Did Jesus Even Exist? 

Just started watching and the first thing I noticed is how much I am slacking in the cool eye glasses game.

You both have the rare skill of being able to say “let’s talk about Jesus” without me recoiling in dread. That you for that.

This scholarly process is quite difficult for me to follow. Based upon my understanding of this it seems to me that the same process could lead us to conclude King Arthur and Robin Hood were also real people. Thousands of years from now, can the writing of "Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and "Amazing Fantasy #15" be considered 'Independent Attestation' of the existence of a historical Spider-Man? Each set of writing agrees about details of a radioactive spider bite empowering an adolescent with the proportionate strength of a spider. All tell the story of "Peter", through anger and pride, failing to prevent the death of his uncle. Since this part of his story portrays Peter in a poor light, can we conclude that no one would make that up because it makes the main character look bad?

There exists no method by which we can determine Jesus said the words attributed to him. It’s that simple.

Great as always Bart, have been soaking up info for over 10 years now and I’m still obsessed! Keep it up.

Just want to thank you so much. I LOVE these sessions. You guys together are such a fantastic team. I always get so excited when I see there's another one of your videos in my inbox. So much gratitude for this gift.

"Paul never met Jesus but he met people that did." And 'based on oral traditions'. These are huge red flags. Added to that nothing contemporary. Zip. Bugger all. Nothing.

A man by the name of Jesus may or may not have existed during the supposed time the "Jesus of the bible" walked, but absolutely nothing proves his divinity, miracles, or resurrection... NOTHING!!!

I don't think Mark was writing scripture but I think Mathew and Luke were intending to write scripture based on Mark.

I'm so grateful to have found Bart here on RU-vid. Being a closeted agnostic, he's been like a beacon for me, reassuring me that I'm not alone

Another great episode! Would personally love to see one on the cosmology of Paul!

We know, time and time again, that historical figures who were popular eventually turned into legendary myths. Caesar is one example (the Roman senate recognized him as god and people would set up temples to him). Jesus was almost certainly a historical figure but because of key moments (Such as his death) myths and legends naturally evolved surrounding him. This is not unique, its not rare, it happened all the time.

Josephus speaks of a man with these characteristics. It was "The Egyptian". The difference is he was at a later date and around the time of Felix who was the governor. Historically there was no crucifixion around the time of Tiberius in Pilots governorship.

I've read and listened to Dr Ehrman for a couple decades now. I never get bored.

I am one of the rare breed of what might be called "minimal mythicists" - people who are totally open to the idea of Jesus beginning as a literal myth, AND/or to the idea that he was a first-century Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans. Either is fine and totally plausible - although I lean towards the idea that the myths (indeed we must admit 99% of what we have is literally myth) are likely based upon a real person. 30% mythicist, 70% historicist. I am fine with that, and do not need to be drawn into the polarised belief system.

So glad to have found this - I just read "Lost Christianities"..... It was excellent. Congrats to you Bart. Keep up your great work, and, Who knows what other exciting finds will emerge from the sands of what was the Ancient world. ?

I've never found Tacitus and Josephus to be particularly informative when it comes to the Jesus question. Tacitus never tells us that Jesus existed. He tells us that nearly a century later there was a group of Christians who BELIEVED that Jesus existed. Similarly with Josephus. Josephus isn't a source for the life of Jesus. He's a source for later Christian beliefs.

I never thought of this until now but the fact that Matthew and Luke not only used Mark as a source but literally copied large portions word for word essentially guarantees without doubt that Matthew and Luke are definitively not based on eye witness accounts of Jesus or coming from any of his apostles. If they were themselves eyewitnesses or apostles, or even scribes taking doctation from them, they wouldn't need to use Mark whatsoever. If you're a first-hand participant in an event, you don't need to copy someone else in order to retell the story. Personally I doubt any of the gospels come from Jesus' apostles or eyewitnesses, but I think we can definitively conclude without a shadow of a doubt that at the very least Matthew and Luke are at best fairly distantly separated from the events and are just trying to piece the events together way after the fact using stories they've heard and using Mark and including their own theologically motivated insertions in order to write their gospels

Bart : please just say if you think JESUS EXISTS OR NOT! No beating around the bush!!!!

Megan is a great interviewer, and I don't think it's possible to get tired of listening to Bart Ehrman, it's a rare quality and along with his vast knowledge, has almost certainly contributed to his success.

I am waiting for Godless Engineer and Dr.Richard Carrier's response to this.. there is a lot to get into... I personally am with Dr.Carrier... there's 1 in 3 chances that jesus was a real person.. i would say one more thing.. we don't really know if Paul refers to a biological brother of Jesus.. all the baptized christians were considered brothers amongst themselves... Nonetheless, much respect to you Dr.Ehrman.

Great podcast, I truely love your initiative (and Digital Hammurabi!) As an amateur-jesus historian, I think that the mythicism pov is not as far-fetched as many christians and historians want us to believe. And even if the historical pov is stronger: the mythicism pov throws up some very interesting questions regarding methodology. Nevertheless, some mythicism arguments tend to apophenia. Also, see the great series "Fishers of evidence", which deserves many more views than it currently has.

The thing that I liked about teaching at a university is that twice a year I was officially caught up.

Well done, Bart, for getting a proper mic 👍

I'm quite confused: how are two stories that were widely circulating for decades in the same religious group considered "independent"? Also why interpret the unique material in Mt or Lc as yet another independent tradition rather than legendary development on top of Mc and Q?

Was Pontius Pilate not written about as being removed from office for being too antagonistic? It is my understanding that the gospels present him as caving to demands, which contradicts other writings.

I am relatively new to this area of study. So I have no horse in this race of historicity vs. mythicism. I love listening to interviews and lectures on both avenues of thought. I learn so much from just absorbing as much as I can. However there is one thing I have noticed that is frustrating to me. I have watched Dr. Carrier discuss his views and even spend entire 2 hour live streams allowing for the possibility of Jesus being a real historical person. He's looked at and discussed the probability of how Jesus could be a historic figure and what are the most likely ways Christianity developed from that position . Even though he disagrees ultimately on this line of thought. Basicially he actually looks at it from multiple angles. With Dr. Ehrman I do not see that kind of flexibility of consideration. He seems to have his view and only sticks to it while just dismissing any other views. He reminds me very much of christian apologists who don't actually stop and consider a position or wrestle with it to see if they can actually make it work or not. I keep getting an impression of arrogance from him in that any theory that does not agree with his is not worth the time to anylize or consider. This video would have been so much more interesting if he anylized the question from an honest mythicist POV. That's not to say he has to believe it or can't make counter points. But for a video titled "Did Jesus even exist?" an actual look at mythicist views would have been nice. Not just him by-passing the idea and just discusssing his own take that has already been expounded on everywhere. That's not me trashing talking. I have great respect and admiration for his study and ability to communicate his ideas. He's a brilliant man. I just wish he showed more flexibility in approaching contrasting ideas. I find researchers who can wrestle with opposing ideas and actually try to make sense of them way more interesting than a scholar who takes a dogmatic view of something that no one can actually know for sure. I find dogmatic positions off putting whether it be in religion or secular academic work. I think for me it just starts to feel like someone selling a product instead of a real honest exploration ideas and possibilities in the ultimate search for truth and understanding.

Shouldn't the real question be "How many Jesuses were there?"? Oral transmission often creates compound characters where reports of several historical people are fused. King Arthur would be a good example. Mythicists often don't believe the number of real Jesuses to have been 0, they don't think it's 1 either.

I suspect Jesus existed, but I think it's possible, since none of the authors of the New Testament ever met Jesus, that version of Jesus that is in the New Testament is so unlike the real Jesus, that he might as well have been mythological.

Another wonderful video. Even as an atheist who has spent years arguing with YECs and Calvinists, I must say I find the story of Jesus fascinating. Lunch is on me if you're ever in town. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott

I mean, they said satan is god of confusion. The bible itself is really confusing that we even question if the people there even existed. Who created satan and confusions anyway and the best question is: why would you do that to your children? Unless you see them as lab rats or test subjects

Are the gospels really independent of one another? Not all of them, because it has been shown that Luke borrowed heavily from Mark and Matthew did as well, meaning the authors of those gospels copied (plaigerised) the other. Are they really not meant to be scripture and meant to be historical accounts? No, they were part of the writings of an existing religious branch of Judaism that became Christianity, not at all meant to be merely an account of Jesus, making them suspect as a source.

Great stuff. Thank you both for another great presentation.

Save yourself some time and skip (the chitchat) to @ 3:30

Thanks for this. Can you do a show on the unpardonable sin? I'm sure many would enjoy the information.

I'm impressed with the mental health practice in the beginning. And the wellness days at uni idea... It's about time society remembered people need more humanity. We are definitely seeing the affect of too much disconnection.

Great content Debate with Carrier soon?

Please make the mythicist video. Too many are sharing quotes from the Robert Price debate saying, "even Ehrman says there is no evidence for Jesus". They always ignore the next sentence in that debate, assuming they even bothered to watch it.

The only evidence we have for the existence of Jesus are primarily the Gospels which Bart Ehrman has proven to be unreliable and not the original copies. There are no contemporary writings describing Jesus by the people of his time.

Min. 23:34 Josephus is mentioned by Suetonius in "Divus Vespasianus" 5: "Et unus ex nobilibus captivis Iosephus, cum coiceretur in vincula, constantissime asseveravit fore ut ab eodem brevi solveretur, verum iam imperatore." "And when Josephus, one of the noble prisoners, was put in chains, he confidently affirmed that he should be released in a very short time by the same man (Vespasian), but he would be emperor first".

My week doesn’t twirl around fun at the weekend; I look forward to Tuesday; I adore these podcasts and there isn’t a single other I check in on every week. A missing week = moping. So much respect for Bart and just getting to know Digital Hammurabi 🥰

Idea, start doing shorts (can just be clips) for RU-vid and Instagram. I think it could work as a solid lead to the channel and Bart’s material overall. Particularly viral are debate moments, but I understand that sometimes people can get the wrong adversarial perception.

Would we be able to see a Bart Ehrman vs Richard Carrier debate in our lifetime?

Hmm... For someone who is claimed to have committed incredible miracles, it seems very odd that nothing was written about Jesus by his contemporaries. It just seems like an incredibly small amount of "evidence" to merit the claim "Jesus definitely existed".

the reason i’m convinced that there is an historical person, or maybe two or three people, at the base of the gospel depictions, is occam’s razor: somebody wrote the sermon on the mount, somebody who people expected to be anointed had a very unkingly death that required an extraordinary explanation, and to think that some genius or small group of them came up with the entire enterprise by themselves sounds way less likely than an accumulation of myths growing up around one or two famous faith healers, miracle workers, and eloquent poet of selfless compassion

Contemporary’s of the Jesus lived decades after his death. There were dozens of intellectuals who lived in a radius to whom newsworthy details would have drifted. Writers such as Philo, whose writings are read even today never mentioned this guy. What does this totally ignoring of such interesting miracles seem odd. I think it’s a valid question. Cheers Mike

The way Dr. Ehrman describes the various gospels makes me think of how all the various canonical and, now, non-canonical Star Wars books have been written. In those books, you'll find references to the same or similar source material while each of them also had their own spin, is writing their own story, and is certainly done by many different authors.

Thank you Bart and Megan for the ever interesting episode. Absolutely love each and every of them❤

Even though I no longer identify as a Christian, I still enjoy these sessions.

In Second Peter 3:16 Peter seems to regard what Paul wrote, as being Scripture, reckoning them as being numbered alongside the Old Testament (which he refers to as the "other scriptures." "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Very much enjoyed your presentation. Especially liked your having your students write their own accounts of what they'd witnessed you doing for three minutes.

Bart (he/him) is right as usual...

I don't know how I missed this last year. Anyway i enjoyed it all the more. Love the vids.

7:28 Ehrman claims that Paul knew Jesus's disciples but this is not true. Paul knew some men who after his death were portrayed as disciples of Jesus by Mark. Paul never refers to anyone being a disciple, never even uses the word. He only knows Apostles, and to him, that is some one who has had a revelation of the risen Jesus. Ehrman here is implying that Paul confirms he knows of people who followed Jesus around & were installed in leadership positions by him. This information is conspicuously what Paul does not say, he has nothing at all to say about anyone knowing or doing anything with Jesus before his resurrection. Ehrman here is working with an unevidenced assumption.

There should be a place where all those historical texts are compiled

Remember the story of Simon of Cyrene? The man who helped Jesus carry the cross. I once heard professor Dale Martin say that he thinks that the story of Simon of Cyrene might go back to some kind of actual memory. There might be a historical reality behind it.

Finally, getting to the historical realities and probabilities of Jesus. I didn't know there was nothing written about the great figures of his day ... Makes me wonder how we know about Pontius Pilate and a long etc. So, thanks for this (maybe one "thanks" is enough ... not one for every question answered!?!)

I'm loving these Podcast. Thank you for doing them!

*Great class exercise* Bart’s class exercise is even better than he said. The students were eyewitnesses who all spoke the same language and lived at the same time and still didn’t get the words the same.

I mean, given how many different and contradictory ideas about Jesus were bouncing around in early Christianity, I'm not entirely sure how much stock I'd put in the idea of "this must have been true cuz it's counter to this person's understanding/teachings about Jesus." It could be they thought it was true, but it was made up by or heard from a different group of Christians. See the debates about whether Jesus was divine or human. After all, we just discussed a few weeks ago about how controversial it was to include Revelation in the Bible because it was so contrary to the portrayal of Jesus and Christianity. Does that mean we should accept Revelation as "true" because it's a theological outlier but managed to stay attached to the biblical canon anyway? All Revelation really depicts is an alternate version of Christianity (and wishful thinking) where Rome is destroyed by God and the Christians inherit everything. It's basically a precursor to the Prosperity Gospel in a way. I don't know. That rationale seems flimsy to me. Especially as someone who grew up Baptist. Ask 5 Baptists to describe Jesus and you'll get 10 contradictory descriptions - several of which have absolutely nothing to do with any Biblical passage or teaching. I mean, look at modern evangelicals - they will tell you all about how Jesus is love and he's all "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and he's also coming with an AR-15 and going to go all Rambo on the unbelievers. And they see absolutely no contradiction in there. If modern evangelicals can preach such contradictory things, why can't early Christians?

Megan, I don't mean to be creepy old guy and all, but hand on heart, I thought you were mid-late 20s, just out of grad school. In another episode where you mention your eldest, I did actually rewind because I thought, "surely I misheard and she said six year old . . ." On a not creepy old guy note, thanks for the great podcast. I look forward to every new one hitting my notifications.

Using the New Testament scholar-consensus to debunk mythicism is somewhat problematic due to how many of those scholars are believing Christians. That bias has impacted their accuracy before. Mythicism may not be ultimately correct, but it deserves a more thoughtful rebuttal than that.

It's a well-known phenomenon that most police, interrogators, etc. are aware of, namely that when witnesses' stories are identical, or the details match too closely, the story is very likely a lie. This is because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable in the details of their reports: Witness 1: "I remember it clearly: the guy was wearing black socks." Witness 2: "I remember it clearly: the guy wasn't wearing any socks." It's not even uncommon for the same witness to remember the details of their account differently if they're questioned at a later time. The writers of the NT knew this well, which is why they included four different versions in their "scripture." This alleviates many problems at once, including the above mentioned issue. In addition, if you have only one account and any of it it is proved false, then the whole story collapses. Using this multiple reporting technique, the writers not only played into the basic phenomenon of human nature (i.e., the tendency of eyewitness claims to diverge) to attempt to lend credibility to their tale, but also had an easy out to circumvent potential errors that might arise in any one of the fictional accounts. Another purpose this technique serves is to deflect attention from the absurdities themselves to arguments *about* the absurdities. For example, one account could be: "JC went to the 7/11 at 9pm." Another might be, "Yes, he went to the 7/11, but it was at midnight." The third says, "you're both wrong. It wasn't the 7/11, it was the Stop and Go." The fourth is "No, he walked past the Stop and Go at 9pm and past the 7/11 at midnight, but didn't actually go in." Now the debate shifts from the complete unlikelihood that JC was ever at a 7/11 (or "risen from the dead," or whatever the absurd claim might be), and onto the the specifics of the claims. The inventors of the jesus tale got a h3ll of a lot wrong in their attempts to take from the Hebrew Bible, but they were very clever in manipulation tactics and techniques, which are pervasive all through the NT. Another important question on this topic is: if the NT is allegedly the "word of God," how could there in fact be ANY conflicting accounts? That would obviously be nonsensical and inconsistent with the generally understood nature of God as being truthful, all-knowing, etc.

Ya know, we DO seem to have record of a person called "The Teacher of Righteousness" in the DSS at the time and it DOES shed light on what folks were thinkin' at the time. I highly recommend "The First Messiah, " by Michael Wise. Btw, thanks for another great show!

I really enjoy these conversations but my question is does Megan have different color hair on each one? I think she is terrific.

I find Richard Carrier's view and argument on this topic rather compelling.

Seems to me that one piece of evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus is that contemporary anti-Christians didn't claim he never existed. If his existence were uncertain this would certainly have been brought up, even if the only sources for anti-Christian arguments are the early Christians. Early Christians mention a lot of different criticisms (while refuting them) but as far as I know, they never mention non-existence.

So he does actually believe Jesus existed? And one reason is because Paul knew Jesus's brother? Seriously, he better come up with a better reason than that.

Some people think Jesus did exist and some don't. I guess I'm not sure either way and I don't really care. But I think the stories about him are 99% made up.

I'm glad someone asked about John P Meier's books - I have several volumes and I was wondering what Ehrman made of them. I'd say that they are at an equal calibre of knowledge and balanced, honest assessment for sure, even if they come out to slightly different conclusions in particular details (that's to be expected anyway). Bart Ehrman fans could do worse than reading these too! Always better to read from multiple authors.

Regarding the rapture - a number of years ago I came across a website made by atheists who offered, for a fee, to care for the pets of those taken up after the big day.

Using these standards, I could also say that someone like Luke Skywalker existed. Lots of people wrote about Luke and his dad, lots of different people. Maybe in another 1,000 years we could say that Harry Potter existed. It’s called fan fiction. Quite a lot was written about the Greek gods, but we don’t automatically assume they exist. Another issue I have is dismissing mythicism by saying it isn’t seriously debated among scholars today… That is just flatly untrue. Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, and many others have reached different conclusions based on the evidence or lack of it they’ve uncovered. And while not a “scholar”, David Fitzgerald’s book, Nailed - 10 Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All lays them out quite well.

You need a follow-up on the extra-Biblical writings: Josephus, Taticus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata.

Just amazing hair Megan... reminds me of my Hill Billy High School Chemistry class in 1962 in Viriginia. My lab partner's brother changed her hair color every weekend. Thanks for reminding me of how futuristic we were way back then. You should suggest something for Bart to do with his but I can't imagine what. I was an atheist even then. Hi to Bart.

The thing about Josephus is that he doesn't actually cite any Roman or Jewish records. It's entirely possible that he spoke to some Christians who went "yeah we follow a guy named Jesus we think is the Messiah and he was crucified" and that's the extent of it. Maybe he spoke to actual disciples of Jesus, we don't know but it's entirely plausible that Josephus is basing his own writing about Jesus on the testimony of people who were converted Christians who didn't know Jesus so even Josephus' account could be wrong. Now, I do think Jesus existed but I don't think there's any hard evidence of it.

Megan (she/her) Bart....just bart

Didn't Pontius Pilate wash his hands of the matter and thus throw it to a lower court. Somethings are timeless, Jesus was matched with Barbarius who was a cop killer. The people picked the cop killer over Jesus. Somethings never change.

So did Jesus really say he would be back and some people who were alive would still be alive when he returned?

There's a common assumption that "Jesus" refers to a single person. Could it be that there was a multiplicity of figures who were, in some sense, candidates for messiah? Bart has picked out one of these: one who preached immanent establishment of an exterior kingdom, neglecting what points to a "kingdom within".

At 9:00 he makes a mistake. He believes in Q, the source of several gospels

I find it curious that even a great mind like Bart accepts the existence of Jesus despite the contradictions, and the time frame between the supposed life of Jesus, and when the writings occurred. I understand that "99% of all historians accept his existence" to quote Bart, but I guess my own biases get in the way If I look at a written account of a world event from the 1940s (WW2) how can I be confident in its accuracy today, 75 years later, especially if it wasnt written on tne day of the event. There are studies about the fallibility of memory. There are RU-vid videos of people saying they saw X event occurring, and then shown that they did not, even though it occurred only 10 minutes earlier.

I suspect people who watched this video hoping to see Ehrman address mythicism are disappointed. I was. I also suspect not discussing mythicism was a precondition of the interview, which the interviewer more or less acknowledged at the intro. Well, OK -- Ehrman’s channel, Ehrman’s rules. I’m not a historian, just a bloke who’s read about the historical Jesus (including Bart Ehrman’s books) and watched a lot of videos about the topic. Am I a mythicist? No, I believe it’s more likely than not that there was a historical figure who’s been mythicized. But I don’t think mythicists are crazy, as Ehrman does, though he doesn’t say so in this video. His vehemence about the issue has a ‘whistling past the graveyard’ quality about it. He also stakes his position too much on academic credentials for my taste, which allows easy dismissal of people like Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price. Mythicists are probably wrong, but they're not crazy. Around 1905 a nobody working in the patent office in Switzerland who was fond of thought experiments published some articles that seemed crazy to many in the scientific community about light, gravity, and something that came to be called ‘relativity’ and, well, the rest is history. Ehrman is too quick to dismiss people who lack what he thinks are requisite academic credentials. It’s a bad look, professor.

Thankyou for the thoughtful questions and clear and expansive answers. Really helpful.

How do you know that the writings are accurate being written few hundred years after his supposed life and not knowing who wrote them ?

The problem with the Gospels isn't just that they're in the Bible, it's that they are Christian religious texts. There are hardly any early non-Christian mentions, which does seem a bit odd if Jesus was a relatively notable figure, and the very few there are may well be based on the Christians' own stories. Of course we have more narratives about Jesus than about most people of his time, but the same is true of, say, Odysseus - the question is how reliable they are. There are an enormous number of major or minor historical figures from around that time that are known from sober and secular historical accounts, sometimes from administrative documents, and a few lines of such text are more reliable than the four gospels put together. But sure, it is plausible that there was some historical figure by the name Jesus - just inventing a character with a random name out of nowhere would have been odd even for a myth/legend. Another issue is that the only sources we have about that figure are extremely biased, untrustworthy and have clearly accumulated many legendary elements, so we can only have a very broad and vague idea about what actually transpired.

I attended a Lutheran Seminary in the mid to late 1970's. The favorite course for me was "The Jesus of History Christ of Faith debate" and we did comparative Greek Synoptic Gospel comparisons. It was and still is interesting to me. We also looked at scholars like Albert Schweitzer and his "Quest for the Historical Jesus" dating from early 2oth Century if my memory serves. Thanks Bart and Megan for these.

Several Clarks, Peters and Yehushuas have existed, but that does not prove that Clark Kent was Superman, that Peter Parker was Spiderman, or that Yehushua was son of an invisible man and had some of the same superpowers as some Greek gods.

I’ve been thinking about this question all week, I’m excited to hear this episode today! Thank you for all the hard time and work put into these informative episodes!

Once all the magical tales are removed from Jesus' story, not much is left.

This episode was so eye opening for me. The idea that the gospels need to be looked at as, writings that were not written with the intent of them being included in the new testament. (Head slap…duh. I never considered that important!) Just as a non-sequitur, my mind never focuses well: did Bart and Megan coordinate their glasses so they could look cohesive side by side?? Sorry Bart, Megan wins!

00:02 Exploring the historicity of Jesus 02:15 Examining the historical sources of Jesus. 06:25 Jesus is believed to have existed based on multiple independent sources. 08:36 Historical value of the Gospels 12:46 Similarities in synoptic gospels indicate copying. 14:34 Matthew, Mark, and Luke used Mark as one source but also had access to other material. 18:12 Scholars use rigorous methods to study and evaluate historical sources about Jesus. 20:05 Jesus' historical existence and basic life events 23:57 Limited written sources about Pontius Pilate in the first century 25:52 Need independent sources for Jesus' existence 29:35 Discussion on the webinar 'Will He Be Left Behind' about the Rapture 31:25 Having one lengthy biographical source for Jesus makes him unlikely to be a mythical figure. 35:23 Historians focus on if a prediction was made, not if it came true. 37:12 Jesus believed in an imminent apocalyptic intervention 40:54 Gospels were attributed to Jesus' followers, not written by Jesus. 42:50 Apocalyptic texts emphasize forces of evil punishing people 46:46 Jesus predicting the end of the world

It is weird how worked up about this the Jesus Myth mythers can get about this stuff. After all, Ehrman really agrees with them for the most part, i.e., most of the stuff you read about Jesus is myth but that's not good enough for the myth mythers. To them, it must be 100% myth or else.

I’m a Greek Orthodox and a church going… can someone tell me… how can someone believe thr historical books written by various historians… and believe what they had written centuries ago before Jesus Christ was born??? Or even after he died….?

This has become a weekly highlight for me. Bart and Meghan make a fantastic team

Why should it take 40 to 60 years after Jesus death, then only the story is written. Shouldn't it be written as soon as even a few days or weeks later so that it wouldn't be forgotten?

Erhman bases his claims Jesus existed on Paiul claiming he knew his brotherl this is the same Paul that claims he saw a vision of Jesus in the sky after his death. Paul is a story teller. But if you make your living claiming Jesus lived, you got to make a living

_Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all. And if he did, we do not know anything about him._ - Bertrand Russel The way in which biblical scholars defend the historicity of Jesus as an _undeniable_ historical fact - unworthy of even discussion - leaves the intellectually and academically honest person to have to conclude biblical scholarship, as a field, to be rotten and corrupted to the core.

Considering the existence of different stories circulating about the same character as 'independent witnesses/sources' confirming the existence of the character is unreasonable. There were many different stories about, say, Heracles in Greek folklore and in different parts of the Greek world; this doesn't prove that he was a historical figure (or that, if there was one, that the figure was anything like Heracles of the stories).

Mythicists: No books were written about Jesus until 40 years after he supposedly died! Historians: Four books were written about Jesus *only* 40 years after he died!

I am reading g "Spaceman Jesus" by Richard Carrier. He gives plausible reason to think he was not an historical person,. I would love hear a ....conversation between Richard and Bart on the subject. It is Richard's contention that odds that Jesus was an historical person is about 33% that Jesus was a human being that did exist. Both are Atheists. Both are historical scholars. Personally I don't think it really matters. I don't think Christians care. Meagan and Bart's wife are Christians. Christianity will exist because of belief. It will not cease to exist for at least the next two weeks. The Bible is not a very reliable source of history. What I do think is true is that humans are a social, storytellers. There are stories relating facts and stories relating values. Few people think or believe in Aesops fables.

I have a hard time not being distracted by the lady’s strange glasses and pink hair. 😂