As someone who was raised Christian fundamentalist with a literal belief in hell and a belief that the end times could happen any moment, I'm finding Bart's sober minded talks on Christian history therapeutic.
It's very difficult to imagine a concept which has caused much more anguish to humans than the idea that - often for things which are seemingly ridiculous, unclear, confusing, or minor - they might be literally tortured FOREVER (let that word sink in, being tortured for a million billion years is NOTHING compared to forever) by a god who is pure love and if they don't follow (varies from religion to religion) rules and do what the church tells you, or even regardless of how good of a person they are, they're screwed. Sure, the concept means different things to different people, but tell me that the above isn't what at least a lot of kids - and I think probably adults too - thought more or less of hell, and how terrifying that could be.
Bart is so knowledgeable and able to explain complicated theology in plain language and with a great sense of humour. Your questions were also really on point. Great interview, thanks!
I'm a committed follower of Christ. I love Bart because he upholds the early dating and authorship of many New Testament letters. I appreciate channels like this and I uphold the freedom for us all to respectfully exchange ideas.
I'm not a Christian, but I still agree on many things with Christians. And I'm very curious about Judaism/Christianity origins from a more neutral source. It is really sad that whenever you go to this topic you get a bunch of Atheists or Fundamentalist Christians yelling, trying to force their views. So yes, it is great finding places like this.
You love the fact that Barts position is that the Bible is fiction and not written by eyewitnesses. Weird. As a follower of Jesus? I wont use Christ because Jesus wasnt the Christ
How DARE you be reasonable! You're supposed to be unreasonable, i'm supposed to be dismissive, and then we can all yell at eachother so we dont have to think anymore! Jokes (not good ones) aside, Bart is someone who I really think anyone should be able to respect regardless of what "side" you are on... He always brings mountains of evidence to bear, his arguments are simple and very able to explain the evidence in clear and concise words. Anyone who can Steelman their debate partner's (whats a neutral word for "opponent?") views properly get massive thumbs up points from me (Incase anyone wants to know, a Steelman is the opposite of a Straw-Man. A straw-man argument is not accurately describing your opponent's position, but instead describe it in a way which makes it easier to defeat, typically by trying to ridicule it, and often to make an attack on the person themselves. For example, a non-believer might say "all Christians think their god is a big man in the sky with a white beard!" or a believer might say "Atheists are all just wicked people, angry at god (etc)" So thats a "straw-man", a "steel-man" is the opposite, to try and clearly, fairly describe what your opponent seems to be trying to say, what their position is, and why a person might really think that position was correct. I feel like that's almost a mandatory part of being a civil debater. I've heard some utterly infuriating straw-man arguments, there is even one pro-Christian debate person who insists - and obnoxiously will even tell people who disagree that they are lying - that EVERYONE "knows" that god (and his specific one) exists, and atheists are just pretending not to believe for (ridiculous reasons). Or i've seen sadly people who will just flat-out deny that (since it's part of the previous example i'll use it here) Christianity does any real good at all, who I reckon have spent too little time volunteering to realize is just an unsupportable argument (since you will meet a heck of a lot of religious people - of any denomination pretty much - volunteering at least partly because their religious beliefs motivate them to do so.) So I tip my hat to your reasonable and civil comment!
For me ow, it's hard to hear any christian talk about how great god is etc. or read an opposing post on an agnostic page. I get nauseated because I was a fundamentalist and quite evangelical for 35 years of my life until one day I knew it wasn't real. I could feel that I was talking to myself. I think I always knew, but I had the fear of hell and not listening to god or believing drilled into me by fear, discipline, and shouting that I stayed and thought if I just believe everything will be ok. The longer I stayed, the more abuse entered my life in all ways and the more chained I was to an abusive narcissistic family...until I cut it all off. The cognitive dissonance just stopped and the pain of years wasted and relationships tarnished due to listening to my family is deep.
I have recently finished Professor Ehrman's book, "Jesus, Interrupted" in the endnotes he cites three books refuting his position. I find it very admirable a scholar citing works opposing his position.
Excellent conversation, thank you for sharing and you got a new subscriber and by the way beautiful song, resonates so much with what I am going through right now.
The music is just wonderful. It would have touched me immensely as I was leaving my evangelical pentecostal upbringing. I'm ALWAYS happy to find others who also left that fundamentalist type faith as I did, so nice to find you sir. Also, DAMN I wish you were here about 15 years ago. Like Bart, it was a painful process for me. I WANTED to keep believing I would see my dad again.. and my aunt, and others I loved and lost. It was the last piece of letting go for me and it was extremely painful. Good work. I'll be sharing your RU-vid with my own atheist community here in Maine. This song is just AMAZING. Also exactly how I feel about the god in the bible.
Wow thank you so much for dropping by Anna! Losing people is so hard, there are so many - friends and even family - I will likely never speak to again. Ugh. It can be a lonely place and yet I’ve never felt so free and alive. Right? Thanks for the encouragement ✌🏻
I've never been able to get my head around how somebody who never met Jesus in his lifetime counts as an apostle. Paul claimed to have a vision of him, for example, but, heck, anybody today could claim the same thing: so why couldn't anybody claim apostlehood?
Look at Joseph Smith. People keep looking outside themselves for the answers. Fear of being alone a need to be loved. My greater power is an open mind the acceptance of science and history . My daughter just went from Baptist to a holiness church. I can't make myself believe something I question so much. I don't find comfort in being a failed lab experiment, where most of your creations are thrown in an incinerator as trash.
What many Christians might be unaware of is that what we might term "Logos Theology" is present in many other faith traditions such as in Alawi Islam, Mahayana Buddhism, Vedic Hinduism, etc.
I'm a retired evolutionary biologist, with backgrounds in philosophy (epistemology) and astrophysics. I first discovered Dr. Ehrman well over 10 years ago, while co-authoring a novel with an acquaintance, and decided to work into the book some references to the Nag Hammadi Codices, which I turned into the central motivation for the plot of this novel. From this, I decided to make a serious effort to research the origins of Christianity, since I had been raised in a Roman Catholic household, although I have no recollection of ever having held any religious beliefs. I was, and remain, an agnostic atheist, having formulated the same distinction between agnosticism and atheism that I subsequently realized that Dr. Ehrman had also formulated. HIs books have been enormously valuable to me, because of their clear-headed honesty and evidence-based scholarship.
Fellow Biologist here! I have a big soft spot for evolutionary biology, and (though it takes a lot more grains of salt) work done on tying our evolutionary history with aspects of our modern biology, behavior, and other traits - I reckon our brains do a whole lot more confabulation than most people would like to admit, and that a lot of our seemingly complex and intentional behaviors and thoughts are in part or in whole really best explained with relatively simple internal mechanisms rather than some sort of erudite philosophy. Primacy and recency (first thing and last thing), confirmation bias, etc, explain a lot more of what we do than fancy thinking!
@@teejayaich4306 Greetings, fellow biologist! I'm actually writing a rather involved piece entitled "That Thing Within", about a range of things beyond our awareness or current understanding, like in what way is mathematics inherent in the Universe; what happens in black holes; Unruh radiation and virtual particles; subterranean life and ecosystems like fungi and and other organisms "down there"; genetics and proteomics; elementary life in environments such as in caves, which doesn't rely on photosynthesis but rather on chemosynthesis; emergent properties; spontaneous self-organization; even untouched books in libraries; and so on. My central point will be the nature of the mind and consciousness, and the fact that non-human animals certainly exhibit "mind" and self-awareness, as well as having the concept of "other minds". This is obviously a very, very tall order, but I've been thinking about these topics for decades: I began my academic career as a philosophy student (epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science), and then mathematics and astrophysics. These topic in my current writing are central to me.
Epistemologically, Ehrman misses the point of Christianity. He doesn’t engage the actual content of the historical experience of several millennia of the worship of the God of Israel (there doesn’t seem to be word in English for the continuity between Hebrew religion before and after the Incarnation). Ehrman shows no interest in the organic whole of a living faith which undergoes change in form and emphasis as the community of faith experiences historical trauma, growth and loss. Ehrman May have become an atheist along the path of his academic career but he never encountered living faith, only tilted at windmills of a dead and disembodied prejudice that we call Evangelicalism.
The host claims to have attended a ‘conservative’ seminary where Ehrman’s work was effectively banned. Meaning he had a Protestant evangelical religious education. Protestantism is by definition NOT CONSERVATIVE in the grand scheme of Christian academics. Neither the host nor Ehrman have ever encountered living Christianity, only a desiccated corpse of a once-living faith, a denatured and disembodied parody of the living tradition in Christ. So very, very sad.
Thanks for this. I’ve been a Bart fan for going on 20 years. I appreciated your interview style and personality. And Forrest Clay may have a new fan also; great song and voice.
I too have been a long time fan of Bart and like many have a few of his books. Although, it is not just him reusing the same jokes but I am feeling he has got a bit stuck. But he has inspired a younger generation of scholars who are leaping ahead. I would never of though text that are so old would continue to have much to research. Then again maybe Bart will do more in describing the early differences/disputes in the Christian movements
I've listened to dozens of Bart's lectures in the Great Courses series. I sought out and joined the Gnostic Church because of his lectures, deepened my faith and refined my more metaphysical understanding as to what Christianity is for me. It also opened my eyes even more to the so called "Christian" movement of today (which is more like the "second crucifixion" in my eyes). That's all pretty ironic, having come from an "atheist humanist"! Having done psychedelics in the past broadened my conception of "God" and started me on my path that will continue until the day I die. It's what makes life worth living for me and helps me breathe in this sad, beautiful, jaded and dualistic world.
Wow thank you for sharing! This is an amazing story. I’m relatively new to this world and so any resources you’ve found helpful, I’d be grateful if you’d pass them along. Feel free to email me at whatifproject.net@gmail.com . Thanks again for sharing!
Man, I wish he talked more about the gospel of Thomas, A lot of scholars just don't talk about or don't even mention it, it's very important, If I ever talked to Bart ehrman, I wanna know everything he knows about the gospel of Thomas, and what he knows from other scholars.
I love that song! To be honest, acknowledging Jesus as a failed prophet was harder than to think he hadn't existed at all. But the evidence for his existence is just too overwhelming like Dr Ehrman says. That doesn't make him divine though. Deconstruction was such a painful and long process. Thanks to people like Dr Bart Ehrman and Dr Josh Bowen, and a bunch of other experts and amateurs, I have found new interest in the ancient texts and do I want to learn more about them. This podcast gave me another layer and corrected my thinking about the Council of Nicea.
Ahhh yes I feel this so much. It’s such a painful process which is why I started this podcast, really, to give myself a place to wrestle with my own questions and invite others along for the ride. More videos will go up in 2022, for now it’s mostly audio on all the podcast platforms. Thanks for sharing, honored to be on the journey with you ❤️🙏🏻✌🏻🤙🏻
Jesus wasn’t a failed prophet. Unfortunately, the trinitarians destroyed the message. When you actually can see the true message, it is truly beautiful. It couldn’t be any other way. Mr. Ehrman does understand the gospel better than 99% of Christians. He isn’t all the way there though. He can’t see the true message. By the way, Jesus is a man. Jesus has a God.
Jesus was a prophet but not a failed prophet. He raised his voice and corrected the mistakes and corruptopns that had crept into Judaism. He will return and correct those who called him God and did many works in his name rather than God
I apologise in advance for the long text. I stumbled upon this channel, from Dr Ehrman's channel, and it really struck me how welcoming the opening segment was, and I'd like to share my personal experience. I was raised in an Orthodox Christian household. My parents were not very religious, but they'd go to church occasionally and they've been baptised. In my late teenage years and very early 20s I was an outspoken atheist, especially after I came out as gay when I was 19 and moved in the UK. My whole argument for being atheist was based on why God made me like this, but condemns me, I have no control over who I love, therefore there is no God. Anyway after my undergraduate degree I started going to church out of curiosity. And I became Christian, or I started believing. I was drawn to the fact that Jesus preaches love, understanding and tolerance and I was reading more. Then I found out about scholars like Dr. Bart Ehrman, Dr Robert Price, Dr Richard Carrier (the latter two believe that Jesus never existed, which I disagree with), however it made me think why churches are so adamant on not following scholarly consensus about Jesus and the Bible. I've mentioned to several people in church that Peter probably never wrote Peter 1 and Peter 2, and they were astonished. They couldn't believe that this is scholarly consensus. Then it was the whole problem of suffering, I just couldn't understand how if God loves everyone there's suffering. When Jesus was on earth, he healed numerous people, but now he stopped. He doesn't do it anymore, why? Why is every church institution so afraid of teaching what scholars have to say about the bible? Most churches say "God loves you no matter what...." and then proceed to list conditions upon God's love. Not to mention that I have not found a church that I can attend that does not throw judgement on my sexuality. Faith wise I am currently in this limbo - I still believe in Jesus with all my heart, and I try to follow his example, but then again I don't believe Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, or Matthew - Matthew. I read about what scholars have to say - and yes it does shake my faith. It does bother me that there's so much suffering in the world, how can God be in control? People find it difficult to link how I can be christian and gay, since the bible says these awful things about my group of people (which is a very fair assessment, the bible does condemn homosexuality). It is a tedious path, and I am happy I've found this channel, where people are not afraid to explore their faith, or lack of. Thank you :)
Wow, what a beautiful yet heartbreaking story - thank you for sharing this. Sometimes I’m not sure what I believe about God anymore. I guess I embrace mystery more than the rigid certainty I used to. I believe God is loving and inclusive and I believe that deep down that same loving inclusiveness is wired into us and the hope is we all eventually wake up to it in this life or the next. You are loved, my friend. Thanks for reaching out. Feel free to jump in our Facebook group or send me an email at whatifproject.net@gmail.com, I’m happy to help get you plugged into various communities revolving around the podcast ❤️🙏🏻
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast Thank you so much and I apologise in advance for my late reply. I have applied to join the Facebook group and I am looking forward to be part of this community.
If you havent heard him before Pete Holmes has spoken about being Christ-leaning rather than Christian, and even being an Agnostic-Atheist once confirmed Catholic Apostate myself I think the ability to divorce the beneficial teachings of Jesus from the corruptions inserted by the church and people with agendas can certainly be beneficial in finding what your own understanding of the truth is. I also may suggest looking into Daoism, Jainism, and other non Abrahamic religions to help figure it all out with the aid of perspectives that arent spoken as widely about but hold many valuable ideas which can have surprising overlap with base level Christian ideals. I have known some who find the study strengthens their faith, others lose it, others may have a shift but retain something, but it all results in a more honest existence. Regardless of what beliefs you affirm best of luck in finding what they may be!
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast happy to be of assistance. You see my point though dont you. The debate would be futile. People on both sides don't even have an agreed set of facts which can inform any debate. And we mere mortals cannot possibly determine the weight we should apply to the facts. Bart and Elaine and Dairmaid Macculloch all come to the table with their own biases. Some of which they even acknowledge. Its hardly different to reading that kook Dan Brown who stole the idea for Da Vinci from The holy blood and the holy grail. Which was nonsense.
Trent gets impaled on his own Horn then? He's the Smartest and most reasonable apologist that I've come across so far. I'd love to see him Dunk on Frank Turkel in a debate.
I've been having a lot of conversations with friends who are both Christian and Agnostic/Atheist (what I identity as after being raised and confirmed Catholic in a heavily Protestant town) as of late discussing how none of the beneficial ideas in the Bible are exclusive to the Bible and how Christianity at a certain point isn't even that much of meaningful label due to the numerous mutually exclusive ideologies that all fall under its umbrella nonetheless and find that simply being honest about what you believe is beneficial in finding inner peace. From an atheist perspective, and particularly a humanist one, it can help find what the core tenets that humans gravitate towards are and why that may be valuable to understand and for Christians realizing that you don't have to wholly abandon your faith because you doubt or discount parts of the narrative you have been fed can alleviate stress and guilt associated with the false idea that it is orthodoxy or bust that some are so ready to hammer into your head.
Enjoyed this. One correction: the idea of salvation by having correct views (which the Christian Gnostic groups normalized in Christianity) didn't start with Christianity, it started with the first dogmatic school in Hellenistic philosophy, Epicureanism, in the 2nd or 3rd Century BCE. Norman Dewitt in his book "St Paul and Epicurus" argues in more detail on the many of the other "borrowings" of New Testament epistles (and even their ways of organizing community, some of the ethical doctrines, etc.) from Epicurean tradition.
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast from them it went into the Pauline Church and became Christian orthodoxy (because the Roman Church had money and influence), whereas the other churches (like the Ebionites) had more Jewish tendencies and didn't focus so much on salvific theology based on creed
@@hiramcrespo734 interesting, I never thought of it from that perspective. Thanks for sharing. I’ve been enjoying some of the Gnostic texts that seem to emphasize more listening to the voice within than abiding by doctrines and whatnot. It’s relatively new to me so I’m very early in my exploration.
I suspect a vast amount of Christian theology was based on thinking by the ancient Greeks and Romans. I strongly suspect the concept of heaven as a perfct place, and terrestrial life as "fallen" or not worth considering, relates to Plato's concept of a world of perfect forms, (i.e. a perfect ideal horse) and all manifestations of objects on earth are imperfect, which "explains" why horses come in different colours and szes. This concept of an archetype, BTW, was a great barrier to the devlopment of the theory of natural selection, which absoloutely relies on genetic and phenotypical variation, which is consider quite normal. (I dont accept at all either the idea of the Xtian heaven or the Platonic world of forms, BTW)
I've not read the book, but I strongly suspect that for the Epicureans, one wanst damned to eternal suffering and flames for not following their prescribed behaviour. I believe it was simply an idea way to live.
Is there any info about how different ideas/alternatives of Christianity were geographically established early on? Maybe even connections to specific apostles?
Great listening from a historian who was once a believer in God, but currently does not believe in a Creator as such. Perhaps if Ehrman considered the writings of theologian Thomas J Oord and his theory of God and the nature of God, he may allow for the existence of such a Creator. I have great respect for Bart Ehrman and his commitment to historical truth. Carry on!
Personally, having been raised in the Methodist church but then attending a Baptist school and having a Dad who went from nightclub owner/promoter to born again Christian...well....I was off and on for years. To be completely honest, the Baptists struck me as straight up weird. Their views on reproductive rights and other things were so alien to me. I was raised in large part by my Grandmother and Great Aunt. Who both went through the depression and viewed FDR as a hero. So there was conflict from the beginning. I'm just thankful I decided to do my own research, finding Dr. Ehrman was so fortunate. His work, along with David Fitzgerald, MythVision, The Atheist Experience....but those deep dives about the real history of the faith are what led me to reason and rationality when it came to my world worldview.
I'm agnostic, but enjoy watching videos discussing theology. Near the end Bart Ehrman seems to suggest that those that deny that Jesus actually existed are mistaken. Although I am open minded on this question, I have been intrigued by the scholarly & ( to me ) persuasive research done by Richard Carrier. In absolute concrete terms, there seems to be precious little historical evidence for the miracle making, society shaking Jesus Christ. I'd be interested in your opinion of Richard Carrier.
Bart thinks the man Jesus existed but did no actual miracles and was not divine. He has given several reasons why it makes little sense to think there was no actual person that all the myths have been attached to. Read his book Did Jesus Exist? to see the arguments and to understand why mythicists like Richard Carrier are almost certainly mistaken. Of course Jesus Christ, the miracle-working divine savior of the world didn't exist, but Jesus of Nazareth, a rural Jewish apocalyptic preacher, who was mistakenly understood by some of his followers to have been raised by God after being crucified? Yes, he really lived.
I hear that. For me I stay Christian because I find the stories of Jesus to be mysterious and life giving and worth following. Texts are most certainly altered but I think that’s the beauty of them - it’s a picture of how people have wrestled with the Divine throughout history and how their ideas of God and spiritual things have changed over time.
Folk need to overcome their “closure bias” and accept that “God” is unknowable. “God” MUST be greater than the Universe and we dont even know the physical Universe yet. How can we ever possibly UNDERSTAND @God”??!!
And the gospels too. They're not known to be by those attributed disciples or those in touch with them. They were just accepted then as so by some groups
Finding yourself is a universal phenomenon. We find the Universal Spiriti (called Spark of Divinity in this video) inside ourselves. Interpreters who have not "found themselves" can muddy the waters of understanding. We "know" when we have "found ourselves." The name that is being accepted for "finding yourself" comes from Hinduism and it is called Self-Realization.
I can accept the historical evidence for the different Christianities, but I’m having a hard time comprehending the findings of recent investigations concerning the Shroud of Turin.
I love your podcast. Why not invite Bernardo Kastrup. He's very original and making waves while ignored by mainstream culture. Kastrup will also get your podcast more noticed!
I love Dr. Ehrman! Just make sure you don't read his work in isolation, make sure you keep being exposed to many schools of thought. Don't buy into the common lie that because you went to seminary for a couple years that you understand the wide range of conservative-leaning schools of thought. Ehrman is right, it is interesting to see the diversity as well as the many contested theological issues in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries that are completely absent today. However, what's equally interesting is what they don't dispute or scarcely dispute.
@@davidclark5618 , what is your ego shit, assuming people know less than you do? Is it insecurity or some form of misogyny? Go off and play, little boy, and stop bothering adults.
I’ll need to read that book, since there is no unambiguous or certain historical evidence for Jesus outwith the NT, so a whole book by a scholar like Bart Ehrman would be quite helpful to me. Nobody can help what they believe, and honestly I can’t see how the history and religion we have today require there to have been a historical Jesus. Anyway, sorry to hear Dr Ehrman thinks I’m such a left field radical because of this observation, but I’ll buy that book and see what additional evidence he has to present.
I don't think Dr Ehrman was clear, so here's how i understand "agnostic atheist" (as one myself!): i don't believe that supernatural being like "gods" exist, but i don't know for sure. if offered overwhelming evidence, i will change my opinion. (tho it has to be significant, lol.) i've scrolled a fair way down but i can't see if anyone else has said this already - apologies if i'm repeating myself!
The word deconstructing is the literary equivalent for humanities and literature as the phrase critical race theory is to race relations. What does a moderator who believes in critical race theory imply for the discussion?
I think the Mythicist position was too easily dismissed. Richard Carrier and Robert Price both present creditable and academically sanctioned arguments in support of mysticism. They are not internet cranks.
I just posted a comment & then scrolled down and saw yours. I too think that Richard Carrier is a serious scholar worth listening to - informative & ( like Bart Ehrman ) a good communicator.
So, Bart Ehrman says that Irenaeus mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being within circulation. You say you've read David Brakke so you probably already know that this is incorrect. Irenaeus mentions the proposition for a fourfold canon corresponding to his view on the four corners of the earth. Also, why does no one mention the significance of the dating of P52, or the fact that the first writings of Paul come from Marcion's Apostolikon, which is also perhaps the first New Testament canon?
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate the added perspective. I grew up conservative evangelical and so this is all very new to new to me within the last 4-5 years. I’m still exploring, but yes I’ve had Brakke on the show before and I realize they emphasize different things and even differ in some places - podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-if-project/id1397047558?i=1000528553389 ✌🏻
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast I just find long introductions nettlesome. I suspect most viewers' search for Ehrman videos are familiar with his bio. And not wishing to be contentious, the CD plug was rather out of place.
@@soslothful It's a podcast with regular listeners. We have 180 episodes on Apple, Spotify, etc. and they all have "special music" from friends of mine. It's not a CD plug, we don't live in the 90's. It's an invite to go listen to their music on whatever platform you listen to music on. I'm the host of the show and so as a host I greet my regular listeners and let new listeners know what the show is about. So sorry the 3 minutes wasted so much of your valuable time. Bart enjoyed the intro and approved it before I put it up, so although I appreciate your feedback ... it is contentious, and it's irrelevant. ✌🏻
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast Ah. Well, fair enough then. All my music is on CD and surprisingly cassette, thus the plug comment. Recently my multidisc player died. I went to four stores and could not find a replacement! To irrelevance that is how the music promo seemed to me. Of course it is your post to structure as you like.
@@soslothful it’s all good, everyone has their opinions! A few people have commented that they didn’t appreciate the intro but I felt for the sake of the podcast and the traffic I knew this would generate, I wanted people to know what the show was about so they didn’t subscribe to the channel thinking it was one thing but then finding out it was something else. I tried to keep it short but probably could have kept the music shorter at the beginning and kept the long piece at the end. Live and learn!
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast Well, some people argue there's evidence against God, like black holes and such. But I don't see how. Unless there's evidence AGAINST God, and no evidence FOR God, then the probability of God is 50-50. I think there's a little evidence against God, so maybe something 60-51/40-49 range. But that "little evidence" is just absence of evidence, that's not conclusive enough.
Hopfully this will be a convincing rebuttal of trent horns contention and eastern orthodoxies , that the church came first( unified). Not that a whole bunch of christianitys were being espoused prior.
If Jesus was a real person or not - He was a Jew! He taught to jews! And his message was for jews! If he actually existed, he would have been shocked and dismayed at the idea that he was proclaimed the redeemer, and god!
Yeah, I've often thought that if Jesus walked the earth today he'd be mortified that a religion was started in his name and people are worshipping him.
The way the world is, is the process. This is part of creation. A perfect human that has free will needs to learn how to control that free will. We make our mistakes here. We are truly children. We tell the child the stove is hot. What does the child do? Touch the stove. Right now, we are touching the stove. We are learning to obey our father. We are learning how to use our free will. It is very simple really. Our evil world is our own making. God is letting us touch the stove.
Thanks for dropping by. It’s called the “What If Project” and we explore the question “what if there are ways of thinking about God and faith that are different than what our traditions have handed us?” You can find us on Apple and Spotify or pretty much anywhere else by searching “What If Project”.
He’s an egotist, who couldn’t sell a book until he became an atheist at one point. Now he’s claiming to be an agnostic because otherwise he has a lot of explaining to do.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow , I went to a lecture where he was one of the panelists. He was one of the rudest people I have ever met in my life. His remark, “I’m sure Jesus had genitals and knew what to do with them”, made one instantly think of masturbation and prostitution, especially since Mary Magdalene and her relationship with Jesus was the main topic. I felt soiled by his porn talk though I wasn’t even talking to the guy. He did other stunts as well but that one topped them all. Throughout the lecture people kept leaving & he was mainly the cause. He really know how to empty a room. His video on the lecture finally showed up and is missing tons of audience questions and his rude responses. It also does not show the many people walking out. If you don’t believe this is how he goes on, I direct you to the number of times he slammed his neighbor, which shouldn’t have remotely been a topic.
@@cheryldeboissiere7824 I can see how that could be offensive for some people. Would you have felt the same way if Bart had said the same thing about some other person?
Where do people think Muhammad got his Qur'anic beliefs about Jesus from, if not from the Nazarenes, Ebionites and other Judeo-Christian sects around him?
Did the New Testament emerge from this chaos of divergent "Christianities?" I think that it was the other way around. The divergent Christianities emerged from the Apostolic teaching of the mid 1st century. Certainly all the literature of the divergent Christianities come from later, either second or third centuries. Though there are hints of divergence, some of them serious, in Colossians and 1 John and Revelation. Eusebius? Probably Bart should go back to Irenaeus and Origen. There was a steam of orthodoxy and a recognition of Apostolic orthodoxy earlier than Eusebius evident in the selection of books in the Muratroian canon circa 200 A.D. It should be said that orthodoxy was not monolithic. The group that emerged in the 4th century as "orthodox" and gradually became the Roman Catholic Church really did not represent the whole church. There was ongoing debate about some pretty important issues such as the nature of Christ in the larger church. Official ecclesiastical orthodoxy may have been centered in Rome, but there were plenty of Christians, Christians by any biblical standard, who were not associated with Roman orthodoxy. And that continued through the centuries that followed. The Roman Catholic Church was one of many expressions of Christianity. Nevertheless, there were boundaries that marked what was Apostolic Christianity and what was not. Gnostic Christianity was not - ever. Arianism despite the protestations of the "orthodox" was Christian by biblical standards. Later, Nestorianism gained many adherents in the church of the east. It may have been larger than the Roman church. Even though Nestorius was deposed of his see. In the 11th century the divergence of the eastern and western church resulted in a schism. But in each case they all were Christian by biblical standards. Typically, Ehrman emphasizes the divergences rather than the core unity. That unity is: Jesus is the savior; the cross was the means of forgiveness; trust in the cross is essential for salvation. Ehrman also emphasizes the extremes. Yes, the 27 books of the NT were not absolutely affirmed by the church until the latter 5th century. But the fact is the four Gospels were affirmed far earlier. Paul;'s letters were recognized as scripture far earlier. Why? Because they were Apostolic and they agreed. Don't be confused by Ehrman's tentativeness.
*Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El.* Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that *“the Most High, El,* gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). *The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.* *It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon* and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant. *Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon* The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel' (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). *El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:* When the *Most High [El]* gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text). The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. *In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god.* Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed from one god among many to the supreme deity by the Israelites in the Iron Age (c.1200-930 BCE) when iron replaced bronze and the copper smelters, whose craft was seen as a kind of transformative magic, lost their unique status. *In this new age, the Israelites in Canaan sought to distance themselves from their neighbors in order to consolidate political and military strength and so elevated Yahweh above El as the supreme being and claimed him as their own.* His association with the forge, and with imagery of fire, smoke, and smiting, worked as well in describing a god of storms and war and so Yahweh's character changed from a deity of transformation to one of conquest. *As the Israelites developed their community in Canaan, they sought to distance themselves from their neighbors and, as noted, elevated Yahweh above the traditional Canaanite supreme deity El.* They did not, however, embrace monotheism at this time. The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722). Google *"Yahweh - **WorldHistory.Org.**"* Watch Dr Christine Hayes at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - **Realhistoryww.com**"* Google *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."* Google *"The Phoenician God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* Google *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* Google *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."* Google *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"* Google *"The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* Google *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."* Google *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"* Google *"Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."* Google *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."* Google *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."* Google *"Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
There is another important reason Christians felt compelled to have a biblical canon. Other religions at the time like the Roman and Greek religions or the Jewish religions didnt have a concept of a heaven that Christians have.
The Greeks had Olympus, that was only populated with greek gods and greek heroes. Everyone else went to the underworld. It was seen as a world of shadows. Tartarus was reserved for the truly evil.
Bart Ehrman actually has a book that discusses the way the modern conception of heavan in Christianity today isn't what Jesus believed or taught. Modern idea of heavan has more in common with Greco-Roman Hellenic religion than what Jesus actually taught or believed.
Theres a fascinating article in a national geographic from December 2011 celebrating the 500th anniversary of the KJV which goes into great detail about how the bible was written. It puts the lie to the Brown theory the bible was authored at Nicaea in 325CE. Its worth reading if you can find it
Who thinks the Bible was “authored” at Nicaea? It was edited by committee overtime. What happened at Nicaea was deciding what was orthodoxy which lead to the expulsion of Christian texts from what would become the Bible.
There's no such thing as a Gnostic Christian. That is a modern term we retrogade back into the discussion. St. Irenaeus said that Valentinus borrowed some of his ideas from the Gnostics. St. Irenaeus called Valentinus a heretic, not a Gnostic ... not a Christian Gnostic. The 3rd century neoplatonist Plotinus, wrote "Against the Gnostics." He complained how they twisted and warped Plato's teaching on the Demiurge. Another work was written called, "Against the Christians." He wrote seperatley about each group which shows that even Plotinus did not think that Gnostics were Christians or that Christians were Gnostics. He saw them as two different groups.
I lost my faith when I put the bible on a timeline. the 6300 year old universe started the deconstruction and forced me to look into church history and the truth of bible stories and what is claimed to be history.
Here is my take on religion and early Christianity. It’s like a combination of four things. Number one is an event. Number two is a gossiping village times 40. Number three is like the movie Mean Girls. Number four is the phenomenon of what I call giving an old man a microphone. Old men love to hear their own voice on the microphone so they talk on and on and on. The event may or may not have happened at all But somehow a story arose of a special event. in this case it seems to have been that a prophet of God didn’t really die die but arose after appearing dead. That would be amazing!!!- if it were true. I think if Jesus survived the cross then he got the hell out of that place and never came back. If there was a Jesus- which there could’ve been. BUT There definitely was not a real miracle. Because those do not exist. However, then you get everyone talking about it and just like the telephone game it changes very quickly and spreads and changes. Then you get the mean girl Aspect which is “we are right and you are wrong and you are nothing bitch”. And then everyone is arguing but eventually the nastiest people lose and the nicest people win out. And then it became canonized and Old Men got the microphones. THEY didn’t want to hear the women so they shut the women down completely. They made man camps they called monasteries - always a bad idea. And then they preached and preached and preached and now because they all cannot stop arguing over the stupid little things we have 12,000 different types of this one religion. They cannot all be right. The other religions exist as well. They also cannot all be right. But every single one of these can be wrong. And they pretty much are. they are all wrong. They are wrong. Where I grew up they did believe that God himself wrote the Bible only the king James Bible by the way with his holy hand and that every word in English mind you what is God’s holy truth. And if you pointed out one contradiction you would burn in hell. If you pointed out that the morality is really jacked up you were definitely burning in hell. It was moral because God said it. These people are truly insane with their deep beliefs. They stand on the street corners around here and scream at women calling them all whores. Once in a rare While they will even call the men. fornicators. But usually they just attack the women first and then if they have a boyfriend with them or even just male friends then those friends get attacked after they try to defend the woman. These people are nuts but every other Christian defense every other Christian even though they never agree with each other. I wish they would remember that they don’t agree with each other that they don’t like each other that they don’t approve of what each other is saying. LOL. But it’s all based on gossip and possible lies. Certainly a lot of people lied when they wrote these gospels. Do we really think Jesus killed other children? That’s really in one of the gospels or more than one I don’t know I am not an expert.
I see it as Dr. Ehrman: On the one hand I'm a gnostic atheist, on the other hand I'm an agnostic atheist - even at the same time: I'm convinced that the abrahamic god as defined by his scriptures definitly doesn't exist, and his scriptures are sufficient to prove it. That's gnostic atheism, as in *"I know* it's bullshit." But some kind of higher entity could exist, and I doubt that we would be able to recognize a superior intelligence. I don't see any reason to believe in such a being, there is no evidence at all - but it is impossible to prove a negative, and I don't know which evidence would convince me until I see it, so my stance is "I don't believe in it because I've never seen any proof, but this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that there won't be any proof ever" - so the reasonable position would be agnostic atheism, as in "I don't believe, but in the end I can't know with certainty."
More than likely, Infinite exists. The first cause has to be Infinite so the wheel of finite causation can start. The first cause can't be finite because, being finite, it would need another cause.
@@sam.246 I'm not sure about that: The relationship of cause and effect is a property of our universe, as space and time. We can't just assume that the same rules we observe inside our universe are acting outside our universe as well: In a state of reality without space and time the idea of causality is a meaningless concept.
Just a small, tiny example. The question is: do you accept *thought insertion* as a reality, and if you do, you'll see this a tree worth barking at loudly.
The last 10 minutes of this interview are brilliant. I have listened to many of Ehrman’s videos, but I have never heard him give an overview of all his books and how the average person of faith should approach this information. Kudos to the interviewer for asking the question. I almost quit the video because of the long rambling intro. If you want more views drop that whole first part and get right into it. Also to Bart, I love listening to you and read your books, but I am tired of looking at your ceiling. You do so many interviews it’s time to get a ring light and a setup that raises the camera to eye level. Find a good media person to help you professionalize your video interviews.
The long rambling (3 minute) intro is because this is a podcast that has existed for 150 episodes before Bart came on. I welcome my regular listeners and wanted to make sure new listeners knew what the show was about before they chose to subscribe. He also approved it before it went up and said it was fine. I asked Bart about his background because although you and others may be familiar with him and his work, not all of my listeners are. So sorry the long rambling intro wasted so much of your time 🙄. And I could care less about views, but thanks for flying by and dropping your feedback. ✌🏻
I think I'm a pretty Orthodox person but I recognize the truth is the goal more than validation, I appreciate this conversation, something that troubles me is witnessing the demonizing of individuals in the name of faith or on behalf of God or in defense of this or that, it seems pretty misguided, thanks for a thoughtful dialogue, we all have bias and are all hurled into the same future, let's be civil.
Also, it appears that the emperor Constantine was very important to a biblical canon being crystalized. He didn't appear to force anybody his opinions into the canon. He just wanted a canon because he made christianity the official religion of the Roman emperor.
nosuchthing8 - No, Constantine apparently cared little or not at all about what books were in the New Testament. He was, however, concerned about seriously divisive arguments within Christianity over the proper way to understand Jesus's divinity. Was Christ a deity created by God or was he equal in all ways with God, existing since the very beginning? Constantine wanted a unified Christianity to support his unified empire, and didn't want arguments over what he saw as little details like this to cause political problems, so he insisted there be a council of church leaders at Nicaea to iron out this issue. The canon was being slowly consolidated during the century before and the decades after Constantine, but the Roman state does not seem to have weighed in on this question. When Constantine had become a Christian (because it helped him win wars) he did not make Christianity the official religion. He stopped the persecutions and removed any penalties for being Christian (or any other religion) though, which made a big difference. Theodosius, two emperors after Constantine, made Christianity the official state religion.
@@Ralphie419 Constantine merged pagan worshippers with Christianity. But the scriptures remained. That's why all the Christian sects thereafter taught to worship God and Jesus through self/ego. Through physical and mental idolatry. John 5: 41 They made Jesus into a celebrity superstar idol in their minds. The meaning of God and Jesus lost because their worship is through self.
It seems to me that Dr. Ehrman confuses the non existence of God with the non existence of a good God. And he certainly has a point. God, assuming this entity exists, could not be called "good" as humans understand this term. But the problem is just this: "as humans understand". Any entity capable of creating this universe and everything it contains is not likely to be functioning on a human level of understanding. I have two very lovely Labrador dogs. We have very great times together. But I have never had much luck discussing the merits of Plato with them. We work at different levels of intellect. So, obviously, do humans and God.
Good points, thanks for sharing! On a similar line of thinking, I don’t think the Scriptures give us a picture of God as much as they give us a picture of how humans have tried to understand God throughout history. Bart’s big thing, I believe, is with the problem of evil - if God exists and God is powerful then why doesn’t God stop the atrocities around us? I have thoughts on that too, but that’s for another day lol
The problem is that most if not all organized religions claim that they know exactly what god wants, thinks dictates, does or doesn’t. When cornered because of the endless contradictions, they resort to the “god” is unknowable argument. Which, besides invalidating all previous claims made about god, it’s itself another unsubstantiated claim about god. Perhaps dogs can’t discuss the merits of plato with their owner but certainly they don’t doubt his existence. Speculation about the intellect of god is like speculation about the mating habits of unicorns: just a way to distract from the complete lack of evidence for both.
@@pansepot1490 The most thoughtful people have always been aware that God's essence is unknowable. But admitting this is very inconvenient for those who would use religion as a means of domination, which unfortunately includes virtually all religious hierarchies. Actually, though, there is evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity. Much of this evidence has come to light only in the past few decades, so has not made much of an impact yet. But I think this is bound to change.
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast The Scriptures were developed at a time when humans just didn't know nearly as much as they do now. This makes it hard for them to maintain their credibility today. But, as I mentioned to Panse Pot, there is scientific evidence for a Creator which has developed only very recently. And once the Creator's existence has been demonstrated, an enormous number of possibilities open. A certain number of humans have through all history been blessed by experiences of God. Their insights can form the basis of a new faith, without the need of a religious hierarchy to sustain it.
