When I hear Rev./Dr. Ehrman teach/preach somehow I feel like I am hearing the first honest sermon of my fourscore year of living. He is captivating, confident and reveals to me he really is inspired; but it is not by some Supreme Being. Instead, I find what makes him speak with inspiration is due to fact that, based on decades of study and research, he has found the truth which sets him free from error.
Professor Ehrman does his homework! His work is thought provoking and educational. His knowledge of subject matter is incredible, and his command of history is spectacular.
oui, mais ses vues sont un peu naïves, je trouve. Il analyse l'histoire comme si les pressions politiques et militaires n'existaient pas. C'est un peu candide non?
Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the direction of where they want the narrative to go, to secure their view and position. For example, he simply dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the reported accounts of the empty tomb that leads to the resurrection of Jesus. He just says in his opinion with no evidence to support his claim, the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave. And by doing so, it removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Which is the very essence of the Christian faith and the divinity of Jesus. He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in a unknown grave and nothing to support that, there is nothing anywhere reported that this happened other than Jesus being placed in a tomb. Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities. If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could of easily put a end to Jesus as the messiah.. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. Simply would of exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and laid the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished.
The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart just thinks that's what happened because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God, it also fits into how Muslims simply dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh. There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Pauls declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to base that view at all, just unsupported opinion. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, it's ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on those reported events. So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view
@@skaterdavedownsouth I feel that. I remember being pulled into my pastor’s office when I was younger because I was doing the math behind Noah’s ark and discussing it with my classmates (in like 5th or 6th grade). I had issues with critical thinking really young. My pastor explained “mystery” and faith and miracles again even though I had been hearing the same thing for years at this point. I was also really good at “memory treasures” where you memorize specific Bible passages for homework. This turned out to be a problem because I actually read it.
Dr. Ehrman in this presentation , is more clear than in some previous presentations. It should not matter what a viewer believes about religion, they should be able to respect these historical facts that are presented.He gives us the history and leaves what we do with them to our own judgement. Thanks Dr. Ehrman.
@@fecalmatter4195 Hello fecal matter, Eugene here. I do not understand what you are calling "speculative" and what you consider to be "facts" in 'Dr. Ehrman's presentation. In large part what he provides for us are "facts" from history. Now it could be that the "historical records" are not absolutely correct, but that does not change the "fact" that what he tells us is not exactly what the historical records show. What conclusions we draw from those historical records he presented is up to us. How have I missed the truth here?
Respect and regards to Bart Ehrman, from Fort Lauderdale, FL. He exposes the best argument for the earthly origen of Christianity. And showing that Christ was an ordinary person. This is no way to detract from Jesus of Nazerath's ethical teachings.
The problem Bart has is after seminary school and then farther studying into the New Testament, he found out there was a lot of playing around going on with the gospels. Than found out that we don’t have any original gospels, but copy’s of a copy of a copy & each time they was copied there was changes. till the point that Bart doesn’t trust that the words of Jesus is even his words anymore.
You could argue that it is because of his teachings that he is God, those teachings are still alive, they are teachings that have been true before Jesus the man preached them. He was those teachings.
I am in awe of his scholarship and insights into the Christian faith and its Jesus. I still believe, but am enriched by what he says. I would love to attend his classes. Alas, my seminary days are over. Now I live in retirement wishing I could study forever with someone of Professor Ehrman's insights.
The Qur'an it's self is the only evidence that there's a creator. The Bible is written by men, and it is full of discrepancies. The Qur'an mentions do you not believe this is the word of God, if so there would have been discrepancies. God challenges the readers, Muslim and non-Muslim, to try and disprove it. It also mentions that the Qur'an will persevered.
Dr. Bart is great. I enjoy all his videos. We are fortunate to live in a time when an open discussion about the historical accuracy of the bible is possible. Ironically, the more doors that are opened, the more Christianity will be strengthened. At the end of the day, religion is about faith.
@@jakesanders136 the only gospel where jesus claims divinity is John which probably wasnt written until 2nd century , as for trinitarianism how then do you explain the Christian churches that dont believe in it or that jesus is co equal with God?!
@@deanodog3667 If you ask a Jew, he will tell you that claiming to be the son of God is claiming divinity. Just go and talk to a rabbi. Jews objected to Jesus Christ because of this fact.
@@deanodog3667 I am telling you that Jesus claimed divinity in all the gospels. What Jews regard Christianity as is immaterial. I know Jews do not accept Christianity. You are wrong that Jesus claimed divinity only in John
This is just validation of what I've thought for a long time: the whole theology was cobbled together to fill the need for people to worship a human being. They reverse-engineered a god back to a human being. It was the greatest marketing strategy until New Coke.
Yes, Dr. Ehrman is a respected New Testament scholar and he's willing to change his mind. His studies focus on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.
Lord knows there's enough nonsense in religion taken literally, but at the same time, there were people trying to understand the meaning and purpose of life with all their might, and that's still an obsession for some of us.
Also amazing how humans can reduce a question that's been bothering humans throut whole of our existence and in this case something that started by far the most influential movement in human history to nonsense,yet you did it
@@tonisosic5075 influential yes, but still utter nonsense. The Greek and Roman religious traditions were influential too in their day, still utter tosh.
It may be Nonsense to you but its the World to us. We ought to Worship and honor only one God. The god of Israel. So Jesus was a teacher. This is why we are labouring at it.🙏🙏🙏
I thought the Council was inaugurated in 325 AD but how long did it take to arrive at a conclusion? I thought (from memory) it took about 7 yrs and Constantine got tired of waiting and demanded a conclusion in about 332 AD. Just a thought.
I think you missed the point. God is an ongoing interpretation of whatever each generation wants to believe he should be. Did you even watch the video?
Something I've always wondered about. That didn't make much sense to me. Prof. Ehrman mentions Mark 3:21 where Jesus' family, including his mother Mary, come to get him and take him back to Nazareth because, as Mark says, they think he has lost his mind. This sentiment from those who knew him best always struck me as odd considering all that is reported about Mary and Elizabeth, the Annunciation, the Magnificat, etc. These things happened before John and Jesus were born. Certainly the entire family spoke about these miraculous revelations often, waiting eagerly and with much anticipation for them to come to pass. Reflecting always on the time that God Himself spoke to them through the archangel Gabriel and through divine visions and dreams. And now that Jesus is full grown they seem to have forgotten about all this, about who Jesus really is. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
Wow this is actually a very good point. Mary reportedly spoke to an angel before getting pregnant with her son. Jesus remained at the temple when he was 12 and called it the house of his father. And yet his mother was confused as to why he went around preaching and curing people. Hmm
Like Ehrmann has continuously asserted, you have to look at each gospel individually. Did the spirit really talk to her and others in the gospel of Mark? As far as I can see, the gospel opened when Jesus is already old!
Paul was wrong, then, that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son by means of the resurrection. Anyone remember the purported voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism - “This is my beloved Son . . . Listen to Him.” Kinda makes you wonder if Paul was totally on base, or whether the gospel writings had been “doctored” to propose certain theological tenets. I tend to believe more in the gospel of John’s proposal that the spirit of Jesus is indeed a divine portion of the spirit of God. Our problem with this question of who Jesus is, is troubled mainly by our human obsession with quantitative analysis and insistence on numerical uniqueness- that one is not three, or three one. Personally, I believe that Jesus had a portion of the Spirit of God, so was “qualitatively” the same being, or characteristically the same. I use the analogy of the glass and the tanker truck of milk. Jesus is the glass of milk poured from the milk in the tanker truck (God source, if you can excuse the fact that the tanker truck, even though larger than the glass, is still a limited quantity). Both the tanker and the glass contain qualitatively the same substance. So, of course they are both “God” stuff, just that Jesus had a more limited quantity manifested in, animating, a human body. I’m pretty tired of this quantitative argument / analysis that seems to contradict monotheism (and is the basis for why both Jews and Muslims reject Jesus as an incarnation of God stuff). It is based on a compulsion of human thinking about quantities, rather than an understanding about the metaphysical nature of soul spirit energy and its qualities. We are better equipped today with our understanding of energy, though humanity may still be obsessive to a fault. God can incarnate a portion of Himself and give life to whatever He wants, even if we can’t always wrap our heads around it. But, God in Jesus is not confusing to me, as Jesus as an existent being from time immortal was always at least a conception in the Mind of God, and thus did exist always there. But, there was a moment in human history when this thought became an occurrence manifesting in this 3D world of space and time and interacted with humanity, to change the outcome of the human experiment / experience. I don’t agree with adoptionism.
John's Gospel, is a Wisdom genre book. The whole thing, is like reading Proverbs! It has caused a lot of confusion, because people think John meant, Messiah pre-existed. But, it was about Wisdom/Word of Yahweh, that existed, and created Yahoshua (in Miriam's womb.) I wonder if anyone else has this view- Yahoshua is the second created son, of Yah. Adam was first, and lost his life and his inheritance is compromised. Then, when Yahoshua defeated death, because: he had not sinned, and was born with pure blood, which was able to make the blood atonement requirement, for unknown sins; and by not sinning, he was adopted as the First-Born, with all the rights to go with it, that Adam had lost. I liked the video!
Exactly. Muslims believe that when jesus comes back, he is going to break the cross and testify that he never asked to be worshipped and only preached the worshipping of the one and only god. If u're interested, you can look up in the quran the conversation Jesus with have with god when god asks him "did you tell your people to workship you and your mother?"
Islam doesn't have any more credibility than Christianity. All religions are unsubstantiated primitive iron age folklore. The world has been waiting over 2,000 years for any shred of authenticity.
I read his book How Jesus became God and the main issue I see with his work (which is good work) is that he tries to argue for exaltation theology/low Christology by planting the seeds of doubt but not really showing any definitive evidence to support his understanding. The earliest Christian writings (Paul's epistles) clearly reflect a high christology. No historian would doubt that low Christology existed early on but that does not mean high christology did not. Furthermore, he proposes that the earliest Christians had a low christology and that, as the movement spread, the minority of high christology became dominant and overwhelmed the originals. He doesn't suggest that in the 20 years leading up to Paul's epistles after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection that those early Christians were working out an understanding of high christology that would also have to be proto-trinitarian which took awhile to develop and understand. Also, Mark explicitly calls Jesus the son of God (in a clearly non-metaphorical way) and Jesus forgives people of their sins which the Gospel writer proclaims as an act only God could do (No one would expect the Messiah to do so). Saying Son of God is metaphorical is like saying that the Romans thought Caesar Augustus to be the metaphorical son of God; it's silliness. If you mean that the early Jews did not yet have a fully developed Chalcedonian high Christology then fine but saying that they had a low Christology when the Gospels clearly describe that Jesus understood himself to be sent to earth and as the one commanding angels and who is Lord of the Sabbath, you are talking about the greatest man to ever walk the earth. All that is evident is a high christology,
Urgent at 25:25, he obviously, undoubtedly and indisputably said that Jesus is a literal son of God; *_".....Therefore be called the son of God because God is literally his father for Luke..."_* But bulk of Christians say *no, no, it is not like that,* Jesus is not literally or biologically son of God, then *what does Luke say?*
I am afraid is not about refuting the facts, but about refuting the interpretation of the facts. I am an admirer of Ehrman by the way, and have all his books, so I am not trying to undermine him.
Hmmm, let's see... If Paul and Peter present the oldest Christology in Acts, does that mean that Acts is older than Marc? Acts is the sequel of Luke, which presents the next-to-latest Christology, so is Luke older than Marc, too? That would make the next-to-latest Christology older than the next-to-oldest. Or, if Marc really is the oldest Gospel, and Acts presents an older Christology than Marc, can we conclude that this Christology was accurately preserved until Luke wrote Acts, and he faithfully presented it even though it contradicts the Christology he presents in his own Gospel? Wouldn't that make the preservation of the original accounts much more trustworthy than Bart Ehrman allows for?
I care because it shows the evolution of Christianity. It contradicts Ehrmans point that no character in the narrative Mark recognizes Jesus as the son of God. Several people, described as possessed by demons, refer to Jesus as the son of God.
It's interesting that modern official Christian doctrine states that Jesus was fully God and fully human, yet many Christians think of him as being fully God and only technically human, in the sense that he had a human body but he never struggled with anything (apart from in the garden of Gethsemane for about five seconds). This was my experience of most people in the evangelical church I used to go to. Such a Jesus was therefore always supremely confident and had no patience with human frailty.
“Then the roman soldiers saw that the crowd was surrounding jesus doing the miracles, they said: look! The god of israel has come down to live among his people” ~ Gospel of barnabas Yes! Thats how u got it dear christians. The pagans already believe in this fairytale and u concocted it from them
In Acts 14 they thought Barnabas was Zeus and Paul was Hermes. The ancients just thought in those terms: gods could show up anywhere and take any form. Thus any random stranger might be a god. If the Roman soldiers mentioned in the Gospel of Barnabas thought Jesus might be a god of some sort, it really isn't remarkable. It's just how people of those days saw the world. But I have long thought that Christian ideas of the divinity of Jesus reflect exactly that sort of pagan view which was common among the gentiles of the ancient world. It certainly is at odds with later Orthodox Judaism and with Islam, which I suspect is your point.
Good question. God's parents are 2 imaginary human-like entities in the sky and God talked to someone,....alone without any witnesses, but no longer does that now, but still wants a personal relationship with humans.
I enjoyed the first half of the talk and have these comments. 1. Arius was a neo-platonists. This meant his cosmology was the ladder of being. It is from this he derived his Christology. For Ehrman not to present this fact disempowers those who listen to him. 2. Ehrman puts forward Mark as the earliest gospel. Ok. Then says it shows Jesus as the son of God at his resurrection. He then refers to Matthew, Luke, and John, to show how the “son of God” gets pushed back earlier and earlier to his birth and then pre-creation. The problem is that Mark refers to Jesus as the son of God in his baptism and transfiguration and Jesus speaks about this in his parables. Ehrman’s adoption theory and evolution has no evidence.
This is why as Muslims, we’re very serious about refuting the falsehood amongst Muslims because we will never see our religion being tampered with. The more I’m learning about the council of Nicaea and earlier beliefs, the more I start to realise how important our Islamic principles of refuting falsehood from internal and external parties is truly spectacular.
Regarding the conclusion: If the early Christians didn‘t believe Jesus was pre-existent, wouldn‘t that mean the whole Gospel of John is a heresy? And the revelation too? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. [...] And the word became flesh and dwellt among us. (=Jesus) Jesus is with God and God in himself (He gave him the right to have life in himself), what am I missing? I still don‘t understand it, how could I, but Jesus also said of himself that he had to return to the father (multiple times). And that he had seen him (most likely before he was on earth). And that before Abraham was, He is. So how could he have said that without being a liar? And if he was exalted, what was he before? Before he was born, he was already exalted (that‘s just what I conclude when I read the scriptures, could be wrong, but it‘s written) and that means he came from God down to the earth, lowering himself by his own will. That‘s also written somewhere. Wouldn‘t that all be wrong if he was just exalted at a certain point of time?
If one part of John's account was wrong, you are right, we wouldn't be able to trust what he wrote. However, John was a special friend of Jesus and they were very close. John knew who he was. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) . . .Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. (My comment: God & Lord is a title indicating a position such as president, senator, landlord, etc.) (John 17:1-5) . . .Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh, so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.
Patricia Sheppard I really like those quotes, but I can‘t figure out where you want to lead me with it? What is the conclusion? What am I getting wrong? I hope you realise I am asking sincerely.
@@DaveundseineGitarre My granddaughter often asks me, "What are you really trying to say." lol I'll just say that Jehovah is the true God (Ps. 83:18) His first creation, or first born, he created out of himself. (Colossians 1:15, 16) . . .He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Jehovah and Jesus together created humans (Genesis 1:26) . . .And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, . . ." We are not invisible like Jehovah and Jesus but we have qualities like they have such as the ability to show love, to be able to think & reason, to be creative and have wisdom. In our imperfect state that we inherited from Adam & Eve we don't use our godly qualities perfectly. When Jesus was praying to Jehovah before his death he said (John 17:3-5) . . .This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. " The word god is a title such as president, senator, landlord, etc. There are many things people worship as a god. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) . . .Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. " I have thoughts about where to go to get everlasting life besides learning who the true God is and what Jesus did for us. If you would like to explore this further you can email me at patriciabentleysheppard@gmail.com I love discussing these subjects.
At least the Bible has explanation, Christians are open for debate. On the other hand, Muslims have no idea what their quran says, they cannot dispute, they cannot question. Please try to debate your quran the same way, you will be killed.
At 24:05 Dr. Ehrman says that in Jesus's baptism in Luke (Lk.3:21.22) "a voice from Heaven says 'You are my son, today I have begotten you" - and uses these words to prove his point about adoption, but Lk.3:22 ACTUALLY says "Thou are my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased". "Today I have begotten thee" was said to David is Psalm 2:7, and quoted in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5.
I noticed that misquote too, though I think he actually quoted that line correctly elsewhere in the lecture ... so, perhaps he got them confused in his head at the moment. His point wasn't that adoption was the correct view, or that adoption at baptism was true, the only point was that there were many early Christians that thought it was. There definitely were early Christians that believed that and used the baptism passage in Luke to justify it. We know this because they told us so themselves in their writings. "Thou are my beloved son," could be interpreted as a declaration of adoption as well. So, even though he got the quote wrong, I think his point still stands.
"There was a human being in the first century who was called 'Divine,' 'Son of God,' 'God,' and 'God from God,' whose titles were 'Lord,' 'Redeemer,' 'Liberator,' and 'Saviour of the World. Most Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to Caesar Augustus." The adoption of these titles by the early Christians and applying them to Jesus was denying them of Caesar the Augustus. To say 'Jesus is Lord' was to say Caesar wasn't. It was subversive. "They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason" - John Dominic Crossan
Mr. Hutch, There is no Hebrew "tradition of prophesy"in the way you describe it. Rookie error, if there ever was one. The role of a prophet in Israel was never to tell the future. In fact, divination, omen reading and sorcery were forbidden. You REALLY should take a class at a reputable Biblical Studies program. They teach you this in Bible 101. Deuteronomy 18:10 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft". The ancient role of a prophet in Hebrew culture was to interpret the words or will of their god to the people OF THEIR OWN DAY. NOT to predict the future. (That's Hollywood's idea of the role of a prophet). So you often hear fundies talking about "prophesy", and how various prophesies were a 'foretelling", or prediction of the future, and indeed they count them up as "proof" that Jesus or whatever HAS to be true, as the "prophecy" came true. In fact Leviticus forbade fortune telling and divination, so we know it was an abomination to even think in these terms for many/most centuries in Hebrew culture. However, with the rise of Apocalypticism, around the turn of the millennium, this changed somewhat, and is evidenced in many Christian writings, including the gospels, as they adopted the notions absent in ancient Israel, but coming into popular view with the Essenes. In terms of Hebrew culture, and the "telling of or prediction of" the future, was unknown, and forbidden, and not at ALL a view of the major prophets themselves. However in the the new view, certain "hidden meanings" or "pesherim" began to be looked for, in the practice of Midrash. The name for this is called "pesher", (or seeking a "hidden meaning"), which was not even known to the original speaker/writer, but only "revealed" later to certain believers. Originally, the (plural) "pesherim" were only fully revealed to the Son of Righteousness, (the leader of the Essenes), and the idea was first found and fully understood after scholars read the Dead Sea scrolls, and was a sub category of "Midrash", (or study of the texts). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesher en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash Thus we see that "prophesy" as fortune telling as began to be practiced in Judaism around the First Century, (and picked up by Christians and the gospel writers), really was a very late invention and never a classical part of Hebrew scripture, or understanding, either interpretation, or intention, and certainly was not the function of the ancient office of "prophet", in Hebrew culture, who was to be a "mouthpiece" to the people of their own day, and not Madame Zelda with her crystal ball. The role of a messiah was NEVER to ''save from sin". The messiah was to restore the kingdom to Israel, as even the disciples asked Jesus in Acts "Lord with thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel". They invented "salvation" many decades later, when (as promised) the end-times, never arrived, as they needed to justify the new cult's continuation. You really should get an education before you pretend to be an expert on something.
You need to watch more of Bart's videos. He came from a Evangelist Christian upbringing but is now atheist... but 100% believes the man Jesus of Nazarath existed, and thinks it's so certain you're foolish if you dispute it. The historicity for his existence is sound. Watch more, this is one of the most respected scholars in the world on this time in history. Suggesting he was fictitious is just ignorant.
*Jesus (pbuh) was born of a virgin* He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son. 20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" 21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed." (19: 19-21,) And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. (21: 91) *Jesus (pbuh) strengthened with the Holy Spirit* We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?--Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! (2: 87) *Jesus (pbuh) was given revelation by Allah* He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet. (19: 30) *Jesus (pbuh) taken bodily into Heaven* Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. (3: 55) *Jesus (pbuh) was created* The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be." And he was. (3: 59) *Deny Jesus (pbuh) ' Crucifixion* That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";--but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. (4: 157) *Jesus (pbuh) is no more than a messenger of Allah* O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity"" desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4: 171) Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (5: 75) *Jesus (pbuh) was a miracle worker* We have made some of these messengers to excel the others among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by (many degrees of) rank; and We gave clear miracles to Isa1 son of Marium2, and strengthened him with the holy spirit. And if Allah had pleased, those after them would not have fought one with another after clear arguments had come to them, but they disagreed; so there were some of them who believed and others who denied; and if Allah had pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah brings about what He intends. (2: 253) *Jesus (pbuh) , Son of Mary, did not say to worship himself or Mary* And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5: 116) *Allah sent the Gospel to Jesus (pbuh)* And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (5: 46) Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors. (57: 27) *You are cursed if you say Jesus (pbuh) is God's Son* The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9: 30) *Jesus (pbuh) spoke as a child* But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? 30 He said: "I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet" (19: 29-30) *Deny Jesus (pbuh) is Son of God* Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (19: 34-35) *Jesus (pbuh) is the Son of Mary* And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant: (33: 7) *Jesus (pbuh) was no more than a Servant* 57 When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)! 58 And they say, "Are our gods best, or he?" This they set forth to thee, only by way of disputation: yea, they are a contentious people. 59 He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel. (43: 57-59) *Jesus (pbuh) said to obey him* When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me. (43: 63)
Matt 22:7, "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire." The Gospel of Mark is dated after the destruction, by Vespasian/Titus destroyed Jerusalem(the first time) in 70 A.D. . . . so, all these witnesses described in the gospel mean nothing. The Gospels, like much of even the Pauline epistles are midrash of the old testament. It's fiction. . . . the point here is that we know the Paul was the creator of Christianity, and therefore, the debate on whether Jesus was originally and always divine, and the others that wanted Jesus to be incarnated in the flesh goes before the Gospel of Mark.
Read "The Jesus Wars" for a good account of how the first half of the dark ages was the differing Christian groups(those who believe in Jesus as a pre-existing divine being, and those who believed that he must have be incarnated as flesh, otherwise, how else are we to be saved as the quote of Barnabas says, -"then he clearly manifested himself to be the son of god. For had he not come in the flesh, how should men have been able looked upon him, that they might be saved?" This is in the Epistle of Barnabas chapter 4:13-14 Proof that Jesus Christ had to be invented; otherwise, how else are we to be saved?
Paul did not create Christianity. Jesus said, ... upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ..." Jesus was divine and human. "... but was in all points tempted as we are yet without sin ..."
Jesus never existed. Once again, the Gospels come after the Pauline letters. We know that Mark comes after the destruction of Jerusalem, because it mentions the destruction. Mark 13:2 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
You just know I have to explain further . . . Philo of Alexandria was a very rich man; he controlled the silk road into the city of Alexandria. He was so rich, his money payed Vespasians way into the imperal throne; oh wait, didn't I explain this already? Well, maybe not this Philo part. . . . Philo was 'midrashing' the old testament to combine it with Plato's logos theology(the word of god). Hence, all these mentions of "we derived Jesus from scripture" is not prophecy, but a kind of linguistic/literary commentary on the old testament. . . . the mention of the temple's destruction is not prophecy any more than all of Philo's midrashing. That's as bad as Justin Martyr saying, "Oh Jesus is analogous to all the sungods before him, because . . . the devil went back in time to plant them." . . . oh by the way, Josephus makes Vespasian(father of Titus, whom Paul is running around with in Galaticans 2:1-3 . . . and with his son destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D) the coming Christ to save the Jews, at the end of his "Jewish War."
I think people don't understand the context of history because making people divine after their death was common particularly for emperor's/ king's. I imagine it's not a stretch that the same thing was done to Jesus probably no more than a charismatic cult leader at the time.
Exactly, Bart knows the claims the people made who thought to have saw the risen Jesus, these guys believed it, preached it and died for it and that's how Christianity began, thus Jesus is God. There are people singing hymns to Jesus in 112 AD which Pliny the younger. The hymn must have been created before 100 AD, the creed Phil 2:5-11 is a hymn sung by the early church.
maybe there was Jesus, but lately people misquoted Him, they put in His mouth many words He actually never said, and His figure they blew out of proportion....and in the end they made Him god....He never said He was one ...Caretakers of the Temple in that time, did not want anybody to interfere with their financial bussiness , and to divert new religion away from the Temple and sacrifices , created new sacrifice of Man Jesus, spiritual in which new religion invited gentiles too....who created Christianity?....Roman State with help of some Jews and emerging Bishops of new religion....Honest Jews, all they wanted was to leave them alone, to practice their Religion...They rebelled againts the Romans...Roman State wanted to punish the Jews by embracing new religion of Christianity, they allow to Bishops and Scribes to do as many forgeries as they wanted...to put in new religion as many fictions, myths and legends as they wanted....All they wanted was unity in the Roman Empire, by the 4-th century were already created all christian Scriptures, with inserting in which is build Church...with keys of the kingdom>....with power to bound and loose>....Now the Emperor can have more power than ever, over his subiects, ...even after their death...It was better , THE BEST RELIGION ever...with creating hell..... population was in fear, never to dare to change their religion...without putting their lives at stake...PERFECT RELIGION....in the next 1000-years it develops in Catholic Church...with perfect Canon Law...populations of nations were in darkness, uneducated , supersticius...milions were prosecuted ( specially Jews who all they wanted was to leave them alone)...millions died, murdered, burned...that is why today catholic is in fear to leave the catholic ...fear of hell...deep indoctrination and brain wash...Now we live in the time of Internet, we know how to read and write...we know how to check the History...and the most important we have such great Scientists to help us to discover the truth, Scientist like: Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, Kenneth Humphrey, Aron Ra, Sam Harris, Lawrence Kraus, Neil De Grasse, Andrew Bernstein, Peter Cresswell, Israel Filkenstein, William Dever, Carol Meyers, Pat Condell, Dan Barker, Michael Shermer, John Lennox, Bill Nye, Stephen Fry, Acharya Murdock, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Jerry Coyne, James Randi, and at least another 100- names should be added....if God exixts, then may He bless all those Scientists mention here and those not mention here, give them good health, wealth and long life....so they will help human race to discover the truth hidden from them by unscrupulus liars....during past eons and centuries....AMEN.....
Φίλε Ευάγγελε, υπάρχουν τεράστιες αποδείξεις για την Θεία προέλευση του Ιησού. Εδώ άρχισα να μιλά με αυτούς που λένε όλα όσα κι εσύ, και όταν φθάσαμε επιτέλους από τις ανακοινώσεις να μιλούμε την ουσία, για το τι αναφέρουν οι Γραφές (εφόσον περί αυτού πρόκειται η συζήτηση) σταμάτησαν να συζητούν, Η Τριάδα μπορώ να συμφωνήσω πως δεν είναι γραμμένη και έχουν μεν ΄δίκιο αλλά... Η Τριάδα είναι μια αποτυχημένη προσπάθεια ερμηνείας του Θεού διότι είναι φανερό πως ο Υιός είναι ο ίδιος. Χωρίς εξάλλου να είναι ο ίδιος πως θα μπορούσε να υπάρχει η δήλωση πως "τόσο αγάπησε ο Θεός τον κόσμο" αν ο Θεός απλά έστελνε ένα δημιούργημα? Ο Χριστός μας αποκάλυψε μια ιδιότητα του Θεού τεράστια, στο πρόσωπο του Ιησού. Τον Πατέρα. Ο ίδιος δήλωνε πως ήρθε να φανερώσει το όνομα του. Όμως το όνομα του Θεού δεν ήταν κρυφό... Γιαχβέ.. το ιδίωμα το Θεού σαν Πατέρας μας όμως φανέρωνε. Και ο πατέρας θυσιάζεται για τα παιδιά του. Πως όμως? Μόνο μέσα από την ενανθρώπηση του. Εάν έχει πραγματικά την ανάγκη να μάθεις πως η Θεότης του Ιησού είναι εξακριβωμένη μέσα από τη Γραφή τότε ας το συζητήσουμε. Όσα αναφέρεις είναι αληθή, εν τούτοις δεν προσδίδουν στο θέμα μας το στοιχείο που συζητούμε, και το αν ο Ehrman λέει όλη την αλήθεια. Ο άνθρωπος αυτός παρουσιάζει ό,τι είναι δυνατόν να κτυπήσει τη Θεότητα του Κυρίου και επιμελώς αποφεύγει τα σημεία που αποδεικνύουν το αντίθετο των ισχυρισμών του. Και κάποιοι οι οποίο ξέρουν λίγα ή λιγότερα ευφραίνονται νομίζοντας πως ανακάλυψαν τον κύκλο
It is interesting to note that the Atman of Vedic philosophy is similarly co-eternal and consubstantial with Brahman - though innumerable and uncaused (i.e. not "begotten").
Anyone with minimal common sense can easily see that this myth story of Jesus is no different to the many other ancient mythologies of the day -- just as crazy, just as irrational, just as nonsensical. Religion remains where it belongs -- in the Fairy Tale Department.
As an atheist I can say that is factual untrue. That is a lazy argument that is easily refuted with about 5 minutes of research. Jesus more than likely existed. His followers did believe he resurrected. That much true or at least more than likely. However, for me that is the end of it.
I would say that I'm agnostic, and if anything leaning towards atheist. I agree that the story of Jesus as well as other religions follow a very similar narrative (virgin mother, some foretold prophecy of a "Messiah" figure, etc.). However, there are things that can be taken from religions that are not fairy tales and if followed lead a person to a good life. As another person that commented said, there is no refuting that there was a man named Jesus, and that he preached love (I speak from a Roman Catholic point of view because that is how I was raised). And for those that follow those teachings, rather than picking and choosing what they will, they are fulfilled in their life while being good human beings. I use my grandmother as an example. She TRULY believes that everyone was created from God and therefore no one is above anyone. Also, that one human cannot judge another because it is not our place. Just as we find it hard when people come at us for not believing in a religion, it is the same when an atheist does the same. My mom's friend lost a nephew in a tragic accident. and it was at the funeral that i realized that the family got through his death because of their belief that he was now in heaven with the Father. I thought to myself, that i wished that i could see death like that and it was their way of healing. anyways, sorry for the chapter book lol. these are just my thoughts
@@stefania5882 That's it being religious is not that you have to go and steal,rape,kill to earn heaven when you die, you live like every other just you add some minutes of practices every day depending on religion and live on their objective morality thats it for the sake of god and to earn heaven in afterlife and to keep good relations with family,friends etc
No he wasn't. Jesus fulfilled *_none_* of the prophecies attributed to the Messiah. Think *DREE.* The Messiah was to: *Deliver* the Jews from the Roman occupation. *Restore* the Kingdom of God. *End* the Diaspora. *End* all pain and suffering and rule for 1,000 years. Jesus fulfilled none of these. That is why the Jews still wait upon the Messiah.
Stefan Urban, agreed. So is that a good thing or bad thing? Paul appropriated/rewrote the message of Jesus so we will never know what the authentic mission was.
@@noaheinstein2369 Gal.3:28 Jesus said that salvation was only for the Jews. Mt.15:24; 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt.10:5,6; These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jn.4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
David Lutke, that about says it all. Plus he lobbed a few nasty as hell insults at Gentiles. Are there any contrary verses attributed to Jesus. Like maybe, “I used to not come for gentiles but I’ve since rethought the whole thing and now they’re pretty much my market niche.
@@vejeke test each claim, see wether it's doctrine is false or not. We will die one day. Logically, Pascal's wager favors theism, theism favors Islam. If atheism is true, muslims have nothing to lose before and after death.
@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 Supernatural claims are untestable an unfalsifiable... "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.
@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 Pascal Wager is a fallacy. th-cam.com/video/NKzqQ-IVxGs/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/M4Dm1HWJhoo/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/YBCDGohZT70/w-d-xo.html
@@vejeke do you believe you have a fire breathing dragon in your garage? If you do, why do you believe so? Please join the live streaming conversation in Efdawah, SCDawah, Muhammad Hijab, Subboor Ahmed, Sapient Institute youtube channel. Let's have a reasonable intellectual discussion. All non muslims are welcomed, invited. "Or were they created by nothing, or are they ˹their own˺ creators?" Quran 52 35. Science can't prove nor disprove Allaah, here's a weight scale, tell me my body temperature = logical fallacy. Science is NOT the yardstick of truth, Qur'an (Allaah's words) is.
Love this lecture and want to hear more. Interesting how the genealogy of Jesus leads to Joseph and not to Mary. Why does it not lead to Mary? If Jesus is the Messiah, the chosen one, Joseph adopted Him as his son. What are the implications of that. I don't know, but it sure is worth discussing.
oui, mais elles aboutissaient toute à la conclusion qu'il y avait plus qu'un dieu. Et pour le monothéisme qui était le coeur même de cette révolution spirituelle sociale et politique, c'était évidemment inacceptable.
The Pythagorean doctrine, of Monad, the sacred unity of One from which everything generated, and the triad Harmony. In Hebrew the corresponding number/letters are One beginning and ultimate being and Three meant seed resurrection renewal. In Pythagorean mysticism the Number three is the first real number. The Pythagorean’s also believed in The Tetractys symbolizing the four classical elements-fire, air, water, and earth. Which has an equivalent to the tetramorph Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. a man, an ox, a lion, an eagle. It is a syncretism with older ideas.
Jesus Christ that was awesome. So everything we know about this person was based on bunch of other people debating and voting on what story appears more probable. Omg🤦♂️
The corruption and the endless debates are made by the son of man GOD is not a corrupt identity one pure and peaceful message from the beginning to the end .We twist ,turn and change as we go to serve hidden agendas and earthly needs ,the battle will continue to the end of time but the scale of f justice already on a stage for judgement day, it is only a matter of time.
This is all a myth with no contemporaneous evidence. The dying and rising god undergoing a passion is typical mythology of the time with the myth written as fact after it has all passed. Funny none of this shows up until Mark who has no witnesses, just a fictional novel really.
Peace be upon the prophets of God. Here is a list of few attributes, one considers the basic understanding of God. - God is the ultimate authority - God is immortal - God is all-powerful - God is all knowledgeable - God is independent (does not need anyone or anything) Such common understanding can be found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The concept so far is simple and logical. If we were to contrast man on the other hand. - Man is not the ultimate authority. - Man is mortal. - Man has no power or knowledge by himself. - Man is absolutely dependent on God. According to jews and Muslims.. God is God, and man is a man. No confusion. According to Trinitarians, Jesus was both God and man. Here is where the confusion arises. - God is both the ultimate authority but also has a higher authority. - God is immortal but also mortal. - God is all-powerful but also powerless. - God is independent but also dependent. - God is all knowing but also lacks certain knowledge. Matthew 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. God knows the final hour but also does not know the final hour. Is there such a thing as the presence of knowledge and absence of knowledge both at the same time? The concept of God according to Jews and Muslims is simple and very clear. The concept of God The Father is also simple and very clear. The concept of God The Father is in harmony with our basic understanding of God. God, The Father is independent of anyone or anything, this includes The Son. No confusion yet. The confusion only arises when the concept of God the Son is introduced. The trinity concept claims: a) It is logical for God not to know something. b) It is logical for God to know and not know something at the same time. c) It is logical for God to die. d) It is logical for God to die and not die at the same time. Is the trinity concept a mystery or a concept of contradictions? May God forgive us and guide us all.
Mavors44 Fonder upon your own existence, you will find the amazing creation of God and it will lead you to God, who has NO Son and No daughter, the absolutely ONE and nothing Like Unto God...
There are there Christians out there (like myself) who believe in the unity of God and reject the Trinity. The Bible does not teach the Trinity, either Old or New Testament.
The reference given to Psalm 2, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. A more correct version is given in the Jerusalem Bible, where we find, "You are my son, today I have become your father" here God is speaking not to Jesus but to a (unnamed) Israelite king.
He is full aware of that the Jerusalem Bible and some others manuscripts said that. I've heard him talk about it several times in some of his lectures, but I don't remember what he said about it. Sorry.. :-P I listen to him in the background and don't pay much attention so I easily forget the message. But I've heard him talk about that particular verse in the Jerusalem Bible quite a lot. So I assure you that he is aware of it. Why don't you ask him on his blog about it? He is quite approachable and almost always responds.
@@vejeke You may approach the professor if you wish on this subject and even mention my criticism if you wish. But I have already made my point. But thank you for your interest.
I had misunderstood you. My fault, English is not my first language. The reference to Psalm 2 is given by Paul and he, Paul, is talking about Jesus. Psalm 2 is not.
(4:171) O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
@@theunknownpreacher9833 even in the Gospel of Mark, they use the word “Allah”. Specifically, go to the last section where Jesus say God why have you foresaken me. The book was written in high Greek. Because of that, they also translated that sentence into Aramaic (the language of Jesus) which is close to Arabic. In that translation in any bible you read, in Gospel of Mark, Jesus uses the word “Eloi, Eloi” which is pronounced the same way as Allah, Allah, which means God
Jimmy Kelley I am Sunni I don’t hate Shia. Anyways our differences is merely on who the first caliph should have been. Minor differences. Not Christian differences which are MAJOR!! Some Christians can’t agree if god is 3 in 1, 2 in 1 or 1 in 1 or modalism or subordinatism
@@jasonthedragon73 Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatulla wa barakatahu And ALLAH says in the Qur'an in Surah Taha (20:47) ...wassa laamu 'alaa manit taba'al hudaa [...and peace to all who follow guidance!] SO PEACE BE UPON YOU AND YOUR FAMILY..! And may Allah grant you the highest place of Al-Jannah..!!
excellent narrative, jesus is no more human than you and me. Just worship your one true eternal, all powerful Creator.He is neither begotten nor begets and is Just ONE.
Nasir Mauroof : Christians apologists like Sam Shamoun and David Wood Can attack the personality of Bart Erhman, but have nothing to say about his historical and Biblical Facts.
They REASONED the god they wished to worship over a very long time. Through reason I can both figure out how the universe works and at the same time convince people the earth is flat. Amazing tool this "Reasoning", no?
the earliest testimony to Jesus being God is in the letters of Paul, Galatians 1and 2 Corinthians , Romans from as early as 20 years before the Gospel of Mark.
That makes no sense. You can literally use the same logic for any other religion. Beliefs are still beliefs. The views of Ehrman will always be his own. There are many biblical scholars who have differing viewpoints. Lol
Why is it that there are so many different ideas about God, who Jesus was, what does Salvation mean, where is Hell, is it forever, and what would cause you to be sent there, etc? Christians can't even agree on these points and these are THE MAIN POINTS for all of the New Testament. And yet people who earnestly study and seek the truth about these questions still come up with different answers. If God is not the author of confusion, then why the hell is the bible so confusing and filled with errors, contradictions, and modifications from later scribes? The answer is pretty obvious if you can get past your own tightly held belief system- The bible is not the word of God, it's the words of men trying to make sense of their world and how the idea of God fit into their existence. I know it's a scary thing to accept (trust me, I've been through it), but once you open your eyes to the truth of the situation, everything starts to become a lot clearer.
+Naomi - these are not his 'views'. As he said, he does not discuss theology, only historical, verifiable facts. You might be surprised to know that in many churches the ministers of religion are taught all these facts, which are thought 'too dangerous' for their congregations to learn.
Why are you watching this video?__ It is because you doubted and you are seeking for the Truth! By you watching this video. It is already FALSE to you. If you believe it, then why doubt or question it? MEMES
You are correct. Despite Erhman's claims to be a "Historian" he is a "Pauline Apologist". Most of us real historians refer to post 350 AD 'Christianity' as "Paulinism" or "Pauline Christianity". Prior to that there were a variety of forms of Christianity. Note that Islam is more properly referred to as "Mohammadin Christianity" which evolved outside the restrictions of the Roman Empire and Paulinism.
Bart said that, the early Christian believe in adoptionism, then after 300 they agree on Trinity, Jesus co-exist with Father God etc, but How about the gospel of John, when was it written? before 300 right?, He has believed in Incarnation and not Adoptionism right?, or is it remake or forgery in John chapter 1? Regards, Yudi Indonesia
we believe that the gospel of John, and 1, 2, 3 John which are epistles, and the book of Revelation were completed by AD 90. John was the last of the apostles of the original group. Christ Jesus selected 12 men to be apostles and Paul, one born out of due time. of the twelve, Christ was close to Peter, James and John. those were the ones of the inner circle. i believe Christ allowed them to go up to what we call the Mount of Transfiguration. that is where Christ was transfigured and spoke with Moses and Elijah about his impending death and the things He would accomplish in Jerusalem.
This verse wasn’t allowed to be used in a debate between Unitarian and a trinitarian Christians mi wonder why ? Romans 8:29 New International Version (NIV) 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
It seems like it from all their blunders - only humans can make such a mess. And besides, for that, they made up a cure called the Holy Spirit application. They take this form of spiritual experience that the Jews so rightfully felt and wrote about (and I have no doubt you feel when you get high of Tool) and molded it into this "sanctification" machine. Literally, anything that men do can be considered God-inspired and even "holy", worthy of prayer and honor, if the community of, again men (with the same material interests as their saint-candidates), says it's filled with the Holy Spirit...never reaching the point to question that not all affection by godliness is the work of the Holy Spirit (the Devil, according to their teaching, does this very well too).
To be a little more precise... none of the “scriptures” were considered to be “the word of god” when they were written by their authors. There was process by which our attitudes towards normal texts became transformed into holy scripture. Similar mechanisms are at work to produce the evolution in our attitudes towards Jesus’ divinity.
@@RedFlagSaid looking to Orthodox Christianity like Catholicism which is an obvious corrupt blend of Christianity and Pagan Roman beliefs for answers or the lack thereof is comparable to asking the devil himself what you must do to please God. All Christianity has become corrupt in some form, God is not a Trinity nor does the Bible claim Him to be, despite what Christian apologetics suggest there is so much evidence against the Trinity in the Bible that my phone freezes trying to copy and past it all, John 20:14 When she had said this, she turned around and *saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus *said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she *said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” 16 Jesus *said to her, “Mary!” She turned and *said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene *came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her. The Truth is Yahushua always does the will of the Father so he has all the authority of God and came in God's name, to do God's will and never claimed to be equal to God. The Bible does not support Trinity doctrine and yet people think they are so clever criticizing the Trinity when in fact you are doing God's work because this deception needs to be revealed.
@@MrArdytube Jeremiah 1: The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, 2 to whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. 3 It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the exile of Jerusalem in the fifth month. 4 Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Ezekiel 1: Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. 2 (On the fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile, 3 the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and there the hand of the Lord came upon him.) Zechariah 1: In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo saying, 2 “The Lord was very angry with your fathers. 3 Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Return to Me,” declares the Lord of hosts, “that I may return to you,” says the Lord of hosts. The authors certainly knew they were speaking the Word of God, the people may have rejected it as the Word of God, history has recorded the result.
@@aural_supremacy Yes! Thank you God for this wisdom you have recieved! We will overcome the trinitarians and all who loved and laid with the imperial state from the time of Constantine till today
we're Professor araminta night differs that he will still condescend to agreed it to Jesus was a real human being. my opinion is that he was not. He is a literary fiction created out of whole cloth.
Only in John and this was a statement like you say to your friend " oh God I'm late" , but it is obvious that you are not calling your friend God , same way Thomas said that in a shock
When I hear Rev./Dr. Ehrman teach/preach somehow I feel like I am hearing the first honest sermon of my fourscore year of living. He is captivating, confident and reveals to me he really is inspired; but it is not by some Supreme Being. Instead, I find what makes him speak with inspiration is due to fact that, based on decades of study and research, he has found the truth which sets him free from error.
Professor Ehrman does his homework! His work is thought provoking and educational. His knowledge of subject matter is incredible, and his command of history is spectacular.
This is what happens when a critical thinking mind attends Bible school.
oui, mais ses vues sont un peu naïves, je trouve. Il analyse l'histoire comme si les pressions politiques et militaires n'existaient pas. C'est un peu candide non?
REAL STORY OF GODS AND CREATION.
th-cam.com/video/MCVc4rRL53g/w-d-xo.html
Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the direction of where they want the narrative to go, to secure their view and position. For example, he simply dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the reported accounts of the empty tomb that leads to the resurrection of Jesus. He just says in his opinion with no evidence to support his claim, the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave. And by doing so, it removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Which is the very essence of the Christian faith and the divinity of Jesus.
He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in a unknown grave and nothing to support that, there is nothing anywhere reported that this happened other than Jesus being placed in a tomb. Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities.
If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could of easily put a end to Jesus as the messiah.. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. Simply would of exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and laid the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished.
The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart just thinks that's what happened because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God, it also fits into how Muslims simply dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh.
There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Pauls declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to base that view at all, just unsupported opinion. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, it's ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on those reported events.
So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view
@@skaterdavedownsouth I feel that. I remember being pulled into my pastor’s office when I was younger because I was doing the math behind Noah’s ark and discussing it with my classmates (in like 5th or 6th grade). I had issues with critical thinking really young. My pastor explained “mystery” and faith and miracles again even though I had been hearing the same thing for years at this point. I was also really good at “memory treasures” where you memorize specific Bible passages for homework. This turned out to be a problem because I actually read it.
I love to hear Bart Ehrman's all lectures. He is an amazing scholar, and I love the way that he presents.
He has a TH-cam channel where his debates and lectures are posted
He is a true scholar!
REAL STORY OF GODS AND CREATION.
th-cam.com/video/MCVc4rRL53g/w-d-xo.html
Yes! He's a perfect antidote for people who think all religion is just nonsense. Turns out Theology is the most human of the humanities.
나도 그렇게 생각합니다.
Dr. Ehrman in this presentation , is more clear than in some previous presentations. It should not matter what a viewer believes about religion, they should be able to respect these historical facts that are presented.He gives us the history and leaves what we do with them to our own judgement. Thanks Dr. Ehrman.
I agree but this is more speculative than facts
@@fecalmatter4195 Hello fecal matter, Eugene here. I do not understand what you are calling "speculative" and what you consider to be "facts" in 'Dr. Ehrman's presentation. In large part what he provides for us are "facts" from history. Now it could be that the "historical records" are not absolutely correct, but that does not change the "fact" that what he tells us is not exactly what the historical records show. What conclusions we draw from those historical records he presented is up to us. How have I missed the truth here?
@@originalhigene , anyone with a YT account name "fecal matter" can't me taken seriously 😂🤣😂
@davidbarnard1409
I love how respectful he was, with only a whisp of sarcasm whilst saying their name.
Respect and regards to Bart Ehrman, from Fort Lauderdale, FL.
He exposes the best argument for the earthly origen of Christianity. And showing that Christ was an ordinary person. This is no way to detract from Jesus of Nazerath's ethical teachings.
The problem Bart has is after seminary school and then farther studying into the New Testament, he found out there was a lot of playing around going on with the gospels. Than found out that we don’t have any original gospels, but copy’s of a copy of a copy & each time they was copied there was changes. till the point that Bart doesn’t trust that the words of Jesus is even his words anymore.
Certainly NOT an ordinary man.........
You could argue that it is because of his teachings that he is God, those teachings are still alive, they are teachings that have been true before Jesus the man preached them. He was those teachings.
Not an ordinary person but a "human being" ....that is no different from all the other great prophets. Imbued with miracles, but still men !
I am in awe of his scholarship and insights into the Christian faith and its Jesus. I still believe, but am enriched by what he says. I would love to attend his classes. Alas, my seminary days are over. Now I live in retirement wishing I could study forever with someone of Professor Ehrman's insights.
Study on... learning never ends!
The Qur'an it's self is the only evidence that there's a creator. The Bible is written by men, and it is full of discrepancies. The Qur'an mentions do you not believe this is the word of God, if so there would have been discrepancies. God challenges the readers, Muslim and non-Muslim, to try and disprove it. It also mentions that the Qur'an will persevered.
I've seen the evidence, but I still believe in leprechauns😅.
Nailed it like always. Most excellent scholar work
WOWzer. Thank you for sharing video.
Dr. Bart is great. I enjoy all his videos. We are fortunate to live in a time when an open discussion about the historical accuracy of the bible is possible. Ironically, the more doors that are opened, the more Christianity will be strengthened. At the end of the day, religion is about faith.
Plant Ster A life of Christianity is not wasted per se. A life unexamined however....
He’s confirming Jesus is not real he’s man made
th-cam.com/video/3JEiFo0LbjI/w-d-xo.html
Respect for this man. Wow
Yes, Bart Ehrmsn is unbelievably brillant.
@@jakesanders136 the only gospel where jesus claims divinity is John which probably wasnt written until 2nd century , as for trinitarianism how then do you explain the Christian churches that dont believe in it or that jesus is co equal with God?!
@@deanodog3667 If you ask a Jew, he will tell you that claiming to be the son of God is claiming divinity. Just go and talk to a rabbi. Jews objected to Jesus Christ because of this fact.
@@iheanyi1 Jews regard christianity as idolatry
@@deanodog3667 I am telling you that Jesus claimed divinity in all the gospels. What Jews regard Christianity as is immaterial. I know Jews do not accept Christianity. You are wrong that Jesus claimed divinity only in John
This man is more than amazing
Great lecture...
I like Bart Ehrman because “he speaks as someone who has authority” :)
Sun Chong well he certainly is an authority who has knowledge.
@@beastshawnee He just needs to cast out demons to put icing on the cake.
Excellent! And confirming that religions and gods are creations of man.
this is so good!! so comprehensive
This is just validation of what I've thought for a long time: the whole theology was cobbled together to fill the need for people to worship a human being. They reverse-engineered a god back to a human being. It was the greatest marketing strategy until New Coke.
Then how did 80% of the revelation come true.
Excellent lecture by Bart Ehrman.
Just listening to the controversy of Nicaea reveals how inane this whole concept of Christianity truly is. Right there in the 3-6 minute time frame.
REAL STORY OF GODS AND CREATION.
th-cam.com/video/MCVc4rRL53g/w-d-xo.html
Excellent lecture. Enjoyed it very much; also learned a few new things. :)
Excellent speech i
Very interesting!
I dearly respect Erhman
Your ignorant.
You respect foolishness?
theunknownpreacher You're projecting.
Aaron Johnson You should learn to use proper grammar and educate yourself. It's clear that you're an example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Lol.
Yes, Dr. Ehrman is a respected New Testament scholar and he's willing to change his mind. His studies focus on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.
Prof. Bart is brilliant, as well as very funny
Brilliant!
Great lecture! Thanks
REAL STORY OF GODS AND CREATION.
th-cam.com/video/MCVc4rRL53g/w-d-xo.html
Amazing how humanity can tie itself into knots explaining nonsense.
Lord knows there's enough nonsense in religion taken literally, but at the same time, there were people trying to understand the meaning and purpose of life with all their might, and that's still an obsession for some of us.
Also amazing how humans can reduce a question that's been bothering humans throut whole of our existence and in this case something that started by far the most influential movement in human history to nonsense,yet you did it
And killing for it too.
@@tonisosic5075 influential yes, but still utter nonsense. The Greek and Roman religious traditions were influential too in their day, still utter tosh.
It may be Nonsense to you but its the World to us. We ought to Worship and honor only one God. The god of Israel. So Jesus was a teacher. This is why we are labouring at it.🙏🙏🙏
I thought the Council was inaugurated in 325 AD but how long did it take to arrive at a conclusion? I thought (from memory) it took about 7 yrs and Constantine got tired of waiting and demanded a conclusion in about 332 AD. Just a thought.
One word , God is a "MIRACLE"...done..
I think you missed the point. God is an ongoing interpretation of whatever each generation wants to believe he should be. Did you even watch the video?
Something I've always wondered about. That didn't make much sense to me. Prof. Ehrman mentions Mark 3:21 where Jesus' family, including his mother Mary, come to get him and take him back to Nazareth because, as Mark says, they think he has lost his mind. This sentiment from those who knew him best always struck me as odd considering all that is reported about Mary and Elizabeth, the Annunciation, the Magnificat, etc. These things happened before John and Jesus were born. Certainly the entire family spoke about these miraculous revelations often, waiting eagerly and with much anticipation for them to come to pass. Reflecting always on the time that God Himself spoke to them through the archangel Gabriel and through divine visions and dreams. And now that Jesus is full grown they seem to have forgotten about all this, about who Jesus really is. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
Welcome to the world of the Bible.
Wow this is actually a very good point. Mary reportedly spoke to an angel before getting pregnant with her son. Jesus remained at the temple when he was 12 and called it the house of his father. And yet his mother was confused as to why he went around preaching and curing people. Hmm
Like Ehrmann has continuously asserted, you have to look at each gospel individually. Did the spirit really talk to her and others in the gospel of Mark? As far as I can see, the gospel opened when Jesus is already old!
It's just mythic accretion. Each succeeding gospel increased the Christology & the details.
Maybe none of it makes any sense at all. That would certainly be my view.
Paul was wrong, then, that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son by means of the resurrection. Anyone remember the purported voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism - “This is my beloved Son . . . Listen to Him.” Kinda makes you wonder if Paul was totally on base, or whether the gospel writings had been “doctored” to propose certain theological tenets. I tend to believe more in the gospel of John’s proposal that the spirit of Jesus is indeed a divine portion of the spirit of God. Our problem with this question of who Jesus is, is troubled mainly by our human obsession with quantitative analysis and insistence on numerical uniqueness- that one is not three, or three one. Personally, I believe that Jesus had a portion of the Spirit of God, so was “qualitatively” the same being, or characteristically the same. I use the analogy of the glass and the tanker truck of milk. Jesus is the glass of milk poured from the milk in the tanker truck (God source, if you can excuse the fact that the tanker truck, even though larger than the glass, is still a limited quantity). Both the tanker and the glass contain qualitatively the same substance. So, of course they are both “God” stuff, just that Jesus had a more limited quantity manifested in, animating, a human body. I’m pretty tired of this quantitative argument / analysis that seems to contradict monotheism (and is the basis for why both Jews and Muslims reject Jesus as an incarnation of God stuff). It is based on a compulsion of human thinking about quantities, rather than an understanding about the metaphysical nature of soul spirit energy and its qualities. We are better equipped today with our understanding of energy, though humanity may still be obsessive to a fault. God can incarnate a portion of Himself and give life to whatever He wants, even if we can’t always wrap our heads around it. But, God in Jesus is not confusing to me, as Jesus as an existent being from time immortal was always at least a conception in the Mind of God, and thus did exist always there. But, there was a moment in human history when this thought became an occurrence manifesting in this 3D world of space and time and interacted with humanity, to change the outcome of the human experiment / experience. I don’t agree with adoptionism.
David... this just blew my mind! I thank you for sharing this.
How I wish I have listening ears, seeing eyes and believing heart, I think Bart would be saving me"
My, my! what a title!
John's Gospel, is a Wisdom genre book. The whole thing, is like reading Proverbs! It has caused a lot of confusion, because people think John meant, Messiah pre-existed. But, it was about Wisdom/Word of Yahweh, that existed, and created Yahoshua (in Miriam's womb.)
I wonder if anyone else has this view- Yahoshua is the second created son, of Yah. Adam was first, and lost his life and his inheritance is compromised. Then, when Yahoshua defeated death, because: he had not sinned, and was born with pure blood, which was able to make the blood atonement requirement, for unknown sins; and by not sinning, he was adopted as the First-Born, with all the rights to go with it, that Adam had lost.
I liked the video!
If it took 300 years to define Christ as God, why did the God of Christ let this take so long? It's all beginning to sound more human than divine
This guy gets it.
Exactly. Muslims believe that when jesus comes back, he is going to break the cross and testify that he never asked to be worshipped and only preached the worshipping of the one and only god. If u're interested, you can look up in the quran the conversation Jesus with have with god when god asks him "did you tell your people to workship you and your mother?"
Islam doesn't have any more credibility than Christianity. All religions are unsubstantiated primitive iron age folklore. The world has been waiting over 2,000 years for any shred of authenticity.
Correct. Jesus was a Jew, and had no intent of establishing a new religion.
As the Christians say, god works in mysterious ways
Clip from Ehrman and Michael Bird debate....
I read his book How Jesus became God and the main issue I see with his work (which is good work) is that he tries to argue for exaltation theology/low Christology by planting the seeds of doubt but not really showing any definitive evidence to support his understanding. The earliest Christian writings (Paul's epistles) clearly reflect a high christology. No historian would doubt that low Christology existed early on but that does not mean high christology did not. Furthermore, he proposes that the earliest Christians had a low christology and that, as the movement spread, the minority of high christology became dominant and overwhelmed the originals. He doesn't suggest that in the 20 years leading up to Paul's epistles after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection that those early Christians were working out an understanding of high christology that would also have to be proto-trinitarian which took awhile to develop and understand. Also, Mark explicitly calls Jesus the son of God (in a clearly non-metaphorical way) and Jesus forgives people of their sins which the Gospel writer proclaims as an act only God could do (No one would expect the Messiah to do so). Saying Son of God is metaphorical is like saying that the Romans thought Caesar Augustus to be the metaphorical son of God; it's silliness. If you mean that the early Jews did not yet have a fully developed Chalcedonian high Christology then fine but saying that they had a low Christology when the Gospels clearly describe that Jesus understood himself to be sent to earth and as the one commanding angels and who is Lord of the Sabbath, you are talking about the greatest man to ever walk the earth. All that is evident is a high christology,
Urgent at 25:25, he obviously, undoubtedly and indisputably said that Jesus is a literal son of God;
*_".....Therefore be called the son of God because God is literally his father for Luke..."_*
But bulk of Christians say *no, no, it is not like that,* Jesus is not literally or biologically son of God, then *what does Luke say?*
Ehrman is correct and his facts can not be refuted. The bible is not the inerrant word of God
I am afraid is not about refuting the facts, but about refuting the interpretation of the facts.
I am an admirer of Ehrman by the way, and have all his books, so I am not trying to undermine him.
What if he's wrong?
Hmmm, let's see...
If Paul and Peter present the oldest Christology in Acts, does that mean that Acts is older than Marc?
Acts is the sequel of Luke, which presents the next-to-latest Christology, so is Luke older than Marc, too? That would make the next-to-latest Christology older than the next-to-oldest.
Or, if Marc really is the oldest Gospel, and Acts presents an older Christology than Marc, can we conclude that this Christology was accurately preserved until Luke wrote Acts, and he faithfully presented it even though it contradicts the Christology he presents in his own Gospel? Wouldn't that make the preservation of the original accounts much more trustworthy than Bart Ehrman allows for?
Not sure, don't the demons in Mark say Jesus is the son of god?
I care because it shows the evolution of Christianity. It contradicts Ehrmans point that no character in the narrative Mark recognizes Jesus as the son of God. Several people, described as possessed by demons, refer to Jesus as the son of God.
Brilliant thesis
It's interesting that modern official Christian doctrine states that Jesus was fully God and fully human, yet many Christians think of him as being fully God and only technically human, in the sense that he had a human body but he never struggled with anything (apart from in the garden of Gethsemane for about five seconds). This was my experience of most people in the evangelical church I used to go to. Such a Jesus was therefore always supremely confident and had no patience with human frailty.
Not the belief of Unitarian church
you can even add more characters to that power rangers God, I.e the white pigeon , the angel/man that fought with Israel.
Do you believe in power rangers God?
A book cannot save anybody but Jesus Christ can who is alive!
"If you think you are understanding it, you are misunderstanding it."
Where was this recorded? Is there a link to the full video?
Oh, here it is:
th-cam.com/video/RtkeNuCwinc/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BartD.Ehrman
“Then the roman soldiers saw that the crowd was surrounding jesus doing the miracles, they said: look! The god of israel has come down to live among his people” ~ Gospel of barnabas
Yes! Thats how u got it dear christians. The pagans already believe in this fairytale and u concocted it from them
Even Moses was a god to Pharoh doesn't make him special indeed
In Acts 14 they thought Barnabas was Zeus and Paul was Hermes. The ancients just thought in those terms: gods could show up anywhere and take any form. Thus any random stranger might be a god.
If the Roman soldiers mentioned in the Gospel of Barnabas thought Jesus might be a god of some sort, it really isn't remarkable. It's just how people of those days saw the world.
But I have long thought that Christian ideas of the divinity of Jesus reflect exactly that sort of pagan view which was common among the gentiles of the ancient world. It certainly is at odds with later Orthodox Judaism and with Islam, which I suspect is your point.
31:15 - 32: 39 if god is the son, father, etc who were gods parents?
Good question.
God's parents are 2 imaginary human-like entities in the sky and God talked to someone,....alone without any witnesses, but no longer does that now, but still wants a personal relationship with humans.
He’s part of the Big Bang
Should we ask to the grand father?
@@tjahjo899 Yes, if we believe in baby talk. 😆🤣
your mom
bravo
I enjoyed the first half of the talk and have these comments.
1. Arius was a neo-platonists. This meant his cosmology was the ladder of being. It is from this he derived his Christology. For Ehrman not to present this fact disempowers those who listen to him.
2. Ehrman puts forward Mark as the earliest gospel. Ok. Then says it shows Jesus as the son of God at his resurrection. He then refers to Matthew, Luke, and John, to show how the “son of God” gets pushed back earlier and earlier to his birth and then pre-creation. The problem is that Mark refers to Jesus as the son of God in his baptism and transfiguration and Jesus speaks about this in his parables. Ehrman’s adoption theory and evolution has no evidence.
This is why as Muslims, we’re very serious about refuting the falsehood amongst Muslims because we will never see our religion being tampered with.
The more I’m learning about the council of Nicaea and earlier beliefs, the more I start to realise how important our Islamic principles of refuting falsehood from internal and external parties is truly spectacular.
Regarding the conclusion: If the early Christians didn‘t believe Jesus was pre-existent, wouldn‘t that mean the whole Gospel of John is a heresy? And the revelation too?
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. [...] And the word became flesh and dwellt among us. (=Jesus)
Jesus is with God and God in himself (He gave him the right to have life in himself), what am I missing?
I still don‘t understand it, how could I, but Jesus also said of himself that he had to return to the father (multiple times). And that he had seen him (most likely before he was on earth). And that before Abraham was, He is. So how could he have said that without being a liar? And if he was exalted, what was he before? Before he was born, he was already exalted (that‘s just what I conclude when I read the scriptures, could be wrong, but it‘s written) and that means he came from God down to the earth, lowering himself by his own will. That‘s also written somewhere.
Wouldn‘t that all be wrong if he was just exalted at a certain point of time?
If one part of John's account was wrong, you are right, we wouldn't be able to trust what he wrote. However, John was a special friend of Jesus and they were very close. John knew who he was. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) . . .Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
(My comment: God & Lord is a title indicating a position such as president, senator, landlord, etc.) (John 17:1-5) . . .Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh, so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.
Patricia Sheppard I really like those quotes, but I can‘t figure out where you want to lead me with it? What is the conclusion? What am I getting wrong? I hope you realise I am asking sincerely.
@@DaveundseineGitarre My granddaughter often asks me, "What are you really trying to say." lol I'll just say that Jehovah is the true God (Ps. 83:18) His first creation, or first born, he created out of himself. (Colossians 1:15, 16) . . .He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.
Jehovah and Jesus together created humans (Genesis 1:26) . . .And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, . . ."
We are not invisible like Jehovah and Jesus but we have qualities like they have such as the ability to show love, to be able to think & reason, to be creative and have wisdom. In our imperfect state that we inherited from Adam & Eve we don't use our godly qualities perfectly. When Jesus was praying to Jehovah before his death he said (John 17:3-5) . . .This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.
" The word god is a title such as president, senator, landlord, etc. There are many things people worship as a god. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) . . .Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
" I have thoughts about where to go to get everlasting life besides learning who the true God is and what Jesus did for us. If you would like to explore this further you can email me at patriciabentleysheppard@gmail.com I love discussing these subjects.
Sorry, it cut the rest of my comment off. If you would like to talk about this further, I love discussing it.
patriciabentleysheppard@gmail.com
In my opinion this is the master piece of Bart Ehrman.
At least the Bible has explanation, Christians are open for debate. On the other hand, Muslims have no idea what their quran says, they cannot dispute, they cannot question. Please try to debate your quran the same way, you will be killed.
At 24:05 Dr. Ehrman says that in Jesus's baptism in Luke (Lk.3:21.22) "a voice from Heaven says 'You are my son, today I have begotten you" - and uses these words to prove his point about adoption, but Lk.3:22 ACTUALLY says "Thou are my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased". "Today I have begotten thee" was said to David is Psalm 2:7, and quoted in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5.
I noticed that misquote too, though I think he actually quoted that line correctly elsewhere in the lecture ... so, perhaps he got them confused in his head at the moment. His point wasn't that adoption was the correct view, or that adoption at baptism was true, the only point was that there were many early Christians that thought it was.
There definitely were early Christians that believed that and used the baptism passage in Luke to justify it. We know this because they told us so themselves in their writings. "Thou are my beloved son," could be interpreted as a declaration of adoption as well. So, even though he got the quote wrong, I think his point still stands.
"There was a human being in the first century who was called 'Divine,' 'Son of God,' 'God,' and 'God from God,' whose titles were 'Lord,' 'Redeemer,' 'Liberator,' and 'Saviour of the World. Most Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to Caesar Augustus."
The adoption of these titles by the early Christians and applying them to Jesus was denying them of Caesar the Augustus. To say 'Jesus is Lord' was to say Caesar wasn't. It was subversive.
"They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason" - John Dominic Crossan
Jesus is Lord and God in the flesh. Caesar Augustus was not God. There was no treason. Jesus Christ is King of the Jews.
"and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ..."
Yes, I am a bald eagle with two eaglets. Together we represent the United States.
al tro
It, in the 'new testament, was referenced from the Hebrew tradition of prophecy.. one who will come and save us...
Mr. Hutch,
There is no Hebrew "tradition of prophesy"in the way you describe it. Rookie error, if there ever was one. The role of a prophet in Israel was never to tell the future. In fact, divination, omen reading and sorcery were forbidden. You REALLY should take a class at a reputable Biblical Studies program. They teach you this in Bible 101. Deuteronomy 18:10 "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft".
The ancient role of a prophet in Hebrew culture was to interpret the words or will of their god to the people OF THEIR OWN DAY. NOT to predict the future. (That's Hollywood's idea of the role of a prophet).
So you often hear fundies talking about "prophesy", and how various prophesies were a 'foretelling", or prediction of the future, and indeed they count them up as "proof" that Jesus or whatever HAS to be true, as the "prophecy" came true. In fact Leviticus forbade fortune telling and divination, so we know it was an abomination to even think in these terms for many/most centuries in Hebrew culture. However, with the rise of Apocalypticism, around the turn of the millennium, this changed somewhat, and is evidenced in many Christian writings, including the gospels, as they adopted the notions absent in ancient Israel, but coming into popular view with the Essenes. In terms of Hebrew culture, and the "telling of or prediction of" the future, was unknown, and forbidden, and not at ALL a view of the major prophets themselves. However in the the new view, certain "hidden meanings" or "pesherim" began to be looked for, in the practice of Midrash. The name for this is called "pesher", (or seeking a "hidden meaning"), which was not even known to the original speaker/writer, but only "revealed" later to certain believers. Originally, the (plural) "pesherim" were only fully revealed to the Son of Righteousness, (the leader of the Essenes), and the idea was first found and fully understood after scholars read the Dead Sea scrolls, and was a sub category of "Midrash", (or study of the texts).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesher
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
Thus we see that "prophesy" as fortune telling as began to be practiced in Judaism around the First Century, (and picked up by Christians and the gospel writers), really was a very late invention and never a classical part of Hebrew scripture, or understanding, either interpretation, or intention, and certainly was not the function of the ancient office of "prophet", in Hebrew culture, who was to be a "mouthpiece" to the people of their own day, and not Madame Zelda with her crystal ball.
The role of a messiah was NEVER to ''save from sin". The messiah was to restore the kingdom to Israel, as even the disciples asked Jesus in Acts "Lord with thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel". They invented "salvation" many decades later, when (as promised) the end-times, never arrived, as they needed to justify the new cult's continuation.
You really should get an education before you pretend to be an expert on something.
I asked Anastasia the other day, "Why have all religions created such complex cosmologies?" She replied, "Job security."
All religions? Or just Christianity? Don't paint all religions with the Christian brush because that's your only background. Study Islam, then see.
@@Halaqa islam, worst cult ever. Fucking mafia.
So much effort by so many highly intelligent and well educated scholars to substantiate a fictitious figure of history.
You need to watch more of Bart's videos. He came from a Evangelist Christian upbringing but is now atheist... but 100% believes the man Jesus of Nazarath existed, and thinks it's so certain you're foolish if you dispute it. The historicity for his existence is sound. Watch more, this is one of the most respected scholars in the world on this time in history. Suggesting he was fictitious is just ignorant.
@@user5362 sure whatever you say
@@craseypete you're simply uneducated on the topic
@@craseypete th-cam.com/video/43mDuIN5-ww/w-d-xo.html
He's spitting straight fax
oui, et c'est une denrée qui nous manque particulièrement en ces temps de "faits alternatifs"
*Jesus (pbuh) was born of a virgin*
He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son. 20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" 21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed." (19: 19-21,)
And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. (21: 91)
*Jesus (pbuh) strengthened with the Holy Spirit*
We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?--Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! (2: 87)
*Jesus (pbuh) was given revelation by Allah*
He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet. (19: 30)
*Jesus (pbuh) taken bodily into Heaven*
Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute. (3: 55)
*Jesus (pbuh) was created*
The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be." And he was. (3: 59)
*Deny Jesus (pbuh) ' Crucifixion*
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";--but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. (4: 157)
*Jesus (pbuh) is no more than a messenger of Allah*
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity"" desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (4: 171)
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (5: 75)
*Jesus (pbuh) was a miracle worker*
We have made some of these messengers to excel the others among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by (many degrees of) rank; and We gave clear miracles to Isa1 son of Marium2, and strengthened him with the holy spirit. And if Allah had pleased, those after them would not have fought one with another after clear arguments had come to them, but they disagreed; so there were some of them who believed and others who denied; and if Allah had pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah brings about what He intends. (2: 253)
*Jesus (pbuh) , Son of Mary, did not say to worship himself or Mary*
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (5: 116)
*Allah sent the Gospel to Jesus (pbuh)*
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (5: 46)
Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors. (57: 27)
*You are cursed if you say Jesus (pbuh) is God's Son*
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9: 30)
*Jesus (pbuh) spoke as a child*
But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? 30 He said: "I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet" (19: 29-30)
*Deny Jesus (pbuh) is Son of God*
Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. (19: 34-35)
*Jesus (pbuh) is the Son of Mary*
And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant: (33: 7)
*Jesus (pbuh) was no more than a Servant*
57 When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)! 58 And they say, "Are our gods best, or he?" This they set forth to thee, only by way of disputation: yea, they are a contentious people. 59 He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel. (43: 57-59)
*Jesus (pbuh) said to obey him*
When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me. (43: 63)
Shut up
TLDR
Simon the Likeable very wise; after the first paragraph neither did I.
Just another “It is written therefore it is true” rant.
Matt 22:7, "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire." The Gospel of Mark is dated after the destruction, by Vespasian/Titus destroyed Jerusalem(the first time) in 70 A.D. . . . so, all these witnesses described in the gospel mean nothing. The Gospels, like much of even the Pauline epistles are midrash of the old testament. It's fiction. . . . the point here is that we know the Paul was the creator of Christianity, and therefore, the debate on whether Jesus was originally and always divine, and the others that wanted Jesus to be incarnated in the flesh goes before the Gospel of Mark.
Read "The Jesus Wars" for a good account of how the first half of the dark ages was the differing Christian groups(those who believe in Jesus as a pre-existing divine being, and those who believed that he must have be incarnated as flesh, otherwise, how else are we to be saved as the quote of Barnabas says,
-"then he clearly manifested himself to be the son of god. For had he not come in the flesh, how should men have been able looked upon him, that they might be saved?" This is in the Epistle of Barnabas chapter 4:13-14
Proof that Jesus Christ had to be invented; otherwise, how else are we to be saved?
thought I'd share my latest edition of "Gospel of Truth", wwwscientifichumanism.blogspot.com/2016/08/latest-gospel-of-truth-12.html
Paul did not create Christianity. Jesus said, ... upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ..." Jesus was divine and human. "... but was in all points tempted as we are yet without sin ..."
Jesus never existed. Once again, the Gospels come after the Pauline letters. We know that Mark comes after the destruction of Jerusalem, because it mentions the destruction. Mark 13:2 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
You just know I have to explain further . . . Philo of Alexandria was a very rich man; he controlled the silk road into the city of Alexandria. He was so rich, his money payed Vespasians way into the imperal throne; oh wait, didn't I explain this already? Well, maybe not this Philo part. . . . Philo was 'midrashing' the old testament to combine it with Plato's logos theology(the word of god). Hence, all these mentions of "we derived Jesus from scripture" is not prophecy, but a kind of linguistic/literary commentary on the old testament. . . . the mention of the temple's destruction is not prophecy any more than all of Philo's midrashing. That's as bad as Justin Martyr saying, "Oh Jesus is analogous to all the sungods before him, because . . . the devil went back in time to plant them." . . . oh by the way, Josephus makes Vespasian(father of Titus, whom Paul is running around with in Galaticans 2:1-3 . . . and with his son destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D) the coming Christ to save the Jews, at the end of his "Jewish War."
I think people don't understand the context of history because making people divine after their death was common particularly for emperor's/ king's. I imagine it's not a stretch that the same thing was done to Jesus probably no more than a charismatic cult leader at the time.
Exactly, Bart knows the claims the people made who thought to have saw the risen Jesus, these guys believed it, preached it and died for it and that's how Christianity began, thus Jesus is God. There are people singing hymns to Jesus in 112 AD which Pliny the younger. The hymn must have been created before 100 AD, the creed Phil 2:5-11 is a hymn sung by the early church.
Do you know how many other things you don't believe in would become true if we applied that same reasoning?
Why not ask God directly about this issue?
Ha..ha.....
Because you'd be feeding your already deluded view
I have already done that. I asked, asked again and absolutely no answer.
maybe there was Jesus, but lately people misquoted Him, they put in His mouth many words He actually never said, and His figure they blew out of proportion....and in the end they made Him god....He never said He was one ...Caretakers of the Temple in that time, did not want anybody to interfere with their financial bussiness , and to divert new religion away from the Temple and sacrifices , created new sacrifice of Man Jesus, spiritual in which new religion invited gentiles too....who created Christianity?....Roman State with help of some Jews and emerging Bishops of new religion....Honest Jews, all they wanted was to leave them alone, to practice their Religion...They rebelled againts the Romans...Roman State wanted to punish the Jews by embracing new religion of Christianity, they allow to Bishops and Scribes to do as many forgeries as they wanted...to put in new religion as many fictions, myths and legends as they wanted....All they wanted was unity in the Roman Empire, by the 4-th century were already created all christian Scriptures, with inserting in which is build Church...with keys of the kingdom>....with power to bound and loose>....Now the Emperor can have more power than ever, over his subiects, ...even after their death...It was better , THE BEST RELIGION ever...with creating hell..... population was in fear, never to dare to change their religion...without putting their lives at stake...PERFECT RELIGION....in the next 1000-years it develops in Catholic Church...with perfect Canon Law...populations of nations were in darkness, uneducated , supersticius...milions were prosecuted ( specially Jews who all they wanted was to leave them alone)...millions died, murdered, burned...that is why today catholic is in fear to leave the catholic ...fear of hell...deep indoctrination and brain wash...Now we live in the time of Internet, we know how to read and write...we know how to check the History...and the most important we have such great Scientists to help us to discover the truth, Scientist like: Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, Kenneth Humphrey, Aron Ra, Sam Harris, Lawrence Kraus, Neil De Grasse, Andrew Bernstein, Peter Cresswell, Israel Filkenstein, William Dever, Carol Meyers, Pat Condell, Dan Barker, Michael Shermer, John Lennox, Bill Nye, Stephen Fry, Acharya Murdock, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Jerry Coyne, James Randi, and at least another 100- names should be added....if God exixts, then may He bless all those Scientists mention here and those not mention here, give them good health, wealth and long life....so they will help human race to discover the truth hidden from them by unscrupulus liars....during past eons and centuries....AMEN.....
Φίλε Ευάγγελε, υπάρχουν τεράστιες αποδείξεις για την Θεία προέλευση του Ιησού. Εδώ άρχισα να μιλά με αυτούς που λένε όλα όσα κι εσύ, και όταν φθάσαμε επιτέλους από τις ανακοινώσεις να μιλούμε την ουσία, για το τι αναφέρουν οι Γραφές (εφόσον περί αυτού πρόκειται η συζήτηση) σταμάτησαν να συζητούν, Η Τριάδα μπορώ να συμφωνήσω πως δεν είναι γραμμένη και έχουν μεν ΄δίκιο αλλά... Η Τριάδα είναι μια αποτυχημένη προσπάθεια ερμηνείας του Θεού διότι είναι φανερό πως ο Υιός είναι ο ίδιος. Χωρίς εξάλλου να είναι ο ίδιος πως θα μπορούσε να υπάρχει η δήλωση πως "τόσο αγάπησε ο Θεός τον κόσμο" αν ο Θεός απλά έστελνε ένα δημιούργημα? Ο Χριστός μας αποκάλυψε μια ιδιότητα του Θεού τεράστια, στο πρόσωπο του Ιησού. Τον Πατέρα. Ο ίδιος δήλωνε πως ήρθε να φανερώσει το όνομα του. Όμως το όνομα του Θεού δεν ήταν κρυφό... Γιαχβέ.. το ιδίωμα το Θεού σαν Πατέρας μας όμως φανέρωνε. Και ο πατέρας θυσιάζεται για τα παιδιά του. Πως όμως? Μόνο μέσα από την ενανθρώπηση του. Εάν έχει πραγματικά την ανάγκη να μάθεις πως η Θεότης του Ιησού είναι εξακριβωμένη μέσα από τη Γραφή τότε ας το συζητήσουμε.
Όσα αναφέρεις είναι αληθή, εν τούτοις δεν προσδίδουν στο θέμα μας το στοιχείο που συζητούμε, και το αν ο Ehrman λέει όλη την αλήθεια. Ο άνθρωπος αυτός παρουσιάζει ό,τι είναι δυνατόν να κτυπήσει τη Θεότητα του Κυρίου και επιμελώς αποφεύγει τα σημεία που αποδεικνύουν το αντίθετο των ισχυρισμών του. Και κάποιοι οι οποίο ξέρουν λίγα ή λιγότερα ευφραίνονται νομίζοντας πως ανακάλυψαν τον κύκλο
Bro you should read Quran, u will get all answer about Jesus in truth
Bart erhman a well educated fellow
It is interesting to note that the Atman of Vedic philosophy is similarly co-eternal and consubstantial with Brahman - though innumerable and uncaused (i.e. not "begotten").
Philo Jewish philosopher taught Moses was takein up TO heaven and became A God
Anyone with minimal common sense can easily see that this myth story of Jesus is no different to the many other ancient mythologies of the day -- just as crazy, just as irrational, just as nonsensical. Religion remains where it belongs -- in the Fairy Tale Department.
As an atheist I can say that is factual untrue. That is a lazy argument that is easily refuted with about 5 minutes of research. Jesus more than likely existed. His followers did believe he resurrected. That much true or at least more than likely. However, for me that is the end of it.
Sir when you read the Quran, u will find all answer
@@tariqjahangir560well said brother!
I would say that I'm agnostic, and if anything leaning towards atheist. I agree that the story of Jesus as well as other religions follow a very similar narrative (virgin mother, some foretold prophecy of a "Messiah" figure, etc.). However, there are things that can be taken from religions that are not fairy tales and if followed lead a person to a good life. As another person that commented said, there is no refuting that there was a man named Jesus, and that he preached love (I speak from a Roman Catholic point of view because that is how I was raised). And for those that follow those teachings, rather than picking and choosing what they will, they are fulfilled in their life while being good human beings. I use my grandmother as an example. She TRULY believes that everyone was created from God and therefore no one is above anyone. Also, that one human cannot judge another because it is not our place.
Just as we find it hard when people come at us for not believing in a religion, it is the same when an atheist does the same. My mom's friend lost a nephew in a tragic accident. and it was at the funeral that i realized that the family got through his death because of their belief that he was now in heaven with the Father. I thought to myself, that i wished that i could see death like that and it was their way of healing. anyways, sorry for the chapter book lol. these are just my thoughts
@@stefania5882 That's it being religious is not that you have to go and steal,rape,kill to earn heaven when you die, you live like every other just you add some minutes of practices every day depending on religion and live on their objective morality thats it for the sake of god and to earn heaven in afterlife and to keep good relations with family,friends etc
Wow.
REAL STORY OF GODS AND CREATION.
th-cam.com/video/MCVc4rRL53g/w-d-xo.html
It’s a “mystery” or better yet myth. If that doesn’t scream, man made legends I don’t know what would.
Before Paul and Paulianity Jesus was the jewish messiah not a man god trinity idol.
No he wasn't. Jesus fulfilled *_none_* of the prophecies attributed to the Messiah. Think *DREE.* The Messiah was to:
*Deliver* the Jews from the Roman occupation.
*Restore* the Kingdom of God.
*End* the Diaspora.
*End* all pain and suffering and rule for 1,000 years.
Jesus fulfilled none of these.
That is why the Jews still wait upon the Messiah.
Read the Quran and u will fine best answer
Stefan Urban, agreed. So is that a good thing or bad thing? Paul appropriated/rewrote the message of Jesus so we will never know what the authentic mission was.
@@noaheinstein2369
Gal.3:28
Jesus said that salvation was only for the Jews.
Mt.15:24;
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mt.10:5,6;
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jn.4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
David Lutke, that about says it all. Plus he lobbed a few nasty as hell insults at Gentiles.
Are there any contrary verses attributed to Jesus. Like maybe, “I used to not come for gentiles but I’ve since rethought the whole thing and now they’re pretty much my market niche.
Syeikh Ahmad Deedat had been telling this truth the whole time decades ago! Watch Syeikh Ahmad Deedat's lectures on Christianity on TH-cam!
It's no the same. The person you mentioned also believe in what he was indoctrinated in, like the Christians do.
@@vejeke test each claim, see wether it's doctrine is false or not. We will die one day. Logically, Pascal's wager favors theism, theism favors Islam. If atheism is true, muslims have nothing to lose before and after death.
@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 Supernatural claims are untestable an unfalsifiable...
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.
@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 Pascal Wager is a fallacy.
th-cam.com/video/NKzqQ-IVxGs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/M4Dm1HWJhoo/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/YBCDGohZT70/w-d-xo.html
@@vejeke do you believe you have a fire breathing dragon in your garage? If you do, why do you believe so? Please join the live streaming conversation in Efdawah, SCDawah, Muhammad Hijab, Subboor Ahmed, Sapient Institute youtube channel. Let's have a reasonable intellectual discussion. All non muslims are welcomed, invited.
"Or were they created by nothing, or are they ˹their own˺ creators?"
Quran 52 35.
Science can't prove nor disprove Allaah, here's a weight scale, tell me my body temperature = logical fallacy.
Science is NOT the yardstick of truth, Qur'an (Allaah's words) is.
Love this lecture and want to hear more. Interesting how the genealogy of Jesus leads to Joseph and not to Mary. Why does it not lead to Mary? If Jesus is the Messiah, the chosen one, Joseph adopted Him as his son. What are the implications of that. I don't know, but it sure is worth discussing.
That exit though...
I honestly don't know how the trinity came up on top. all the other beliefs were more logical.
oui, mais elles aboutissaient toute à la conclusion qu'il y avait plus qu'un dieu. Et pour le monothéisme qui était le coeur même de cette révolution spirituelle sociale et politique, c'était évidemment inacceptable.
Probably a bit of synchronism to get the polytheistic pagans on board.
The Pythagorean doctrine, of Monad, the sacred unity of One from which everything generated, and the triad Harmony. In Hebrew the corresponding number/letters are One beginning and ultimate being and Three meant seed resurrection renewal.
In Pythagorean mysticism the Number three is the first real number.
The Pythagorean’s also believed in The Tetractys symbolizing the four classical elements-fire, air, water, and earth. Which has an equivalent to the tetramorph Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. a man, an ox, a lion, an eagle.
It is a syncretism with older ideas.
Jesus Christ that was awesome. So everything we know about this person was based on bunch of other people debating and voting on what story appears more probable. Omg🤦♂️
Very good lecture
Jesus says next time you go on the cross god
"Everything's debatable" well.... that's debatable.
No it isn’t
The corruption and the endless debates are made by the son of man GOD is not a corrupt identity one pure and peaceful message from the beginning to the end .We twist ,turn and change as we go to serve hidden agendas and earthly needs ,the battle will continue to the end of time but the scale of f justice already on a stage for judgement day, it is only a matter of time.
@@ashafife5468 cool story bro
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" John 17:3
Kofil Khan That is the verse that totally destroys the doctrine of the "Trinity."
So then, no heaven ... no hell. Just know while alive. Ok then. BTW, using the Babble to prove the Babble is a circular fallacy.
Then using evolution to prove evolution would also be circular logic/fallacy.
Kofil Khan is that god said or jesus said??i am confius.
*Talking about Romulus is not before; but after Enoch and Elijah.*
Why do you concede the circular reasoning of the Bible?
This is all a myth with no contemporaneous evidence. The dying and rising god undergoing a passion is typical mythology of the time with the myth written as fact after it has all passed. Funny none of this shows up until Mark who has no witnesses, just a fictional novel really.
Mark had no witnesses?! Really?!
Peace be upon the prophets of God.
Here is a list of few attributes, one considers the basic understanding of God.
- God is the ultimate authority
- God is immortal
- God is all-powerful
- God is all knowledgeable
- God is independent
(does not need anyone or anything)
Such common understanding can be found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The concept so far is simple and logical.
If we were to contrast man on the other hand.
- Man is not the ultimate authority.
- Man is mortal.
- Man has no power or knowledge by himself.
- Man is absolutely dependent on God.
According to jews and Muslims.. God is God, and man is a man.
No confusion.
According to Trinitarians, Jesus was both God and man.
Here is where the confusion arises.
- God is both the ultimate authority but also has a higher authority.
- God is immortal but also mortal.
- God is all-powerful but also powerless.
- God is independent but also dependent.
- God is all knowing but also lacks certain knowledge.
Matthew 24:36
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
God knows the final hour but also does not know the final hour.
Is there such a thing as the presence of knowledge and absence of knowledge both at the same time?
The concept of God according to Jews and Muslims is simple and very clear.
The concept of God The Father is also simple and very clear.
The concept of God The Father is in harmony with our basic understanding of God.
God, The Father is independent of anyone or anything, this includes The Son.
No confusion yet.
The confusion only arises when the concept of God the Son is introduced. The trinity concept claims:
a) It is logical for God not to know something.
b) It is logical for God to know and not know something at the same time.
c) It is logical for God to die.
d) It is logical for God to die and not die at the same time.
Is the trinity concept a mystery or a concept of contradictions?
May God forgive us and guide us all.
Mavors44
Fonder upon your own existence, you will find the amazing creation of God and it will lead you to God, who has NO Son and No daughter, the absolutely ONE and nothing Like Unto God...
@Asadul Hasan Rasel Islam is just cannibalised Judaism/christianity!
@@deanodog3667 Can you proof.
There are there Christians out there (like myself) who believe in the unity of God and reject the Trinity. The Bible does not teach the Trinity, either Old or New Testament.
@@richardmorgan3938 which branch is that then ?
This was starting to sound like a Dave Allen monologues in place - which is a good thing, of course.
The reference given to Psalm 2, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. A more correct version is given in the Jerusalem Bible, where we find, "You are my son, today I have become your father" here God is speaking not to Jesus but to a (unnamed) Israelite king.
He is full aware of that the Jerusalem Bible and some others manuscripts said that. I've heard him talk about it several times in some of his lectures, but I don't remember what he said about it. Sorry.. :-P
I listen to him in the background and don't pay much attention so I easily forget the message. But I've heard him talk about that particular verse in the Jerusalem Bible quite a lot. So I assure you that he is aware of it.
Why don't you ask him on his blog about it? He is quite approachable and almost always responds.
@@vejeke
You may approach the professor if you wish on this subject and even mention my criticism if you wish. But I have already made my point.
But thank you for your interest.
I had misunderstood you. My fault, English is not my first language. The reference to Psalm 2 is given by Paul and he, Paul, is talking about Jesus. Psalm 2 is not.
(4:171) O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
How is Allah one?
and muhammad was a petifile.
@@theunknownpreacher9833 even in the Gospel of Mark, they use the word “Allah”. Specifically, go to the last section where Jesus say God why have you foresaken me. The book was written in high Greek. Because of that, they also translated that sentence into Aramaic (the language of Jesus) which is close to Arabic. In that translation in any bible you read, in Gospel of Mark, Jesus uses the word “Eloi, Eloi” which is pronounced the same way as Allah, Allah, which means God
@@alihashem846 that doesn't answer the question. How is allah one? What is allah's name?
Jesus wasn't god or son'god he was only a prophet. This is from Islam you will find how Muslim love jesus and respect him.
asalaamu Aleikum..I was a Christian for 24 years bro, alhamdulillah I'm a Muslim now.. Now I respect Jesus(as) more than I ever did..
All religion is nonsense
WHY SUNNI AND SHIITS HATE EACH OTHER?
Jimmy Kelley I am Sunni I don’t hate Shia. Anyways our differences is merely on who the first caliph should have been. Minor differences.
Not Christian differences which are MAJOR!!
Some Christians can’t agree if god is 3 in 1, 2 in 1 or 1 in 1 or modalism or subordinatism
@@jasonthedragon73 Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatulla wa barakatahu
And ALLAH says in the Qur'an in Surah Taha (20:47) ...wassa laamu 'alaa manit taba'al hudaa [...and peace to all who follow guidance!] SO PEACE BE UPON YOU AND YOUR FAMILY..!
And may Allah grant you the highest place of Al-Jannah..!!
don't fear
it is me. Like-number 3000
I would absolutely LOVE to be a highly intelligent fly on the wall at the Nicea meeting
excellent narrative, jesus is no more human than you and me. Just worship your one true eternal, all powerful Creator.He is neither begotten nor begets and is Just ONE.
your mom literally...dad added a little I'll give him that....
And no, his name is NOT Allah! Sorry about that! Lol.
Nasir Mauroof yea brother...no where in bible jesus said ' i'm god or worship me'
ezakiel 23
Nasir Mauroof : Christians apologists like Sam Shamoun and David Wood Can attack the personality of Bart Erhman, but have nothing to say about his historical and Biblical Facts.
you want to know who is that one god ?he is god of abraham and isaac and jacob and we call him in arabic allah .so it's easy now i think
They REASONED the god they wished to worship over a very long time. Through reason I can both figure out how the universe works and at the same time convince people the earth is flat. Amazing tool this "Reasoning", no?
the earliest testimony to Jesus being God is in the letters of Paul, Galatians 1and 2 Corinthians
, Romans from as early as 20 years before the Gospel of Mark.
It is sad to see, in the comment section, that people do not read the Bible themselves but rather listen and absorb unquestioningly.
If Jesus Is Not God. Then Christianity Is False. No Story. No Comments!
Ok, Christianity is Paul's religion.... Let's call it Pauline Religion.
That makes no sense. You can literally use the same logic for any other religion. Beliefs are still beliefs. The views of Ehrman will always be his own. There are many biblical scholars who have differing viewpoints. Lol
Why is it that there are so many different ideas about God, who Jesus was, what does Salvation mean, where is Hell, is it forever, and what would cause you to be sent there, etc? Christians can't even agree on these points and these are THE MAIN POINTS for all of the New Testament. And yet people who earnestly study and seek the truth about these questions still come up with different answers. If God is not the author of confusion, then why the hell is the bible so confusing and filled with errors, contradictions, and modifications from later scribes? The answer is pretty obvious if you can get past your own tightly held belief system- The bible is not the word of God, it's the words of men trying to make sense of their world and how the idea of God fit into their existence. I know it's a scary thing to accept (trust me, I've been through it), but once you open your eyes to the truth of the situation, everything starts to become a lot clearer.
+Naomi - these are not his 'views'. As he said, he does not discuss theology, only historical, verifiable facts.
You might be surprised to know that in many churches the ministers of religion are taught all these facts, which are thought 'too dangerous' for their congregations to learn.
Why are you watching this video?__ It is because you doubted and you are seeking for the Truth! By you watching this video. It is already FALSE to you. If you believe it, then why doubt or question it? MEMES
You are correct. Despite Erhman's claims to be a "Historian" he is a "Pauline Apologist". Most of us real historians refer to post 350 AD 'Christianity' as "Paulinism" or "Pauline Christianity". Prior to that there were a variety of forms of Christianity.
Note that Islam is more properly referred to as "Mohammadin Christianity" which evolved outside the restrictions of the Roman Empire and Paulinism.
When your supposed god suddenly dies and you need to make sense of it, because it's too late to admit you were wrong.
Bart said that, the early Christian believe in adoptionism, then after 300 they agree on Trinity, Jesus co-exist with Father God etc, but How about the gospel of John, when was it written? before 300 right?, He has believed in Incarnation and not Adoptionism right?, or is it remake or forgery in John chapter 1?
Regards,
Yudi
Indonesia
we believe that the gospel of John, and 1, 2, 3 John which are epistles, and the book of Revelation were completed by AD 90. John was the last of the apostles of the original group. Christ Jesus selected 12 men to be apostles and Paul, one born out of due time. of the twelve, Christ was close to Peter, James and John. those were the ones of the inner circle. i believe Christ allowed them to go up to what we call the Mount of Transfiguration. that is where Christ was transfigured and spoke with Moses and Elijah about his impending death and the things He would accomplish in Jerusalem.
This verse wasn’t allowed to be used in a debate between Unitarian and a trinitarian Christians mi wonder why ?
Romans 8:29 New International Version (NIV)
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
The Bible is merely the word of man trying to pass it off as the word of God.
It seems like it from all their blunders - only humans can make such a mess. And besides, for that, they made up a cure called the Holy Spirit application. They take this form of spiritual experience that the Jews so rightfully felt and wrote about (and I have no doubt you feel when you get high of Tool) and molded it into this "sanctification" machine. Literally, anything that men do can be considered God-inspired and even "holy", worthy of prayer and honor, if the community of, again men (with the same material interests as their saint-candidates), says it's filled with the Holy Spirit...never reaching the point to question that not all affection by godliness is the work of the Holy Spirit (the Devil, according to their teaching, does this very well too).
To be a little more precise... none of the “scriptures” were considered to be “the word of god” when they were written by their authors. There was process by which our attitudes towards normal texts became transformed into holy scripture. Similar mechanisms are at work to produce the evolution in our attitudes towards Jesus’ divinity.
@@RedFlagSaid looking to Orthodox Christianity like Catholicism which is an obvious corrupt blend of Christianity and Pagan Roman beliefs for answers or the lack thereof is comparable to asking the devil himself what you must do to please God. All Christianity has become corrupt in some form, God is not a Trinity nor does the Bible claim Him to be, despite what Christian apologetics suggest there is so much evidence against the Trinity in the Bible that my phone freezes trying to copy and past it all,
John 20:14 When she had said this, she turned around and *saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus *said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she *said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” 16 Jesus *said to her, “Mary!” She turned and *said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene *came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.
The Truth is Yahushua always does the will of the Father so he has all the authority of God and came in God's name, to do God's will and never claimed to be equal to God. The Bible does not support Trinity doctrine and yet people think they are so clever criticizing the Trinity when in fact you are doing God's work because this deception needs to be revealed.
@@MrArdytube Jeremiah 1:
The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, 2 to whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. 3 It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the exile of Jerusalem in the fifth month.
4 Now the word of the Lord came to me saying,
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Ezekiel 1:
Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. 2 (On the fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile, 3 the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and there the hand of the Lord came upon him.)
Zechariah 1:
In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo saying, 2 “The Lord was very angry with your fathers. 3 Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Return to Me,” declares the Lord of hosts, “that I may return to you,” says the Lord of hosts.
The authors certainly knew they were speaking the Word of God, the people may have rejected it as the Word of God, history has recorded the result.
@@aural_supremacy Yes! Thank you God for this wisdom you have recieved! We will overcome the trinitarians and all who loved and laid with the imperial state from the time of Constantine till today
we're Professor araminta night differs that he will still condescend to agreed it to Jesus was a real human being. my opinion is that he was not. He is a literary fiction created out of whole cloth.
John 20:28
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
You need to watch more lectures.
Only in John and this was a statement like you say to your friend " oh God I'm late" , but it is obvious that you are not calling your friend God , same way Thomas said that in a shock
Yes, Dr. Ehrman stated that John presented the view that Jesus was God from the "beginning" (whatever that should be)!
Great lecture but those plosives are ear-splitting