WARD crazies on Bart Ehrman "defending" Book of Mormon witnesses.

[sgtpeanut]

I'm new to this forum so feel free to let me know if this has been discussed already.

I guess I missed this, but WARD Radio was screaming like Star Wars fans at a convention when the guy who played Luke Skywalker walks out a few months back because Bart D. Ehrman, the agnostic scholar of the New Testament and the historical Jesus, in a debate with New Testament scholar Justin Bass entitled "Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?" on the youtube channelPremier Unbelievable supposedly (according to WARD) defended the Book of Mormon witnesss and their testimonies. The whole debate is not focused on the Book of Mormon, but the relevant portions are 12:00-around 19:06 and 47:43-59:16.

Anyhoo, I find this interesting, as Dr. Ehrman has stated his opinion on the historicity of Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and thier narrativse on Mormon Stories seven years ago. The full episode is very good, but I've timestamped the key bit and will also quote it below.

Delhin asks:

Based on your understanding of science and history and archeology and race...what would your quick response be to the core historical narrative of the Book of Mormon, for your assessment?

to which Ehrman replies:

My personal view is that there's nothing true about it at all.....I think it's completely made up, I mean, you know, I'm not restricting myself to Mormonism...But if you're asking me historically, did it really happen? No, it didn't happen, in my opinion. But you know, I think that about a lot of narratives in the Bible too so it's not, you know, I'm not picking on Mormons here. I think the stories of Abraham, the actual historical figure of Abraham, I think they're not historical either, but I certainly don't think that the stories in the Book of Mormon are historical, no.

I've not watched the whole debate (I just used CTRL+F on the transcript for keywords like "Mormon") or the WARD ramble-a-thon (I'm not going to link it here because I don't want to give them clicks/hit, you can find it easily though, just search "bart ehrman Mormon") but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this is probably another example of WARD engaging in their trademark brand of emotionally charged apologetics and cherry picking.

Anyone else seen this debate or, heaven forbid, had the mental willpower to sit through the WARD videos?

I'm very curious to hear y'alls thoughts on this.

[drumdude]

Psych-ward radio is so painful to get through but I’ll give it the old college try!

[huckelberry]

Well there were real witnesses and they really made statements about what they believed they saw.

Oh, and welcome sgtpeanut. It is ok to take up again a subject discussed previously. Your particular subject has not though Mr. Ehrman comes up from time to time. By Ward I at first thought you meant folks down at the local meeting house. On second thought you might mean a youtube presentation which I am not familiar with.

[Dr Exiled]

I can't remember what commentator said this but, she talked about how she went to a mental hospital and spoke with a bunch of "witnesses" and supposed "chosen ones" that said they saw Jesus or were actually Jesus. Perhaps a rethink of the most holy witnesses is in order.

[Dr Exiled]

Also, fraud victims will go to great lengths to cover for their folly. That's what gives fraudsters their power. Embarrassment is a big motivating factor.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Welcome to the forum sgtpeanut!

[Moksha]

By Ward I at first thought you meant folks down at the local meeting house. On second thought you might mean a youtube presentation which I am not familiar with.

Would it jog your memory if Sgtpeanut had said "Psych Ward Radio"?

[PseudoPaul]

I'm new to this forum so feel free to let me know if this has been discussed already.

I guess I missed this, but WARD Radio was screaming like Star Wars fans at a convention when the guy who played Luke Skywalker walks out a few months back because Bart D. Ehrman, the agnostic scholar of the New Testament and the historical Jesus, in a debate with New Testament scholar Justin Bass entitled "Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?" on the youtube channel Premier Unbelievable supposedly (according to WARD) defended the Book of Mormon witnesss and their testimonies. The whole debate is not focused on the Book of Mormon, but the relevant portions are 12:00-around 19:06 and 47:43-59:16. Now, I find this interesting, as Dr. Ehrman has stated his opinion on the historicity of Book of Mormon and its narrative on Mormon Stories seven years ago. The full episode is very good, but I've timestamped the key bit and will also quote it below.

Delhin asks:

Based on your understanding of science and history and archeology and race...what would your quick response be to the core historical narrative of the Book of Mormon, for your assessment?

to which Ehrman replies:

My personal view is that there's nothing true about it at all.....I think it's completely made up, I mean, you know, I'm not restricting myself to Mormonism...but if you're asking me historically, did it really happen, no it didn't happen, in my opinion. But you know, I think that about a lot of narratives in the Bible too so it's not, you know, I'm not picking on Mormons here. I think the stories of Abraham, the actual historical figure of Abraham, I think they're not historical either, but I certainly don't think that the stories in the Book of Mormon are historical, no.

I've not watched the whole debate (I just used CTRL+F on the transcript for keywords like "Mormon") or the WARD ramble-a-thon (I'm not going to link it here because I don't want to give them clicks/hit, you can find it easily though, just search "bart ehrman Mormon") but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this is probably another example of WARD engaging in their trademark brand of emotionally charged apologetics and cherry picking.

Anyone else seen this debate or, heaven forbid, had the mental willpower to sit through the WARD videos?

I'm very curious to hear y'alls thoughts on this.

I've watched the original Ehrman debate. They're completely misrepresenting it. Ehrman uses the golden plates witnesses as an example of why even first-hand witness testimony can be unreliable, and then goes on to say most of the New Testament doesn't even rise to the level of firsthand witnesses.

[sgtpeanut]

I've watched the original Ehrman debate. They're completely misrepresenting it. Ehrman uses the golden plates witnesses as an example of why even first-hand witness testimony can be unreliable, and then goes on to say most of the New Testament doesn't even rise to the level of firsthand witnesses.

Ok. So I was right. Were you able to stomach WARD's diatribe about it? What exactly was their point?

[PseudoPaul]

I've watched the original Ehrman debate. They're completely misrepresenting it. Ehrman uses the golden plates witnesses as an example of why even first-hand witness testimony can be unreliable, and then goes on to say most of the New Testament doesn't even rise to the level of firsthand witnesses.

Ok. So I was right. Were you able to stomach WARD's diatribe about it? What exactly was their point?

No, I didn't watch WARD. I have little patience for regular apologetics, let alone dumb guy youtuber amateurs.