Jesus and the Historian
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2015
- Bart D. Ehrman presented "Jesus and the Historian" at the Anita Tuvin Schlechter Auditorium, 7 p.m., Tuesday, February 25, 2014. Biblical scholars have long recognized the discrepancies between the four New Testament Gospels and the difficulties that result in determining who Jesus really was. Can these four Gospels be relied upon to give us an accurate account of Jesus’s words and deeds? Bart brings to bear his analysis and lengthy scholarship to answer this question.
This event was sponsored as a joint venture of St. John’s Episcopal Church, on the Square, Carlisle and the Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/?p=8751
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman and The Clarke Forum. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman and The Clarke Forum is strictly prohibited.
With Bart’s notoriety on CZcams, he must be buying lots of dinners as a result of the pop quiz.
I have two undergraduate degrees and an MBA. I don't believe I was fortunate enough to have even ONE Professor as captivating as this man is. Great speaker.
The word of God is foolishness to those who are blind. He is talking nonsense and trying to make a difference.
Two witness can not explaining this in the same way. My daughter dying and my daughter is dead, doesn't matter. What is matter is the massage of dead woman come alive.
Godwin's ableism is quite disturbing.
@@Christheking5050 Jesus said I am son of Man and son was figurative like with Adam and David. Jesus is human. bible changed the message, trinity was added mathew 27,17 says there was 2 Jesus and one got away and luke 3,22 says Jesus was adapted by the dove at baptism as an adult in the original reading, so called holy spirit in angel JIbril, trinity is a pagan concoction! The truth about the Quran that the bible changed the message and that Islam si the religion of JEsus hidden by bible leaders is true child, revert to Islam the religion of Jesus!
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543
Wow, you know just enough to think you may be onto something. But not enough to realize how irrelevant your claim is. Dangerous. Especially if a fuller knowledge is in your future, and you prefer not to display your ignorance.
I see two potential future paths your story could go, regarding your claim.
1. You learn more about what you have mentioned here and feel regret, shame, guilt, and/or a prideful embarassment for having stated something so wrong with confidence.
2. You take my claims for granted, continue in your state of ignorance, feeding your cognitive dissonance, and die having lived a lie.
(Ignorance is bliss. For now)
Best wishes. Find the Messiah, savior of the world, who has the keys to the grave and who is life.
"The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
"My kingdom is not of this world...."
-the eternal Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, the uncreated leader of the heavenly messengers from God, Michael, Son of the living God
@@Christheking5050 ///// It is the bible that is nonsense. The two records of Jesus birth cannot both be correct. Conversation on the cross? Crucifixion was designed to be as painful as possible. The pain would blank out your ability to think, let alone converse.
I've listened to Bart Ehrman lecture so many times I feel like I can recite word for word what he's about to say. Professor Ehrman please upload more talks , there must be something interesting happening, something new that was discovered that you can talk about explain to us what's new what's exciting on with your field of studies.
I'm also watching this in 2019
There's another atheist worth listening to.
From a historical point of view Bart Ehrman is excellent.
From a logical/philosophical point of view Matt Dillahunty is also excellent.
I recommended you Prof's blog. Its full of great stories
He has a blog and produces constantly. And many other books.
His website shows how tou can get weekly content. Its inexpensive and 100% of the funds go to charity.
@@vejeke Not at all close to the same level of value. And you may misunderstand what is being said if you put them in the same boat. IMO
Scary that believers have such difficulty with Bart. He's so willing to share his deep analytical discoveries from the Bible. Seems many don't want investigation or a deeply educated perspective. Hmm...
You're absolutely right. I'm speaking as a former Christian, now agnostic, his knowledge is a threat to the faith of a fundamentalist
Steven Bishop - the worst part is the Ehrman goes out of the way not to discredit religion but just respect it and analyze it historically. Even the truth bothers them.
Kenneth Leak
Only time I've heard him hint at a possibly incorrect worship practice was in reference to Appalachian snake handlers.
Yeah, poor souls dont know that part was added later! But then again they are fundamentalists so they get little mercy....
Indeed, a touch more compassion over acceptance.
I love Bart D. Ehrman. Especially when he tells his jokes and giggles at his own jokes. LOL. So adorable. But I do love the information he gives too.
That's nice dear. But for the record...nice, sensible arguments with evidence backing them change my mind, not threats with nothing to back them. But nice try.
The reply seems to have been deleted, but I can just imagine. Good retort to a no-fun damentalist.
How often did the cock crow after Peter's denial?
One may read the Bible with reason, preferably even with a critical one. The questions that then arise are worth investigating, as a small detail in Peter's life shows.
When Jesus was arrested, his disciple Peter denied him several times. He wanted to pull his own head out of the noose. Jesus had promised him this "on his head". The exact wording is handed down differently. After the report of Matthew and similarly also the two evangelists Luke and John Jesus said to Peter: "Amen, I tell you: That night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."[1]
Matthew tells of the fulfillment of this prediction: "Immediately afterwards a cock crowed, and Peter remembered what Jesus had said: "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. And he went out and wept bitterly."[2]
The mind may stumble, ...
According to the gospel of Mark, however, Jesus announces: "Even tonight, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times"[3] And of the fulfillment he writes: "Then he [Peter] went out into the forecourt."[4] A few verses later it says: "Immediately afterwards the cock crows for the second time.
Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter denied Jesus? Mark's statements seem to contradict the three other evangelists. This problem is not as insoluble as it may seem. Mark may only have reported in more detail.
... but he is raised up again
This is very easy to understand, because according to an early Christian tradition Mark wrote his gospel under the influence of Simon Peter. He was his main source. So it is understandable if he adds further details to the story, because he himself was the main character. So those other three evangelists report more summarily about this event, while Mark gives the exact number of cock cries and the exact process of that denial.
So all four gospels report that Jesus predicted his denial by Peter. Mark merely tells us a few more details. So the Bible can certainly be read with a critical mind. It tolerates that.
Don't believe everything Bart puts in words!
Profound statement from 50:34-51:30: when we smash the accounts of four authors together, to get "the seven last words of Jesus" we DESTROY THE INTEGRITY of all four authors. Each gospel writer has his own point, and we miss it ENTIRELY when we do do "chronological" gospels...wow
6:06 to get past the same intro he does every speech, haha
Chad Thundercock - thanks! Haha, Bart needs a new intro
Chad Thundercock, I’m at 12:00 min and am waiting for the intro to be over😜
I love this intro :)
Mr. Eugene Abernathy he does repeat it but I always enjoy it....oddly enough somehow I still do.
Thanks lol
I'm such a fan of Bart that I've heard his gags about 'Joseph and Mary Christ' and the NT being written in English a dozen times. I still like hearing them though!😁
Smooth/// Have you heard his story about Jesus confronting the woman caught in adultery? After he uttered the statement "He who is without sin cast the first stone", a rock came flying thru the air and bonked the woman in the head. Jesus turned and said, "Mother, sometimes you really irritate me"
So many people who think their feelings and church pamphlets hold more authority than a man who learned how to read ancient Greek so he could better understand the bible.
ISA didnt come from GREECE !
Nosox Rubyrox. You are exactly right! It cracks me up how every slow thinker now has the internet and thinks their personal opinion that they took 3 seconds to post stacks up against years of research! I have this issue with another few subjects that I dove deeply into and I get arguments from people who clearly fell behind in 5th grade...they are not abstract thinkers, do not understand logical fallacies, and even after seeing proofs they always revert back to their prior beliefs formed from some ad populum opinions. ugh. I no longer ever share proofs. They don’t read them anyway. They can’t.
Bart, I have learned so much from you. You have really opened the eyes of so many people. I thank you for all the hard work, dedication, and sacrifice. Yes, I said sacrifice. I have found that when you take a stand against the evangelical christian community, they will come after you. They will try to destroy you, discredit you with scandal, they will try to make your life unpleasant. Perhaps that sounds paranoid, but I have experienced that in my own life. They do this because they know how untenable their beliefs are. There is no, I repeat no defense for the christian faith. Jesus of nazareth was nothing more than a charismatic young religious leader from 1st century palestine, who developed a following, said the wrong things to the wrong people, and got himself crucified. He's crucified,dead and gone; never to return again. Slowly but surely this reality is starting to sink in with the general public. You my dear brother Bart, you are on the front lines, exposing the fact that the bible is a very flawed and historically unreliable. You are helping to show that the christian faith is nothing more than just another religion dreamed up by people. Because of this you have enemies who want to see you destroyed. I, like you, an agnostic. I like what spinoza said about god, and here I quote, he said"god was the sum total of natural and physical laws in the universe, and certainly not an individual entity or creator" close quote. I'm not saying that is the truth, perhaps there is no god, perhaps there is, but one thing I do know, know better than I know my name, and that is that all religion is nothing more than a bunch of dreamed up, man made nonsense. So in closing my brother, I want to thank you for all you do. Thomas
Surely this must be one of Bart Ehrman's best speeches.
I've seen a lot of them and tend to agree. He was on fire here.
Speak for yourself. I find it very offensive to Quija Board enthusiasts.
Really enjoyed this. Great point about horizontal reading to find discrepancies. And about reading the gospels separately to understand each author's different POV.
One of the most brilliant minds on the New Testament
He thinks the Bible is evidence 😂
@@b4tm4n42 you are 100% correct my friend
I'm always happy to see one of your videos pop up in my subscriptions! Thanks for uploading, Dr. Ehrman!
I learn something every time you make a clip ....
This lecture is your most persuasive and condensed, yet encompassing, delivery that I've seen yet. I'll definitely be sharing this one my Facebook page.
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman!
TheSocialGadfly
Always reject any anti-Biblical information.Doubt about the infallible Bible always finds its moorings in Hell.
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2Pe 2:1)
Receive Christ and follow Him.Better to be on the ark.Outside the ark...not good.:-)
trac4yt2
Ah, yes. How could I forget the pseudepigraphical 2 Peter? I'm amazed that Peter was able to write his second epistle despite being both illiterate and dead at the time that the letter was authored. But I digress.
You failed to articulate exactly why anyone should accept any passage from the canonized Bible as being authoritative - especially that of 2 Peter. What's to stop me from citing other religious works or even non-canonized works to counter the verse which you cited? Humans have created the concepts of other gods. They have created religions. And they've created doctrines, both oral and written, for those gods and religions. I doubt that you would dispute these claims. So with that in mind, what makes you think that your god, religion, and doctrine are any different?
Secondly, you utterly failed to connect the verse from 2 Peter to Dr. Ehrman's work. What's to stop me from citing 2 Peter in an attempt to rebut your claims? What if you're the false prophet? What if you, in your opposition to Dr. Ehrman, are the one who is teaching heresy?
I appreciate what you're trying to do. You maintain the belief that those who don't believe in Yeshua will suffer eternal torment, and you're trying to save my soul. To not make such an effort on your part would be callous and immoral. So thank you. But you have a lot to learn about your own doctrine, and you really need to think through all of this.
Take care. The Dude abides.
trac4yt2 Infallible. Its internally contradictory. And wrong. Do you have any reason to believe that the bible is the word of god or for that matter that god exists? NO? No, I didn't think so.
hey Jacob, Erhman isn't making up the contradictions and discrepancies. Is a textual deconstruction. Live with it.
Can you articulate the best one? And the way in which it damages the faith? What do you think deconstruction means or suggests in the context of scholarship of the NT?
@@Jamie-Russell-CME The basis for the Christian faith is the Gospels and Epistles being reliable and true accounts of Jesus's life and nature right? So any evidence of the books being unreliable accounts casts doubt on the more fantastical claims being true yes? Luke's census couldn't have happened when he said it does and we have zero evidence of people living in Bethlehem at the time of Herod. So that's an important historical inaccuracy. The internal contradictions Erhman mentions place doubt on the reliability of the Gospel authors as narrators. In the broader world of NT scholarship it can lead to interesting questions of who wrote what first or which text has primacy.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME the best one being jesus never claims to be God!
I like your talks, ideas and motivation. Keep up the good work!!
I have been a long time fan of Bart's for his being so objective , factual and unbiased . His answer to the last question is superb and justifies in my thinking my leaning towards the views of Arius as against the Nicene Trinity . I wonder whether Paul's views were relied upon by Arius .
1000 years ago, my family was stretched across 3 continents and the island that is now the state of Hawaii. I have no idea what I'd do if I had to go to the home of my ancestors.
+EmileeArsenic Yeah. It makes no sense.
+EmileeArsenic _I have no idea what I'd do if I had to go to the home of my ancestors._
It's obviously patrilineal.
Yeah like we all know our patrilineal ancestry 1000 years ago?!?!?!
ianrwood21 I'm not saying we do. My point is that the story meant to go to Joseph's *patrilineal* homeland, not the homeland of *every* ancestor.
Of course, illiterate peasants knew their 38th great-grandparent just as much as I do, but that *was* the *meaning* of the story.
RonJohn63 Yeah, my dad is half black and American, so finding back 200 years ago on his dad's side is impossible as there are no records, never mind 5 times that... We don't even know what region of Africa that part of the family is descended from, never mind what land they would've been from.
If nothing in the gospels can be relied upon historical certainty, then how do we know the entire thing isn't simply fiction , for admittedly theological purposes? How do we know anything in it, including the central character represents reality?
A year late and a dollar short, but if you're still reading comments, Bart talks about this in other lectures. He does argue against the thought that Jesus was a made-up character. He believes that Jesus lived in history, and takes Josephus and other old world writings as truth that a man named Josua ben Joseph did live and was a Jewish prophet...likely an end of times prophet who was born, had a ministry, and was crucified. There are too many mentions of him in the historical record to discount his actual historical life. The rest of it...in historical terms, you can guess what things are more or less true. What passages are in at least three of the four gospels? Those are likely things that Jesus said. If you have two different tellings of the same story, look for the telling that seems to go against what you would think of as a 'pro-Jesus' manuscript. Those who want to portray Jesus as a godlike figure, or a savior would not put things in that go against that, because why should they? But there are many passages in the bible where Jesus does things that aren't 'good'. Like cursing the fig tree. And equating the gentile woman who wanted his help with a dog. So those things likely are true.
We don't so relax and enjoy your life without all this. Why add another dimension when your gut tells you right from wrong?
How do you know that about anything? I have taught history for over twenty years. There is no such thing as 100% certainty. For a piece of antiquity the Bible scores pretty well. Errors, Contradictions? Absolutely. No one should ever claim that it is the literal word of God. That's the Koran's job. I wonder what Ehrman was expecting when he entered seminary college? If is faith is so easily shattered, I could have spared him the effort and saved him the regret of a life wasted, although in hindsight he is making more money now as the world's leading apostate then most of us could ever dream of. Good work if you can get it.
@@Vedioviswritingservice actually that's waaayy off. A lot of parts in the old testament are historically inaccurate(no evidence for the patriarchs, moses or the book of exodis etc
@@jaybirdjetwings7516 thats laughable. No evidence for exodus? Uh they found chariot wheels in the red sea where the Isrealites crossed on dry land and after pharohs army followed , God drowned them, the evidence is still in the red sea! Just as the Bible says happened.
Do you have a transcript for this? It is brilliant!
Read his books. Most can be found at libraries.
Yeah, just write down everything you hear.
About the discrepancies between the gospels my theology professor used to explain based on the way Jewish and Christian ppl write and read religious texts that actually the writers and the readers did not care about those details because it was not relevant for them. That is to say, whoever wrote the book of Mathew changed what he knew it was established as known narratives that would be already in circulation (most probably the book of mark and other narratives) and changed details of those narratives in a way to teach others theological implications about the narratives, and even though that is not considered OK for many of us now and for historians that was OK for them.
Some of the evidences that I remember him quoting was the use by the church and by the Jews of apocrypha, apocalyptic books that were known to not to be made by the named author (Abraham, Enoch, the latter even being cited in 2 Peter, and the Mosaic apocrypha at Judah) but were considered as material for introspection, devotional material or even for some as divine revelation, even though it did not enter the Jewish nor the Christian canon.
I think that is a reasonable possibility to answer why there are so many discrepancies, but today I think that is one of many reasons why I don't trust the accounts made by christians in the first place, because in my view they don't have the necessary credibility that I would like them to have in order to trust them.
Is there anywhere where we can see a horizontal bible reading? Such as 4 columns mathing up the various scriptures.
deanmat This looks somewhat old but seems to be quite good once you know how it works:
sites.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/
deanmat Yes, there is. It's called a "Harmony of the Gospels." Many study bibles and bible reference books will have it. For example, there is one near the end of the New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. As Ehrman pointed out, most people don't bother reading the NT this way, but they should because it makes for some very interesting reading and the reader begins to see the NT in a new light.
deanmat Search harmony of the gospels on google books and you'll find a ton of them from the 1800s and first decade of the 1900s.
+deanmat don't you grasp point easily
Hello Bart. Could you do a lecture on the gospel of barnabas
I've heard that intro for a million times before in other videos of yours and i alaways enjoy it
I keep telling people that the gospels contradict, but nooooo.....
***** Exactly.
BlackEpyon I've even suggested to fundamentalists christians that they undertake the horizontal reading exercize recommended by Ehrman. That way, they don't have to take my word for it, they can see the inconsistencies themselves. But I do that with little expectation that they will do it. They won't go out of their way to question their holy text.
CyeOutsider I think you are not allowing for humanity to write history.
Go on, read them horizontally if you want.
Wonder what the first 3 centuries of Christendom believed.
jamie Allen1977
Its got nothing to do with allowing humanity to write history.
If you want to claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god, or that its entirely consistent with itself, or that its perfect or whatever else, then you need to understand that biblical scholars, on the whole, don't agree with you.
There are inconsistences and contradictions that you need to address if you want to maintain those claims. You can't just pretend they don't exist.
CyeOutsider
I say only about the Bible is this : Within the pages can be found the Good Spell that leads to Eternal Life.
Otherwise, you will spend eternity in a state opposite of living.
The Gospels in the NT contradict and at some point even implausible. I have been a Christian for 25 years of my adult life now I see the light.
Maybe its not contradictions, maybe its just told from diffrent views and perspectives. Noone even tells a story or joke the same so does that actually prove contradictions?
Excellent lecture Bart I enjoy listening to you u actually opened my eyes because I’ve always felt that the Bible was so “wrong” confusing to read...I’ve probably listen to all your Lectures it’s like watching the movie Scarface you want to watch it over & over can’t get enough I’m an inspired When I listened to your lectures For the very first time I thought to myself this man is crazy. He’s going to hell ....LOL. I heard you say God didn’t exist I felt so alone that day ..& at night i couldn’t sleep ...the next day I kept listening to your lectures I’ve must have listen to them for hours & days at a time it makes so much sense to me now .......thank you much GOD bless you lol 🤣🤣😂 no really TY🙏🏼 bless you & you’re ✌🏼
Fascinating lecture
It finally occurs to me the conundrum(s) the mythicist and historical position present. Mythicists say: "If Jesus did all those miracles then why didn't non-Christian, historical sources say more about him?" Versus, the secular Historicist's position: Jesus didn't do all those miracles, which would explain why more non-Christian, historical sources are not available. One conundrum, whether or not Jesus existed, is how did Christianity survive? (We know how it survived: Constantine I.) If all of miracles did happen it might make sense. If they did not happen then all the mythologizing seems an untenable position for the survival of a mystery/cult religion. Second conundrum being a furtherance of the first: The lack of historical evidence for Jesus, whether or not it proves his existence, seems to prove he was merely an ordinary man not making much celebrity for himself. Without the miracles this makes sense as opposed to the alternative. Any person hailed as the son God, while also proving this by doing miracles, would command awe. It would be an Earth shattering event likely to spread throughout the region like wildfire--this did not happen according to all we know and don't know from the historical record. In summary, the conundrum is: Jesus probably existed, but not the Jesus we have come to understand in the New Testament Gospels. Which is to say, Jesus, practically speaking, never existed.
Appreciate your time and knowledge my friend
Great watch!
Absolutely brilliant!
My goodness, this man is brilliant!!
He's not brilliant.
He thinks the Bible is evidence 😂
@@b4tm4n42 No, it's fundamentalists who think the Bible is evidence. Bart is simply trying to enlighten them.
Has anyone read Age of Reason by Thomas Paine?
The Spirit of Truth shall guide you into all truth. It will show you everything. How do you sort the information out?
Forbidden knowledge...Thank you.
A bit puzzled. If Matthew and Luke are using Mark and there is also a Q source I would expect to see considerable likeness but your argument is that they are very different with considerable important discrepancies....seems in opposition to this.
infinitywon My answer to that would be 1. There ARE considerable likenesses. You can see them laid out in a Harmony of the Gospels. 2. There are also considerable important discrepancies. Mark is a much shorter, more truncated, Gospel, and Q was a primitive source of sayings. Matthew and Luke expanded on them, but NONE of the manuscripts survived intact through the ages in pristine form. They passed through too many hands, contain too many redactions, and, of course, contain many scribal errors.
***** One of the major problems with interpretation is that, as you pointed out, we are dealing with two completely different historical/literary ages. In the formative period, everybody pretty much did his own thing. There was no "authority figure" or literary critic looking over their shoulders, making sure that they "got it right." There was no "orthodoxy" yet, nor formal "schools of thought" which could enforce their interpretation through civic or other power.
The "official" censorship came later and did enormous damage from a historical point of view because it deprived us of the chance to observe the natural evolution of the faith and the sheer variety of beliefs and interpretations being entertained through time. This kind of thinking would not have made sense to Irenaeus, though.
My theory is that by the time "orthodox" writers really began getting serious about writing Gospels of high literary merit, it was already too late to verify many of the critical facts concerning the life of Christ (though NOT necessarily of his teachings). The legendary, mythical element in the Christ story had already emerged and taken flight, and could not have been removed without doing violence to the story and leaving a huge, gaping hole in it which could not be filled with "facts," even if available (which they were not). However, those Gospel writers were not interested in writing a detailed biography about Christ anyway.
As for "heterodox" writers/disciples, their work was considered beyond the pale from the very start by opposition disciples and their disciples. We know that the disciples had already taken to quarreling over doctrine while Christ was still alive. Their work was, therefore, suppressed and destroyed whenever and wherever possible.
One could look upon Christianity, therefore, as consisting of TWO sets of teachings: the ESOTERIC, and the EXOTERIC.
***** Good, interesting comments, Marian.
The way I see it, humans themselves are mythical beings. We don't even know where we come from! We just sort of walked out of the darkness, and here we are on earth, as if we had awakened from a dream. The strictly "scientific" explanation, while useful in many ways, just doesn't cut for most people. Besides, the controvery over human origins continues to rage unabated, with new twists and turns and theories all over the place with no end in sight. Some writers have proposed that the human race is many MILLIONS of years older than previously thought. Evidence has been tampered with and/or suppressed supporting this theory. See: Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson's book: Forbidden Archeology, etc., for an encyclopedic treatment of the debate.
I do not believe that it is possible even to BE a human being without a mythical element in one's life. Why do we bother to watch dramas at the movies or on tv when we know perfectly well that they are just make believe? I guess one could argue that dramas are educational, or, like Aristotle, that a drama is a sort of catharsis which is necessary for one's psychic health. I would argue that people relive their primal myths through drama continuously. This would also be true of the Gospels. Seen in this way, then, to remove or disregard their mythical element would be to nullify their power over our mythical imagination, a vital component in the human psyche. Some people have already tried this, but it doesn't work. The supply of primal myths is inexhaustable and simply generates more myths for us to live and relive.
Of course, for the historian, this analysis presents many insurmountable problems, as Ehrman points out.
In sum, I think the Gospels consist of more myth than history. Just my opinion.
Imagine how boring it would be to do the same intro every time, word for word. Not for my man Bart tho.
Great. This is better ie a recent video of you giving a talk. Please continue to add recent videos of yourself.
The reason he is using the same introduction over and over is that he takes the audience to the sort of information they are going to receive. This is not church, this an historical approach to the biblical study.
chekelitoCIL well and he is a professor and professors must repeat themselves hour after hour, semester after semester, year after year for the same classes. No one can speak extemporaneously every time on the same subject without falling into patterns.
I first made a comment on this video 3 years ago!
Wow you're a cool guy!!!!
Very interesting presentation.
okrajoe
Christians must check this out before they take Dr. Bart Ehrman word for it.
How often did the cock crow after Peter's denial?
One may read the Bible with reason, preferably even with a critical one. The questions that then arise are worth investigating, as a small detail in Peter's life shows.
When Jesus was arrested, his disciple Peter denied him several times. He wanted to pull his own head out of the noose. Jesus had promised him this "on his head". The exact wording is handed down differently. After the report of Matthew and similarly also the two evangelists Luke and John Jesus said to Peter: "Amen, I tell you: That night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."[1]
Matthew tells of the fulfillment of this prediction: "Immediately afterwards a cock crowed, and Peter remembered what Jesus had said: "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. And he went out and wept bitterly."[2]
The mind may stumble, ...
According to the gospel of Mark, however, Jesus announces: "Even tonight, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times"[3] And of the fulfillment he writes: "Then he [Peter] went out into the forecourt."[4] A few verses later it says: "Immediately afterwards the cock crows for the second time.
Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter denied Jesus? Mark's statements seem to contradict the three other evangelists. This problem is not as insoluble as it may seem. Mark may only have reported in more detail.
... but he is raised up again
This is very easy to understand, because according to an early Christian tradition Mark wrote his gospel under the influence of Simon Peter. He was his main source. So it is understandable if he adds further details to the story, because he himself was the main character. So those other three evangelists report more summarily about this event, while Mark gives the exact number of cock cries and the exact process of that denial.
So all four gospels report that Jesus predicted his denial by Peter. Mark merely tells us a few more details. So the Bible can certainly be read with a critical mind. It tolerates that.
Don't believe everything Bart puts in words!
@@Tessinentdecken wow someone with some common sense in the comment section 😂 thank goodness. Also from a detective standpoint it looks suspicious when accounts are too much alike therefore increases credibility of the NT
If we do not have the originals then how do you know that the NT was not written in Hebrew?
I’m stealing that fundamentalist definition
Just wonderful,
How often did the cock crow after Peter's denial?
One may read the Bible with reason, preferably even with a critical one. The questions that then arise are worth investigating, as a small detail in Peter's life shows.
When Jesus was arrested, his disciple Peter denied him several times. He wanted to pull his own head out of the noose. Jesus had promised him this "on his head". The exact wording is handed down differently. After the report of Matthew and similarly also the two evangelists Luke and John Jesus said to Peter: "Amen, I tell you: That night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."[1]
Matthew tells of the fulfillment of this prediction: "Immediately afterwards a cock crowed, and Peter remembered what Jesus had said: "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. And he went out and wept bitterly."[2]
The mind may stumble, ...
According to the gospel of Mark, however, Jesus announces: "Even tonight, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times"[3] And of the fulfillment he writes: "Then he [Peter] went out into the forecourt."[4] A few verses later it says: "Immediately afterwards the cock crows for the second time.
Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter denied Jesus? Mark's statements seem to contradict the three other evangelists. This problem is not as insoluble as it may seem. Mark may only have reported in more detail.
... but he is raised up again
This is very easy to understand, because according to an early Christian tradition Mark wrote his gospel under the influence of Simon Peter. He was his main source. So it is understandable if he adds further details to the story, because he himself was the main character. So those other three evangelists report more summarily about this event, while Mark gives the exact number of cock cries and the exact process of that denial.
So all four gospels report that Jesus predicted his denial by Peter. Mark merely tells us a few more details. So the Bible can certainly be read with a critical mind. It tolerates that.
Don't believe everything Bart puts in words!
Pretty simple stuff folks and to me it makes me question his integrity and overall motive. The passover was followed by a week long Feast of Unleavened Bread which has a high Sabbath on the first and last days. Although not known specifically when the passover and the feast became combined into "the passover" we can clearly see it referenced in Exodus 12:14-17 but as specifically broke out in Leviticus 23:6-8. This makes the writer of John correct in stating a preparation day of the first day of the feast (which was not needed to be specifically stated as such as it was common knowledge amongst the pious Hebrew community as the passover week). The constant reference to Christ being the lamb was correct and points us more accurately to the time when Christ was crucified. The day of preparation of the passover as stated in John 19:14 was albeit confusing for those who don't understand the Hebrew calendar or the "preparation days" of the holy festivals given to Moses by GOD; was in no way contradictory to Mark. Otherwise, Bart seems like a nice man.
What is he saying at 12:45?
What is he saying at 40:38?
Mirko Ferrante 12:45 -he says if you want to use the ouija board approach to the bible “more power to ya.” (just means “you are an idiot but go for it.”).
at 40:38 He speaks about some idiotic superstitions concerning “being unclean”. Have you not heard of this concept before?
@@beastshawnee I just cannot understand which words he is pronouncing not their meaning. What does he say? 40:38 “There (word that I can’t understand) ways to become ceremonially unclean”
Hey Mr Bart - I have found a really small mistake you are telling. Minute 17:45 you say we should read Mark 5. Minute 17:53 you say in Mark 9......... take care of what you talk about.....
He says it well first (Mark 5). Then he looks at the screen (where he also puts it well) and gets distracted.
Four seconds later he says Mark *9* instead of the Mark *5* he had said before. Probably because the number *9* is the last thing that appears written on the screen.
Ehrman is an honest guy
Can Bart do historical mose profets every figure mentioned in the bible
Hello everyone! I am Italian, so english is not my mother tongue. I just cannot understand which word he is pronouncing (not its meaning) at 40:38? “There (word that I can’t understand) ways to become ceremonially unclean”.
Thanks
"There are a number of ways to become...." Ciao.
Erhman's overall Jesus canon is good introductory stuff that has lead me to question my early beliefs. However I find his analysis somewhat shallow, antagonistic, and repetitive...leaving me wanting a more intelligent response to my historical questions about Jesus, and his early followers. Bart sounds somewhat scared by his early experinces (aren't we all scared in some way?) That being said, I'm grateful to Bart....he is somewhat of a prophet (anti-prophet?) to me personally. However, I find Dunn's treatment of the material at hand more thorough, and scholarly. I encourage anyone truly seeking insight on the life of Jesus to read, "Jesus Remembered", by Dunn. It is a big book (over 1000 pages), with difficult language and concepts, but well worth the effort!
Why would I read 1000 pages of that shit? Only a complete IDIOT would even consider believing in the biblical god character.
This should make believers think deeply....
That is an oxymoron.
Salute Prof. Ehrman.. if a learned scholar like you doesn't tell the fact n the truth..who else will.. I mean ..many knowlegeable persons in christianity didnt do the job to tell the truth so far..
We want an educated public on every subject except religion.
Fascinating stuff.
If Jesus had been born in 1990, he would be just starting his mission.
Walking around with a sandwich board with the words "The End is Nigh".
Children would make fun of him, but otherwise he would be ignored.
He certainly would not suffer the death penalty (in the USA).
Bart Ehrman can you do some research on the Old Testament please!
Noticed a piece of System of a Down's lyrics here :)
Very informative. Thank you!
Well, Reza Aslan is actually pretty good. it’s incredible how Bart which I love by the way misses the point that Reza yes has a social degree but it’s actually a Dr degree in the history of religions of all the Abrahamic I'm pretty sure he had studied the new testament and also Reza, in every interview I've seen says he views on Jesus is not a new view.
15:56 Everything happening today, effects very opposite views and still it‘s as historical as it can be.
Why should it have been different back then?
"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement."
- Dr. Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman also confesses on page two in his book, "Did Jesus Exist?," that for 30 years he never even thought to consider to question the existence of Jesus as real historical character because it was a question that he "did not take seriously."
So, why on earth would we trust New Testament scholars who are ignorant on mythicism?
freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18804#p18804
; )
***** "30 years ago he said he knew nothing of mythicism. Then he began studying it.Learn to think for yourself before blindly quoting random forums. Being ignorant and doing nothing to fix your ignorance discredits anything you say."
LOL, you should follow your own advice as those were both comments Errorman himself made in 2012. Do you have any idea of how stupid you look attempting to claim Errorman was discussing mythicism 30 years ago? You have just ruined your own credibility FOREVER!
A simple check would've revealed your utter ignorance on the matter:
freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18804#p18804
; )
***** Another home-schooled idiot with a room temperature IQ, what part of these quotes from 2012 do you not understand?:
*"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement."*
- Dr. Bart Ehrman, 2012
"Bart Ehrman also confesses on page two in his book, "Did Jesus Exist?," that for 30 years he never even thought to consider to question the existence of Jesus as real historical character because it was a question that he "did not take seriously." Bart goes on to say, *"I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus ... I was almost completely unaware - as are most of my colleagues in the field - of this body of skeptical literature."*
- Dr. Bart Ehrman, 2012
"Thank you, Bart Ehrman, for admitting that you knew nothing about mythicism before you started writing your book, 'Did Jesus Exist?'; *having read DJE I can confirm that you STILL know nothing about it*. So, he's admitting that he was ignorant, as are most of his colleagues, of what is an "entire body of literature" in his field."
freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18804#p18804
1. DimebagVision "30 years ago he said he knew nothing of mythicism. Then he began studying it."
2. DimebagVision "I never said he STARTED 30 years ago. I said he has studied it SINCE then"
BAAHAHAHAHA, make up your mind. Your comprehension is terrible, just *read page two in his book, "Did Jesus Exist?," that for 30 years he never even thought to consider to question the existence of Jesus as real historical character because it was a question that he "did not take seriously."*
If you had any clue what you were talking about you would already know that Bart Ehrman has never studied the case for mythicism but, he tried to write a book about it anyway in 2012 - WHEN HE BEGAN HALF-ASSED LOOKING INTO IT.
Over 80 Rebuttals to Bart Ehrman's Anti-Mythicist Book 'Did Jesus Exist?'
freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25719#p25719
; )
Hercules2345 erm g just go, just go, don't believe me just watch.
Hercules2345 Because mythicism isnt real scholarship. Simple.
That doesn't mean he couldn't give it any thought.
Amazing for me.
I am Italian I cannot understand these two things:
Whay does he say at 12:43? if that's how you wanna do it (????) to you
Whay does he say at 40:33? if a woman gives birth she is ceremonially unclean there (????) ways to become ceremonially unclean
@Lu G. I just cannot understand whict words he is pronouncing not their meaning. What does he say?
12:43: then more power to you.
40:33: There are a number of ways to become ceremonially unclean.
Passages in the gospel stories like the one I just mentioned, which do not make sense when taken literally, usually have a deeper spiritual meaning and significance. They are a cue for us to look deeper.
While I thoroughly enjoy Dr. Ehrman's work, I'm disappointed in his assertion that modernity wouldn't have occurred without Christianity. In fact it's exactly backwards: Christianity slowed down progress and it took Freethinkers to jumpstart the Enlightenment.
+rsr789 I'm no fan of Christianity but the Catholic Chuch's great historic achievement was to preserve some level of learning after the fall of the Roman Empire. Without Christianity, in particular without the Catholic Church, everything would have been lost. Basically, if Catholicism had collapsed with Rome, Europe would have been reduced to total barbarism.
There are too many variables--What would have become of the democratic and open-minded Norse before the Christian threat/wealth turned them into raiding Vikings? The Sassanid empire fell to the Muslims after a history of warfare with the Byzantine Christians. The Muslim world was the center of science and technology. Christianity prevented that from spreading to Europe. The Islamic Golden Age could have survived far from the Mongol Hordes.
If Muslim were center of science ....which science...when Ottoman emperor ruled southern Europe/Middle East were there ANY scientific discovery,technological development... comparing to rest of the Europe..France Germany UK etc How many Muslim Genius you can name from Ottomans time ..discover What ?? Go ad tell Syrians Islam is Scientific !! are you dreaming??
Note that I said the Islamic Golden Age. Look it up.
As a social experiment, why not ask your local English speaking butcher, gardener, fisherman ... to write something approaching the quality of Shakespeare in French .... sounds crazy, huh? Well, that's how plausible it is for lower class, Aramaic speaking fishermen to write high-class, intellectual Greek of the NT.
May I please have the eight questions? I want to have a go at them I got the first two right.
( I'm a former minister now agnostic atheist )
don't worry about buying me dinner I just want to play and besides I'm too far away in Australia lol
Evaristo Blazquez ehrmanblog.org/pop-quiz-first-year-students/
Evaristo Blazquez
You still must give an account before God.
Hey, there's still hope....
"For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame." (Heb 6:4-6)
Impossible for you..but possible with God!Take Him up on it.:-)
How often did the cock crow after Peter's denial?
One may read the Bible with reason, preferably even with a critical one. The questions that then arise are worth investigating, as a small detail in Peter's life shows.
When Jesus was arrested, his disciple Peter denied him several times. He wanted to pull his own head out of the noose. Jesus had promised him this "on his head". The exact wording is handed down differently. After the report of Matthew and similarly also the two evangelists Luke and John Jesus said to Peter: "Amen, I tell you: That night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."[1]
Matthew tells of the fulfillment of this prediction: "Immediately afterwards a cock crowed, and Peter remembered what Jesus had said: "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. And he went out and wept bitterly."[2]
The mind may stumble, ...
According to the gospel of Mark, however, Jesus announces: "Even tonight, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times"[3] And of the fulfillment he writes: "Then he [Peter] went out into the forecourt."[4] A few verses later it says: "Immediately afterwards the cock crows for the second time.
Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter denied Jesus? Mark's statements seem to contradict the three other evangelists. This problem is not as insoluble as it may seem. Mark may only have reported in more detail.
... but he is raised up again
This is very easy to understand, because according to an early Christian tradition Mark wrote his gospel under the influence of Simon Peter. He was his main source. So it is understandable if he adds further details to the story, because he himself was the main character. So those other three evangelists report more summarily about this event, while Mark gives the exact number of cock cries and the exact process of that denial.
So all four gospels report that Jesus predicted his denial by Peter. Mark merely tells us a few more details. So the Bible can certainly be read with a critical mind. It tolerates that.
Don't believe everything Bart puts in words!
thank u professor b. ehrman, no one has to spend another dime for a bible college degree now.
How many . Designs a future study#
Albert Barnes:
The Greek word, rendered “is even now dead,” does not of necessity mean, as our translation would express, that she had actually expired, but only that she was “dying” or about to die…. The passage [Matthew 9:18-EL] may be expressed thus: “My daughter was so sick that she must be dead by this time” (1997).
Several bibles translate the passage to reflect this understanding or compare Hebrews 11:22 where the same Greek wording is used... obviously Joseph was 'dying' not 'dead' when he spoke.
That is a nice, convenient and clever way to reconcile two discrepant accounts. How would you address the others? For example, how would you explain the "before the passover/after the passover" stories of Jesus' death presented contradictorily in Mark and John?
Intrigued by your deep studies of the New Testament. But I don't understand why the Gospels narrative have to have the same accounts since it's reported by different authors of the same event. Even today in newspapers, two reporters report the same event on the same day but has different accounts the next day. Does that mean that the news is forged or false? hhhmm... Even when I'm describing my own daily events, I can write two different accounts of the same event of how I spent my day but does that mean that one is true and another, false? I don't think so... I guess a clear, thinking person would understand why there are different accounts of the Gospels as presented in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John! You know better though! I love your writings and you are truly admired! God bless you, sir Ehrman!
None of the people writing in the New Testament were witnesses to Jesus. The texts were all written at least 1 generation after Jesus had died.
ArizonaWillful To be fair lol, that’s only based on the hard copy manuscripts in our hands today. I’d imagine a fair amount must have been destroyed whilst the Jesus followers were persecuted, destruction of the temple 70 AD, and so on.
I was never a fundamentalist, I always saw the contradictions, discrepancies ... so no big thing. The essence is there. Those that literally only speak in scripture verses or hardcore groups like evangelicals, catholic’s will do a full 180. Hey ho
3 times 14 is 42. Hitch hikers guide to the universe's computers answer to ' life, the universe, and everything.' The generations leading to Christ for those who know the bible.
So what is it with so many (if not most) Christian brains that they are not in any way questioning their beliefs even when they're presented with irreconcilable accounts ─ and important accounts, such as his crucifixion (crucifiction?) and death?
And how is it that they can't see that the Biblical accounts are so human, so intrinsically committed to the world view that existed in Palestine 3000-2000 years ago?
Camerinus Cognitive dissonance. Constant reinforcement. Fear.
The highest virtue for a Christian is mindless FAITH. Salvation is supposed to be the result of FAITH. Using your brain to think about the dogma is the devil, y'know.
Funny, clever, educational and shocking.
If you look at the portraits of Jesus that Bart uses on his book covers and look again...(they all look like Bart) ! LOL! I am serious. They all look like Bart! this could be interesting on several psychological levels depending on whether or not he is aware of this fact- LOL!!
Paul was not the only one who believed that Jesus was a pre-existing angel of god. So was also Philo!
A myth about a pre-existing Jesus was quite common knowledge in those days.
M IN THAT CLASS '
What on earth is the problem with Mark including a detail about the cock crowing twice that the others left out? Surely the fact that some included minor detail that others didn't adds to the authenticity as it shows they weren't just copying each others accounts?
+Philip Haycock The point is that the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of God. As such there should be no contradictions.
Further, if it is wrong in the detail then how can we be sure that it is not wrong in the bigger picture since the bigger picture is made up of nothing but the details.
+ianrwood21 I respect what you are saying but the entire bible isn't really the inspired 'word of God' in the sense that he only speaks directly on a handful of occasions. It is inspired 'by' God and in that there is a subtle difference that has a massive implication. It means that the personality of the writer comes through as well as differences in perspective.
For instance Luke was a physician and includes detail about certain illnesses that were cured that others left out. Paul was a scholar who broke everything down into detailed explanations with references. James on the other hand was concise and Matthew was a brilliant historian etc
For me personally, just a comparison between the laws given to Moses on hygiene and what was practiced in all the other nations is enough to show that it is worth a deeper look.
+Philip Haycock What is your evidence that Luke was a physician?
Nice to see that you don't think that the bible is the word of God. On that we can agree. The Bible according to you is full of human perspectives from long ago in a pre-Scientific era. As such it is open to fault and we can debate and discard its shit parts like all the homophobic nonsense. Indeed, we can pick and choose and discard it in its entirety if we so wish, as there is no way of distinguishing between its human and divine bits.
Bart remember Jews were in exile both houses of Judah and Israel we see synagogues in Corinth and many places there mixed with the gentiles even when you read in acts etc the introduction letter of James the letter is written to all 12 ttibes
Amazing that I used to respect the book like it was a pure thing. So dear to me that I would not allow it to touch the ground. Like our flag. I choose to imagine a god that is good and powerful. This is helpful to my mind, I believe.
Amazing that I used to accept that a man could be beaten and executedbb and then rise again out of a tomb, and then float away into the clouds. Just amazing.
Now all you need to do is burn our flag, comrade ;)
Lowell Jeff That comment was totally unnecessary and just demonstrated your intolerance for other points of view.
What your describing is very familiar to my own path. The real “good news” is the friendship I have found in the secular movement.
Lowell Jeff What does that even mean?
I think Dr. Ehrman is one of the best scholars of the New Testament. I don't quite agree on his views about the first century judaism and the birth of the Christian movement.
I really am interested in the evaluation of the possibility that Jesus - the topic of a lot of stories - was not a single person but a bunch of similar sectirians and preachers who walked through the kingdom of Herod or later the Roman province of Judaea and a canopy of guys who spread the news of a resurrection of the Kingdom of David and Salomon (for which the Romans crucified them all and next day there was another one with the same message) or of the arrival of the (purely religious??) Messiah and of course to whom the miracles were ascribed much later at the time when the gospels of John were written.
When did the gospels get their final "touch", the "director's cut"?
Especially regarding the aspect of "less taxes and less government" any "Jesus" will not have been alone. Neither would he be today.
Hang on... 9.15 is Jesus an accepted historical figure? I'd be okay with "if we accept that Jesus is...", but has the debate been settle in the secular intellectual community of scholars?
Brendon Ross Among the greater majority of scholars, yes. For a good overview of why check out Ehrman's book - Did Jesus Exist? The answer is that the "historical" Jesus was probably a lot different than most think, but he was a real person.
Brendon Ross yes, the consensus is that there was a first century preacher roaming palestine named jesus. the bible is based on this man, or at least loosely drawn from myths about this man.
bear in mind, though, that the majority of scholars in this field of study are christians. this conflict of interest doesnt mean they're wrong, but it's important to note that most scholars of this discipline have an ideological bias towards jesus being a real person.
i personally find the bizzarre stories like a census requiring families to return to their ancestors birthplace to be compelling enough evidence to say the story was based on a real persons life. otherwise, there would have been no need to make up such absurdities like the census to get jesus to be born in bethlehem. had he been simply made up, they just would have made him born there - no fake census required.
Brendon Ross Yes there is consensus that Jesus the man existed amongst scholars (as apposed to Jesus the messiah, son of god, and doer of supernatual deeds). The only mainstream scholar that has question the consensus to my knowledge is Richard Carrier.
@@ElazarusWills NO. Most all of those "scholars" are CHRISTIANS! Of course they accept it!
Is there any other scripture than the Christian, if some one could tell me( I will buy him/her Peshawarite Pulao when you visit me here in Peshawar) with no inconsistencies..... perfect in every respect.
Depends what you mean "perfect" - But if you mean something actually written by someone who knew jesus. Then no, there isn't any.
good job
really?
How often did the cock crow after Peter's denial?
One may read the Bible with reason, preferably even with a critical one. The questions that then arise are worth investigating, as a small detail in Peter's life shows.
When Jesus was arrested, his disciple Peter denied him several times. He wanted to pull his own head out of the noose. Jesus had promised him this "on his head". The exact wording is handed down differently. After the report of Matthew and similarly also the two evangelists Luke and John Jesus said to Peter: "Amen, I tell you: That night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."[1]
Matthew tells of the fulfillment of this prediction: "Immediately afterwards a cock crowed, and Peter remembered what Jesus had said: "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. And he went out and wept bitterly."[2]
The mind may stumble, ...
According to the gospel of Mark, however, Jesus announces: "Even tonight, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times"[3] And of the fulfillment he writes: "Then he [Peter] went out into the forecourt."[4] A few verses later it says: "Immediately afterwards the cock crows for the second time.
Did the cock crow once or twice before Peter denied Jesus? Mark's statements seem to contradict the three other evangelists. This problem is not as insoluble as it may seem. Mark may only have reported in more detail.
... but he is raised up again
This is very easy to understand, because according to an early Christian tradition Mark wrote his gospel under the influence of Simon Peter. He was his main source. So it is understandable if he adds further details to the story, because he himself was the main character. So those other three evangelists report more summarily about this event, while Mark gives the exact number of cock cries and the exact process of that denial.
So all four gospels report that Jesus predicted his denial by Peter. Mark merely tells us a few more details. So the Bible can certainly be read with a critical mind. It tolerates that.
Don't believe everything Bart puts in words!
Jesus's followers were in Antioch (modern day Edessa in Turkey) where the first "Christians", aka, King Worshipers, were. The first Chrsitians were wealthy Aristocrats of a very Wealthy trading city in the Roman Empire. The first worshipers were not poor, they were wealthy. Check out Ralph Ellis if you want to know the story.
i love this guy open mind
How does Dr. Ehrman make sense of these festival rituals lining up so incredibly with the Christian narrative and mirroring happenings in the life of Jesus? How many significant events have to correlate with the historically established festivals in the Jewish culture before Dr. Ehrman stops to consider Gods plan of salvation?
You start to understand why some crazy people out there postulate that the stories are total fiction and Jesus never existed. Do they see how impossible these coincidences would be? So they realize it would have to be divine intervention or providence to execute. So they insist its all made up.
Does Dr. Ehrman ever realize these amazing correlations which are attached to events he has so strongly defended in a public forum? Late at night? Do they ever come to mind?
Even when talking with people who are in the same boat as him regarding their worldview he is honest about the historicity of Jesus. Those are the moments in which I have garnered much respect for Ehrman. When he was showing pure integrity in the moments at which he could have easily not. And could be forgiven in a situation where one is "preaching to the choir".
Jesus?
He is risen.
Many millions today totally believe that Joseph Smith (Mormans) was the true messenger of God Inventing a new religion isn't really that hard. I doubt you are capable of even HEARING arguments against your baseless presuppositions.
There's a more likely reason for the correlations you mention -- that the authors of the four Gospels sought to embellish their message by tying events in Jesus's life with the various festival dates, in the same way they manipulated events to place Jesus' birthplace in Bethlehem as he mentions in the talk.
David Copperfield, what ...?!
The novel by Charles Dickens?
Su leges is latin for συ ειπας.
Christianity is a hopeless mess. Supposedly salvation comes from believing the right thing, but the Bible doesn’t tell you which of the competing ideas is the right one. If you read only Mark, you believe one thing. If you read only John, you believe something else. If you try to mesh Mark and John, then you end up ignoring parts of both and wind up with a Frankenstein’s monster of a faith. Toss in Matthew and Luke, and confusion reigns. No wonder there are thousands of denominations.
All I can say is, I'm glad I left the church. 50 years of trying to put the pieces together led nowhere. Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Salvation doesn't come from believing the right thing. Nor we need salvation. Btw, I'm a Christian, more specifically an Episcopalian
Best
I've told you twice!
the birth discrepancies are Prodigious i mean it hits hard on your face and mind :(
Ehrman is correct. It is clear that the gospels were written buy using bits and pieces of texts and eyewitness testimonies later. Why? Because the Romans burned their works during the Jewish Wars. Thus they had to reconstruct them later and errors occurred. It still a great witness for the life of Rabbi Yeshua. i.e. Jesus.
As an atheist my entire life I knew Jesus was a mythical character like Batman, Spiderman, Superman, Robin Hood,
and King Arthur; where's the evidence that is not anecdotal?
Not to question your atheism, but the historical personage of Jesus (the person) is about as well documented as anybody in the ancient world - better in fact. Who he was and what he said, for example, is problematic, but the conditions that'd need to exist for him to be fictional are more unbelievable than that he actually did.
You wouldn't believe it, even if it existed.
The Jesus Character is within the realm of possibility,,, IF you disregard all of the Magic. But, with Zero contemporaneous writings/relics/references -- about Jesus, buy ANY follower/detractor OR anyone at all,,,, and the fact that Jesus himself wrote Zero during his entire life..... You must consider the possibility that Jesus Story could be nothing more then a cobbled together fabrication... The first person to write anything, was a guy who had heard stories about Jesus (but had NEVER met Jesus),,,,, then had hallucinations wherein Jesus talked to him... and even that was 20 years after the alleged Jesus had died...