The Thinking Atheist Interview: The Triumph of Christianity 

I have learned so many things from this man. I agree with things he says and of course I disagree with some other things he says. But I admire him for his personality, his intelligence and his work.

"Everybody has 24 hours in their day. I tend to be able to focus pretty well and so I can get a lot done in a short amount of time." There you have it folks. No excuses.

Great interview. I really appreciate the fact that both of you are very respectful and keep the discussion academic and honest as well as thought provoking. Good mind-porn.

Such a great book by Dr Ehrman. Again.

I'm so going to buy that book! (As well as "Forged", "Jesus Interrupted" and "Misquoting Jesus")

I had a similar experience to Ehrmann. I wanted to become a champion of the faith and so I studied the Greek and then the Hebrew. In the process while still a biblical Christian, I found myself disagreeing with many traditional doctrines, but also began discovering serious discrepancies that eventually destroyed for me the notion that the text represented anything authoritative or that Jesus intended to ever have a religion worshiping him. I remain an unattached agnostic theist, with an admiration of Jesus as I understand him.

Bart is the man.... Ive Learned so much from his teachings!!!!

Good interview and thanks Seth and Bart.

This is such a good interview! I'm a Christian, but thank you, Dr. Ehrman! 😊

Dr Ehrman, you are a bright funny man. Enjoy your talks.

I was a Catholic for years, then a fundamental Christian for a few years, then a Christian Universalist for a few years, then an atheist for a year or two, now I’m an agnostic, I don’t know what to think. And I really don’t know what to think about this guy.

Very nice interview. I am a devout Christian and once again Bart Erhman keeps enforcing my faith like no other Christian. I just love his neutral insight about the bible, very refreshing. God does work in mysterious ways. :)

It is so interesting the psicofenome happening in the mind of Bart. In deed a great historiam.

this man is a blessing

My issue with the gospels is there are paragraphs of quoted text. There is no way people can remember that decades later. Sure, a letter can be copied and a few things change over the years but maintain some reliability. A story with an omniscient narrator, lengthy quoted dialogue, with volumes that vary greatly, is just that... a story

Well done. This changes everything.

What I found funny about the Roman Christian religion is that they told the pagans to give up all their gods and then replaced them all with saints that played the exact same roles as the old pagan demi-gods. LOL And, then they went on to replace all the statues of Zeus, Appollo, etc with statutes of Jeebus, Mary and all the saints (demi-gods) so they really didn't change a whole lot, just names and faces. LMAO

Where do you get these numbers of Christians from, Dr. Ehrman ?

Bart seems to believe that Ancient Europeans were incapable of Art prior to Christianity. We have entire museums filled with artifacts that disprove him. Also Pythagoras made some pretty major contributions to music theory and he was centuries before Christ. Not sure why Christians always belittle and ignore their forebears, but its frustrating.

Bart Ehrman gave 20 years of his life to go back to the left literature of the 1-2-3d centuries, and conducts historical conclusion. People on these comments are siting on their chairs doing nothing but wiaitng for others to write the book and then after the book published they criticize the persons work, like they have ever done anything to prove their point except denying the historical documents of that era.

great show- both of you do great work

Great interview

Well I mean I argue that the appeal of Christianity didn't depend (and still doesn't depend) on any one simplistic idea ("you're just a Christian because you're afraid of death"), but had and has a whole number effective at the same time. Several wonderful dreams, any one of which on its own could be personally overwhelming and life-changing. This apart from philosophical apologetics as such, which is only important to intellectuals who demand or need intellectually satisfying argumentation to support doctrines, which isn't everybody. That there is a God is just one of the wonderful dreams - that one is not and need not be existentially alone. That not just some spiritual creature, but the creator of the Universe, has a passionate love towards you the individual, every individual, who you can have as your friend and supporter through life. The second, and this was transformational within classical Greek and Roman polytheism, is religion coming with a consistent, coherent, and arguably beautiful moral and spiritual manual, because that is what polytheism largely lacked (and of course atheism lacks). Polytheism said that there are the many gods of nature which you must placate and bribe to have good fortune and avoid misfortunes, but there is no instructional manual for how to live or how to have inner spirituality other than you must make lots of sacrifices and perform lots of ceremonies as you go about your business. There were the philosophical schools wrestling with the problem of how to live ethically, but they were a minority; elite academic societies which the common people weren't part of and perhaps mostly couldn't understand. None was authoritative for all polytheists. So the moral and spiritual instructional features of the Old and New testaments, and their centrality within the teaching (that there even was a teaching), met an unfulfilled need for guidance that existed within polytheistic society (and exists again today). Judaism was growing within the Empire even despite the relatively higher barriers to entry to judaism for this reason. The third is the promise of non-violent world revolution, under the rubric of the kingdom of God on earth. The Bible, right from the outset, takes an explicit and consistent stance against class inequality and oppression. Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 mandate 7 and 49 yearly swingeing redistribution of wealth and property to eradicate inequality, wipe out private debts and release people from indentured servitude. The Law of Moses conditionalized private property upon need, rather than absolutised it, and forbade profit on land sales, as well as lending at interest. The prophets unleashed blistering invective against inequality and the rich worthy of Noam Chomsky, and Jesus drove the merchants and money changers out of the Temple forecourt with a whip for turning the place into a market. His parables of the kingdom of God mainly identify it with the fulfilment of those promises of drastic and revolutionary redistribution of wealth ordained in Leviticus, he and his disciples lived out of a common purse, and then immediately after the pentecost, in the next verse in Acts 2, the first church inaugurates primitive communism, sharing everything in common and calling nothing their own, and suddenly having no poverty among themselves. The new co-operative enterprise model and lifestyle is re-iterated in Acts 4, and the church invents deacons to take responsibility for the church's egalitarian redistributive practises so that the apostles can specialise in preaching. For slavery-ridden Roman society, for the Roman proletarii and plebii and all the immiserated colonial peasantry and urban poor, as well as the slaves, this was naturally wonderfully appealing stuff, even as a far-away promise of things to come at the second coming. Prior to Constantine, to greater or lesser degree, this was stuff the church was also still doing, or attempting. Even after Constantine it remains in the text of scripture, still crops up in preaching and the lives of monks, and is referenced in liturgy, despite being cast as the life of heaven, rather than available on earth. But the dream of revolution was still being presented, even if only as dream, as Marx later commented upon. The fourth wonderful dream is the overcoming and ending of death consequent upon the resurrection of Jesus. Not only was Jesus resurrected, but because he was resurrected, the story goes, the promise is revealed of God's intention for all, or at least all who love Jesus and are trying to inaugurate his new kind of world, that all shall ultimately be resurrected. So there is an afterlife, not merely as an idea, but trialled in history, demonstrated by a physical event, and this being the arrival and culmination of scripture's implicit promise that since death came into the world because of sin, where before there was no death, so with the resolving of the problem of sin, with the availability of divine forgiveness, death can be removed from the world. This is obviously, problematic to believe. Not only does it depend on a somewhat literal reading of the Eden story, it requires setting aside much of what we know and understand about the reality of animal life, and indeed the philosophical meaning and necessity of death. We must die so that there can be new things in the world. Death is the price of birth, and life is a gift with a time limit, which is what makes it all the more precious. Nevertheless it is a dream with immense power to inspire and transform individuals. So to me the growth of Christianity is not that hard to understand, once you understand and take on board the overwhelming appeal of Christianity's complex of interrelated dreams, rather than maintaining a blind-spot about their existence.

Great interviene. Very scholarly.

The Roman Empire was in serious decline at the beginning of the 4th century.

Bart says Jesus is a liar because he said that "this generation will not fall away before they see the Kingdom of God come in power."...then he writes a book about how the Kingdom of God came in power in that generation...unbelievable.

Bart is a really smart guy!! I think he is not trying to convince Christians not to believe. But to tell the facts plainly! Now I know the truth! I know see the bible differently because I thought it was inerrant. Which I see is silly now. I love Bart because he is honest. Even if Athiest get mad at him for saying Jesus existed. I mean he has good credibility.

Bart claiming that anyone who is a mythicist has an agenda. meanwhile, he himself makes his living as a biblical scholar whos entire field relies on Jesus having existed, so he has a vested interest in Jesus having been real person. He literally doesnt see the hypocrisy in that.

I've read three of Bart Ehrman's books, have a couple waiting to be read, and I appreciate his hard work, his expertise, and his bravery. What I don't appreciate is when he says "I wanted to go wherever the evidence was leading me, not just simply where I wanted to go". That's a veiled accusation inferring that people who disagree with him are simply not following the evidence. Other than insulting opponents with ad hominem, I'm not sure what that even means. You can't know motives unless you can read minds. Bart WANTS to follow the evidence; other people DON'T WANT to follow the evidence. How can you assert something like that? I can't read minds myself, but I would guess that most atheists in the audience know the pain of following evidence that flies in the face of what they have been brought up to believe. Personally, I didn't become an atheist because I "simply wanted" to follow that path. It was a frightening, sickening and heart-wrenching choice to follow that path, as I'm sure it was for every "fallen" Christian. Give atheists some credit and some empathy. Stop implying that you are the only one making a tough decision based on your best moral and intellectual efforts.

I'm glad Ehrman went in the direction he did and not the way one Ioseb Jughashvili did after leaving the seminary!

At one stage around the early part of 4th century, before Christianity became the official religion of the state, there were more Christians who believed that Jesus was not God but a prophet living a Godly life like all the prophets like him in history. However, doctrines were established as a way of making everyone believe the same thing which in return Romans used to establish unity in their Empire. So what we consider as absurdities now then became law for all to believe because it simply unified the Empire and bishops were primarily state civil servants following the Imperial edicts and laws from where the Church's canon law evolved from. It is largely about power and control over people and the all the stakes thereof for all who align themselves with the status quo and the so-called "orthodox" faith. Seminaries are the best places now where people start doubting and realize that they hugely committed but know so little about their faith. So their emotional faith which is what faith largely is (a matter of heart and also for some parts of the world an inescapable cultural and national appendage) become under pressure and they realize they are not able to resist the historical evidence and reason!

I highly respect Bart Ehrman, but as a autodidact (basically a nobody) I don't agree with at least a couple of points he makes as a whole (in this video, only one thing). First, there is no need of a Q(source) for Mark and Luke (I leave out the details), the other thing is Constantine was not a christian. There was no need for him to be a christian to do his job as a emperor. For him to say that he is a christian (a superficial thing), is like for a politician (nowadays) that wants to become a president or a Prime Minister or just as a politician in general. Constantine's interest was his own but also to please the people. Also his mother was a orthodox christian if I know right. There are many things witch I don't know, and for that to be wrong as hell, but from what I gathered until now, this is the only conclusion.

Have Carrier on to refute him.

22:30 is the best part! the atheists was hopping that Bart will endorse Jesus mysticism...

Definitely at the top of my long-airplane-ride fantasy companion list.

Dr. Ehrman, thanks for your excellent work. Your work does not weaken my faith in Jesus Christ at all, rather, it strengthens my faith. Christianity has transformed Europe and America from the most barbaric to the most civilized continents. Many people living there do not realize how lucky they are. They just take it for granted. I wish more and more people come to Jesus because HE is the light, the truth and the life. Especially, I wish China embrace Christianity and be transformed to a great democratic civilized country.

As Ken Ham would ask in triumph over the godless, "Were you THERE?"

I'm a Christian, but I agree with Dr Ehrman completely here.

Nothing that he says is either new to christianity and still millions and millions are brought to him. And still Bart himself says to rather live under Christ philosophy of life.

This discussion seems almost like trying to figure out how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. I would like to see this same type of discussion talk about the existence (or not) of Gods relative to the biblical interpretations of just who was Yahweh.

Dr. Ehrman have you seen the movie "Agora"? If so, generally speaking, how much of the way christianity is depicted to have spread resembles history vs. fiction? And how much of that was a wide spread trend vs isolated cases?

I keep thinking of that mexican woman who "saw" Jesus' face in a tortilla.

Really? He brings this "Brother of the lord" BS up again? And because Peter existed, Jesus had to exist, too? It seems like Bart, as much as I adore much of his work, did not even look into the arguments against his position regarding the historicity of Jesus.

There are references to a suffering servant in the OT (which also exist in other traditions) that were applied to Jesus by Christians.

Who said "Paul was persecuting Christians before he became a Christian"? The writer of Act of the Apostles, that's who, but we have no idea who that was or if he was telling the truth about Paul.

The statues of the gods were NOT the gods, although it was believed that the spirits of the gods did occasionally inhabit the statues

Dr. Ehrman, It seems to me that by what you understand from the text and history that the best explanation, in a full context and conglomeration of the facts, Jesus is the Savior of the world is the best explanation of history.

Are the men cool or what But I still beleive in Jesus as my lord and saver from the world and flesh.Jesus is my teacher and cant stand this world without him.Im never going to let go of him.To much love to loose.

Dr Ehrman is a national treasure!

In my experience, when people say that Paul invented Christianity, they mean that Paul forsook the teachings of Yeshua and "The Way', and began teaching a more pagan/dualism version which gave rise to the pagan doctrines developed later in the 4th and 5th centuries. IOW, he "invented" the false, pagan Christianity of today.

I like Bart but his apologetics falls apart all the time like when he says how can you dispute christianity because it took over Rome in 400yrs.Wrong.Look at Islamity or Mormonology!Kooky ideas spreadlike wildfires when the conditions are right.

So, consider one possible answer to "did Jesus exist?". What if there were *two* people represented in the stories? The first would be preaching peace and love and coexistence with the Romans. From this one you get the milder New Testament stories. He has a small following, and lives a fairly normal life, dying at some point and being buried in a tomb. His followers carry on for some period, perhaps spreading amongst other areas of the empire looking to find an accord with Rome. Then one of them (or someone who joins later) steps up and claims to be the *resurrected* Jesus. This one is a powerful speaker who takes over the small cult in Palestine and talks all current followers into believing the claim. From this comes the stories of the empty tomb. This leader claims to be the Christ predicted to free the Jews from Rome, and he preaches against Rome and the Jewish priests who collaborate. From him comes the attack on the money lenders and the harsher Jesus stories. This one attracts Roman attention and raises tension within Jerusalem. Eventually they have enough and crucify him, scattering his followers. Enough of a seed has been planted between the two though that the cult survives underground. Stories are passed around by word of mouth, and blend together. Followers who weren't in Jerusalem become confused about which story applies to which man, and indeed think they are one. Eventually a few decades later the stories have coalesced into one somewhat coherent story revolving around one man. The gospels are largely attempts by various later leaders to bring out there personal ideas of how it all happened and why. The cult prospers because it can speak of messages of hope and peace with the Roman order; *and* of resistance and ultimate triumph *over* that order. Eventually just a few of the many many different traditions about the "man" are chose to be included in the "official" belief. Seems to me that this kind of idea would serve to explain away almost all of the inconsistencies and oddity in the Bible.

love u guys

To Seth. How about an interview with Tom Holland, whose recent book, "In the Shadow of the Sword," on the foundation of Islam, is absolutely amazing? I frankly think that secularists NEED to get knowledgeable about the implications of Islam, because we're headed for what may be a horrific ideological struggle over the next century.

I enjoyed this discussion. And I did not like this discussion simultaneously. So here is my problem. I have been involved traditional Christianity belief system for 20+ years, and this is the first time I have heard these arguments provided by this discussion. That means, I have believed in a lie or lies within some truths yet I have studied the Bible and other religions. I recently began to question my Christian faith. So the following... Per this discussion, it is my argument that the apostle Paul was not killing "Christians", per his questionable conversion to Christianity, but instead killing the people of the "Way", a radical sect of the Judaism that was strongly affected by mysticism and mythology or those that believed more of an astrotheological philosophy strongly passed from original Pagan beliefs over time to questioning individuals that formed a new religion of the time. They were a threat to Judaism. Paul was always a Hebrew gnostic after conversion from Judaism, even post Jesus. Additionally, the Jesus of Nasareth may not have been from Nasareth, so the "Way" appears to be a better place to start. Thus, astrotheology may have better answers to the early onset of Christianity. Here is what I am arguing. From the "Way" you get "Christianity" which becomes an institutional distortion of the "Way" through its evolution in time adding Jesus to the themes. What I really want to convey to you is why are there no historical records of common day folks of that early AD era writing about Jesus, their experiences with Jesus and their impacts of Jesus being real to them? Because the institutional Jesus of the Bible is not fully disclosed to us appropriately. We don't know and can't know the real Jesus because any evidence that did exist was lost and or destroyed. All was lost in time. Now you have to consider your beliefs, how real are they and what evidence are you using to form your beliefs.

It's unfortunate that you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead!

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Does Christianity actually feed on empires?

I'm thinking that the universe did not suddenly create itself out of nothing and then fine tune itself to fine precision to make life possible 🤣. Sotra

Yes up from the grave he arose with a mighty triumph of his foes

The Imperium of Man demands your faith. Any appealing of improprietary apples will lead to medical school applications being ... beyond.... denied.

So, for all his research Bartman comes to the conclusion that jesus was real Because paul, who never met jesus himself, met two guys that claimed to be his brothers. Hearsay much? These two brothers they didn't happen to be named Cheech and Chong?

The Romans who should be the focus of the invention of Christianity is the Flavian family of Caesars. As well-read as he is he has not addressed, to my knowledge, Vespasian (the Father), Titus (the Son) and Domitian (the Holy Spirit).

In the end days it was said there would be a great falling away and boy is it ever. All the prophecies written in the Bible have come to pass except for the very last. We're waiting for 6th trumpet, 6th seal to occur.Btw, That's not a sound, it's a happening. I hope so much that Christians watching these videos don't be taken and turn from here. Stop watching and hold on to your faith in your heart.

After finishing the interview one question that stands out in my mind is the fact that the conservative evangelical Christianity is winning the liberal mainstream denominations. Why? What are the pillars that attract people to these new streams? I personally find them unattractive intolerant and backwards. Will alpreciate comments.

Seth I believe you and professor Ehrman should take a look at Islam and what Islam had to say about Jesus peace be upon him, his mother and his followers and the tradition of our prophet Muhammad in his teachings about Jesus and his second return at the end of this age, meaning the end of time. I highly recommend you both to study Jesus in Islam to get a better understanding of the real man and not the man made "God man" or the Trinity per se even though the word "three"is clearly denounced in the Qur'an but Christians are commanded in the Qur'an to believe in Allah the One and Only God to be worshipped as the message is very clear and uniform throughout the Qur'an.

One thing i would love to ask Dr Erhman is why he is agnistic. At one stage he was a committed pentecostal then went to bible college and lost his faith in christianity. Ok I can understand that but surely not believing in Christianitysimply could mean you dont beleve in man made religion. U see believing in a religion and believing in a high power as seperate . I would simply like to know why because he is a great mind and i am trying to see where others are coming from

Christianity cost us more pagan artists, and worst yet the preservation of our oldest art. Just imagine how someone like Pascal as a pagan would be.

Even if it’s Satan saying something, you shouldn’t consider the source, since that’s a fallacy of appeal to improper authority. Accept that it was Satan who sacrificed god for you.

It was Christian mythology,the historical physical resurrection of dead that triumphed. Christ saves from the total annihilation is still the mantra of Christianity Jesus saves.Christians were convinced of the resurrection of Christ, without resurrection Christianity is just moral philosophy, there is nothing else that is not in the Hebrew Bible.

Nobody noticed Jesus at the time he lived. No Jew, Roman or anyone else wrote a word about him at the time he allegedly lived. Josephus was born after JC allegedly died. The only 2 brief mentions of JC and his bro were added much later by Christians. Origen said Josephus did not mention Jesus and everyone agrees Josephus never mentioned Paul, the most famous (fiction) person in the faith.

There are many conflicting stories about the life of Popeye, so what really happened ?

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. Psalms 14:1 ESV

I wish there were a Bart D. Ehrman for dismantling the quran.

There are thousands of religions in addition to Christianity. Disproving stories from the Bible does NOT prove the nonexistence of deity/deities.

I just have no faith in our bible, and opposite thoughts of Jesus words. BECAUSE, they were not words from a savior, as written. How do we know of a God? How do we know perfection is God? Why is a man of God, returning back to God a savior? I am lost! So, Jesus save me!

The truly and amazing things that change the Roman world, apart from power and jealousy, was love, respect, all are iqual before God, racism does not exist in God, the poor is love by God as the rich, human fragility does not make a difference, all going to live a eternal life after death, that tiny issues did the change, the ancient world was ready for Christianity.

Bart Ehrman may be frustrated with the historical difficulties of Cristianity, but at the end he sounds like a practical believer

Wow, there are so many mythicists here emerging from all the nook and crannies of the earth... Can't say I'm surprised, but this may not reflect very positively on prof. Ehrman's channel.

The Holy Spirit is responsible for the 30M+ by the 4th century. Matt 16:15-17 kjv

what 20 people?? LOL After that he was seen by over five hundred people at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Atheist .............Constantine did this, did that ,said this said that ? Did Constantine exist, of course he did. Did Jesus exist...........................whoever believes that is crazy. LOL

One religion encouraged by the gov't to keep the people under control, without all the factions. Unfortunately, later came the denominations... SSDD. They just call themselves the same religion these days, while worshipping completely different ideas of God.

I hope Islam won't end all these speculations whether God is a murder mystery. Or am I wrong? Maybe...God is a storyteller too. Earnestly, Am I the only one who really believes in the Bible, the gosples and in the merciful Lord? That God is truth and righteousness and true love?

Ehrman is a Former Christistian. Seth, you forget to mention that Paul was writing about a Heavenly Jesus, that died for our sins in Heaven.

You are a proof of the existance of God, saying that nature has designed this amazing brain, this beautiful personality is not logic. Still we agree and disagree, we are just humans.

Do you really propose that had Christianity not succeeded we would hot have cultural creations of value equivalent (or better) than religious music, painting and architecture? Sources of inspiration abound in the visible, palpable work and would have driven creativity of equal value--just more relevant to people's lives.

Bart Ehrman, educates christians but more important: he educates atheists.

So how did 20 peasants from the ancient world, influence the world as they did? What one should realise....is the power of Jesus words. When He chose those peasants and fisherman, .He made this promise to them...."Come, follow me, and IWILL MAKE YOU, FISHERS OF MEN." And He alsp told them this.... "Go take my message....IT WILL REACH ALL THE CORNERS OF THE WORLD." So, coming back to the question, how did 20 peasants of the ancient world, make such a miraculous impact on our world....Jesus is the answer. He promised it (its on tecord) He WILL accomplish it (after 2000 years, we are ALL eye witnesses, to this fact). What's also very interesting about the spread of Jesus message....He uses Paul.....a guy very intent on stopping the growth of the early church. According to Paul, Jesus stops him and tells him, he is chosen for the exact opposite reason. The amazing part is...Paul gives up his life of luxury to persue this goal. Paul, Constantine, conquering of Rome, spread of Christianity and influence on our world....is all this just a fluke or is it a miracle happening before our eyes. It depends on how you view the evidence. The wonderful thing is...Jesus will open your eyes, if you ask Him. That's His promise to All....and He's never failed to accomplish His promises.

I used to be influenced by these atheists and always excited to hear their what they had to say. Now All I feel is pity for these dead men walking. Behind all of this pontificating atheist propaganda is a stubborn determination to lead an immoral life. I now believe this is what’s all about.

I still hear a Christian bias in Dr Erhman's assertion that 20 or so people, as low level peasants, started Christianity. 1) 300 BCE (BC) - Ptolemy I Soter, which literally means "Ptolemy the Savior" was the first Greek to be a deified ruler of Egypt (Alexander never really ruled Egypt). The "Soter cult" was the Savior cult of the Greek elite rulers. These were not peasants. 2) Circa 190 Ptolemy V was deified as Ptolemy Eucharist. This literally means "Ptolemy the Grateful or Gracious One". His Eucharist ceremony was established to celebrate the Soter/Saviour gods who donated generously to the Egyptian temples and rebuilt many of them. These concepts started long before the supposed birth of Christ. 3) Circa 30 BCE - The Romans defeated the Greeks, the Cesars established themselves as the new "savior gods". Time was reset (back dated) by Roman emperors to assert their power as the "Supreme force or God" operating in the world. 4) The fact that no Jesus or apostles appear in the historic record outside of Christian literature suggests that characters were fabricated in much the same way as the Egyptians fabricated Osirus, Isis, and Horus. Place this information in context with Dr Erhman's brilliant research, and a different picture of Christianity emerges. No Roman emperor would recognize a pagan (country dweller's) religion. It was beneath their station. Christianity is the evolution of Greek soteriology blended with ancient Egyptian religious iconography which many people try to pass off as Jewish.

They look like twins.

I can recall a time in the library at Wheaton College when comparing the resurrection accounts of the four Gospels that I saw they did not sew up as tight as I had perceived the New Testament to be up to that point. But I didn't find that a basis for discarding faith in an omnipresent God, it was a basis for developing a more accurate view of the Bible. Prior to Wheaton I had had a good sampling, as I think Bart did, of those who have a strident and profound position on the inerrancy of the Bible, and my conscience, like Bart's, was troubled by that, based on the Bible reading and associated study I had done up to that point. Professor of New Testament Dr. Donald Lake of Wheaton was thought a bit on the fringe for his paper on the Bible as inerrant in what it INTENDS to teach. I see the Bible as a human literary monument to our attempt, and I think God's effort, to come to see the basic proposal to each of us, individually: "Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Matthew, then Luke). That is something each one of us can do, and, if it be our inclination to do, falsify it in our own minds and lives in the present. It would seem God has left us an imperfect book, so that after all that reading and study, we are left dissatisfied, and that we would need to turn to a Living Spirit, mysterious as that is. You know, I have no fear of oblivion after death. That is so easy: no pain, no regret, no sadness, the same fate for my heirs, nothing. But my conscience is also troubled by the notion of the universe as an infinite perpetual motion machine, cheating entropy with quantum machinations that will just keep it going forever, machinations truly understood by only a few. Pardon me if I find them to be as mystical as fishermen testifying that Jesus' body is gone, and that they ate and spoke with him after his death. Bart is choosing what he feels he can reasonably hold as true, and I respect him for that. But I suspect he continues to take a humble, honest, and hard look at how his own personal history has shaped his questions and thoughts. If Christianity provokes a conscientious search for truth, then it's not all bad.

Christ Mythicists don't say 100% Christ never existed, only that where is the evidence he did. .it is weak,so he was certainly no God

When you mention the God of Jesus and his followers Say, Jehovah ... That is the personal name of the God of the Bible .... God will , no matter what it is, his will will be done Jesus had to die, a perfect sacrifice, Adam = Jesus

Dr. Erhman The only agenda I can see is your agenda for arguing that Jesus existed to have a legitimate reason to keep studying and teaching the NT and feeling it has any substance.

So Paul is the evidence that convinced Bart Ehrman that Jesus existed? Then maybe Paul should tell some stories about Jesus life since he is the best source. Either Bart ignore the part where Paul say that Jesus was revealed from scriptures, not what he had heard from any man, or Bart have found some problem with that part and don't accept it. It's obvious that the gospel of Mark is written as a fiction, probably with knowledge of that mythical version of Jesus. The gospel of Mark end (in early versions) with the woman , the only eye withnesses to a ghost and the empty grave leaving the place and never told anyone, so how can the author of Mark know what happened and that they never told anyone if they never told anyone unless it's a creative fiction author in work? The Jesus myth claims is that people who listened to Paul believed in a Jesus in heaven and the gospel of Mark is a fiction that put this mythical Jesus on eart. Since I have high respect for Bart Ehrman's knowledge and honesty, I will see a change here and he start to work together with them who don''t believe Jesus existed, and really look at the arguments since they are good. Bart have been brainwashed to believe everything in the past and there may still be some false knowledge that he must unlearn before he can accept a new way to look at the history.

This guy's radio voice is off putting

Love it, Bart! Thanks for making this knowledge accessible to us all.

Glad that you made it to Seth Andrews' show, Bart. I haven't read any of your books (yet) and only really know you from RU-vid, but that's enough to make you a hero to me. Thanks for your work and dedication. You rock!