How I Beat the Worlds #1 Atheist New Testament Scholar w/ Jimmy Akin 

I look up to Jimmy so much. I wish we had more men like him he is so knowledgeable about the faith. I’m a convert as well come this Easter vigil I will be confirmed into the church and he just gives me so much hope that you don’t have to be a candle Catholic to study and know the faith.

People often believe that a debate “settles the matter”. Really, debates should be viewed as an introduction to the issues; and a critique of the individual’s reasoning on the subject.

How to debate Bart: 1. Flatter him 2. Hug him 3. Use Bart against Bart 4. Beat him

Loved your approach. It was a great debate.

Wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove? Seems to have worked.

James White said the same thing you did: when Ehrman is on the ropes, he resorts to arrogance and ruthlessness, and sometimes ad hominem attacks. But credentialism/appealing to an expert is in and of itself a logical fallacy, so even in Ehrman's counter to White he was wrong.

Just discovered Jimmy - and wondering where i've been all this while - Dude is so on point!

Jimmy has real Tom Bombadil energy in some ways.

I'm not sure Ehrman worked with Kurt Aland, I think he worked with Bruce Metzger.

The Ehrman debate was great! One of my favourites. Idk about "trouncing" but I loved the way Jimmy approached the debate and it was honestly a breath of fresh air

I was graced to have been able to attend this one! I really enjoyed it. I remember I was quite star struck when saying hello to Jimmy, and I completely forgot what I was going to say. I ended up saying something like, “hey, I’m a really big fan of yours!” He was gracious and said “thank you,” before going back up on the stage. lol

I will say for Ehrman, he at the very least attacks Christianity on a historical and textual level. It's a more substantive approach that Dawkins and Hitchens, who basically resorted to Oxonian browbeating and straw-men.

This was awesome. So many times we are simply trying to win the argument instead of the man. I pray for Bart so much and hope God softens his heart and opens his eyes and ears to the Gospel of Jesus as real.

The magnificent hat has a really lovely way of treating interlocutors. It's great. And his note about James White, well, I wish James White would take to heart. White has a bit of an arrogant streak that gets him into trouble sometimes. He often assumes he's the smartest man in the room. I may grant that he often is, but it's an unhelpful trait that burns him. I think his recent debate with Trent Horn is another example of that. Now, I've learned a great deal from White, and I greatly appreciate his ministry, so I just want to see him improve.

This was a great debate. It was fun reading Ehrman's blog after the debate to hear his take, which was an interesting practice in copium on his part.

The fundamentalist background is definitely his Achilles heel. Glad you guys discussed this.

Honestly as a Christian I was hopong Jimmy would win undoubtedly. However, I do not think Jimmy won. For example, Bart actually was correct about Luke's Resserection account. Jesus dies say to "stay in the city, until you are clothed with power" so Barts claim about the Apostles being told to stay in Jerusalem for 40 days is actually correct, Jimmy said Luke never said that, but it is exactly what Luke said. So now I am wondering how to reconcile that with the other Gospels.

The inability to move focus from “owning” others is the single greatest indicator of insecurity. Pretending that Jesus doles out high fives for reveling in the schadenfreude following the public mockery and disparaging of another human being rather than their misguided ideas betrays a complete lack of understanding of Him and his Word.

Can someone give an example of a point where Ehrman clearly lost in that debate? I felt like Bart did quite well.

Speaking of Craig defeating Hitch. Hitchens has a solid pro-life argument

2:40 You don't need a time machine. All you need is the Vatican's secret chronovisor! 🙂 (See Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World episode 299 for context.)

I thank God for Jimmy Akin. Very wise

Debates are next to useless in persuading the other side. To paraphrase Scott Adams: Each side is watching a different movie on the same screen at the same time.

Ehh, I hardly think Bart lost. I’m not even sure we were watching the same video with the title of this interview

I watched the debate. While putting inerrancy off the table Jimmy argued that the Bible is reliable in the “jist” of the its claims. That’s not good enough for me.

This is some Sun Tzu Art of War type stuff bro 🤯

I wonder how Ehrman reacts to John 14:26. Does he assume that that verse was simply added later, and that John is anyway the last Gospel to be written, so that what other scholars might be willing to think the effects of the Holy Spirit can be dismissed as further purely-human meddling in the Scriptures and traditions that we have?

With all charity, I feel bad for kids who grow up in Fundamentalist groups, or even Evangelical groups that take the Bible more literally. I think those kids often grow up to be hardened atheists because they “discover science” and get a bunch of “proofs” for why Jonah was swallowed by a whale and not a fish 🙄🧐🫠 I’m grateful for the “Baptized Imagination” and how Catholicism (and certain Protestant traditions) recognize the depth and width of God’s word and of the human soul. Symbolism and imagery are all over the Bible and I’m ever thankful for the Holy Spirit working through people who pointed those examples out to me. And well done, Mr. Akin! You were instrumental to my conversion and baptism ✝️🙌🥰

Jimmy Akin is so underrated… its crazy.

God be praised

I’m an atheist and sided with Bart Ehrman on that debate. But I did think Jimmy Akin made some very good points in the debate and his friendly manner was great to see. Both debaters seemed to agree on most things except on what it means for something to be reliable. But it was a fun debate to watch.

Jimmy is smart and doesn't make personal attacks to prove his point. I could listen to him talk about anything.

Best debate I've seen in a while.

I'm curious if this is true, I highly doubt it. But but I'll watch the source material and see.

Non believers may win a skirmish but they have lost the war.

I always hope that these guys would give glory to GOD for the opportunity to contend for and defend the Faith.

Jimmy Akin is my favorite apologist. He is one very smart dude. His podcast is great.

Ehrman is agnostic and I'm not sure Jimmy won, even though I'm on his side.

James White beat Erhman in a debate first. But seriously, Erhman struggles to stay consistent depending on his audience because he is mostly motivated by money these days. Jimmy was correct right at the start, Erhman doesn't like that God didn't use a divine photocopier to transmit the text of scripture, and it's silly.

I’ve always felt like Bart’s issues with Christianity are emotional more than academic. Then once he stepped into the role of hero atheist of the elites, that really became his identity. You can see in some of his tweets that his heart is broken without the love of Jesus; this was particularly obvious in a tweet about how much he longed for the love of Jesus around Christmas.

I wouldn’t call the graves opening up in Matthew 27 or the census requiring everyone go to their home of ancestry in Luke 2 “minor historical claims”. Bart made good points about how Christians wouldn’t trust the history of Ceasar by Seutonius as “historically reliable” the same way non Christians wouldn’t treat the gospels as historically reliable.

Being a popular atheist is like winning a bronze medal in the Special Olympics.

Wise as serpents and gentle as a dove… and pull the rug right out underneath him.

That wasn't the way the debate went at all. He disagress on minor, intermediate and major.

This was the first time I had heard of Jimmy before, and after the debate he went straight to the top of the list of trusted apologists. I'm a believer 100%, but of course we all have some unanswered questions that may not affect our faith and belief in God. I've come to like Erhman, of course he is now a heretic however he does seem genuine and honest, as most of these guys are. So I did come in to the debate thinking Erhman would come out on top, however I was left jaw dropped by Jimmy. I had never seen anyone dig deep enough or use such sensical hermeneutics in apologetics before. The topic of Joseph having 2 living arrangements was an eyeopener for me, so logical yet so overlooked. Jimmy's overtly kind and loving approach was incredibly admirable. It's nice to see some legitimate apologetics being used in Christendom. I can't wait to see more of Jimmy in the future.

I didn't see the debate that is referred to here, but I strongly doubt that this guy "trounced" Ehrman. As to the question of the reliability of the Gospels, what if we just use a very simple metric: that these texts describe and defend a whole series of miracles (from the small stuff like turning water into wine all the way to the large stuff, like people being raised from the dead, including of course the central claim of Jesus's own resurrection) which have never been reliably witnessed anywhere in the world, in the whole of recorded human history? If this Akin guy can provide examples -- let's say, from the last thee hundred years of historical record -- of comparable miracles occurring in the actual world we inhabit, then I might begin to have some faith in the miraculous claims of the Gospels. But of course he can't. Seas don't part (Exodus), corpses don't miraculously come alive again, loaves and fishes don't miraculously self-replicate. These things don't happen, and have never happened. QED.

Our James sounds like he does the opposite of what that other James likes to do in debates :)

Woooooow! What an enormous concession by Ehrman! I try to look at debates both from what I know & from an audience who may not know very deeply the topic of debate. I thought Jimmy's 1st rebuttal was hefty (presenting Ehrman's own professional work). But, Ehrman is really gifted at rhetoric. I think Ehrman's stage presence & rhetoric was excellent throughout the rest of the debate. His substance & reasoning on the other hand are incredible. He is scrapping the bottom of the barrel & trying to in desperation to find some false miniscule detail. I think in this debate towards the end Ehrman compares the history of Jesus with either Romulus & Remus and, or the founder of Greece (I can't remember his name at the moment). That's so ridiculous. Plutarch concedes that this area is highly speculative (something like that, (I don't have the quote with me).

Jesus existed is a poor argument to verify the major claim of Jesus' Ascension. Jimmy picked the major claims. Bart should have rebutted with different major claims.

I watched (partially) the debate. Ehrman's position was the Gospels are not reliable on "supernatural" occurrences referenced in the bible; the virgin birth and surrounding story of stars pointing the way, the resurrection and ensuing story. He does not argue the point that Jesus existed. No, Jimmy, you did not win any debate on these issues. You won on a play on words. Are there olive trees in Palestine? Yes, there are. Do they bear fruit in winter? No, and Jesus did not cause them to be bare in winter, nature does that all by itself.

Jimmy beat Bart? Did you see the part where Jimmy explained the contradictions about Joseph and Mary going to Egypt by saying that maybe they had a second home there? LOL. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. He did do a slick job of debating pointing out the things that Bart agrees on but it was obvious that Bart was trying to keep from laughing with some of Jimmy's ridiculous excuses.

Bart's laugh is a coping mechanism to try to affably disarm those he is speaking with. It is charming at first, but the more you listen to him, the more annoying it becomes.

So I’m a little high right now because I’m getting ready for bed and I’m aware that might skew my perception here so I’ll need y’all to tell me if it’s the cannabis…. Does this guy look like Erhman with a red beard? He even sounds like him. I swear when he imitated Bart (at 5:55) it looked like Ehrman was dressed up as a farmer for Halloween.

To be fair, I don't think he trounced him but did do well.

The gospels are more like a friend telling a story to convey a point to you. Your friend might generalize some things, be really specific about otherthings, paraphrase some things, conjecture about some things, and leave whole events out. But that doesn't mean he's wrong or misleading you. He's catering the story to convey a point to you. People do it all the time in conversation and no one judges that as "unreliable." Bart is judging this kind of story telling by the standards of history and empirical academic enquiry. Nothing wrong with that. It just leads to a misjudgment about the gospels if you think that is what their authors were doing.

I can't believe the host is impressed with Hitchens!! I can't believe he initially doubted William Lane Craig's ability to debate Hitchens!! 😂

Jimmy Rocks!

Wow!!!! I feel bad for Erhman after this. I mean he had some little argument about David associated with a house in Bethelhem. This side argument is completely irrelevant to the New Covenant. He agrees to all the big issues, but boy he got schooled.

Bart Ehrman is always trounced when he isn’t in the room But when he is in the room .. not so much

“At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;”

Nice story bro.

The gospels can be both reliable and unreliable. People ... intelligent people ... will have differing opinions about how much is reliable, and to what degree. If Akins in fact demolished Ehrman in the debate, a logical result would have been a massive conversion to some form of Christianity (including Ehrman). Debates are more about how quickly one can think on their feet than about any right answer. It's entertainment, and generally doesn't move the needle one way or the other.

I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman. "I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..." William Lane Craig

"White at one point tried to make himself sound superior on a textual matter" Well it is a James White debate. He does it in every single one.

They must be talking about a different debate. Because the debate I watched Bart Ehrman was very polite and respectful on both sides. But Jimmy Akin certainly did not decimate Bart, if anything Bart one the debate.

Guy needs to do some curls and pushups for arm strength and tone

Omg that ad at the end 😅 Wasnt expecting that!

I am watching the debate. The premise of the debate was, The Gospels are not reliable. I find it interesting that Ehrman was upset that he had to prove a negative. I am not at the intellectual level of these two, but I feel he is wrong. That is a positive statement. It is a tangible concept that can be supported. This is different than trying to prove the non existence of a substance.

Like my Christian friends use to tell me, “the Bible is the inerrant word of god, if you can prove one thing wrong then it’s all wrong”

I’m lazy, the nice thing about truth is that it makes making your position much easier to argue.

I discovered Jimmy Akin recently. He is really cool.

Not sure why it matters so much to an atheist to do well in a debate. For what reason are they trying to change minds? Make more people accepting of the ethics that flow from evolutionary theory?

“I was shocked; I couldn’t believe you did so well” “Thank you”

Talk about not judging a book by it's cover. What a thoughtful and intelligent Apologist.

I get it, people have a right to disbelieve. I don't know much about this particular chap but, generally speaking, the aggressive, condescending, vitriolic new atheist types need to give it a rest already. They want so bad for God not to exist. I'm starting to think it's not so much a disbelief in God, but rather a hatred of Him for the imposition of existence itself.

One problem with Ehrman, which Akin alludes to, is that he seems to have gone directly from fundamentalism/Evangelicalism to critical thinking/agnosticism. He would have been better off had he taken a look at the Catholic/Orthodox view of things which does not take Biblical literalism and the historical-critical method to be the be-all and end-all of theological epistemology. Of course this does not mean that he would have accepted one or the other as valid, but it would have given him a broader perspective on opposing criticisms. It's as if he doesn't believe the Bible anymore, but he still believes in sola scriptura!

Erhman’s such a hack. His work with the text is great no doubt but arm waves away the logical conclusion of his work: the gospels are reliable

It's super cute thinking that Jimmy won that debate.

Thanks much for this video.

Did he though?

Ehrman is intimidating IMO because he is such a good communicator, and does have legit credentials that make him seem very imposing...and then you get to his actual arguments and critiques, which are very rigid and superficial.

At what point in the debate did Jimmy "win"?

This reminds me of that dialogue from the Hannibal Lector stories. Lecter: how did you catch me? Special Agent: you had certain disadvantages. Lecter: what disadvantages? Special Agent: you’re insane. Only with atheism, it’s….“you’re a dumbass”.

so jesus family HAD 2 HOMES HUH tell me how probable is that does he know the distanse akin is the king of well maybes

Bart was visibly rocked during the debate. Although Jimmy's 'High Five' was way too hard (powerplay)??

Wasnt trounced. Akin just cleverly avoided questions.

These clickbait af titles only make a disservice to your followers. He didn't trounced nothing - on the contrary! Ehrman is lightyears ahead in terms of historical knowledge of these books and it was obvious in the debate.

Jimmy is a walking encyclopedia of Christianity.

Christian apologetics at its best: "Joseph had two houses" ... :) Of course, Jimmy, that was common in antiquity ... carpenters owning several houses (let alone they're 100 miles (a week's journey on foot) apart).

I just watched the White V Ehrman debate Jimmy is talking about…… and White actually did EXTREMELY well during Ehrmans cross examination. “Raked over the coals”?? “Extremely embarrassing”?? Maybe I watched the wrong debate….

I can't believe I just heard the equivalent of a porn addicts anonymous commercial- this world is so screwed.

i really think Akin overplays how many points Erhman scored in his cross examination of White. He got him on a few things but rhetorical value was lost because it was clear he was being nitpicky and White gave enough of an account of himself to show that he wasnt a chump either ,which is what he needed to sell his argument which to me seemed pretty sound. Erhamn was pissed in that debate because he came in there expecting some uneducated evangelical hick and was saying really degrading stuff like "maybe one or two of yuo will be open minded enough to see how im right" and he wasnt expecting White's presentation to be so sophisticated

Bart is a great mind, precise, knowledgeable, he knows his stuff. I'll have to find this debate.

He "won" the debate by conceding at the outset that the Bible was not inerrant!

The problem with these debates that is more about the participants and their particular views in a subject but not about the Truth of Creation, Creator and the creatures. My second book I’m writing is totally different approach, God is self evident with the Bible or without the Bible, Christianity exists before the Bible and that was put together by the Church that JC founded to continue His ministry, so my approach is that to be an atheist is just a matter of faith, not to believe in God because God is self evident. An atheist put a lot of effort in being an atheist, he or she is a person that just “ decide” that God doesn’t exist. Most of the people have the idea that something else is out there, someone who is the starting point. All the good comes from God, when I talk with an atheist I always ask them how many people they did kill apart from God, and usually looked at me as I am crazy, and then I asked them why? Because is wrong, so I follow “ How do you know is wrong? And they start to see if they are smart enough that the most of the people follow more laws that come from God not men. I end always saying you follow a commandment of a God that you said does exist, and probably you follow more commandments too but you don’t understand where good is coming. Once a gay told me that if I was implying that atheist are fake or atheist cannot be good, my answer is “ not I know for a fact that an atheist can behave good because atheists also follow God natural laws, that are Divine in nature “ to though they are deniers as spoiled children. But to me a real committed atheist would be a person that goes against all the precepts, because he is not afraid of punishment of a God that doesn’t exist. So I’m still looking for a real atheist, the killer who never get caught, the cheater, the envious, the hater of God and others, a person who breaks each commandment, never found one. God is always good, He always is.

If a believer believes they beat an atheist in a debate, or vice versa, it does not prove or disprove anything. It can influence what others believe.

"Beat him". Think again. Neither of you can hold a candle to him.

This was nonsense - we never saw a single clip that backed up his claims to have beaten ANYONE! This was completely one-sided and unchallenged.

Given that Ehrman has not really changed his arguments or positions for the last 20 years, its not tough to demolish that citadel. He does well against freshman college students, but...

Why this man sound like Bart himself 😂