Bart Ehrman's Bad Arguments Go On Tour

In this episode Trent examines some of the arguments atheist Bible scholar Bart Ehrman makes against the Bible presented in recent interviews on various atheist podcasts.

00:00 Intro
01:34 The Resurrection and Physics
04:50 The Historical Jesus vs Apollonius and Romulus
08:15 Jesus' Divinity
21:05 New Testament Variance
28:20 Conclusion

[Forester-]

Never forget when Brant Pitre got Dr. Ehrman to admit that Jesus makes a divine claim in Mark's Gospel during the trial

[AttackDog]

I think Bart Ehrman's arguments are interesting but not compelling. "Jesus never claimed to be God" "He does so in X, Y, Z spots, all of Jesus' disciples appear to have understood him to be claiming divinity, and this is basically the consensus position of all the Biblical authors and the Sanhedrin" "X, Y, Z spots can't have happened because they contradict my position."

[philsdon]

Bart Ehrman brought me to Christ. I was spiritually inclined towards Hinduism so I sought bias against Christianity. While reading one of his books where he exposed the discrepancies in the gospels, I was struck with the truth the gospels proclaimed. Nice work, Bart. Wouldn't have happened without you.

[billcynic]

20:12 So Ermhan claims that Mark misrepresented the trial, because Jesus wouldn't have actually been accused of blasphemy because He wasn't making divine claims. That is, Mark edited it to indicate Jesus claimed divinity. Which means that by Erhman's own logic, Mark thought Jesus was divine.

Edit: for those claiming I don't understand or misunderstand Ermhan, here he is saying Jesus never claimed to be divine in the Synoptics.

[awediomusic]

The sheer arrogance it takes to claim that 2, 000 years of Christian thought missed out on these silly little details is obscene.

[erasmusflattery]

I found this video by searching for Bart Ehrman response because I’ve been watching his podcast series and I wanted to hear someone who thought differently. I really like how you quoted him and his book, you clearly put a lot of time and effort into this video. I’m not Catholic (or even Christian), but I appreciate the video and made sure to give it a like

[rosslander]

Hey Kyle, thanks again for reaching me a couple weeks back. I’m still working out a few trials but I’m holding firm to my beliefs. I pray that I have the strength, faith, and intellect to put myself and my home back on the path of Truth.

[RedeemedCatholic]

The Son of Man is a divine figure in Daniel, "coming on the clouds of heaven" is what God does in the Old Testament. That's why they sentenced Jesus to death, they knew that He claimed to be the divine figure from Daniel.

[TestifyApologetics]

Good video. But one thing I'd say is why not just argue for the reliability of John? It is a good source. Also I think Ehrman could reply that Elisha knew what Gehazi said to Naaman, that doesn't make him God. I think we are better off bucking up and defending John as an eyewitness.

[IsaiahWagner-jxkb]

There’s no actual scientific reason to think that the laws of science and physics can’t be broken besides repeated observation. It’s unscientific to say a miracle can’t happen.

[michellecaldwell-fennellre]

Thank you Trent! I appreciate this podcast as I’m just now about to take my first rites at Christ the King here in Tulsa, Oklahoma. You give me a lot of insights . Again, much thanks

[thejerichoconnection]

I agree with Ehrman actually!

If you throw away the gospel of John and the letters of Paul and you also throw away all the passages in the synoptic where Jesus claims to be God, then yes: Jesus never claimed to be God.

Sounds like pretty solid logic to me.

[carlanthonyb]

We need a Trent Bart debate to settle this once and for all.

[liamjparker]

Thanks for doing this, Trent. I was very frustrated seeing these arguments get so much (seemingly coordinated) airtime. I was hoping someone else noticed. Appreciate you digging into this!

[thenazarenecatholic]

“This biblical account doesn’t fit with my own narrative…. Therefore, the authors are wrong.”

- Bart, essentially.

[TheologicalAmatuer]

Jimmy Akin v Bart is still one of my favorite debates

[notpants]

Babe wake up, new Counsel of Trent dropped

[CRoadwarrior]

I have to admit that this was a good analysis of Bart's bad arguments, despite the fact that I disagree with much of Roman Catholic doctrine. Excellent work!

[morgana]

Please read The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre, a catholic New Testament scholar. He tackles every single one of this issues and more.

[dogsnout]

God is an outside force that can act on this universe. If I spin a wheel and then stop it with my hand, I didn't break the laws of physics, I was just the outside force that acted on the wheel to make it stop spinning.