. How would that not be better? I honestly don't understand this comment.
@@nickbrasing8786 "But historicity is what was being talked about" ----- That was why the quotation was posted. I offered no commentary beyond the quotation itself. If you find it distracting please delete it. Peace be with you.
1) Mary's older blood relative Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias who was a Levite priest who performed temple duties in Jerusalem, lived in Ein Kerem, which by tradition is the birthplace of John the Baptist. 2) Ein Kerem is located in the hill country between nearby Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and Mary stayed there for three months after traveling there from Nazareth in Galilee upon learning of Elizabeth's pregnancy from the angel Gabriel. 3) Would it also be possible that Joseph, Mary and Jesus stayed with Zacharias and Elizabeth in Ein Kerem (A) after Joseph took the pregnant Mary to Bethlehem to enroll in the census mandated by Caesar Augustus and (B) subsequent to Jesus' birth in the city of David? 4) It's kind of neat to think that perhaps Jesus and John the Baptist got to hang out together as infants in Ein Kerem (A) after their original in utero encounter and (B) before King Herod's edict ordering the slaughter of male infants two years and under in the region forced Joseph to flee with his family to Egypt, just as he was warned in a dream by an angel.
Interesting comment. Dr. John Bergsma believes John the Baptist was an Essene. Do you think Herod's decree could be how John the Baptist came into their community?
@@housecry 1. That's one possibility. 2. Another is that Zacharias and Elizabeth received a waiver for their son' life, since the father was of the temple and their family was a known entity among the rulers. Ein Kerem may have been outside of the Bethlehem vicinity for the enforced massacre. 3. There is a tradition in the Catholic Church that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin when (A) Mary visited, (B) Elizabeth heard her greeting and (C) John leapt for joy in utero. If true, then the deterministic Essene theology would have been incompatible with someone without actual sin, however much their eremitical lifestyle matched his, i.e., ascetical solitude and subsistence on locusts and wild honey. 4. Simply put, John enjoyed "the freedom of the sons of God" that the Essenes did not possess. His vocation was not to dispute with them but to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah.
The thing is Bart's contradictions are a categorical fallacy: they are not a equals b and a does not equal b(a true contradiction). They are assumptions of what the author's intent was when writing the narrative, and given the way humans tell biographies, his view is VERY narrow and would not stand up when examining other works of history or even modern eyewitness testimony. IOW he holds the writers of the gospels to an impossible standard that unless they were crystal crystal clear the in exact sequencing of events, they contradict.
For the next debater of Bart, he'll try to keep the supernatural out, but subliminally. Bring out the frame of reference clearly and include it before analysing anything. Bart seems like a proper nihilist, and will destroy anything that could prove God... so that's where the debate actually lies, no matter what the topic is with him. If not, he just assumes that both of you have accepted his world view... and you will lose. He's trapping weak Christians like the snake did Eve... truth with a tinge of confusion.
Great discussion! You both are doing a good job at Catholic Answers. There are 2 views of the bible:1. Some people believe that the bible is the final word and the only source of truth, any argument should be based upon what was written in the bible. 2. Others ( Holy Koolaid, Ehrman, Dawkins) who have found various problems in the bible such as historical mistakes and scientific errors (Genesis story, Joshua stopping the sun, pi=3.0, geocentrism, etc.) . I think Catholics are somewhat in the middle of the discussion.
The claim in that the Bible is in error because it uses 3.0 is ridiculous. No matter what value you use, such as 3.1415926535897932384, it's still in error. That's why there's a special symbol for it. It's irrational to even make the claim, if you'll excuse the pun.
Anyone who has heard Bart Ehrman speak knows he isn't the brightest bulb in the box. I saw this "debate" and Jimmy destroyed him. You could literally see the anger boil inside him as Jimmy blasted every single question he asked.
Athiesm is a religion There is a blind faith in how the world was created and that our 100trillion cell bodies were created by chance It takes a lot of faith to be an athiest Jesus is around the corner He loves you no matter what and is waiting for you Love and blessings to all
We also acknowledge that the sun is a star. We acknowledge plate tectonics and continental drift. We acknowledge evolution. Such things are understood without biblical mythology. The Bible is wrong about the sun and stars. The Bible is wrong about the foundations of the deep. The Bible is wrong about biology. Read as ancient literature these things and more are understandable… but read as ‘God’s word’ and the Bible requires a lot of apologies. Is a real God not worthy of honest fact tethered truth about the cosmos he is credited with “creating”? The fact is that the Bible is a collection of ancient literature written by men who were understandably ignorant of scientific knowledge. Our generation doesn’t have ignorance as an excuse to misrepresent biology in order to make excuses for ignorance of biblical proportions. What prevents Christians from focusing on ethics, traditions, rituals, public service, humility? Science has no use for input from your mythology. The ethical use of science, on the other hand, is where religion might have something worthwhile to contribute… environmental stewardship…reducing poverty …improving access to health care …such issues as these…there are plenty of opportunities to contribute something worthwhile and constructive in ways consistent with the best wisdom the Bible has to offer - and without any of the foolishness. Why not focus on helping the world instead of defending God?
_There is a blind faith in how the world was created_ Glad we can agree that blind faith is a bad way to determine if something is true. Guess you'll stop that blind faith in a god then.....i'll be here waiting.
@@cipherklosenuf9242 the overwheming majority of christians happily agree with you on cosmology, evolution and continental drift. Have you ever asked yourself why?
@@fatstrategist Given that you are incapable of composing a sentence that conforms to even basic grammar. I am entitled to the presumption that any form of cogent argumentation would be squandered on you.
@@bradwhelan4466if atheism is right then any argument or debate even one between the two most erudite individuals on the planet would be a waste of time. If correct both our comments are pointless.
@@bradwhelan4466 if we are bound for the earth and no more. If we live for around 70 years in a universe that's almost 14 billion years old. When everything we produce will meet the same end and be a miniscule blip in the point of time and then vanish into oblivion. Then we are pointless.
Trent and Billy take a very reasonable approach to the Bible, but I wonder to what extent it has official warrant from Church teachings. The approach that says the Gospels "are reliable broadly even if there is confusion in the details" appeals to me, but there are many Catholics who insist that the Church teaches something more absolute. They seem like fundamentalist evangelicals to me, and many are in fact former Protestants who converted to Catholicism.
I'm not sure where you got that notion. Generally speaking, the Catholic Church doesn't say much more than than "it is the inspired Word of God." We also claim what you might call a "loose" form of inerrancy, i.e. You can view Adam and Eve metaphorically, but you can't say that Jesus didn't say X if Scripture claims He did. This leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but not enough room for heresy. We certainly don't view it as literally as most Protestants do, but we're typically less likely to manipulate the original message in order to fit our own political ends. There are outliers in either direction, though, as would be expected from a slew of messy humans.
@@ignatiusjackson235 Thanks for your reply. I am also Catholic, just to be clear. My issue focuses on the relation between what they say about scripture texts and what is said in the Vatican 2 document Dei Verbum. Somewhere in there it says that scripture is free of error “as a whole, and in its parts.” Trent and Jimmy clearly articulate how it is free of error “as a whole”, but they seem open to the idea that it contains errors (imprecisions?) “in its parts.” In other words, they seem to entertain the possibility the individual scripture passages might not be historically accurate.
@@flutterstone1281 Ah, good! I see. The document you're referring to is Dei Verbum. Here's what it says about the topic: CHAPTER III SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS DIVINE INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION 11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4) Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text). 12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8) But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10) 13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
I have yet to watch the debate, however the true hermeneutic principle lies not in the Gospels or New Testament themselves but in the Church. Coming out of a Sola Scriptura tradition, I am not surprised that Dr Ehrman has been scandalised by the discovery of “error” in the Bible. His attempt to find pristine and authentic Christianity in the words of Sacred Scripture, without reference to the Holy Spirit inspired Church which created them was always doomed to fail. 1 Timothy 3:15. The Church is the bastion and pillar of the truth.
Bart doesn't have to--the inconsistencies of the Gospels disprove their own legitimacy. The problem, as I am always stating to my own subs, is the apologists largely give an opinion based on the Gospels which we have no idea who wrote them. And they were written well after Yeshua's death. That negates all the Lee Strobel interviewees, the Craigs, the McDowells and everyone else who keeps debating proof that isn't there. You can't use the bible to prove the bible. That basic premise is a fallacy that any grad student would know but these doctrorates in the apologist world simply ignore. You take away this fallacy and the apologist has nothing to stand on. Cheers, DCF
"That negates all the Lee Strobel interviewees..." I don't think this is true because his story blows up before he gets to the first interview. His origin story is an obvious lie. He says he sets out to disprove his wife's inerrantist beliefs and so he goes around to all these professional grifters and can't refute their arguments. But all he would have to do would be to read some authentic Biblical scholarship. The Oxford Annotated Bible or the study Bible version of the Revised New Jerusalem Bible can show all the numerous things that inerrantists misread.
You cannot rely on stories from antiquity as your lead in a modern age, They are the beliefs of some people ...having a lot of people over a lot of time does not make them any more accurate. How would you prove a teenage Jewish girl was impregnated by a god..and yet the entire christian faith with its multitude of variations hinges on this unprovable and unlikely claim...amen
Interesting we have the same situation at the end of time as when Jesus came the first time!!!! The Pharasies(conservative) and Sadusies(liberals) both against JESUS and his word!!!!!!!!! Now we have the liberals(Atheist) and conservatives(semi bible believers) both against JESUS and his word!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know about the two homes hypothesis. If this was true, why did Joseph have to get a room at the Inn? If this was answered in the video someone can refer time stamp
What if he owned property in Bethlehem, an empty field for penning sheep or something, maybe inherited, and only lived in Nazareth? So maybe the census counted ownership above residence? So he had to travel back to Bethlehem where he owned property that was useless for sleeping. All conjecture, but if someone knew Hebrew first century life I think a reasonable hypotheses could be made?
Being "on their way" doesn´t necessarily mean, they were near home. Their means of transportation was a donkey and by foot. On top of that donkey, a very very pregnant woman.
Jimmy Akin and others have explained the word that’s been translated as “inn” is more line “place of dwelling” This could still mean inn, but also puts homes under as well. Plus, there was a wide census being conducted and people traveling from all overs. Families were pretty big back then and homes were most likely crowded. As to the stable, it was normally attached to the residence so it would be more walk out the door to the animal area or down a few steps. Plus, with Mary being pregnant she had to go somewhere. Childbirth was a very messy and ‘unclean’ event, as blood can get everywhere. Anyone and anything Mary’s blood came in contact with would have had to been cleaned, purified, or gotten rid of. So it made more sense to go to the stables as it was a bit roomier and there wouldn’t be much to soil with blood.
@@jendoe9436 Yes they may have planned the stable since they were expecting a messy birth but remember that the Church teaches that Mary had a miraculous, painless birth. I thought it was crazy when I first heard it but it's actually been prophesied in the Old Testament and started making sense the more I read about it. Essentially, Jesus passed through Mary like He passed through the rock at the tomb. Of course, Catholics are the ones who are supposed to hold to this view so if you're not Catholic then it might not apply to you (although it's something definitely work thinking about).
Ehrman's academic field is textual criticism, not history. He is a New Testament Scholar, not a historian of the first century. This is a fact that Habermas has pointed out as a source of methodological problems with Ehrman's arguments.
@7:39 "If I want you to change your opinion then I need to give you evidence." - J Akin. If only that actually applied to anyone religious, then we'd not be in this theological mess today. Friends, Jimmy is telling you he needs to provide you EVIDENCE that anything in the gospels is actually true before you accept them....get back to me when he provides that evidence. Cheers.
The fact that you don't see how weak your arguments are implies not only that you are hopelessly biased, but that you don't understand how historians view ancient texts. For instance, there are multiple souces and artifacts backing up much of ancient Roman history, but nothing to back up the supernatural legend of Romulus and Remus. Historians can tell the difference, apparently you can't.
Again, the problem is not with the stuff we don't understand, it's obeying the stuff we DO understand. Most Christians think the judgment seat is a written test on Bible knowledge.
This feels like pure coping... Im sorry but to try and weasel aroune the nuance claims without asserting any concrete points seems to just validate Bart... Its par for the course but very disappointing for someone interested in truth not just defending a pov
As Mark Twain said, the best cure for Christianity is to read the Bible. And if one needs someone else to explain it to them; that is not a ringing endorsement of the character of the book.
@@servantofjesuschrist8606 Ugh. Rabbi Singer is so freaking disingenuous. "Paul failed to account for the fact these were this different kind of sacrifice, therefore he was a fraud." *Ignores the part in the same chapter of Romans where Paul addresses this distinction*
Re: Two Houses. There has to be a better way of saying this. In the current versions, the explanation is basically, “well, I don’t really mean two houses like that.” This really undermines the case you are trying to make. It would seem much clearer and accurate to say, “Joseph had family in Bethlehem. At some point, he moved to Nazareth, likely to find work. During periods when he was back in Bethlehem, he likely lived with family.” It communicates everything you are trying to say without having to explain down from a big bold claim. Re: The Gist. This just sounds really flimsy. Are you really going to base your understanding of everything around “the gist”? It would seem much stronger to say something like “the essence” while still communicating the same, well, essence.
Poor ppl in poor parts of the world usually end up having 2 houses. Here in Peru, a poor person from the highlands would have a precarious house and a little bit of land there, but what usually ends up happening is that when they have a family of their own, the little piece of land does not generate enough income to sustain the basic needs of his growing family. So they move to the coast nearby one of the major cities, usually to a place that has some family members that help them while they invade a piece of land were they can build a new precarious house. I've seen this happening multiple times, this is the way that most of the ppl that work as labor in agriculture end up doing. I've also heard similar stories of ppl in Africa, so it's totally viable for me to think that Joseph may have had two houses.
I don't know. If I were a carpenter from a small town like Bethlehem, I wouldn't move to an even smaller town like Nazareth to find work. I would go to a big city where there was plenty of houses and buildings to be built.
Would you believe in your own resurrection if you were not told that Christ rose again? This is what a friend asked me once and I said yes. Now I think back and realize that it is the conviction given me by God that we have eternal life. Same goes with everything else that I believe as a Christian (and praying to (actually through) Mary and the saints etc, etc.) We do NOT have to convince the atheist of our faith. How about first he tells us why he denies the everyday miracles as probability etc. Because they are not truthful at the end of the day. They do know they can't explain the coincidences - which they must therefore call what it is: the love of God. God bless you all.
What Bart Ehrman presents are ideas that are and have been very common in text critic circles for many decades. His axioms are all standard mainstream text critic axioms that arose in the 18th century and grew in the 19th century. He is not really saying anything new. His book "Misquoting Jesus" is all standard fare in the world of modern text critical circles, based as many of them are on the idea of the superiority of of the Alexandrian (almost entirely Egyptian) manuscripts, which was advocated by Westcott and Hort more than 150 years ago. Perhaps the biggest single myth about modern text criticism is that it has "proven" that Mark 16:9-20 is not authentic. The arguments for this view have been thoroughly rebutted, beginning perhaps with the work by John Burgon in the 19th century. His student Herman Hoskier wrote in 1914 what is still the most complete and thorough examination of Codex B and Codex Aleph ever written. More recent work has been done by James Snapp and Wilbur Pickering. Were it not for the fetish regarding Codex B in the world of text criticism (the codex lacks Mark 16:9-20), which is regarded as the "best" "oldest" and "most reliable manuscript, the liberal/critical view of Mark 16:9-20 would have long since been put on the shelf. Modern text criticism and the whole basis on which it has been erected (i.e., the Alexandrian manuscripts are the "best") cannot allow Mark 16:9-20 to be authentic because to do so would immediately challenge the exalted status of Codex B in such circles, and the whole basis on which Westcott and Hort erected their modern theory of text criticism and the text of the New Testament.
Let's get this straight. Christians fall ALL OVER themselves to claim the Gospel were written as close to possible to Jesus' death. Then an extremely early fragment of Mark is discovered that leaves out the current ending.... and that's a fetish in your mind? You are presenting a fringe opinion that only the most...and I mean most ardent inerrancy believers hold.
@@thedude0000 What "fragment" is it that has been discovered that "leaves out" the "current ending"? Codex B is not a "fragment", nor is it a recent discovery. The same holds true for Codex Aleph. Whether what I presented is "fringe" or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is true or false. Even if we ignore Mark's gospel, the other three gospels were all written in the first century, which is quite close to the passion of Jesus, which also occurred in the first century.
@@thedude0000 No mere "fragment" could show that the entire current ending of Mark (a total of 12 verses) is missing. It would have to be a whole lot larger than a "fragment". What "fragment" are you referring to, and exactly what does it read? As for "fringe", this is utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of a statement.
@@JimmyAkin i used to buy my mom stuffed toys whenever i traveled abroad. bought her one from every country i visited. she went home to the Lord in 2017, and i still keep the stuffed toys.
11:02 - instead of canonical, perhaps separately consider the Synoptic Gospels from John. The reliability of Synoptics is much higher than John…at least they agree with each other to much greater degree. John Gospel is like the kid whose story doesn’t line up with all the other kids. Deem that unreliable. Thanks for this content. Both Trent and Jimmy are righteous dudes.
The sad thing is that so many Christians do not see in the gospels how myth evolves....the earliest is your meat and potatoes account and by the time we reach the last one written, we get graves opening, etc...I suppose the myths of Herakles developed in much the same way...
It's not myth evolving. What we see is theology developing. What the authors are doing are simply selecting which miracles to include in which to exclude. This is for the same reason that the words of Jesus are selected in one reading and narrative, and others aren't. The gospel authors have completely different narratives that they want to illustrate with Christ. And so because of that different miracles are utilized for different occasions. Just as those occasions are often not the same or, if they're incorporated, they are often shifted ever so slightly to suit the author's narrative.
Carrier doesn't "school" everyone else. Christianity already has a massive mountain to climb in regards to proving it's true. Just grant a man named Jesus existed and watch the Christians squirm to prove his divinity. We do this with Islam
Erhman and Akin are in agreement that the Gospels are not literally true in all respects. They simply are not the inerrant word of God. Reaching that common understanding is an important step.
Try using this “balance scale” approach when evaluating the reliability of a criminals testimony on interrogation. If the bulk of the details are true, we can trust the entire testimony? Uhhhhh, no. If that was the case, all he would have to do is continue to pile on more and more true info until the lie is drowned out totally.
@@paulhayes5684 you can't just say its not a good comparison and leave it at that. Why is it not a good one? It is perfectly valid because they are both cases in which a judge (you and me) is determining the reliability of truth claims. The way to determine the reliability of truth claims is not to look at the other claims surrounding the truth claim. At best, doing that might establish credibility. But the surrounding claims do not tell you if the claim in question is true or not. It must be evaluated on its own merits.
Living in North Carolina, Dr. Bert, taught here in the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, NC. Was the Professor of Religion at UNC. I have his course on the New Testament from the Great Courses on CD.
@@dawnrock4675 Actually since the time I posted the question, I have come across another explanation - the presence of a woman in labour may have been the reason. (Due to purity rules)
The law of Moses required Jewish males to appear in Jerusalem three times, at Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. So the Apostles were in Jerusalem for Passover, traveled to Galilee for work, and then back to Jerusalem for Pentecost. The Feast of Tabernacles is in the fall.
The Gospels are not history in 21st century interpretation of what constitutes history. The gospels are theology, perceptions and interpretations made by different early church communities about Yeshua, his life, his message. The author(s) wrote for their particular communities, each community having its own particular take on Yeshua and his movement. Theology not probable histry.
@@jeremysmith7176 Are you equating "intend to lie" with "not convey truth?" I can answer that the authors were absolutely conveying truth in the stories they wrote, i.e., the Gospels. Are their stories factual historically, i.e, probable history? Little of what was written cannot be be determined as probable history. Are the authors therefore intending to lie? Perhaps you need to clarify or, better nuance, your question.
Atheists often ask us to show evidence for Jesus's resurrection outside of the Bible. That's like asking, show us evidence of Quantum Superposition without using a physics book. Of course, when explaining topics that are outside of normal conversation, it makes sense to use the book that has the most detailed and credible explanation and whiich is accepted by the maximum number of people.
Help me out here. Why would he say John "confirms" Matthew's account that the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee? John 21:1 (ESV): After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in this way. Matthew 28:16-17 (ESV): Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. How does the story in John confirm the story in Matthew? Is the sea of Tiberius on a mountain?
They used a telescope? Same principle as the two homes, one in Bethlehem, but spent the night in a stable because SHUT UP! The fundamental principle of apologetics is that whatever random nonsense you make up to make the story work like you want has to be accepted.
1timothy 6:10 Bart knows Jesus is ths Savior and Messiah but he makes a lot more money playing devils advocate[Literally] by selling his books to marginal atheists and agnostics and muslims Think about it Love and blessings to you all
Or …he’s telling the truth about where honest scholarship actually leads rather than selling books to comfort believers by justifying special pleading and confirmation bias as the apologists do. Have you considered that Christians buy more books about the Bible than skeptics. And many Christians apologists are employed by institutions that require theological fidelity..that doesn’t incentivize honesty it incentivizes conformity. What about secular scholarship is unfair to Christianity if its claims are authentic?
_Bart knows Jesus is ths Savior and Messiah_ That's not true at all. He knows that Christians claim this, but that doesn't mean he claims it to be true
I hope you have the connections and resources necessary to prove a hypothesis about the dating of the gospels. I read somewhere that the book of revelation is the second volume of the gospel of john, in the same way that acts is the second volume to the gospel of luke. Furthermore, that from internal evidence,revelation was completed and published before the death of nero in ad 68. Also, scholars should pin down the dates in the bible from all the astronomical clues that you can deduce from revelation (or the entire bible even) It will be interesting to convene a research group composed of biblical scholars, mathematicians, astronomers, and criminologists to subject the gospels to a criminal forensic analysis because nobody seems to connect the dots in a comprehensive way. I believe some evangelical protestants have a leg up in this field of study. One intriguing historical clue is the discovery of the essene calendar that cross checks the gospels. Mark used the essene calendar while john used the Jewish calendar. This seems to explain why the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated by jesus et al on a Tuesday while the passover and therefore the crucifixion occurred on a Friday
I heard that revelation was not found bundles with the Gospel of John, even if it was written by the same author, revelation was circulated as a "letter" even before the Gospel was finalized.
