Genesis, White Jesus, and Debating the Resurrection (with Dr. Bart Ehrman) 

It's kind of weird to say that when the only distinction between the two positions is whether you think one specific person actually existed even though you agree the rest is 99% bs.

I would like to see the whole thing go away and be replaced with a paradigm of decency and appreciation based on just that without a need to know where anything came from.

Not a good analogy, since Greek mythology has already been destroyed by Christianity, no less.

If you think Christianity has been corrupted then please find another religion. God is real

@@truthhurts4928 there is no demonstrable testable evidence of any God/Gods existence accept only in the minds of believers that believe in fairytales.

This is exactly my position, as well. And, the fact that Bart continues to so closely guard and defend the historical Jesus tell me he’s protecting his professorship and reputation in academia. His biggest defenses are always “Paul knew James, Jesus’s brother”. And, then the hearsay of Christians documented by people like Josephus.

The legends are parables. Like the fig tree. An out of season tree not producing nuts, so he kills the tree story sounds absurd. He is saying that the temple was destroyed (or killed), but the physical church (tree) isn't needed to worship to receive the fruit (the word of Jehovah). It has some neat and good stories. Stories like that were easier to spread with words, since it wasn't written down for a couple of centuries

​@@DL-rl9bd -- your comment tells me that you don't understand tenure and don't mind disparaging people without evidence.

@@mojoman2001 His books and RU-vid videos are evidence of his position, right?

​​@@DL-rl9bdall historians of antiquity based a lot of their claims on hearsay. When they quoted something, they didn't cite who or where they were quoting from. Of course, that creates a big problem to historical study of Jesus, etc, but Ancient History is all like that, all claims have high degree of uncertainty.

Lol😄

Dr. Ehrman's recent book, "Heaven and Hell" is very interesting. I suspect you'd like it.

I’m a former evangelical Christian myself. Stay strong 💪 you’re not alone

Just spend some time in a pediatric cancer ward and ask yourself where the loving god is supposed to be

Congrats on letting go! I understand it's a difficult process, especially if everyone you know is of Christian faith. I hope you are not alone in your journey. Most of my family are Fundamentalist evangelicals, but the ones who know I'm atheist are okay about it. No matter how much proof I throw at them they still seem to hold to their religion. One of my siblings happens to be a Christian flat-earther, so convincing them of anything is impossible. If you need any advice or recommendations I'm here for you.

Takes courage to make decisions like yours. Good for you.

@DasHobble. Years ago I worked at a big hospital in Boston. I always say the very same thing to people about the kids with cancer. I saw so many little ones die. God must be an a..hole to be sitting up in heaven watching this.

Which is pretty f’ing cool tbh. I still remember the first time I read the start of the Enūma Eliš and saw the narrative parallels between it and the start of Genesis. The authors of Genesis were definitely making conscious changes to a very common story of their day in order to make - what were at the time - quite revolutionary theological points.

I had a friend who was an anthropologist, archaeologist, and Native American who had been adopted by a white couple and was later adopted into the tribe of his father. He had a very interesting perspective. His view was that oral traditions always changed and evolved. If you write them down, especially if it is done over time, you are going to get exactly what is it the bible. It really doesn't matter what the oral traditions are. They all evolve and change. When there is a local disaster, the incorporate it into the traditions. When the tribe moves, that is also incorporated. Same for any notable event. When you look at any religion that way, it makes perfect sense. It's not even a history book, or a book on humanity. The bible is simply a book reflecting how oral traditions evolve, and how the written word impacted those traditions.

Bingo we have a winner.

I love ishtar... oooh... dem thighs... i mean, ishtar from fate series...

That statement actually means nothing. It doesn’t mean you are right, it only means that YOU are not able to see it or comprehend it;-)

Pilate: damn zombies...they're worse than cockroaches. 😁

@@bokononbokomaru8156 What would they even have to talk about? "So... hows death?" "You really don't notice it." "Hmm. Well, you can't stay here tonight, your old room is my new man cave."

Haha, yes. Funny too, no mention of what happened to Lazarus after his claimed resurrection; yet another detail that the NT authors just left out, or simply didn't have, for some reason. Maybe they didn't want people asking why Jesus's resurrection implied that his teachings were true/divinely sourced?

@@timtheskeptic1147 😆 i think you have a good comedy bit there! 👍

The plagues in Egypt always got me. A nation that was the Mecca of information for many neighboring countries with the majority of the population being literate didn’t write about water turning to blood, 1st borns dropping dead overnight, darkness for days, and exodus of a whole ethnic group, etc? Not even one person wrote about it, or anyone that was visiting? Sounds extra suspicious.

Was coming down to say pretty much this. The opening discussion felt like a clear communication/definition issue.

Well Ehrman has explained that many times. He thinks there was a real Jesus basically as described in the NT but without the miracles.

Jesus exists today, I have Hispanic friends some name Jesus.

The question should be should we trust the gospels?

People forget that a lot of stuff about Jesus in the New Testament is thoroughly unremarkable: he went to this and that city and told people to do this and that - sure, many preachers did that at the time. Even the passages about him talking about the kingdom of heaven are nothing special: many people believed what he believed at that point in time in that corner of the world. It’s perfectly reasonable to think he existed and that the New Testament is a good source for his existence - and that’s the position of any historian who looks at it. Believing that he was the son of god and that he performed miracles is a completely different matter. That’s all there is to it.

I find his laughing after almost everything he says to be a bit offputting.

@@MeDecade I totally agree with you. He finds himself very funny but I find that very distracting.

@@MeDecade offputting and revealing of insecurity. Seth is a formidable conversationalist.

@@jewellevy I don't think Dr. Ehrman is intimidated in any way by Seth. He just has a jovial disposition.

@@heteroclitus inappropriate laughing. Nothing he said was funny.

The power of the Jesus message isn’t just about good works, though, is it?

Profound? Like you must hate your family and even hate life itself? Yeah ok buddy... lol

@kylekataryn Bullshit. You think no one could love or be charitable to anyone before this jesus character? Animals do that without knowing about some god. Children do that before they could know what a god is. Millions from different religions do that. Millions of atheists do that everyday. Your comment is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read.

@kylekataryn Huh? Who is "they"? An unknown "oriental"? WTF dude where did you come up with that? Also, if the dude is unknown how the fuck do they know he was oriental and that term didn't even exist years ago anyway .

@kylekataryn First you say unknown. Now you say Confucious. Which is it. You are also assumimg all these biblical characters actually existed. I don't. These are just stories Job is just a character invented for Yahweh and Satan to play their sadistic game with. The entire thing is stupid.

Those are indeed the best interviews, regardless of the subject matter, I find.

they have been lied to as well..many are sincere

Dr Ehrman is a biblical scholar who is focused on what the original intention of the authors of the bible is, not on how the bible is being misused currently. Since contemporary fundamentalism isn't his area of expertise, he isn't speaking on that. It doesn't mean he agrees at all with it or has no issue with the damage it causes, which he's discussed in other videos and lectures. It means from a scholarly academic view if he's discussing the biblical Jesus or the account of Genesis, he does his best to present his evidence of how it was understood by those in the past and allows his audience to see the wide chasm between the religion of the past vs the present, better equipping those who are focused on current issues.

That's always been interesting to me, too. The books were complied by Catholics who believed Mary died a virgin. In catholic school, we were told he was just a brother in the church. I see Erhman's point when reading it with non-Catholic eyes, but it's hard to fully commit when I was taught otherwise by the people who constructed the work. It would make more sense that they'd want there to be a brother rather than not. But I'm not a scholar. Just a youtube rambler. Don't mind me.

Paul spent significant time trying to get different churches to listen to him and thus would have a good reason to fabricate meeting Jesus's brother. The notion that he's in with Jesus's bro gives him credibility. He claimed God talked to him in a vision. He also never discusses Jesus's earthly ministry. How is Paul at all credible?

Need to believe "Paul" existed before believing in whatever "Paul" said about "Jesus."

@@h.g.wellington2500 Except he wasn't in with Jesus" bro. Paul hated Peter and James. THAT is why his comments about them are somewhat credible.

@@fredericdouglas3574 Even Richard Carrier thinks Paul existed and wrote seven of the epistles. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. The epistles have been examined 8 ways to sundown.

I would qualify Carrier as a scholar. But Ehrman never debated him, nor has any intention to, as Ehrman just puts him down as a mystacist

Yes.

Carrier has a PhD. what else do you need? Ehrman doesn't consider you a scholar unless you taught or wrote an Ivory League text book. Goal post moving.

He is currently the voice crying in the wilderness, so to speak

Carrier says there is a 30% chance that there was a historical Jesus. For some reason nobody ever talks about that. Taking that into consideration makes him look far less radical. But a lot of his fans are looney tunes.

You should also look into Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald to get the other side of the argument, and the point out Ehrman’s flaws and blind spots. He says there are not scholars who don’t believe Jesus existed and that’s just not true. Carrier has a Ph.D from Columbia and wrote a peer reviewed book on mythicism. Fitzgerald isn’t a “scholar” but his book Jesus Mything in Action is well researched and excellent.

I'd also suggest Tim O'Neill's History for Atheists blog.

The deuction is simple. Was there a guy? Maybe ... maybe several that roamed the land and preached. If, was he divine? No ... not by any standards we can measure and declare as evidence. But what about the fulfilled prophecies? You mean the ones the author of the NT knew about and could shoehorn in as fulfilled?

@@bladerunner3314 I got really excited by Richard Carrier when I read his book.. but then when I started the fact checking it was clear that time after time after time claims he made were just nonsense.

@@magicker8052 I have read neither nor, I'm talking strictly what is the miost likely scenario in my opinion.

Didn't that happen already? I maybe wrong. 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@kami2099 Has it?? 😱

@@kami2099 nope

Carrier is more convincing than Bart based on just this, where is there inscription of Jesus? Plenty of inscription for other people of that time and location, but none for Jesus.

@@Instramark Totally agree. Dr Carrier has thoroughly examined the evidence where it exists. One point he makes that eviscerates Dr Ehrman's credibility is the fact we know so much more about ancient historical figures like Plato, Socrates, Alexander The Great, etc, than we do about Jesus. You'd think someone as famous, powerful, and important as the Son of God would be more...well... famous.

Yes, and most people don't care if a regular guy named Jesus lived and died a couple of thousand years ago. It's not notable.

@@yadabub , perhaps you are correct. However, I suspect the biblical Jesus was a composite of these possible Jesus; with the added mysticism.

@@yadabub Yeah but the people who do care are the ones who debate the historical Jesus issue. I don't care if you care.

That explains the walk on the water. Something I've done this winter too.

Indeed, if this so called western " Christians" had to chance to see real Jesus , they will think he is like a Syrian refugee, what the f..k🤣

To be fair and to offer context, the convo didnt start with religion. He was talking about the fact that America was founded and intended for the 'real Americans'. After explaining to me what a 'real' American was, I replied "so one is judged a real American by how much one looks like a European and worships like middle-easterner?" This is what set him off. He said "we (Americans) are Christians, not middle-easterners." This was the beginning of his denial of any connection between Christianity and the middle east.

Oh alright. This has more tied to it than I thought. Maybe there is debate.

Seth needs to pin this at the top of this comment list. It was great that Seth pushed back so hard.

Just because James Tour exists does not mean that there is a credible group of scientists that doubt evolution. You will always get one odd ball.. do you really want to be backing the odd ball?

@@magicker8052 When an abiogenic explaination for the start of life is scientifically theorized, the christians will say that "god breathing life into dust to create Adam - the proves buy-bull "truth" about how humanity started". Those religious folks have an explaination, however crazy, for everything !

@@onedaya_martian1238 agreed... but by putting ourselves on the "jesus did not exist" side of the argument we are the odd balls.

Except that we have seven undisputed letters of Paul that mention Paul meeting the brother of Jesus. Pure myths don't have brothers you can meet.

@@Kyeudo There are many thousands of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. 👽 There are *Billions* of people who believe Hanuman the monkey god created the universe. C'mon.

@@jesusisfictional And your point is?

@@Kyeudo There are plenty of myths who have brothers, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, that people in writings have claimed to have spoken to. That's called part of the myth. Not to mention that just about every aspect of the writings from that era are highly suspect as to who actually wrote them. To be frank, we do not know. Just because the Gospels are named after X, Y and Z does not mean that X, Y or Z wrote them (and in many cases multiple people wrote them). Provide you sources to show clear evidence that these letters are 100% beyond any doubt written by someone named Paul, and then show your source to show clear evidence that 100% beyond doubt WHICH Paul exactly wrote them or to be frank, it is not undisputed. Furthermore, Jesus (actually Yeshua) was a VERY common name at that point in time so it's not unlikely that this "Paul" may have found some guy who was the brother of "Yeshua". Probably tons of them.

@@paulmiller7838 [" There are plenty of myths who have brothers, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, that people in writings have claimed to have spoken to. That's called part of the myth."] Now you are making the claim that either Paul or James lied about James being related to Jesus. That is actually an extraordinary claim and one you need to provide evidence for. ["Not to mention that just about every aspect of the writings from that era are highly suspect as to who actually wrote them. "] There's a reason that the undisputed letters of Paul are referred to as the undisputed letters of Paul. It's because all attempts to dispute their authorship have failed to gain traction with the experts. ["To be frank, we do not know. Just because the Gospels are named after X, Y and Z does not mean that X, Y or Z wrote them (and in many cases multiple people wrote them)."] Right, because the gospels are anonymous accounts written by literate Greek-speaking people decades after the events they purport to recount and no references to the titles are found before the second century. ["Provide you sources to show clear evidence that these letters are 100% beyond any doubt written by someone named Paul, and then show your source to show clear evidence that 100% beyond doubt WHICH Paul exactly wrote them or to be frank, it is not undisputed."] You sound like a YEC trying to dispute evolution or the Big Bang Theory. "Just because the vast majority of the experts agree that this is the case after they have done the relevant work doesn't mean that the experts are probably right about this". You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Don't do that. ["Furthermore, Jesus (actually Yeshua) was a VERY common name at that point in time so it's not unlikely that this "Paul" may have found some guy who was the brother of "Yeshua". Probably tons of them."] You forgot that Paul also met Peter at the same time. You know, the Peter that was Jesus' chief disciple. The one who spent years with the man. Also, this is the Peter who is the head of the existing Christian movement, so he isn't just some guy claiming to have known Jesus. This eliminates the possibility that Paul talked to "just some guy who was the brother of some guy named Yeshua".

He's a professional, is why.

Heaven and Hell are only possible if you don't die. How does that work?

I think his argument that Jesus didn't believe in a literal hell is very weak. He just disregards inconvenient language.

@@scambammer6102 I know the biblical scholar John Collins doesn’t agree with Bart on this either, at least from a mention on an interview at Mythvision. Still appreciate a lot of his other works.

@@TheGreatAgnostic Sure I love Bart, thanks for the info.

@@scambammer6102 Jesus was not waiting to be resurrected when he died he immediately return unto God

There’s something Dawkins once said years ago about why he wouldn’t debate William Lane Craig “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.” I think a similar thing could be said here.

Thank you. I've been saying this for years.

The thing it always seems to come down to when I encounter it is this is that the historical method seems to be something like: If we can't demonstrate x person didn't exist, then we'll proceed under the assumption they likely did. Which, in normal mundane issues seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption, given the state of reliable record keeping over the last 2000 years. We can't demonstrate a guy named Jesus who allegedly said some things didn't exist, so we're going to assume some guy named Jesus who said some things existed. Which makes christianity false.

I couldn't agree more. And I've never heard Ehrman explain what he means by a historical Jesus either or give any other argument other than getting really upset and animated and claim everyone who questions is basically stupid. He spends so much time character assassinating and demeaning, why not spend that time giving an explanation? Please enlighten us so we don't have to be such contemptuous ignorant rubes!

Nailed it. (but not to a cross)

@@jimsrisom Exactly. He appeals to his own authority as a scholar, then says he hasn't read everything. I don't care if he hasn't read X or Y's latest take on a historical Jesus, but as a scholar who claims Jesus was a historical figure, I expect him to have read every contemporary historical document that mentions this Jesus, and he should be able to present a concise and convincing case for what convinced him, but instead he spends half his time giggling at his own self-perceived bon mots. Biblical scholars carry no more value than Harry Potter Scholars.

There are a multitude of contemporary accounts of George Washington, but not even one for Jesus. The fact that “Jesus” (or whatever variants there are) was a common name complicates making any slight passing mention impossible to ascribe to a single person that can be identified as THE man-god.

The only interesting George Washington is the historical leader and not the mythological one.

What salary would he lose?

So you think he has dedicated his entire life to the subject to make money? You don't become a teacher to become rich. He has strong arguments for his positions. Have you read "Did Jesus Exist?" His arguments are strong. If you're suggesting he holds his views so he can sell more books, I want to know what evidence you have for that?

That’s the consensus view. Even mainstream scholars who are Christians will happily say that they can’t establish something like the resurrection took place historically; that’s a matter for private faith, not the historical-criterial method.

@@mil401 It's not really private any more when they smack you in the face with it. I view religion like having a penis. It's fine to have one, and even to be proud of it. But the minute you whip it out and start waving it in my face, we have a serious problem.

@@mil401 lol that isn't what christian scholars say

@@scambammer6102 Idk? I’m sure apologists would like us to think that mainstream Christian history/textual scholars are on their side when it comes to establishing Jesus’s resurrection using the critical historical method, but that’s just not the case. The mainstream Christian history scholars I know of: Prof. Dale Allison, Prof. Mark Goodacre, Prof. Candida Moss, Prof. Dale Martin, Dr Ian Mills and Dr Peter Enns, all appose the idea that you can demonstrate a resurrection historically. Prof. Martin explicitly states this in his ‘Introduction to the New Testament’ undergrad course at Yale University (about 20 hrs worth of his of lectures are free to watch on Yale Open Courses.) He points out that while Christians (such as himself) can take a theological reading from the text, theological truth (i.e. the truth of the incarnation, resurrection, etc.) can’t be established just by using his field. This divide between how Christian apologists and Christian history scholars at major universities think can be seen quite starkly in a debate/conversation that occurred a year ago between Laura Robinson, a Duke PhD candidate (I think Prof. Bart Ehrman is one of her thesis advisors, but I might be thinking about her colleague Ian Mills) and apologist Mike Licona. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hr4i9eBIlq4.html The consensus amongst mainstream history scholars (including Christian ones) at universities with New Testament research departments like Oxford, Yale, Duke, Durham, Notre Dame etc. seems very much in favour of the view that Jesus’s resurrection is a matter of faith, not the historical critical method. Now of course, that being said, there are going to be US evangelical establishments that try to blur this boundary, but they only exist within their own (often unaccredited) bubble. Have your experiences reading/watching mainstream scholarship been different? I could be wrong, this isn’t my field, so I might not have a broad enough understanding.

I don't think it's a "put-on," but rather a nervous tick, but I agree, he would be better to reduce it or cut it out. Ticks can be very hard to get rid of, however.

I totally agree and was thinking the very same thing. I think Bart decries the Adhominem Fallacy but falls straight into it himself just by laughing off other's views or attacking the people themselves

It is a given that those with authority, those with standing and those with a reputation agree that there was a historical Jesus. Sorry if this doesn’t fit other’s fantasies and conspiracy theories.

I agree, the conversation was interesting but the nervous laughter grates on the nerves

I read the bible like I read Outlander.

A perfectly fair question, and just to get it out of the way, I am not going to give a specfic answer to it, let alone as an apologist, which I am not in any sense. Looking back, I wonder whether or not one of my theology teachers that I had in high school (Catholic high school in central Texas - yes, I am permanently damaged) had heard of Ehrman or Stavrakopoulou, though he certainly did teach something similar, which makes it even more surpising as he was an ordained minister (Western Orthodox, if I recall correctly). Still, one of his lessons always stuck with me, even with how theology was taught at that high school. For context, the high school was operated by an order of religious brothers, which is something you just do not hear of often, at least not in the US, and they believed that having a strong and well-cultivated basis of earthly knowledge is vital to spiritual well-being - so shockingly, especially given where the school was located, things like creationism and intelligent design were kept as far from the science classrooms as possible and it was only evolution. Even in the theology classes, they were hardly brought up at all, and also shockingly, parents did not complain about that (maybe they believed teaching creationism and rejecting evolution was inherent in all Catholic schools - I guess the joke's on them for not being willing to look for evidence). Anyway, the theology lessons did bear some similarities to the seminary, but there was a definite focus on teaching the Bible from the perspective of sciencists and historians rather than as theologians. One lesson from the aforementioned ordained minister that stuck with me and undoubtedly helped send me down the path towards leaving Christianity and becoming an atheist went thusly: "Adopting a fundamental or literal interpretation of the Bible is perhaps the worst possible thing you can do with the Bible. When you read any Bible, you are reading an interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of a translation of a barely understood dead language and dialect. It is one of the oldest iterations of the game of Telephone ever, and we all know what happens in that game. The original message gets repeatedly and constantly distorted until the message you get is nothing like the original, but unlike the game, with the Bible, the chances of the original message being permanently lost are rather high. There is nothing wrong with studying the Bible or just reading it for entertainment, but trying to use it as a moral compass or a general life guide will only set you up to be a real scumbag in life, quite possibly the biggest scumbag most people will ever personally know. This can also be applied to any and all other religious texts, and trying to make any exception for any of them is pointless, and the ones who most typically try to do this were raised and immersed in it and often ONLY it. Read and compare any other religious text to the Bible, and you will find that what differences exist are predominantly superficial, and if you already believe this other text to be myth, then what exactly makes the one you were raised with special beyond the fact that you were raised with it? It is possible to extract some kind of history from any religious text, including the Bible, but that history can only be about the people who created the text and what it came to be used for. Certain events can be corroborated for when certain parts were written, but that is not a verification that what is written in the text is correct, not about its history and certainly not about its purported beliefs. It is far too easy to create any god or mythic heroic figure or supposedly religious text that can justify whatever you want, and how long it persists is a testament to its marketing, not its accuracy or validity. You were a captive audience when you were raised with it, and a captive audience is the golden goose for any and all marketing schemes, especially scams. Always be skeptical of whatever you read, especially when it comes to religion." Again, this was an ordained minister who taught this. For extra context, I graduated from this high school in 2006, and I started at their attached middle school (same campus, different building) in 2000. I still remember exactly what happened in the 8th grade when 9/11 happened, how I got to watch the live broadcast of the second plane. He was not the only one who taught this or in this way, but he is the one whose lessons I remember most clearly. I wonder how many atheists he created - or at least how many he prevented from becoming fundamentalists. Last time I checked in on the school, he had become the guidance counselor, so I would like to think that the original mission of that religious order is still being followed.

@@DavidRichardson153 Thank you for the reply. It is appreciated!

The sad part about this religious nonsense is ,even if we found the original writings of the Bible or the Christian theology, it still wouldn't prove a God or Jesus was actually real. because a lot of the writings came 50 to 100 years after the so-called crucifixion of Jesus .so I personally feel that all of that is worthless but it makes a really good Fairy Tail.

@@ishmaelkelly951 True. Even an original can be nothing but fabrications.

Doen't mean the guy isn't wrong from start to finish. I see a lot of bias towards his own conclusions by him and a lot of poeple just wanting to believe him.

@@bladerunner3314 Hello, I am thinking only about the Dr. comment on the number of scholars that deny the historicity. Now, I don't think Dr. would lie about that as it is easy to confirm. And, yes, I do assume Dr. Ehrman has the proper information on the number of scholars... .

@@joed1950 Lying, no ... stopping investigation while he's right OR ignoiring people like Carrier, seems like it.

@@bladerunner3314 ok, thank you

Yes you can win against Ehrman. Start your own reading. Read the bibliographies of his books and get into his sources and his source's sources. Take a few courses. You will be surprised how fast you can catch up to these guys and be able to pick apart fine points.

You can also ask if there was a Mohammad, or a Buddha, or a Confucius. The answers are more hazy for some and less so for others. Did any of these figures, including Yeshua, do everything that's claimed for them, and if not, does that mean that the legends have no specific person they can be traced back to? But if you discount the miracles - which I have to, because I'm a filthy atheist - and the contradictions, and the downright untruths, like how the Roman census worked, and the common wisdom that existed in human thought before the 1st Century AD included in the New Testament, does it really _mean_ anything to assert that Jesus existed, considering how little there is left to him?

I think what Erhman is saying is that there is evidence pointing to a man named Jesus (Yeshua) from that time period who had a following and claimed to be the messiah. Just like 40 years ago a man named Jim Jones had a following and claimed to be this divine leader. Jesus existing is plausible however him performing nature defying miracles is where he draws the line. Zeus, Odin aren't as plausible because they take on a supernatural element.

I don't see the value to even knowing it, except for Historical accuracy.

No, sorry, that’s not a very well attested idea (even if it feels really good). Jesus was like Mohammad (or even Julius Caesar), in that they are figures later authors heavily mythologised. A lot of early Christians were incredibly passionate to spread their ideas, and even die for them. What inspires that sort of fanaticism? Charismatic leaders. We see it with the televangelists and faith healers of today. People follow a leader, and interpret what they see through the lens of their background beliefs. For the early Christians, they saw what Jesus did though the lens of the Old Testament, and the stories just got bigger with each retelling. Can we please, please, give mythicism a rest? It’s really tenuous scholarship (and only really pushed by ex-evangelical atheists.)

So logic to you means that historians shouldn’t even consider the various sources at hand and just do simple thought experiments to reach their conclusions? That doesn’t sound logical to me at all.

Agreed.....I would like to see it go away.

I mean, what he's saying is that no Scholar actively working in related fields are mythicists. So agreeing that you're not a Biblical scholar just proves his point. The way to refute him is not to say 'lots of people think he was a myth', it's to point out a scholar is the field that thinks Jesus never existed.

I'm on the fence & see both sides. You have an individual with a miraculous birth, then he falls off the map for decades save for a story for when he was like 12 or something & then next you hear he's started a ministry where many of the stories about him are based on Old Testament callbacks or take some form of a literary device. Add the miracles & the resurrection story... what percentage of the gospels are actually true? 5%? Maybe 10%? Does that include the existence of Jesus?

You're entitled to your opinion but thinking a historical Jesus didn't say or do the spectacular things listed in the bible is not what a mythicist is. If someone doesn't believe George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, they're a George Washington mythicist.

@@keithboynton There's nothing to prove! Jewish Galilean men from 2'000 years ago probably didn't have fair skin, blue eyes and long blonde hair.

Ah yes, “big-Bible” has got to him. /s He’s had tenure for years (and is basically retired at this point): he’s completely free to say whatever he wants. Tenured emeritus professors have the essentially the same job security as supreme court justices. If anything, he’d make a lot more money pushing Jesus mythicism than he does now. But he doesn’t, which shows an awful lot of integrity towards the historical-critical method and his field. Hats off to him, I’m reading one his undergrad textbooks right now and I have to say, he definitely has a great way of presenting the material in an engaging yet detailed way. Why do you think he isn’t being genuine?

@@mil401The constant and inappropriate laughter reveals discomfort. He wouldn't pass polygraph.

@@jewellevy I don't think he can help it. I think it may just be a nervous tick.

It may be just a nervous habit, but boy it is annoying. He is not a very good public speaker.

Perhaps he did exist... But it is the "what / who" he was. Was he really the "son of god" as claimed, or just another religious zealot who took advantage of his fellow men / followers? Rather than work for a living?

Did you read his book? Or, do you just accept what he says without question?

Unlike Little Red Riding Hood, Christianity has been the single most influential religious movement of the last two thousand years. Meanwhile, there is reasonable evidence for the existence of a real human named Yeshua ben Yosef. There are seven undisputed letters of Paul, in which Paul claims to have met Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. The claim of having met these people is not extraordinary and the existence of a brother of Jesus implies the existence of a Jesus. The evidence is sufficient for the claim.

@@Kyeudo Funny you should mention the "real person" by name, which excessively makes the point there was no Jesus with the last name Christ.

@@onedaya_martian1238 "Christ" is a title, not a name. People in that time period did not have surnames unless they were in the upper classes.

@@Kyeudo You missed my point completely. Did an itinerant rabbi named Jesus exist and was crucified? Sure, I'll grant anyone that. So what? That's all we might know about Jesus, that he may have existed. The New Testament is built on hearsay, stories and wholly manufactured narratives, "manufactured" because one can easily discern the many and well recognized contradictions among the four recognized gospels, and the contradictions of mythical Jesus's history and message multiply when considering the available non-synoptic gospels. We know nothing about what the original Jesus (if he existed) actually believed, preached or did. We simply have no way to know what Jesus said, and what is now presented as his words and demonstrations of magical powers ("miracles") in texts are myths in permanent contradiction to one another. Jesus is a vast myth built on a blur of a human being at very most, or else was a character invented wholly, like Peter Parker was invented, and though there may have existed an actual Peter Parker residing in New York city, that does not prove the existence of a historical figure named Spiderman, except to Spidey true believers.

@@martymccorkle225 ["So what?"] When someone says that Jesus never existed at all, they are stating that someone intentionally fabricated Jesus. Christianity becomes the result of a conspiracy instead of the more likely option of Christianity being the result of actors in good faith being subject to hallucinations and then decades of oral tradition exaggerate the details. ["We know nothing about what the original Jesus (if he existed) actually believed, preached or did."] Not actually true. There are bits and pieces that scholars can be reasonably sure were actually original teachings of Jesus, mostly because they clash with Pauline conceptions of salvation. It's not a lot, but it isn't nothing.

There was a roaming preacher or several, that were amalgamated into chezus - that's as far as I'm willing to go.

The fundamental believer requires the rest of us to nitpick the Bible at the very least, seems to me. Think the insurrection and those Bible thumpers.

​@@bladerunner3314 The idea behind the Messiah was more about Jewish nationalism. The reason the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple is precisely because of the rebellious atmosphere in Judea during the first century. The New Testament is 100% political.

...and your point is?

@@chrisnash6094 Having a PhD in the New Testament is a way of imposing an aura of holistic knowledge. The Bible states in the beginning that the true authors of the content is unknown. Being a scholar of some old myths wouldn't merit any more than what it is. These scripts are as relevant today as Snorre Sturlason's Edda, interesting from a historic perspective but nothing more. The entire god myth is as true as the flat earth conspiracy theories.

@@nollattacykel my father read Snorri Sturlason''s Edda to me when I was a little girl. Ironically, if you had asked me I would have said he was from Norway. It was only recently that I found out he was Icelandic. I loved those stories and they are very interesting 🙋🏼‍♀️

@@nollattacykel ["Having a PhD in the New Testament is a way of imposing an aura of holistic knowledge."] It's not just an aura. Bart Ehrman has done the work and has the knowledge. He can tell you exactly why you shouldn't trust most details from any of the gospels, which passages are the most mangled by translation, and which few passages are likely to have been real teaching by the real Jesus instead of later exaggerations or complete fabrications. ["The Bible states in the beginning that the true authors of the content is unknown."] Not for the letters of Paul. A good half of those letters are forgeries, but seven aren't disputed. ["Being a scholar of some old myths wouldn't merit any more than what it is."] Those "old myths" are the backbone of the most influential religious tradition of the last two thousand years. They remain relevant today, whether we like it or not.

@@Kyeudo "The real Jesus", of whom there are no historic records. You would think that a god who put himself on Earth would have done a better job to make his divinity more convincing. Snakes burning bushes, walking on water, feeding thousands of people and the resurrection are all fairy tales. What religious tradition does anything a secular one couldn't do.

If Harry potter became the linchpin of a huge belief system im sure there would be classes and courses on its different facets

@@eirikwatz6179 Harry Potter does not exist because?

Why not? People have PhDs based upon the works of Shakespeare and other classical writers. It depends upon what your PhD is in.

@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 True, but it wouldn't give you authority over other issues than HP.

Depends.

Carrier is little more than a con artist.

@kylekataryn Good enough. Thanks! You prove my ultimate point. The Jesus situation covers a spectrum of violent faith to anthropology of dietary hallucinogens explaining cultural and spiritual beginnings. This is why the founding fathers separated church and state. I expect it to stay that way and your comment lends to this, thanks again. Carrier a con man? Like Joel Osteen, etc? Ok. Fine with me, just keep it out of the government.

@kylekataryn Didn't they recently find Pilate's building, office or whatever?

Richard Carrier explains the “historical Jesus” with much more clarity. He is not combative nor does he seem to want to destroy Christianity, he knows the history of world religions, therefore compares them.

Carrier is one of the few that believes that. I wouldnt waste my time.

There is zero evidence for there NOT being a historical Jesus. How could there be? The evidence FOR a historical Jesus isn't very strong either, despite what Ehrman says. I have heard his evidence many times and it is all remote hearsay and shaky inferences. The difference with Plato and Julius Ceasar is that THEY wrote stuff. Jesus didn't. Nobody who even knew Jesus wrote anything. Paul is the best source and he never met Jesus, and he lies a lot.

I was thinking the same thing. The book gives very compelling reasons as to why we do not have clear evidence on Jesus ever existing. Yet Dr. Ehrman dismisses the issue with such contempt that comes very off putting, not to say Ad Verecundiam-ish.

@@PC-vg8vn Right, and you're a better source because ...?

lol there are plenty of "carrier" mentions on Bart's blog.. they are not fans of one another.

His book does not address actual mythiscism, it strawmans it, read on the historicity of Jesus by Richard carrier, then maybe read erhmans, he does not address carriers points

@@ARoll925 thanks. Will do!

I don't think it matters whether there was one or not. There have been lots of cult leaders over the centuries, and not one of them have made the sweeping changes to the world they promise that have meaningfully reduced the crappiness of reality. Jesus, whether he existed or not, just had better marketing and propaganda, used and pushed by those in power, so we know his name better than most.

No, it's not completely conclusive, of course. There is a fair amount of evidence by the standards that historians use but even then they won't typically say "definitely" they'll usually say "probably". History for Atheists blog has a good series of articles on the subject.

@@redshark92 Eh. I have read and heard Ehrman's arguments on the subject many times and his evidence looks very shaky to me.

@@scambammer6102 He has no evidence.

😜🤣 that’s right and squeeze your grobble vlookum, snook yark bleek.

Yes I absolutely agree. I am really annoyed by his laughs... I don't understand why he continues to behave like this. Seth was only asking some questions... Bart seems to be irritated and aggressive...

​@@kiakia6617 I got the sense that Bart was irritated and aggressive too. Why not just explain your views instead of getting defensive? Seth was just asking questions. Chill. Tell us your argument.

I think that's who Ehrmann is whining about.

I would go with the "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" from Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1), correlated to Galatians 1:19 from Paul, " I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother." I've read Richard Carrier's explanation of how "who was called Christ" could have been accidentally interpolated in Origen's copy of Antiquities, and it's frankly unconvincing. I cannot rule out a purposeful replacement of "Jesus ben Damneus" with "Jesus, who was called the Christ," but the motivation to do so seems incredibly weak. This is very unlike Testimonium Flavianum's obvious forgery, and seems it would serve little to no purpose, unless Origen could have predicted future arguments on the historicity of Jesus a couple thousand years later. You might not accept this, but you can't say there's "no" extra-biblical evidence. People who have biological brothers tend to exist.

If you're all looking at the same historical evidence then it shouldn't matter where the information was learned, such as a bible college. After watching debates Ermon has done and reading misquoting jesus, I don't get the impression that it's an argument from authority. The evidence seems pretty clear that jesus probably existed and he became a legend with miracle stories about him probably being created after his death. Accepting this doesn't give ground to Christianity, it's actually a huge issue of debate for christians that jesus never claimed to be God or to have done miracles. If there is a god and jesus is the most important fact and wants people to believe in him, then god would have cleared this up. The fact that he hasn't is a big problem. That seems like a better argument against Christianity than the historical jesus

@@grumpylibrarian _"James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ"_ That passage refers to Jesus and James ben Damnaus, sons of a high priest. Christ means "annointed one" not "messiah".

@@grumpylibrarian Do you not realize just how many different Jesus's Josephus actually writes about? And as @Stefan Travis mentioned, in that specific reference he did not use the term "Christ" in the way you think that he does.

@@StefanTravis I recommend you read the passage. And my post, for that matter. Jesus ben Damneus is mentioned in that passage, but later. There are 20-ish Jesuses in Antiquities, and Josephus isn't going to leave a bare "Jesus" lying around. That's why Carrier's "accidental" insertion of a margin note won't fly, because something had to have been removed to insert "who was called Christ" in it place. It was either deliberately altered, or not at all, and I see insufficient reason or motivation to conclude that it was deliberately altered. "Who was called Christ" is entirely appropriate here. The "Christ" label is evidence against Tacitus, who uses "Christ" as a name when it was never a name, and evidence he believed he was talking about a "Chrestus" and later edited his scroll to reflect the title "Christus" later. Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, was definitely "called Christ" by Paul and others. Paul routinely refers to "Jesus Christ" as if it were his name, which is a large part of why modern christians think it's a name. (And that's why I don't capitalize "christ" or "christians." "Jesus" is a name. "Christ" is a title.)

How many of those are christians, I wonder.

@kylekataryn I consider myself a Mythicisit, but I don't deny a Jesus existed. There are at least 12 Jesus" in the gospels alone. The position I take and what I think was frustrating Seth is that there is no God born man Jesus. This is not a hard stance to take or figure out. The mere fact that Erdmann was so strident about talking down Mythicisim (and yes there are some fringe figures). but not acknowledging this position is a bit disingenuous. He is clearly still biased from his indoctrination and maybe he can't see it or doesn't want to admit it, but it was on clear display. The bias wasn't just from this point it was from thinking Genesis is somehow beautiful and dismissing the vileness. Believing the Jews would disobey their own laws and penalty of death from their YHWH to torture and kill some cult, rabble rouser?! Let alone the vast differences in details of all of the gospels! I don't know what is worse Genesis or Job, but I would lean towards the latter. I don't need any lessons from Job other than to know how absolute and morally abhorrent is the god of the Old Testament. YHWH sanctions the devil to torture his most devout follower. Makes a wager with the devil to commit the most horrid acts to test the faith of Job just so he will curse him? An omni-potent god can't see the strength of faith of his most ardent worshipper so he allows the devil to kill his family and all of his animals, destroy his very well being? For his amusement? Sorry, but get the fuck out of here with Job. Pick up Aesops, fables Star Wars, Harry Potter or something that doesn't have some adolescent, evil, unintelligent, sociopath requiring absolute faith to tell any morals. The only effect this garbage had was holding back any society it ever influenced.

Not quite. Paul was a real person and he wrote about Jesus not long after he was supposedly crucified. But he never met Jesus and he lies a lot.

their

Because the character likely was invented long after the time in which the story was set. No one alive at the time of the alleged earthly ministry was alive to tell the story when it was invented. Like producing a cowboy movie, samarui movie, or other film in 2022 that has a story set in 1869. An entirely fictional story could be told, which would explain why there are no surviving documents from 1869 about the 2022 character, because the character never existed.

Bart is an atheist. He doesn't think Jesus had supernatural powers.

That's amazing, because all I did was read the Bible and realize that this is just a conglomeration of old writings written by different people through time and then put together by someone and they call it the word of God??? I don't know how a God could be so in-app as to write the nonsense in the Bible... One example would be the so-called God man Jesus says washing your hands doesn't do you any good... 🤣🤔

All of the Christian Apologists are using the same man made narratives as "evidence", but if you take the time to locate the contradictions and departures from reality in the stories they begin to fall apart.

@kylekataryn I'm not sure Jesus taught anything. I'm not even sure there was a Jesus of the Bible, yes there were many people that were named Jesus, just like there are today many people named Jesus(hell my name is Jesus Christ! bow down and worship me, and I will forgive your sins! Whatever that is 🤣 but you got to send me some money first!) so I'm not saying there wasn't an individual who had the name Jesus! And I never said the Bible was not a book of contradictions James 4:8 contradicts what you just said that Jesus supposedly meant when he said that it's not what goes in the mouth that defiles a man but it's what's in his heart... The last time I checked all my heart ever did was pump blood 🤣 We both know Jesus didn't know that there were little microscopic critters that could make you sick so therefore he couldn't tell anybody to wash your hands to keep these nasty little critters out of your mouth, so instead he made a dumb comment about you didn't need to wash your hands before you eat food because of some stupid ritual that the Jews did which actually unbeknownst to them it turns out its a good thing to wash your hands, even raccoons have sense enough to wash their hands before they eat... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I also find this strange as in my family no one cared if Jesus was real or not. We felt sorry for folk who needed to prove what is a faith.

@@MegaTattoo69 Jesus as fully man is not God

I think he would say that "this is how the community that "john" was part of remembers Jesus" and work from there. See Jesus Before The Gospels: How The Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, And Invented Their Stories Of The Savior

Thank you! This is exactly what I was thinking during the entire video. Experts are experts for a reason :)

I was wondering about that, too. I was wondering why he would say something so fundamentally absurd.

I agree. The only relevant source is Paul, and he never met Jesus, plus he lies a lot.

Yes. I've listened to Ehrman for years but never heard him be so rudely dismissive of the mythicists and others who question the existence of Jesus.

But just listen to what he said. He didn’t say there is no debate. He said there is no debate AMONGST scholars - People who are paid and whose work is peer reviewed. People who have a reputation to defend and whose work is based on facts. If you listen to them there is no debate. Sure there are wackos in the internet with different views, but you can find all sorts of hokum if you look for it. Most of it isn’t factually based.

@@GoodAvatar He didn’t, though did he?

There probably was an unlikely rebel rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef but certainly not Jesus with a last name Christ.

I love Seth and Dr. Erhman, But it really seemed like Dr. Erhman was wooshing right past Seth, and Seth wasn't quite getting it. Or maybe its just Seth is really stuck on being a mythicist. I'll go to Seth for great social commentary but the DR has actual historic context and decades of scholarly knowledge.

@@lashram32 I generally accept the consensus, but I still need to at least see some of the evidence presented. I've not gone looking for any because I really don't care if a person existed or not, but I've also not seen any readily available evidence for the existence of said person. I guess I'm an agnostic on this.

You know how scientists will point out that There is no debate among biologists that evolution is a thing? Do you really want to be on the other side of that argument?

@@SilortheBlade this is the same arguement that seth is using in the video. He invites a world-renowned scholar of the 100 years Jesus lived and died. Then asks him for evidence. Dude read one of the multiple books he has written. Wtf?

I think he was saying the evidence is equal to what we have for other historical figures we accept as real - Socrates being the example he gives. He was stressing that if we are unbiased and apply consistent standards to what we accept as historical fact, we have to accept that Jesus (the man, not the myth) existed.

@@heteroclitus and yet, when asked about it he makes arguments from authority and giggles rather than presenting the evidence. Its the same response many creationists give when asked for evidence of their claims.

@@timeshark8727 It would certainly be interesting hear to him speak about it, and he does have a book on the topic, but I suspect it was beyond the scope of this interview.

Ehrman has presented his case for historical Jesus many times. Why are you assuming he hasn't?

@@scambammer6102 probably because every time I've heard him talk about it all he's presented is giggles and fallacies. Though I admit I haven't looked very hard at his work.

I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate? Historians don’t prove anything, they attempt to say what most likely happened. Proof is for math, not history. The model with the least assumptions that explains the data best is something like: one of many messiah figures during the reign of Herod the 1st developed a following. He got on the bad side of local religious leaders and was killed by the Romans. His followers, heartbroken, started to have hallucinations and dreams that he was still alive. They dug into the Old Testament to try and understand why their messiah hadn’t been victorious. Different explanations were put forward by different communities that all attempted to fix the cognitive dissonance they felt: why hadn’t Jesus driven out the Romans? Several regional oral traditions developed, that, over time, embellished the stories shared about Jesus’s work. These oral traditions were codified - baked in with the theological solutions to cognitive dissonance - in gospels by authors a century later. The author of Mark, for example, has as a strong theme ‘the messianic secret,’ that is, ‘Jesus didn’t tell many people his true purpose deliberately.’ This is just one of many ideas that would have quelled some of the cognitive dissonance his followers would have been feeling; ‘they weren’t to blame for not seeing it, it’s what Jesus intended, etc.’ Jesus mythicism doesn’t explain the data nearly as well. If someone they thought was the to-be victorious messiah wasn’t killed, what inspired the zealous early Christians to create theology that attempted to explain why the Messiah was (in stark contrast with Jewish thought up to then) was _actually_ supposed to be killed all along?