Does Bart Ehrman want you to leave Christianity?
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman gets a lot of criticism for “trying to debunk Christianity” and “mislead people out of the faith.” What are his real intentions? What does Bart Ehrman believe? What is critical scholarship? How do scholars read the bible?
Here we cover historical methodology in regards to studying the New Testament, Moody Bible Institute, why an atheist would study the Bible, and Dr. Ehrman’s thoughts on deconverting people.
**Check out Dr. Bart Ehrman's course "The Unknown Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" here:**
gmskeptic--ehr...
------------------------------------------SUPPORT------------------------------------------
Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
------------------------Resources for atheists in need------------------------
Find a Secular Therapist: www.secularthe...
Recovering from Religion helps connect those who are leaving or have left their religion with support, resources and community: www.recovering...
Resources for Ex-Mu’s: exmuslims.org/...
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA
![Christianity's Most Toxic Idea [and Its Ancient Origins]](/img/n.gif)
Check out Dr. Bart Ehrman's course "The Unknown Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" here:
gmskeptic--ehrman.thrivecart.com/unknown-gospels/
How come this comment was made 10 hours ago, but the video is 4 minutes old. Also what is with the insane spam in the comment section. Nothing is sacred this days /jk
@@funnyvalentinesglorioushai2227 he probably had this video set to private and added the comment after uploading it instead of after releasing it.
I agree with Ehrman’s methodology in that we should understand ancient literature within its historical context, including the New Testament. I like that Ehrman says his method isn’t better, just different. I am, however, confused why he wouldn’t want to change the mind of Christian beliefs. Either the teachings of Jesus are true and have serious implications for the future, or they they are false and Jesus’ teachings are a way to control people.
Furthermore, thanks for the response to my short comments about Ehrman (2:17) but I stand by my statement. It’s ridiculous to place a high probability that the disciples were unlearned, and therefore, likely not the authors.
Why would anyone in his right mind, believe one guy, against the 2,000 year history of the church, hundreds of learned men has combed the pages of the books of the bible a million times over, plus the bible has to be read within the oral traditions of the church and the church fathers, the saints, the witnesses to the apostles, etc. All of those are intertwined in the history of Christianiy. All questions had been asked and answered. Joseph Ratzinger would run rings around him..
@@jotunman627 Someone didn't watch the video. LOL You sound silly.
If Dr. Ehrman never makes any claims that he's trying to debunk Christianity, but Christians hear his words objectively discussing the New Testament and come to that conclusion all on their own, shouldn't that serve as a moment of self-realization for them?
It should, but most Christians are actually disconnected from their Godhead. Self-awareness, self-realization, metathought IS God, but their minds have been boxed up, like a neat package, by evil, self-serving, greedy pastors and preachers. Their Godhead is silenced in their minds. It should be screaming, "Hey wait a minute, maybe this isn't what I thought..." but these poor people are so deeply mesmerized and confused, they can't even hear God anymore in their minds. It's really sad.
Christianity cannot be debunked this is why God is not evidence in every category manuscript archaeology prophecy psychology statistics probability science and DNA; all prove the Bible true!
Psychology, you cannot outsmart the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity cause if you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian, so that’s not gonna work!
That’s a pretty darn good example huh??
“I’m not insulting you, I’m describing you!”
A real come to Jesus moment, you could say.
@Greg self realization is satanic do as you wilt !
Sin against eternal God you get eternal punishment; I’ve never lost an argument proving the God of the Bible exists!
As a Christian myself, I was able to study Christianity objectively, just as I had done with other religions, thanks to Dr. Ehrman.
If your faith cannot endure even after learning about its beginnings and historical development, the scholar is not to blame.
Christians have little trouble decrying other religions as absurd and wrong, yet they are unable to look at their own past and beliefs with objectivity.
I wish more Christians (and believers in general) were like you, truly. The world would be a far better place.
@@cobrasys Religion is the problem. It’s nonsense that is taught to college students. A waste of education and time.
How Are you still a christian though? After all you learned you think its still plausible to hold that position? Just curious 🤗
@@kimberiedema6951 I think it is definitely possible to still hold to a Christian position even after seeing atheistic evidence. However, much of the Bible would need to hold to liberal theology (Bible has errors- whether contradictions or historical inaccuracies, and/or has later inserted texts.)
@@joshuamann443 so what about God saying his word cannot be changed? That things cannot be deleted or added? What does thats say about God?
I'm reading Jesus Interrupted now, and have listened to a few of his talks. I can say without even starting this video that NO, Dr. Ehrman does not want anyone to leave Christianity. He wants the truth. He wants people to be informed about the beautiful, complex, messy history of the Bible and the Hebraic religions. If that kind of knowledge leads some people down a road the ends at atheism or agnosticism, so be it. If that leads people to a more nuanced version of their own faith. So be it.
This is a perfect summary of how I feel as well 👍
Isn't that the same thing?
I've never seen the word Hebraic before.
Sounds cool on my mouth
@@fakedoorsfordinner1677 I don't follow? What are you saying is the same as what?
@@youtubespag It's a good one, haha.
I really appreciate Dr. Ehmann’s approach. So many of us non-believing Bible nerds are former Christians who still have many Christian friends and family members in our lives.
I always appreciate scholars who attempt to make scholarship more accessible for lay people. It's very difficult for the average person to approach scholarship because we just don't know enough to understand it.
Well, after working 40 hour a week jobs and fulfilling other necessary obligations, most of us don't have a whole heck of a lot of time to do much else. We have like ONE or TWO things max we can regularly spend time on, and those things pretty much define our lifestyle. How many want to spend it on research you don't even get paid for? Not many. So yeah, scholars who share information are worthy of appreciation. They're fulfilling Proverbs when it says buy knowledge but do not sell it.
Yes, academic terminology alone can be a barrier, and the fact like 99% of academic journal articles are behind paywalls you can really only access with a university library login doesn't help. Even as a former "gifted" student, intellectually inclined person, lifelong voracious reader, and someone who learned research and grant writing on the job, the difference in my ease of understanding once I went to university (I went to an ivy but about 10 yrs late lol) was significant. Having to spend most of your time studying, analysing, and synthesizing academic texts really makes a difference!
Great video! btw if you think you have problems - believe me, secular textual criticism of the Bible is light years ahead of secular textual criticism of the Qur'an.
There is a massive difference when comparing how the most evangelical christians and some sects of Islam interpret their holy book. In Christianity, the most extreme interpretation involves accepting that the author of the Bible were humans who were inspired and guided by God, the holy spirit, in their thought, word and writing in every single verse in the Bible, this making it infallible. But, in Islam, the most common position taken by an everyday muslim is that every word and letter in Qur'an literally came out of the mouth of Allah and was literally written in those exact same letters by the best prophet ever.
So, it isn't so surprising that secular look at the Qur'an is still miles far away.
P.S: If anyone knows a secular scholar of Islam, please let me know.
@@Pope_Balenciaga The Iranian scholar, Abdolkarim Soroush, is perhaps the closest to that at present. He argues that the words of the Qur'an are not the literal words of God but the human words of Muhammad, albeit inspired. He argues that Muhammad articulated and composed his inspiration into concrete words according to his context and personality - making it subject to human fallibility. (Of course he is regarded as a heretic by mainstream scholars and so far his views have not gained much traction although I know of a couple of other scholars who have taken a similar line: The Iraqi Shi'a cleric Ahmad al-Qabbanji and the Moroccan academic Saeed Nasheed.)
@@HassanRadwan133 that's a step
@@HassanRadwan133 Can you share links of those scholars ?
I think you're right, yet it seems that Western historical scholarship on the Quran is advanced enough to make muslim students leave their faith. Shaikh Yasir Qadhi in one of his too-honest moments admitted this: czcams.com/video/LhtCEUw5MKQ/video.html
I've been an atheist since before hearing arguments from Ehrman and other religious scholars, and I they actually made me more tolerant and curious towards Christianity. I only ever new Christianity as a monolithic thing that had to unquestioningly believe in an inerrant bible. So if the bible isn't inerrant, then it's easy to just discredit Christianity entirely. However, scholars show how the different books of the bible actually show many competing religious view of early Jewish and Christian sects. For me, knowing about this diversity in early Christian thought makes it much harder to just dismiss the entire religion.
@JohnMichael Bell - You've been reading my mail.
yeah, believing the whole bible to be flawless means that identofying a single flaw that you cannot explain away discredits the whole thing, whereas the more nuanced view of seeing it as historic literature allows one to identify flaws and contradictions and atrivute them to lack of knowledge by the writers or the writers making things up to make a certain point. This both makes it able to stand up better gainst scrutiny as one flaw doesn't have to discredit the whole thing, and makes it richer in what you can get out of it, because you might suddenly be able to identify better certain points that the writers are trying to make instead of losing sight by trying to find some convaluted explaination that allows for two (or more) contradicting accounts to both (or all) hold true.
Wrong, the Bible does have zero margin of deviation that means it does not contradict; it was written by 40 writers. That means God has squeaky clean hands to throw you in hell for ignoring him and not reading his word!
The Bible is pure and perfect; every word of God is for righteousness and it’s because of his perfection; sin and evil are so contrary to him and so people wanna blame the God of the Bible, for sin but they don’t wanna go to him for any other reasons; who’s the hypocrite now?
@@nienke7713 Still, the objection made by both some atheists and inerrantist Christians stand : if you believe that part of the bible is false, then how can you trust the rest? If you think that half of it is man-made bullshit, then why do you believe that the rest is the word of god? If the bible is god's message to humans, how can it be filled with mistakes?
I totally agree with the inerrantists : believing that the bible isn't inerrant destroys the foundations of Christianity.
It makes it a lot easier for me to dismiss the entire religion with that extreme diversity in thought, honestly. None of them can agree on the proper interpretation, so why should I take any of them seriously? An all powerful, all knowing, all loving god shouldn't allow that to happen when the consequences for getting it wrong are so severe.
Im reading his book on the history of heaven and hell and it's released me from so much fear in my life. I'm so thankful for it.
"Only the commenters themselves imply that learning from credible scholars is detrimental to their faith."
I've long appreciated your content for its civility, level-headedness, and willingness to understand what is going through the minds of your detractors. But holy shit, this is a burn.
@Frommerman - A very cogent observation on his part and spoken with no malice. It burns only because it's true.
@Hunterkage Joestar those are the most effective kind.
Knowledge is better that ignorance. You use information to be a better believer or not to believe. Is up to every single person. That is why we need people like Bart.
It is important not to let something you belive to be true be you only point, always be open that you could be wrong.
I so appreciate Dr. Ehrman; his scholarship and impressive body of work in books and articles and especially his continuing work to teach those of us who want to learn.
It’s like sitting in on his class at UNC. Thank you Dr. Ehrman.
I grew up as Muslim and after listening to Prof. Bart Ehrman, I learned the problems with my religion...
Similar things apply to Islam too, things change, somethings happened because of lack of information and other things happened because of bad intent of the person who changed things.
But I owe it to Prof. Bart Ehrman to understand what has happened, I'm not an atheist nor am I agnostic or a Muslim or follow any religion, I understood things in totally different way and I'm more satisfied with logical and clear answers to my internal question.
I thank him with deepest of humility.
We love you Yaser baby ❤️❤️🤗🤗😇😇👏👏🥰🥰😘😘
Just curious , i totally get not wanting to label your self with certain categories , i do have similar approach but if i were to ask the type of believe you hold against typical figure of god. That could be abrahamic or other types. What will be your position.
@@Anily. What I believe is energy is God... This is my belief; I have no proof of it.
Why I agree to existence of God is because of certain verses from scriptures that talk about things which I cannot understand how it got in the scriptures.
What islam have you been learning? Definitly not from the scholars of ahul sunnah wal jammah.
@@watertop-bk6hg Which version of "Ahul Sunnah Wal Jammah"?
There is a version that worships dead people, are you talking about those or are you talking about Wahabi extremist type?
I would love to hear more from you.
I did become an atheist after reading Ehrman, but that's because the infallibility and divine authorship of the Bible were crucial to my faith, and it was only intellectually honest for me to leave once Ehrman debunked that. But I do see that some people might migrate to a more nuanced (convoluted, maybe?) version of religion.
I am a liberal Christian on board with Ehrman on the history. I just don’t think the historical Jesus has to be the narrative Jesus - the Jesus of faith. In a way it’s more complicated but in another way it’s simpler: I don’t have to tie myself in knots reconciling passages that cannot be reconciled. I can instead see the different books for what they are, pull out themes and stories to apply to our own time, and do it in the church community I’m part of. It’s just not about scientific or historical belief at all.
@@SAK1855 : So, you are pretty much christian so that you can still have your friends and community?
Well, really the main message of the Bible is that imperfection exists and God has a plan to get rid of it. If you trust that, then you trust God. Heck, I trust that even if I'm on the wrong path with my belief system, God will forgive it.
@@SAK1855 If you pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow and which to ignore, how do you come to a coherent faith approach to your religion? What is salvation if the stories are not real events? How do you come to understand what is true about the bible?
@@Wertbag99 easy. whatever you want to be true is true, subject to change at any time. That's the same thing fundamentalists do, they just don't admit it. The Bible: a compilation of contradictory phrases for every occasion.
Nobody ever understands I am an agnostic. I believe it’s very possible a god or a fourth dimensional being or something very beyond humanity exists, but I cannot see anything proving this, so I cannot be certain so I cannot make a perfect declaration.
That’s a nice logical and reasonable argument. I only wish more theistic thinkers or people of faith would do this. What is true and what is provable? That’s all
Most atheists are really just agnostics
I always cringe when some atheists speak in absolutes. Like "there is no god, period". I am an agnostic as well. The human god stories don't sound logical to me tho. They are probably not true, but I'm not sure.
That is why I am an agnostic atheist.
@@pgroenable I've been an atheist for the last 35 years or so and I have yet to hear an atheist say that. I know zero atheists who aren't also agnostic
I think it’s wild that there are Christians who really believe that the Bible loses relevance as a historical text if it isn’t the inherent word of god. What a bizzare understanding of historical, cultural, and religious studies.
The Bible transcends time and space by predicting the end of the world and the third heaven where God is & describing it; as well as describing hell!
What rock did you crawl out under isa is not even the name of Jesus in Arabic ; it’s 60 times in the Quran which is supposed to be only written in Arabic so it shows you how much the koran is validated!
Every category you can think of the God of the Bible has left evidence so start asking questions!
Ineptly - it does this, often, ineptly - or at least, rather inexactly: with VERY broad use of tenses, hints and specifics.
Such as regards 'some now living will not taste death before' - and 'you will not go through every town before being caught up within', and so forth.
@@jjphank Already explained why your evidence is not effective in nasonguy's reply section. However, predicting something and describing something is not evidence, and does not mean something transcends time and space. I could do it right now, me, a mere mortal!
The world will end in a hundred years because of trees. Heaven is a really big swimming pool. Hell requires you to walk up endless flights of stairs. Boom, I now am transcending time and space, according to your requirements.
Now, please, do not respond to only this comment. This is more or less a joking bonus to my original comment. If I find that you respond to this one, but not the original one under nasonguy, then I have to assume your evidence is lacking, and you just shot down the easier target while ignoring the main argument.
@@Ze_eT matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore no matter nor energy would’ve existed to do the causing. Consequently, whatever did cause the universe to exist would need to be immaterial and exist beyond time and space. First verse in the Bible, God creates time space and matter. Evolutionists have no answer for that! DNA is the same, it points to a creator because the code did not write itself; we’ve unraveled the code, there’s an outside code writer that wrote it!
The law of entropy, in respects is the opposite of evolution because it’s the beginning of death decay and decline to everything. And things don’t live long enough to evolve, right now so you got a major problem because we don’t even see evolution happening real time, under a microscope, or anywhere! This is Genesis 2:17 death came to the universe through the first sin!
So not the 500 chapter, but the first two chapters of the Bible, explain the building blocks of everything and how they got here!
That . Just. Happened
Bible does not contradict 1st two laws of thermodynamics, as you would presume! & any other religion can’t do it. Bible also talks about DNA and it’s right about that as well!
So the Bible does not contradict modern science, it actually explains the answers that modern scientist don’t know!
I think they're more interested in the bible's magical value than historical value, not many christians care about the cultures of their faith in past times or anything other than themselves really, but it sure loses the magical status of the only source of undeniable truth that instantly wins them every argument, if it's not a perfect book written and translated by god itself, so it's expected they cling onto this idea
I know he never set out to do so, but I credit Bart Ehrman with a good part of my reasons for leaving Christianity. Seeing that a genuinely Christian scholar could objectively study the Bible and come to disagree with it was huge for my growing skepticism. So thank you, Bart Ehrman, for helping me doubt biblical inerrancy.
I'm currently in the process of finishing a PhD in theology while also coming to terms with my emerging agnosticism. It's encouraging to hear people like Dr. Ehrman remind me that I can still have a place in the academy. Great thought provoking video as always!
I'd like to point out that dr. Ehrman's views are largely the same as those of JP Meier, a catholic scholar.
Your religion does not matter when you're not in church. As long as you don't "try to spread the word" at your work or in you school; nobody actually cares what religion you belong to.
If it comes up casually; that's different. In that case you're actually having a conversation where that is relevant, and as long as you don't end it with "so wouldn't you want to be Christian?" you're fine.
As has been said here many times already, if anything Ehrman said made you stop believing in whatever you believe in, that's more about you than about him. Thank you, GM, for what you do. ❤️❤️
I mean; it IS debunking Christianity if the Christian's belief is a literal interpretation. So of course those Christians would consider it as such
i find it refreshing your approach to believers and non believers alike with a spirit of kindness. im learning how to dialog with believers in a kind productive way. thank you for giving me an example.
I'd take the word of this guy over any "conservative" Christian. Conservative evangelical Christians are 1 of the main reasons America can not move forward as a country and be the best it actually can be for all people to live in.
Amotherfreakingmen to that!
They're actually pulling you back
@@Lmcv82 That's what I'm saying.
correct... well said.
Any religious person that really believes their religion is true should want secular scholars studying their religion because what is more convincing than a secular scholar advocating that your religion is true/consistent/etc?
They would be happy with that if the scholars concluded that their religion is true. But since they consistently assert that their sacred texts include many errors, they don't. They take the validity of their religious texts as granted, so the only conclusion is that the wide majority of secular scholars are ignorant, biased, or plainly dishonest. Why would they want more ignorant, biased and dishonest people to study their religion?
There’s a mentality among some sects of Christianity that secular scholars are pushing an “anti-god agenda” and will lie in an attempt to lead people away from Christianity.
You are correct and I want to add that the reason people don’t like scrutiny is because we naturally are defensive. Once we align ourselves with something, be it a religion, sports team, or state, we (usually) jump on the defense when someone outside of that circle/fan base applies even just a twinge of criticism. No matter how constructive or how tiny the criticism-or even the possibility of criticism-most people feel hurt in some way by it.
Logically, we shouldn’t be like this in today’s day and age, but we are.
What was probably once an evolutionary advantage is now 99% of the reason people are always arguing over social media
@@olivierdastein2604 But were all biased and intelligent people even more so why would you trust an biased scholar against religion this seems strange ?
@@tysolbohan6446 You're baselessly making the assumption that all secular scholars are anti-religious. Not everyone is biased and not everyone who is biased is biased to the same degree or towards/against the same topics.
An 'anti-supernatural bias' sounds like serious criticism, but if someone accused you of having an 'anti-leprechaun bias' it would immediately be clear what absolute BS such an argument is.
That’s a bit uncharitable don’t you think?
@@cannedair3357 I don't. When someone accuses you of a having an anti-supernatural bias, they usually only mean a bais against a particular supernatural thing _they believe._ An argument that hinges on the existence of leprechauns is just as ridiculous as an argument that hinges on the existence of a God, and should be just as easily dismissed as nonsense.
" they usually only mean a bais against a particular supernatural thing they believe." This is completely wrong, and is just a poor attempt at dodging a valid criticism.
@@Jerry-zz2eu anti-supernatual bais is not a valid criticism because the supernatural does not exist.
@@Mallory-Malkovich Which is a bias that you hold. Thanks for proving the point you thought you were refuting.
Very good interview. Makes me remember the steps I went through as I came to realize that Christianity isn't true.
My first step was saying "well, there are discrepancies, but they are not errors. The Bible isn't supposed to be historically accurate; it's supposed to teach us how God wants us to live."
The second was explaining the different translations by saying "each time the Bible is translated, the nuance of the original language is replaced by God-inspired nuance in the new language that is appropriate for the intended audience. New International Version, King James Version - they each have their own audience that will learn the correct messages."
The third was digging into apologetics to understand why there are different denominations with different beliefs. Hank Hannegraf says that we may have broadly different views but we all agree on "essential doctrine".
When I wanted to know who decided what was "essential", I discovered the apocryphal books and my faith was shook.
I had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness and he definitely had different ideas on what was "essential" which confused me. But I thought I just needed to find the "right" religion.
When I had thoughts that I might be transgender or bisexual, I was certain that I was going to burn in Hell because that is what the every church I'd ever heard of taught.
When I discovered affirming and accepting churches, I was confused. Wasn't part of the essential doctrine that a man lying with a man was a sin, a man living as a woman was a sin? I mean, it's right there in the Bible.
When I thought about how, obviously, "essential doctrine" changes over time, I was further shook, to my core.
It's been down to the nadir and back up the other side since then.
I 100% agree that if Christians just "lived like Jesus" the way he was portrayed in the New Testament, the world would be more tolerant and peaceful and there would be far less of a class disparity and prosperity gospel wouldn't exist.
There are parts of the Bible that over time I realized are definitely true. The book of James discusses how a man without conviction is like a man tossed about like the waves of the sea. Now in scripture that's tied specifically to a belief in God, but it actually generalizes so many more things. People without deeply held convictions do get tossed around from fad to fad and are completely directionless. I've seen it. One might ask, is it better to hold on to a conviction that could possibly be wrong, or to be tossed about aimlessly forever? The question isn't quite so easy to answer.
I keep coming back to Drew’s videos because they’re smart, informative, respectful, and very well produced. Well done!
Well said laddie.
Thank you for this video, Drew. I am a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian, but this is not the faith in which I was raised. I went through a number of denominations and times of serious doubt. What I've found is that doubts are reasonable and need to be addressed. One such doubt is the veracity of the Bible. Much has been said for, against, and somewhere in between regarding Scriptural veracity. I think what scholars like Bart are trying to do is open up a conversation about not only what the Bible says, but what it means and how it got here. I admit that up to now, I hadn't given him much thought. Perhaps I made the foolish assumption that he had some kind of unfortunate experience during his time as a believer and now is going to "get back" at Christians through his work. I see now that he is actually a kind and sensible person, one with whom I'd love to have a conversation. I think that Christians and non-believers benefit from these kinds of discussions. It gives us all a chance to know what others think and why. Agnostics and atheists may hear a religious perspective that helps them make sense of the world and even lead them to investigate some spiritual path. It prompts religious people like myself to think more seriously about what I hold dear. Truth is true, whether we like it or not, and we can all benefit from pursuing it. Even better is if we pursue it together. Thanks again, and I hope that you are well.
I don't need Bart to debunk Christianity, I just read the bible with an open mind and it debunks itself!
Yes, even children can sees the conflicting accounts in the Bible. Christians are losing people on the inerrant truth approach. So along comes Bart, getting people to reread the Bible (sneaky, sneaky) & telling people it’s wrong. Can’t wait (yes, I can) for that lovely moment where Error-man announces he found Paul (who also had no regard for the apostles or anyone else).
It's irritating when Christians say it was Dr. Bart Ehrman who lead to my deconversion even when I have written that it was Bertrand Russell who influenced me.
Bertie was indeed the dog's bollocks :---
Dinosaurs. I was 5. Earth was not created for humans.
How quaint.
@@Thagomizer maybe, but it's still true.
I find it oddly suspicious that at the Bible college Bart attended it was mandatory to believe the doctrine of Christianity in order to graduate. If the purpose is to find the truth why would you force people into believing what you believe? If it's true wouldn't the student's time there be enough for them to see the truth of the claims being made? If the claims are true you shouldn't need to force someone nor should someone have to already believe these things in order for the doctrine to be shown as true.
Yes I understand these colleges are typically for Christians who already believe and want to further their education, but it's still suspicious that it's mandatory to believe the doctrine in order to graduate. What does believing Christianity is true have to do with getting an education about the religion itself? Why can't I study something I find interesting on a historical level, but not subscribe to it's dogma and doctrines?
Why would a religious group endorse an atheist? Why would they be willing to say yes, that guy who is going to tell you about the problems with our beliefs, we officially certify him as fully understanding said beliefs, which we still have and teach?
And if they really believe their view of the inerrant bible, then they believe that if you understood it well enough to graduate, you would be christian. It's pretty mainstrean for christians to believe that if the Bible doesn't wow and convert you, you must be missing or misreading something about it. Maybe you're even deliberately resisting what you're reading. So if you made it through your classes but left the faith, you may have learned the test questions, but you didn't really learn the Bible and all God meant to do with it, clearly.
It would make no sense for a group of hardcore believers to still endorse a student like that. To them, they would be failing their students.
@@generatoralignmentdevalue man good point
my aunt is the typical southern evangelic and damn while she aint as extreme as a lot of them she literally thought the only reason i didnt believe in the christian god was age aka maturity
@@generatoralignmentdevalue Christianity is only one subject that these students study. No other school says something like if you don’t “believe” in evolution at graduation then you won’t graduate because obviously you were to stupid or sneaky to have gotten an honest education. In fact, you can graduate thinking everything you were taught is bs.
Forced belief is authoritarian , and always highly suspect.
Have you read the stories of students who cannot express independent thoughts but must parrot dogma they do not believe to be true in order to pass their courses? And this at "secular" universities.
"Anti-supernatural bias" is the most idiotic statement apologists have made in the last decade or so.
It’s as though Christians think when we explain any particular event, we should accord equal possibility to supernatural and natural explanations.
The Allies won WWII. When historians explain that through military strategy, political leadership, global economic conditions, etc., are they not showing an anti-supernatural bias? Why couldn’t it simply have been that God made the Allies win? Under Christian apologetics, that possibility has to be taken seriously, right?
Indeed, God could be behind anything, rendering every non-supernatural explanation suspect. Any ordinary, real-world explanation for ANYTHING only has value insofar as we assume it wasn’t magic instead that caused it.
But since magic isn’t required to explain a single thing ever observed in human history, and has never once in all of time been demonstrated to be real, and since non-supernatural explanations are adequate to explain 100% of everything ever observed, and have been tested billions of times, I think an anti-supernatural bias is conditionally justified pending demonstration of the existence of the supernatural.
"Bart Ehrman, the man who has spent years doing scholarly work and research on the New Testament, has no idea what he's talking about" ~ hustlers, apologists, and CZcams grifters wearing dudebro hats
When does Berman ever debate anybody with any knowledge he doesn’t he’d get blown out ! I
Will you put it this way, you’re not very smart!
@@jjphank I did a search for Bart Ehrman /debate and found a lot. You sir, are a lier, and not a very smart one.
@@jjphank Okay, I can't read that. Do you mean to say that, if he'd be debated with any knowledge he doesn't know about, he'd lose the argument? That is something that holds true for everyone! If someone held an argument about quantum physics with you, you'd also get blown out. And if someone held an argument about the Spanish language with me, I'd also get blown out. When you put it this way, everyone is not very smart.
@@jjphank well that’s a blatant lie. I thought Christians weren’t supposed to lie? Oh wait, it’s ok as long as you are lying for Jesus? 😂
@@joelmouton9365 you’re lying but Herman is a hack; worse than that he’s a lying hack, he’s not really looking for truth because, A God of love has to leave evidence in every category & He Has; A God of love hast to do that or he’s not really loving. See people think Christianity is blind faith, nothing could be further from the truth, it’s a smallest of faith because God has left so much evidence!
I love Dr Ehrman. My first of his was Misquoting Jesus, which really opened my eyes. Puggles is adorable. Thanks for a great channel. You and Paulogia use much the same approach - non-confrontational, not aggressive - but from different ‘sides’ or directions or perspectives and topics. Thank you.
"You can sell a lot of books telling people the bible wasn't copied correctly."
You can sell a lot of books telling people that people are trying to convert them to atheism. It's very convenient for Christian apologists to use Bart Ehrman's work as if it had the intent of converting Christians, because that makes their work dissuading people from learning the truth about the bible a lot easier.
Ironically, Bart Ehrman's work has made me a lot more sympathetic towards Christianity.
Sidenote/word vomit: As a former fundamentalist, atheist, pastor, and agnostic...and as a current "progressive" Christian with a masters in psychology and a healthy relationship with doubt....annnddd as someone who is confident in his faith (for both objective and subjective reasons), but is VERY understanding of those who feel the need to deconstruct....I must say, while we get to different places a lot of times and see evidence differently, you are a world class researcher and an even better communicator. And your attitude towards those who still believe is really meaningful to me. My journey wasn't easy either. And it's nice to hear a skeptic not assume I'm an idiot or have no idea what they are talking about. Thanks for being awesome and making great content.- Jesse
This skeptic thinks that science rejectors are idiots. Most christians aren't and too many unbelievers are.
I"m very excited to take Dr. Ehrman's course! It's my first one with him, though I've seen some interviews with him, and I just finished "Heaven and Hell." Will read more! We need Christian literacy now more than ever in the US, cuz, the wolves are tearing us apart, and we can't fight them if we don't get on the same page.
I love how you edited the lags out with your precious dog!
Conspiracy theorist: We know that Drew secretly believes in God because he edited in his dog and we know dog backwards is god. Drew secretly loves god!
A good way to look at it is to call a proselytizing atheist an anti-theist.
Barts an atheist, but not an anti-theist.
He's agnostic regarding what he knows. And atheist in regard to what he believes.
He's extremely intellectually honest.
Hey fella. Good questions asked. I grew up deeply religious where nothing was questioned. Bart Erhman explained lots of my questions. Drew conclusions that history is crucial in understanding anything present. It's extraordinary that learning about historical occurrences great repels a huge sector of our society. I assure your a regular international traveler, they know their history which explains a huge reason that the number of people have decided to completely live without religion in their lives is rapidly growing. Bart was smart years ago. He's helped me tremendously understand better why it was what I believed, not just believing without asking any real questions. I was stunned. Now understand that much better.
👇FACT👇
People stick with their belief not necessarily because they strongly believe it’s the ultimate truth, but because they mainly were born into it, used to it, have many family members & friends as part of it, & so busy or lazy to study any other alternatives.
You're right, but I'll also add: or scared. Sometimes they're scared to know that they've made possible wrong decisions based off a lie.
I don’t think it’s laziness as much as powerful indoctrination and a lifetime of being taught how to not think critically…
Unfortunately, what you say is true. I would add one more dimension. If your beliefs tell you that you are chosen, that you were part some secret knowledge, and that you were going to live forever; would you be willing to examine them. Peer pressure and birthplace are only further causes of a lack of self examination.
I found the inconcitenies between the Gospels and Acts regarding the death of Judas on my own and it was the beginning of the unraveling of my faith. I'm so happy to hear someone with Dr. Ehrman's creadability addressing this inconsistency.
Man, I would LOVE to see a computer programmer approach coding theologically. I know I do a lot of praying when my code doesn't compile.
Warhammer 40,000 Adeptus Mechanicus. An entire race revolving around their Machine god.
lmaoo
Have you tried rubber ducky?
I wanted to apply to some of Dr. Ehrman's courses while he was teaching in North Carolina and I didn't get to. He's a brilliant man.
I just “love” how we have to tip toe and use kid gloves with Christians and how we are supposed to be “nice” while they insult nonbelievers. It’s beyond insulting and tiresome.
We have to? Too bad for those who issued this decree, because I couldn't care less.
@@marknieuweboer8099 it seems that many if not most atheists especially CZcams atheists do. It seems like there are a certain set of rules for us and not them. I also don’t understand this “need” to have a conversation. It’s not a conversation it’s them not listening then them preaching to atheists. As if none of us weren’t ever believers. I was a believer for 30 years.
Still too bad for them with those so called rules. I couldn't be more indifferent.
I'll have a conversation if I feel like. Otherwise not. Believers preaching to me lose my attention very quickly.
I never was a believer. I am not even baptized.
They come to the city I live in a couple times a year to protest various events; I've found the best way to deal with them is play very loud, positive music (think bob marley, stevie wonder) so the general public doesn't have to hear the nonsense they spew.
@@joelmouton9365 Usually its the old saying of you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you insult or attack, then the opposition will be automatically on the defensive and will not listen to a word you say. Taking a friendly, positive, conversational approach can allow you to engage with people who would otherwise have avoided you as a pre-decided angry atheist.
Different people are reached by different ways, so I have no problem with a mix of all tactics being used to reach as many as possible. It's all just one more nail in the coffin.
I’m starting to think that my what if the bible was true urban fantasy series I was planning on writing might not be so well received because of a large plot point being based on the difference between the dead sea scrolls and the masoritic text. Also from the Big Bad being a name only found on incantation bowls might cause some upset. Oh, and the part where the exorcism fails, the darkest hour where prayer doesn’t work, and Dungeons and Dragons being in the book as part of how I establish the normal world.
Come to think of it, the fact that the heart of the group is an atheist who doesn’t convert and instead becomes an alatrist (acknowledging gods’ existence but not worshiping them) when Yahweh whisks them up to heaven to grant them a boon at the end, and foreshadows the possibility of Yahweh becoming an antagonist in future.
Dude, write that! That sounds cool as hell, I would totally read that!
There are more people than you think who would read it. And all p PR is good PR, right? (a la The Golden Compass)
BCU Bible Cinematic Universe
Don’t post comments about it: write it.
@@indigopines i still need to figure out characters, but yeah.
@@indigopines Streisand effect, woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo woo
dude tell me when youre done
bart ehrman discussed the bible critically, and I took that personally.
Bart Herman it’s looking for a strawman arguments it’s cause that’s all he’s got, because the Bible is a steel trap psychologically morally scientifically etc.
I can prove it
Education and knowledge is always a threat to any belief not based in reality.
as an atheist, former catholic, i think you loss to much of the message when you take the bible as history, it is best read as myth and stories with in the faith, it is all bunk, but there is still more value as metaphoric stories, (as horrid as they are) than fact. it is still a view into a culture long in the past.
I don’t think most of the NT stories and themes are bunk (though of course they usually aren’t historical). There’s plenty to mine. I think systematic theology is all about picking and choosing the metaphors and stories to develop a coherent framework, which in turn can be explored and lived out in community. (People often say they are fine with belief but don’t like “organized religion.” To me it’s the opposite: anyone can sit around believing things. It’s much harder to live out love and forgiveness when you have to plan an event with a cantankerous old lady on one side and a Republican on the other.)
@@SAK1855 i guess i need more clearly state my position,
i think all faiths in god and all religions are bunk.
the bible still has meaning and a message, (even if i do not believe any of it) that is removed when people read it with the "inerrant" view of it, fixing the contradiction in the gospels removes so much of the messages that each one was going for,
I see the value in the conflicts when factoring in that the gospels, before being collect in the bible, would have been read by different groups.
on the note of the gospels being collect in to the bible,
there are still other gospels that are not in the bible that very much date back to same time as the others and where also in use by still more different groups,
my point is the books (gospels) in the bible have already been though a "picking and choosing" base on not so much on the singular voice of the message,
but on popularly of the texts being read by the different groups.
I view the value more in the terms, that it matter at the time that the stories where being told,
i also think understanding some of the history of the the text, and the reasons for keep, removing and adding to the texts, has it's own value.
(even still if i think it is all bunk)
Proverbs isn't all bunk. It says don't be a drunk. And it's right. So many today thought they knew better than that book did, and then they end up on that show Intervention.
"I, a random Christian CZcamsr, will explain why a New Testament scholar who has read the bible cover to cover and dissected it numerous times, is wrong."
Like usual.
Random CZcamsrs over-estimating how much they understand history/philosophy/theology is certainly a vibe.
So how do you know Berman is right, it’s just cause he said so ?is it because you’re biased that’s why!
Back at you with your own projecting comment!
@@jjphank No.
First of all, it's Ehrman. Bart Ehrman. Is spelling too hard for your feeble mind?
I believe him because, unlike most Christians, he's actually familiar with the Bible. All of his objections are in context, and the evidence he provides is well-substantiated.
Like usual, the non-theist does all the work, only to have the theist accusing him, weakly, of "misunderstanding" or "blind faith [like they have", when it's nothing of the sort.
@Nidemos they like to speak often and say little.
@@jjphank this says a lot about you.
He isnt debunking the new testament. It debunks itself, he just explains how.
The Bible says that Many are called, but few are chosen. The Bible says that we should not be thrown around by different doctrines. I have seen so many videos by the Dr and none of them phases my Faith. In fact his videos brings me closer to God. Thank you Dr.🙏🏾
If I were to choose two people who refined and sculpted my own Christianity I would choose Dawkins and Ehrman. Both atheist/agnostic. And here for a reason.
Personally, My tránsition from Christian into Sikh was definitely marked by GMO and Dawkins
@@spartan2867 So you switched one god for another?
@@littlebitofhope1489 yeah pretty much. We are going to erect a 100 foot Christopher Hitchens statue like Christ the redeemer. We just haven't found a spot yet :(
@@spartan2867 ‘Ultimate reality’ is better when you’re with other people than by yourself! that’s where the sikh version of heaven is backwards and does not make sense! U need to come back to Jesus; we have all the evidence on our side God of the Bible has left evidence in every category so that you are without excuses!
@@jjphank What evidence? I've never seen a single shred of real evidence.
The absolute irony of Frank Turek calling people dishonest.
A great conversation, thanks Drew.😁👍
I can't believe the hypocrisy of accusing Bart of writing books purely for financial gain or with an anti-Christian agenda when so much evangelical and fundamentalist material is produced and promoted by those same accusers. All authors produce books, and in my opinion, Bart bridges a valuable gap between the layperson and the scholarly field in which he works. As someone once said, "You pays your money and makes your choice..."
^
Having listened to numerous talks by Dr. Ehrman I don't get a hint of an agenda of wanting anyone to leave Christianity. He is a scholar putting out historical truth as best he can. It is only those Christians who have turned religion into a business that tend to accuse him of trying to deconver people.
Christian scholars like JP Meier say largely the same as dr. Ehrman.
I can honestly say that without Bart Erhman’s work, I likely would NOT be a Christian (particularly works like “Lost Christianities”, and his writing/lectures on early Christian history). Which is to say that I am a Christian, and a fan of his work, though it’s not to say he’s the reason I became a Christian. Kierkegaard’s critiques of Christianity, his conception of faith, etc, were also very important (perhaps most important), as was other philosophy, history, and work from other Christian scholars, past and present.
That said, when I was young, and hadn’t started to think for myself yet, and simply adopted the fundamentalism I was raised in, I definitely would have thought Bart Ehrman was out to destroy Christianity. His work doesn’t “destroy” Christianity, certainly not the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but it does destroy fundamentalist theology and conception of the Bible. For me, though, the possibility of ever being Christian could only be opened up by seeing that an actual academic approach to Christianity completely invalidates fundamentalist beliefs. When I believed that Trve Christianity necessitated literally interpreting the KJV, believing in a new earth/creationism, the rapture, yada yada, it was really easy to reject *that* Christianity. The second I started thinking for myself, and learned how science, and basically anything academic, doesn’t jive with the theology or world view, that was it. I didn’t become an atheist though, but a deist… then later an atheist, and am now again Christian… just an anti fundamentalist, anti orthodox, “Kierkegaardian” sort of Christian.. a “Heretical Christian” is a better way to put it..
Anyway, I’m going WAY too into stuff nobody cares about, that’s besides the point of why I commented. Sorry. Point is, for me, Bart Ehrman’s work did the exact opposite of making me “leave Christianity”… It made me realize what Christianity actually is/has been historically, what the Bible actually is, and allowed for me to realize that the fundamentalism I thought MUST be part of serious Christianity is and always has been nonsensical, and without that being a Christian right now would be impossible for me. ✌️❤️
Great to see a fellow Kierkegaard fan (per my username/image) who loves Bart Ehrman.
Heh heh. I'm an atheist Kierkegaard fan. The purest believers I've met, including the muslima I've been in love with, believe the Kierkegaard way. She has no clue who he was and doesn't care either.
@@marknieuweboer8099 initially reading this I was a bit surprised, but thinking about it for even a couple minutes, it makes a lot of sense to me. I really do think that Kierkegaard hit on some things that get to the real core of faith, what faith is, what it isn’t, in a way that applies broadly, not just to Christianity.. Same with the critique of Christendom: power and politics getting deeply bound up in what’s meant to be a matter of spiritual faith and practice, especially if this includes official status as part of the state, and/or political hierarchy, all but guarantees a corruption of faith, theology, practice, and so on… That’s applicable to any religion or spiritual beliefs, so yeah, that makes perfect sense to me. ✌️
@@SAK1855 nice avi! And I agree, it is nice! Are you a believer as well, or just generally a fan of them?
@@nikolademitri731 I am a practicing Christian - I avoid the word “believer” because it can give the wrong impression. To me, Christian faith is more about situating one’s heart, community, and narratives in the idea of Jesus as the Christ. It’s not about believing that Scripture is factually correct about history and science. I actually named my son after Kierkegaard, hoping he will find the path that’s right for him rather than what’s easily laid out for him.
When a scholar like dr. Ehrman makes apologists like Mike “I’m an intellectual look at my bookshelf” Winger and Frankie boy resort to ad hominem attacks, it is an indicator that they are doing good work.
Have you watched Mike Winger’s content? He carefully examines Bart Ehrman’s content and tests it, and proves that Ehrman misrepresents the Bible and twists scripture.
@@wormius7350 I have watched Mike Winger’s commentary on dr. Ehrman’s work and he doesn’t prove that dr. Ehrman misrepresents scripture as far as I’m aware.
@@letefte You haven’t paid attention then, because Ehrmans claims that in Mark, Jesus doesn’t understand what’s going on when he’s getting crucified.
@@wormius7350 What dr. Ehrman claims is that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus doesn’t understand why God has forsaken him. I fail to notice how dr. Ehrman is misleading people by accurately presenting what Jesus said in the gospels.
@@letefte “And He (Jesus) began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead.” Mark 8:31. In Mark Jesus predicts that he will die, he knows it is coming. To claim that he’s confused about it is taking the verse out of context. What context? When Jesus says “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, he’s quoting from Psalm 22, a Messianic passage in the Psalms. “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my help are the words of my groaning.” Psalms 22:1. All of the Jews watching Jesus get crucified would’ve known he was quoting Psalm 22, and it’s to show that the prophecy is being fulfilled.
Did Ehrman accurately portray the Bible in context? Or did he twist scripture to falsely claim there is a contradiction between the gospels?
It's both amusing and incredibly disturbing to see so many Christians who _don't_ have a PhD in New Testament Studies accuse Dr. Ehrman of, "...twisting the facts," only for them to then counter with claims and conjecture that _aren't factual_ (and sometimes aren't even _biblical)._ They often make it seem like the Bible was actually authored by Dunning & Kruger.
I'm a believing R. Catholic Christian, and I want to say, your channel is very good. You are intelligent and respectful, and it is appreciated. (Same for your guest.) I disagree with many of your conclusions, but I appreciate the dialogue. Keep up the good work and (may I say?) God bless you.
If you read Ehrman's work and it injects doubt into your belief about Biblical legitimacy, I think that says more about you than it does about him. That means there might be legitimate reason to doubt The Bible and it's bothering you that you've realized it and want somebody to blame. Bart is just educating.
You're not going to necessarily like everything you learn in life. But if something is true, no matter how much you might dislike it or how inconvenient the fact feels to you, it's still a fact and you have to reconcile that with your active belief.
Early 2019, I was struggling with serious personal issues, excessively serious, can't give details here unfortunately. Guess what, I was a christian then. But I'm a skeptical person all through my life, yet was a traditional fundamental believer of christianity. So, with so much pressure in my personal life, I prayed more often, visited the local Baptist pastor more than once every week, watched (actually tried) a bunch of televangelists' programs to enrich me with that divine support. Nothing was making sense. Well, it was like I had to force sense. I mean, sense occurs, can't be drilled into. I read the bible more and more. Why on earth, create something (humans) flawed in the first place and then come and redeem them as if you had no option to begin flawless right from the beginning. Oh yeah, free will, humans chose that destiny. But don't you know the future? What's more, you're all knowing. So, you already know that I'll end up in the mess I'm in but you let it happen so that you can rescue me and that too only in my imagination? Or to take credit for not doing anything or have me say that I'm worthless, I was born in sin, I can't live up to my own standards? Is this how the creator chooses to show his love, I mean, what are these ideas? Heights of nonsense! So, just out of desperation, I read Bart Ehrman's 'God Problem' book. Thankfully I managed to get a copy. A few pages went by, I was holding on and holding on to my well nourished dearly believed christian reasonings for why we suffer, though it was making no sense whatsoever. The supposedly biblical answers, those that are packaged and delivered by pastors and preachers. Half the book was consumed, I felt, oh shoot looks like religion, especially christianity was not what was preached in the church after all. It's got hidden layers which can be seen only if the so-called believer at least temporarily suspends bad faith and looks through the document with honesty. Well, here I am holding on to my intellectual honesty for the last 3 years but being looked at and treated like a christian traitor, mindless critic, risking hell kind of person and so on by relatives and friends. So, to the stuff in the video, Bart wasn't aiming to take me out from faith but I chose to after reading his work. Although he might claim that it's not his intention, it's (sorry believers, unfortunately.. well fortunate to you if you re-analyze your religious views) the only honest trajectory possible after reading Bart's material. This is just my opinion.
And remember this! He gave "freewill" but torments us in hell if we go against his will. And oh by the way, they said that it is actually satan that drags people to hell with him but that god still do nothing so that satan can't totally drag us down.
@@johnramirez3247 Totally!! Right, yeah, a plethora of absurdities... if we dig in more and more!!
I included this below but wanted to also add it as a single point. I sent Ehrman an E-mail with basically a yes or no question about the relationship of the Masoretic text to the Septuagint. He wrote me a few lines instead saying that he didn't have time to answer my yes/no question in that setting, but that if I paid a years subscription to his website he would answer it. He could have saved time by answering yes/no obviously so it does fit with the characterization.
It’s all about money with Error-man
As usual Dr Ehrman gives a serious and scholarly explanation to biblical topics and theology as it pertains to legitimate historical scholarship. Can't wait for his new course in August- I'm already signed up. Flaxen Saxon.
Thanks Drew for this!
Its exciting to see your channel grow and mature, and become probably the best atheist channel right now.
Your content is fresh, and always has a great POV.
Please keep providing us with great content and great food for thought :)
I am listening to The Historical Jesus lectures by Erhman and I just do not see how people can still believe in the claims of the Bible. It just seems so plainly obvious that it's a mytho historian legend built story. I am an agnostic athiest due to other reasons but Erhman just puts the nail in the coffin for me
Three things I will mention about Bart Ehrman. 1) His issues with parts of the bible and the Gospels in particular contradicting each other was never a problem for Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or other denominations that don't hold to in-sola scriptura. Those groups hold that there is true meaning despite historical incongruity and also that the Gospels and Acts were "true presentations of witness accounts," not necessarily true historical flowcharts. 2) His strongly presented argument that women would not go to the tomb with spices at the point that they did appears to be either intentionally falsely contrived or ignorant since it is based on the idea that they would have expected Jesus to have been decomposing for 3 days while in fact a) the bible accounts probably set a time from of about 36 hours and b) there are modern western countries today where when a person dies the body remains in the home for close to 3 days prior to the funeral. 3) I sent Ehrman a very short and quick E-mail asking him to answer a straightforward question about the Masoretic text being in contradiction to the Septuagint (basically a yes/no question) and instead he wrote a few lines me that he didn't have time to answer (yes or no) in the setting of an E-mail but that I could ask the question if I paid and subscribed to his website.
I so loved watching Professor Ahrman videos, they are very educational and informative. Knowledge is power. I was a Christian since 1995 till Aug 2022 when my precious son transitioned to the Spirit world. Before my son transitioned him & I suffer tremendously and all cuz of poverty. So I just like Professor Ahrman I left christianity due to so much suffering in this world. After the passing of my dear son, I started looking for comfort in the Bible and I started reading the Bible from Genesis to Rev and as I stated reading the OT I discovered a monster god (yahweh) so in my desperation of trying to find out where my son was cuz I felt his presence around me all the time and in my dreams he appeared over and over so vivid, so I stopped reading the Bible cuz it was making me really angry and givin me a lot of anxiety. I instead started doing research on Christianity and how yahweh became to be god then when I found out all the suffering in this world including mine and my beloved son make complete sense. I stopped reading the Bible and doing research on other sources like what happens when we die, DNAs, mediums etc... and I come to a conclusion that religions including christianity is all man made and that my son is still here with me in the spirit and I cannot see him cuz spirits don't have bodies like us but so many things that I started to experience that convenience me 100% that my dear son is around me comforting me in any way he can! So, at this point I have no desire to follow any religions. Thanks professor Ahrman for assisting me with all your educational videos. Your information is great eye opening for those of us that are less privileged and don't have the monies to obtain the education needed to see the reality of life.
Professor Ahrman, I like your approach in finding the true and passing it on to us. I deconverted from christianity not cuz of you but cuz of the suffering. Yes, knowledge is power, ignorance is weak. I used to trust my Pastor with my eyes closed but all that changed the day my precious son left this world, some how I knew my Pastor was lying to me when he told me that my son was with Jesus. I do know that my son just transitioned to a different world and he still around me all the time though cuz I feel his presence all the time I just know it!
Critical scholars - including Bart Ehrman - made me very interested in early Christianity and the diversity of those movements in the first 2 centuries, which made me consider for the first time I could perhaps be a Christian. I am the kind of person a fundamentalist would just scare away, they TERRIFY me with their nastiness and authoritarianism and I see nothing holy in them at all.
Having spent my youth among the fundamentalist missionary baptists, I think evangelical christianity is a magnet for egomaniacs and people with personality disorders. But, the music is great.
I was in the atheist camp but was not sure about who Jesus was when I started to read Bart Ehrman. I was happy the OT was made up and was not conceived by a god. I really did not have a view on Jesus I just knew he was nothing to do with a real god, claimed in the OT.
Now I understand not only the NT but also how historians scholars deal with ancient literature.
As much as someone can with no formal qualifications or training in those subjects.
It is a lot of fun learning this stuff and I have a long way to go!
His books, courses, lectures and debates are fantastic. Also Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Israel Finkelstein, Dan Baker, Vermes... Lots of great stuff.
I love the point about methodology. This is an issue through many subjects that have academic links. My wife is a linguist into place names (UK) and when she gives talks at a local history society, for example, she focuses on the methodology of the work of professional place name scholars and an outline of how one can build up a grammar/semantics of place name elements. There is a lot of mythology around many place names (mostly false) but at the end of a presentation virtually every question from the audience is "what does our place name mean", "isn't the place name x mean y" etc. etc. They just want to know the meaning of certain place names. They get very frustrated when the response is "we don't know for sure - but if this element is derived from this anglo saxon then it would mean this, but early (but maybe not entirely reliable) source documents suggest a different meaning in context for the element the name would mean that" and so on. And people get seriously frustrated with this. I remember a Christian I worked with went to a youth for christ rally in my home town where the subject was rock/pop music. And the guy presenting (I met him afterwards to talk to him about it) spent his time speaking about principles and ideas for a way for young people to choose what they might wish to listen to. My friend though, was really frustrated because he didn't say which groups you could listen to and which ones you shouldn't listen to. So I would say this is a generic issue.
Oy! A fellow etymologist eh? Tell yer wife a random amateur linguist on the internet says ,,Hi!" if ye'd be this kind mate :DDD
Yeah, westerners have been indoctrinated so long by the Greek/Hebrew/christian tradition of "absolute, eternal, 100% certain truth can be known" that they can't accept "we don't know" and "we are not sure".
Dr. Bart Erthman did the job for me. If he has spent all his life studying the Bible and became a non believer. Why shouldn't I?
You base your beliefs on one scholar ? You gotta read more than just one , you basically just let one man dictate your beliefs lmao
Because he's one scholar, a good scholar, but he is fallible and biased just like everyone else. There are believing scholars who are just as knowledgeable as he is. They're biased too, of course, but it's a huge mistake to read one book on a complex topic and come away from that thinking they know everything worth knowing on that topic.
@@Thagomizer yea your right . But I looked into it and Bart only lost his faith because of the problem of suffering/evil , it didn’t have anything to do w Christianity in the big picture . Just look up his personal beliefs interview.
I don't necessarily want people to leave Christianity but I definitely want them to leave fundamentalism
I’m right there with you
The whole "inerrant" thing about the Bible always struck me as really silly. Of course that's pure sales hype!
But then, when I was growing up, I was not a stickler for detail. It wasn't until I became an I.T. guy that I developed that habit. I was perfectly happy with the gist of a story. Details only mattered to me some of the time, (depending on the details). I guess I kind of viewed the whole book in much the same manner as the parables. One had but to seek out the elements of truth nestled in among the thorns.
One thing Christians, and others, forget is that the historical critical method is just that. A method. Neither Erhman or any other scholar will posit it as "The Ultimate Truth™", but rather a method that he believes is most sensible. I like Dale Martin's approach. He's a friend of Erhman, and a scholar that utilizes and teaches historical criticism. Despite this, Martin is still Christian. He has no problem merging the two, and even wrote an entire book about it. If Erhmans methods make the most sense to you, and you simply cannot approach scripture theologically therefrom then that's not a reflection of some malicious attack on Christianity, that's just a "you problem" (assuming you're Christian)
why didn't i think to make Bible: The movie and video games sooner? good idea.
There’s a series of scholarly works on the books of the NT called Sacra Pagina written by Roman Catholic scholars for fellow scholars, clergy, and students. I’m currently reading “The Gospel of Mark” written by two Jesuit priests who draw on every kind of “secular“ scholarship (the introduction explaining today’s methods of approaching the text is over 100 pages long) to clarify the meaning of every passage of the gospel. Interpretations depending on Faith are suggested for those within the Catholic tradition, especially preachers, but those paragraphs are clearly identified as separate from the scholarly commentary, which Prof Ehrman would, I think, have no problem accepting as up-to-date descriptions of the origins, authorship, and purpose of the text.
None of the scholars involved in the Sacra Pagina series would disagree with any of the solid textual scholarship of Dr Ehrman or any other such serious scholars. They would certainly not, even though sincere Christians themselves , ever think of treating his work as anything other than a valuable contribution to their own research.
Not every Christian is an idiot (like the ones cited in this video), and I say that as a former Roman Catholic who’s been an Atheist for several decades now!👍😄📚
"clarify the meaning of every passage of the gospel." lol sure thing. gawd sure is a poor writer.
Storm and Scam - I may have explained things poorly, so I’ll try again: The Jesuit authors are perfectly comfortable calling a myth a myth - though like Bart Ehrman and all other serious scholars, they understand the word “myth” not in the popular day-to-day sense (“Oh, that’s just a myth!”) but as a deeply felt story that human beings develop to explain what is mysterious and otherwise inexplicable to THEM. So if you had lived before Darwin, you would most likely have believed in a Creator God because no other explanation would have been available to you, and if you had lived in a Christian country, you would have probably accepted every myth in Genesis because the stories told there satisfied your desire to understand the how and why of your existence.
And no reputable scholar today would ascribe the authorship of the books of the Bible to a God, not Dr Ehrman, not the Jesuits. Instead they concentrate on the author of a book, his sources, his focus, his purpose, his language, his personality, his community, and a hundred other aspects of his gospel that have resulted in the man-made product that we see before us.
All such scholars and their methods and conclusions are universally condemned by Bible-waving fundamentalists precisely because they DON’T believe in sky daddies or the literal truth of myths.
Although I’m an atheist, I read Dr Ehrman and these Jesuits precisely because I need to understand the roots and subsequent growth of a set of beliefs that I once shared and that now strike me as completely unbelievable. So I’m a lot like Dr Ehrman - minus the intense scholarship, profound reflection, and talents as an author, speaker, and debater!😜
Claiming to know the meaning of this reality isn't new. And it sure doesn't provide the level of credibility they wish it did.
It's only their egocentric faith in the scriptures that keeps their theology alive.
This is one of the most interesting interviews I’ve ever listened to. Thank you
I'm signed up for the course. Looking forward to it.
I rejected Christianity back in 2005, after being a Christian fundamentalist for 47 years. Dr. Ehrman, Price, and several other theological historians convinced me that Christianity is just one of many man made religions.
Having been a Christian fundamentalist, church leader, and evangelist for 47 years I understand the Christian mindset. Deeply religious people are also deeply brainwashed. Logic reason, history, and science cannot overcome deep prolonged indoctrination. Until a believer sees the numerous and serious problems with the Bible and the Christian faith they simply cannot process any information that challenges their “beliefs”.
Religions require “faith” because there is no valid evidence that confirms their “beliefs”. Discussing religion with a believer is a waste of time. And if they’re happy in their little cults why engage them at all? Religion is a con game that requires deep and continuous indoctrination to both obtain and retain members. That should be a red flag for a believer but they’re so deeply indoctrinated they simply cannot process any information that challenges their beliefs.
Living my life without religion is so much more satisfying and enjoyable without worrying about going to a nonexistent Hell when I die.,
Just because you don't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean you can't be religious. The Sadducees were like that.
@@theboombody It’s a lot more than not believing in an afterlife. Logic, reason, science, and history combine for strong evidence that religions are manmade and are based on superstition, fear, and tribalism.
An honest and unbiased examination of scripture will reveal its inconsistencies, contradictions, and focus on mythology. Many of its stories and claims are simply unbelievable. The Bible leans heavily on fear of the unknown and excruciating, eternal, punishment for failure to believe it’s stories and failure to be submissive and obedient to all of it laws, rules, commands, and traditions.
Anything that requires deep and continuous indoctrination to obtain and retain members should be feared and therefore avoided. Anything that is based on rewards and punishment to be a member should be viewed with a very skeptical eye.
@@larrys9879 Your response makes a lot of sense. I actually believe in the possibility of supernatural events although I've never witnessed them. There's nothing in nature that says it HAS to obey its own laws all the time. Just INCREDIBLY strong inductive reasoning would suggest it does.
I also believe that morality and meaning are not manmade. I believe that nature itself, or the divinity behind nature, created those things. In other words, something sacred exists. If meaning is only manmade and not sacred, then the truth itself has only subjective meaning. And I think it deserves more than that.
And I believe the ancients knew more than we give them credit for. Religious scriptures talk constantly about the dangers of booze and promiscuity, and we've ignored that since the sexual revolution to our own detriment.
Those are my core beliefs and postmodernism goes against every one of them. However, I also believe the study of science and logic is a great effort at self improvement and should be pursued if desired and if possible. I don't know how postmodernism feels about that. And I agree that women should have more career options, which was a good thing spurred on by the sexual revolution.
I grew up with a dad who is a believer, and he has been a good man in every way I can think of. So he definitely inspired me to be a believer as well. And at first when I heard other people didn't believe the Bible, I feared for them. But not so much anymore. I fear for people more who are not genuine. I trust that God will not be unfair to a genuine person. They are seeking truth, which has meaning, and he who seeks finds. And I'm not so sure there's a time limit on a person's search for truth, although traditionally Christianity assumes it ends at death. Whether the Bible explicitly states that I'm not sure. The Bible says VERY little about the afterlife.
@@larrys9879 Care to give me a supposed “contradiction”?
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Ephesians says we are saved by grace through faith not of works. Least any man should boast. iI believe (But I don’t feel like looking it up) In Luke those claiming to be servant’s of the Lord came to him and began listing all the good “works” they had done in His name. The Lord responds by saying, “I NEVER knew you!” The book of James is all about doing good works as proof of the believers faith, even though works aren’t necessary for salvation. Just faith through Grace supposedly does the job.
In the Church of Christ Acts 2:38 is their scriptural proof that Baptism is the act that actually saves a believer by “Washing Away” their sins. One is not saved until their sins are washed away.
Now, since there are thousands of versions of Christianity, with a wide variety of beliefs, practices, and rituals that begs the question, “Who’s right, or are any of them right?” And then, of course we can explore the historical records, which has various versions too, that relate to the origins and evolution of both the Bible and the Christian faith.
And just something that bugged me. “Why would Jesus, who supposedly is God incarnate, have siblings? How awkward for them, “Yeah guys, seriously, my brother Jesus is really and truly the one true God! No, I’m being serious, why are you laughing?”
Then there is the problem that no historical writings about this God Man Jesus appeared until 40 plus years after he supposedly lived and was crucified. So, for 40 years no one seems to know anything about this God man that came to save the world, and thus no one was saved. Then Paul comes on the scene and claims he encountered this God man in a vision and he, “Paul” has been called to start a new religion.
Then around 70 AD the gospels begin to appear. Each one telling a different version about this Deity that became flesh to “Save” the world.Basically the Jesus story says God became flesh to save himself, from himself, by letting humans kill him so He could forgive sins.
If God is truly all powerful why couldn’t He just forgive sins when someone ask for forgiveness. Oh yeah, the Blood Sacrifice thing that goes back to the OT. Sorry, none of it is believable when it’s analyzed from a historical, logical, rational, and scientific perspective. It becomes obvious Christianity is just another one of thousands of man made religions, when it’s intellectually dissected. “
Hey GMO. I love the way You tackle these topics. Ive recently become a sikh myself and would love to see your view on sikhi overall. Cheers!
Dr. Ehrman touches on the main thing I hate about apologetics: the sheer silliness of trying to reconcile the Bible with itself, or with science. Apologists do all kinds of mental gymnastics well beyond bending over backwards to harmonize different passages, where anyone reading them normally would see a very obvious contradiction; and then they go on to try and reconcile obvious mythology and primitive beliefs with modern science, pretending as if the texts were always written intending to say that, when they were very, very obviously not. (And no, this isn't just Young Earth Creationists, I actually think they might do this LESS when it comes to scientific stuff.)
It's the sheer amount of disingenuousness, or perhaps just gaslighting and brainwashing that makes some people actually believe all this, is what really gets me.
Dr. Ehrman is completely correct. Reading Scripture with "The New Oxford Annotated Bible," "The Jewish Annotated New Testament" and "The Jewish Study Bible" revealed a galaxy's weight of information and insight I never thought possible. What I learned has made me a more sensible and impassioned Christian. If anything, Biblical scholarship, instead of destroying my faith, has transfigured its depth and amplitude. Ultimately, I have chosen to still adhere to the confessional Christianity wherein I was reared, but it is a more informed and free choice. Without the insights of Biblical scholarship, I would have definitely lost my faith after a devastating diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis, a profound disillusionment with ecclesiastical institutions and a nihilistic pessimism that would have devoured my sanity. Choosing to read what scholars have written about the Bible probably saved my life.
Also, Puggles is adorable 😍
If Bart Ehrman has "turned more christians into Atheists than anyone on earth alive today", then he is clearly doing excellent work. Three cheers for Bart Ehrman! We need *MANY MORE* like him!
Bart herman is based as fuck i like his duel nature. On the one side he's agnostic but on the other hand he wants christians to understand the legistics of the bible its refreshing to ser
Basically a lot of the issues Bart Ehrman talk about is also what is in the curriculum of any highly acclaimed University's theology study.
He just do it very well, and in a manner that makes it a lot easier for lay persons to access.
I come from a family where there’s several priests, who went to University to study theology, and a lot of what Ehrman talk about, they would agree with if they were still alive!
It didn’t change their belief in god, and just like it’s common knowledge that most of the Old Testament is allegorical texts, they’ve always been open to new "interpretations" of what/who Jesus was, as in Jesus not actually being god!
So basically taking the same scholarly approach to the New Testament as has been taken to the Old Testament where the text is considered more as allegorical narratives…
Of course it help a lot that they were always humanist first and foremost, and the role of priests were their way of making a difference in their communities!
This is why it really make me think that people who attack Ehrman for trying to get people to leave Christianity really have no idea about how theology has been approached in all the major universities for literally decades - and nearly a century!
Also, the reason why Ehrman became an atheist has almost nothing to do with his studies - just like me, it wasn’t based on lack of evidence for a god, or conflicting texts - but it was the question of evil!
I had a period of difficulty at the end of my Christian era and when looking at if that one was wrong what had the original Christians believed? When that proved difficult, and because it was impossible to get to the actual, except through supposition, I relied on the scholars. It was their scholarship that helped me realize most of what we believe today of that day... was open to various, huge, and conflicting types of sectarianism. And that hasn't slowed down, apparently, since day one of Christianity.
Honestly, I think that Ehrman is more hostile to the mythicist position than he is to the Christian one, and gives way more credibility to the writers of the gospels than they deserve.
That's because there's ample that Jesus actually existed. The teaching that Christ never existed is not supported by the academia in history. It's like the pseudoscience of history. (I'm a atheist btw, I don't believe that Jesus was God, but I think there's enough evidence to believe that Jesus was definitely a man who lived). Casual historian has a bunch of videos on the topic.
Historians teach that Jesus existed, not that Christ existed. That's not the same. Saying that Jesus was Christ is theology, not history. Jesus was one of many messias claimants.
@@Pope_Balenciaga As far as I'm aware, there actually isn't any evidence that the character of Yeshua actually existed as a real person beyond claims made by people who stand to personally profit from increasing the number of people that would give them donations.
Like, one of Ehrman's arguments for their being an original Jesus is that he was from Nazareth, which was a backwater, so why would anyone make their Messiah character come from there unless it was based off of an actual Nazarene person (which is essentially the often justly mocked Doctrine of Embarrassment)? This is despite the fact that the Gospels specifically state that him being from Nazareth was a fulfillment of pre-existing prophecy, and therefore something that they would integrate into the story of a fake Messiah.
He wouldn't accept that standard of evidence as pointing towards there being a real Angel Moroni, or a real Spider-Man, but he's fine with it supporting the existence of a guy with two equally impossible birth narratives that would have taken place years apart, death narratives that couldn't agree on what year he died or the events surrounding said death, and self-contradictory stories about a life/ministry that have no extra-biblical evidence of ever having happened.
@@Pope_Balenciaga Please produce this ample evidence. Oh, you can't? Geez, wonder why.
The mythicist position absolutely deserves to be trashed. It's no more respectable than intelligent design.
For me, that train has long since left the station. I was an atheist years before I ever heard of Dr. Bart Ehrman.
Well, he’s an interesting fraud. Note how many of his statements are subtle forms of “don’t leave, Christian”. The Bible is not inerrant, wow. He figured that one out. Children do the same.
Such a well-spoken and intelligent man. Thanks for the video and the Puggles shots (adorable pup).
Listening to Bart helps learn critical thinking skills.
not really. he still accepts way too much biblical hokum.
After a faith crisis I became an atheist and began reading literature with my new paradigm... One of the books suggested was his book on Misquoting Jesus and after reading it I was left with some thoughts that lead me back to Christianity. I no longer believe in sola scriptura and many other restrictive beliefs but I feel my faith is stronger thanks to Bart's work.
@Mike JJJ God and you?
@Mike JJJ I believe in the resurrection of Christ... You're reading way to much into my response... How about you ask instead of assuming 👍
@Mike JJJ interesting my good sir, I agree that repentance is a powerful move for people but I don't believe sin to be how most Christina define it and more of anything that can harm me or others is a sin. Eternal torment... People choose it.
@Mike JJJ unknowable? How about easy to be mislead. All the greatest scholars on these topics come to different conclusions. Bart Ehrman, James White, Scott Hann, Micheal Heiser, and many more study so much more than any of us and come to such drastically different conclusions. The scriptures say that God will write his laws on our hearts and I believe each of the scholars I mentioned recognized a truth that God put there. But can we put the false gods of our childhood to rest? Entirely?
@@tylerroylance8147 No, people do not choose Hell. I feel like if people actually felt confident that Hell was just they wouldn't have to say that.
Funny how those apologists for whom everything they do is done in order to convert, assumes their opponents must therefore do the same thing. Says a lot more about them that it does about scholars like Erhman.
There’s a Guatemalan saying amounting to, “The thief thinks everyone is stealing from him.”
To Bart Ehrman, If you *ARE* trying to *DEBUNK* christianity, then *MORE POWER TO YOU!* Please, by all means *KEEP DOING IT! THIS WORLD NEEDS MORE LIKE YOU!*
I left the church in large part to make room for those whos need is greater than my own.
No. If anything he made me look into Christianity again. He's a great apologist for it.
Dr Ehrman's laugh is so genuine, it disarms most of his opponents.
Ehrman doesn’t lead people out of Christianity, he saves people from going totally atheistic when the cracks in evangelicalism starts to show.
Always enjoy these interviews!