Why Did Paul Hate Jesus and His Followers?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2024
- Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
Next to Jesus, Paul is the most important figure in the history of Christianity, but as is well known, before he was a zealous apostle he was an equally zealous antogonist. What was that all about? Why would a Jew in the Roman world outside Israel even care if a small group of Jews were claiming that Jesus was the messiah who brought salvation? Wouldn't he just write them off as another bunch of crazies? What about their claims did he find so offensive that he had to take them on? And when he took them on, what did he actually do? Was he murdering them? Sending them off to prison? On what authority? Can the NT be right that he was authorized by Jewish authorities? Was he just beating up people he didn't like? These are important questions because the answers can help explain the transformation of Christianity into a world religion. In this episode, we try to figure it all out!
Megan asks Bart:
-What do we usually mean when we talk about Paul's “conversion”, and is it an appropriate term to use here?
-How about “Christianity”? Should we even be using that designation this early in Christian history?
-When Christianity was in its infancy, Paul went from being someone who actively persecuted Christians, to a committed missionary. What reason does Paul give for this shift?
-Did other people claim to have similar visions?
-In the ancient world more broadly, were visions of the supernatural relatively common?
-How would people have understood these visions in the ancient world?
-What do you think really happened to prompt Paul’s conversion?
-Did Paul’s sudden belief affect his personal theology in some way?
-Paul’s conversion appears to have been on the more extreme end of the scale. It’s not like he just started attending a different house of worship, he embarked on a mission of conversion. What is it that prompted such a severe change of direction?
-Is this mission to the gentiles something that we see among other Jewish thinkers, or is it Paul’s personal mission?
-What was the general thought around gentiles converting to Judaism?
-How socially significant would this change have been for Paul?
-A cynical person might suggest that this is a power grab by Paul - the resurrection is starting, and he wants to be on the right side of the fight…and as an added bonus, he can be the one foretold to bring the gentiles in to god. Do you think that’s a valid argument?
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
the reason why Matthew is the most read book is because it is the first book in the Gideon's Bible and that's as far as most people get
I'd accept that! It's the first book of the new testament,so it makes sense it would get read more.
I had heard it was included first because it was already the most popular, so maybe both reinforce each other
obviously thank you oh wise one. its thanks to great scholars like you who've analysed the motives and intentions of every person who has lived since St Matthew's gospel was written to determine that the reason it is so widely read is because of the Gideon's bible's that appear in most hotels and motels in the English speaking world - which as we know both represents the whole world and the exacting state of affairs for the last 2000 years.
@@HenryLeslieGraham quit holding your farts in Henry.
luckily i dont have to since i have severe gastrointestinal problems @@ahousemouse
When I was in college back in the early to mid 80s, there were often preachers on the "quad" testifying and haranguing students to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Just about every one of them had some outrageous tale of how bad they were, how lost they were, how they were the lowest of the low until they found Jesus. Obviously, the message is if Jesus can fix the problems of such a person, then certainly Jesus can do it for you, ordinary student.
I have always wondered if Paul's claims of being such a terror to Christians was along those lines -- the fact that he did a 180 is a much stronger message than had Paul said, "I was a so-so Jew that wasn't really happy, but I met some kind Christians and I liked being with them so I began believing the things they told me."
Absolutely. This is a great question.
Maybe he was the original 'Liar for Jesus?'
Paul was a zealot as a Jew and a zealot after his conversion. You can read his intolerance in his writings. Women were equal in the eyes of Yashua but not Paul. Sinners are forgiven but Paul judges them. That is my problem with Paul, he is judgmental the one thing we are to leave to God.
Thank you for your work.
God bless everyone.
Brother Jed and Sister Cindy anyone?
@@jennifersilves4195LOlL. They were regulars on the UF quad back in the day.
Guys be careful there is a deceitful person named TommyPeltier in the comment promoting some scammer named Elizabeth and trying to deceive others that he got 47k $ thanks to her. Also be careful of the scammers replying to the guy and supporting him. They are either bots or other deceitful people
Spot on.
it's just a bot
Thanks. Yeah. They are annoying. Report them.
Thanks for the alert, bro, but honestly... We've been on the internet before
😝😝
@@Raz.C I mean not everyone is aware so lol no need to make unnecessary comments
The way Bart speaks about his wife 🥹🥹🥹♥️♥️♥️
Yeah, I was going to add this. My wife and I have been married for 30 years this year and I speak about her the same way (at least I hope!). The love is obvious, but so is a deep and abiding respect. It’s always nice to see.
You can just fast forward @@r0ky_M
@@Emptybladder If you read the TH-cam manual you can learn how to fast forward the videos.
New Bart episode, my most excited time of the week!
OmG she's from Digital Hammurabi right? I feel like such a FREAKING GENIUS when I follow people that are not popular and then they do great things like this.
Yup, one and the same!
I am very happy I took the time to read the comments. As Digital Hammurabi is new to me. And brilliant!
@weserbergland6000 I would see Dr Josh on the Non Sequiter show before they had their channel. Ironically he JUST spoke at Oasis in Houston where I live last Sunday.
Beautiful conversation, and thank you for the insights to Paul.
The Dynamic Duo! A highlight of my week. Thanks, Megan, Bart, et al
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@bartdehrman
Accursed devil and his followers are always against Jesus Christ and his followers.
A gift from the anti establishment,th-cam.com/video/9NlteRvg2_k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6bytYUjeQRtTgTgD
I keep posting they keep deleting it
I always wondered about this subject . Thanks
I hope you always wondered about that subject because you're a sincere and honest seeker of truth.
You're an honest and reasonable individual. God Almighty in His mercy and love for you had destined that all this knowledge of the truth came to you. What you do after knowledge of the truth has come to you is up to you. Paul was the f3r0c10us w0lf in she-ep's clo-thi-ng whom Jesus wa-rn-ed about. No wonder Jesus foretold and wa-rn-ed:
By the fruits ye shall know them
On each and every fundamental doctrine, the Christian faith is the exact opposite of what Jesus preached and practiced.
1)
Jesus: ✅ THE FATHER (SINGLE PERSON) IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD. John 17:3.
Christians: ❌ NO. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Triune-God / Godhead / The Trinity / One God in three persons or whatever you want to call it) is the true God.
2)
Jesus: ✅NO payment needed, NO Jesus died for us. Just repent sincerely and the Merciful God (THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER) forgives.
Christians: ❌ NO. Salvation comes by the blood of Jesus and his dying on the cross
3)
Jesus: ✅ Keep the Laws and the commandments if you want eternal life.
Christians: ❌ NO. Eternal life comes by faith in the sacrifice of Jesus
4)
Jesus: ✅ Do NOT neglect even the smallest laws
Christians: ❌ NO. Those laws are unimportant
5)
Jesus: ✅ I was sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel
Christians: ❌ NO. Jesus came for us all, Jesus came for all of mankind
There are two shows that mark the week for me: Bart's podcast on Tuesday and the motorbike travel blog coming out on Sunday morning, period, lol)))
Megan's sense of style is always awesome, love the eyeshadow in this episode so much!
Very provocative title! Can't wait to hear about it all from both of you!
That's what I thought at first too until I realized they're talking about Paul _before_ his conversion, in which case it's not really provocative at all.
Why do you reward clickbait?
Yeah we know he hated Christians in the past,it's not new information, total clickbait
th-cam.com/video/9NlteRvg2_k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6bytYUjeQRtTgTgD
@@montagdpThat's the only way to discuss Paul without being disingenuous. Suggesting otherwise would be silly and in bad faith.
My devout Southern Baptist grandmother used to say, “When I get to heaven the first thing I will do is have a long talk with Paul. He got most of it wrong”.
I have always found it funny how Christ warns the Apostles that a deceiver is coming to mislead them after he dies, and then Paul waltzes into the show a la Kramer stumbling in Jerry Seinfeld’s door.
I'm confused. Who got what wrong?
“Jesus did not think a person’s soul would live on after death, either to experience bliss in the presence of God above or to be tormented in the fires of hell below. As an orthodox Jew of the 1st century, Jesus did not think the soul went anywhere after death. It simply ceased to exist with the body.” Prof. Bart D Ehrman.
(Prof. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks.)
Why does she assume paul would be in "Heaven".
Following Bart to hell, or follow grandma to heaven...?
I'm not a scholar, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to sit next to Paul on the bus. Seems like one of those weirdos that would make a trip across town feel like a literal crucifixion.
Actually I think of Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lecture about people with temporal lobe epilepsy - serious, unfunny, highly religious and intolerant, prone to visions ... fits ol' Paul pretty well. I can easily see him as a persecutor of Christians, harboring some guilt, has one of his seizures, attributes it as a visitation, goes off with his own interpretation of Jesus's teachings.....but yeah - other side of the bus for me, lol
In his letters Paul sounds like an insufferable boor who probably deserved some of those 40, less one, stripes. By his own admission he was physically unimpressive so I don't think he could beat anyone up. Rather, he may have been autistic and lectured people at length. He certainly does it in some of his letters. I'm on the spectrum and prone to doing the same thing. Believe me, it drives neurotypicals crazy and it's probably the method Paul used to torture people. Fortunately I have a spouse to keep me in check though I have been known, on occasion, to torture people too. };o)
Paul's description of himself and his behaviour leads me to think that he was a "difficult person". By his own admission he was not an impressive physical specimen so I don't think he could beat anyone up. However, he sounded like a real pain in the ass who deserved some of those 40 less one stripes.
Paul was Titus's Pen name, Titus my ONE TRUE son in the faith, there's a clue in that statement even for the dumbest.Bible is full of proof that Titus was the Chrestus author of All biblical scripture,and the old Testament.
@@tyronecox5976 yes but did he have temporal lobe epilepsy? That'd clinch the deal for me, hahaha
thanks more please
Im a believer, i have 2 books you have written and a lecture series. Your work is important to both sides of the isle. You rock ❤
My favorite show, Bart is the best! Love from The Gambia !
Love your videos
Enjoy these talks so much. Might be interesting though for them to switch roles a bit and have Bart interview Megan about her area of expertise 😊
Thank you.
The bit about not getting angry, not lusting, etc., was because Jesus was building a fence around the Torah - like any good rabbi would do. When I don't want the lawn guy to weed-whack my new plant, I put a small barrier around it to draw his attention to that area. If he doesn't weed-whack the little fence, then he can't even accidentally knock down the plant. That's how rabbis teach people to avoid breaking commandments.
No.
@@bradleyperry1735thank you. any other insights you'd mind sharing?
@@marcomoreno6748 No.
Jesus was a rabbi? Jesus was building a fence around the Torah? I'm intrigued.
@oreno6748 Not sure if you're talking to me or to the snarky remark by another. But just in case it was me....
My main insight is that if you want to understand anything about Jesus, the Christian Testament, or early Christianity, you should learn as much as you can about Judaism (esp. Second Temple Judaism) from a reputable scholar(s): Dan McClelland, Amy Jill Levine, etc. As the Jesus Movement spread into the Greco-Roman world, many of the ideas that would have been easily understood within the original context got lost and/or reinterpreted into that culture. The best way to reconstruct them is to learn as much as you can about the original context (language, culture, religion, etc.).
love the glasses you wear..cool
when you said your husband wrote The Atheist Handbook to the Old testament i almost fell out of my chair, i heard from you following Bart, and im so enjoying theese videos
th-cam.com/video/9NlteRvg2_k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6bytYUjeQRtTgTgD
Interesting talk!
Looking very groovy today Megan! 👍👍👍
At first I thought thats a bold thibg to say than I realized he meant the Saul days. Lol
John the Baptist had a following during his ministry and even after his death, and the fact that he came to the attention of Herod means that he had some prominence in Jewish society, so it seems plausible that Jesus as a sort of John 2.0 was also at least somewhat well known among the Jewish population in his time. The ancient world was more connected than most people think, and people took their prophets very seriously, whether positively or negatively.
And if Paul was a Pharisee it's perhaps not too surprising that he hated Christians, haha
This is by far my favorite podcast. Keep up the great work!
Top Songs - Tommy Peltier's Plastic Theatre
Tommy Peltier's Plastic Theatre · Playlist
•
Updated 6 days ago
Dream Trust
2:46
You Take Me Up
3:36
View full playlist
Bart says when Paul converted, there was just a handful of Xtns in Jerusalem, yet Paul was apparently on his way to Damascus to discipline the Xtns there. If there were just a few in Jerusalem, how did they manage to have a community in Damascus?
Israel wasn't to kind to Christians da
Odd, isn't it?
@@alvindaughtry2168X=the Greek letter chi. Short for Christ. This is an old abbreviation used by Christians themselves, especially ones who have to write a lot about Christ.
Read Acts with grain of salt
Ehrman clearly says he doesn’t believe the Damascus story. Watch again.
It’s like Christmas comes every week!
Always a great lecture.
Interesting stuff
The chronology at midpoint counsels to the conversion date being somewhere around 35 AD.
Between History Valley, MythVision and now Misquoting Jesus, this has been one rough week on Apostle Paul!
Paul was a dumb dumb.
@@RoosterNutz12
Paul wasn't dumb at all He was a deceiver and he was possessed by an Angel of Satan
Paul is not alive to listen to BS from atheist.
You got it wrong
Paul was an agent of Rome… hiding under the guise of a christian. Rounding up believers and having them unalived. Read Acts 7… he’s responsible for the stoning of Stephen 😢
I love this podcast. I love Bart's courses. This was a great topic And well argued.
Please look up his courses on the "Great Courses" now rebranded as "Wondrium". Now those are seriously amazing.
Another great episode please keep it up
Love this show - thanks for the knowledge, Bart! Megan, you're slaying the fashion today!
36:56 Audio in one speaker only.
Are there any letters that Paul likely wrote-according scholars-that were not included in the final version of the Bible? Or at any such letters scholars speculate may have been written by Paul? Or any other letters or writings scholars have since determined are authentically ascribed to someone important to the early Christian faith, but which were not included in the finally accepted version of the Bible?
Great question!
Paul instructs the Colossians to exchange his letter to them with the letter he wrote to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16), and if you read the entirety of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinrhians, it is heavily implied that Paul and the Corinthians wrote various letters back and forth to each other.
@14:00 Ananais was the moderate (non circumcision) for both Paul and Izates, however, Izates went all in... (thanks to Eleazar)
I could listen to you all day my dear 😊
Paul, openly hated Mary and all the females and Thomas who treated the women as equals.
Paul's church and Paul's Christianity, derided Thomas and omitted the gospels of Thomas and Mary (Magdalene) from his church.
Do not be fooled. Christianity today is Paul's Christianity and not Jesus's.
Women and men are equals in Jesus's Christianity.
I was always under the assumption that Paul was a Roman citizen and as one, he had a rite to trial under Roman law. So why then are the stories that he was tried and suffered under Roman law?
He wasn't really 'tried' when he was stoned, beaten, whipped. etc. Those punishments were from the Jewish leaders in a town or city who objected to his preaching (probably as blasphemous) and punished him for it. The Romans saw these issues as Jewish problems for them to deal with. Consider the response of Proconsul Gallio in Corinth when the synagogue leaders brought Paulfor trial for teaching falsehoods. Gallio told them it was a Jewish religious problem, not a civil matter, and dismissed them. Not only was paul freed, but the synagogue leader got a beating for his troubles.
@@pdyt2009 The Romans didn't give a fuck about the Jewish religion. Perhaps that is your point. They just didn't tolerate trouble makers and had no remorse about liquidating them in a hurry.
@@pdyt2009 Paul was a connected fella... In my view only his mother was Jewish, but his father was Roman, and not a plain Vanila Roman....
@@Igor_Chernyavskiy_2023Paul was a member of the Herodian clan
@@genskitchenmagic2957 I personally do not think so, partially because historians have idea who was in that clan, and I Paul had a provenance to be proud of, he would boast about it. I think Paul was in the military detachment assigned to the Herodian court. That would make him a participant.in the same events without provenance... It is a nice place to serve, all things considered... Better than building aqueducts...
all this travelling around Palestine, Syria, etc... reminded me of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail scene where the rebels discuss what Rome has done for them.
ROADS, to go around the levant persecuting Christians lol
12:00 In the NWT fourty lashes less one(lesions/lesson).
I think Paul just never got over being knocked off his ass onto his ass on the road to Damascus.
Damasscus?
Curious, has anyone read "The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity," by Hyam Maccoby?
Yah, I read that thing, about 30 years ago. Can't really comment on it.
While it is indeed true that Paul gives us virtually no explanation for the persecution, I think that the main reasons for Paul to hate the early Christians would be similar to what was referenced in Acts during the dispute between Stephen and the Hellenists at the Freedman's synagogue. We don't really see that much references to the theology of the Hebrews and Hellenists at the Jerusalem church, but the main points on Stephen's speech that can indicate the reasons for persecution was speaking against the Temple, which seemed to be unique to the Hellenists (Acts 7:48-50), asserting that Jesus is the Messiah (and possibly God, which would be a capital offense), and "speaking against Moses and God" (Acts 6:11). I don't think there are reasons to deny that these claims would have been offensive to the Paul, based on his claimed statements to be a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5).
Regarding the claims of Jewish persecution of Christians, I think it is plausible that to assume that it was intense, as Paul mentions it in 1 Thessalonians 2:15, and extrabiblical Christian and non-Christian sources alike as well. Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews talks about the stoning of James the Just in Jerusalem, which he considered unlawful, Eusebius states that Josephus thought it was the reason for the fall of Jerusalem (I don't know how true that claim is). Justin Martyr talks about the killing of Jewish Christians during the Bar Kokhba Revolt c. 135 AD, and Epiphanius in his Panarion talks about how Nazarenes were not accepted by Jews and Christians alike, referencing the Birkhat Ha-Minim in the Talmud as evidence for his claim. My question is: giving his probable disinterest in Christianity during the 1st century AD, why would Josephus reference the killing of James if it was not a significant event that could have indicated a large scale persecution to people with beliefs similar to his?
Lastly, regarding Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, does the Messiah need to be explicitly referenced as the "Mashiach"/"Messiah" in order for the passage to be interpreted as such? I don't think the Jewish community states such, as Psalms 72 doesn't mention the "Messiah" explicitly, but the implications of this passage refer to the Messiah and is interpreted as Messianic by the Targums of such.
Check out “ Scriptural Dissonance - Vol I Challenging Passages in The Gospels and Acts”
I've been watching these videos and finding them fascinating, though the wording of the opening is kind of curious. "The ONLY show where a 6-time New York Times bestselling author and world-renowned Bible scholar..." Does that mean there are 5-time New York Times bestselling authors and world-renowned Bible scholars doing shows like this? Perhaps 6-time Los Angeles Times bestselling authors and world-renowned Bible scholars, or maybe 6-time New York Times bestselling authors and Bible scholars who are only renowned in a few countries. These are the places my mind goes...
I think it means he has 6 separate books on the New York Times bestselling list.
I always chuckle at that myself. The more qualifiers you add after the word “only,” the less impressed I am. I’d actually be more impressed if they just dropped the “only” and listed bart’s credentials without any mention of exclusivity.
don't forget the chamber music !
Try to understand the intended message, not to analyze the sentence logically :-)
@@ulrikof.2486 It’s not a “logical analysis”. The PR bit in question is certainly crass, superfluous, and generally obnoxious, but logically “only six-time, etc who, etc.” doesn’t suggest in the slightest that there are five-time, etc, who, etc. It means simply that there is no else with all of these credentials doing this. Logically there could be no one else doing this at all or others or another doing this with none of these credentials or with some of these credentials but not all of them. If X is not both A and B, then X could be A alone, B alone, or neither A nor B. THAT is logic.
How’s that for a provocative title, should be a good episode!
It was a little unsatisfying. I believe there was deep antipathy between the camp of James (Yeshua's heir) and Paul, who was viewed by them as "the Enemy". This could have been pursued more intensely.
@@onamemmet I would actually love for Bart to one day do an episode on the James/Paul disagreement. For someone who talks so much about the New Testament, I feel like I’ve never really seen him speak extensively on (James the brother of Jesus)
That question from a listener about the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed reminds me of a question my dad always had about the Nicene Creed. Some translations of it only say “He suffered and was buried” without saying that he died.
Another crucial question for any sincere seeker of the truth:
Jesus prayed to his God against getting c-r-u-c-i-f-i-e-d.
Did God accept his earnest prayer made in trust?
A-s per prophecy from the OT.
✅ Mark 14:36:
👉 Jesus PRAYS to God, IN TRUST, that *the Cup is TAKEN AWAY from him*
Psalm 20:6
Now know I that the Lord *SA-VE-TH* his *ME:SS:IAH* ;
He 👉 *ANS-WE-RE-TH* 👈 him from the
👉 HE-AVE-NS 👈 of His holiness, with the ✅ *SA:VI:NG ST-RE-NG-TH* of His right hand.
Question:
Why is Saul aka Paul so upset and is d3sp3rat3 to preach that Jesus literally got c-r-u-c-i-f-i-e-d?
Answer:
According to the Hebrew SCRIPTURES, a c-r-u-c-i-f-i-e-d Messiah is a FA_LSE messiah exp0sed by God. The work of Paul the f3r0c10us w0lf in she-ep's clo-thi-ng whom Jesus wa-rn-ed about continues to this day as the J3w nation re-je-ct-s Jesus as Messiah. Saul aka Paul achieved what he set out to do. Stop the true movement of the the followers of Messiah Jesus by turning it into an A-B-O-M-I-N-A-T-I-O-N as per the Hebrew scriptures.
🚩 👉 De-uter-ono-my 21 verse 23
Did Jesus actually get c-r-u-c-i-f-i-e-d or did Paul's "MY Gospel" prevail which made sure that the J3-w nation never accepts Jesus as Messiah?
@@Truth-a_hard_pill Are you saying you know more than historians , and biblical scholars about Jesus crucifixion ? That demonic book the Quran which contradicts the bible 100% disagrees with all teachings from the bible . Jesus prays to God that this cup be taken from him , BUT he also said Not my will , But your will . Jesus speaks of his crucifixion in other scriptures as well .
Always a great isight into 1st Century Judiasm and history of the Levant.
I've always had issues with Paul. He misquotes and misinterprets Jesus time and again, and nobody seems to question it.
Paul's letters in the New Testament don't really quote Jesus, as his emphasis is more on the resurrected Jesus and contemporary issues that happened in the 1st century church around the Mediterranean. The times where he does quote the earthly Jesus doesn't really show any discrepancies with the Jesus presented in the Gospels. Such examples include 1 Cor. 7:10 which corresponds to the teachings of Jesus on divorce (Matthew 19:1-12), 1 Corinthians 9:14 where it talks about ministers getting their compensation for the Gospel corresponding to Luke 10:4, and the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, which corresponds to Mark 14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-28, and Luke 22:19-20.
@@user-yh6tt2nu4p th-cam.com/video/9NlteRvg2_k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6bytYUjeQRtTgTgD
Because it's heresy to do so..., didn't you know that??😉🫢🤥
You’re telling me Christians don’t question things?
@@user-yh6tt2nu4pthank you for the explanation. These guys just make things up and still have the nerve to say people don't question things
I think Paul's zeal as a Pharisee and a persecutor of early Christians is attributable to his upbringing as a diaspora Jew. Any expats like myself might understand this. Despite living abroad for decades, we almost ironically often feel our native nationality or origins as a crucial part of our identity all the more intensely. I think Saul felt as an outsider he had to be the best, most zealous Pharisee. That's a very heavy psychological burden, and I think the weight of that burden and perhaps also of his guilt about violently persecuting innocent people were likely key to the conversion episode that transforms him into Paul, which sounds like a complete mental and physical breakdown. He then applies the same zeal to this new revelation and conviction, and is just as disparaging of anyone who disagrees with him as the old Saul was. He dismisses and disrespects the Jerusalem church, and always accompanied by his familiar old inferiority complex, he's going to be the best, most zealous Christian, so special in fact that he's the only one that knows the real truth, despite having never actually known Jesus. It's a fascinating psychological portrait.
Very well put. I've always had this same thought.
"I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles" is the passage that always strikes me for this idea
What an Inferiority Superiority Complex
As a guess/bet... Paul was in the military (or axillary), and it was customary for military eyeing retirement to learn a trade (as future primary occupation or as a social safety backup). It could be learned in the military workshop, or from some artisan in the city. While Paul probably did not intend to use this skill to survive, it was great to put together a crew, or make inroads in the new location while on the mission. His occupation as a tent/awning maker could be picked up in the military in-house tent making/repairing workshop.
you are right ... a guess ... perhaps as a guess he was a cobbler who found a easier way of earning money.
At least five of his books. Learned a lot I can not wiggle out from under.🎪🎪
I wonder what Sarah thinks about Shakespeare mythacists.
The Real Shakespeare is buried at Oak Island ;)
LMAO!!!
That you should read them in the original Klingon?
Excellent question. It'd be great to see an episode where Mr and Mrs Bart discuss any parallels and differences between Jesus and Shakespeare mythicists.
To what extend is the idea of Jesus "being God" or "becoming God" a Graeco-Roman influence? Cos the concept of the trinity seems totally incompatible with Jewish monotheism. But it makes more sense from an Indo-European pagan perspective
Anyone who sincerely repents and turns to YHWH is begotten of his incorruptible seed. Born a miracle NEW birth by his Spirit. Which is what the NT calls the "resurrection into new life" being raised a divine eloheim (little e) not THE Elohiem (big E). This is how Jesus inadvertently was made into GOD instead of a god. As even he quoted OT scripture "Is it not said YE are eloheim". The gospels were written as spiritual allegory/metaphor which was literalized by Rome. Leading to 1900 years of complete deception. Jesus never claimed to be God Almighty nor would he because that would make him a false messiah and liar. Deut. 13. And it would make Yhwh a liar. He is not a man Hosea 11:9 and he never changes.
@@jdaze1 So what do you believe the status of Jesus was? Was he simply a prophet?
@@LS-xs7sg Any Prophet of God is nothing "simple". They are chosen men of God. God's representative and Emissary on earth. Guiding lights for the people which they are sent to. Jesus IS no different. Peace be upon all of God's Prophets.
@@LS-xs7sg One of the names of The Qur'an is The Reminder. God Almighty in His FINAL Testament calls the people of the previous scriptures BACK to the straight path - the path which they have abandoned / forgotten / c0rrupted / no knowledge of.
God Almighty says:
“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" (Trinity) ; 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.” [Qur'an 4:171]
@@Truth.is.BitterOMG your offf your head Abdulla ! Jesus wasn’t sent for the purpose of bringing back the Jews to the straight path . What straight path ? To worship the one True God ? They where already doing this , so why would Jesus have to come for this reason ? Jesus came with an entirely different message AND one which the Quran contradicts…. The god you worship is NOT the same God the Jews and Christian’s worship ! Go somewhere else !
My question would be on Matthew 27:46 “About three in the afternoon, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? '” which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” AND Hebrew 5:7 During the days of Jesus’ earthly life, He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence. DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS ? IF JESUS WAS HEARD BECAUSE OF HIS REVERENCE, DEATH IS WHAT HE WAS CRYING AGAINST. DID HE DIE ? IF HE DIED THEN GOD DID NOT HEAR HIM. what is the truth ??
Did you two agree to matching glasses before the show or was that organic?
Paul knew the sensibilities of the Romans and was careful what he said because he knew the Romans would be reading their material.
Love these little academic chit chats, hate waiting a week to listen to the next one.😁
Going back to Isaiah 53 many believed that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimhi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later objected to Rashi’s interpretation. These rabbis-including Maimonides-realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretations.
The objections these rabbis put forth to Rashi’s view were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, “He was despised and rejected … he was pierced for our transgressions … he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.” Third, they noted verse eight of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel:
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:8)
But, were the Jewish people ever “cut off from the land of the living?” Absolutely not! God promises that Israel will live forever:
If this fixed order [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. (Jeremiah 31:36)
Likewise, this interpretation makes nonsense of the phrase, “for the transgression of my people he was stricken,” since “my people” clearly means the Jewish people.
Isaiah predicted that the Servant of the Lord would be disfigured by suffering and rejected by many. 700 years later, Yeshua was struck, spat on, mocked, and blasphemed (Mark 15:17-19, Matthew 27:39-44).
Isaiah said this person would come from humble beginnings. Yeshua grew up in a city with a poor reputation, Nazareth (Luke 2:39-40,51).
Isaiah said that the Servant would bear our sins and suffer in our place. 700 years later, Jesus “himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24).
Isaiah predicted that the Servant would heal many. Jesus made the lame walk, the blind see, and the sick healthy all throughout his earthly ministry (Matthew 8:16-17).
Isaiah said that he would voluntarily take our punishment upon himself. Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).
Jesus did not defend himself before Herod, Pontius Pilate, or the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:62-64, 27:11-14; Luke 23:9). Just as Isaiah foretold, he remained silent during his suffering.
Isaiah predicted that the Servant would die, be buried with a rich man, but would not remain dead. Jesus did all of this when he died on a cross (Mark 15:37; John 19:33-34), was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-60), and when he rose three days after his death.
In 1922, the late David Baron, a British Jewish believer in Yeshua who was well-versed in rabbinics, wrote:
It is beyond even the wildest credulity to believe that the resemblance in every feature and minutest detail between this prophetic portraiture drawn centuries before his [Jesus’] advent and the story of his life, and death, and glorious resurrection as narrated in the gospels, can be mere accident or fortuitous coincidence.5
Can it be true? Ask yourself-if you have the courage to believe it.
@@platzhirsch4275
According to the Hebrew scriptures, a c-r-u-c-i-f-i-e-d Messiah is a FA_LSE messiah exp0sed by God. No wonder:
A-s per prophecy from the OT.
✅ Mark 14:36:
👉 Jesus PRAYS to God, IN TRUST, that *the Cup is TAKEN AWAY from him*
Psalm 20:6
Now know I that the Lord *SA-VE-TH* his *ME:SS:IAH* ;
He 👉 *ANS-WE-RE-TH* 👈 him from the
👉 HE-AVE-NS 👈 of His holiness, with the ✅ *SA:VI:NG ST-RE-NG-TH* of His right hand.
@@Truth-a_hard_pill your full of the lies of your spiritual father who's lies are appealing to you. You're referring to the Deuteronomy saying about someone hanging on a tree being cursed. Jesus didn't hang on a tree. Is a house 🏠 made of wood a tree 🌳? No. Jesus died on a cross made of wood 🪵, not on a tree. Let's try and be more honest pls. However in a way if we understand the prophecy of the suffering servant etc we see that Jesus was stricken for our transgressions and inequities. Was pierced for our transgressions and just before his death certainly carried the curse of mankind on himself. But if you read the prophecy of Isaiah 53 etc you can see that God raised him from the land of the dead and placed him at his right hand as his Son. Jesus did pray for "this cup to pass him but not his will but God's will be done" meaning Jesus new the severe suffering he was going to have to endure so in his flesh he said this but at the same time he knew that all scripture has to be fulfilled and hence he has to take all that upon himself. Repent of your wicked heart....
@@Truth-a_hard_pillBecause to be crucified means accursed, Titus was the Chrestus author of All biblical scripture, Titus was Pontius Pilate, Pontius meaning God of the sea, Pilate meaning armed with a dart, Titus's satire, Titus said that Jesus Lucifer was screaming out My God my God why have you forsaken me, classic, Solomon's temple built by Hiram Abiff, Satan, Revelation 22 16 tells you that Jesus is Lucifer,read it.
Great 👍
It sounds like Paul used a version of the "criterion of embarrassment"; in other words, because the story includes a shameful element (being nailed to a tree) it must be true, because if it was fiction they wouldn't include anything embarrassing.
Criterion of embarrassment is but only subjective speculation masking as objective measure : it requires inferences to be drawn by modern scholars as to what people might have regarded as 'embarrassing' in antiquity.
In casu, I'm of the view that the particular Jewish sect (which developed into proto-christianity) expected (even yearned) for the end-times to be ushered in - by the suffering and death of a messiah-like figure - based on a peculiar interpretation of inter alia the suffering servant songs and other passages / 'prophecy'.
The criterion thus may infer exactly the opposite it intends, which renders it rubbish.
@road.from.damascus I am familiar with the issues with the criterion; I just found it interesting that it was used that far back.
Christians seem to have always welcomed the end times, even if those times seem to be in no hurry in arriving.
@@AccidentalNinjaChristians waiting for the end times because that’s what Jesus taught.
26:20 longest blink ever
😂 very long. Do you think she was dosing off?
Her camera just got frozen. Looks funny tho 🙂
How much do we know about Pharisaic control (as opposed to Sadducean control) over the priesthood?
I was taught that Paul was citizen of Rome. Also he writes that the Emperor's family members (mother?) are well-disposed toward Christianity.
How ironic it is that his religious wife studies works of fiction that does not pretend otherwise, while he studies a fiction book that does pretend to be otherwise
All of Shakespeare is political commentary.
Read Shadowplay by Clare Asquith. Her thesis is that the Shakespeare family were recusant Roman Catholics. John, William's father is known to have paid fines for non attending compulsory Protestant Church service etc. William was an underground Catholic hoping for toleration of Catholics in Elizabethan England. Asquith goes through pretty much all the plays, with historical background to what was happening in English politics at the time the play was written/ performed. She was inspired because her husband was British ambassador to the Soviet Union in the late 80s, just before the collapse of Communism, and she went to several theatrical productions where anti government messages could be communicated to an audience right under the noses of KGB censors. Asquith concluded that's EXACTLY what Shakespeare did. Very cleverly as it happens, since there was very little that the Elizathan secret police run by Walsingham could pin on him. Fascinating stuff.
Paul talks about the punishment of the Jews (that is, the events around AD70) as a past event... Romans 11:1, 20 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. Also, Ephesians 2:14. (The dividing wall has been broken down) In Paul's theology the Law was no longer operational. (Ephesians 2:14, Romans 10:4) Clearly the Jesus movement did not exist prior to the destruction of the Temple. The sacrifice of one man, Jesus replaced the Temple Atonement ritual. Paul and all the others flourished after AD70. Hence the silence of contemporary historians. The myth of origins was backdated.
th-cam.com/video/4zSFiCWhpds/w-d-xo.html
What!!!!!! Paul died prior to AD70 and the Jewish Revolt, and the destruction of Herod's Temple by the Romans. So Paul speaks about the Jeruslem Church, who had Peter, James, Andrew, Simon and Mary Magdalene as members and teachers of Jesus's belief, but did not include Paul. Also Paul wrote to a wide range of Churchs all around the Levant and Asia Minor as well as Rome and does not suggest that believers in Jesus were not established......but according to you did not register until 40 years after Jesus died and upto 8 years after Paul. Think you need to revisit your knowledge and understanding.
I would like to know how come the Romans allowed the murder of Stephen by stoning. I thought Rome abolished Jews' carrying out the death penalty, and that's why Rome carried out Jesus' execution.
10:32 The 'letters' Saul (not Paul) was given were not 'authorization' they were merely 'letters' to explain what he was doing and why. Spilling a man's blood is pretty serious business and Saul - after the 'scales of wrongful judging' fell from eyes and he could 'see' - and was thus given a new 'name'.
Names are very important... Why did the Angel of the Lord refer to Isaac as Abraham's ONLY SON? Because Ismael was Abram's son. This is also important from a 'spiritual' perspective, because each of us only has (1) son. Inside of us is a 'son of man'. That 'son' is either obedient to the Lord (YHWH, not Elohim) - through 'FAITH', or denies the Holy Spirit and is then a 'son' that the 'Dragon' waits for. And why the dragon goes off to fight with the rest of the womans children.
In each of us is the woman - the Eve. The Hebrew word used for her creation has a root that means 'knowledge' and thus the 'woman' has ALL the seeds. It is the 'spirit of the Lord' that 'waters' the seeds. Simple. Call me if you'd like - we have work to do.
Because he was the Roman “James Bond”..
26:15 isn't that a bit misleading though? Jews will be able tell you that in the ten or so prophecies that are about the messiah, none of them actually contain the word "messiah". It's all euphemism. He's referred to as David, but doing a word search for "messiah" isn't going to work, even for passages that do refer to the messiah, in Judaism.
Please correct me if I'm wrong though (ideally, with chapter and verse).
i believe Bart is refering to all the passages that are all supoosedly about the same 'messiah', not just the ones that have the literal word in it, and that if you try to understand them in their proper context, without assuming that they describe jesus, you'll find that maybe there was not a prior expectation for someone like him, or at least not as described by christian tradition
Jews believed in two messiahs
@@pedrom4572 you can believe that, but it's interpretation. Going by what he said, here and again about ten minutes later, you would think that the only meaning he could have here is to say that a prophecy must contain the word Messiah in order to be messianic. He knows better, and he must know how misleading this is, since literally none of these prophecies have the word Messiah in them. It's a standout feature of messianic prophecies in fact.
However, to the generally lay audience that Ehrman aims his podcast at, this is not a point they would be aware of or ever think to challenge. Dr Ehrman has a responsibility to represent the truth, as seen by the scholarly consensus, and when I hear him making candidly misleading remarks, it makes me wonder what else I can't trust him on, that I'm not well read enough to question. Essentially, it harms Dr Ehrman's credibility.
I mean, none of this is even about Jesus, the point stands regardless, I think.
@@JopJio or three, or one, or none. Judaism was multiplex in the ancient world.
But so what?
@@integrationalpolytheismI think you’re getting worked up about an overly literal parsing. The point is none of these passages are about the messiah, not that the presence or absence of a single word is dispositive.
Where can I buy books by Bart Ehrman's wife? Or rather, how do I search for them in the first place?
It seems to me that scholars may be looking in the wrong place to understand Paul's early hostility. It wasn't so much doctrinal or ideological but psychological. Paul lived in a Hellenized context and felt duty bound to his community to defend Judaism with a measure of fanaticism without any real interest in its cumbersome observance. He secretly admired on some level Christianity but resisted out of a sense of loyalty. His psychological dam finally broke and he embraced this new faith fully and brought his zealousness to the cause of reforming it into something that he believed could take the world by storm.
34:15 well, while jews today would agree with this, the evidence of the dead sea scrolls, with which Dr Ehrman is familiar, suggests that some religious Jews did believe in a suffering servant messiah. The fact that none of the passages in tanakh that talk about the messiah actually use the word messiah may well contribute to the confusion over which passages are actually messianic, even though Dr Ehrman continues to pretend that the word "messiah" is a good indicator.
In fact, if you ask a jew, they will confirm to you that of the many occurrences of the word messiah within tanakh actually none of them ever occur in a messianic prophecy. They always refer to a human king or priest.
It's important to note that when christians use Isaiah 53's suffering servant passage to refer to Jesus or Messiah, one cannot ignore Isaiah 49 which explicitly says Israel is the Suffering Servant.
@@edwinasencio5727I think they would just respond with 53 has multiple meanings
@@edwinasencio5727 that also applied to the prechristian jews who believed it. But people still believe things from the bible in whatever way they want, regardless of whether you can show that it doesn't make sense.
Worth pointing out though that the suffering servant is identified as Israel itself, or at least it would seem so in context.
@@TheGreatAgnostic yes, in the tanakh, however I was referring to the dead sea scrolls.
Arguments from the bible do not show in any way that every Jew agreed with what we now know as the bible (which wasn't even collected as such until centuries later than this period we are talking about).
As I said above, the dead sea scrolls are witness to the existence of a sect which saw the Messiah as a suffering servant. Modern Christian and Jewish apologetics will of course try to sideline this, but at the time there's no evidence that this view was considered minority or heretical, and that's the impression you would get listening to Dr Ehrman here.
I showed up to see the glasses; I stayed to learn more about Paul.
We don't need to be guessing what being the messiah meant in Judaism in the 1st century. Rabbi Akiva declared Simon bar Kokhba the Messiah in the 2nd century. Not all Jewish scholars agreed but there is no denying that Simon fit the mold of what was widely expected.
If Paul only wrote, possible 6-8 books then why is the whole of christianity relies on his words? But most of the remaking books are questionably written by someone else who could read and write, or was it someone else writing from oral narrative. Paul speaks more about his works than Jesus’s works. I would rather hear about the message of Jesus than his miracles or works. Unless one can explain what he did before his return to spread his message. He was somewhere that he could learn about life. India claims he was there but outside of that we know little about what he studied and learned that shaped his message.
"I would rather hear about the message of Jesus"
That's fantastic 👍.
1)
Jesus: ✅ THE FATHER (SINGLE PERSON) IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD. John 17:3.
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Triune-God / Godhead / The Trinity / One God in three persons or whatever you want to call it) is the true God.
2)
Jesus: ✅NO payment needed, NO Jesus died for us. Just repent sincerely and the Merciful God (THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER) forgives.
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Salvation comes by the blood of Jesus and his dying on the cross
3)
Jesus: ✅ Keep the Laws and the commandments if you want eternal life
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Eternal life comes by faith in the sacrifice of Jesus
4)
Jesus: ✅ Do NOT neglect even the smallest laws
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Those laws are unimportant
5)
Jesus: ✅ I was sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Jesus came for us all, Jesus came for all of mankind
Thanks to Paul of the Bible the Fer-oc-1ous w0lf in she-ep's clo-thi-ng whom Jesus wa-rn-ed about, it's Christian faith, professing to love and honor Jesus, which made a H.E.R.E.T.I.C of Jesus of the Bible on each and every fundamental doctrine.
Paul is the wolf in sheep's clothing Jesus warned about.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22
[20]To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
[21]To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
[22]To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
@@AbelOktavian
Hi.
We both know that Paul was the f3r0c10us w0lf in she-ep's clo-thi-ng whom Jesus wa-rn-ed about. Congratulations to you.
Did you manage to find the biggest d3c3pt10n from Paul?
@@AbelOktavian
Congratulations to you for realizing that Paul was the f3r0c10us w0lf in she-ep's clo-thi-ng whom Jesus wa-rn-ed about.
What was Paul's b1gg3st d3c3pt10n?
My Church history professor said a fundamental division is this:
Do you read Paul through the eyes of the gospels or the gospels through the eyes of Paul.
Most read the gospels through the eyes of Paul. Especially the Evangelicals. However, since the gospels happened first, you would think it should be the other way around.
@@user-nz8xr3wq9p after a lifetime of reading through Paul's eyes I would agree with you now.
@aspektx
Did your Church history professor raise the following question in your mind:
Jesus w-ar-ne-d about the Fer-oc-1ous w0lv3s in she-ep's clo-thi-ng.
The crucial question to you is:
Where are we likely to find one?
A) Within the she-ep flock because he's in she-ep's clo-thi-ng
OR
B) Outside of the sheep flock because he's NOT in she-ep's clo-thi-ng
Gospels don’t have eyes.
@@jeffryphillipsburns Nor do clams.
For his allegiance was to Rome. He made his living from the scam.
(Time 15:15) It was Isaiah that first suggested a (person who could be called a Messiah) would bring salvation to the gentiles and also that (this person) would conquer with his words. You know this, Dr. Ehrman. And it's not just chapter 53! It's in 11 and elsewhere. The absence of the word "Messiah" is irrelevant. Jews in the 1st Century didn't understand this because they never understood their scriptures. Their scriptures are a history of what they didn't understand. That's not an argument against the realization of prophecy. It's an argument for. A rod from the stem of Jesse (who's rod once expelled the Philistines) sounds like a Messiah.
Can Dr. Ehrnann speak to what Christianity might have looked like, had Paul’s concepts not won out? Would the Jesus group as led by James have endured to the same extant, I’d be interested to hear! Thank you for this thoughtful and educational conversation!
Alas, it is impossible to know what would have happened. The original Jesus group in Jerusalem let by James was wiped out by the Romans in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem. The Christians there would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. The group led by James ceased to exist, leaving only the groups outside of Jerusalem started by Paul. It's possible some of James' group escaped, becoming the Judaizing Ebionites who were considered heretics.
@Mjmcarlson
".....what Christianity might have looked like, had Paul's concepts not won out....."
Get ready for the pleasant surprise.
You can actually witness that right now in this day and age.
1)
Jesus: ✅ THE FATHER (SINGLE PERSON) IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD. John 17:3.
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Triune-God / Godhead / The Trinity / One God in three persons or whatever you want to call it) is the true God.
2)
Jesus: ✅NO payment needed, NO Jesus died for us. Just repent sincerely and the Merciful God (THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER) forgives.
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Salvation comes by the blood of Jesus and his dying on the cross
3)
Jesus: ✅ Keep the Laws and the commandments if you want eternal life
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Eternal life comes by faith in the sacrifice of Jesus
4)
Jesus: ✅ Do NOT neglect even the smallest laws
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Those laws are unimportant
5)
Jesus: ✅ I was sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel
(The Muslim agrees with Jesus)
Christians: ❌ NO. Jesus came for us all, Jesus came for all of mankind
@@Truth-a_hard_pill who’s confused here, you or Paul?
@@busterbiloxi3833The true message from God doesn't go extinct.
Jesus said and foretold as he was COMMANDED by THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER:
*BY THE FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM*
Radical Monotheism exactly like the Jewish Prophets / Jews to believe in a uniquely ONE GOD - without any partners or equals or like a three in one falsehood - the abom1nat10N called the doctrine of the Trinity - plus believing in the Messiah Jesus sent by God, and the essential consistency with his doctrine - the Muslim.
The very words that the Father - THE ONLY TRUE GOD - COMMANDED Jesus to say. The doctrine of THE ONLY TRUE GOD that HE COMMANDED Jesus to give.
The testimony of Jesus on the Father:
- The Only True God (John 17:3)
- The Only One Who Knows The Hour (Mark 13:32)
- Greater than I (John 14:28)
- Greater than all (John 10:29)
- My God and Your God (John 20:17)
The doctrine of Jesus =
The doctrine of a Muslim.
(Of course the term Father in the Jewish context. A figure of speech for their times. NOT that God has a literal Son. God has got Son by the Ton in the Bible.)
Defenders of the true honor and status of Jesus against lies and abominations which includes the Crucifixion.
VERSUS
Christianity more like the Greek and Roman doctrines and the pagan doctrines like "God" coming down in human form and human / blood sacrifice that pagans had going hand in hand with Paul's doctrines of easy fake salvation with blood of an innocent, making the Merciful God in to a blood thirsty vampire. The same people making Jesus a FA_LS-E messiah and an IMP-OS-TER UNDER GOD'S C_UR-SE by their faith (believing in the fiction called Jesus's Crucifixion). Christianity actually the followers of Paul of the Bible the Feroci0us W0LF in SH-EE-P'S clothing whom Jesus W_AR-NED about.
2000 years ago, the Roman and Greek Empire with its culture and mythological and pagan roots already held the beliefs such as "God coming down in human form". So after witnessing just a single "miracle" from Paul THE FER-OC-IO-US W-OL-F IN SH-EEP'S CLOTHING WHOM Jesus W-AR-NED about, they were conforming to their already held beliefs. No wonder when they heard of this guy Jesus with all the stories of his miracles, it was very easy for them to take him as "Son of God" (and this concept later on developed in to taking him as God) as this already went hand in hand with their pagan and mythological belief system. Little wonder that those times and those places and people also had "Triads" and ancient "Trinities" and "God" in threes and stuff.
Acts 14:11
When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, " 👉 *THE GODS HAVE COME DOWN to us IN HUMAN FORM* 👈 !"
***********
Then of course the abomination of the alleged human "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ making the Most Merciful in to some human blood thirsty vampire. Going against the very teachings of the true Prophets and that includes Jesus Christ.
********
Unfortunately, it was the Pauline Christianity and Pauline falsehoods, blended with pagan doctrine and backed up by the powerful Empire that eventually won out over the years and wiped out the Jewish movement of radical monotheism who were following the Messiah Jesus (peace be upon him) sent by God.
@@DA-yd2ny It's quite interesting how deliberately you dodged the points which I gave on the preaching and practice of Jesus of the Bible. Truth is a bitter pill to swallow. I understand your d1sc0mf0rt. Relax. Take a step back from emotion. God Almighty in His mercy and love for you had DESTINED that all this knowledge of the truth came to you. What you do after knowledge of the truth came to you is up to you.
Absolutely love the glasses Megan.
Megan's glasses look a lot like Bart's. 😊
@@raydavison4288 but bigger and thicker.😄
Prof. Bart, I have watched virtually all your debates. I like your scrupulous, scintillating intellect. I would like to purchase your books. Kindly guide how I may purchase/ ship the physical books.
we must change one font...
Was John the Baptist first cousin to Jesus, his mother was Mary's sister.
That narrative appeared in the gospel we call Luke which was written about a century after the birth of Jesus.
Yes.
Considering that we are all apes, there is no doubt that we are all related, way, way, way, way back.
According to Quran, John the Baptist was his older brother.
@almazchati4178 LoL!
Is Megan actually the heiress to a large optometry firm?
It begs the question; what compelled the Christ followers to keep going amidst all the persecution?
Ok the hamburger and fries thing is just…..cute couple goals.
Saul hated Christians. Upon conversion became Paul.
He was still known as Saul in the original manuscripts. He’s a false apostle.
@@Prayerwarrior777 any kind of head game is definitely oppossed to the law of love and truth. Never had the opportunity to read the originals. Considering a near century passed. Thought the texts say presumed to be written by. Conflict isn't Christ that's for sure. Peace
@@Prayerwarrior777what king of the Israelites a false Apostle,are you sure,Paul/Saul was one of Titus's Pen names, Titus was Jacob, Israel, Enoch before that, Is Isis, Ra Sol the creator,El Elohim The Mighty one, Archangel Micheal who fathers the Chrestus, Clements,Saints,HOLY Roman Empire, Render to Caesar what is Caesars, because Titus was the Chrestus, creator,he who creates owns, scripture has been twisted.
@@tyronecox5976 look in to Josephus… Paul’s pen name ;-)
The Jewish Encyclopedia states that Paul was also known as Saul, one his jewish name, the other his heathen name, being a half-breed. I'm inclined to the Jewish explanation, rather than the Ecumenical mish-mash vomited up by the Council.
Jesus said very wisely, “ “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. …….” Matthew 10:34-39, his message was radical to the Jews and they did not want to hear it.
his message was also objectively wrong. No gods exist, and no judaic christian end time is coming or came.
@@FinalFantasy8911debater Well, you are wrong, I know God exists and Jesus is coming back so be ready to judge if you do not repent and turn to God for forgiveness.
@@fcastellanos57 You know NOTHING is what you know. You don't follow truth, you follow DOGMA. Lets prove it: genesis 1,1 says that daylight is self existent seperate from the sun and that the sky has a bunch of seawater above it. Does objective reality show that? NO, it shows that the sunlight STRICTLY depends on the sun, and that there's no seawater above the sky, but just outer space. Your bible is FICTION. Its objectively wrong.
@@fcastellanos57 The actual truth is that the universe runs through physics and no gods. And that life started by that physics and grew and develop by evolution through natural selection. Not by some yahweh or jesus, those are false man made religions.
@@fcastellanos57 jesus prophesied that the end of everything will come before the generation that knew him at that time would pass away! So within a 40 year time period when jesus was alive was the end time supposed to come! It didn't! Then revelation prophesied the end would come where the 7 churches specified in that book would see it! THAT end never came either! NO christian end time is coming! EVER!
30:30
Genesis 14: 18-20
Psalms 110:1
Hebrews chapter 7
Hebrews chapter 8
Love Bart Ehrman’s work. Great stuff!
A common infliction among Biblical scholars is to become nonbelievers. Is there an analogous trap for Shakespearean scholars?
Most Shakespearean scholars understand his works to be fiction from the beginning of their studies whereas most biblical scholars begin their serious academic studies of the Bible as believers.
Insisting that a narrative that works better on a symbolic level actually happened and the text is literally true in every detail.
@@ninatrabona4629 Not relevant to the question--unless you imagine that Shakespearean scholars typically believe that his stories are "literally true in every detail." Which none of them do.
I was thinking in this instance of Christian scripture, not Shakespeare. Shakespeare's
history plays do imply that his version of British history is the accurate one, though real
historians sometimes reject that, or so my professor told me.
Thought: Paul was a Roman citizen. Perhaps he was a Roman agent and was acting under Roman rather than Jewish authority to persecute the new faith. Then his mission changed - the Roman authorities had him “convert” and sent him as an agent inside the new faith, to influence it and make sure that it didn’t become a threat to the Empire. Then… either Paul kept doing his mission in public spectacular fashion, or (much like Hitler and his mission to infiltrate the NSDAP) he started off as an inside plant but then he became a REAL convert and left the whole Roman program….
Possible?
Hitler subverted the NDSAP into a right wing organisation with a thin left wing veneer.
Perhaps is what we can say about most theological assertions. Perhaps Pauls real name was Bob and he was an Egyptian canary breeder - no evidence he wasn't!
When there is no sure answer, you basically have the only needed ingredient for the recipe of random superstition or stories or "facts" to take hold in a population and spread. It always begins with one person using their imagination, telling others what they think, it landing intuitively with many, those people retelling it, and so on.
Take modern medicine as an example. We are very far from having a 100% success rate in helping people with stuff like depression, anhedonia, anergia, fatigue, not feeling normal like they used to, etc. So in that gap, you get loads and loads of conspiracy theories that use the honest statement of uncertainty or failure/contradiction in the science community as "evidence" that the entire thing is a sham and then you get some simplistic, hopeful cure all proposed. You get real people rejecting the best treatments and instead going on the caveman diet or using magic or fasting or using random herbs or taking random supplements. I like the idea too. I wish mother Earth just had all the medicine we need for all problems. It just isn't true.
It's best not to be part of this process. Yeah, it kind of kills who you can socialize with since talking out your booty is very entertaining for most people you talk to (people not very scientific to say the least), but you end up hurting those people if you try to charm them. Most people just cannot handle a "I'm not sure," and they will pick a person who sounds sure of themselves to trust instead. It's an awful situation responsible for a lot of scams, mistrust of authority, snake oil salesmen, superstitions, etc.
If the was a Greek speaking Pharisee, he must be working for the Romans, and getting his income from the temples.
Given that Paul’s teachings are almost all totally opposite of what Christ taught to the original Apostles I’d argue that he never actually converted and was just a Roman plant the entire time.
*24:00** whr does it say mass murder of children is a good thing, is that the marching around the walls of Jericho?* or did a politician make it up, either in the modern or distant past? not asking for any particular reason ( *coff* genocide *coff* ) _JC
So the High Priest of the Holiest temple of Judaism had no say in Spiritual matters? And they didn't have a denominational center? Yet they had a Holt Temple, in a Holy City, in God's Promised Land, sounds like the center of a religion if I ever heard one.
I am inclined to believe that Jesus either WAS relatively famous or was in the process of becoming famous. He had enough of a following that the Romans thought he was dangerous.
I hate to disagree with Dr. Ehrman, but I am going to in this one instance.
How many?
For the Roman’s, Passover period was a high risk, with many zealous Jews crowding Jerusalem.
40, 50 followers, maybe even 20, would have been seen as a threat. Specially if Jesus actually caused some fuss at the Temple and if they crucified Him as an example.
My theory is that maintenance of the Temple and Pharisees and Roman taxes were
too much for the common people, and Pharisees were acting as tax collector as well, and that was the cause of the rebellion. That must have happened after the death of Jesus, which was a common name at that time. If there was a temple, the rebels knocked it out, not the Romans. There was no reason for the Romans to destroy the temple, which would hurt the Pharisees.
Always wondered why JUDAS had to point him out or identify him for arrest if he was well known...
@@almazchati4178 debatable. Destroying enemy temples and religious symbols was common practice at the time.
A way to humiliate enemies, show that their gods were not as powerful as they though and undermine any religious based rebellion.
Remember that the Temple was sacked by Titus during the conquest. Retaliations were done gradually at the time : first, the sack, then the destruction of the source of pride, like temples, then the leveling of the city. The Jews suffered all three.
@@almazchati4178 The destruction of the Temple happened decades after the death of Jesus in 70AD during the First Jewish War. Along with the destruction of much of the city of Jerusalem.