@@barkatthemoonlunatic1715 Don't be so reductive. It's disingenuous. Tell me what you eat, and I'll tell you what you are. Anyone can tell a great deal from a glance at Ehrman if they know history, but I can't even explain it here or my comments will just be deleted. Can't say why for the same reason. You should be able to piece that together at least. Suffice it to say that he has vested interior motives many are aware of.
@@barkatthemoonlunatic1715 He's a rabid anti-Christian. From a group that is historically such, whether each individual is secular or not. What's difficult to understand? Do I need to get out my crayons? I'm kind of afraid you'll just try to eat them.
Thanks to Bart Erhman for pointing out that people don't have to be lying and instead just be mistaken. It always bothers me when people say if it's not true, then the witnesses were lying. It's a silly binary.
Thoughts on the dramatic change in action after the apostles claim to have witnessed the risen Jesus? Peter goes from cowardly denying Jesus prior to His death to boldly preaching His resurrection, even to the point of a gruesome death.
@@jesan733 Ehrmann was straw-manning the evidence. The point is NOT whether or not the disciples died, but that THEY WERE WILLING TO SUFFER, EVEN IF THAT LEADS TO DEATH. That's what shows they were convinced and were not making this up. Whether or not they die through that persecution is immaterial. Their willingness to go through it is what explais their conviction. Ehrmann cannot argue the early disciples were not persecuted, so he resorts to a straw man of saying we cannot be sure they actually died in persecution. Secondly, Ehrmann did not even argue that they did not die; he only pleaded agnosticism claiming we cannot know the truth because the stories were embellished (e.g. milk coming out of the heads of the disciples). But is that not the very job of a historian, to flesh out the truth from embellishments? Ehrman is sitting here claiming to flesh out the truth about Christ from the "embellishments of Christianity". So why can't he also strip off the embellishments of the deaths of the disciples and tell us what actually happened?
@@hubertagamasu6283 You are desperately grasping. Even if there were accurate accounts of the lives and deaths of the apostles, and even if they were convinced that their cause was just and true; it still does not lead to any evidence. "that THEY WERE WILLING TO SUFFER, EVEN IF THAT LEADS TO DEATH" In your words, islamic martyrdom and hindus setting themselves on fire, somehow proves that all their gods are real. I don't see how that follows, or how it that is even remotely coherent or rational. If I am willing to die for ghosts, it does not mean ghosts are real; more likely is that I am suffering from a condition or a stroke and require immediate treatment. History is buried and muddied through time; Ehrmann adresses that not everything can be known or fully transparant; nor does it need to be in the context of folk-tales. And that is already more intellectually honest than anything that ever came out of any church. Bible humpers are pathetic.
@@hubertagamasu6283 From what I understand we only have church traditions from many centuries later saying what became of the disciples. For Bart to lean towards there being insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion seems to be a fair position to hold. We have no clear evidence as to what happened to most of the disciples, they mostly drop off the radar after the NT. If we can confirm some were executed, that doesn't mean that it was for the crime of blasphemy, or that there was any possibility that they could have been saved by renouncing their faith. Even if you can somehow show that they died due to their beliefs and stuck to those beliefs when they could have been saved, then as you say that would only show they were convinced of their beliefs but not that those beliefs were true. We know of plenty of Muslims who will die for their beliefs, but we would both agree those beliefs are false regardless of how convinced they are.
Nothing amazing about a man who appeals to early sources one moment and throws them under the bus the other moment. I agree ,though that it's the laziness of the church in engaging Ehrman on his confused theology that has given him such boldness to be spewing nonsense.
@@pineapplepenumbra Read Mark 14:61-63 and ask yourself whom the Son of Man is, according to Christ. If you think Jesus is calling himself the Son of man (which Ehrman denies), then you understand Ehrman's intellectual dishonesty and nonsense.
@@hubertagamasu6283 Firstly, no one was there, so how would you know what was said? Secondly, it's a bit ambiguous, how is the "Son of Man" defined? Remember, there's a lot of bollocks talked about the bible, such as who Lucifer is, who the serpent in the garden was, etc. 60 "Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
@@hubertagamasu6283 You're speaking about intellectual dishonesty, but you believe a man died and rose from the dead, even though it has never happened before or since in the history of the world. THIS is intellectual dishonesty, and it's why you must accept that your beliefs are FAITH. Please learn the meaning of words and terms before you use them to try and look smart.
I’ve never seen anyone dismantle the foundation of Christian core doctrines in a more eloquent way like Bart Ehrman does in this video. He picks it apart piece by piece.
6:04 Did Jesus think the world was about to end? 12:50 Did Jesus claim he was God? 30:00 Did Jesus contradict trinitarianism? 32:39 Did John make up Jesus' divinity? 35:41 Are the birth narratives forged? 42:08 Mistakes and mistranslations in the New Testament 1:01:03 Responding to William Lane Craig on the resurrection 1:26:25 Who did Jesus claim to be? 1:29:40 Outro
Psalm 1:1 How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers! 2 Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction, and he meditates on it day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted beside flowing streams that bears its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. 4 The wicked are not like this; instead, they are like chaff that the wind blows away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand up in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.
2 PETER 3:3-13 Above all, you must understand that in the last days SCOFFERS will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “WHERE IS THIS COMING” He promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a DAY IS LIKE A THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS ARE LIKE A DAY. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the DAY OF THE LORD WILL COME LIKE A THIEF. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
@@xaviervelascosuarez didn't you say this on a Different Thread? Word for word? As for ''Picking and Choosing" what to believe in the Gospels... Isn't that what Christianity has done for Millennia?
@@rustyk4645 I am half convinced Xavier is a bot. He just copy and pastes the same incoherent crap everywhere without ever engaging about it. I dont think he understands his own words.
I appreciate so much how genuinely you seek to understand and fairly represent views opposed to yours. I’m a Christian and have adored this channel for the last several years I have been a fan. These are incredibly compelling objections to Christianity. Keep up the good work!
I do not understand these kinds of comments. Why are you still Christian after watching all of these podcasts? I‘m seriously curious, because these are some hard-hitting arguments, that are very hard to argue against. So what‘s your objection to for example the historicity of Jesus Christ‘s resurrection?
@@ViralChristianity there's that word people throw around. Earth? Hell? Aren't they the same really? It's semantics at this point. Hell is a Latin word that literally means, "to conceal or to cover." e.g. to bury the dead, as in the abode of the dead, i.e. where you put the bodies. Earth is sometimes referred to as an abyss or a sea, in a sense. As above so below. The waters above from the waters below. Because, either things go into the ground or in the future come out of it. Hades is a Greek word that literally means the same as the Latin, as in the state or "abode" of the dead. So, yeah earth is in a literal sense is just dirt you use to bury people with. If you ask a Jewish person about it they'll tell you yeah dead and buried, the concept of a Christian "hell" has no meaning to them. So, yeah Mr. Ehrman is very down to earth, someone is practical, realistic, and unpretentious. In your sense lol we'll all be there soon enough. You can't buy your stairway to heaven, as in a sale of indulgence; you can't “buy your way to heaven” through good deeds as an extra precaution to achieve salvation. You can't supplicate the "LORD" with prayer. And regardless of good or bad, rich or poor, young or old; all our paths come to the same end, 'the sun shines on both the just and the unjust.' And from the earth I was taken and to the earth I will return. 'All that is born, all that is created, all the elements of nature [...] All that is composed will decompose; everything returns to its roots; matter returns to the origins of matter.' Hell ain't bad place to be, to quote AC/DC. But, any day above ground is a good day lol.
As a Christian, I really appreciate this episode and I enjoyed every second of this conversation. It was very informative. I heard that Bart Ehrman was one of the best biblical scholars and hearing him talk on this episode blew my mind! I also loved the way in which Alex hosted this interview. He asked the right questions!
﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
J. Vernon Mcgee a southern Baptist pastor with PhD in theology could teach you way more about the Bible amd scripture that's accurate and not garbage. If anyone claims Jesus Chris is not God.. thier preaching another gospel can may as well be accursed by God.
@@JohnDoe-w2p5d ﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
@@JohnDoe-w2p5d ﴿وَلَقَد أَخَذَ اللَّهُ ميثاقَ بَني إِسرائيلَ وَبَعَثنا مِنهُمُ اثنَي عَشَرَ نَقيبًا وَقالَ اللَّهُ إِنّي مَعَكُم لَئِن أَقَمتُمُ الصَّلاةَ وَآتَيتُمُ الزَّكاةَ وَآمَنتُم بِرُسُلي وَعَزَّرتُموهُم وَأَقرَضتُمُ اللَّهَ قَرضًا حَسَنًا لَأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنكُم سَيِّئَاتِكُم وَلَأُدخِلَنَّكُم جَنّاتٍ تَجري مِن تَحتِهَا الأَنهارُ فَمَن كَفَرَ بَعدَ ذلِكَ مِنكُم فَقَد ضَلَّ سَواءَ السَّبيلِ﴾ [المائدة: 12] (12) And Allāh had already taken a covenant from the Children of Israel, and We delegated from among them twelve leaders. And Allāh said, "I am with you. If you establish prayer and give zakāh and believe in My messengers and support them and loan Allāh a goodly loan,[247] I will surely remove from you your misdeeds and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow. But whoever of you disbelieves after that has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way." [247]- By spending in the cause of Allāh, seeking His reward. - English Translation
@@75ENVY No he isn't. I want a knowledgeable professor, a learned teacher, and a sincere friend -- not an ignoramus. Bart is about Bart and proving Bart right. Jesus said "I am I AM" ... "Before Abraham was, I am" ... "I am the first and the last, the alpha and the omega" ... "How can you say show us the father? Anyone who sees me has seen the father" ... In these and countless other ways, Jesus revealed his divine nature. He not only claimed to be God. He is God.
@@bobgarrett7134 he is learned and knowledgeable about the bible, and additionally about history and contexts surrounding jesus' time and place. You on the other hand, only know how to regurgitate verses, dont know how to verify and contextualize the truth claims in the verse against the backdrop of historical evidence. So whos really the silly one?
@@UrsaringKrusherX You're making pretentious, false, and smug claims -- like Ehrman does. He's uttering lies and disinformation that fit his atheist views. He's ignoring historical proofs, writings, and archeological history. Critics used to believe the Bible was wrong because they felt that King David was a legendary, mythical character. They pointed to the fact that there was no archaeological evidence that King David was an actual historical figure. But then … in 1994, archaeologists discovered an ancient stone slab in northern Galilee that was inscribed with the references to King David and the "House of David." Critics used to believe the Bible was wrong because there was no evidence (outside of the Bible) that a group of people called the Hittites ever existed. The Hittite civilization is mentioned approximately 40 times in the Old Testament; thus skeptics were convinced that this proved the Bible is a mythical creation of ancient Hebrew writers. But then … in 1906, a German archaeologist named Hugo Winckler was excavating in Boghaz-Koi, Turkey, and discovered the capital city of the ancient Hittite empire, the entire Hittite library and 10,000 clay tablets documenting the Hittite history. Scholars translated these writings and discovered that everything the Bible said about the Hittite empire was true. Critics used to believe that a king named Belshazzar never really existed, thus calling into question the historicity of the book of Daniel, which mentions this Babylonian king. But then, in 1854, Henry Rawlinson discovered an inscription in Iraq that named Belshazzar as the oldest son and co-regent of King Nebonidus, who would often leave Belshazzar in charge of Babylon while he traveled. This discovery also helped to clarify Daniel 5:29, which states that Daniel was elevated to the “third highest ruler in the kingdom.” Critics used to believe the book of Acts was not historically accurate. A man named Sir William Ramsay, who is well known to be one of the greatest historical scholars and archaeologists in history, decided to try to disprove the Bible as the inspired Word of God by showing that the book of Acts was not historically accurate. But then, after 30 years of archaeological research in the Middle East, Ramsay came to the conclusion that “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.” He later wrote a book on the trustworthiness of the Bible based on his discoveries and converted to Christianity. Sir Ramsay found no historical or geographical mistakes in the book of Acts. This is amazing when we realize that in the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, nine Mediterranean islands and 95 people and he did not get one wrong. Compare that with the Encyclopedia Britannica. The first year the Encyclopedia Britannica was published it contained so many mistakes regarding places in the United States that it had to be recalled. Critics used to believe the Old Testament simply could not be reliable because they felt that over a long period of time the Old Testament writings would have been changed, altered, edited or corrupted. But then, in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These scrolls contained, among other writings, every book in the Old Testament (except Esther). Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the earliest copy of the complete Old Testament was from A.D. 900. Scholars compared this copy with the Dead Sea Scrolls (produced around 1,000 years earlier) and found that the Old Testament had been handed down accurately through the centuries. The prestigious Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Anthropology has offered the following official statement pertaining to the historical reliability of the Old Testament ... "The historical books of the Old Testament are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work.” In other words, not only does archaeological history confirm that the Bible is historically accurate, but professional archaeologists actually use the Bible as a guide in their work. The great Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck, who is known to be one of the top three archaeologists in history, has stated the following: "No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single, properly understood Biblical statement."
Thank you both for the informative content. I think this was an excellent interview/conversation. Alex had some great questions and respectfully challenged some of Dr. Ehrman's positions, but made sure to give Bart time to speak and thoroughly explain why he holds the views that he does. Keep up the great work!
Liberal = Trash people Drugs = OK Single parents = OK Prostitution and abortion = OK but when the social life start reflecting the consequence for that choice like Theft, car jacking, Robbery, Street Violence, HIV, drugs, Drunker. This prick blame Christianity, they blame Judaism. hahahahahaha. no wonder hell is real. place for the P R I C K/
Let me explain this out to the jews, christians, and muslims so that all of you have clarity and understand. Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is the very first human soul to exist. This is why the christians overcompensate Jesus and why the muslims undercompensate whom jesus truly is. Does this mean jesus is any less important or meaningless? This is a question only you can answer, for that answer lies within each and every one of you. He was not born of a virgin birth. He is of the line of judah. In fact, if you wish to know something of interest about your savior, let me explain how he returns. He returns the same as he did the first time, a man no different from you. He was born a pauper, a bastard son of a roman soldier. Yes, the jews are correct. This is who your king is. Once again, the jews will call his mother a prostitute for bearing three sons from three different fathers. The only thing is one of these fathers is a Roman soldier, of the line of judah. So yes, the jews are correct, and yet incorrect. Hopefully, this brings some clarity to all. Happy New years everyone, and buckle up because things are about to get interesting!
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
Well put @xaviervelascosuarez. The more I listen to Dr. Ehrman, the more it seems like he just doesn't want the Christian narrative to be true. That's his prerogative of course, but let's call a spade a spade.
Ok for the Trinity thing, he was explaining the different viewpoints early Christians had on the relationships between the father, son, and Holy Spirit and how there can there be 3 in one. The view that each person is a separate being was rejected as a heresy as he said in the interview and the Trinitarian model with the Son being of the same substance as the father and Holy Spirit won out. He himself is not saying the trinity has three separate beings or that that’s what the Bible teaches… only that is a debate that happened after the writing of the New Testament. As for Jesus’s trial, both can be true. The Sanhedrin wanted him to be put to death because he claimed he was God, but he was ultimately executed for secular/political reasons under Pontius Pilate. Pilate didn’t ask “are you the Son of God” and then put him to death. He asked him “are you the king of the Jews”. That’s a political statement, not a theological one, and Jesus was not on trial before Pilate for a theological claim. Bart’s view is that some parts of the Gospels are historically reliable and some aren’t. That’s an internally consistent view because he gives reasons for why he thinks some parts are more reliable than others. He’s not ignoring the Sanhedrin trial, his point is, that the Jew’s theological problem with Jesus was not the ultimate reason why Pilate sentenced him to death. He’s not ignoring one part of the gospel.
Ehrman is an over educated imbecile. All he proves is that intelligence and education are not inextricable. It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God. Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when he said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy. He didn't say the precise words but he did, unequivocally, make the claim.
Back in university, I took a course about the beliefs of the early church. The central question was about the consistency of their beliefs. Did they stay the same or do we see a change in what they believed? At the time, I remember looking at Bart Ehrman's views and not finding them too compelling. That probably had a lot to do with my current faith at the time and the biases of my Orthodox professor. He did give a nice balance of views on each topic we discussed in all our classes and provided a lot of opportunity for genuine discussion and disagreement, but his own passion for the topics was also impossible to ignore. Listening to this podcast now years later when my certainty in my faith has been completely shattered and rendered me entirely agnostic, I'm surprised how much I want to believe in the divinity of Jesus. I have my fair share of criticisms over what Christians claim to believe and their contradictions with reality or the way they live, but the incarnation was the most wonderful idea to me. When in contrast with Islam, I find a God who took on the human experience and shared in literal communion with us to be far more compelling than a God who is too far above us to be disgraced in such a manner. I have come to think a less fundamental view of the Bible is the only proper reading of it. People who see the God of the Old Testament as a a depiction of God's people wrestling with their understanding that becomes more and more clear and then revealed fully in The Word, that is Christ made sense....though no understanding of the Bible or Christianity has fulfilled the part of me that wonders why. Why are there so many disagreements from people genuinely seeking after Truth, not just in Christianity but in general? And with the same certainty I once had in personal experiences and beliefs, others are certain with experiences and beliefs that contradict my own. How can these disagreements be reconciled except to say God only wants some people to know Truth? But then how can you truly know that you have found it? I dont think it's possible for me to ever be sure again, but I think more and more, I am finding myself comfortable in what Dustin Kensrue of the band Thrice called "The Grey," and learning how to live with doubt in a world that demands you to be certain and so binary. It is facinating to me that people call it a relationship and yet so much of it is stories and second and third and fourthhand accounts of God. How much of God do you have to get right to be having a relationship with him? How much do you have to get right to even be "allowed" to communicate with him?
Sounds like you need to start listening to Joel Osteen to recharge your faith batteries and be filled with the HOPE that "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Nicene Creed).😇
Do you want a God who shares your human experience? really? Should he share animals their experience as well? This is not God at all, you’re such a joke you don’t even understand the idea of god
" I and the Father are one.” John 10:30 "Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? John 14:9
@@gregorywhittaker8321 You'll have to forgive my ignorance. I'm relatively new to Bible studies. But I just learned that John the apostle didn't even write the letter known as "John" in the New Testament. In fact, none of the letters named after the apostles were written by them. They were first written down in Greek by other Christians. So, in other words, you can't take what's written in them at face value. By the late first century AD, Christians were trying to resolve various contradictions in the stories about Jesus as well as trying to recruit new followers. The letters in the New Testament are probably better understood as marketing material rather than as factual accounts.
This is one of Ehrman's best podcasts. Much credit is owed to Alex O'Conner, too, for facilitating the discussion better than most podcast hosts are capable of. Alex has a knack for steering the discussion by saying the right thing at the right time. I have never listened to Alex, before. But I am subscribing to his RU-vid channel since he is such an effective podcast host. Alex is as good of interviewer as Larry King was.
Alex is a typical unresponsible being in America. if someone want be a drug addict he approve single parent OK OK OK. LOL like a Democrat. but if a thing start affecting his life theft car jacking robbery street violence. he BLAME THE JEWS, BLAME CHRISTIAN. trash liberal all the same bastard people. talk nonsense but NOT want take responsible.
I didn't watch a lot of Larry King but given that he didn't know what he was talking about most of the time (famously didn't do any research on the guests), that seems like an unnecessarily low bar.
@@MattHabermehl he so deep like the sea. but unfortunately that sea will be no more LOL Revelation 21:1 All Things Made New Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. satan will lose GOD will in triumph Halelujah! Woke liberal at the brink their last gasp
@@MattHabermehl Larry King was among the most awarded, recognized, longest running, successful interviewers of all time. This is true regardless of personal opinions, including yours.
Even the host in this video knows more than Bart about the deity of Jesus. Listening Bart is a waste of time and money. He leads people in a cult of Satanic fractures. Because according to the Bible if you are believing first Jesus is God, then you are seeing it while getting equipped for it. If you choose not to believe first, God never force you the equipment and the Bible through down your throat. You have free will, and very beginning if you are not willing to believe, then you will keep getting same result and you just keep banging your head to a death end’s wall. There’s no way out.
The quran says in chapter 5 about jesus: 5:116: "And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, 'O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, "Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?"' He will say, 'Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.'" 5:117: "I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness."
Matthew 28:18 - And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matthew 11:13 - For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Dear Alex, I follow you on YT for quite a time. And I learned SO MUCH!!! from you. It changed my life, tbh. And I highly highly respect Dr. Ehrman. I've read almost all of his books, and they changed my life too. Through both of you I began to learn about critical thinking. So here, the two wonderful people who inspired me the most, are discussing. So great! Best wishes and a giant thank you from Germany!
You should read this VERY short publication “Misquoting Gieschen Originally published in Concordia Theological Quarterly” It is of a scholar that Dr. Ehrman cited 3 times to support a radical viewpoint. The scholar believes that Dr. Ehrman might have deliberately misappropriated his studies and quotations. There are many more like this. These aren’t scholars of equal caliber, these are scholars that Dr. Ehrman relies upon to make his points. If you want more I will provide more.
@@mrbungle2627 I have no idea what on earth, hell and heaven there is that Dr. Ehrman would have to rely on to bring forward a "radicale" viewpoint of anything.
@@adrianseanheidmann4559 I don’t think you’re aware that scholars constantly cite other scholars to support their positions. But considering most RU-vid sycophants guzzle cum without even considering how the academic world works, I’m not surprised.
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
It's a very simple question to me. Jesus doesn't say "I am God" with this exact words because He is the Son of God and He wants the people to differentiate them. They have the same divine essence, but the Son in fact came in a role of obedience to save all the people and reconnect them to God the Father. Jesus in fact made several claims that He is God, having the same essence of Him. But He did that in a manner that people would believe in his divine essence but differentiate, because they are two different people with different roles. He was made of flesh, bones and blood after all, He was human and God the Father is not human. In many passages of Matthew, one of the books that Bart mentioned that He doesn't claims, He accepts worship, says about His authority in heaven and earth, promise to be continually present, puts himself in the same level of God and the Holy Spirit, Walks on water and more. The only question I ask everyone is this: Could He who is only a prophet do all this?
Hearing this interview right after having listened to your recent interview with Peter Hitchens, I can’t help but notice a difference between how two guests respond differently to your inquiries/pushback. I recall that your channel has focused on Peter Hitchens at least twice, the first time being his theological debate. And I recall that, during that debate, he opened by stating his doubt that the opposing speakers were taking the topic seriously. So naturally I immediately noticed when, during your interview with him, he quipped at the very start, “so far, so good”, as if he expected to be disappointed by your viewpoints.
Scholars are not necessarily Christians who Know Jesus and are not Spiritual but all Brain and no Spiritual and the only Message your Guest has right is Love One Another and Giving the Message of GOD IS FROM GOD AND NOT HUMAN THINKING GOD IS GOD AND NOT HUMAN JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD AND HE TALKS OF GOD AS HIS FATHER!! WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION? WHY BOTHER TALKING WHEN NEITHER OF YOU BELIEVE JUST A WASTE OF BREATH AND TIME and Energy Faith is not just about here and now but Eternity no one can or should change what Jesus said!! It is God's Word He is Teaching what His Father taught Him😅😢
For a year after she died, my dad used to see my mother, from the corner of his eye, in her armchair. He himself believed that this was a mix of habit and wishful thinking. Not that she was resurrected. So a whole stack of folks claim to have seen Jesus BUT some of those, the ones that knew him best, didnt recognise him at all
but that's the point. Many people claim to have caught a glimpse of their dead love one, in a crowd, in their room etc. Yet they dont go around claiming theyve come back from the dead. So there must have been something qualitatively different from what the disciples witnessed. As a minimum, Jesus' resurrection appearances can hardly be described as 'briefly glimpsed in a crowd' or 'from the corner of his eye'.
I really enjoy Bart Ehrman but I'd like to add a little bit to the discussion. The reason the gospels exhonerate Pilate is because Pilate represents Rome and the Christians want to show the Romans that they don't blame them, they blame the priestly heirarchy of the Jews for their Messiah's death.. They didn't want to become an anti-Rome cult in Rome's eyes. You can also see this in 'The Epistle of Paul to the Romans' in which you find verses that say that you must not oppose your leader because he was selected by Jehovah. Not something you see in any of his other letters. Another possible reason for the strange story of the godly impregnation of Mary is that Jesus is named 'the son of god' in many passages and the term 'son of god' is a common colloquialism for a king or messiah of Israel (Psalms 2) - see both David and Soloman. This went from a colloquialism to literal as the pagans tried to understand the whole 'son of god' thing.
18:01 I’m sorry, but what Bart says here is just flatly incorrect. Mark 14:61b-64 say this: “Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ The high priest tore his clothes. ‘Why do we need any more witnesses?’ he asked. ‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ They all condemned him as worthy of death.” This is just about the most blatant claim to divinity that an ancient Jew could make… Claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemous. The Sanhedrin had never condemned someone of blasphemy for claiming to be the anointed one prior or after. The Old Testament describes several people as anointed. It was claiming to be the Son of Man who rides on the clouds that was considered blasphemy. This is a direct allusion to Daniel 7, where a divine figure rides on the clouds and is given heavenly authority by the Ancient of Days. “Riding on the clouds” is a near-east motif of divinity (Deuteronomy 33:26, as well as the Baal Cycle). Bart’s supposition that Christ was condemned merely for political reasons falls apart when you look at the behavior of the Sanhedrin. He was handed over to Pilate by the Jewish authorities primarily because he claimed special divine status.
As the Professor said here, the words mean what they mean in their own context. They’ve all become merged into one to some modern people. Messiah means leader, son of man/son of god doesn’t mean simply ‘god’ etc.
@@HkFinn83 you didn’t rebut a single thing that I wrote. The words themselves can have a variety of meanings, yes, but you and Bart are ignoring their contexts. In contexts the Son of Man who rides on the clouds is divine. There is no question.
@@carsonianthegreat4672he is saying the only reason you interpret them as such is because of Johns gospel, when you isolate Marks gospel account there is no reason to suspect the words mean such things, hope this helps!!!!
@@crusifidy1291When you isolate Marks Gospel him claiming to be the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven doesn’t change. It aligns exactly with divine prophecy from the Old Testament. ”“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.“ Daniel 7:13-14 NKJV BART is very disingenuous for ignoring this but I guess this is why I like watching these videos to see the arguments these guys come up with to ignore the obvious.
I've watched a lot of Bart Ehrman interviews and podcasts and I think the interviewer in this instance is one of the best. Pointed and thoughtful questions and able to keep up with Bart's intellect.
I agree. One exception was the discussion of the group(s) of witnesses who saw Jesus after he died. Bart gave his answers. First, he quesitoned the empty tomb, since crucified criminals at that time were generally left for dead on the cross, food for scavengers. (Also, Jesus simply was not of the right class to be buried in a tomb.) Second, he noted that we do not have the accounts of these witnesses. We have the account of someone who didn't know these witnesses, who lived far away, and who used a different language. There are problems with all those things when assessing the reliability of a historical record. That was Bart's response, essentially. Well, Alex kept repeating his question, particularly on the second point. He really wanted to know how Bart could deny the resurrection if groups of people saw him. All Bart could do is explain, once again, calmly, that we do not have eyewitness accounts. We have the account of someone relaying hearsay, hearsay generated during the aftermath of an event occuring long ago, faraway, by people who spoke another language. End of story. THE CLAIM OF A RESURRECTION RESTS ENTIRELY ON HEARSAY. Which, frankly, is the bedrock of most of the Bible and Judaism and Chrisitanity in general. Hearsay.
Bart is an anti Christ I read the comments And I do Not want to hear further. If He died He will go to Hell. Too bad too late for Him He is sure a Proud person. The down fall of a person Is his pride same as the down fall For Angel Lucifer. Old and Not wise. Also Will Jesus deciples died for lies ? Will you died for lies ??? Jesus is the Son of God He is the way, the truth No one comes to the Father Except through Him. The risen Lord Jesus is seated at The Right hand of the Father And will judge the living and the dead. Laugh now when you still can. I got was sick and cannot get up from my bed. Daily I prayed to Jesus Christ and was heal without surgery. Even the Doctor have No answer For my healing. There is a God. And Jesus is my healer.
@izzytoons if it helps, Alex isn't repeating those questions because he himself believes Jesus was resurrected. His usual interview style is to play devils advocate, or more accurately the theists advocate. So he's parroting arguments people like William Lane Craig make to substantiate the Bible, and allowing Bart to refute those arguments at each available angle. It did get a bit repetitive though, I agree.
@@moestv8011 ONLY GOD CAN DO GODS WORK,THATS WHY GOD CAME AS JESUS,AND WAS BORN FROM A VIRGIN,WE ALL KNOW ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A VIRGIN TO HAVE A CHILD,THIS WAS THE MIRACLE,JESUS WAS BORN FROM NOTHING NO FATHER,NO SEXUALL RELATION,NO DNA,AND JESUS NEVER HAD A MOTHER,MARY WAS JUST A VESSEL,AS GOD DOES NOT HAVE PARENTS,JESUS ALL READY EXISTED B4 MARY,JESUS IS GOD,THINK ABOUT IT,HOW CAN MARY BE THE MOTHER OF GOD,SHE HAD NO ONE TO FERTALISE HER EGGS,IT WAS A MIRACLE BIRTH...
That's been answered in Quran, surah Al Maidah (5):116 "And ˹on Judgement Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, You would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen."
That is really groovy. I will have to look at that when I get around to reading it. But, why did that stupid centurion in Mark think Jesus was SOG? He was a fricking Roman. Where did he get that from?
@@sebolddaniel Probably because of the early Christian Church creeds in 1 Corinthians 15. It is extremely likely, philologically speaking, that this creed started within the first three years post crucifixion. We call this creed a "Kerygma" which just means proclamation. Bart himself actually places this creed before Paul's Epistles in his book "How Jesus Became God". Gerd Lüdemann, NT Wright, and James Dunn all place much more rigid dates than Bart does and they all fall extremely close to the crucifixion. Larry Hurtado goes into this a bit as well saying that if those traditions showed up within weeks of the crucifixion it would not be contradictory to anything else they see, and in fact would be perfectly congruent with their dating of Church history. Whether (John) Mark or even associates of Mark thought Jesus was the Son of God doesn't really matter, and it isn't likely that he was Roman. If you want the answer on where he got this idea then there's a clear chain of information you can follow. Eusebius quotes Papias in "Ecclesiastical History" (Book 3, Chapter 39) stating that Mark was a translator and follower of Peter. It's very hard to get away from the fact that many people were worshipping Jesus Christ as a deity extremely early. There's obviously debate regarding the dating of NT writings, especially the gospels, which really hinges on arguments from silence (in particular the omission of the temple destruction prophecy being fulfilled, the lack of Paul's death in Acts, and many missing important Church fathers from the late 1st and early 2nd century) but regardless we know that the term Christ was still used extraordinarily early. Nero's persecution of Christians in 64 AD within Rome really shows how fast it spread.
This would be valid except for the fact Islam is not the way and Muhammed was a man, not a prophet. What prophet of God would lead armies and order the massacre and r*pe of people? And that's not even the full list of Muhammed's deeds. Sounds very much like a local strong man and not at all like a holy prophet.
The common reply I've seen is that the disciples were firsthand eyewitnesses so they would be in a place to actually know if it were true or not. More akin to someone helping film a UFO hoax and then being willing to die for a lie they helped create. Where the suicide bombers sincerely believe but don't have first hand experience to actually know if it's true or not.
Your mockery tells us how privileged illeducated and unbrilliant you are. In reality bombers who kill the infidels you put in the line people who basically didn't want to gave state ownership of theit lives- and I as agnostic - can really appreciate the beauty and maryrism of those people who decided that their rights universal rights to be free and not to be in hate with other humans, are not negotiable and are not given to us or granted by any ruler, leader, Empire, or state and are given to us by invisible force and are the same for us all.
You’re comparing terrorists who inflict pain and suffering on population with Saints who were tortured in a the most inhumane manner???? For preaching the words of God?? Are you okay? Do you have any idea of how much faith in God you need to have to handle the pain of being skinned alive?? Tf 💀💀
First of all, today’s suicide bombers are not witnesses to Muhammed’s life and claims, but the apostles were witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. If the research we are uncovering is true about Muhammed, anyone witnessing his delusions and perversion would realize he is a fraud.
I appreciate that Alex is trying to advocate for Christian reasoning for the sake of argument in the latter part of the interview, but I'm confused as to what is compelling about reasoning that the gospel stories are true by first assuming the gospel stories are true - begging the question. Nor do I understand the repeated suggestion that a story saying something quite unusual makes the story somehow more plausible or credible. So much time was spent on these ideas. (Maybe showing the weakness of this reasoning was exactly the point. I don't know.)
One is a scholar, the other an apologist. It wouldn't feel like an ideological debate since Bart Ehrman would correct WLC when his perspective contradicts or fails to comport with the data and would likely nod "okay 👍🏽" to all else.
@@RashidMBey Bart is a textual critic. Don't get it twisted. Wlc has published way more philosophical and historical papers. I understand your bias but don't look foolish making easily debunked claims.
@@jwatson181 that is incorrect. Bart has more formal training in historical practices than textual criticism. WLC depends on strawmanning and misrepresentation to portray Ehrman as being unaware of historical methods
@Agryphos my friend. This is established fact. Bart makes insane claimed in popular literature and interviews that he walks back in his academic papers. Are you claiming the majority of Barts experience is not textual criticism? Where did he publish philosophical models for historical epistemology? Lol don't make things up
Witness: "I just saw Jesus!!" Local: "No you didn't!!.... he's dead!" Witness: "I did, I swear" Local: "Ok....what did he look like if you saw Jesus?" Witness: "He had dark hair and olive skin, long hair, a beard...................Oh hang on thats every single male isn't it?..............come to think of it..... I think it was Derek I saw, opps"
But then you have to claim 500 other people were witness to it, and then expect us to believe it because there actually is no 500 individuals with these claims written anywhere and then it was also written about 40 years later by and unknown author. Logic and reasoning tells me there’s no way you can verify it or think it’s true. Cemeteries are full of dead people, yet not one of them have dug themselves out. 😂
I'm not 100% sure of what I did last week, let alone 20 years ago. Comparing shared experiences of the past with my family members there's always disagreements on details, behavior, chronology. Sometimes I remember things wrong or post-rationalise past actions to analyse and/or explain my present self even if back then perhaps it didn't play a big role or meant anything even taking into account that it may have meant and played a different role I remember today because I never shared what I felt with anyone or that I felt anything at all. So even if it's first hand testimony/account I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
We have fan fiction stories about an Aramaic speaking dead jewish preacher. The fan fiction is produced by koine greek speakers decades later that promoted a heathen dead human turned a god with some Jewish elements.
I recently attended my 20 year high school reunion and it was a great example of this because all of a sudden you have people correcting or adding to the memories you’ve had for all this time.
@@RodrigoCastroCh same thing will happen to say, Scientology, as it did to Christianity. A hundred years from now scientological gospels will get popular citing first hand accounts of old people who witnessed Tom Cruise on the filming set of "Mission Impossible 20+" doing all his stunts at age 93. Clearly he was blessed by Xenu (or whatever) and it wasn't just a realistic cyborg AI and CGI or lookalike. And those witnesses knew it was the real flesh and bones Tom because they were doing the catering during the production and while setting up for lunch Tom just showed up out of nowhere, took a fistful of mixed nuts from a bowl and told them with a big smile on his face: "I love what you're doing here. Nuts. Great protein source. Good for the muscles. Healthy living. I love your food." And then he shouted a few WOOOOs and YEEAAAAHs on his way to his private trailer.
If one believes in a God, and that gods interact with humans, I can't think of a better more comprehensive explanation of a worldview that humans have devised for understanding things, than the Bible
But… you positively know the origin of life or what happened with the dinosaurs supposedly 65 million years ago without anyone being there. People certainly make up narratives and science does the same. Believe what you want.
Bart lost me when he said Paul's testimony may be made up but he doesn't believe he was intentionally trying to lie. How did he know Paul made up the story even though he did not intend to lie? I strongly believe Bart is pervaded by his biases and like any one with his opinions Bart's position on the matter are not exactly accurate!
So you think you know better it's ok man keep on believing that your God died and pissed and shitted in The toilet then got beat up by its own creation and then god got nailed on the cross and died oh and that your so called god was born through a woman's vagina ohhh ooops
Unitarians would find it hard to believe that Jesus is God because of the things that He said that seems to contradict with the ONE God belief system, but for Trinitarians everything that He said just fits perfectly of being the second person in the Holy Trinity. Contrary to what others say, Trinitarians do believed that there is only ONE God but this God is comprised of 3 distinct personalities or persons. It all boils down to the "WHAT" (being or nature) and the "WHO" (person). For humans: 1 WHAT --> human 1 WHO --> e.g. John For God: 1 WHAT --> God 3 WHO(s) --> Father, Son and Holy Spirit (with distinct personalities or persons, able to communicate and interact on their own). Peace and Blessings!
Read Ehrman's "Jesus." I think that book fully debunks modern Christianity. Jesus was a doomsday prophet, like John before him and Paul after him. He expected the apocalypse to come during his generation, and when I didn't, writers began rewriting the narrative to say that the resurrection was metaphorical.
Alex's arguments are basically that of a high school atheist. But unfortunately so very few people today read or even think deeply and are thus amazed by really basic and low-level arguments.
@@أفلاكالأفكار Agree. At first when I started listening to him interview others I thought he was quite a serious, considered guy, but then when I watched more of his videos I thought the same thing.
Legendary interview! And yeah jesus as a prophet(i.e messiah) is more convincing than him claiming to be god.. Watch till the very end.. You both discuss on almost all the topics that i wanted to understand big time.. So big thanks for this high quality content.. keep the good work coming!❤
Most historians agree that Jesus existed, died, and was crucified. As for the resurrection, everyone wants to see in order to believe, but Jesus clearly said "Blessed are those who believe without having seen".🙌
Early Church knew all of these things and preserved all of it for future generations and they still knew and belived and went to their death willingly becuse they knew Jesus was God. Then this guys comes along 2000 years later…😂🤦♂️ naaw bro
One of the most egregious mistranslation s of Isaiah 53 is how the servant suffered FOR our iniquities. That's not what the Hebrew says. It says the suffering servant suffered FROM their iniquities. The error is identifying the speaker in these passages. See the end of Isaiah 52. The kings of the nations of the earth are speaking. Israel suffered from the sins of the nations. That is why even learning some very basic Hebrew, tense, pronouns and prefix structure changes the entire understanding. Great show guys!
So, the New Testament is all based on an early Christian misinterpreation of Isaiah 53. I stopped believing in this stuff when I read Azimov at age 13.
@@sebolddaniel I don't believe that at all. But I believe that the Christian exegesis is incorrect because it's just a scandalous mistranslation. Is a difference in meaning when you put a lamed before a word or a mem. Plus these are artificial chapter breaks. So who is speaking in the first part of Isaiah 53? It is the kings of the nations. Once you understand that the entirety of the verse becomes clear. The other critical issue is that Christians claim that the suffering servant is and can only be Jesus. That is just patently false. Beginning from believe it was chapter 41 as you progress towards 53 there are eight or 10 times when the text explicitly tells you who the servant is. It's Israel. Christians got the concept of a Messiah completely wrong very early on. The Messiah is a regular person, is a part of the remnant of Israel and is no different from any other descendant of the davidic line other than the fact that he will be righteous and obedient and share the knowledge of God. Isaiah is very tough reading though and it is open to a lot of misuse. By the way, I love reading Azimov as well but here I am many decades later believing again. Have a wonderful day!
Bart Ehrman is one of my favorites to listen to. He has devoted his life to studying the Bible and Christianity. Who better to dispute some of the common narratives/misconceptions (as in "Misquoting Jesus). To me, he is a funny, and likeable guy.
It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God. Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when he said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy. He didn't say the precise words but he did, unequivocally, make the claim. Ehrman is an example of an over-educated imbecile. He actually believes there is evidence of Jesus' existence as a person. Just don't ask him what and where that 'evidence' is.
As was mentioned in this video Jesus divinity was written about in John but not explicitly in the synoptic gospels and only if you use a few parts to say it was inferred. How does saying this or believing that it’s fairly probable that Jesus existed make Ehrman an imbecile? Ehrman has said many times why he accepts that Jesus existed as far as I can discern and accepts that the writings in the bible and apocrypha are enough evidence for him to accept that this is fairly likely. Some people claim that there is more evidence for Jesus having existed than many other historical figures like Alexander the Great existing because of the books/letters in the New Testament and the limited documentary evidence for the likes of Alexander. Then again nobody believes Alexander is divine now or says you have to believe in him to have eternal life here or in heaven and we have supporting evidence like cities named after Alexander, mentions in Achaemenid documents, coins etc, It’s like someone believing that Homer may have existed. It doesn’t really matter very much to anyone if Homer is mythical or not unlike someone that people claim was/is a god and judges everyone.
@@williamhutton2126 Bill, I cannot address circular arguments, but I don't think it helps a Christian when one defaults to ad hominem attacks...at that point one has lost the argument
@@stevedriscoll2539 Well, simpleton, you clearly don't know how to identify either a circular argument nor a Christian nor seem to know what an ad hominem even means in terms of logic, so it stands to reason you're unequipped to address any of those things. For one, I'm not a Christian so the passive/aggressive attempt at shaming fell flat. Second, I'm directly quoting the bible, the ONLY source on the planet that exists that contains Jesus as any sort of historical figure. Third, ad hominems are very specific in logic. Insults are not ad hominems. Ad Homs require three things in unison to be fallacious (and therefore notable): 1 A valid argument from an interlocutor 2 An extraneous or irrelevant fact about one's interlocutor 3 To dismiss 1 SOLELY based on 2. Since I specifically addressed the core problem of Ehrman's fatuous argument, it was clearly not an ad hominem. And since Ehrman's own arguments was necessarily contained within the same literary device as I used to counter his, it is not circular to point out the evidence contained within that device he either intentionally or inadvertently overlooked, duncecap. And one doesn't 'lose' an argument because an argument may be laced with name calling nor even fallacies, dullard. That's not how any of this works. It's best you take a basic philosophy class or familiarize yourself with what it takes to be a logician before embarrassing yourself further.
@@murph8411 Oh, you're addressing me. I see. Normally one replies specifically to the person they wish to address so that their name appears in blue and sends them a message that you were, in fact, attempting to contact a specific person. _"As was mentioned in this video Jesus divinity was written about in John but not explicitly in the synoptic gospels and only if you use a few parts to say it was inferred."_ - let's just knock out this first thing to disabuse the simpletons that they know what they're talking about. ALL the synoptic gospels make claims of Jesus' divinity. John is just the one that proves Ehrman wrong about his claim that Jesus did not claim he was divine. In Mark: 1. Mark 1:1 2. Mark 1:11 3. Mark 1:24 etc Luke 24:52 Matthew 21:13 Just a few examples. _"Ehrman has said many times why he accepts that Jesus existed as far as I can discern and accepts that the writings in the bible and apocrypha are enough evidence for him to accept that this is fairly likely"_ - And that's the problem. Jesus never existed. The only place you find Jesus in a historical context, is the wholly inaccurate bible. The bible is 100% not remotely evidence of Jesus' existence. And since that is the only place where that fictional character is contained, it is not a source for one's historicity. Claiming it does, makes one an imbecile. That's like saying Harry Potter books contained Harry Potter and therefore SOMEONE named Harry Potter must have existed as the historical inspiration for Harry Potter. See how that is dumb? _"Some people claim that there is more evidence for Jesus having existed than many other historical figures like Alexander the Great existing because of the books/letters in the New Testament and the limited documentary evidence for the likes of Alexander."_ Ask those people for the evidence of those claims. You'll find your hand and mind just as empty as when you asked. I'll skip the analog nonsense at the end because you've already done enough damage to your attempt at adult discourse for one comment.
﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
Both Bart Ehrman and Alex have nothing better to do so they create these utube rubbish for views/money ! who even cares if you do believe or don't believe in God !! Because billions do believe and have faith in God ! Stop disrespecting and mocking religious people - CLOWNS 🤡
@@zaidzaid7455 Prophecy that stated Jesus is man and God. Isaiah 49:, "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people from far; The LORD hath called me frim the womb; frim the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." [Written around 700 years befor the birth of the Christ Messiah]. "Behold the days come, saith thr Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jeremiah 23:5-6. Jeremiah in 626 to 586 BC. "Awake, O sword against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord, smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand upon the little ones." Zeckariah 13:7. Matthew 26:31. Zechariah was written in 520-518 BC. [Before Christ] PS In order to arrive at the truth you mudt stoobreadung lying bibles. They are blasphemous words of men. Written for financial gain and to bring doubt to God's word. The POWER is in God's word. Hebrews 4:12.
Beautiful, respectful conversation and very interesting. As an atheist/agnostic I very much enjoy this kind of conversation. You dont have to come to the same conclusion to enjoy speaking and having fun with someone on a topic.
The point about Jesus saying your sins are forgiven and giving his disciples the authority to forgive sins was something I had never considered in that way.
Most of the people believing Jesus is/was GOD are not aware of such facts. That said, Jesus being the literal son of GOD does not take away from the importance of His role; _...you will die in your sins; _*_for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins"_* - John 8.24 The He of course, being the prophesied Messiah and Son of GOD sent to earth to redeem us
@@smalltimer4370 Ehrman specifically set John aside. Remember, John ignored most of the Jesus stories and focused on symbols. He also came later, after many of the stories had percolated longer. John definitely had a different agenda. He was there to elevate Jesus to Godhood.
@@izzytoons Having read no such thing in John, leads me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about - ie, godhood is not a term or even a defined position in scripture - YHWH's absolute nature is never presented as attainable, or even shared for that matter, in-that there is no such concept presented anywhere in scripture. If anything, the scriptures state the opposite, in that everything about GOD, is absolute and unique to Him alone.
The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14), and we know that God is omniscient. So it seems strange that Jesus would say that He did not know when He would return. When the Son of God became a man, He remained fully God, but He also took on a true human nature. Jesus retained all the attributes of divinity, yet, as a man, He voluntarily restricted their use. This was part of the “self-emptying” or self-renunciation spoken of in Philippians 2:6-8. When Christ entered our world, He laid aside the privileges that had been His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a servant.
@@ThreePersonsInOne It's quite interesting that NONE of what you believe about Jesus comes from the preaching and practice of Jesus of the Bible. If I were in your position, I'd think very seriously and honestly about this matter. No wonder you couldn't quote Jesus to back up your belief about Jesus. In fact, your belief about Jesus is the exact opposite of what Jesus preached and practiced.
If the lie is old then its believable People long ago were witnessing miracles like having breakfast , people are walking on water , coming back from death splitting seas splitting moons
Lets be honest here...many humans continue to join, invent, create, peddle, build and promote all sorts of different and divisive (but similarly structured ) master and minion human pyramid schemes, groups, bow down or be damned juju cults, winner take all businesses, regimes, fantasies and empires....all to attract, convince, fool or force others to join, bow dow, and become subordinate minion ...who serve, support, defend and of course enrich their respective masters, bosses, leaders or rulers - and whatever (positive or negative) realities and agendas their masters inflict on them - whilst claiming to be righteous of course.
@@JD-wu5pf I just gave u the time span of major miracles in the bible. How did you miss that? Unless ur didn't read my entire comment. Given the time span within scripture, it's not irrational to expect to not see miracles within our own lifetimes.
@@IAMNOTIAMNOTIAMNOT Matthew 24 -" Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (best fake French accent) "2000+ years later....."
@@Philusteen Matthew 24:34 - Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Make sure to include the chapter and the verse.
Bart's narrative is simply one of many plausible narratives. When he uses word "never" or "implausible" to other plausible narratives he isn't acting as a scholar.
At 10:10-ish: Really appreciated the distinction between interpreting something's original meaning and re-interpreting what it might mean to you personally in a modern context.
Despite not believing in God or Jesus I think these episodes are incredibly interesting. The deep mythology and history of these stories is just incredible
@@RenoTKC Instead of answering my question you resort to asking a question, that's pretty rude. I'll chase you into you rabbit warren as you tap dance away from my question. You could take any and all of the heros and gods of the Greek pantheon and make a list of characteristics shared by them e.g. they were inevitable, inexplicable, incredible, instructive, immortal, intercessors, etc. Not a single one embodies all of these characteristics. But Jesus did. So you're right, the Greek pantheon is deep, but my claim is Jesus is deeper. And my ultimate claim is that the depth of Jesus is so deep and applicable across multiple domains such as time and cross-cultures, that you have to consider the possibility that it has crossed a threshold to the realm of objectivity. For example, if you tried to live as Jesus did, such as love God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbour as you love yourself, would you and your society improve? Would this improvement not show up in any age or culture? If the person embodied more of Jesus, humility, serving others, don't lie, speak the truth, act with compassion, forgive others, self-control, are they and society going to get better or worse? And seeing as none of the 12 athiests I've challenged have ever been able to prove to me that objective morality can be derived without invoking some Christian statement (e.g. every person is created in the image of God), one has to be open to the divinity of Jesus. Now I'm happy for you to be #13 if you'd like, so give it your best shot.
@@alisterrebelo9013 slow down there buckaroo. I didn't ask a question did i? I agree that the philosophy of Jesus as depicted in the new testament is wonderful and most of these teachings i try to follow in my life, such as loving everyone, even your enemies, and being forgiving and just. I don't believe in an objective morality in terms of something higher, more spiritual and I don't think we need that. Of course there are ways to infer objective morality without a higher power, such as when Rationality Rules did it by using biological imperatives as a basis for morality, i.e the first "ought" would be derived from an is. But I don't see how that matters as to why Jesus is the son of god or a divine prophet? Fact is there are plenty of fictional characters whose virtues are commendable and who you could point to as universal role models, depending on your cultural background and preconceived standards. You might want to live your life like Hercules or Superman. There are some characters who have been written as completely perfect in the context of their time and culture. A spartan wouldn't have seen Jesus as the perfect role model but Leonidas. A greek warrior wouldn't strive to be all forgiving and just but would strive to be witty, brave and relentless like Odysseus. Virtues and standards change all the time, but from your or even my current perspective Jesus embodies what we should all strive to be. I guess what I'm tryna say here is that being a good lad and supposedly preaching nice things don't make Jesus a prophet, let alone the son of god
@@alisterrebelo9013 I think the fact the you assume the need for objective morality is already something I don’t fully agree with. I think there’s ways that societies can determine the moral values that they choose to follow without needing a religion or deity to give it to them, and so I don’t think there needs to be a purely “object morality” that id argue for. I think the original commenter gave an example of someone who did create a form of objective morality based on evolutionary and naturalistic reasoning and I’ll check that out but either way, choosing to act according to positive moral values doesn’t require religion, and it definitely doesn’t prove the truth of a religion either.
As a Christian, I found this interview to be extremely beneficial as far as taking note of certain facts, details, opinions and perceptions of certain stories in the Bible. In large, I don't agree with the majority of Dr. Ehrman's conclusions, but I appreciate his knowledge when it comes to the facts themselves. Alex was extremely poised, articulate and astute in questioning the issues at hand. In short, typically, I watch Bart Ehrman's videos to gain knowledge about the Bible, so that I'm more accurate and precise when using proof text to defend my Christian beliefs.
@@lilyoyo77 have an eye but blind yet claim to be all knowing and all wisdom pffftt. Matthew 12: 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” 8 For the Son of Man is Lord [b]even of the Sabbath.” 14 Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him. LOL denied this verse and that mean you are a old fart HAHAHA Jesus not claim to be GOD then what is this in the verse 8? κύριος kyrios HAHAHAHAHAHA isn't that the greek mean Jesus is GOD? P R I C K A T H E I S T I S L I K E S T U P I D M U H A M M A D A N
I just want to point out that a close family member, whom I love dearly, lost her husband of several decades some years back. Now, she posts pictures of animals that visit the house claiming it's him. Why is so hard to believe something like this went on with early church leaders.
You hit the nail on the head. We have people who ruined their lives leaving duties, jobs, family, and friends to follow a false messiah and dead preacher. They could either face reality and pick up the shards of life or they remain in the delusion that an executed criminal isn't really dead. Mourning is a complicated process and a lot of people choose delusion or are caught in delusion over reality.
@@TorianTammas I agree. I have another family member who has lost two significant others, and they turned to God. They want to believe that they will see their loved ones again. Honestly, it's hard for me to want to take that away from them. If it gives them comfort, I see no need to change their minds. It's when their beliefs start to infringe on other people's rights, like forcing all women to carry all pregnancies to term. Or forcing non-Christian kids to feel alienated by having sanctioned prayers. Or when they decide that school "chaplains" should be a thing. I use quotes because when Texas passed this law, the law did not (still does not) require any of the education that chaplains traditionally have (graduate degrees: Masters or PhDs) or the certification that they receive (professional organizations related to their chosen faith), nor did it ban these school "chaplains" from proselytizing, something that all chaplains are taught is a no-no. Chaplains are supposed to assist their subjects in their subjects' chosen religion, NOT the chaplain's chosen faith. This means chaplains in the Army assist atheist soldiers all the time. And, Jewish chaplains assist and advocate for Muslims in their organization to ensure the food they receive is halal. But with these school "chaplains", it is basically ANYONE who can pass a background check. So, what you'll get are ignorant laypeople who are enthusiastic about religion and molding the minds of the young. What could go wrong? When they start doing things that negatively impact my life, THAT is when I have to say something. Otherwise, comforting delusions can be harmless.
@@NB-lv8oq The romans executed three criminals for rebellion against Rome. Crucification was used by the Romand for rebellious slaves and rebels against Roman rule. The claim to be king or Messiah without Roman consent was a crimimal act and punished by crucification. Reality is something one is not used to when one grows up with fan fiction stories produced to market a dead preacher.
You have to realize these were Greeks trying to convince Greeks that jesus was god and all the magical and miraculous stories that became more magical as time went on were true. Alex. I think you use the word, facts, too often. Love your show
I have to say that watching this through now is my second attempt at getting through it. I've been a reader of Bart for several years and, having learned his mind on many of these issue, when trying to watch this video before thought the conversation was overly contentious... another interview by someone who didn't really grasp his views. Since then I've familiarized myself with Alex's views and style and have discovered that I was quite wrong. I find this conversation invigorating and honest, two intelligent people taking each other to task, each from their own perspective, but not in a contentious way. Great work by both parties, each who are bringing with them their own audience who agree with each other on many key points, but have as rigorous conversation that highlights the nuances that different perspectives bring.
There are so many NDE videos that people see Jesus is sitting next to the throne of God. And yet Christians keep saying that Jesus is God. Nonetheless. Even in Islam Jesus is called a prophet or messenger of the God.
Christianity wasn't always Trinitarian. It always seemed like more "The Catholics made it up" like with a lot of stuff. The story of Jesus and the prostitute was added in the 700s. You can't get caught up in dogma...
@@bonbondurjdr6553 God is logical. One man cannot die for someone else’s sins. And in that case, Hitler can enjoy his afterlife ? Specially, that he has killed over 6 million Jews. Because Jesus died for his sins as well ?
I have a close relative who is a Jehovah's Witness. She once breathlessly told me of some miracle that had happened because another JW had told her all about it. I did what I always do when I'm being preached to, I nodded my head and tried to change the subject.
"I did what i always do, I didnt take them seriously; avoided listening and tried to move the conversation away". Sounds like a great method for Christians to get around atheistic critique!
He's actually more comfortable challenging people like Ehrman with whom he agrees than he is with Christians who take the opposite viewpoint to his. He's tended to bend over backwards a little too much in those interview, probably for fear of offending them. I think with more maturity and experience he'll get better at the more adversarial interviews. Striking a balance between challenging a viewpoint and not upsetting your guest is not always easy.
@@EnglishMike A conversation becomes a whole different beast when trying to honestly and intellectually engage with what boils down to a religious, lying apologist weasle. I like these open and civil conversations instead of two pricks trying to fling sharp words across a stage. The latter can be fun at times, naturally, I just don't see how this variant would be detrimental or "lesser" to any topic discussed.
@@MrYelly Asking challenging questions doesn't require you to be a prick about it. He could have easily pushed guests like Bishop Robert Barron to defend their position through some follow up questions without being an a-hole about it.
It's been a while since I read the bible in its entirety (literally years), but if I'm remembering correctly from my reading the only thing Jesus ever claimed around this is that he had become one with god, but he clarified that he was referring to fulfilling the purpose for his life, and that anyone else could become one with god in the same way he had.
The bible is littered with evidence of Jesus' divinity (at least in the writers opinion). The gospel of John has 21 chapters and each one has a Divine link. Pick a number and I'd point it out if you like, or better yet have a double check yourself. However to me the mightiest claim is Jesus referring to himself as the Son of Man which is a divine being in Jewish prophecy
@@AdvocateSpirit As pointed out in the interview, John's Gospel pushes the idea of Jesus being God while the other 3 gospels do not. The earlier writings never make that link, it appears to purely be John's intent to raise the previous stories to new heights. As for "the son of God", the phrase is used multiple times and does not mean God in most cases. Usually it refers to angels, and depending on which translation you prefer, the passages in Genesis that talk about the sons of God getting women pregnant either means men or angels.
I absolutely love this conversation and it merits at least a second listen The pertinent questions framed so simply and precisely and the crystal clear logic of Bart’s answers make hit such an informed and informative conversation. These two are wonderful and I can’t praise them enough. Two smart, honest scholars elucidating these issues so t gf at we too can see as clearly as possible. So helpful and so easy to follow.
I agree. I think Jesus was making some claims to a kind of divinity - but he seems to have been claiming this divine nature would also be shared by his followers in the kingdom to come, and the actual nature of that divinity is far more complicated than the trinitarian model promoted by Paul and adopted by the Nicene Counsel. (Although I also believe Paul was promoting a different kind of trinitarian model than that believed by Christians today.)
@@charlesblackburn1195 Paul insisted on the the divinity of Christ. I'd have to reread his books to assure myself he talked about the Holy Spirit, but I remember him doing so. There is no formalized doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, but Paul is the most heavily used for its foundation.
@@charlesblackburn1195 Phil. 2: verses 9-11, 1st Corinthians 12: verse 4-6, Titus 2: verse 13, etc. There are lots of little places, there are no clear callouts.
@aodhfyn2429 who wrote the Gospels, my friend? The first recorded writing that anyone, scholars, the clergy or self professed experts agree on, is at least 80 years, minimum, after Jesus. The disciples, all of them, had long since gone, and we know for a fact that it was NO ONE that had either listened or heard, Jesus or his disciples preach. There was NO ONE to corroborate that what was written was even true. I don't want to get into a long-winded dissertation as to the validity of the New Testament. Suffice to say that almost half of it, if not more, are teachings of Paul. Not Jesus. In fact, Paul directly negates several of Jesus's teachings. Two quick examples are the idea of Original Sin. Jesus NEVER taught that or suggested that. He outright spoke of how a man's sins were his own and could not be inherited by his family. 2nd and I mention this to bring a smile to your face, is Circumcision. Jesus ordered us to do so. Paul said no. We listened to Paul, who I believe is the BIGGEST anti christ there ever was, and broke tradition with both the Jews and Muslims, who do circumcise their men, keeping in line with the teachings of pretty much all the men of God sent with the Word from Him. Anyhow, when you have time, friend, look up the Red Letter Bible and compare it to what you read now. Also, look up the council of Nicea. Try to find a historical account of it, rather than a religious one, so as not to read a biased view. Anyhow. I wish you the best. I hope that you receive the guidance from God and find the truth. Peace my friend
I really admire the ability of Alex to steel man an argument. He is truly putting his all into defending the resurrection claims, almost seems like he believes at times and might potentially annoy his own guest with his push back. And on the other hand yeah... I really dislike the opposite, when people like william lane craig strawman scholars and historians by saying that they overwhelmingly agree with some historical "fact" they absolutely do not agree with. I've seen christians argue that pretty much everything that appears in the gospel is historical fact aside from resurrection, and at that point when you accept the whole narrative arround it as fact, then believing the few missing pieces as correct doesn't seem so far fetched.
News flash.The Creator was not religious, my question is why are most of you , do you know something others don't know.😮 Let us know why are you religious? 😲
I have said to my Christian friends that whether Jesus was God or not, whether he was resurrected from the dead or not, whether he would come again or not, and whether he was the Messiah or not does not matter to me. What matters to me is what he taught, especially "love one another."
Have you researched other traditions? Many have..maybe not amplified by political power, but there have been records. In China, they have actual records of mortals ascending into the sky in front of thousands of people, and those mortals did not even die in the first place. So, spare me of the provincial view of Jesus' resurrection. Also, why so fearful of death so much so that you need someone to return from the dead to tell you it's OK to move on?
@@reaganlecroy7773when Jesus was supposedly resurrected the bible said that all the dead people crept out of their graves and were walking in the streets of Jerusalem. Go figure 😅
@@reaganlecroy7773Yes tons of them Gercukes became a god after his death. Ceasar and most roman emperors became God's after there death. It was a pretty common troupe to be a god in life or after your life.
﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
@@zaidzaid7455 Do you crazy zealot types really think that trolling in comments is actually doing anything? It's not even relative to my comment! I'm seriously laughing here.
Both Bart Ehrman and Alex have nothing better to do so they create these utube rubbish for views/money ! who even cares if you do believe or don't believe in God !! Because billions do believe and have faith in God ! Stop disrespecting and mocking religious people - CLOWNS 🤡
I'm finally hearing a sane discussion about the identity of our Lord Jesus, the Son of God! The dogma of the Trinity belongs to the Dark Ages and should be discarded. This would also help to mitigate the divide with the other two Abrahamic religions; Islam and Judaism.
Is God omnipotent? Omnipresent? Omniscient? If you say yes, then I'd have to ask you where you find the words in the Bible? If you can't show me, I then have to question your hypocrisy when it comes to the term Trinity. Modern Rabbinical Judaism does not represent all of Jewish/ Israelite history.
L take, Rick. Trinity may not explicitly be required to believe in to be saved, but John 8:24 clearly says: I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins. Jesus said if you deny He is God, you will go to Hell
Thank you for this interview! I love Bart Ehrman, I'm a huge fan of his. I've read almost all his books. They changed my life. Bart is like a logic machine!
@@moestv8011 YOU CAN ANSWER IF JESUS WAS GOD BY THE QURAN,BY USING THE LOGIC,NOW CAN GOD DIE,NO,GOD CANT DIE,CAN HUMANS DIE,YES,SO,IS JESUS DEAD,NO (ALLAH)CLAIMED TO SAVE HIM AND TOOK HIM TO JENAH,SO HE STILL LIVES,SO JESUS MUST BE GOD,AS HES HUMAN AND NOT DEAD,BUT JESUS DID DIE,AS HE WAS BORN OF HUMAN FLESH,PROVING GOD CAN DIE,AND GOD CAN BE BORN,ALL OF WHICH,MUSLIMS DENY ,BUT SAY ALLAH CAN DO SANY THING HE WILLS,BUT ALLAH CAN NOT DIE OR BE BORN.....NOW WHY WOULD ALLAH CREATE JESUS FROM A WOMAN,WHEN HE CREATED ADAM FROM CLAY,THINK ABOUT IT....ALSO GOD CAN BECOME A HUMAN,BUT NO HUMAN CAN BE GOD,HENCE JESUS WAS HUMAN FOR 33YRS TILL HE DIED,THEN ROSE TYO BE GOD AGAIN...NOW CAN YOU SHOW PROOF OF ALLAH B4R THE QURAN ???
Listening to the part of the discussion focusing on the scriptural account of seeing Jesus after his death. I have a simple modern example of people believing they saw a person after his death -Elvis! There were dozens of accounts claiming that they saw Elvis after his death. And this is in modern times, where his death is thoroughly documented. People often see and believe what they want to see and believe. Especially when they are grieving, and they are in need of comfort and hope.
@@CaniHaveTheRedPill Faith and historical fact are two different things. This part of the discussion was focused on historical accuracy. I wasn't questioning an individual's faith or the value of having faith. Alex seemed to be struggling with the concept of why the biblical record wasn't sufficient to be regarded as a factual account. He also didn't seem to grasp Bart's position of not believing that people were lying while at the same time stating that the biblical account wasn't enough to provide concrete historical evidence of the resurrection. Accepting Jesus' resurrection and Godhood is, as you said, an act of faith. If there was enough evidence for it to be a historical fact, there would be no need for you to have faith.
I believe that science and religion can co-exist. I also believe that science evolves as we gather better information. So too, religious perspectives should evolve as we gather better information. The conflict comes when we try to treat sacred texts as factual documents. Most sacred texts were written hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. If you compared scientific writing of that same period, you would find them equally dated. The larger question is, why aren’t we updating religious perspectives in the same way we update scientific perspectives? And regarding someone's comment that Jesus is a lair -Jesus never wrote anything. The earliest gospels were written between 70 - 140 AD. This means that they were not written by first-hand accounts. So accuracy is not the standard by which they should be measured. To me, the focus of spiritual pursuits should be; how can I live a more fulfilled life? How can I be a person? How can I live in better harmony with others? How can I help make my world a better place for others? How do I find hope during challenging times? To me, whether or not Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected or that he is the actual son of God is irrelevant. The more profound question is, can I find meaning and hope in these sacred texts? I don't restrict my spiritual pursuits to just one sacred text. I read a variety of sources. I am more fascinated by the consistency of belief and not the unique exceptions of individual religions.
I am very interested in the concept of “consistency of belief” would you say it could be an argument to not oppose religion? Would you said that we can ask ourselves the questions “how to be a person?” “How to live in harmony with others” and answer them without religion?
The author of John wrote in response to a particular heresy that doubted Jesus’s divinity. That’s why he wrote the stories emphasizing that point. Tim Staples gave a very good talk on this recently.
We’ll, we have passages in John that like the video mentions: where Jesus clearly implies that he is indeed God. And these points are later emphasized in revelations that where Jesus does call himself the Alpha and omega. Implying that which further implies he is God.
@@johnh2326 1. There are no records of GOD implying He is GOD in all of Bible history - but moreso, where every single declaration of His identity are direct and without question 2. Jesus would never contradict Himself by stating no man had ever seen GOD, then implying He was GOD 3. Jesus had a GOD to whom He attributed all things, and who He went-on to call His GOD and our GOD 4. Jesus also revealed that everything He has; names, titles, authority, power, rulership, and-on and so-forth, was given to Him by His Father 5. Jesus revealed that He is the first and the last to die - that is to say, the last to die, under the New covenant, and the first to be brought back to life again, under the New covenant That being said, and while it is quite popular for people to argue that Jesus is either equal-to or GOD Himself, it remains that must do so at the expense of vast portions of scripture so-as to avoid the conflicts and contradictions that comes from such a view. Whereas those who honour the entirety of scripture, come to know that the truth of matters is that Jesus is exactly who claimed to be while on earth - that is to say, the Son of GOD and prophesied Messiah.
So he apparently just made up stuff as Jesus's sayings because some people hurt his feelings and said Jesus wasn't God? Dang, blind faith in the crossdogs running since the 1st century itself
What doesnt make sense is how would Greek authors understand the jewish religion and culture so well that they only get a few mistranslated words in the septiuagent . Surely there would be utter chaos in the new testament since it was written in greek. For them to tie the old testament prophesies to the new testament being non Hebrew learnered..im just not convinced by Mr Ehrmans cases and conclusions. He pretty much summed up christs divinity as rumours or stories (started by HEBREW people) , that the authors(who were greek) just caught wind of and wrote . Hes also wrong about our earliest pauline manuscript which is an epistil as far back as 48AD he said the oldest manuscript was from 1st century 70 years after the crucifixion which is false as even the earliest synoptic gospel writings were found 42AD- 55AD (being the gospel of Matthew and Mark ). How would he miss these?
One of the best conversations with Dr. Ehrman, I have watched. Great work, Alex! I recommend all of Dr. Ehrman's books to everybody; you should read them. I even have his university textbook "The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction" His last book "Armageddon" is excellent, and it explains many of our current problems with Christian fundamentalists. I only have a comment on what Dr. Ehrman says at the end, which is how Scholars, Academics, and Scientists think about people in general. They believe people are basically good and then don't have ill intentions. Our reality is that there are a lot of people with various degrees of sociopathy in the world, and many of them are drawn to positions of power, political and religious. This is true now and more so in the first century CE. They have no problem with lying. Of course, I can't say everybody is lying, but there is a good probability that somebody is.
Having grown up around a covert narcissist psychopath father who basically ran a small morphing spiritual cult-like group-yeah. exactly. He taught love and acceptance and all feel good cleansing spirituality YET was the most violently abusive controlling person to his kids. I think I’m the only person who ever realized and saw the whole psychopathy of my Dad. My mom was snowed by his personality. He didn’t abuse her and she was ok to not protect us. Sometimes she triggered him purposefully to get us to not “bother” her. He tried to actually murder me multiple times. His eyes went dark like a psycho-killer! I don’t trust anyone much -especially around religion. I know a few are sincere but most at the top are NOT! We like to assume people are kind and well meaning if WE ARE! But it is NOT true. People lie and manipulate as easy as they breathe.
I've read a few of Dr. Ehrman's books and I have to admit I do enjoy his work. He shines a light on many biblical subjects that I often heard when I was child and wonderful about their authenticity.
Jesus is In all of the scriptures John 5:39 (KJV) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Jesus's birth Micah 5 2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Matthew 2:5 (KJV) And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, Jesus's suffering Psalm 22 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. 19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. 20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. 21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns Jesus arriving In Jerusalem Zechariah 9:9 (KJV) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Matthew 21:5 (KJV) 21:5Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. John 12:14-15 (KJV) 12:14And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,15Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. Psalm 22 17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. 19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. 20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. 21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns ************************ Psalm 118:22 (KJV) The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner. Matthew 21:42 (KJV) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Psalm 34:20 (KJV) He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. John 19:36 (KJV) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. Judas: Psalm 41:9 (KJV) Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up [his] heel against me. Psalm 55 12 For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: 13 But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. 14 We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company Zec 11 12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13 ¶ And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD Matthew 26: 14 ¶ Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, 15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him Crucifixion Psalm 22:18 (KJV) They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. Luke 23:34 (KJV) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Psalm 22:16 (KJV) For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. Psalm 22:1 (KJV) [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring? Mark 15:34 (KJV) And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 26:54 (KJV) But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? Matthew 26:56 (KJV) But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. Mark 14:49 (KJV) I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. Luke 24:27 (KJV) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:32 (KJV) And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? Luke 24:45 (KJV) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, John 5:39 (KJV) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words Acts 2 29 ¶ Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 ¶ For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 ¶ Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ Acts 18:28 (KJV) For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. Acts 28:23 (KJV) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening. Romans 1:2 (KJV) (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Romans 16:26 (KJV) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 1 Corinthians 15:3 (KJV) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Corinthians 15:4 (KJV) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Matthew 2:23 (KJV) And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew 5:17 (KJV) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 11:13 (KJV) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
21:30 Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? FORTHER MORE 21:33 It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. 51:47 And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. 36:38 And the sun runs [on course] toward its stopping point. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing. 39:5 He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He Who forgives again and again? 78:7 And the mountains as stakes? 16:15 And He has cast into the earth firmly set mountains, lest it shift with you, and [made] rivers and roads, that you may be guided, THERE IS 1100 VERSES DESCRIBE THE CREATION AND THE PEURPOS OF IT AND JUST U NEED TO READ AND DESCOVER. THERE IS NOTHING CAN COME BY CHANCE AS ALLAH GIVE YOU CHALENG TO DISAPROVE THE QURAN AND HE SAID 4:82 Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. ALSO ONTHERE CHALENG FOR YOU ALLAH SAID 2:23 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. AND THIS IS SURAH IF YOU CAN GIVE SOMTHING SIMILLAR TO THIS ( 112:1 Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,112:2 Allah, the Eternal Refuge.112:3 He neither begets nor is born,112:4 Nor is there to Him any equivalent.")
the discussion and topics were excellent. The reasons and justifications given by Bart Ehrman of course are terrific. My goal is to someday meet Dr. Bart Ehrman.
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin previously for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
@@xaviervelascosuarez the doctrine of the Trinity is 3 persons in one Being. They all have different names, thus the Person but are of one essence, thus the Being
You need scholars other than Ehrman to go off. I'm not recommending not listening to him. Actually I'd keep him just so later you can always have a reminder of what a good bukksjitter looks like.
I honestly find this view of the Bible so much more interesting than how Christian pastors/apologists often treat it. From what I've seen, they often just seem to pick whatever verse applies best, or even use verses from different authors without considering the implications. By taking the approach Ehrman takes, contrasting different gospels with each other and considering what the authors knew and meant, I feel like you actually learn way more about the actual meaning of the bible, instead of projecting your own meaning on it.
Preachers are often well taught though. Most churches require a study of theology, which is the combination of philosophy, history, textual research methods, learning proper exegesis etc. They take what they learn from scholars and use that information to learn about the Bible. So yes, they take into account what Bart says here. It's just that what Bart says is not really convincing.
Even at this age, Ehrman is so much better in dialogue with someone rather than over the phone or zoom. It's great to see him getting out and about to sit down with people - he sounds like he hasn't aged a day compared to some of the other stuff out there
Both Bart Ehrman and Alex have nothing better to do so they create these utube rubbish for views/money ! who even cares if you do believe or don't believe in God !! Because billions do believe and have faith in God ! Stop disrespecting and mocking religious people - CLOWNS 🤡
Jesus often said, he was the 'Son of God' and that he and the father were one. He also said that people would see him asscend to heaven and sit at the right hand of the father. John 10:33-35 ,says 'for good works we stone thee not; but for blasphemy and because that thou being a man, makest thyself god.,... Mark14:58-62. And the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ,the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am....
Thank goodness! I’m a Christian and I’m so tired of people telling me I can’t be a Christian unless I accept Jesus as God. He said he was the son of God.
Son as the way I may have or you maybe have a son? U do know without the divinity of Christ and thr trinity the whole of Christianity falls apart right ?. Those are beautifully blended aspects of paganism which is the trinity, Christmas, Santa etc u have emperor Augustine to blame around 300 CE or paul around 50ce a guy who wrote most of the New Testament but never met Jesus even him never dared with the trinity business came must later 300 CE council of nacea turkey emperor Augustine!!!
@@MohamedAli-uu1qf dogma. I think Christianity has changed since Jesus time. I have no idea about the holy trinity because that is a religious ritual and Jesus never crossed himself. The Nicene Creed established Jesus as God which to me was a political decision. God is omnipotent and not confined to a person. Let’s concentrate on what Jesus did. He healed. He loved. He tried to improve humanity. He was the way shower. And he showed we can do it too without snakes and laying hands on people.
Matthew 7:21-27 is all about Jesus conveying his authority as God. Not sure how Erhman misses this in all his “wisdom”. Does he think that anyone other than God has the authority cast one away from the kingdom of heaven?
As a believer in Christ, the research of Dr. Bart is like a breath of fresh air. I still believe in most of the teachings of Christ and I find that all that Mr. Bart is doing, is reminding all of us to always take with a grain of salt what we read in ALL sacred texts and try to look at the overall picture, rather than getting caught up in the small details which can turn people towards intolerance, hate and blind fanatism. In my perspective, I truely believe in most of the teachings in the gospels of Marc, Matthew and Luke. These gospels are more likely to contain things that Jesus might have actually said and did. And their Jesus, is a completely different Jesus than from the gospel "attributed to John" which was written 80 years after the death of Jesus, took its sources from oral stories that had been in circulation for decades and was written in Greek by a highly educated Greek speaking Individual (According to the bible, John, like many of the disciples was an illiterate peasant who spoke only Arameic). Please note this book, like many of the other gospel's was written anonymously and then "attributed" to John 100-200 years later. Was Jesus God? I am not sure. He did have the divine awaken in him and praised be his name. But according to Marc, Luke and Matthew he was the son of God who came to Earth to enlighten us and guide us towards God and ignite the kingdom of heaven on earth by bringing unity, consciousness and love. That's the Jesus that I love and the Savior that I respect. I also believe Jesus is still alive today saving lives and he is a great way to connect to God. But I don't think he is the ONLY way like John says and many of his fanatics scream. John's Gospel has spread a lot of blind fanatism, intolerance, hate and turn people into extremists dealing only in "absolutes". These are very dangerous beliefs that have gotten people killed in the past and turn some Christian into aggressive and judgmental activism towards other people religions and sacred beliefs. Just take a look on how the native Americans way of life was destroyed and many were killed because they were labeled as "evil" or "'commuting with deamons" during their sacred ceremonies. In central America, thousand of historical text where burned for 3 days and 3 nights by priest and his soldies because they were considered "evil witchcraft". This is why the work of Dr. Barth is so important. To stop on their tracks those aggressive fanatics who take every word in the Bible as literal and turn into intolerance towards other religions and sacred beliefs and other people's life styles. Those fanatics claims that everything written in the bible is the word of God, well science says otherwise; it was the word of men, and the bible distorted during the transmission process (in some parts a little, in some parts alot). Therefore, we gotta ask ourselves (using love as compass) did Jesus really say EXACTLY that ? And since we know it was likely majorly altered through the transmission process, what was the original teaching, if any can be reconciled at all? If you spot intolerance, hate or fear, then most likely it wasn't what Jesus said, but rarher what men said and put on Jesus' lips. And I say that our utilmate test with Jesus, will be this: will we be able to read through the fog and spot his real messages (based on love, unity, community, love of God, respect) or be fooled by the devils hand that entered through the human scribes while writing everything down during the transmission process (messages of hate, fear, intolerance, absolutes, extremism, fanatism). Sending love and light!
If yur confused by men with only tittles of academia what if Prince of the CONVENANT appears??? Understand Holy SCRIPTURE that we see God through HIS SON for US not to die!! God HAS no SON...... That seen is HIM... same seen by prophet ISAIAH 6:5 Same seen by 70 NOBLES of Israel when HE descended upon Holy Mount Sinai..book of EXODUS 24:10-11. Same seen by prophet EZEKIEL 1:26 Then Prophet MICAH seals this MESSIAH IS GOD...Read MICAH 5:2 The ONE from.EVERLASTING ...whose GOINGS are from OLD ..will be born in EPHRATA... Then yu say Saint JOHN lied to write to the Confused PLAINLY THAT JESUS CHRIST IS YOUR GOD...PERIOD.
@@mwola didn't you listen to the course? The scripture of John wasn't a lie, it is a story that has changed over time during the transmission process: this is a normal aspect of the transmission process of storytelling. Stories are embellished and modified, sometimes by accident, and sometimes on purpose by the person re-telling the story. Stories are always modified through the transmission process, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. Just look at the real time news we get today and how we still get multiple versions. In the case of the new testament (like many other sacred scriptures), it was altered so much during the transmission process that it has gotten to the point where it is almost impossible to know for ACCURATELY what the original events actually were. And one thing we can know for sure, is that it is almost impossible to claim with certainly that Jesus even said many of those things, because scientifically and historically speaking, it is more likely this was all put on his lips by other people. Neither Marc, Luke and Matthew call Jesus God. Why would they forget to mention such an important detail? Unless John's Gospel, which took place 80 years after the death of Jesus, picked up oral stories that had been in circulation for decades and had been modified already to be more embellished. Anyway, I believe that for Jesus it was more important to follow his teachings and messages, rather than just sitting in a church believing that he is God and making no effort to put his teachings into action and be better human beings. I am quite happy with my religious beliefs, so no thanks: I don't want to join your religion and neither do I agree with your interpretation of the bible.
So what exactly makes Jesus the son of God? Because someone somewhere long ago said it? Be careful what you believe for God gave us a brain to think for yourself.
@IgshaanBarnes-understand that God HAS no SON..And here yur Theology Academia guys float though many years in harvard.. When you hear Christians say SON of God ...understand is God seen Himself. Have you not read when King Nebuchadnezzar threw meshach..even those three in furnace of fire..did not he see a fourth person like SON OF GOD? Read book of prophet DANIEL 3:25
Just sharing! 1 Cor. 4:20 and 1 Cor 2:5 And people will try to search, learn something, know something and interpret to the best of their knowledge and scholarly study… yet… without the Spirit of God working in them… not one of them will hit the mark and hit the truth! It will be forever a parable to them! A puzzle!! Matthew 13:13; Luke 8:10. And Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God! Romans 10:17 Amazing truth!! Praying for them all!! Shalom!!
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin previously for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
@@xaviervelascosuarez Xavier, you do know Historians outside of the Gospels mention the Crucifixion by Pilate outside the Gospels right? Both Tacitus and Josephus. I think Pliny the Younger as well. So no, he’s not “cherry picking” to fit his narrative.
@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός In this same video, Ehrman questions why Paul, an early writer, did not quote Jesus saying "I am God' (even though Paul explicitly calls Jesus God!). However, when it is pointed out to him that Paul, an early source, speaks about the resurrection, he claims we cannot believe that. Appealing to Paul to show Jesus never said he was God, and throwing Paul under the bus when it contradicts him on resurrection. That's worse than cherry-picking.
My comment: Dear Professor, Great job. THANKS. However, God never said "...I am who I am..." Hebrew language doesn't allow for that. God said "...I will be who I will be..."- that is a good translation of "ehiye asher ehiye". Russian language is exactly the same in this matter. In order to say "I am here", Jews and Russians say "I here". To say - I am - it's IMPOSSIBLE. John, please try to study Hebrew language
@@arturwojcieski5042 Isaiah 43:11 I, >>even I, >am the LORD; H3068 and beside H1107 me there is no saviour. H3467 Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child H3206 is born, H3205 unto us a son H1121 is given: H5414 and the government H4951 shall be upon his shoulder: H7926 and his name H8034 shall be called H7121 Wonderful, H6382 Counsellor, H3289 The mighty H1368 God, H410 The everlasting H5703 Father, H1 The Prince H8269 of Peace. H7965 John 8:58 Jesus G2424 said G2036 unto them, G846 Verily, G281 verily, G281 I say G3004 unto you, G5213 Before G4250 Abraham G11 was, G1096 I G1473 am. G1510 Mark 4:39-41 [39]And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. [40]And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? [41]And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?
@arturwojcieski5042 Luke 22:61 And G2532 the Lord G2962 turned, G4762 and looked upon G1689 Peter. G4074 And G2532 Peter G4074 remembered G5279 the word G3056 of the Lord, G2962 how G5613 he had said G2036 unto him, G846 Before G4250 the G3754 cock G220 crow, G5455 thou shalt deny G533 me G3165 thrice. G5151
@@arturwojcieski5042 Matthew 28:19 Go ye G4198 therefore, G3767 and teach G3100 all G3956 nations, G1484 baptizing G907 them G846 in G1519 the name G3686 of the Father, G3962 and G2532 of the Son, G5207 and G2532 of the Holy G40 Ghost: G4151
@@arturwojcieski5042 Colossians 2:6-10 [6]As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: [7]Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. [8]Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [9]For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10]And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
@@moestv8011 GOD CAME TO EARTH AND PREACHED HIS OWN WORK THROUGH JESUS,THIS PROVES GOD NEEDED NO ONE OR A PARTNER,AS WHERE ALLAH SENT THE QURAN TO MUHAMMAD,WHO SINNED,BUT JESUS NEVER SINNED,
@@donhue4546 God sends it via jesus...? If I have a package and I give it to you and you deliver it, did i deliver it or you?. How can God deliver it via someone else and at the same time be the deliverer. Christians are in doubt as stated in tbe quran. Christians need to understand that prophet abraham was already on the right path... believing and bowing and asking forgiveness to One god. Not a human... you are bekievung in idoltery brother
John Dominic Crossan, who is certainly no slouch as an historical Jesus scholar and a scholar of the first century Mediterranean world, does not believe that Jesus preached the imminent coming of the kingdom as an event that puts an end to the world as we know it. Rather, he believes that Jesus preached that the kingdom is already here and it requires our cooperation here and now. The apocalyptic tone of a coming cataclysm comes from a later time period, from those living through the traumatic events of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, which certainly seemed like a cataclysmic apocalyptic event. That tone is retrojected into Jesus' much more nuanced teaching, which, in contrast to John the Baptist, focused on a present kingdom to be cooperated with and celebrated, rather than a cataclysmic reckoning to come.
When you read the bible, you see that Jesus often doesnt say things directly but often speaks in parables and answers questions with further questions. People often dont respond well to direct statements or truths. They are often more receptive to it when they come to the intended conclusion after thinking about it for some time.
@@LukasOfTheLight It’s not likely that eternal punishment was a concept that the historical Jesus would have preached. The concept of hell was not prevalent in 1st century Judaism. It is a later concept from Christian philosophers that has been largely imported onto the teachings of Jesus. In fact, Bart Ehrman has a book on the topic called “Heaven and Hell.”
@@LukasOfTheLight "just get to the point" - This goes against a core principle of good teaching which is to start from the student's perspective, not your own. If you speak from your own perspective then it'll be like talking to the wind. It also undermines the challenges Jesus faced in correcting already existing misunderstandings which went counter to many strongly held beliefs, even so much that he was crucified for it. What he did was really skillful and that was to find something they already understood, which many times was personal, and made an analogy so they could get something tangible to explore and ponder on their own. Some of his lessons can take a whole lifetime to really understand and appreciate, but if he can leave people with something, then they'll continue to learn through contemplation and experience. In order to fully understand something it takes time, experience, and as many different perspectives on the topic as possible. That is not something you can give to people with a moment and a few words. I have a lot of respect for teachers that can teach well because it's a skill and an art on it's own.
@@bike4aday You shall have no other God's before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. ... Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. ... Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy. ... Honor your father and mother. ... Thou shalt not kill. ... Thou shalt not commit adultery. ... Thou shalt not steal. God spoke plainly and directly to his followers. And they obeyed (or suffered the consequences). I am Jesus, son of God. Believe in me and you shall be saved and enter the kingdom of Heaven. Refuse me and you shall be damned and cast into Hell to burn forever. You have been taught. You are welcome.
@@LukasOfTheLight He did, He called himself the I AM (Ehrmann even agrees this is a name of God!). He claims to be the first and the last. He claims to be the one who resurrects the dead. Any logical person knows these are things only God can do and say. Your Bart Agrees, he only that he does not like John! But even if Jesus did not say "I am God" do the authors not call him God? Including the earliest such as Mark and Paul? Are you saying that you won't believe Alexander was king until you see a quote from him saying "I am king"? Please, don't be seduced by Ehrman's (il)logic.
Psalm 107: 27 They reeled and staggered like drunkards; they were at their wits’ end. 28 Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out of their distress. 29 He stilled the storm to a whisper; the waves of the sea were hushed. 30 They were glad when it grew calm, and he guided them to their desired haven. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things and in him all things hold together. Colossians 2:9 For in Christ, all the fullness of the diety resides in bodily form.
Brilliant discussion. I've been a Bart Erhman fan for a long time. He does great job of exposing the holes in the Christian texts dogmas and doctrines.
@NSOcarth Silly statement. Your knowledge is predicated on my curiosity, let's test it. How many prime numbers are there? Or are you just being pedantic? Specific to the topic, specifically which claims or arguments advocated by Bart Ehrman have been deflated by "Fathers"? Specifically, how did they do it? Lastly, which "Fathers" have done thins thing?
He exposes the holes in the Christian text but then adds two and two and gets seventeen. Barts problem is that he continually over-eggs his conclusions. No matter how many times in debates Christian scholars point out to him that if you add up all the mistakes, errors and interpolations together, they only make meaningful difference to far less than 1% if the text, he ignores that and makes out there's a big problem. He has even admitted once in a published work that if you add them all up, no major, foundational Christian teaching is affected by all these differences. Yet he goes on year after year, suggesting the opposite. Not good.
Matthew 23:24, Jesus said: I am sending you prophets, wise man and scribes, some of them you'll kill... He hasn't quoted the Father during many paragraphs before saying this. So, I believe He talks about Himself, Jesus. And, who is to send prophets, wise men and scribes?
