@@lampkin9287 you’re right Mark states his divinity-but you’re missing Bart’s argument. Mark sees Jesus as divine. But in Mark *Jesus* doesn’t claimed divinity. Go read the red letters in Mark and there’s no quote of Jesus even using the “I am” statements that appear in John. And That’s what Bart is saying. Our earliest source doesn’t quote Jesus as claiming divinity-which suggests that the historical Jesus never claimed to be divine. He’s not contradicting himself.
Bart is so deceptive and contradictory in all his work. In his scholarly work, he says one thing. In his popular works, he leads you to believe he thinks something else. He is desperately wrong and you can see that he knows it. Of course claiming to be the messiah is blasphemy and the high priest knows it.
@@tomasrocha6139 "No he does not and Messiah means the King of the Jews, not Yahweh." Read Mark 14:53-65 where the chief priest condemns Jesus for blasphemy. The messiah also means "Son of God" which is where the blasphemy comes from. Jesus was asked if he was the messiah and he answered "“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Obviously claiming to be the son of God. The high priest answered: "The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
@@tomasrocha6139 "Claiming to be the Messiah was never considered blasphemous, there is an extremely long list of Jewish Messianic claimants." Read Mark 14:53-65. Claiming to be the messiah, Son of God was blasphemous and is what got Jesus sentenced to death.
@@elkhuntr2816 Wrong, the term Son of God was not blasphemous. In Exodus 4:22, the Israelites as a people are called "my firstborn son" by God, using the singular form. In some versions of Deuteronomy, the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the sons of God rather than the sons of Israel, probably in reference to angels. The Septuagint reads similarly. In Psalm 89:26-28, David calls God his father. God in turn tells David that he will make David his first-born and highest king of the earth. In Psalm 82:1-8, the Biblical judges are called gods and the sons of God. Psalm 2 is thought to be an enthronement text. The rebel nations and the uses of an iron rod are Assyrian motifs. The begetting of the king is an Egyptian one. Israel's kings are referred to as the son of the LORD. They are reborn or adopted on the day of their enthroning as the "son of the LORD". In 2 Samuel 7:13-16, God promises David regarding his offspring that "I will be to him as a father and he will be to me as a son." The promise is one of eternal kingship.: In Jeremiah 31:9, God refers to himself as the father of Israel and Ephraim as his first born son. Ephraim in Jeremiah refers collectively to the northern kingdom.:
I don’t think this is a contradiction since Jesus says he is the messiah. In this time period all messiah meant was the future king of Israel so he is saying ‘I am’ to that and when he is talking about the son of man he is being prophetic. He is referring to someone else when he speaks of the son of man, read mark 8:38.
@@stephenburdess2914 No, his name is Yeshua, by Galileans he was called Yeshu, his whole name is Yehoshua, and the way that Greeks could call him because of their phonetic capacity and how the gendered names work in Greek was Iesous, which passed down to modern languages as Jesus, Isa in Arabic and any other variations.
Sheikh Bart Ehrman pbuh has finally realized that Jesus DOES claim divinity in the synoptics. Inshallah his muslim fans will stop quoting his earlier errors lol.
@Paddy Singh “with that hooker Mary” Another claim with 0 evidence , meanwhile the trial of Jesus and his charge of *blasephemy* from where this quote is based is a historical fact
Why dedicate your life to disproving that Jesus isn’t God? Why would a person dedicate his life to the sole purpose of disproving Mohammed as a prophet?
He says Jesus made no claims to be divine in Matthew mark and Luke but the author of mark draws that conclusion for us. Not the literal words of Jesus.
Jesus is claims he forgives sins, authority over the sabbath, existed before abraham, sits next to father (is equal to God), he performs miracles without praying to God (does them in his own authority), etc. Jesus own words affirm his divinity, the author's opinion is that he affirmed divinity, the san hedren at the trail thought Jesus affirmed divinity, and so on.
You didn’t listen very closely. Climbing to be the Messiah does not make one divine, it makes one claim to be the anointed one, the future king of Israel. That doesn’t make them God or one with the Father. The Trinity was conceived centuries later and added to the Bible centuries later. Jesus may no such claim.
Except Jesus claimed explicitly in Mark 14 to be the divine cloud rider of Daniel - the Son of Man. He claimed more than to merely be anointed. He claimed to sit at the right hand of the Ancient of Days eternally.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Have you ever read Daniel? After a drunken party, a king forgot his dream, and Daniel interpreted a forgotten dream after a drunken party. Daniel's interpretation of the forgotten dream was flattering to the king, and Daniel wasn't killed, but grew in favor. I went to college. I had drunken friends. Sometimes they dreamt, sometimes forgot how they acted at a drunk-fueled party, but no one decided to put it into the Torah, or make it part of the canon. When someone has a pro-religious bias, they will commit extraordinary mental gymnastics to so as not to be proven wrong. I bailed on the absurdity of Roman Catholicism when I was 8, before I began swallowing aburdities. Christian apologists owe everyone an apology.
He doesn't contradict himself. He makes it very clear that Mark, the evangelist, is creating the story. Jesus never makes the claim himself in a historical context. Mark, in his theology, puts those words into Jesus' mouth himself for the story. And even if it was historical, Bart clearly states that while it is a divine claim it is NOT the same as if Jesus was saying he was God or Yahweh or equal to the father in anyway. You need to listen to the whole argument. It also helps to know the larger argument from Bart's books - How Did Jesus Become God?
However, the claim bart made is based on the biblical account, That he never claimed to be divine according to Matthew, mark, and Luke. He literally says it right At the the beginning of the video 🤣🤣 stop trying ti deflect . He literally contradicted himself. Let’s be honest here.
The notion that mark is fabricating, is an assumption not based on fact. Majority of historian don’t believes this about marks account. A bit of research will do you wonders.
The Christology in the making was very clear. Just read the Gospels yourself. The idea that Jews pick up stones to stone someone means he is God is ridiculous.
Let’s assume the traditional authorship of Mark (almost certainly not who actually wrote Mark). How did Mark (who was not an eyewitness) get access the questioning to what happened at the trial of Caiaphas? From Peter, Mark’s source according to tradition? Per Mark, Peter wasn’t there, he was outside denying Christ. So Peter would have had to hear it from someone else at the trial. So AT BEST, Mark is reporting third hand information. So tell me What’s more likely: 1. That after going through AT LEAST two other people (in reality it was probably many many more) Mark wrote the actual dialogue of the trial, even though it doesn’t make sense bc claiming to be the Messiah isn’t blasphemy, OR 2. that Mark (or the person that Mark is getting the story from, or the person who told the person who told mark) added/changed the story to emphasize Jesus’s divinity? Sorry that in a debate with limited time, Ehrman didn’t explain that to you.
@@goodknightcarolinaThis is a dumb take that's based on an assumption that the story was changed You don't know that! You can't say for sure that it was changed As far as we know, the writings got to us through copied manuscripts People didn't just tell stories, they wrote them down
@@thedanielagboola it’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion about what’s most likely that you arrive at by looking at the data. My poor paraphrase is this-we have 4 gospels and we’re fairly certain we know mark was written first, then Matthew or Luke and finally John. If you read the red letter verses of those books in the order they were written, you notice that Jesus’s claims to divinity go from no claims to divinity in Mark to “I am” statements in John. It’s not certain that the authors of John put the words in Jesus’s lips. But you tell me what’s more likely. That the first three gospel writers forgot or missed quotes from Jesus about his divinity, or that later authors wanted to strengthen Jesus’s claim to divinity?
@@goodknightcarolina Mark was literally first Gospel And please understand that all four Gospels were written to different audiences entirely, and emphasized different things about the life of Jesus So of course they'll be different in some wa It's quite convenient that scholars like Erhman are nitpicking the very few things that are different when the gospels (although written at different times, and to different people in different contexts) majorly agree and corroborate one another
@@thedanielagboola I’m with you, the gospels were written at different times for different audiences. But how does that make Dr. Ehrman’s conclusion less likely? I think he would agree with you when you say that. And I don’t think he’s nitpicking, he’s observing. He observed this before he left Christianity and it’s not what caused him to leave. And there are plenty of Christians who accept this argument and still have faith. So like I said, I think he’s making an observation about the gospels. Because we don’t really have that much data about the context (the exact time, place, or audience) in which the gospels were authored. He’s observing what we do know-that there were long debates about Jesus’s Christology in early Christianity, there are patterns of Jesus’s claims to divinity get more direct the later the gospel is written. It seems most likely that these statements were added by authors to strengthen their view of Jesus’s divinity. So I’d like to better understand why you think the fact that the gospels were written in different contexts makes this conclusion less likely.
Sorry, but anyone who actually listens to this can hear that Bart does not, in fact, contradict himself. If you are desperate to find some possible way to support your bizarre claims, then you twist this into a contradiction. Congratulations - your desperation overcame all rationality. As usual.
They completely miss Bart’s argument and then use the argument they imagine Bart made to say he contradicts himself. It’s the exact opposite of what they do when reading the Synoptics and see contradictions.
@@goodknightcarolina I don't think that they miss it. They deliberately misstate what Bart says, in order to "prove" that he contradicts himself. You are being too kind to this excusegist - he is simply lying for jesus.
You misunderstood his series of statements. He said those claims (Messiah, I AM, and sitting at the right hand) would have not been considered blasphemy at that time. The only way we can reason to the case for blasphemy is by reading even further into something that isn’t written down in Mark. Which is precisely what Bart says (you can watch his other videos on this subject for expanded clarity). At the end he said we have no idea of what truly happened at Jesus trial because the book of Mark was written 40 years later and is obviously biased by whoever wrote Mark that Jesus did claim divinity. So no contradiction, and even if you were to read some meaning back into Mark’s writing, there’s no way to know if that was the intention of Mark, or what actually was the justification for blasphemy. Could have simply been trumped up charges because as we know, the Sanhedrin already had it in for him, not like he’s gonna get out of this one!
No, you are stretching yourself. Bart was caught in his falsehood. Christ in Mark 14 claimed to be the divine cloud rider of Daniel. That is a divine claim. Even Bart was forced to admit it eventually.
Bart says Jesus did not claim divinity in the synopic Gospels, but at the trial admits he did. Whether Jesus actually said that or not isn't relevant because Ehrman claims the earliest gospels don't say that.
wow you really put yourself in a pretzel here just to defend Bart who put himself in a pretzel. "Jesus claimed to be God is an invention of Mark" but also it makes no sense as to why Jesus was charged with blasphemy unless he did claim to be God. So which is it? Just say "we don't know" and call it a day? This is the "biblical scholar hero" for muslims and athiests to debunk Christianity? Really?
That is a misinterpretation of the argument. At that time, angels were considered to be divine. The king of Israel was considered divine in the old testament. To be divine is different from being God, and identifying the two terms as meaning the same is anachronistic. It is a fact that, in that context, among Jews, to call yourself an angel was considered a blasphemy. The "Son of Man" was believed to be an angelical being (as in Book of Daniel and Book of Enoch), thus calling yourself "Son of Man" was a blasphemy. It is the world view of jews at the time of the author of the gospels. The "Son of Man" was considered divine, as angels were considered divine, because he came from the divine real, the Sky.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Psalm 8:5 and 82:1 both refer to angels as "gods" (Hebrew: _Elohim;_ the Greek translation translates the former as "angels" and the latter as "gods"). So angels were considered divine. Not equal to the Most High, but subordinate heavenly beings. But the reason Jesus was charged with blasphemy in the Synoptics is evidently that they viewed him as a false prophet and Messianic pretender (Matthew 26:64-66, especially verse 68, indicates this; and the Law in Deuteronomy 13:5 does say a false prophet deserves to die).
@@legron121 not really,elohim has broader context which mean spiritual being, they aren't Worshipped either as comapared to Jesus quoting a passage where this figure was worshipped.
@@majesticrainmaker1460 Daniel 7:14 says the one like a son of man was "given authority" to be served. So this is not the same as "worshipping" a god. This is a royal figure who is brought up before God and chosen by him to rule over all peoples, languages, and nations.
@@legron121 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. He was worshipped.
Him saying he is the king of Jews was enough to be blasphemy and when he speaks of the son of man, he is being prophetic and he is talking about someone else like he has throughout mark’s gospel. Read Mark 8:38
Erhmann did not contradict himself. To be a Messiah is nothing more than the anointed one, as David was anointed as other Messiah were anointed. That doesn’t make them divine. It’s only the Redefinition By Christian who thinks that being a king of Israel makes one divine. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but not the same as the father. For those who live in the world of black-and-white, no wonder they can’t figure out the difference.
You were so busy with polemics you missed the bit where everyone agreed that claiming to be the Messiah wasn't considered blasphemy at the time, and so if he claimed to be the Messiah nobody would've condemned him. Consider watching the clip before commenting next time
@@Datroflshopper There is no "the Messiah", it's "a Messiah". An anointed one. Why must Christianity bastardize everything? Because they're bastards...fatherless bastards.
Why is he charged for claiming to be God? Bart is scamming you. He told you Mark didn't have such statements of Jesus yet here is one which he struggles to explain away
He contradicted himself in the same debate. He said there are no divine claims in Mark. Then he said, well actually there are. He got called out on his falsehoods.
Unfortunately there's no contradiction. Mark does not have Jesus make the same kind of claim as he does in John, which is Ehrmans point. Angels are also divine, but not God. So, claiming divinity is not saying you're god.
🔥 ....... JESUS CHRIST is not claiming His diety/divinity!....... BUT BOLDLY declaring with full scriptural authority "IT IS WRITTEN" declaring it!....... 🔥
You completely misread Bart’s argument. Mark’s author sees Jesus as divine-that’s part of the authors message. Bart’s point is that our earliest source never quotes Jesus as claiming divinity. That’s his point. He’s not contradicting himself.
@@evanb4189 you’re right. And read the red letter verses in Mark and show me the ones where Jesus claims divinity. He doesn’t. Nothing close to the “I am” statements in John.
I like Ehrman but he has a hard time admitting it when someone points out potential errors in his logic. Somewhat thin skinned at times. But all scholars have flaws and none are perfect!
The claim is not that Mark did not believe Jesus was a god, but that the character of Jesus within the story of Mark makes no overt claims to divinity. Even in the example in the video, the character "Jesus" in Mark does not actually make divine claims. Instead, the author of Mark is using the fictionalised high priest's response to show the reader that he (the author of Mark) wants the reader to understand that these words are claims to divinity (even though it would not have been understood as such by jewish priests at the supposed time of this trial). By John, Jesus makes divine claims every other time he opens his mouth. Tl;dr: the character of Jesus does not make claims to divinity in Mark, but the author of Mark wants you the reader to understand that the words said here are claims to divinity even though no divine claims are being made. To use an analogy: Let's say in 30 years time an author writes a supposedly historical story set in 2023 about a guy called Derrick who tells the supreme Court that he ate a pickle, the supreme Court in the story, then claim that this is high treason and have him executed. You know and I know that in 2023 eating pickles are not high treason, and Derrick (in the story) said nothing that could be interpreted as high treason but this author wants the reader to understand that eating pickles is high treason.
Praise God for giving His Church a brilliant theologian in the person of Dr. Brant Pitre. What an amazing question.
Pitre is a beast
The beginning of Mark simply states his deity
@@lampkin9287 you’re right Mark states his divinity-but you’re missing Bart’s argument. Mark sees Jesus as divine. But in Mark *Jesus* doesn’t claimed divinity. Go read the red letters in Mark and there’s no quote of Jesus even using the “I am” statements that appear in John. And That’s what Bart is saying. Our earliest source doesn’t quote Jesus as claiming divinity-which suggests that the historical Jesus never claimed to be divine. He’s not contradicting himself.
thanks both of you@@goodknightcarolina
Bart was about to reconvert himself 😂
Yooooo!!😂😂😂
3:35 please bart ehrman tell muslims that john 10:30 is a divine claim.
Bart is so deceptive and contradictory in all his work. In his scholarly work, he says one thing. In his popular works, he leads you to believe he thinks something else. He is desperately wrong and you can see that he knows it. Of course claiming to be the messiah is blasphemy and the high priest knows it.
No he does not and Messiah means the King of the Jews who'd save or liberate them, not Yahweh.
@@tomasrocha6139 "No he does not and Messiah means the King of the Jews, not Yahweh." Read Mark 14:53-65 where the chief priest condemns Jesus for blasphemy. The messiah also means "Son of God" which is where the blasphemy comes from. Jesus was asked if he was the messiah and he answered "“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Obviously claiming to be the son of God. The high priest answered: "The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
@@elkhuntr2816 Claiming to be the Messiah was never considered blasphemous, there is an extremely long list of Jewish Messianic claimants.
@@tomasrocha6139 "Claiming to be the Messiah was never considered blasphemous, there is an extremely long list of Jewish Messianic claimants." Read Mark 14:53-65. Claiming to be the messiah, Son of God was blasphemous and is what got Jesus sentenced to death.
@@elkhuntr2816 Wrong, the term Son of God was not blasphemous.
In Exodus 4:22, the Israelites as a people are called "my firstborn son" by God, using the singular form.
In some versions of Deuteronomy, the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the sons of God rather than the sons of Israel, probably in reference to angels. The Septuagint reads similarly.
In Psalm 89:26-28, David calls God his father. God in turn tells David that he will make David his first-born and highest king of the earth.
In Psalm 82:1-8, the Biblical judges are called gods and the sons of God.
Psalm 2 is thought to be an enthronement text. The rebel nations and the uses of an iron rod are Assyrian motifs. The begetting of the king is an Egyptian one. Israel's kings are referred to as the son of the LORD. They are reborn or adopted on the day of their enthroning as the "son of the LORD".
In 2 Samuel 7:13-16, God promises David regarding his offspring that "I will be to him as a father and he will be to me as a son." The promise is one of eternal kingship.:
In Jeremiah 31:9, God refers to himself as the father of Israel and Ephraim as his first born son. Ephraim in Jeremiah refers collectively to the northern kingdom.:
I don’t think this is a contradiction since Jesus says he is the messiah. In this time period all messiah meant was the future king of Israel so he is saying ‘I am’ to that and when he is talking about the son of man he is being prophetic. He is referring to someone else when he speaks of the son of man, read mark 8:38.
JESUS is Lord
Amen!
Isn’t his name yahshua?
@@stephenburdess2914 No, his name is Yeshua, by Galileans he was called Yeshu, his whole name is Yehoshua, and the way that Greeks could call him because of their phonetic capacity and how the gendered names work in Greek was Iesous, which passed down to modern languages as Jesus, Isa in Arabic and any other variations.
Of Lords and King of kINGS.
Of the dance?
Which debate does this come from?
With Micheal Bird
@@JoshuaMSOG7 thank you
Sheikh Bart Ehrman pbuh has finally realized that Jesus DOES claim divinity in the synoptics.
Inshallah his muslim fans will stop quoting his earlier errors lol.
@Paddy Singh “with that hooker Mary” Another claim with 0 evidence , meanwhile the trial of Jesus and his charge of *blasephemy* from where this quote is based is a historical fact
Claiming divinity is not claiming to be God. Angels are also divine, but are not God.
@@sp1ke0kill3r no they aren’t. You made that up
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Apparently, you're not so great and yes they are.
@@sp1ke0kill3r Was Jesus claiming to be an Angel or God?
i've ended in a congregation of evangelican christians who see contraddiction where there are none
Why dedicate your life to disproving that Jesus isn’t God? Why would a person dedicate his life to the sole purpose of disproving Mohammed as a prophet?
He says Jesus made no claims to be divine in Matthew mark and Luke but the author of mark draws that conclusion for us. Not the literal words of Jesus.
Jesus is claims he forgives sins, authority over the sabbath, existed before abraham, sits next to father (is equal to God), he performs miracles without praying to God (does them in his own authority), etc.
Jesus own words affirm his divinity, the author's opinion is that he affirmed divinity, the san hedren at the trail thought Jesus affirmed divinity, and so on.
In the literal mark passage they're discussing, Jesus DOES claim to be the Son of Man, a divine figure from Daniel 7.
You didn’t listen very closely.
Climbing to be the Messiah does not make one divine, it makes one claim to be the anointed one, the future king of Israel.
That doesn’t make them God or one with the Father.
The Trinity was conceived centuries later and added to the Bible centuries later.
Jesus may no such claim.
Except Jesus claimed explicitly in Mark 14 to be the divine cloud rider of Daniel - the Son of Man. He claimed more than to merely be anointed. He claimed to sit at the right hand of the Ancient of Days eternally.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Have you ever read Daniel?
After a drunken party, a king forgot his dream, and Daniel interpreted a forgotten dream after a drunken party.
Daniel's interpretation of the forgotten dream was flattering to the king, and Daniel wasn't killed, but grew in favor.
I went to college.
I had drunken friends.
Sometimes they dreamt, sometimes forgot how they acted at a drunk-fueled party, but no one decided to put it into the Torah, or make it part of the canon.
When someone has a pro-religious bias, they will commit extraordinary mental gymnastics to so as not to be proven wrong.
I bailed on the absurdity of Roman Catholicism when I was 8, before I began swallowing aburdities.
Christian apologists owe everyone an apology.
He doesn't contradict himself. He makes it very clear that Mark, the evangelist, is creating the story. Jesus never makes the claim himself in a historical context. Mark, in his theology, puts those words into Jesus' mouth himself for the story. And even if it was historical, Bart clearly states that while it is a divine claim it is NOT the same as if Jesus was saying he was God or Yahweh or equal to the father in anyway. You need to listen to the whole argument. It also helps to know the larger argument from Bart's books - How Did Jesus Become God?
However, the claim bart made is based on the biblical account, That he never claimed to be divine according to Matthew, mark, and Luke. He literally says it right At the the beginning of the video 🤣🤣 stop trying ti deflect . He literally contradicted himself. Let’s be honest here.
The notion that mark is fabricating, is an assumption not based on fact. Majority of historian don’t believes this about marks account. A bit of research will do you wonders.
All presumption
The Christology in the making was very clear. Just read the Gospels yourself. The idea that Jews pick up stones to stone someone means he is God is ridiculous.
He then just lazily claims it’s an invention of mark that’s just not great scholarship right there
Let’s assume the traditional authorship of Mark (almost certainly not who actually wrote Mark). How did Mark (who was not an eyewitness) get access the questioning to what happened at the trial of Caiaphas? From Peter, Mark’s source according to tradition? Per Mark, Peter wasn’t there, he was outside denying Christ. So Peter would have had to hear it from someone else at the trial.
So AT BEST, Mark is reporting third hand information. So tell me What’s more likely:
1. That after going through AT LEAST two other people (in reality it was probably many many more) Mark wrote the actual dialogue of the trial, even though it doesn’t make sense bc claiming to be the Messiah isn’t blasphemy,
OR
2. that Mark (or the person that Mark is getting the story from, or the person who told the person who told mark) added/changed the story to emphasize Jesus’s divinity?
Sorry that in a debate with limited time, Ehrman didn’t explain that to you.
@@goodknightcarolinaThis is a dumb take that's based on an assumption that the story was changed
You don't know that!
You can't say for sure that it was changed
As far as we know, the writings got to us through copied manuscripts
People didn't just tell stories, they wrote them down
@@thedanielagboola it’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion about what’s most likely that you arrive at by looking at the data. My poor paraphrase is this-we have 4 gospels and we’re fairly certain we know mark was written first, then Matthew or Luke and finally John. If you read the red letter verses of those books in the order they were written, you notice that Jesus’s claims to divinity go from no claims to divinity in Mark to “I am” statements in John. It’s not certain that the authors of John put the words in Jesus’s lips. But you tell me what’s more likely. That the first three gospel writers forgot or missed quotes from Jesus about his divinity, or that later authors wanted to strengthen Jesus’s claim to divinity?
@@goodknightcarolina Mark was literally first Gospel
And please understand that all four Gospels were written to different audiences entirely, and emphasized different things about the life of Jesus
So of course they'll be different in some wa
It's quite convenient that scholars like Erhman are nitpicking the very few things that are different when the gospels (although written at different times, and to different people in different contexts) majorly agree and corroborate one another
@@thedanielagboola I’m with you, the gospels were written at different times for different audiences. But how does that make Dr. Ehrman’s conclusion less likely? I think he would agree with you when you say that.
And I don’t think he’s nitpicking, he’s observing. He observed this before he left Christianity and it’s not what caused him to leave. And there are plenty of Christians who accept this argument and still have faith.
So like I said, I think he’s making an observation about the gospels. Because we don’t really have that much data about the context (the exact time, place, or audience) in which the gospels were authored. He’s observing what we do know-that there were long debates about Jesus’s Christology in early Christianity, there are patterns of Jesus’s claims to divinity get more direct the later the gospel is written. It seems most likely that these statements were added by authors to strengthen their view of Jesus’s divinity. So I’d like to better understand why you think the fact that the gospels were written in different contexts makes this conclusion less likely.
Sorry, but anyone who actually listens to this can hear that Bart does not, in fact, contradict himself. If you are desperate to find some possible way to support your bizarre claims, then you twist this into a contradiction. Congratulations - your desperation overcame all rationality. As usual.
They completely miss Bart’s argument and then use the argument they imagine Bart made to say he contradicts himself. It’s the exact opposite of what they do when reading the Synoptics and see contradictions.
@@goodknightcarolina I don't think that they miss it. They deliberately misstate what Bart says, in order to "prove" that he contradicts himself. You are being too kind to this excusegist - he is simply lying for jesus.
The irony here is astounding.
Subhanallah, Brother Ehrman made a good point.
No he didn’t… He blatantly contradicted himself.
😂he got reconverted to Christianity, look at him shake
@@carsonianthegreat4672He was being sarcastic lol
You misunderstood his series of statements. He said those claims (Messiah, I AM, and sitting at the right hand) would have not been considered blasphemy at that time. The only way we can reason to the case for blasphemy is by reading even further into something that isn’t written down in Mark. Which is precisely what Bart says (you can watch his other videos on this subject for expanded clarity).
At the end he said we have no idea of what truly happened at Jesus trial because the book of Mark was written 40 years later and is obviously biased by whoever wrote Mark that Jesus did claim divinity.
So no contradiction, and even if you were to read some meaning back into Mark’s writing, there’s no way to know if that was the intention of Mark, or what actually was the justification for blasphemy. Could have simply been trumped up charges because as we know, the Sanhedrin already had it in for him, not like he’s gonna get out of this one!
No, you are stretching yourself. Bart was caught in his falsehood.
Christ in Mark 14 claimed to be the divine cloud rider of Daniel. That is a divine claim. Even Bart was forced to admit it eventually.
Bart says Jesus did not claim divinity in the synopic Gospels, but at the trial admits he did.
Whether Jesus actually said that or not isn't relevant because Ehrman claims the earliest gospels don't say that.
wow you really put yourself in a pretzel here just to defend Bart who put himself in a pretzel. "Jesus claimed to be God is an invention of Mark" but also it makes no sense as to why Jesus was charged with blasphemy unless he did claim to be God. So which is it? Just say "we don't know" and call it a day? This is the "biblical scholar hero" for muslims and athiests to debunk Christianity? Really?
Christ's adversary is Yahweh the jealous, angry , god of death!
That is a misinterpretation of the argument. At that time, angels were considered to be divine. The king of Israel was considered divine in the old testament. To be divine is different from being God, and identifying the two terms as meaning the same is anachronistic.
It is a fact that, in that context, among Jews, to call yourself an angel was considered a blasphemy. The "Son of Man" was believed to be an angelical being (as in Book of Daniel and Book of Enoch), thus calling yourself "Son of Man" was a blasphemy. It is the world view of jews at the time of the author of the gospels.
The "Son of Man" was considered divine, as angels were considered divine, because he came from the divine real, the Sky.
Angels we’re not considered divine at the time. You are fabricating that.
@@carsonianthegreat4672
Psalm 8:5 and 82:1 both refer to angels as "gods" (Hebrew: _Elohim;_ the Greek translation translates the former as "angels" and the latter as "gods"). So angels were considered divine. Not equal to the Most High, but subordinate heavenly beings.
But the reason Jesus was charged with blasphemy in the Synoptics is evidently that they viewed him as a false prophet and Messianic pretender (Matthew 26:64-66, especially verse 68, indicates this; and the Law in Deuteronomy 13:5 does say a false prophet deserves to die).
@@legron121 not really,elohim has broader context which mean spiritual being, they aren't Worshipped either as comapared to Jesus quoting a passage where this figure was worshipped.
@@majesticrainmaker1460
Daniel 7:14 says the one like a son of man was "given authority" to be served.
So this is not the same as "worshipping" a god. This is a royal figure who is brought up before God and chosen by him to rule over all peoples, languages, and nations.
@@legron121 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
He was worshipped.
where is the contraddiction, does jesus in mark state he is god? no
Him saying he is the king of Jews was enough to be blasphemy and when he speaks of the son of man, he is being prophetic and he is talking about someone else like he has throughout mark’s gospel. Read Mark 8:38
@@reeseexplains8935 you gave me a non-response
@@pspspspssspspps read it again but the short answer is no
Nice
Erhmann did not contradict himself.
To be a Messiah is nothing more than the anointed one, as David was anointed as other Messiah were anointed. That doesn’t make them divine.
It’s only the Redefinition By Christian who thinks that being a king of Israel makes one divine.
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but not the same as the father.
For those who live in the world of black-and-white, no wonder they can’t figure out the difference.
Jesus is God
False.
But be sure to give televangelist a significant amount of your money, they need the tax free cash.
You were so busy with polemics you missed the bit where everyone agreed that claiming to be the Messiah wasn't considered blasphemy at the time, and so if he claimed to be the Messiah nobody would've condemned him.
Consider watching the clip before commenting next time
@@Datroflshopper Watched it twice.
There's always a logically challenged dude in religious discussions.
There's no prize for it.
@@Datroflshopper There is no "the Messiah", it's "a Messiah". An anointed one.
Why must Christianity bastardize everything?
Because they're bastards...fatherless bastards.
I feel like Dr. Ehrman explained this well. Glad we have honest, impartial scholars like him!
Why is he charged for claiming to be God? Bart is scamming you. He told you Mark didn't have such statements of Jesus yet here is one which he struggles to explain away
@@koppite9600he wont accept it. Luks like tahts a bart fan boy ryt there 😂
He contradicted himself in the same debate. He said there are no divine claims in Mark. Then he said, well actually there are.
He got called out on his falsehoods.
Unfortunately there's no contradiction. Mark does not have Jesus make the same kind of claim as he does in John, which is Ehrmans point. Angels are also divine, but not God. So, claiming divinity is not saying you're god.
Angels are not divine, only God can be divine.
And Divinity that he can receive worship per dan 7:13 and on the clouds of heaven which is a divine attribute
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 today Christians and Jews say that angels are not divine. At that time, Jews considered angels were divine.
@@travestisocialista9005 where?
@@travestisocialista9005 no they didn’t. You made that up
We are Divine,same as Jesus!!!
In your dreams
Nope.
🔥
....... JESUS CHRIST is not claiming His diety/divinity!....... BUT BOLDLY declaring with full scriptural authority "IT IS WRITTEN" declaring it!....... 🔥
You completely misread Bart’s argument. Mark’s author sees Jesus as divine-that’s part of the authors message. Bart’s point is that our earliest source never quotes Jesus as claiming divinity. That’s his point. He’s not contradicting himself.
The gospel of Mark is the earliest source.
@@evanb4189 you’re right. And read the red letter verses in Mark and show me the ones where Jesus claims divinity. He doesn’t. Nothing close to the “I am” statements in John.
I like Ehrman but he has a hard time admitting it when someone points out potential errors in his logic. Somewhat thin skinned at times. But all scholars have flaws and none are perfect!
Praise Jeebus! The baby killer son.
Mark claim jesus is yahweh in the flesh just in chapter 1. Isaiah 40:3 malachi:3:1
The claim is not that Mark did not believe Jesus was a god, but that the character of Jesus within the story of Mark makes no overt claims to divinity. Even in the example in the video, the character "Jesus" in Mark does not actually make divine claims. Instead, the author of Mark is using the fictionalised high priest's response to show the reader that he (the author of Mark) wants the reader to understand that these words are claims to divinity (even though it would not have been understood as such by jewish priests at the supposed time of this trial). By John, Jesus makes divine claims every other time he opens his mouth.
Tl;dr: the character of Jesus does not make claims to divinity in Mark, but the author of Mark wants you the reader to understand that the words said here are claims to divinity even though no divine claims are being made.
To use an analogy:
Let's say in 30 years time an author writes a supposedly historical story set in 2023 about a guy called Derrick who tells the supreme Court that he ate a pickle, the supreme Court in the story, then claim that this is high treason and have him executed. You know and I know that in 2023 eating pickles are not high treason, and Derrick (in the story) said nothing that could be interpreted as high treason but this author wants the reader to understand that eating pickles is high treason.
Bart Ehrman as a joke, and he would get shishkebabbed on TikTok debate in a Christian chat room
False.
Even in this highly edited exchange, you still couldn’t manage to spot the difference.