If there is a God and an afterlife I would not be surprised to find out Bart Erhman achieved eternal life and some self proclaimed Christians did not. Erhman's charity and compassion for his fellow man puts many in the church to shame.
Very,very true. If you're inclined, Matthew Chapter 7 specifically spells out some hard truths in Jesus' teaching that Christians just don't dwell upon much.
I'm a believer in Jesus and I agree with this. The overwhelming majority of christians do not follow Jesus and his teachings. They follow that other guy... "I see men as trees, walking!" Mrk8 < There are two trees in the garden of the NT scriptures.
The majority of the US churches follow tge teachings of the Talmud more then the teachings of the Christ. They have weaponized Christianity causing so many to leave
Well, what do we know?!... It is impossible to understand the Infinite. But we have a right to try though. On the other hand what do the other beings care about suffering?! Not much.
@@Wretched2JZ, sounds like you’re not aware how he’s paid. He started a nonprofit for medicine and food so all proceeds from the online lectures go to Doctors Without Borders International. We’ve raised 1.5 million for DWB this way. He still teaches everyday at UNC for which I’m grateful.
@@TheGuy030770, in all due respect, if you have to ask that question you’re probably a failed human being. Sorry to have to say that but there’s no other term for it. If it’s not too late, change course and help build a better world. Otherwise stay on the sofa and criticize the motivations of good people.
The Emperor Julian tried that. You might enjoy Gore Vidal's "Julian" which is his novel-isation of Julian's story. I am a Christian agnostic. Raised in the Baptist church in the deep south in the 50s-60s. I have A LOT of ptsd issues around "christians" in The South. The Church does NOT show up well in Julian. It's all very "I, Claudius" and...it AIN'T pretty. I have come to understand that a person professing faith in Christ as a teenager is very likely very different from that same person 60 years later.
@@anonymousjohnson976 tell me you didn't pay attention to the video without telling me you didn't pay attention to the video, lol (Ehrman uses the term in the first few minutes)
"I'm not an astrophysicist" --Bart Ehrman. I am an astrophysicist, and I can say that Dr. Ehrman quotes Hawking correctly in saying that he thought "you can get something out of nothing"
I assume hawking got the idea from "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" by EDWARD P. TRYON, Nature volume 246, pages396-397 (1973) "The author proposes a big bang model in which our Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum, in the sense of quantum field theory. The model predicts a Universe which is homogeneous, isotropic and closed, and consists equally of matter and anti-matter."
Erhman briefly touches on the life of Julian the Apostate which reminded me of Gore Vidal's historical novel Julian which I've read a couple of times. One of the major themes in the novel is Julian's distaste for the Christian "death cult" and their intolerance and dogmatic view of religion as opposed to the old Roman pagan gods which he saw as part of a richer and more benevolent society that tolerated different religious opinions.
Had to read Julian in 9th grade. Couldn't stand it at first because of the epistolary style but then really got into it. Great book. Thanks for the reminder.
Nietszche nailed it in a similar register speaking against Christianity and nihilism that he assocciates to it. He too speaks of a religion of death. Also a religion he despises for promoting being weak.
And, I consider myself a believing agnostic. I have a friend who has another category. He says that there are "seeking" agnostics. They'd like to believe and they're looking for a reason.
When I was in the service your options were "atheist" or "no preference". It wasn't until much later that the DOD added "agnostic" as an option. The chaplain core fought the addition of "agnostic". It wasn't until the military was sued by a member demanding release from service because he was being denied he religious preference. I didn't chose atheist because "atheists were radical", it was a bad word, thanks to our religious cousins.
Yes, Ehrman is right - theism/atheism is about belief and gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge. And the key religious issue is: what do you believe? Not: what do you know? The real reason people call themselves agnostic is because of intense prejudice of Christians over the centuries. They are just sick of the atheism label being used as a pejorative, so use the wimpy agnostic label. If you think the agnostic label is important, consider when was the last time you heard a Christian label themselves an agnostic Christian (believing but not knowing)?
Erhman is indeed a great teacher (as are many teachers, true). But he seems to be an especially skilled one in delivering knowledge. ONE QUESTION:- If Christians were persecuted in some Mediterranean cities/regions because they were found to be refraining from propitiating local deities (thereby failing in civic duty), then was the similarly migrant minority community, the Jews, who were also fiercely monotheistic, also similarly prosecuted when they refused to propitiate the local pantheon? Are there records - either in Jewish history or in parallel other histories - of such persecution of Jews?
@@joe_z I didn't know there was such a thing as "NonStampCollector". I loved it when physicist Jim Al-Khalili used "not stamp collecting" as a "non-hobby". I mention insomnia vs sleep because in Esperanto the noun "sleep" is "dormo" while "insomnia" is "maldormo".
A christian atheist!! Love it. Being a christian does not make one "good" any more than being an atheist makes one "bad." Both "paths" are a personal choice, not a predestination. Neither are they determined by supernatural dictates, ordained by an eavesdropping "spirit" that listens-in to one's personal beliefs and thoughts in order to "see" whether they support, or deny "its" superstitious demands. Religion, at its core, whether ancient or new, is based upon fear. Even our secular laws that demand "good" behavior from its citizens, are founded on the fear of judicial retribution for any deviance from them. Fear then, is all around us, seeping into everything we do -- or think!! Except, i suppose, for the christian atheist. Such a one operates on a solid, "beatitudes" foundation, only doing so out of a sense of respect for decency and human integrity, rather than to fearfully gain some supernatural approval from above. Avoiding the dreaded, supernatural retribution that comes with violating one of the many amish-like, "ordnung" fabrications of an imaginary deity, is the cornerstone of christianity, and not of the self-determined, good behavior that the christian atheist exercises. Doing "good" for goodness' sake, and not in order to cash-in on an "offered" 24 carat gold crown, is a bit of a higher order of humanitarianism: is one truly charitable if one only "gives" in order to receive a tax write-off? Would you build a "church" if there was no tax exemption for it? As long as we "do" good behavior in order to remain on santa's "good list," we are motivated by fear (or selfish greed), and not by a good conscience. In truth, in such a case, "santa" has no real idea if we are "good" because we actually are "good sheep," or are "good" simply to gain favor, and hopefully avoid a "divine" throttling!! The religionist doesn't even know which it is!! That's the nature of fear-actuated behavior: it turns people into sheeple!! In a nutshell, true freedom is unachievable if one's very life is watched 24 hours a day by a jealous, all-powerful, mind-reading spirit-god who can both eternally reward, and eternally torture those whom "he" watches. That is a fitting description of complete, emotional slavery. Slavery that controles everything we do, before we do it, for fear of running afoul of that all-powerful, eye-in-the-sky; the one we invented, you know! The "christian atheist," on the other hand....................... -😇
14:13 "The gods are angry with us because......that is why........."!!! Said by the Romans. Why does that sound familiar? Oh yes, I first heard that from christianity. Everytime judah/Judea the "choosen people of their god" lost their battles that right there was the reason and excuse.
Nero and the great fire in Rome. 1) There were no fiddles; if Nero made music he would have played a lyre. 2) Nero was not in Rome as the conflagration began. 3) Nero did not use Rome's treasury to begin repairs and to feed the homeless. 4) Nero had enemies aplenty; his enemies wrote the history. 5) Nero did commit deeds that were worthy of a monster. Maybe it all comes out in the wash.
Battle of the Milvian Bridge was in 312. The Diocletian persecutions started in 303 with the emperor Diocletian’s order against the Christians and ended with the Edict of Milan which repealed it in 313 by Constantine who was then emperor.
>>Nero became terrified, believing that God wanted the Second Temple to be destroyed, but that he would punish the one to carry it out. Nero said, "He desires to lay waste His House and to lay the blame on me," whereupon he fled and converted to Judaism to avoid such retribution. Vespasian was then dispatched to put down the rebellion. He was, and a coward if you believe the jewish version.
Can someone honestly tell me how many books does the bible contains, why are some books like Enoch the prophet of God removed, who removed it, why God could not stop them if the bible is the inspired word of God, was the book of Enoch not inspired by God, likewise the other books removed from the bible.
@@MSHOOD123 "it is believed to be the word of men inspired by God through visions, dreams, and revelations." Not by everybody. Some believe it is the inspired word of fantasists, mixed up with propaganda, justifications for rape, mass murder and slavery. With some added flavor of veiled threats and empty promises.
Another great lecture. I know one day you will carry on with you're great passion in the after life, because you will not realize that you are dead, and I will be there listening to you.😂😂😂
Why does it matter if a majority believe the same view? Is their interpretation of God more true than, say, a group that has 80% as many as the majority, or 50% as many, or 10%? Where’s the cutoff point below which their truth isn’t as true as your truth?
I don't understand how in reply to the last question Bart says he has seen demon possessions and has spoken in tongues but doesn't believe in the supernatural. Huh?
If you set your mind to fancies you can participate in all kinds of nonsense. It doesn't mean that it is supernatural. What's being "possessed by a demon" mean in reality? Somebody acting weird. What's "speaking in tongues" mean in reality? Somebody babbling nonsense.
My path to scepticism began when I attended a prayer/ retreat event with some of my church members that was very different from our typical Episcopalian church services. Anyway, there was a calling up of the holy spirit and lots of people went nuts and ended up " slain by the spirit" speaking in tongues and falling on the floor. I stood around all these people on the floor, including my pastor! . My original thought was what's wrong with me that I don't experience this phenomenon ? Now I realize it was a form of group hysteria and not real except in these folks minds.
My dad grew up in Rome when Nero was the emperor of the Roman Empire and said Nero and the Christian’s had nothing to do with it. He said the fire was started by Apollon witches.
Some facts. In 312, Constantine "converted to the Christian faith" and continued to hold the position of Pontifex Maximus, a position that allowed religious leadership, which had been held by all those who had been given the title of "Caesar", meaning leader of the Roman state and religion. - of course pagan -, a position held by all Caesars, including those before Christ. Later on, shortly after the Passover of 337 (April 3), Constantine began to feel ill; he was baptized by the Aryan bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia and after his baptism he wore only white robes like those of a Christian neophyte instead of imperial robes. So, we do not know what means conversion to the Christian faith in 312. The real conversion is taking place with his baptism in 337. The argument with the Book of Hebrews from the New Testament is not valid due to the fact that at that time of Constantine the New Testament did not exist. The New Testament, with 27 books, was agreed 50 years later after death of Constantine.
The 27 Book (said length doubtlessly agreed upon by the Romish Church's collective head, therefore insidiously bias) "New" Testament only being produced 50 YEARS AFTER Constantine's death? My mind is spinning with this data. Thanks.
@@narayansivajiramos5763 I would not say New Testament was produced. Instead, the final collection of 27 books was first mentioned in the year 367, in a letter of Athanasius of Alexandria. The New Testament did not exist before but separate books circulated among Christians. For instance in the first centuries circulated among Christians more than 40 gospels but only 4 were included in the New Testament (Mark, Mathew, Luc and John).
Like you say, the New Testament wasn't "produced" in 367, so isn't it possible that the content from the Book of Hebrews WAS in circulation as early as 312? My understanding is that the content that makes up the New Testament was all widely circulated among Christians well in advance of becoming the official New Testament.
@@alexbertucci5238 Yes, before the establishment of the Canon of the New Testament used to circulate many books. For instance there were more than 40 gospels out on which only 4 were included in the New Testament plus hundreds of other books. So, the question is next: if nobody knew how will look the Canon in the future how Constantin had selected the Book of Hebrews for inspiration and not other book as for instance the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Judas or any other book. The fact that he was baptized by an Aryan bishop (Eusebiu of Nicomidia) (Arianism was considered heresy at Council of Niceea organized at the request of Constantin in 325) shows that Constantine was not so familiar with Christian theology which was in continuous transformation.
@@VSP4591 So wait a second, you mean to tell me that Constantine, who was baptized by an Arian (not the misnomer Aryan, a peoples whose identity is still being debated), then chose to abolish Arianism? Please elucidate further.
Being one with the Consciousness of God (living in God’s Consciousness, or in Reality) is not the same as being God. Why is that so hard to understand, We share in that Reality we are not that Reality. Jesus never claimed to be God. Unlike us he had full conscious awareness of his relationship to God and that is called Christ Consciousness, Whatever Ehrman is going through he should see a counselor in order to figure it out. He does not have to inflict his problem or his conflict on the rest of humanity..
The question of whether God (or gods) exists cannot be answered with either a "yes" or a "no." There is no proof that people can possibly dig up to give that question a definitive answer. This makes the seemingly perpetual argument between atheists and deists fruitless and/or pathetic (as used in the vernacular). From my pov, since the God argument CAN NOT be resolved, those who live in the two separate camps, the deists' and atheists', are but Sisyphus and his twin brother, each slaving away Eternity in a hopeless & pointless task. The only rational position is that of the agnostics, who avoid irrational argument by neither expecting there to be a God (and He cannot give proof absolute of His existence because that would end faith in God and turn it into knowledge of God's existence, and by His own rules, without faith there can be no salvation.) nor would the agnostic be disappointed by God's absence. Agnosticism is far from being "fence-sitting," it is the only rational position to hold in this hamster wheel of a "debate" so spurious that to even use that word disgraces it. Please to excuse! I do tend to run on a bit. A useful trait within a university but usually a liability without. (A very fine lecture, Professor! You never disappoint but you do inspire. As this screed does testify.)
Yep. The other problem I have with a "yes or no" answer is that a deity concept demands an awful lot from the three letter word "God".,a symbol of a concept of a being beyond all human conceptions. The word is a term of convenience.
Ehrman seems to be unaware of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The spiritual/ mystical practice in eastern Orthodoxy has always and still plays a central role .
I could surely post this comment under another video, but can someone point out, and I'm generalizing, why do the Jewish religion not recognize the first comming of Jesus as the true event, and that they are actually still waiting for the real comming of The Messiah.
Asking the question this way you do imply the answer you're ready to accept. It's like: "when you'll stop beat your wife"? This way you block yourself from any meaningful conversation and posibility to understand an answer given to you. Jews do recognise historicity of Jesus (at least those who accept it existed). They see him as a another false prophet, either an imposter and fraud or just mental unstable and guy rightfully executed according to the law. Neither first, nor last.
Good question Jacques. Walker answered by referring you to Rabbi Tovia Singer. I would like to also suggest Rabbi Michael Skobac. Those Orthodox Rabbis are the authority, and nothing Dr. Erhman says detracts from their legitimacy.
Because before Jesus death, he continuously preached that the prophecy of the Messiah would be fulfilled with him. It wasn't, so then there had to be a second coming.
It is surely with sadness, and another name to add to my Prayer List, I have listened to this interesting recital of that history given by this dear man. Because I was aware of the history he presented, I found his Q & A the most interesting, mainly in his answers, Bart Ehrman uncovers himself and I learn so much more about the MAN! I find his neglect of the amazing amount of knowledge which still remains a pity, as for me, a knowledge of MY LORD AND SAVIOUR, Jesus Christ, Whom I know mostly as Yahushua Messiah because of His Jewish roots, which must have been within either due to His growth in Miriam's womb, or His living for 33 ½ literal years in and around Jerusalem, with occasional further wanderings. I am tempted to elaborate on THAT, but I will not. It is obvious to me, and I would love to sit with brother Bart and speak as personally with him as he will allow, because I have been there! I left my Messiah for personal reasons, and yet NEVER gave it a thought there COULD NOT BE THE FATHER AND HIS SON, basically working together as the Prime Movers of the Universe, which I am certain is composed of many worlds all living and selflessly loving in sinless perfection, and after the sin problem on Earth is FULLY taken care of, I believe there will be worlds aplenty added to the numbers of worlds which do exist presently in the Universe of Yahuwah Elohim, Father and Son. Although I was fully aware of the present universal scheme of things as per the BIBLE - The Sacred Scriptures - having lived as a preacher now for 47 years, I was so deeply depressed and unsure of all else after a divorce, and loss of the presence of the two children I loved more than any others who are all close to me, I picked up that bottle, having had a long history of this nuisance many have trouble with, and it helped me to live a freer life, but not to forget, and often interact with My Father in the Name of Jesus, asking for help, but being far too weak to change from a period of nearly 3½ years of carnality, returning again to living as a Christian zealot, with a very broad band of selfless love for all of humanity, in full understanding we have been given free will as human beings, and often even falling back into sin again, creates the more steadied, and the more loving Christian, because one realizes far more about the TRULY LOVING NATURE of he Deity. I was restricted by my own thoughts of what will my possibly come about from FORMER brothers and sisters, if I as a formerly very spiritually active Christian man, this possibly having been the reason for the marital break-up in the first place! And I would personally suspect there is a little to a lot of that in this dear man's mind, and when the time is right, for I understand he sees the signs of the times, and that we are very close to the start of the 7 Plagues of the Book of Revelation, after which will come the thief in the night experience to unbelievers, or to those who KNOW Who Christ surely is, and yet, these no longer have the Spirit, i.e. the "mind of Christ" indwelling them any longer, as the old self has come alive again, and as it were runs the whole ship again, as before the knowledge of there being such amazing Parental Ownership of this world, although under the power of the detractor who has pushed selfishness as the solution to his former problems beginning in Heaven, yes, in the very Throne Room in that amazing Palace, with satan then leaving the Father's side, with one-third of the angelic realm formerly abiding there, in charge of aiding the worlds in Heavenly ways through communication and the like. I am thankful brother Bart is still living, and after this night, I shall be as I am now doing, praying for the man to come back to the cross, and put the cross together with baptism by immersion, to see that both these speak of the death of the self, and the resurrection and ascension, tell us of the Plan made before the foundations of the earth were made (See Ephesians 1: 4, KJV), the Everlasting Gospel, which I can provide evidence of the fact, even a long slide away from the Saviour's ownership of the mind, body and soul of the former believer, is a sin that Christ too has taken upon His own Precious Head, and roll it over upon Satan's head (See Leviticus 16: 21, 22, KJV), even as the Day of Atonement shows the students of Scripture who are walking with the mind of Christ in constant interaction with them, so that eventually the REASON FOR ALL SIN, the devil, shall have all of the sins rolled over from Christ's head to Satan's eternally! That devil is not our Saviour, but Christ could only have life having died AS US ALL, who will live eternally in Heaven for 1000 literal years in the City New Jerusalem, and thereafter, live on THE EARTH MADE NEW, after the destruction of the Wicked, spoken of in the words of Revelation 20: 5 - 9, KJV, the old world will be purified by that same fire that comes down upon the earth to consume all the Wicked, both angels and humans, and forever, even forever and ever, we shall live on the Earth Made New, and the angels and humans shall be called the Children of GOD, into eternity, even as is spoken about in Isaiah 66: 22, 23, KJV, all shall be as it was, and all shall live in selfless agapé, ETERNALLY! How blessed we are, to have given ourselves freely unto the Saviour, for such an increased - surely - LIFE, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON, HALLELUYAH, AWMAYNE!
You could start by presenting a single shred, just ONE example, of positive, verifiable evidence that ANY god (let alone your version of your interpretation of your god) exists at all. Well?
@Dr. Ehrman... I suggest you read CAREFULLY this book... Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years --by Philip Jenkins
@@MSHOOD123 It is most excellent ... very informative and a big eye opener.... you will not regret reading it... it is a very valuable education.... I wish Dr. Ehrman would have read it before he wrote his book.... clearly he did not.
Constantine's Army of Empire was short on soldiers, even mercenaries. He knew that Christians took care of the sick and wounded. He knew Christians did it like bunnies, who would grow up to be soldiers. He knew Christians had faith and would fight to the death for their beliefs. So Constantine legalized Christianity and fused the floundering mighty pagan Roman Empire with the burgeoning Church. The Church sensing its opportunity for power, shed the traditional presbyterian apostolic Church and consciously adopted the imperial autocratic hierarchical structure of the Roman Empire that persists to this very day. an unholy marriage. Ray's newest master theory is that way back, since the days of Copernicus, Galileo and early scientists like Darwin, the Catholic Church finally realized *THE TRUTH* -- evolution (and it's mechanism of mutation and natural selection)! So, it was finally cornered, *the gig was up!* Their dusty old foundational tomes (e.g. Genesis) were expressly wrong. They *KNEW THEN* that *there really is no God.* But because they were accustomed to power, control, riches, fancy digs (above all, POWER), etc., they then arrogantly held on to the bold front, the canard (with their best showman's "shtick"), that there _was_ indeed a transcendent interactive god! The Catholic Church knows their is no final retribution in the great beyond for their actions. Because there is no great beyond. *This then explains a LOT!* (Catholic Church global sexual abuse crisis, Vatican financial scandals, misogyny and exclusion of women from clerisy, homosexuality of Curia and ecclesia despite policy, murder of indigenous children, nun on nun viciousness, etc.). Simple to see.
the major problem with the Christian triune God(s) is that the biblical God Himself never say WE ARE but always say I AM . Jesus been begotten He never been the eternal son of God but became the son of the eternal God, before is existence Jesus was I AM not the Son: Exodus3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. And Jesus said: 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM” 59At this, the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him. (Jesus was saying I AM the Father in flesh) So Jesus is the incarnation in flesh of the invisible God I AM .
Jesus did not mean that ONLY he was God. Jesus asked "are we not all gods? as David says in the Psalms" We are all gods made flesh. That is blasphemy, so they crucified him. My short version of it.
@@bjharvey3021 Only one God the Father and Jesus is this one God in flesh . We are Elohim BECAUSE we are is spiritual sons (Ben Elohim) but Jesus was THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON being God in flesh. Being born again made un children of God (Ben Elohim) but not the most high Himself but IS SPIRITUAL SONS by faith ( as Abraham)
@Michel Haineault You can always make up good explanations for that. That is what theology is all about isn't it? Just making up shit as you go along. A triune god would perhaps most likely speak of himself as an "I". He can either underline the "tri", or the "une" in triune. It does not really matter. And most likely the human writings would just be an approximation of what that abominable fantasy god said. He didn't literally dictate all that nonsense, did he now?
45:14...Professing themslves to be Wise: "...the current thinking is in fact something can come out of nothing..um ...which makes no sense to me...." ...wow?...so that's what is currently called ..."Thinking"?...
Hey Dr. Ehrman.... have you seen the amazing paintings of Sofia Montenegro De Viraci.... no... ah well that was because of Christianity's stifling misogyny throughout the history of Europe and she was extirpated as a witch... and humanity lost her would be amazing contributions to Art.
The emperor Constantine, is referred to by Catholics as "Constantine the Great," because he made Catholicism by law the only religious belief allowed in the Roman Empire. You can bet that the Jews in that era, and the Protestants that came later, didn't think that Constantine was at all "great." Religion is very divisive ... and what divides, cannot unite.
I find the position on Constantine having converted to Christianity in 312 or long before his death to be very speculative. For one, the accounts of Esebius and Lactantius appear to be written for children. This hard core Constantine guy who had his son and wife killed felt that a cross made him win a battle. Laughable argument. It is pretty obvious that Constantine thought that Christianity had great potential in the context of exercising power on the empire. But did he believe in Jesus himself, doubtful. Did he believe as a pagan converted to Christianity in that time would ? Highly unlikely because of his upbringing and focus on power not on making sense of the after life or moral issues. He liked the idea of a single god, bearing in mind that many emperors had been elevated to the rank of gods after their death lowered the value of god. He liked the promises made by Christianity. He liked the appeal it had to people in the empire. He liked the growth of the structure of the church. If he had a vision it was not seeing a cross but seeing the potential for power coming from that new religion. Constantine's conception of religion by his upbringing made him a stranger to Christianity. It is more likely that Constantine converted at the end of his life, not because of the baptism, not because of the faith he had, not even because of the promise of heaven (I would bet he thought that was laughable), but for the future generations. By converting to a religion that he believed had the potential to become a great power in itself, he tied his house to that religion. It was a power play. He was a true Roman Emperor after all. He was not wrong since his successors did use Christianity as a power structure. So why did Constantine not do it himself ? He did not do it himself in part because he did not believe in Jesus, in part because he thought he might fail. Ave Valerius Constantius. Of course this is all speculative but to me it makes more sense than confusing Sol Invictus with Jesus and loving Jesus.
He says he tries to follow JC's moral teachings... "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until the kingdom of God is established..." Well then, JC'S morality is/was tbe law of the Torah. So...do we kill adulterers, homosexuals, old men who gather sticks on the Sabbath etc? Or do we ignore JC's endorsement of the law? You can't say JC is moral in any acceptable modern sense, if you listen to what he was teaching. You only achieve a moral JC if you selectively ignore his complete teachings, and cherry pick a few nice things he said. And it's a stretch to claim we know which JC quotes are legit anyway. Who knows? We might be appalled by the barbarous nature of the historical JC'S actual morality. Given that... Why not just take credit for your own personal morality, and leave out references to JC altogether? After all, it's YOU who are making up the JC you imagine being like this or that anyway.
The reasoning used by the Church in building up the doctrine of the triune God is simplistic, they just took care of their needs, irrespective of what reality is. In other words it's just a CONVENTIONAL (I.e. false) doctrine, this is why in the creed you agree only with ("He was crucified"). It's good time to get rid of that hyper nonsensical doctrine. Yes, in Nicea they were right, Jesus is God, but why? It is normally accepted that God knows the WHOLE future and is here interacting with us. You should distinguish between "possible futures" (that God could maybe modify) and "THE ONE actual future" (including the modifications by God) that will ACTUALLY take place. Thus, God is supposed to perfectly know that One future which will ACTUALLY come true. Once again, that actual future is ALREADY AMENDED in accordance with the God's wishes. But this implies a SEPARATION of God from the world and mankind: God would simply BOREDLY STARE at what happens in the world, doing NOTHING MORE than staring at that well-known film which simply regularly UNFOLDS. God had really NOTHING to do because even the God's voice is ALREADY RECORDED on that film: his power will AUTOMATICALLY do what needed. This means that BEFORE there MUST have been a "first phase" in which God WAS FREE to make all his decisions, where God examined "possible futures" but did NOT know the WHOLE future. Indeed (1) KNOWING the ACTUAL future and (2) being FREE TO DECIDE are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, God can have either one, but not the two of them AT THE SAME TIME for logical reasons: if God "reserved the right" to change the future whenever He likes (see (2)), this would mean He doesn't really know what will happen in the future and this is not serious. But it's not the case: when all his decisions are made - end of the first phase - God knows exactly the whole future and the item is concluded for good. God is almighty, He cannot afford future uncertainties. Since God is ONLY FREE TO DECIDE WHEN HE IS IN THE FIRST PHASE, this means that we have a relationship with Him when He is in that first phase! But this means we have a relationship with God WHO IS IN THE PAST, in a very distant past, the mankind was not born yet ("the world has not known you") ("no one ever saw God"). But from that past God is able to REACH US HERE NOW with his words and actions. Since there is NO ONE HERE to speak those words, you can say that the God's presence here corresponds to the presence of a SPIRIT ("God is a spirit"): He is the SPIRIT OF GOD. From what set out above, the conclusion of the God's work in that remote past - i.e. the end of the first phase - would coincide with His SEPARATION from us, because the future known to Him would simply automatically come true, UNFOLDING without any further God's intervention. Instead there is no real separation because, - at the conclusion of that work - God got rid of his power to become like a normal person, without any power: the Son of God. Thus, "Son" only means that Jesus DERIVES from God, He is no "normal Son". Therefore Jesus INHERITS the reign of God, EVERYTHING "The Father loves the Son and has given ALL THINGS into His hand.". Jesus - who is a man now - is DIFFERENT from the Father since He has now no power at all “ I from myself am not able to do a thing”. However, He is NOT DISTINCT from the Father either, since He DERIVES from Him "He who has seen me has seen the Father.". Thus, for Father + Son you cannot use the pronoun "He", you cannot use the pronoun "They" either. You can say that God is more than One and less than Two in number.
51:25 ...How Jesus Became God?...Prof. Ehrman has a very interesting theorem of Jesus growing divinity, based on the content and dating of the various Gospels (i.e. the earliest Gospel of Mark, is also the less expensive of Jesus's deity...Matthew and Luke gradually more so..and reaching a near trinitarian form with John's gospel). ...Ironically enough the lethal Achilles heel in Ehrman's argument ...he himself verbal stumbles into right here (51:25)....as the Apostle Paul said Christ "created all things" and decades before any of those Gospels were even written...(Col 1:15-16) ...the fact is, it is actually the earliest christian material that speaks of Jesus in the highest of divine christologies - but significantly Paul is speaking candidly to other Christians...and in none of his recorded sermons to unbelievers, either Jew or Gentile in Acts is Paul so theologically bold. ...Decades later Gospel of Mark mutes that earlier Pauline "high christology" in his first biography of Jesus...most likely simply for audience credibility...then as now... Christ's Deity would have been a hard doctrine, for the uninitiated to accept....so why spring it on them in the very beginning?...(Mark's omission of the Virgin Birth can also be explained using the same logic)... Only decades later when the peculiarities of christian dogma were more commonly and publicly known, could the full open expression of Jesus's Godhood be expected in written materials meant to proselytize...and we are told evangelization is specifically why the Gospels (or Gk. "Evangelion") are said to be written in the first place (John 20:30-31)...
He doesn't stumble into it he's talking about the gospel of John (end of 1st century). Colossians is agreed by scholars to not have actually been written by Paul (for various complicated reasons you can look up). That entire passage in Colossians matches pretty well with John 1 and not at all with the other gospels' idea of Christ. What is your evidence that they withheld that theological stuff for generations but actually privately believed it? Is it Colossians? Because as I said, it's pseudepigraphic.
@@KumoCC ....First of all rejection of Pauline authorship of Colossians is anything but "agreed by scholars"... in truth it is only the 7 letters are "undisputed"(...please don't make me embarrass you by proving this) ....on the other hand you do make a good point...I do wonder if one of the "complicated reasons" for rejecting the Letter, by liberal scholars is its high christology?...but its irrelevant either way because preexistent Phillipian Christology is nearly as high as that of Colossae (Phil 2:5-9)...and its undisputed...
@@KumoCC ...thanks...I imagine it gets very "complicated"...particularly since interpolation or pseudographa...convenient as they are .. can't always be credibly claimed...of course, no one ever accused Prof. Ehrman of doing history consistently...
jESUS IS A PAGAN SUN DEITY NAME, CONSTANTINE STARTED THE OFFICE OF BISHOP THEY WERE ALL PAGANS. CHRIST IS A SUN DEITY NAME ALSO AND MEANS GOOD NOT ANOINTED AND IS NOT GREEK FOR MESSIAH.
They burned pagan books too. The Roman Empire during Constantine engulfed the whole of humanity. Bart, you are showing your twisted ignorance again. You don't understand how Yahweh is one. Father, Son, and Spirit are offices of Yahweh, self same Spirit is what Yahweh is.
Sorry Bart - but you're dead wrong when you say Atheism is a belief - it most certainly is not - it actually means: "I have no belief in any religion or dogma" Next time get it right! Also, when you say: "I don't know if there is a god or supreme being" you have put yourself in the wishy-washy camp of "Maybe" when in truth, if there is NO evidence for something then the facts speak for themselves... no proof - no god!
This Christian atheist studies Christianity away from Christ. Without Christ the Christianity is but a corpse. So he looks and smells and, of course, he sees decay and smells repulsion. Frankly I don't know what was the reason for this deliverance, not much historical revelations above well-known. Maybe his genuine irritation with Christian faith needed a vent. The pagan audience welcomed it. All went well.
That's right. The Christ of the bible is a fairytale. Christianity stinks because of its history. The first Christians would think today's Christians are crazy.
@@bartbannister394 you have all right to reject Christ. But rejection is just another form of acception. There is no A-christians in this sense. Don't exist, impossible. He's got everyone. Not bad for a fairytale
TRINITY is not a MYSTERY Is ONE GOD and THREE "PERSONAS" in Greek "PERSONA" means literally "MASK" One ACTOR puts on the COMEDY MASK plays COMEDY Same ACTOR/same puts on the TRAGEDY MASK plays TRAGEDY TRINITY is UNITY in DIVERSITY and DIVERSITY in UNITY
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
If you manage to get Bart Ehrman to give a lecture, give him as much time as he needs.
If there is a God and an afterlife I would not be surprised to find out Bart Erhman achieved eternal life and some self proclaimed Christians did not. Erhman's charity and compassion for his fellow man puts many in the church to shame.
Very,very true. If you're inclined, Matthew Chapter 7 specifically spells out some hard truths in Jesus' teaching that Christians just don't dwell upon much.
I'm a believer in Jesus and I agree with this. The overwhelming majority of christians do not follow Jesus and his teachings.
They follow that other guy...
"I see men as trees, walking!"
Mrk8 <
There are two trees in the garden of the NT scriptures.
The majority of the US churches follow tge teachings of the Talmud more then the teachings of the Christ. They have weaponized Christianity causing so many to leave
Ex-Evangelicals make the best atheists.@@UnknownMale565
Well, what do we know?!... It is impossible to understand the Infinite. But we have a right to try though.
On the other hand what do the other beings care about suffering?! Not much.
We owe this man a debt more immense than can ever be described.
Lol why’s that?
Seems like he gets paid extremely well for what he does..
@@Wretched2JZ, sounds like you’re not aware how he’s paid. He started a nonprofit for medicine and food so all proceeds from the online lectures go to Doctors Without Borders International. We’ve raised 1.5 million for DWB this way. He still teaches everyday at UNC for which I’m grateful.
Why?
@@TheGuy030770, in all due respect, if you have to ask that question you’re probably a failed human being. Sorry to have to say that but there’s no other term for it. If it’s not too late, change course and help build a better world. Otherwise stay on the sofa and criticize the motivations of good people.
Thanks for making this available on CZcams!
“Make the Empire Pagan Again” 🤣🤣🤣
The Emperor Julian tried that. You might enjoy Gore Vidal's "Julian" which is his novel-isation of Julian's story.
I am a Christian agnostic. Raised in the Baptist church in the deep south in the 50s-60s.
I have A LOT of ptsd issues around "christians" in The South. The Church does NOT show up well in Julian. It's all very "I, Claudius" and...it AIN'T pretty.
I have come to understand that a person professing faith in Christ as a teenager is very likely very different from that same person 60 years later.
@@davidtice371 : What is a Christian agnostic?
@@anonymousjohnson976 tell me you didn't pay attention to the video without telling me you didn't pay attention to the video, lol (Ehrman uses the term in the first few minutes)
IT IS PAGAN, THIS WORLD IS SATAN'S FULLY AND WHY IT IS ALL ABOUT DEATH.
Great lecture series. I wish he had spoken at my school when I was still in university
Thank God for Bart Ehrman.
A most enjoyable series of lectures. Thank you!
Professor Bart Ehrman is an example of independent logic thinker.
Love hearing Prof Ehrlman.
"I'm not an astrophysicist" --Bart Ehrman.
I am an astrophysicist, and I can say that Dr. Ehrman quotes Hawking correctly in saying that he thought "you can get something out of nothing"
I assume hawking got the idea from "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" by EDWARD P. TRYON, Nature volume 246, pages396-397 (1973)
"The author proposes a big bang model in which our Universe is a fluctuation of the vacuum, in the sense of quantum field theory. The model predicts a Universe which is homogeneous, isotropic and closed, and consists equally of matter and anti-matter."
Great 3 part lecture
Erhman briefly touches on the life of Julian the Apostate which reminded me of Gore Vidal's historical novel Julian which I've read a couple of times. One of the major themes in the novel is Julian's distaste for the Christian "death cult" and their intolerance and dogmatic view of religion as opposed to the old Roman pagan gods which he saw as part of a richer and more benevolent society that tolerated different religious opinions.
Had to read Julian in 9th grade. Couldn't stand it at first because of the epistolary style but then really got into it. Great book. Thanks for the reminder.
Some modern day Pagans refer to him as Julian the Blessed.
Nietszche nailed it in a similar register speaking against Christianity and nihilism that he assocciates to it. He too speaks of a religion of death. Also a religion he despises for promoting being weak.
Greetings from Puerto Rico.Excelente lecture.
Roberto, saludos. En Puerto Rico hay universidades que dan estudios de teología ?
And, I consider myself a believing agnostic. I have a friend who has another category. He says that there are "seeking" agnostics. They'd like to believe and they're looking for a reason.
Great lecture.
When I was in the service your options were "atheist" or "no preference". It wasn't until much later that the DOD added "agnostic" as an option. The chaplain core fought the addition of "agnostic". It wasn't until the military was sued by a member demanding release from service because he was being denied he religious preference. I didn't chose atheist because "atheists were radical", it was a bad word, thanks to our religious cousins.
Yes, Ehrman is right - theism/atheism is about belief and gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge.
And the key religious issue is: what do you believe? Not: what do you know?
The real reason people call themselves agnostic is because of intense prejudice of Christians over the centuries. They are just sick of the atheism label being used as a pejorative, so use the wimpy agnostic label.
If you think the agnostic label is important, consider when was the last time you heard a Christian label themselves an agnostic Christian (believing but not knowing)?
Believe it or not, that's the title of a pretty good book I read decades ago:. "Christian Agnostics"
Erhman is indeed a great teacher (as are many teachers, true). But he seems to be an especially skilled one in delivering knowledge. ONE QUESTION:- If Christians were persecuted in some Mediterranean cities/regions because they were found to be refraining from propitiating local deities (thereby failing in civic duty), then was the similarly migrant minority community, the Jews, who were also fiercely monotheistic, also similarly prosecuted when they refused to propitiate the local pantheon? Are there records - either in Jewish history or in parallel other histories - of such persecution of Jews?
This man is a Christian ❤
Christian agnostic atheist… now that’s pretty honest
Yes, he is right.
48:06...🤷🏼♂who is "Bill Sailing (sic?)?"
Unbelief is belief just as much as not-collecting stamps is a hobby or insomnia is a kind of sleep.
@@joe_z I didn't know there was such a thing as "NonStampCollector". I loved it when physicist Jim Al-Khalili used "not stamp collecting" as a "non-hobby".
I mention insomnia vs sleep because in Esperanto the noun "sleep" is "dormo" while "insomnia" is "maldormo".
A christian atheist!! Love it. Being a christian does not make one "good" any more than being an atheist makes one "bad." Both "paths" are a personal choice, not a predestination. Neither are they determined by supernatural dictates, ordained by an eavesdropping "spirit" that listens-in to one's personal beliefs and thoughts in order to "see" whether they support, or deny "its" superstitious demands.
Religion, at its core, whether ancient or new, is based upon fear. Even our secular laws that demand "good" behavior from its citizens, are founded on the fear of judicial retribution for any deviance from them. Fear then, is all around us, seeping into everything we do -- or think!! Except, i suppose, for the christian atheist.
Such a one operates on a solid, "beatitudes" foundation, only doing so out of a sense of respect for decency and human integrity, rather than to fearfully gain some supernatural approval from above. Avoiding the dreaded, supernatural retribution that comes with violating one of the many amish-like, "ordnung" fabrications of an imaginary deity, is the cornerstone of christianity, and not of the self-determined, good behavior that the christian atheist exercises.
Doing "good" for goodness' sake, and not in order to cash-in on an "offered" 24 carat gold crown, is a bit of a higher order of humanitarianism: is one truly charitable if one only "gives" in order to receive a tax write-off? Would you build a "church" if there was no tax exemption for it?
As long as we "do" good behavior in order to remain on santa's "good list," we are motivated by fear (or selfish greed), and not by a good conscience. In truth, in such a case, "santa" has no real idea if we are "good" because we actually are "good sheep," or are "good" simply to gain favor, and hopefully avoid a "divine" throttling!! The religionist doesn't even know which it is!! That's the nature of fear-actuated behavior: it turns people into sheeple!!
In a nutshell, true freedom is unachievable if one's very life is watched 24 hours a day by a jealous, all-powerful, mind-reading spirit-god who can both eternally reward, and eternally torture those whom "he" watches. That is a fitting description of complete, emotional slavery. Slavery that controles everything we do, before we do it, for fear of running afoul of that all-powerful, eye-in-the-sky; the one we invented, you know!
The "christian atheist," on the other hand.......................
-😇
14:13 "The gods are angry with us because......that is why........."!!! Said by the Romans. Why does that sound familiar? Oh yes, I first heard that from christianity. Everytime judah/Judea the "choosen people of their god" lost their battles that right there was the reason and excuse.
Nero and the great fire in Rome. 1) There were no fiddles; if Nero made music he would have played a lyre. 2) Nero was not in Rome as the conflagration began. 3) Nero did not use Rome's treasury to begin repairs and to feed the homeless. 4) Nero had enemies aplenty; his enemies wrote the history. 5) Nero did commit deeds that were worthy of a monster. Maybe it all comes out in the wash.
i BELIEVE YOU ARE STARTING TO SEE BART'S LYING DECEITS.
Confusion: 312 and Constantine wins Rome. Diocletian and the great persecution: 303 to 313. They overlap? Enjoyed the talk. thx.
Battle of the Milvian Bridge was in 312. The Diocletian persecutions started in 303 with the emperor Diocletian’s order against the Christians and ended with the Edict of Milan which repealed it in 313 by Constantine who was then emperor.
@@elliottmcfadden6261 thx for the reply. THey do not overlap... ko!
He makes Nero sound like a bad guy
>>Nero became terrified, believing that God wanted the Second Temple to be destroyed, but that he would punish the one to carry it out. Nero said, "He desires to lay waste His House and to lay the blame on me," whereupon he fled and converted to Judaism to avoid such retribution. Vespasian was then dispatched to put down the rebellion.
He was, and a coward if you believe the jewish version.
Isn’t “It’s a mystery’ four words?
What percentage of Constantine's army was Christian?
Who knew Constantine was related to Akhenaten and that Lucky Larry is the reincarnation of Nero...
Wow!
He could’ve done a whole video, just on the last question alone..?!
I sure enjoyed Bart's talk but the questions afterward were bizarre.
Mystical Episcopalianism?
Can someone honestly tell me how many books does the bible contains, why are some books like Enoch the prophet of God removed, who removed it, why God could not stop them if the bible is the inspired word of God, was the book of Enoch not inspired by God, likewise the other books removed from the bible.
St Athanasius had a lot of influence on what books should be included in the Bible.
@@MSHOOD123 is the bible really word of God or word of men.
@@anthonyjohn9000 it is believed to be the word of men inspired by God through visions, dreams, and revelations.
@@MSHOOD123 "it is believed to be the word of men inspired by God through visions, dreams, and revelations."
Not by everybody. Some believe it is the inspired word of fantasists, mixed up with propaganda, justifications for rape, mass murder and slavery. With some added flavor of veiled threats and empty promises.
@@andreasplosky8516 Well the ones who read the bible in whole wouldn't think that. There is no justification for rape, murder, or propaganda etc.
He needs to read Timothy Barnes book on Constantine, it reconciles the vision accounts perfectly.
Another great lecture. I know one day you will carry on with you're great passion in the after life, because you will not realize that you are dead, and I will be there listening to you.😂😂😂
That turns alot of vmyths on their collective ears
And atheist, the faithful, religious, podcasters and such most dislike We indifferent (whom are the overwhelming majority)
Why does it matter if a majority believe the same view? Is their interpretation of God more true than, say, a group that has 80% as many as the majority, or 50% as many, or 10%? Where’s the cutoff point below which their truth isn’t as true as your truth?
Never tell anyone of ur good deeds. When u do u canott be rewarded. According to the scriptures
Bart is an atheist. Deal with it.
I don't understand how in reply to the last question Bart says he has seen demon possessions and has spoken in tongues but doesn't believe in the supernatural. Huh?
If you set your mind to fancies you can participate in all kinds of nonsense. It doesn't mean that it is supernatural. What's being "possessed by a demon" mean in reality? Somebody acting weird. What's "speaking in tongues" mean in reality? Somebody babbling nonsense.
My path to scepticism began when I attended a prayer/ retreat event with some of my church members that was very different from our typical Episcopalian church services.
Anyway, there was a calling up of the holy spirit and lots of people went nuts and ended up " slain by the spirit" speaking in tongues and falling on the floor. I stood around all these people on the floor, including my pastor! . My original thought was what's wrong with me that I don't experience this phenomenon ? Now I realize it was a form of group hysteria and not real except in these folks minds.
My dad grew up in Rome when Nero was the emperor of the Roman Empire and said Nero and the Christian’s had nothing to do with it. He said the fire was started by Apollon witches.
so did he identify the
Fiddler on the Roof ?
:D
This guy uses photos from like 1988 lol bro update your pic's
I wish he would have specifically covered is Paul was persecuting christians for being christian
Some facts. In 312, Constantine "converted to the Christian faith" and continued to hold the position of Pontifex Maximus, a position that allowed religious leadership, which had been held by all those who had been given the title of "Caesar", meaning leader of the Roman state and religion. - of course pagan -, a position held by all Caesars, including those before Christ. Later on, shortly after the Passover of 337 (April 3), Constantine began to feel ill; he was baptized by the Aryan bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia and after his baptism he wore only white robes like those of a Christian neophyte instead of imperial robes. So, we do not know what means conversion to the Christian faith in 312. The real conversion is taking place with his baptism in 337. The argument with the Book of Hebrews from the New Testament is not valid due to the fact that at that time of Constantine the New Testament did not exist. The New Testament, with 27 books, was agreed 50 years later after death of Constantine.
The 27 Book (said length doubtlessly agreed upon by the Romish Church's collective head, therefore insidiously bias) "New" Testament only being produced 50 YEARS AFTER Constantine's death? My mind is spinning with this data. Thanks.
@@narayansivajiramos5763 I would not say New Testament was produced. Instead, the final collection of 27 books was first mentioned in the year 367, in a letter of Athanasius of Alexandria. The New Testament did not exist before but separate books circulated among Christians. For instance in the first centuries circulated among Christians more than 40 gospels but only 4 were included in the New Testament (Mark, Mathew, Luc and John).
Like you say, the New Testament wasn't "produced" in 367, so isn't it possible that the content from the Book of Hebrews WAS in circulation as early as 312? My understanding is that the content that makes up the New Testament was all widely circulated among Christians well in advance of becoming the official New Testament.
@@alexbertucci5238 Yes, before the establishment of the Canon of the New Testament used to circulate many books. For instance there were more than 40 gospels out on which only 4 were included in the New Testament plus hundreds of other books. So, the question is next: if nobody knew how will look the Canon in the future how Constantin had selected the Book of Hebrews for inspiration and not other book as for instance the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Judas or any other book. The fact that he was baptized by an Aryan bishop (Eusebiu of Nicomidia) (Arianism was considered heresy at Council of Niceea organized at the request of Constantin in 325) shows that Constantine was not so familiar with Christian theology which was in continuous transformation.
@@VSP4591 So wait a second, you mean to tell me that Constantine, who was baptized by an Arian (not the misnomer Aryan, a peoples whose identity is still being debated), then chose to abolish Arianism?
Please elucidate further.
Being one with the Consciousness of God (living in God’s Consciousness, or in Reality) is not the same as being God. Why is that so hard to understand, We share in that Reality we are not that Reality. Jesus never claimed to be God. Unlike us he had full conscious awareness of his relationship to God and that is called Christ Consciousness, Whatever Ehrman is going through he should see a counselor in order to figure it out. He does not have to inflict his problem or his conflict on the rest of humanity..
HA "little red hats"
Constantine converted because he didn't want to be in the minority.
Actually the "a" in atheist means without. Without God.
so now do
Apoplectic !
:D
Erhman was joking.
The question of whether God (or gods) exists cannot be answered with either a "yes" or a "no." There is no proof that people can possibly dig up to give that question a definitive answer. This makes the seemingly perpetual argument between atheists and deists fruitless and/or pathetic (as used in the vernacular). From my pov, since the God argument CAN NOT be resolved, those who live in the two separate camps, the deists' and atheists', are but Sisyphus and his twin brother, each slaving away Eternity in a hopeless & pointless task. The only rational position is that of the agnostics, who avoid irrational argument by neither expecting there to be a God (and He cannot give proof absolute of His existence because that would end faith in God and turn it into knowledge of God's existence, and by His own rules, without faith there can be no salvation.) nor would the agnostic be disappointed by God's absence. Agnosticism is far from being "fence-sitting," it is the only rational position to hold in this hamster wheel of a "debate" so spurious that to even use that word disgraces it.
Please to excuse! I do tend to run on a bit. A useful trait within a university but usually a liability without.
(A very fine lecture, Professor! You never disappoint but you do inspire. As this screed does testify.)
Yep. The other problem I have with a "yes or no" answer is that a deity concept demands an awful lot from the three letter word "God".,a symbol of a concept of a being beyond all human conceptions. The word is a term of convenience.
Ehrman seems to be unaware of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The spiritual/ mystical practice in eastern Orthodoxy has always and still plays a central role .
Almighty ? Almighties ?
Depends kinda on what
your definition
of ALL
is.
:D
" I think we are the most amazing thing " this guy has never seen a dinosaur skeleton ?
i would agree, if it was only about the skeleton.
I could surely post this comment under another video, but can someone point out, and I'm generalizing, why do the Jewish religion not recognize the first comming of Jesus as the true event, and that they are actually still waiting for the real comming of The Messiah.
Asking the question this way you do imply the answer you're ready to accept. It's like: "when you'll stop beat your wife"? This way you block yourself from any meaningful conversation and posibility to understand an answer given to you.
Jews do recognise historicity of Jesus (at least those who accept it existed). They see him as a another false prophet, either an imposter and fraud or just mental unstable and guy rightfully executed according to the law. Neither first, nor last.
Check out rabbi tovia singer. He does a good job explaining these things.
jesus didn't do any of the things a messiah is supposed to do (defeat and conquer/destroy the jews' enemies)
Good question Jacques. Walker answered by referring you to Rabbi Tovia Singer. I would like to also suggest Rabbi Michael Skobac.
Those Orthodox Rabbis are the authority, and nothing Dr. Erhman says detracts from their legitimacy.
Because before Jesus death, he continuously preached that the prophecy of the Messiah would be fulfilled with him. It wasn't, so then there had to be a second coming.
46:40: BUT DO YOU HAVE A FUCKING QUESTION, LADY?
It is surely with sadness, and another name to add to my Prayer List, I have listened to this interesting recital of that history given by this dear man. Because I was aware of the history he presented, I found his Q & A the most interesting, mainly in his answers, Bart Ehrman uncovers himself and I learn so much more about the MAN! I find his neglect of the amazing amount of knowledge which still remains a pity, as for me, a knowledge of MY LORD AND SAVIOUR, Jesus Christ, Whom I know mostly as Yahushua Messiah because of His Jewish roots, which must have been within either due to His growth in Miriam's womb, or His living for 33 ½ literal years in and around Jerusalem, with occasional further wanderings. I am tempted to elaborate on THAT, but I will not.
It is obvious to me, and I would love to sit with brother Bart and speak as personally with him as he will allow, because I have been there! I left my Messiah for personal reasons, and yet NEVER gave it a thought there COULD NOT BE THE FATHER AND HIS SON, basically working together as the Prime Movers of the Universe, which I am certain is composed of many worlds all living and selflessly loving in sinless perfection, and after the sin problem on Earth is FULLY taken care of, I believe there will be worlds aplenty added to the numbers of worlds which do exist presently in the Universe of Yahuwah Elohim, Father and Son. Although I was fully aware of the present universal scheme of things as per the BIBLE - The Sacred Scriptures - having lived as a preacher now for 47 years, I was so deeply depressed and unsure of all else after a divorce, and loss of the presence of the two children I loved more than any others who are all close to me, I picked up that bottle, having had a long history of this nuisance many have trouble with, and it helped me to live a freer life, but not to forget, and often interact with My Father in the Name of Jesus, asking for help, but being far too weak to change from a period of nearly 3½ years of carnality, returning again to living as a Christian zealot, with a very broad band of selfless love for all of humanity, in full understanding we have been given free will as human beings, and often even falling back into sin again, creates the more steadied, and the more loving Christian, because one realizes far more about the TRULY LOVING NATURE of he Deity. I was restricted by my own thoughts of what will my possibly come about from FORMER brothers and sisters, if I as a formerly very spiritually active Christian man, this possibly having been the reason for the marital break-up in the first place!
And I would personally suspect there is a little to a lot of that in this dear man's mind, and when the time is right, for I understand he sees the signs of the times, and that we are very close to the start of the 7 Plagues of the Book of Revelation, after which will come the thief in the night experience to unbelievers, or to those who KNOW Who Christ surely is, and yet, these no longer have the Spirit, i.e. the "mind of Christ" indwelling them any longer, as the old self has come alive again, and as it were runs the whole ship again, as before the knowledge of there being such amazing Parental Ownership of this world, although under the power of the detractor who has pushed selfishness as the solution to his former problems beginning in Heaven, yes, in the very Throne Room in that amazing Palace, with satan then leaving the Father's side, with one-third of the angelic realm formerly abiding there, in charge of aiding the worlds in Heavenly ways through communication and the like. I am thankful brother Bart is still living, and after this night, I shall be as I am now doing, praying for the man to come back to the cross, and put the cross together with baptism by immersion, to see that both these speak of the death of the self, and the resurrection and ascension, tell us of the Plan made before the foundations of the earth were made (See Ephesians 1: 4, KJV), the Everlasting Gospel, which I can provide evidence of the fact, even a long slide away from the Saviour's ownership of the mind, body and soul of the former believer, is a sin that Christ too has taken upon His own Precious Head, and roll it over upon Satan's head (See Leviticus 16: 21, 22, KJV), even as the Day of Atonement shows the students of Scripture who are walking with the mind of Christ in constant interaction with them, so that eventually the REASON FOR ALL SIN, the devil, shall have all of the sins rolled over from Christ's head to Satan's eternally! That devil is not our Saviour, but Christ could only have life having died AS US ALL, who will live eternally in Heaven for 1000 literal years in the City New Jerusalem, and thereafter, live on THE EARTH MADE NEW, after the destruction of the Wicked, spoken of in the words of Revelation 20: 5 - 9, KJV, the old world will be purified by that same fire that comes down upon the earth to consume all the Wicked, both angels and humans, and forever, even forever and ever, we shall live on the Earth Made New, and the angels and humans shall be called the Children of GOD, into eternity, even as is spoken about in Isaiah 66: 22, 23, KJV, all shall be as it was, and all shall live in selfless agapé, ETERNALLY! How blessed we are, to have given ourselves freely unto the Saviour, for such an increased - surely - LIFE, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON, HALLELUYAH, AWMAYNE!
You could start by presenting a single shred, just ONE example, of positive, verifiable evidence that ANY god (let alone your version of your interpretation of your god) exists at all.
Well?
@Dr. Ehrman... I suggest you read CAREFULLY this book...
Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years --by Philip Jenkins
I am so downloading that book, sounds like a good 👍 recommendation 😀
@@MSHOOD123 It is most excellent ... very informative and a big eye opener.... you will not regret reading it... it is a very valuable education.... I wish Dr. Ehrman would have read it before he wrote his book.... clearly he did not.
@@suelingsusu1339 downloaded it already 😃 even the content sounds exciting, and an eye opener as you say. Thanks for the recommendation.
@@MSHOOD123 .... once you have read it ... PLEASE.... come back here and tell me what you think of it.
@@suelingsusu1339 OK 🙂 God bless you 🙏🏻
....ok TaterHead, lets see whatcha got this time.
Constantine's Army of Empire was short on soldiers, even mercenaries. He knew that Christians took care of the sick and wounded. He knew Christians did it like bunnies, who would grow up to be soldiers. He knew Christians had faith and would fight to the death for their beliefs.
So Constantine legalized Christianity and fused the floundering mighty pagan Roman Empire with the burgeoning Church. The Church sensing its opportunity for power, shed the traditional presbyterian apostolic Church and consciously adopted the imperial autocratic hierarchical structure of the Roman Empire that persists to this very day.
an unholy marriage.
Ray's newest master theory is that way back, since the days of Copernicus, Galileo and early scientists like Darwin, the Catholic Church finally realized *THE TRUTH* -- evolution (and it's mechanism of mutation and natural selection)! So, it was finally cornered, *the gig was up!* Their dusty old foundational tomes (e.g. Genesis) were expressly wrong.
They *KNEW THEN* that *there really is no God.*
But because they were accustomed to power, control, riches, fancy digs (above all, POWER), etc., they then arrogantly held on to the bold front, the canard (with their best showman's "shtick"), that there _was_ indeed a transcendent interactive god!
The Catholic Church knows their is no final retribution in the great beyond for their actions. Because there is no great beyond.
*This then explains a LOT!* (Catholic Church global sexual abuse crisis, Vatican financial scandals, misogyny and exclusion of women from clerisy, homosexuality of Curia and ecclesia despite policy, murder of indigenous children, nun on nun viciousness, etc.).
Simple to see.
the major problem with the Christian triune God(s) is that the biblical God Himself never say WE ARE but always say I AM . Jesus been begotten He never been the eternal son of God but became the son of the eternal God, before is existence Jesus was I AM not the Son: Exodus3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. And Jesus said: 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I AM” 59At this, the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him. (Jesus was saying I AM the Father in flesh)
So Jesus is the incarnation in flesh of the invisible God I AM .
Well, to each their own theistic fantasies.
Another nasty El in a long string O'deities...
Jesus did not mean that ONLY he was God. Jesus asked "are we not all gods? as David says in the Psalms" We are all gods made flesh. That is blasphemy, so they crucified him.
My short version of it.
@@bjharvey3021 Only one God the Father and Jesus is this one God in flesh . We are Elohim BECAUSE we are is spiritual sons (Ben Elohim) but Jesus was THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON being God in flesh. Being born again made un children of God (Ben Elohim) but not the most high Himself but IS SPIRITUAL SONS by faith ( as Abraham)
@Michel Haineault You can always make up good explanations for that. That is what theology is all about isn't it? Just making up shit as you go along.
A triune god would perhaps most likely speak of himself as an "I". He can either underline the "tri", or the "une" in triune. It does not really matter.
And most likely the human writings would just be an approximation of what that abominable fantasy god said. He didn't literally dictate all that nonsense, did he now?
45:14...Professing themslves to be Wise: "...the current thinking is in fact something can come out of nothing..um ...which makes no sense to me...."
...wow?...so that's what is currently called ..."Thinking"?...
Hey Dr. Ehrman.... have you seen the amazing paintings of Sofia Montenegro De Viraci.... no... ah well that was because of Christianity's stifling misogyny throughout the history of Europe and she was extirpated as a witch... and humanity lost her would be amazing contributions to Art.
Seriously are you copy pasting this comment of yours on all the videos from this lectures?
I know, I have seen her spam non stop on all three lectures.
The emperor Constantine, is referred to by Catholics as "Constantine the Great," because he made Catholicism by law the only religious belief allowed in the Roman Empire. You can bet that the Jews in that era, and the Protestants that came later, didn't think that Constantine was at all "great." Religion is very divisive ... and what divides, cannot unite.
WHERE DID THE INTELLIGENCE COME FROM IN YOUR BIG BANG THEORY? a HIGHER POWER.
I find the position on Constantine having converted to Christianity in 312 or long before his death to be very speculative. For one, the accounts of Esebius and Lactantius appear to be written for children. This hard core Constantine guy who had his son and wife killed felt that a cross made him win a battle. Laughable argument. It is pretty obvious that Constantine thought that Christianity had great potential in the context of exercising power on the empire. But did he believe in Jesus himself, doubtful. Did he believe as a pagan converted to Christianity in that time would ? Highly unlikely because of his upbringing and focus on power not on making sense of the after life or moral issues. He liked the idea of a single god, bearing in mind that many emperors had been elevated to the rank of gods after their death lowered the value of god. He liked the promises made by Christianity. He liked the appeal it had to people in the empire. He liked the growth of the structure of the church. If he had a vision it was not seeing a cross but seeing the potential for power coming from that new religion. Constantine's conception of religion by his upbringing made him a stranger to Christianity. It is more likely that Constantine converted at the end of his life, not because of the baptism, not because of the faith he had, not even because of the promise of heaven (I would bet he thought that was laughable), but for the future generations. By converting to a religion that he believed had the potential to become a great power in itself, he tied his house to that religion. It was a power play. He was a true Roman Emperor after all. He was not wrong since his successors did use Christianity as a power structure. So why did Constantine not do it himself ? He did not do it himself in part because he did not believe in Jesus, in part because he thought he might fail. Ave Valerius Constantius. Of course this is all speculative but to me it makes more sense than confusing Sol Invictus with Jesus and loving Jesus.
jOSEPH WAS IMMANUEL'S FATHER. hOW ABOUT CONSTANTINE STARTING CHRISTIANITY. CONSTANTINE STARTED THE OFFICE OF BISHOP.
Ḧ̤Ö̤R̤̈R̤̈Ï̤B̤̈L̤̈Ë̤ L̤̈Ë̤C̤̈T̤̈Ṳ̈R̤̈Ë̤!!
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW.
He says he tries to follow JC's moral teachings...
"Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until the kingdom of God is established..."
Well then, JC'S morality is/was tbe law of the Torah.
So...do we kill adulterers, homosexuals, old men who gather sticks on the Sabbath etc?
Or do we ignore JC's endorsement of the law?
You can't say JC is moral in any acceptable modern sense, if you listen to what he was teaching. You only achieve a moral JC if you selectively ignore his complete teachings, and cherry pick a few nice things he said. And it's a stretch to claim we know which JC quotes are legit anyway. Who knows? We might be appalled by the barbarous nature of the historical JC'S actual morality.
Given that... Why not just take credit for your own personal morality, and leave out references to JC altogether? After all, it's YOU who are making up the JC you imagine being like this or that anyway.
The reasoning used by the Church in building up the doctrine of the triune God is simplistic, they just took care of their needs, irrespective of what reality is. In other words it's just a CONVENTIONAL (I.e. false) doctrine, this is why in the creed you agree only with ("He was crucified"). It's good time to get rid of that hyper nonsensical doctrine. Yes, in Nicea they were right, Jesus is God, but why?
It is normally accepted that God knows the WHOLE future and is here interacting with us. You should distinguish between "possible futures" (that God could maybe modify) and "THE ONE actual future" (including the modifications by God) that will ACTUALLY take place. Thus, God is supposed to perfectly know that One future which will ACTUALLY come true. Once again, that actual future is ALREADY AMENDED in accordance with the God's wishes. But this implies a SEPARATION of God from the world and mankind:
God would simply BOREDLY STARE at what happens in the world, doing NOTHING MORE than staring at that well-known film which simply regularly UNFOLDS. God had really NOTHING to do because even the God's voice is ALREADY RECORDED on that film: his power will AUTOMATICALLY do what needed. This means that BEFORE there MUST have been a "first phase" in which God WAS FREE to make all his decisions, where God examined "possible futures" but did NOT know the WHOLE future. Indeed (1) KNOWING the ACTUAL future and (2) being FREE TO DECIDE are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, God can have either one, but not the two of them AT THE SAME TIME for logical reasons: if God "reserved the right" to change the future whenever He likes (see (2)), this would mean He doesn't really know what will happen in the future and this is not serious. But it's not the case: when all his decisions are made - end of the first phase - God knows exactly the whole future and the item is concluded for good. God is almighty, He cannot afford future uncertainties.
Since God is ONLY FREE TO DECIDE WHEN HE IS IN THE FIRST PHASE, this means that we have a relationship with Him when He is in that first phase! But this means we have a relationship with God WHO IS IN THE PAST, in a very distant past, the mankind was not born yet ("the world has not known you") ("no one ever saw God"). But from that past God is able to REACH US HERE NOW with his words and actions. Since there is NO ONE HERE to speak those words, you can say that the God's presence here corresponds to the presence of a SPIRIT ("God is a spirit"): He is the SPIRIT OF GOD. From what set out above, the conclusion of the God's work in that remote past - i.e. the end of the first phase - would coincide with His SEPARATION from us, because the future known to Him would simply automatically come true, UNFOLDING without any further God's intervention. Instead there is no real separation because, - at the conclusion of that work - God got rid of his power to become like a normal person, without any power: the Son of God. Thus, "Son" only means that Jesus DERIVES from God, He is no "normal Son". Therefore Jesus INHERITS the reign of God, EVERYTHING "The Father loves the Son and has given ALL THINGS into His hand.". Jesus - who is a man now - is DIFFERENT from the Father since He has now no power at all “ I from myself am not able to do a thing”. However, He is NOT DISTINCT from the Father either, since He DERIVES from Him "He who has seen me has seen the Father.". Thus, for Father + Son you cannot use the pronoun "He", you cannot use the pronoun "They" either. You can say that God is more than One and less than Two in number.
All three lectures and nothing about the Jewish scriptures inspiring Christianity wow
Inspiring? Strange word for one deliberate con being copied by another.
51:25 ...How Jesus Became God?...Prof. Ehrman has a very interesting theorem of Jesus growing divinity, based on the content and dating of the various Gospels (i.e. the earliest Gospel of Mark, is also the less expensive of Jesus's deity...Matthew and Luke gradually more so..and reaching a near trinitarian form with John's gospel).
...Ironically enough the lethal Achilles heel in Ehrman's argument ...he himself verbal stumbles into right here (51:25)....as the Apostle Paul said Christ "created all things" and decades before any of those Gospels were even written...(Col 1:15-16) ...the fact is, it is actually the earliest christian material that speaks of Jesus in the highest of divine christologies - but significantly Paul is speaking candidly to other Christians...and in none of his recorded sermons to unbelievers, either Jew or Gentile in Acts is Paul so theologically bold.
...Decades later Gospel of Mark mutes that earlier Pauline "high christology" in his first biography of Jesus...most likely simply for audience credibility...then as now... Christ's Deity would have been a hard doctrine, for the uninitiated to accept....so why spring it on them in the very beginning?...(Mark's omission of the Virgin Birth can also be explained using the same logic)...
Only decades later when the peculiarities of christian dogma were more commonly and publicly known, could the full open expression of Jesus's Godhood be expected in written materials meant to proselytize...and we are told evangelization is specifically why the Gospels (or Gk. "Evangelion") are said to be written in the first place (John 20:30-31)...
He doesn't stumble into it he's talking about the gospel of John (end of 1st century). Colossians is agreed by scholars to not have actually been written by Paul (for various complicated reasons you can look up). That entire passage in Colossians matches pretty well with John 1 and not at all with the other gospels' idea of Christ. What is your evidence that they withheld that theological stuff for generations but actually privately believed it? Is it Colossians? Because as I said, it's pseudepigraphic.
@@KumoCC ....First of all rejection of Pauline authorship of Colossians is anything but "agreed by scholars"... in truth it is only the 7 letters are "undisputed"(...please don't make me embarrass you by proving this)
....on the other hand you do make a good point...I do wonder if one of the "complicated reasons" for rejecting the Letter, by liberal scholars is its high christology?...but its irrelevant either way because preexistent Phillipian Christology is nearly as high as that of Colossae (Phil 2:5-9)...and its undisputed...
@@anarchorepublican5954 Ehrman addresses Phillipians in the second lecture
@@KumoCC ...thanks...I imagine it gets very "complicated"...particularly since interpolation or pseudographa...convenient as they are .. can't always be credibly claimed...of course, no one ever accused Prof. Ehrman of doing history consistently...
I think Mr Ehrman protests too much.
Why don't we just say that Constantine had embraced Christianity after the battle...end of story...period.
jESUS IS A PAGAN SUN DEITY NAME, CONSTANTINE STARTED THE OFFICE OF BISHOP THEY WERE ALL PAGANS.
CHRIST IS A SUN DEITY NAME ALSO AND MEANS GOOD NOT ANOINTED AND IS NOT GREEK FOR MESSIAH.
They burned pagan books too. The Roman Empire during Constantine engulfed the whole of humanity. Bart, you are showing your twisted ignorance again.
You don't understand how Yahweh is one. Father, Son, and Spirit are offices of Yahweh, self same Spirit is what Yahweh is.
Sorry Bart - but you're dead wrong when you say Atheism is a belief - it most certainly is not - it actually means: "I have no belief in any religion or dogma" Next time get it right! Also, when you say: "I don't know if there is a god or supreme being" you have put yourself in the wishy-washy camp of "Maybe" when in truth, if there is NO evidence for something then the facts speak for themselves... no proof - no god!
Atheism is the belief that there are no deities .
what makes Ehrman to watch is his laughing. What he laughs at isn't really all that funny.
Oops left out "hard" hard to watch.
Nah it is funny
This guy is off, scripture and historical information depicts of persecution of the early church. Nero was the worst?
This Christian atheist studies Christianity away from Christ. Without Christ the Christianity is but a corpse. So he looks and smells and, of course, he sees decay and smells repulsion. Frankly I don't know what was the reason for this deliverance, not much historical revelations above well-known. Maybe his genuine irritation with Christian faith needed a vent. The pagan audience welcomed it. All went well.
That's right. The Christ of the bible is a fairytale. Christianity stinks because of its history. The first Christians would think today's Christians are crazy.
@@bartbannister394 you have all right to reject Christ. But rejection is just another form of acception. There is no A-christians in this sense. Don't exist, impossible. He's got everyone. Not bad for a fairytale
TRINITY is not a MYSTERY
Is ONE GOD and THREE "PERSONAS" in Greek "PERSONA" means literally "MASK"
One ACTOR puts on the COMEDY MASK plays COMEDY
Same ACTOR/same puts on the TRAGEDY MASK plays TRAGEDY
TRINITY is UNITY in DIVERSITY and DIVERSITY in UNITY
BULLSHIT!
Basically, a god with a personality disorder.
This man is so confused…
Only about 12 minutes on Constantine, and nothing insightful.
Where does it say that in the book of Hebrews ? Bart is so full of crap