Saints meet your opposition

Simply because watching two "Educated theologians" (each with his own theological axe to grind) is never likely to produce anything except CONFUSION at the practical level. The Bible says what it says, and is BY DEFINITION a reliable source, and its AUTHOR is present and accessible for comment.

Jas 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jas 1:6
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

While I do not watch posted videos, Bart Ehrman is well know for his heretical views. Why anyone would bother listening to him is puzzling.

While I do not watch posted videos, Bart Ehrman is well know for his heretical views. Why anyone would bother listening to him is puzzling.

I didn’t listen to the video but the way.
Usually it helps to have an atheist here but since I talk to them daily this is an old argument.
And the reason I like to have a live atheist here is because I want to treat every person as an individual, not apply group-think to them.

With that said the general convo goes like this:

Atheist : Personal testimonies are false and cannot be trusted.
‘Theist: Why should anyone acknowledge your existence when you say “I’m in pain”? Do you believe you exist?

Depending on the flavor of atheist they may choose to say that reality is not real, thus proving a creator or they may choose to say that their personal experience is real thus proving personal testimonies .


ALL of this is exhausting because it’s the same old tired arguments and it’s better done on live chats or face to face convos for faster resolution which can take a few hours.

It seems that you didn't bother to read my post either...
So far no one has put his accusations to rest....shame on you.

Jhn 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So far no one has put his accusations to rest....shame on you.

so who's to say this person was "uneducated" like the fishermen-disciples were supposed to be [esp. Peter & John referred to in Acts 4:13], per the OP-vid-speaker? Jesus had MANY "disciples," recall... Nowhere does scripture state that the writer of this gospel was "John"... yet it seems the OP-vid-speaker is assuming b/c "Peter and John" were "unlearned and ignorant men," that the writer of that gospel ALSO must have been so... Why does he assume this??

I'm not suggesting the person in the verses below was the writer of the gospel we label "John," mind you, but just supplying these verses to show that not all of Jesus' "disciples" were "unlearned and ignorant men" (said specifically regarding "Peter and John" in Acts 4:13)...



Mar 15:43 -
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.


Jhn 19:38 -
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.


Mat 27:57 -
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:


Luk 23:50-53 -
And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:
(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them ; ) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. [see also Isa53:9 re: "the rich"]



So, here's a "disciple" ^ who was both "rich" and a "counsellor" (certainly not what one would call an "unlearned and ignorant" man, as was said about "Peter and John" [fishermen-disciples] in Acts 4:13).


Who's to say that Jesus only had this ONE "disciple" who apparently had some smarts, and all others HAD to be "unlearned and ignorant men" (just because this was said of "Peter and John" Acts 4:13)??


Dumb argument, as I see it.




And why not (in the same vein) think that the majority of His disciples were rich and smart like this guy--if, like the OP-vid-speaker is doing, pulling out ONE VERSE (Acts 4:13) to blanketly declare that "unlearned and ignorant men" are descriptions entirely applicable to ALL of Jesus' disciples... ( )





The OP-vid-speaker pretty much seems to make the point that the writers of the gospels had to be smarties (highly-educated, etc, he said--because of the style of writing, etc), but that all of His disciples were dummies (according to his flawed reasoning), thus (he seems to conclude) that these accounts are inadmissible as reliable historical documents... (huh??)... and that therefore the gospels were NOT written by "eyewitnesses"... (double huh????).

How he comes to these conclusions... seems to be... only so much human-reasoning (read: crazy-talk, LOL).





____________

Another question I have: Does he also conclude that Peter was too ignorant to have written the epistle of 1 Peter (since it was apparently written in Greek, which he's supposed to be "ignorant" of according to the OP-vid-speaker)? Or is it just the HISTORICAL parts of Scripture according to him (i.e. "the gospels" in particular) that Jesus' "disciples" (specifically, "eyewitnesses") could not have been relied upon to record accurately (thus inadmissible as reliable historical documents), according to the OP-vid-speaker? Likewise, was John too "unlearned" to write "Revelation" or was being a fisherman adequate enough for such a writing, so long as it isn't admitted into the category of "historical[-records] documents" which are considered in the courts of those judging such things as reliable or not (like "the gospels" would be)?

Just wondering...

It seems that you didn't bother to read my post either...
So far no one has put his accusations to rest....shame on you.

It might be an idea to watch Dan Wallace debate Bart Ehrman.

I've seen this video on YouTube when Bert first introduced his theory. Many believe him because he once was a Preacher and Biblical teacher for God.

But what Bert does not mention is the Jews wrote in the Talmud that Yeshu was hanged for treason.

That is most important because Bert's real hidden argument here is that Jesus never existed.

But ironically enough, we have the Ancient Jews, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamia, Middle Eastern, etc...[[mostly ATHEISTS]] have written about His factual existence.

But for modern day ATHEISTS, Bert is a godsend lol

His first name is Bart.

I call him Bert because he reminds me of sesame street.

His first argument is that the new testament is in greek...was it always in greek. If not then what and why?

I've seen this video on YouTube when Bert first introduced his theory. Many believe him because he once was a Preacher and Biblical teacher for God.

But what Bert does not mention is the Jews wrote in the Talmud that Yeshu was hanged for treason.

That is most important because Bert's real hidden argument here is that Jesus never existed.

But ironically enough, we have the Ancient Jews, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamia, Middle Eastern, etc...[[mostly ATHEISTS]] have written about His factual existence.

But for modern day ATHEISTS, Bert is a godsend lol

Btw, Bart Ehrman was never a preacher.