Dr. Ehrman, you give a long-committed Christian like myself a lot to think about. And as difficult as the answers are to accept, I am grateful to you for uncovering the truth. Thank you, Sir.
My OpenMind I agree. Imagine if you found some ancient religious manuscripts as voluminous as the bible. You would be rich beyond rich. The bible is at once savage and barbaric, and priceless.
It is just so damn well written. I refer to the figurative devices often in my advanced comp classes. Is that why it is so believable to some people. Fantastic writing.
Dorie LaRue What? Well written? The bible is one of the worst written books of books ever inked. I read it as a window into our ancient past and for the little history gleaned from between its hyperbolic lines, but its always a chore. Dr. Suess is better and more moral!
Or actually read the Bible and consider honestly how messed up it is. Ex. Here’s the “hero” Moses: “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” Numbers 31:17-18 ESV
Thank you for taking longer than 30 sec to for that last question. Your summary to why christianity often finds itself intertwined with anti-semitism/judaism despite being originally based on it was absolutely brilliant and should be taught to every american. They should teach that in schools to all. It explains so very much.
Thank you Bart!. You have explained so much and cleared a lot of what I always questioned. I appreciate the Bible more now that I understand the historian point of view than when I was an evangelical.
Which view would that be?? He quotes the SAME book as fact and questionable... doesnt explain how one sentence is "we know" and another is "we arent sure". Only raises more questions for me.
I love it when he says by the end of the lecture that the Ebionites may have represented the earliest form of Christianity and what end up declared a heresy may have been the original form. I think that this is one of the most important points he made in this lecture.
Another brilliant presentation from Dr. Bart Ehrman. I have almost all his books, and his "Great Courses" DVDs. He always uses the scriptures to support his arguments: he is never fanciful or inventive to make a point. Yes, brilliant !
If we can get people to recognize and understand the actual, accurate history of the Bible and to view it without their god-glasses on, then less religiosity and more atheism is inevitable... and that’s ALWAYS a good thing.
I had so many questions unanswered which my church couldnt answer they tried but makes no sense when i go home n meditate on them i just ran into this man n i tell u alot has been answered
Great lecture. I recommend it to all my christian acquaintances. There is nothing like knowledge to open the eyes and dispel antiquated superstitious beliefs.
It appears that Jesus was a Jew from the Middle East and he was an outstanding person and teacher of Jewish law. And little did he had to do anything about Christianity. I think Mr. Paul infused Jewish monotheism with Roman paganism to attract the pagans to his cult. It's my humble opinion, not to offend anyone but to encourage critical reasoning.
This is a very interesting thought indeed. Having now taken notes to a bunch of Ehrman's lectures, I think that you are proably right in your claims about "Mr. Paul." :-) I believe that we also see this "influsion" of Jewish monotheism with Roman paganism in things like the development of the Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell.
@@rohmann000 I used to think of Paul as mixing Judaism with paganism, but I don't any more. I actually have come to understand him more in the context of Israel's expectations for its own redemption and the redemption of the nations who would find God through the example of Israel. Paul speeds up the process by saying that the nations have found Israel's messiah before Israel did. Which is extraordinary, with or without paganism!
I'll go further. It does not make any sense that Paul was a Jew, and especially not a Pharisee. Pharisees were the orthodox Jews of the time--the most observant, and they lived in Jerusalem. Paul was a pagan Greek from Tarsus, which is in current-day Turkey. If Paul were a pharisee why would he instruct Jews to not obey the laws and say that the laws were a curse? And why he write his letters in Greek--he would have written in Hebrew or at least Aramaic? But his original manuscripts were in Greek. Paul was nothing more than a "politician" who assumed the persona of whomever he needed to be to pander to whomever he was preaching--and he specifically admitted this in his writings. His creation of Christianity had nothing to do with how the messiah was described in the old testament. It was pagan from beginning to end--the resurrection, the dying for sin--that's all pagan. And as time went on, the church fathers just made it worse--cannibalistic rituals of eating the body and blood, the trinity, and the parallels between the "son" and the "sun" --all pagan. Constantine was happy to call himself a Christian as he barely had to change any of his beliefs.
@@MrTrashcan1 bravo 👏🏽 I have had the same basic understanding of Paul through my research over the last decade but you put it more eloquently. I also studied what the Muslims believe about Paul , and they give similar reasons why Paul seemed like an impostor. I’m glad today I took this education further and accepted Islam. It was the best decision of my life.
Conservative Christian Commentary So that is best you can come up with? 1. is taking stories from other sources a problem ? 2. Were those gnostic gospels available at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? 3. Which story and gnostic gospels are you referring to be precise?
I commend Bart for his understanding of the events and theologies of Jesus's time. There is little that I can say to dispute what he teaches. There are some but I would tell him myself.
Thank you, Bart Ehrman, for sharing with us your brilliant intellect, impressive scholarship, and sense of fairplay. Your presentations are always balanced, with excellent support material. Proud to say I have all your books and "Great Courses" DVD lectures. /
I just have to say something about "anointed one": yes, in reference to kings, "Messiah" started as kings with Saul, but before this, it was for the high priest in the Law, as in Leviticus 4. This kind of helps Jesus's kingship and priesthood passages dovetail in respect to their understanding of these things in the Bible. I guess it goes together with what he was saying about how some Jews felt that the Messiah-to-come would be a priestly figure. Bart probably knew this, but was just being brief, though I also wanted to say for anyone else.
@Mark Matthew Pace I guess you missed his intro where he said he is talking about historicity and textual criticism. Bart and I are both, agnostic. Because Faith doesn't work for many of us who were born after the Enlightenment, your arguments from faith sound like someone talking about Hobbits and Garden Gnomes. And because we see no proof of god, then we fall into the category of atheist. Kind of academic. And Bart has elucidated why he lost his faith. It had to do with suffering. Of which, Epicurus is widely quoted as saying- “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Peace brother-
In Mark 12:28 one of the scribes asked Jesus, Which is the first commandment of all? He answered " The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:”
Thank you for sharing this. I found this to be lovely and lively presentation of a complex issue. Your references to student views makes it real and current as well. I love hearing how we "got here"
That last question, an off-the-cuff summation of antisemitism and christianity, was amazingly lucid and informative. Glad you gave it a bit more than 30 seconds.
The 12 year old Jesus story is only in one account and there is nothing wrong with a non Jew sitting on the steps of the Temple. However, I also believe that early Christians either didn't care, made no distinction or twisted the narratives to make him appear as though he was a "Real Jew" . Note also that Paul, calling himself a Benjamite, was NOT a Jew and seems to have little knowledge of the history of the "lost tribes". Actually Paul has little knowledge of ANYTHING AT ALL.
"The 12 year old Jesus story [...] could easily be a reference to the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim in Shiloh." Riiiiight, that's why Luke 2:41-46 says "his parents went *to Jerusalem* every year at the feast of the Passover, and when he [Jesus] was 12 years old, they went up according to custom... they returned *to Jerusalem* [and] found him *at the Temple*" Uhhh.... how could that be the Samaritan Temple, again? C'mon dude. Don't delude yourself, or others. Duane, could you even provide one single source in the NT that names the Samaritan Temple?
This is really interesting stuff.Thank's Bart! I wish you'd talked more on the various arguments christians use to change the law ,but this is a good overview.
Ron Chappel Ican help with that 😊. The arguments would be that #1) Jesus in the gospels seems to say things like “You’ve heard it was said” or “Moses said” and then contrasts that with ”but I say to you” as if superseding Moses and oral-traditions. He makes statements that seem to contradict certain things the Torah says. And clearly says his blood is for the purpose of ratifying a (New) Covenant. EX: Matthew 5:33-37 *Oath-taking was perfectly lawful, permissible and even required at times under the Law of Moses. But Jesus clearly says in contrast of this that it is not good nor any longer a thing we should do. This is a change in law. Mark 7:18-23 * The Torah says that a bunch of things that can go into your mouth can defile you (a number of animals and blood for example) but Jesus say nothing that enters your mouth can defile you. Mark even writes “Thus (we Christians realized) he was cleansing all foods” Luke 22:20 - *Jesus ratifies, or brings into legal force, his covenant. Basically all the words he had spoken in his ministry would be made official and new “law” upon his death. The law of Moses was ratified with the blood of an animal, a bull. Exodus 24:6-8 #2) Paul is UNDENIABLY in the belief that Jesus comes with a new law that is different from and supersedes the commands of Moses. His work as a whole supports this overwhelmingly. In 1 Corinthians 9:21 Paul, very interestingly, writes that he is not under the law of the Jews, but then he is QUICK to say that this doesn’t mean he’s lawless because he is under the law of Christ instead, indicating that Christ’s law is a separate law from Moses’ in Paul’s mind. Acts 15 makes mention of the Jerusalem council where the issue of whether Gentiles need to get circumcised and keep the law to be right with God is hotly brought up. They rule NO. Only that they should just be sexually pure (which Jesus himself commanded) and not eat blood, idol sacrifice meat, and animals that didn’t have their blood drained properly (which some commentators think to be rules for getting a long with Jewish-Christians when with them and not salvation issues 🤷🏾♂️) Hebrews and Galatians are the two books WHOLLY or largely written and DEDICATED to the explanation of this different law topic. Galatians spend 4-6 chapters trying to convince Christians that there is no need at all to follow Jewish law (in fact warning that it will cut them off from Christ). Hebrews labors to tell it’s audience that the New Covenant is better than the Old which is fading and can no longer grant eternal life in the Kingdom and that both laws cannot be kept in conjunction. Scripturally you have to believe Paul and the writer of Hebrews are straight up false prophets if you want to believe the New Testament can’t be teaching a change in law. Even in just the gospels some of Jesus teachings are different to or add on to Torah laws (the law permits defensive violence, Jesus preaches loving your enemy as law, turning the other cheek as law and living by the sword as wrong.) #3) The church fathers and early Christian writings also show us that this understanding of the law (of Moses) not being binding on Christians was not a concept made up later on in the Church...
@youngknowledgeseeker awesome answer and I agree with your point. It would be hard to say that the nt isn’t about fulfilling the old law with the new. As you said, a couple of books make that very clear just in themselves.
I found it stunning that in regards to Jesus and the Law, Ehrman more or less only mentions and dismisses sabbath controversies in Christian writings while selectively going over portions of Matthew 5. He does not comment on Jesus prohibition on divorce or oath taking, both of which are in clear opposition to practices in the Torah. The teachings on divorce not only occur in the synoptics but one saying occurs in Paul where he allows an exception to it, while being very careful to distinguish between his words and the Lord's. Jesus' statement on divorce is probably one of the most securest sayings we have on purely historical grounds. We have multiple attestation of source and form, its absolutely in the earliest stratum of material we have, Christians struggled with it as Matthew and Paul softened/modified it and this would lead to some arguing via dissimilarity in favor of it as well. This saying was quite radical at the time. As John Meier wrote, "By completely forbidding divorce, Jesus dares to forbid what the Law allows--and not in some minor, obscure halakic observance but in one of the most important legal institutions in society. He dares to say that a man who duly follows the Law in properly divorcing his wife and marrying another woman is in effect committing adultery. When one stops to think what this involves, Jesus' prohibition of divorce is nothing short of astounding. Jesus presumes to teach that what the Law permits and regulates is actually the sin of adultery. That is, precisely by conscientiously following the Torah's rules for divorce and remarriage, a Jewish man commits a serious sin against one of the commandments of the Decalogue, the commandment against adultery (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18). This is no small matter; it is, at least according to the Pentateuch, a capital offense." Marginal V3 pg 113-114 Of course in one instance, Jesus is cited as appealing to the created order in the Garden story as justification for his view on divorce. Ehrman is certainly correct that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew of 1st century Palestine that took the Torah seriously as God's word. If you consider his teachings on divorce in conjunction with the prohibitions against oaths, it is very clear he thinks he can correct parts of God's word. These are not Jesus merely reinterpreting the prescriptions of Moses. Matthew does present Jesus as the new Moses but given his statement on divorce, one might think that an idea like this goes back to Jesus himself or at least his self claims/identity.
Thanks for the lecture. Even if it was given three years ago 🙂 On antisemitism, I can strongly recommend Gavin I Langmuir's two books, "History, Religion and Antisemitism" and "Towards a Definition of Antisemitism". He really does a great job of arguing for the appearance of what can be defined as antisemitism in 13th century France and how it developed into a racism of the modern era.
I would like all of you to think about this for a second; Christianity: The belief that God sacrificed God to God to save God's creation from God! Is this statement true or false?
Isaam Rafee, Your statement is FALSE. God acts in and through Jesus and so God enters into the experience of human suffering, accepting the worst that humans can do and actively transforming that suffering so that it can lead to new life. Thus Jesus shows the love of God to be self-sacrificial and unrestricted.
TRUE The crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is well attested by a number of ancient sources. Bart Ehrman and almost all bona fide biblical scholars endorse this fact that Jesus died by crucifixion. FALSE Quran says Jesus was not crucified (Quran 4:157-158). Therefore, Muslims believe Jesus did NOT die on the cross but another man resembling Jesus was the person who was crucified. That is a LIE and FALSE. God is NOT playing some trick to fool people by replacing Jesus with somebody else. That's absurd and an injustice to the victim. It's deceitful and false and comes from the father of lies - Satan / Shayṭān.
AND all because a perfect god made an imperfect being...which even though was LITERALLY INCAPABLE of sinning...sinned...and what was this sin? well your sunday school teacher will say arrogant disobedience and/or trying to be gods...but if you read genesis it was actually...trying to love god more...that is literally what their motivation was. the bible has zero logic or rationale
What do you mean with your terms? What is God, what is sacrificing to God? What do you mean by creation? Answer those and I'll be clear enough to answer your question. I'm waiting.
@@bcjammer The word of god is not a word but God's Logic His wisdom His understanding an that through our eyes if we wish to see. Word >Greek Logos. Hebrew Wisdom. Jesus is the Wisdom of God in bodily form.
I find it both funny and a bit disturbing that so many in the comment section thinks they know the scriptures better than Professor Erhman - I can't help thinking that Dunning and Kruger just have to go to comment sections like this one to prove their case for the Dunning-Kruger effect! Professor Erhman is able to read and translate the earliest known texts we have - he is a distinguished Professor in Theology and Biblical history! He has read the same bibles as you have - AND the sources they are based upon! The bible has been his life for more than 45 years by now - but you think you know better than him? Why? What makes you think that? The things you think are true that doesn't fit with what Professor Ehrman says, how do you know it's true and that you're not just poorly informed?(perhaps from the sources you use)
Plus he grew up Christian so he's familiar with the Bible even beyond academia. He really doesn't get overly cynical he's just saying what he's studied.
Yeah but he does not know the "God ( Alihyim ) of genesis one is not the same entitie(s) as the yhwh alihyim of gen 2:4 ,whom he mistakenly believes is the creator of all things ... oops so much for acadamia when a high school drop out can figure out the most important deception in the history of human kind ! Question , How does one get on the NYT best seller list without selling their soul ?
Some people due know the scriptures better then Bart and correct him all the time, if they are correct and it can be proven, i know a lot of mistakes Bart makes, like Jesus claiming divinity in the Gospel John, he's wrong and it can be proven and not a scholar on earth can say i am wrong. Like John 10:30, i an my father are one and Bart is saying this statement is claiming Jesus is God and that's not true. The Greek word there is hen and hen in Greek means one in purpose and not heis one in unity and this isn't rocket science and Bart knows this but his old Christian faith makes him say this, to please other Christians. Because Bart used to be Christian and is still holding on his Christian concept of Jesus being God and knows John 10:30 a one means in purpose and he will agree, if you correct him and then either try another verse or not say anything about that subject to you if you correct him, i have debated many Christians that due this every time and then change the subject and move to another verse or stop debating me altogether, because those tricks don't work with me and you can't lie and fool me, like they fool everyone else and it's only their faith that keeps them saying this and not facts. It's like saying well Jesus never claimed divinity or to be equal with God, but that's all we got, so let's run with it, even if it's a little white lie, just get converts and everyone will be saved, because this is what we believe. Just like the Bible not having mistakes this isn't what they are taught in school at universities, they are taught the different versions manuscripts and mistakes, it's only when they become preachers that everything changes and the Bible is mistake free, because they have to save everyone, so a little white lie like Paul said and tricked people to convert them is OK in Christianity, but any other religion it's Satan himself because they lie to people, but in Christianity to lie is OK, because we are saving everyone. But Bart does tell the truth but his still holding on with Jesus being God is just his old faith and not facts and the truth. This video he's spot on with true facts, except Jesus never was Crucified or killed and God saved Jesus from death, because the Hebrews wanted to Crucify him and after God saved Jesus, God took his life and he was raised to heaven. One - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words One [ A-1,Numeral,G1520, heis ] the first cardinal numeral, masculine (feminine and neuter nominative forms are mia and hen, respectively), is used to signify (1) (b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., John 10:30; John 11:52; John 17:11, John 17:21-John 17:22; Romans 12:4-Romans 12:5; Philippians 1:27; This can be done with every verse Christians claim Jesus is God, Bart"s faith must be talking when he said Jesus said he was God and not his Scholarships and knowledge of Greek and Biblical studying of the scriptures. Jesus never claims to be God only a servant and son of God and a prophet and messiah and never God --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John 10:30 in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary: “The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...” - p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977. Virtually all modern commentators on John 10:30 take the position that the oneness immediately in view here is a functional oneness, or oneness of will, purpose, and action. D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John: Verses 28-29 affirm that both the Father and the Son are engaged in the perfect preservation of Jesus’ sheep. Small wonder, then, that Jesus can say, I and the Father are one. The word for ‘one’ is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest, for then the distinction between Jesus and God already introduced in 1:1b would be obliterated, and John could not refer to Jesus praying to his Father, being commissioned by and obedient to his Father, and so on. Rather, Jesus and his Father are perfectly one in action, in what they do: what Jesus does, the Father does, and vice versa (cf. notes on 5:19ff.). 1 Gerald Borchert, The New American Commentary: John 1-11: The statement in 10:30 that “I and the Father are one” has been an important battleground of theology. The first matter to note is that the word “one” here is neuter (hen) and not masculine (heis), so the text is not arguing for a oneness of personalities or personae (to use the Latin concept) but rather something akin to a oneness of purpose and will. 2 None other than John Calvin made this same argument centuries ago in his Commentary on the Gospel according to John: The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father.
If mortal mam wasn't your God then you'd clearly see through this fool . You're a dog looking to be owned by some heirophant which is why you respect the unrighteous like Dr Bert.." Dr" of course meaning he's a nobody ... I've seen these snakes come and go. They're all witches confusing people. What's really amusing is how fooled you are by a charasmatic leader like this con job .
I can totally imagine his weird whiny voice saying “Take heed to yourselves now, and be not made like unto some, heaping up your sins and saying that the covenant is both theirs (the Jews') and ours (the Christians'). It is ours.”
I remember when I was 13 I believed in the bible and a classmate smugly said "If the bible is about ancient times, why was it only written in the 1600's?!" He was probably talking about the KJV.
David Koresh is a timely example. If you are 45+ years old write down all you know about the branch Davidians without looking at old news footage or reading old articles, but from your own memory. 1993 to 2017 is about the same length of time as it was from Jesus' death to Paul's first writing. How much can you remember about this well-reported group events 20+ years ago?
I think it's just as insightful to use the Kennedy assassination. Which has presumably documents galore, and movies from the event. People are still divided over who actually killed him and why. This is because the meanings we make are not uniquely tied to actions even when those actions are well known.
I don't think you understand how much verbal recall people had back then, or the capabilities and complexity of the systems they used to memorise certain things (sacred texts)
@@lookatmepleasesir massive assumption to make. There is no evidence that verbal recall was better, how could there be? Nobody was doing verbal recall tests and measuring them. In fact, evidence points away from your assertion, that people are far more intelligent today than ever before. Look at IQ level increase. This doesn't directly correlate with verbal recall, but it does point to a general increase in human intellectual performance.
@krelfurnace well said, but I wouldn't dismiss the relationship between memory and iq. There is a single side causal relationship between the two; that is, people with high IQs generally have better longterm memory, while people with long term memory, may not have high IQs. I would also reassert that people are far more intelligent today, this is well documented over the last half century, although it is sadly going away now (search Flynn effect). It has to do with selection and nurturing. Children today have to be better at intellectual pursuits to survive in the modern world, so it is selected for in mating and nurtured in institutes of education. Also, sorry for the month long lapse, apparently youtube didn't want to notify me until now haha
I'm a little surprised that when it comes to Paul interpretation, how that believing in Jesus' death and resurrection, made everyone who believed "right" with God, that there is no mention of the "passover", or John the Baptist claim, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". And of course the "new covenant" that Jesus spoke of the night he was betrayed when Jesus celebrated the passover. I like listening to Bart's lectures because of the scholarship he brings to the table. However, I do not agree with all his interpretations of the "facts". That is, Bart sees things the way Bart sees things.
It is a fortuitous coincidence that the creator of the universe god happened to choose the Jewish people with whom to have a special preferential arrangement.
I can't think of anything sillier that accepting as fact.the bronze age anonymous stories told by fearful,uneducated,superstitious,mysigonistic desert tribesmen in an insignificant desert country..there are eight million species that live,die and are no more.to suggest that one species of the ape family can become exempt from dying by appealing to an invisible,undetectable,celestial dictator is plainly ridiculous.no wonder more and more people are leaving this nonsense where it belongs,in libraries in the section marked Mythology.
I love how many religious people come to these comments with arguments akin to "No, yur a dumb Bart! You dobt know the bible!" in order to refute Dr. Bart Ehrman, a well respected scholar who has dedicated his entire life to studying the bible rigorously.
It's a roman and greek religion with a jewish mythology. It's fan fiction. You don't follow jewish law because it's a completely different culture that came up with the story of Jesus.
Pr.Bart 's best lecture because the Focus on the Law is Key. There is one law: of Moses and update of Muhammad. Jesus followed Moses. Many refs in OT. Likeness of moses to muhammad, Deut 18:18. Follow the final CLEAR message. Ouran. Read it, you will recognise it. Put your mind at rest.
Dr Bart Ehrman is a commendable and excellent scholar. The developments are becoming heavier. More and more apologetics are abandoning the view that the bible is free from error. Quran chapter 2, verse 79 ''Woe to those who write the Book themselves and say, "This is from God," so that they may sell it for a small price! Woe unto them for what they have done and for what they have gained!'' 1 Corinthians 9: 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.''
MHM EEKK I'm not sure if you are implying that because there are latrines and roads that the stories are of the Bible are literally true? By that rational, the dwarfs of the legend of Rip Van Winkle are true because the Catskills are real, or Jason and the Argonauts was an historical treatise because sheepskins were used in what we call gold panning (golden fleeces). Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, John Henry etc from American mythology. In the early days of Biblical archeology everything pointed to the truth of the Bible. Then came a pushback where the Bible was a total fabrication and now I think more accurately seen as a collection of mythologies that are in local settings. Arguing that some roads and bathrooms prove the historical accuracy is (on a humorous note) like using the fact that cars and caves and bats are present in the New York area to show that Batman comics are historical. Mythologies, whether freshly made or adopted from the far past, are adapted to the local culture and will woven into daily life. I apologize upfront for the lack of depth but typing on my phone, heck typing anywhere is a slow process for me. Anyway, hope I didn't misunderstanding you. Chiao
MHM EEKK, Could you do me a favor? Go to the thread above this. I've been going back and forth with GhostHawk 1176. He claims Paul knew Jesus when Jesus was alive and is adamant about it. I'm pretty sure this is not scriptural. It wouldn't make sense because if Paul befriended Jesus during Jesus' lifetime, you certainly wouldn't think he would've persecuted Christians before Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Maybe you could correct him and he may listen to you.
The answer to these questions is surprisingly simple on the surface, but INCREDIBLY complex at it's core. To quote Christ on how to attain eternal life, "Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, thy neighbor as thyself." This the whole LAW, this the whole answer to the world, to each and every soul. Christ did not set up anything different. The law was actually very similar to how Barnabas supposedly wrote. All of the old law had a much deeper, spiritual meaning than the surface meaning. At the time of the old law, we as humans were too primitive to understand the true meaning of this higher teaching (which is too much to go into). Why do you think Jesus spoke almost nothing but in parables to the masses? So only the SEEING would SEE, and HEARING would HEAR. Remember 2 Corinthians 3:6: Not of the letter but of the SPIRIT, for the letter kills but the spirit gives life. So, to sum up my answer, yes Jesus was teaching the law, he was just teaching it one more step forward from our more primitive days. Seek and ye shall find even the true meaning to Yeshua's words (Luke 17:21, The kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU).
"To quote Christ on how to attain eternal life, "Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, thy neighbor as thyself." This quote is from Deuteronomy, actually. Jesus was just quoting the Old Testament. He was Jew who taught nothing but Jewish law. And it's irrelevant what Paul said. Jesus said the law was in effect until the end of time.
Matthew 24:23 makes it obvious that Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion. Paul’s teaching in Romans 8:7 gives a reason for this. If the natural mind is enmity against God, the logical result will be a splintering of ideas about God, we see today. The same applied to the Ebionites and Essenes and other groups. Jesus merely pointed out that the logical way to avoid deception is to believe none of them. If we are to believe none of them, the entire field of Christianity is invalid. This leaves an entirely different message from both Jesus and Paul. God is not trying to save everyone’s soul at this time. Jesus verifies this in Matthew 13:11 and John 6:44. Paul verifies it in Romans 11:32. What is happening is not about human interpretation. The beginning of understanding is Romans 8:29-30.
I think this is an interesting dialog and of couse there are many knowledges we can hear but unfortunately there are lots of us do not know English including myself. So I suggest that this video has indonesia text so that we understand the dialog thank's
And that is why Rabbi should keep these things to themselves. Uttering sentences which gives the impression of deep meaning to stupid people is all they do all day anyway...
Barnabas got a seriously bad wrap from Ehrman here. It would be worth picking up and actually reading rather than taking Ehrman at his word. It isn't far from Philo. He could have mentioned that allegory of the Torah was a long standing first century phenomenon.
BlackEpyon why do you call it mythology? Obviously i understand or overstand the word lol. But i just wanna hear or read your reasons 🤗 Ask 10 people the same question and get 10 different awnsers.................unless its math then in that case 9 out of the 10 need to go back to school lol.
If you like batshit crazy stuff out of a pipe dream, look up what gnostic Christians believe, part of which can be found in the recently discovered gospel of Judas. Scientology looks normal after that.
Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again to save us from eternal judgement and give us eternal life if we believe Him. Only God can save us and freely give us new life inside forever.
Very interesting comments section. I have nothing against this man, but I think people need to understand why they love listening to this guy. He is a great speaker. But if you really read the Bible, not just the New Testament, many of these questions being asked are easily answered. Even more, you will really be a lot less impressed if you read for yourself. The text isn't hard. The fact that at 1:11:00 he says I don't know where Paul and others get this idea that Jesus' death was some kind of atonement. This is actually very clearly stated in the old testament. The other thing that I clearly must've have missed is the "new covenant". Many people are just listening to vain words, but he never even says what the new testament is. "Scholars" take time to read books. If you do the same this guy's words are quite misleading at best.
I'm surprised that Bart didn't talk about Jerimiah's prophecy that G -d would make a " new covenant " with Israel in which the laws would be " written on their hearts". This would support the coming of Jesus as part of making the new covenant, which is extremely significant.
Yes, that which is not said is also very important, your observation being just one great example of many...and overall, the presentation has the vibe of a Freemason. Last week I picked one speaker off as one in the first 45 seconds of speech, and stopped the vid to look it up, and sure enough, I was right. Some keep a very low profile, especially now that people are on to them, and people have personally read in their handbooks what they emphatically deny about themselves. 33° and above, I just saw one guy say he was both a believer in the teachings of Jesus (that was very carefully worded, the man was a “believer in the teachings”, not a follower,) and also a Freemason, including the Scottish Rite. Well, they swear blood oaths from day 1, and along their progression, and at 33°, 2 additional oaths are: To worship Lucifer (most people have an idea of what is involved with that, I would hope, it isn’t just an empty promise, that’s for sure) and To pour down a steady stream of vilification upon Christianity, and to work to destroy and defile the name of Jesus Christ (though publicly, they can claim to be anything they want, atheist, Christian, agnostic, Muslim, pagan, Buddhist, it all serves to appear that all viewpoints are being represented...(they also drink from a human skull and have a a hug from a skeleton to remind them that the “cold arms of death will encircle them forever” if they break their oaths). Interestingly, these “fine, upstanding individuals” are not so atheist, agnostic, or any other religion after all. They all very much believe in Jesus Christ...as their mortal enemy, as the only thing that can come between them and completely dominating the masses. According to them, he is quite real, and he is the enemy, as he “treads upon crowns and tiaras”, meaning he doesn’t believe in humans claiming superiority over others, instead that no man or woman should oppress other men, and he gave the people the way to put a stop to it on a higher level, it’s all in the Bible. You want the best on your side when you’re outnumbered, you need supernatural help, not to try to overcome by trying to use the stacked-deck, made-up methods for “justice” and a “democratic process” that the oppressors give to the oppeessed (while they play by a totally different rule book, it’s like a casino giving lessons on how to beat the house, would people really believe their methods were anything but a way to get more people to gamble?). People need to know they consider themselves to be above the masses, that the masses are just “material” to experiment on, “subjects” for study, and entirely disposable. One has only to read up on their own published writings to prove it to one’s self. Now, the Bible gets a lot of flak for supposedly being a tool to “control the masses”, when in fact, only the abuse of it, and lies about what it contains therein has been used as such. No real Christian could or would use it for harming others as history has shown, that was all to stop those using it as Jesus said, to empower the little guy, and they abused it to make people hate it altogether, again, to prevent empowering the masses. In fact, it holds all the people need to put a stop to the corrupt men and women of the world oppressing the people. This is why is gets so mocked, so twisted, and why Scientism* screams and rails against it incessantly, in a steady stream of vilification, actually, just like their oath says to do (*blind faith in unsubstantiated pseudoscience, people would be shocked if they actually looked for the actual evidence of their favorite science beliefs. They won’t find what they think they will. They’ll find the opposite, that it is a lot of conjecture, and endless rounds of finger-pointing and “don’t question the experts, you’re too stupid” kinds of nonsense. So, Jesus outlines how to stop them, (more and more, real science is proving the ways these things can happen, and it does in fact work, but we’ll leave the “how to” to the true seekers, it’s best for the good of all that way), and they hate him for that. They feel they are somehow superior, and this delusion gets reinforced by the mindless masses not ever questioning them or their authority, so this alone makes them feel they have the right to control anyone who could be so stupid as to just go along with whatever they tell them. Their own words. If you’re dumb enough to believe them when they holler “science”, and you don’t even look at alternative evidence, or read, study and test the Bible like it says to do, but reject it without even giving it some rigorous study and testing, then they figure you deserve to have them do whatever that want to you. Free will. It’s obvious to them there is a Creator. They laugh at anyone who bought their lies about earth, how it all works, when so much of their teaching defies common sense. They delight in getting people to toss aside their own senses and observations, their own critical thinking-not daring to use it outside the socially accepted “norm”, and their own common sense. This is hysterical to them, as they pretend to be the friend of the students, posing as their science gods of knowledge... Some people seem to have issues with knowing there are indeed other dimensions with beings and energies that are present and interact nonstop, yet they do believe and have 100% faith in invisible TV and radio broadcast waves, which are all around everyone right now, whether anyone believes in them or not, it won’t change the fact of their existence, will it? Having no TV or radio will not remove their existence. And childish attempts to mock those who do know that these other dimensions and beings are present, those who have their proverbial spiritual TV’s and radios turned on will not at all be affected by disbelievers. But disbelievers may just miss out on an important transmission, for good or bad, (they will and do, every day), and that is their loss, not mine. I will continue to be amused by their obvious childish fear of the unknown, rather than just being brave and realizing they just fear what they cannot see, but it will not make anything not be there, nor will it fail to affect them regardless of their denial, any more than denying germs will prevent disease, so it’s better to figure out who does what, and who is really in your side, and who is a trickster. How easy it is to control someone if you an convince them that one of their senses isn’t there. Cover their eyes and convince them there is no such thing as sight. OK, geniuses of the world, go ahead and stumble around. It won’t hurt those who can see. One day, you may just begin to wonder what the others saw that you did not, would not see, and what you missed out on because of your pride and ego. Now, I am only saying this vid has the smell of FM, I do not make a direct accusation, I have no substantiation for the particular man here in this vid. But I do for others, and I have seen what is written and illustrated in their own handbooks, and the blood oaths they either flat-out deny, or if confronted with a copy of their own handbook, they sometimes try to claim is “just in fun”, but that simply isn’t true. If they fail in their duties, or openly acknowledge that which they’ve sworn to deny, they can and do get whacked.
It’s very helpful to educate one’s self on who is a 33° FM, or an equivalent such as the Order of the Eastern Star, which is for the women...for example Walt Disney was one, and has the 33 Club at Disneyland, where it reeks of FM symbolism (note nearly all Disney movies have the theme of an absent natural mother, who usually dies tragically, leaving behind a vulnerable child, then by showing the family as persecuting the poor child, always being mean to him or her, the vulnerable child is taught to reject any remaining family and trust and go away with the friendly strangers. Over and over and over and over. Same theme. What a way to traumatize and program children! I always used to wonder why anyone in their right mind would show their kids Disney movies, I only saw one as a child and I thought it was horrible. With all the subliminal and not so subliminal sexual imagery and whispered words, it should be obvious their true motives. Disneyland should be called Pedoland, but I digress...) ...and Walt Disney helped with NASA, and NASA, coincidentally, was also founded and is still being run by Luciferian 33° FM’s. Note all “space missions” were named Apollo, after Apollyon, the keeper of the bottomless pit...just like CERN has the Hindu god Shiva, god of destruction and creation, coincidentally built over the former temple site of Apollyon...these and so many other scientists, most particularly ones that get a lot of air time on TV, lots of coverage and lots of prestige, almost always just so happen to also be 33° FM’s. All this Apollyon and other god worship certainly is odd for a bunch of agnostic and atheist big-bangers and evolutionists (talk about blind faith, evolution, and science actually debunking it at every turn). Serious sciensts dedicating their work and their lives to false gods and Lucifer, kinda seems to go against the world view they try to promote to the gullible masses ...all “astronauts” have to be 33° FM or OES, (and many world leaders, they show their affiliation through their paraphernalia and other symbolic and blatant ways, once you know what they are, it is obvious. It’s their sick way of “informing” you, so they can say they told you so and you followed with your own free will. Remember all that when they start spewing their lies at you. NASA doesn’t lie about a few things, they lie about everything, even their own documents prove that. (I could write a novel on all the details, but it’s all there to be found, NASA fraud, multi-millions a day, for CGI “images”, not photos...). Even the Luciferian Vatican (easily researched) joined with NASA and named their jointly-owned telescope L.U.C.I.F.E.R. It goes on and on.... Washington, D.C., where one must go to be initiated into the 33° FM, that’s where the ceremony is held, is one giant homage to Luciferian Freemasonry. It even has a statue of Albert Pike, an infamous Luciferian FM, Scottish Rite, and founder of the KKK. Why don’t Americans demand that statue get pulled down? Revering a racist right there in the heart of the Corporation of the US? (That’s another thing to research, the incorporation of the US as a foreign-owned corporation, it has foreign investors...). It is all out there to be found, so I’ll just go ahead and ignore any comments from all obviously uninformed trolls. This is about where they come in with their mind-controlled responses, using silly Cointelpro and Tavistock phrases like “Conspiracy theory”, “tin foil hat”, “Satanic Panic”, “False Memory Syndrome”, “seek help”, “you must live in your mother’s basement”, “take your meds”, blah, blah, blah, so unoriginal... all designed and put forth in the media for the sole purpose of silencing the timid and weak-minded, and to keep them from investigating and reading actual documented facts. They are either perps working for them, or they are clueless little mind-controlled parrots, programmed by their TV’s and movies, who dutifully spew the phrases out like good little caged parrots in response to anything they don’t themselves know, and they don’t even notice the ring in their nose by which they are continually being led down the garden path. Amusing, but those tired old phrases are so last-century, and it only proves either the fear (or sheer laziness) that people have of doing their own homework, or their willingness to betray humanity....
To @@misskim2058. I looked to find one thing of truth in all that you said by choosing Albert King. You stated he was the founder of the KKK. I couldn't find anything to prove this statement. There was another Christian prognosticator, like yourself, who claimed September 23, 2015 would be the day of the Rapture. Of course, this never happened but he made many of the same statements concerning Cern's Hadron Collider, Luciferianism/Satanism being promulgated by celebrities or worse government institutions, the false god Shiva and so on. I actually have no issue with this, per se. What I take issue with is somehow thinking Bart Ehrman has some ulterior motive, entrusted to him by Lucifer, with the sole purpose of vilifying Jesus Christ. Did you pay attention to the content in this video? I'm sure nothing in this video will awaken you to one simple truth: Christianity was a split from Judaism. Adherents to the "Law," to Temple Judaism did not see Jesus Christ as the messiah. The aftermath is as plain to understand as was the entirety of circumstances before Jesus ever became a messianic contender. Judaism is no different than any other religion, there is and was dissent from within the ranks. So it was with early Christianity: Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, Acetics are all different Christian sects prior to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Well, Kim, what explains this? Interpretations differ on who Jesus was prior to the Catholic church and its excesses. You may or may not care but you should at least consider the fact that Christianity is not the only system of faith in the world. As you disparage other "false gods" and "false religions," your bias is no different than that of your perceived enemies. How can anyone claim to not believe in Christianity by saying they are Satanists? Satan is a character in the Bible with no other sources to reference, perhaps. I say perhaps because the Bible did not happen in a vacuum. Which is to imply the Bible, Judaism and Christianity arrived by way of syncretism; to adopt or implement certain aspects of other religions into one's own. With any depth of research you'll find Lucifer/Satan became a "bad guy," after ancient Hebrews observed Zoroastrianism's take on evil. This also further suggests Bart Ehrman is an academic who seeks to elucidate the truth inherent in studying the Bible from its very own historical context. There is no way around it lest you prefer to think the Earth is flat, NASA is in league with the Catholic Church to summon up the Anti-Christ, while aliens are probing the rectums of sleeping innocents as our government covers it all up for the Freemason 33's or whoever you prefer. While both may be true, Ehrman definitely isn't out to vilify Jesus....the Bible and all the circumstances surrounding its redacted state is doing the vilifying.
@@laguanhayes214 wish you would have looked into theme of Disney movies, much more relevant to the masses than something about history which can only ever be considered hearsay
Also, you said in answer to someone's question that yes, Jesus taught love as the umbrella under which the law fell under, but you were still expected to keep the other laws. Well I think people who want to defend the law cannot see what even the details in the law represented. For instance-food laws. Food laws were part of the overall "purity laws" that are in Leviticus 11-15. In that passage we have laws about mold, discharge, women who are menstruating, women who recently gave birth etc etc. These laws seem odd to people at first and rather than try to understand what they were teaching (since we later learn from Paul that ALL of the law was a school master to lead us to the Messiah) but Christians often don't want to think that critically and really neither do Jews. But at the end of the Leviticus 11-15 purity laws, God tells them exactly why he's giving them. He's giving them so that they do not defile the temple in their midst and die. But why would God want to kill them just for contaminating the temple? That's not what these laws were given for. FI they were a teacher/school master then in the future they must have a spiritual application. That's what we're told in scripture. So the temple in the their midst (Leviticus 15:31) was a place that only Jews would enter because only they were pure because they were not defiling themselves so that they could enter the temple or if they became defiled they had a mikveh and were cleansed. SO the temple was ONLY for Jews and only the undefiled could enter. This kept Israel isolated. They couldn't have defilement in their camp and those defilements are listen in Lev 11-15. But in Acts 10 Peter receives a vision with unclean animals on a sheet and Jesus says "kill and eat" and Peter says that he has NEVER eaten anything unclean and this is about 10-15 years after the resurrection. So Peter has been eating according to the law even though Jesus has been resurrected which makes sense because the temple was till standing at this time and people were still pretty much carrying on as before and of course the food laws were about the temple anyway-to keep it pure. So all of this makes sense. But Jesus tells Peter "do not call unclean what I have made clean" and then the vision disappears. Peter gets a knock on the door-Cornelius the Gentile needs him to come to his house. Peter goes there and realizes that the Gentiles now have the holy Spirit too. On top of this pafter in that Paul told the Galatians "you are the temple of God". Not as individuals, but as the body of believers. SO the body of believers is now what the temple was only now, as it is spiritual, it moves from a physical building to the body of believers. So it would seem that the purpose of the laws about all these things that defile the temple were never about the actual thing (like food, women who recently has a baby or have monthly period) but about the fact that the temple was only for the Jews that purified themselves. Now that the Gentiles were coming in. And at first, the body of believers was comprised of Jews, but now that the Gentiles were coming in, who were formerly considered impure and unclean are welcome into the "temple" of the body of believers. And this is why Peter got the vision. What God ONCE considered unclean (Gentiles) were not CLEAN. The food laws had been an object lesson for this future event. The purity laws had been the school master to prepare them for the spiritual fulfillment that was coming in the future. Peter realized that apparently, because later when he was in Antioch and Paul called him out, Paul saw him eating with Gentiles, but when Some certain Jews showed up he started teaching Gentiles to follow Jewish laws and Paul called him out. Peter was EATING with Gentiles and Paul accused him of acting like a Gentile yet putting on a false persona when other came around. What was Peter eating? Probably whatever the Gentiles put on the table-because by this time he had already understood that the food laws were never really about the animals, they were a school master object lesson for what was coming. SO why wouldn't Peter now be eating shellfish or whatever he wanted after that?
@Pol Fartin . Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
How does anything Ehrman talks about here contradict christian theology? Most Christians would agree with almost every point he makes here. This just comes to show how little Christians know of their own beliefs
Why did the Apostle Paul compel the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31? Why are we not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18, but are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Sion in Hebrews 12:22-24? What did Paul say about the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16-17? Why did the early Church meet on the first day of the week? Are there two different sets of commandments in John 15:10? Are we ministers of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8? Why is the same little word "until" found in Matthew chapter 5, and also in Galatians 3:16-29? Did Paul say the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed could come to whom the promise was made? Why did Christ contrast the the two covenants in Matthew chapter 5, where He quoted from the Old Covenant and then added "But I say..."? Is the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 quoted word-for-word in Hebrews 8:6-13? Is part of it quoted in Hebrews 10:16-18? . .
_Did Paul come while Jesus was not talking much with his disciples?_ John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. _Didn't all of Paul's teachings come while Jesus was not talking much with his disciples?_ John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. John 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
How and when did Jesus exit the closed tomb? According to one biblical record, tomb was closed until an angel alit at it and opened the tomb to show to the women who came to the tomb at that very time that Jesus was no longer in it. And if Jesus was resurrected on the promised time and the women knew the time Jesus would exit the tomb and rise to heaven, why have they come to the tomb to prepare the body for reburial? Suppose the women did not know that Jesus said more than a few times that he'd be killed, resurrected, and then ascend to his Father? Thus their mistake in wanting to rebury Jesus! But thousands of his followers and disciples knew of the Jesus' prediction, yet not one of them showed up at the tomb at proper time to witness the greatest ever miracle: a dead man walking and seeing him soaring thru the air to heaven. But, say, not one of his followers believed Jesus that he'd be slain and rise on the third day after expiring. But if they haven't believed it; then, they weren't his true followers. Be it as it may, Jesus after rising, goes, reportedly, incognito or in secret to distant and hated galileans; where he had, reportedly, been seen by mere 500 people, instead of the city's nearest synagog to show pharisees and jerusalemites that he indeed was resurrected; thus, proving to thousands of people [and more later] that he was at a minimum a Messiah or Son of God?
Since the Christ often spoke in parable perhaps many of his followers did not understand he would be resurrected (from the tomb) on the third day, in the precise manner in which it happened ! .As far as the women , they were going to prepare the body obvious oblivious to the event that had taken place .
I’ve seen loads and loads of Bart’s videos and debates, from all the way back when he was wayyy younger, all the way up to the present day, and I must say I don’t think he ever, ever appeared to be overweight. So. Yeah. Weird comment thread here.
You are wrong ----read Mt. 24.20 - Jesus told His followers to still honor the Sabbath in AD 66-70 when Rome should attack Judea and they were to flee from the city of Jerusalem and not one Christian died in the siege
Dr. Ehrman, you give a long-committed Christian like myself a lot to think about. And as difficult as the answers are to accept, I am grateful to you for uncovering the truth. Thank you, Sir.
I could listen to Bart all day. Help me God! I'm an atheist who digs the bible!
Deacon Verter study it as ancient religious literature. That's what it is. It is a fascinating insight into the human condition.
My OpenMind I agree. Imagine if you found some ancient religious manuscripts as voluminous as the bible. You would be rich beyond rich. The bible is at once savage and barbaric, and priceless.
And your name is Deacon. :)
It is just so damn well written. I refer to the figurative devices often in my advanced comp classes. Is that why it is so believable to some people. Fantastic writing.
Dorie LaRue What? Well written? The bible is one of the worst written books of books ever inked. I read it as a window into our ancient past and for the little history gleaned from between its hyperbolic lines, but its always a chore. Dr. Suess is better and more moral!
I wish Christians were curious enough to seek or even consider this.
Or actually read the Bible and consider honestly how messed up it is. Ex. Here’s the “hero” Moses:
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”
Numbers 31:17-18 ESV
Thank you for taking longer than 30 sec to for that last question. Your summary to why christianity often finds itself intertwined with anti-semitism/judaism despite being originally based on it was absolutely brilliant and should be taught to every american. They should teach that in schools to all. It explains so very much.
I appreciate Dr. Bart Ehrman honest perspective and research on the bible.
Thank you Bart!. You have explained so much and cleared a lot of what I always questioned.
I appreciate the Bible more now that I understand the historian point of view than when I was an evangelical.
Which view would that be?? He quotes the SAME book as fact and questionable... doesnt explain how one sentence is "we know" and another is "we arent sure". Only raises more questions for me.
@@zamiel3 What questions?
iel that is a good thing. Keep questioning. Christianity teaches not to question, and believe through faith...so please keep questioning!
@@bigpappajr7854 who told it not teaches to ask? Jesus ask questions
I love it when he says by the end of the lecture that the Ebionites may have represented the earliest form of Christianity and what end up declared a heresy may have been the original form. I think that this is one of the most important points he made in this lecture.
Church Fathers would dispute this point.
3:55 to get to Bart...
11:30 to skip past THE SAME DAMN INTRO he gives every time he gets in front of more than six people.
So true, I can never remember if I've seen a video or not because of the repetition of this.
Thx for the second skip 👍🏼
LOL! Thanks for saving me almost 12 minutes!
Thx dude.
Every f%$÷* time 😂
Professor Erman is simply fantastic when it comes to a clear conveying of very deep topics. Highly informative lecture.
Brilliant, as ever Professor Ehrman, and, as ever, much appreciated!
Excellent lecture hopefully to watch more in the future.
Thanks Dr.Bart Ehrman.
Another brilliant presentation from Dr. Bart Ehrman. I have almost all his books, and his "Great Courses" DVDs. He always uses the scriptures to support his arguments: he is never fanciful or inventive to make a point. Yes, brilliant !
Thanks for the wise, reasonable and humorous lecture .
Bart's books translated into many languages. People seem to be hungry to know more. That seems like a good thing.
Unless the translators change things up, we’ve all seen the dangers of parablepsis ocassioned by homoeuteluton.
If we can get people to recognize and understand the actual, accurate history of the Bible and to view it without their god-glasses on, then less religiosity and more atheism is inevitable... and that’s ALWAYS a good thing.
I like Dr Bart Ehrman debates and leactures and i have bought all his books he is excellent scholar.
Insight Curiosity. Me too
He is a delusional FOOL.
@@flyingdog1498 lol that's the spirit!
see people, this is why one should not skip the intros. You get this wacky kind of shit.
I've bought two of Bart's books and thoroughly enjoyed them. Highly recommended.
you should get them all ;) it's worthwhile
Learned about the concept of "covenant" in Old Testament Survey. Explaining what it was like to be Jewish in Jesus' time in four minutes is a miracle.
I learnt a lot about the Bible from this learned scholar Bart D. Ehrman.
I sure do alot
I had so many questions unanswered which my church couldnt answer they tried but makes no sense when i go home n meditate on them i just ran into this man n i tell u alot has been answered
very Informative clear lecture.
Great lecture. I recommend it to all my christian acquaintances. There is nothing like knowledge to open the eyes and dispel antiquated superstitious beliefs.
Fascinating lecture. Always a pleasure listening to Dr. Erhman.
I love to listen to Bart!
Great lecture. If you have heard other lectures by Dr Ehrman you may want to start at the 11 minute mark, where he begins with new material.
It appears that Jesus was a Jew from the Middle East and he was an outstanding person and teacher of Jewish law. And little did he had to do anything about Christianity. I think Mr. Paul infused Jewish monotheism with Roman paganism to attract the pagans to his cult. It's my humble opinion, not to offend anyone but to encourage critical reasoning.
This is a very interesting thought indeed. Having now taken notes to a bunch of Ehrman's lectures, I think that you are proably right in your claims about "Mr. Paul." :-) I believe that we also see this "influsion" of Jewish monotheism with Roman paganism in things like the development of the Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell.
@@rohmann000 I used to think of Paul as mixing Judaism with paganism, but I don't any more. I actually have come to understand him more in the context of Israel's expectations for its own redemption and the redemption of the nations who would find God through the example of Israel. Paul speeds up the process by saying that the nations have found Israel's messiah before Israel did. Which is extraordinary, with or without paganism!
I agree. Muslims have been saying basically the same thing for the last 1400 years.
I'll go further. It does not make any sense that Paul was a Jew, and especially not a Pharisee. Pharisees were the orthodox Jews of the time--the most observant, and they lived in Jerusalem. Paul was a pagan Greek from Tarsus, which is in current-day Turkey. If Paul were a pharisee why would he instruct Jews to not obey the laws and say that the laws were a curse? And why he write his letters in Greek--he would have written in Hebrew or at least Aramaic? But his original manuscripts were in Greek. Paul was nothing more than a "politician" who assumed the persona of whomever he needed to be to pander to whomever he was preaching--and he specifically admitted this in his writings.
His creation of Christianity had nothing to do with how the messiah was described in the old testament. It was pagan from beginning to end--the resurrection, the dying for sin--that's all pagan. And as time went on, the church fathers just made it worse--cannibalistic rituals of eating the body and blood, the trinity, and the parallels between the "son" and the "sun" --all pagan. Constantine was happy to call himself a Christian as he barely had to change any of his beliefs.
@@MrTrashcan1 bravo 👏🏽
I have had the same basic understanding of Paul through my research over the last decade but you put it more eloquently. I also studied what the Muslims believe about Paul , and they give similar reasons why Paul seemed like an impostor. I’m glad today I took this education further and accepted Islam. It was the best decision of my life.
I really learn a lot from your lectures. Many thanks
@William Lane Craig: Can you please mention some of problems in Quran? if you can find any? :)
Conservative Christian Commentary So that is best you can come up with? 1. is taking stories from other sources a problem ? 2. Were those gnostic gospels available at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? 3. Which story and gnostic gospels are you referring to be precise?
I learn Bart picks and chooses what part of the same book he wants to use as fact. Don't know how he does it with a straight face.
Great lecture by Dr.Bart Ehrman
I commend Bart for his understanding of the events and theologies of Jesus's time. There is little that I can say to dispute what he teaches. There are some but I would tell him myself.
Another impressive lecture from Bart Ehrman. Once again, well delivered and very interesting.
Wow, how he explained the spread of anti-Jewish sentiment in Christianity so succinctly at the end there. So impressive.
Thank you, Bart Ehrman, for sharing with us your brilliant intellect, impressive scholarship, and sense of fairplay. Your presentations are always balanced, with excellent support material. Proud to say I have all your books and "Great Courses" DVD lectures. /
I just have to say something about "anointed one": yes, in reference to kings, "Messiah" started as kings with Saul, but before this, it was for the high priest in the Law, as in Leviticus 4. This kind of helps Jesus's kingship and priesthood passages dovetail in respect to their understanding of these things in the Bible. I guess it goes together with what he was saying about how some Jews felt that the Messiah-to-come would be a priestly figure. Bart probably knew this, but was just being brief, though I also wanted to say for anyone else.
I think I need to go to Ehrman rehab...I’m out of control addicted. I can’t stop. Help me.
Subversion hahaha
@Matthew Pace where do you get this truth from? Please enlighten us all. Thanks
Why put any in danger at all, Matthew?
Adam and Eve may be symbolic to you, but to most they are TWO people...
Also, wasn't ten commandments originally phrased as 'do not kill a HEBREW'?
@Mark Matthew Pace I guess you missed his intro where he said he is talking about historicity and textual criticism. Bart and I are both, agnostic. Because Faith doesn't work for many of us who were born after the Enlightenment, your arguments from faith sound like someone talking about Hobbits and Garden Gnomes.
And because we see no proof of god, then we fall into the category of atheist. Kind of academic. And Bart has elucidated why he lost his faith. It had to do with suffering. Of which, Epicurus is widely quoted as saying-
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Peace brother-
In Mark 12:28 one of the scribes asked Jesus, Which is the first commandment of all? He answered " The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:”
I have been appreciating your point of view. thank you.
Bart Ehrman always uses the scriptures to support his arguments, very refreshing.
So far I’m liking what I’m hearing and I already know where you’re taking this. 👍
Thank you for sharing this. I found this to be lovely and lively presentation of a complex issue. Your references to student views makes it real and current as well. I love hearing how we "got here"
That last question, an off-the-cuff summation of antisemitism and christianity, was amazingly lucid and informative. Glad you gave it a bit more than 30 seconds.
I don't think ive ever been this early for a lecture, thanks for the upload professor, cant wait for your debate with robert price.
The 12 year old Jesus story is only in one account and there is nothing wrong with a non Jew sitting on the steps of the Temple. However, I also believe that early Christians either didn't care, made no distinction or twisted the narratives to make him appear as though he was a "Real Jew" . Note also that Paul, calling himself a Benjamite, was NOT a Jew and seems to have little knowledge of the history of the "lost tribes". Actually Paul has little knowledge of ANYTHING AT ALL.
I should also point out that the reference could easily be a reference to the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim in Shiloh.
"The 12 year old Jesus story [...] could easily be a reference to the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim in Shiloh."
Riiiiight, that's why Luke 2:41-46 says "his parents went *to Jerusalem* every year at the feast of the Passover, and when he [Jesus] was 12 years old, they went up according to custom... they returned *to Jerusalem* [and] found him *at the Temple*"
Uhhh.... how could that be the Samaritan Temple, again? C'mon dude. Don't delude yourself, or others.
Duane, could you even provide one single source in the NT that names the Samaritan Temple?
abdallah AlAmeen what a debate that would be!
Hope he debates Dr. Carrier too, it'll be an epic..:)
A really excellent speaker. A pleasure to listen to, whatever your views on the subject.
This is really interesting stuff.Thank's Bart!
I wish you'd talked more on the various arguments christians use to change the law ,but this is a good overview.
Ron Chappel Ican help with that 😊.
The arguments would be that
#1) Jesus in the gospels seems to say things like “You’ve heard it was said” or “Moses said” and then contrasts that with ”but I say to you” as if superseding Moses and oral-traditions. He makes statements that seem to contradict certain things the Torah says. And clearly says his blood is for the purpose of ratifying a (New) Covenant.
EX:
Matthew 5:33-37 *Oath-taking was perfectly lawful, permissible and even required at times under the Law of Moses. But Jesus clearly says in contrast of this that it is not good nor any longer a thing we should do. This is a change in law.
Mark 7:18-23 * The Torah says that a bunch of things that can go into your mouth can defile you (a number of animals and blood for example) but Jesus say nothing that enters your mouth can defile you. Mark even writes “Thus (we Christians realized) he was cleansing all foods”
Luke 22:20 - *Jesus ratifies, or brings into legal force, his covenant. Basically all the words he had spoken in his ministry would be made official and new “law” upon his death. The law of Moses was ratified with the blood of an animal, a bull. Exodus 24:6-8
#2) Paul is UNDENIABLY in the belief that Jesus comes with a new law that is different from and supersedes the commands of Moses. His work as a whole supports this overwhelmingly.
In 1 Corinthians 9:21 Paul, very interestingly, writes that he is not under the law of the Jews, but then he is QUICK to say that this doesn’t mean he’s lawless because he is under the law of Christ instead, indicating that Christ’s law is a separate law from Moses’ in Paul’s mind.
Acts 15 makes mention of the Jerusalem council where the issue of whether Gentiles need to get circumcised and keep the law to be right with God is hotly brought up. They rule NO. Only that they should just be sexually pure (which Jesus himself commanded) and not eat blood, idol sacrifice meat, and animals that didn’t have their blood drained properly (which some commentators think to be rules for getting a long with Jewish-Christians when with them and not salvation issues 🤷🏾♂️)
Hebrews and Galatians are the two books WHOLLY or largely written and DEDICATED to the explanation of this different law topic. Galatians spend 4-6 chapters trying to convince Christians that there is no need at all to follow Jewish law (in fact warning that it will cut them off from Christ). Hebrews labors to tell it’s audience that the New Covenant is better than the Old which is fading and can no longer grant eternal life in the Kingdom and that both laws cannot be kept in conjunction.
Scripturally you have to believe Paul and the writer of Hebrews are straight up false prophets if you want to believe the New Testament can’t be teaching a change in law. Even in just the gospels some of Jesus teachings are different to or add on to Torah laws (the law permits defensive violence, Jesus preaches loving your enemy as law, turning the other cheek as law and living by the sword as wrong.)
#3) The church fathers and early Christian writings also show us that this understanding of the law (of Moses) not being binding on Christians was not a concept made up later on in the Church...
@youngknowledgeseeker awesome answer and I agree with your point. It would be hard to say that the nt isn’t about fulfilling the old law with the new. As you said, a couple of books make that very clear just in themselves.
I found it stunning that in regards to Jesus and the Law, Ehrman more or less only mentions and dismisses sabbath controversies in Christian writings while selectively going over portions of Matthew 5. He does not comment on Jesus prohibition on divorce or oath taking, both of which are in clear opposition to practices in the Torah. The teachings on divorce not only occur in the synoptics but one saying occurs in Paul where he allows an exception to it, while being very careful to distinguish between his words and the Lord's. Jesus' statement on divorce is probably one of the most securest sayings we have on purely historical grounds. We have multiple attestation of source and form, its absolutely in the earliest stratum of material we have, Christians struggled with it as Matthew and Paul softened/modified it and this would lead to some arguing via dissimilarity in favor of it as well. This saying was quite radical at the time. As John Meier wrote,
"By completely forbidding divorce, Jesus dares to forbid what the Law allows--and not in some minor, obscure halakic observance but in one of the most important legal institutions in society. He dares to say that a man who duly follows the Law in properly divorcing his wife and marrying another woman is in effect committing adultery. When one stops to think what this involves, Jesus' prohibition of divorce is nothing short of astounding. Jesus presumes to teach that what the Law permits and regulates is actually the sin of adultery. That is, precisely by conscientiously following the Torah's rules for divorce and remarriage, a Jewish man commits a serious sin against one of the commandments of the Decalogue, the commandment against adultery (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18). This is no small matter; it is, at least according to the Pentateuch, a capital offense." Marginal V3 pg 113-114
Of course in one instance, Jesus is cited as appealing to the created order in the Garden story as justification for his view on divorce. Ehrman is certainly correct that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew of 1st century Palestine that took the Torah seriously as God's word. If you consider his teachings on divorce in conjunction with the prohibitions against oaths, it is very clear he thinks he can correct parts of God's word. These are not Jesus merely reinterpreting the prescriptions of Moses. Matthew does present Jesus as the new Moses but given his statement on divorce, one might think that an idea like this goes back to Jesus himself or at least his self claims/identity.
Thanks for the lecture. Even if it was given three years ago 🙂
On antisemitism, I can strongly recommend Gavin I Langmuir's two books, "History, Religion and Antisemitism" and "Towards a Definition of Antisemitism". He really does a great job of arguing for the appearance of what can be defined as antisemitism in 13th century France and how it developed into a racism of the modern era.
I would like all of you to think about this for a second; Christianity: The belief that God sacrificed God to God to save God's creation from God! Is this statement true or false?
Isaam Rafee, Your statement is FALSE. God acts in and through Jesus and so God enters into the experience of human suffering, accepting the worst that humans can do and actively transforming that suffering so that it can lead to new life. Thus Jesus shows the love of God to be self-sacrificial and unrestricted.
Isaam Rafee
TRUE
The crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is well attested by a number of ancient sources. Bart Ehrman and almost all bona fide biblical scholars endorse this fact that Jesus died by crucifixion.
FALSE
Quran says Jesus was not crucified (Quran 4:157-158). Therefore, Muslims believe Jesus did NOT die on the cross but another man resembling Jesus was the person who was crucified. That is a LIE and FALSE. God is NOT playing some trick to fool people by replacing Jesus with somebody else. That's absurd and an injustice to the victim. It's deceitful and false and comes from the father of lies - Satan / Shayṭān.
AND all because a perfect god made an imperfect being...which even though was LITERALLY INCAPABLE of sinning...sinned...and what was this sin? well your sunday school teacher will say arrogant disobedience and/or trying to be gods...but if you read genesis it was actually...trying to love god more...that is literally what their motivation was. the bible has zero logic or rationale
What do you mean with your terms? What is God, what is sacrificing to God? What do you mean by creation? Answer those and I'll be clear enough to answer your question. I'm waiting.
@@bcjammer The word of god is not a word but God's Logic His wisdom His understanding an that through our eyes if we wish to see. Word >Greek Logos. Hebrew Wisdom. Jesus is the Wisdom of God in bodily form.
Prof. Ehrman begins his lecture at 4:04.
I find it both funny and a bit disturbing that so many in the comment section thinks they know the scriptures better than Professor Erhman - I can't help thinking that Dunning and Kruger just have to go to comment sections like this one to prove their case for the Dunning-Kruger effect!
Professor Erhman is able to read and translate the earliest known texts we have - he is a distinguished Professor in Theology and Biblical history!
He has read the same bibles as you have - AND the sources they are based upon!
The bible has been his life for more than 45 years by now - but you think you know better than him?
Why? What makes you think that? The things you think are true that doesn't fit with what Professor Ehrman says, how do you know it's true and that you're not just poorly informed?(perhaps from the sources you use)
Plus he grew up Christian so he's familiar with the Bible even beyond academia. He really doesn't get overly cynical he's just saying what he's studied.
Yeah but he does not know the "God ( Alihyim ) of genesis one is not the same entitie(s) as the yhwh alihyim of gen 2:4 ,whom he mistakenly believes is the creator of all things ... oops so much for acadamia when a high school drop out can figure out the most important deception in the history of human kind ! Question , How does one get on the NYT best seller list without selling their soul ?
Some people due know the scriptures better then Bart and correct him all the time, if they are correct and it can be proven, i know a lot of mistakes Bart makes, like Jesus claiming divinity in the Gospel John, he's wrong and it can be proven and not a scholar on earth can say i am wrong. Like John 10:30, i an my father are one and Bart is saying this statement is claiming Jesus is God and that's not true.
The Greek word there is hen and hen in Greek means one in purpose and not heis one in unity and this isn't rocket science and Bart knows this but his old Christian faith makes him say this, to please other Christians. Because Bart used to be Christian and is still holding on his Christian concept of Jesus being God and knows John 10:30 a one means in purpose and he will agree, if you correct him and then either try another verse or not say anything about that subject to you if you correct him, i have debated many Christians that due this every time and then change the subject and move to another verse or stop debating me altogether, because those tricks don't work with me and you can't lie and fool me, like they fool everyone else and it's only their faith that keeps them saying this and not facts. It's like saying well Jesus never claimed divinity or to be equal with God, but that's all we got, so let's run with it, even if it's a little white lie, just get converts and everyone will be saved, because this is what we believe.
Just like the Bible not having mistakes this isn't what they are taught in school at universities, they are taught the different versions manuscripts and mistakes, it's only when they become preachers that everything changes and the Bible is mistake free, because they have to save everyone, so a little white lie like Paul said and tricked people to convert them is OK in Christianity, but any other religion it's Satan himself because they lie to people, but in Christianity to lie is OK, because we are saving everyone.
But Bart does tell the truth but his still holding on with Jesus being God is just his old faith and not facts and the truth.
This video he's spot on with true facts, except Jesus never was Crucified or killed and God saved Jesus from death, because the Hebrews wanted to Crucify him and after God saved Jesus, God took his life and he was raised to heaven.
One - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
One
[ A-1,Numeral,G1520, heis ]
the first cardinal numeral, masculine (feminine and neuter nominative forms are mia and hen, respectively), is used to signify
(1)
(b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., John 10:30; John 11:52; John 17:11, John 17:21-John 17:22; Romans 12:4-Romans 12:5; Philippians 1:27;
This can be done with every verse Christians claim Jesus is God, Bart"s faith must be talking when he said Jesus said he was God and not his Scholarships and knowledge of Greek and Biblical studying of the scriptures. Jesus never claims to be God only a servant and son of God and a prophet and messiah and never God
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 10:30 in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary:
“The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...” - p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977.
Virtually all modern commentators on John 10:30 take the position that the oneness immediately in view here is a functional oneness, or oneness of will, purpose, and action.
D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John:
Verses 28-29 affirm that both the Father and the Son are engaged in the perfect preservation of Jesus’ sheep. Small wonder, then, that Jesus can say, I and the Father are one. The word for ‘one’ is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest, for then the distinction between Jesus and God already introduced in 1:1b would be obliterated, and John could not refer to Jesus praying to his Father, being commissioned by and obedient to his Father, and so on. Rather, Jesus and his Father are perfectly one in action, in what they do: what Jesus does, the Father does, and vice versa (cf. notes on 5:19ff.). 1
Gerald Borchert, The New American Commentary: John 1-11:
The statement in 10:30 that “I and the Father are one” has been an important battleground of theology. The first matter to note is that the word “one” here is neuter (hen) and not masculine (heis), so the text is not arguing for a oneness of personalities or personae (to use the Latin concept) but rather something akin to a oneness of purpose and will. 2
None other than John Calvin made this same argument centuries ago in his Commentary on the Gospel according to John:
The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father.
@@lakerstekkenn Have you ever read John chapter 1?
If mortal mam wasn't your God then you'd clearly see through this fool . You're a dog looking to be owned by some heirophant which is why you respect the unrighteous like Dr Bert.." Dr" of course meaning he's a nobody ... I've seen these snakes come and go. They're all witches confusing people. What's really amusing is how fooled you are by a charasmatic leader like this con job .
Why does this all make so much sense.
Barnaba's letter sounds like Jordan Peterson's interpretations of religion
I can totally imagine his weird whiny voice saying “Take heed to yourselves now, and be not made like unto some, heaping up your sins and saying that the covenant is both theirs (the Jews') and ours (the Christians'). It is ours.”
"That depends on what you mean by interpretation ". - JP
I remember when I was 13 I believed in the bible and a classmate smugly said "If the bible is about ancient times, why was it only written in the 1600's?!" He was probably talking about the KJV.
Your point? That, though he thought you were ignorant, that he was?
I love his dad jokes. He's such a nerd, lol.
Start 3:55
Thanks so much mr ehrman
Ann Arbor!! I lived in Ypsilanti and went to school @ Eastern Michigan. Can't wait to see this presentation!
Why are we denied the visuals? He has his powerpoint device in his hand for a reason.
David Koresh is a timely example. If you are 45+ years old write down all you know about the branch Davidians without looking at old news footage or reading old articles, but from your own memory. 1993 to 2017 is about the same length of time as it was from Jesus' death to Paul's first writing. How much can you remember about this well-reported group events 20+ years ago?
I think it's just as insightful to use the Kennedy assassination. Which has presumably documents galore, and movies from the event. People are still divided over who actually killed him and why. This is because the meanings we make are not uniquely tied to actions even when those actions are well known.
How would your account differ from a few who experienced it firsthand both inside and out.
I don't think you understand how much verbal recall people had back then, or the capabilities and complexity of the systems they used to memorise certain things (sacred texts)
@@lookatmepleasesir massive assumption to make. There is no evidence that verbal recall was better, how could there be? Nobody was doing verbal recall tests and measuring them. In fact, evidence points away from your assertion, that people are far more intelligent today than ever before. Look at IQ level increase. This doesn't directly correlate with verbal recall, but it does point to a general increase in human intellectual performance.
@krelfurnace well said, but I wouldn't dismiss the relationship between memory and iq. There is a single side causal relationship between the two; that is, people with high IQs generally have better longterm memory, while people with long term memory, may not have high IQs. I would also reassert that people are far more intelligent today, this is well documented over the last half century, although it is sadly going away now (search Flynn effect). It has to do with selection and nurturing. Children today have to be better at intellectual pursuits to survive in the modern world, so it is selected for in mating and nurtured in institutes of education. Also, sorry for the month long lapse, apparently youtube didn't want to notify me until now haha
I'm a little surprised that when it comes to Paul interpretation, how that believing in Jesus' death and resurrection, made everyone who believed "right" with God, that there is no mention of the "passover", or John the Baptist claim, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". And of course the "new covenant" that Jesus spoke of the night he was betrayed when Jesus celebrated the passover.
I like listening to Bart's lectures because of the scholarship he brings to the table. However, I do not agree with all his interpretations of the "facts". That is, Bart sees things the way Bart sees things.
It is a fortuitous coincidence that the creator of the universe god happened to choose the Jewish people with whom to have a special preferential arrangement.
Bart, your doing a great job for Jahovah, keep up the good work.
Which work of Jahovah and yet he doesnot believe in him
I can't think of anything sillier that accepting as fact.the bronze age anonymous stories told by fearful,uneducated,superstitious,mysigonistic desert tribesmen in an insignificant desert country..there are eight million species that live,die and are no more.to suggest that one species of the ape family can become exempt from dying by appealing to an invisible,undetectable,celestial dictator is plainly ridiculous.no wonder more and more people are leaving this nonsense where it belongs,in libraries in the section marked Mythology.
Bart could've made the question more difficult what type of Greek, the answer is Koine Greek which is street Greek.
I love how many religious people come to these comments with arguments akin to "No, yur a dumb Bart! You dobt know the bible!" in order to refute Dr. Bart Ehrman, a well respected scholar who has dedicated his entire life to studying the bible rigorously.
Religion of “ antiquity”. A point I had never thought of before.
Our Heavenly Father said he will Judge and he said it worldwide so every tongue could understand him and he called it Judgement Day
The last 10 minutes of this video were extremely powerful and poignant.
so Jesus did walk this earth
It's a roman and greek religion with a jewish mythology. It's fan fiction.
You don't follow jewish law because it's a completely different culture that came up with the story of Jesus.
Any God that has the power to end the suffering in the world and chooses not to is no God of mine.
That's what I thought when I read the Bible and could not bring my self to accept it anymore.
Pr.Bart 's best lecture because the Focus on the Law is Key. There is one law: of Moses and update of Muhammad. Jesus followed Moses. Many refs in OT. Likeness of moses to muhammad, Deut 18:18. Follow the final CLEAR message. Ouran. Read it, you will recognise it. Put your mind at rest.
Dr Bart Ehrman is a commendable and excellent scholar. The developments are becoming heavier. More and more apologetics are abandoning the view that the bible is free from error.
Quran chapter 2, verse 79
''Woe to those who write the Book themselves and say, "This is from God," so that they may sell it for a small price! Woe unto them for what they have done and for what they have gained!''
1 Corinthians 9: 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.''
''"when i stop valuing my life that's what i'll do"''... that was obviously meant as a joke :D
what dream world are you on?
MHM EEKK
I'm not sure if you are implying that because there are latrines and roads that the stories are of the Bible are literally true? By that rational, the dwarfs of the legend of Rip Van Winkle are true because the Catskills are real, or Jason and the Argonauts was an historical treatise because sheepskins were used in what we call gold panning (golden fleeces). Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, John Henry etc from American mythology. In the early days of Biblical archeology everything pointed to the truth of the Bible. Then came a pushback where the Bible was a total fabrication and now I think more accurately seen as a collection of mythologies that are in local settings. Arguing that some roads and bathrooms prove the historical accuracy is (on a humorous note) like using the fact that cars and caves and bats are present in the New York area to show that Batman comics are historical. Mythologies, whether freshly made or adopted from the far past, are adapted to the local culture and will woven into daily life. I apologize upfront for the lack of depth but typing on my phone, heck typing anywhere is a slow process for me. Anyway, hope I didn't misunderstanding you. Chiao
MHM EEKK, Could you do me a favor? Go to the thread above this. I've been going back and forth with GhostHawk 1176. He claims Paul knew Jesus when Jesus was alive and is adamant about it. I'm pretty sure this is not scriptural. It wouldn't make sense because if Paul befriended Jesus during Jesus' lifetime, you certainly wouldn't think he would've persecuted Christians before Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.
Maybe you could correct him and he may listen to you.
Paul was obvious alive during his ministry but there is NO indication Saul personally new Jesus.
You're the best. Unbiased and truthful. Unlike James White🙄
I'm broke as shit and I'm going to sub. Your blog. I've been sharing your videos for years but just fell in love with you.
@Pol Fartin He's talking about subbing to his blog, which is $24.95 per year. (assuming the price has not changed, and that it still is active)
The answer to these questions is surprisingly simple on the surface, but INCREDIBLY complex at it's core. To quote Christ on how to attain eternal life, "Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, thy neighbor as thyself." This the whole LAW, this the whole answer to the world, to each and every soul. Christ did not set up anything different. The law was actually very similar to how Barnabas supposedly wrote. All of the old law had a much deeper, spiritual meaning than the surface meaning. At the time of the old law, we as humans were too primitive to understand the true meaning of this higher teaching (which is too much to go into). Why do you think Jesus spoke almost nothing but in parables to the masses? So only the SEEING would SEE, and HEARING would HEAR. Remember 2 Corinthians 3:6: Not of the letter but of the SPIRIT, for the letter kills but the spirit gives life. So, to sum up my answer, yes Jesus was teaching the law, he was just teaching it one more step forward from our more primitive days. Seek and ye shall find even the true meaning to Yeshua's words (Luke 17:21, The kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU).
"To quote Christ on how to attain eternal life, "Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, thy neighbor as thyself."
This quote is from Deuteronomy, actually. Jesus was just quoting the Old Testament. He was Jew who taught nothing but Jewish law. And it's irrelevant what Paul said. Jesus said the law was in effect until the end of time.
very very insightful ............................... just fits perfectly into what i already suspected.
The Charity Part Touched My Spirit. I will JOIN>>>> It is important will give back as human. Charity Is LOVE.
Charity is what ever you give , which is pure and you give with love.
Is it not true the King Cyrus of Persia, when he allowed the Jews to go back to Palestine and rebuild their temple, was referred to as the Messiah?
Facts...
Thank you for sharing video.
Matthew 24:23 makes it obvious that Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion. Paul’s teaching in Romans 8:7 gives a reason for this. If the natural mind is enmity against God, the logical result will be a splintering of ideas about God, we see today. The same applied to the Ebionites and Essenes and other groups. Jesus merely pointed out that the logical way to avoid deception is to believe none of them. If we are to believe none of them, the entire field of Christianity is invalid.
This leaves an entirely different message from both Jesus and Paul. God is not trying to save everyone’s soul at this time. Jesus verifies this in Matthew 13:11 and John 6:44. Paul verifies it in Romans 11:32.
What is happening is not about human interpretation. The beginning of understanding is Romans 8:29-30.
Brilliant!
I think this is an interesting dialog and of couse there are many knowledges we can hear but unfortunately there are lots of us do not know English including myself. So I suggest that this video has indonesia text so that we understand the dialog thank's
So Jesus said don't get angry but he got angry in the temple. What a freaking role model!
There is a different between righteous anger and human anger
This is why I'm an atheist. However, I still like to study religion from time to time.
A Rabbi once said, "Once you take all the feathers out of the pillow you can't put them back in".
And that is why Rabbi should keep these things to themselves. Uttering sentences which gives the impression of deep meaning to stupid people is all they do all day anyway...
Whoa! Barnabas was smoking some serious dope!
I love deconstructing mythology.
Thank God Barnabas was not in the New Testament because there wouldn’t be any Jews left!
Barnabas got a seriously bad wrap from Ehrman here. It would be worth picking up and actually reading rather than taking Ehrman at his word. It isn't far from Philo. He could have mentioned that allegory of the Torah was a long standing first century phenomenon.
BlackEpyon why do you call it mythology? Obviously i understand or overstand the word lol. But i just wanna hear or read your reasons 🤗
Ask 10 people the same question and get 10 different awnsers.................unless its math then in that case 9 out of the 10 need to go back to school lol.
@@lionno8201
It's a study of an ethos.
An ology of myth.
If you like batshit crazy stuff out of a pipe dream, look up what gnostic Christians believe, part of which can be found in the recently discovered gospel of Judas. Scientology looks normal after that.
like your style l learned so
much
Sadly few religions really teach the essence of the LAW which is LOVE (respect, honor).
Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again to save us from eternal judgement and give us eternal life if we believe Him. Only God can save us and freely give us new life inside forever.
Very interesting comments section. I have nothing against this man, but I think people need to understand why they love listening to this guy. He is a great speaker. But if you really read the Bible, not just the New Testament, many of these questions being asked are easily answered. Even more, you will really be a lot less impressed if you read for yourself. The text isn't hard. The fact that at 1:11:00 he says I don't know where Paul and others get this idea that Jesus' death was some kind of atonement. This is actually very clearly stated in the old testament. The other thing that I clearly must've have missed is the "new covenant". Many people are just listening to vain words, but he never even says what the new testament is. "Scholars" take time to read books. If you do the same this guy's words are quite misleading at best.
I'm surprised that Bart didn't talk about Jerimiah's prophecy that G -d would make a " new covenant " with Israel in which the laws would be " written on their hearts". This would support the coming of Jesus as part of making the new covenant, which is extremely significant.
Yes, that which is not said is also very important, your observation being just one great example of many...and overall, the presentation has the vibe of a Freemason. Last week I picked one speaker off as one in the first 45 seconds of speech, and stopped the vid to look it up, and sure enough, I was right. Some keep a very low profile, especially now that people are on to them, and people have personally read in their handbooks what they emphatically deny about themselves. 33° and above, I just saw one guy say he was both a believer in the teachings of Jesus (that was very carefully worded, the man was a “believer in the teachings”, not a follower,) and also a Freemason, including the Scottish Rite.
Well, they swear blood oaths from day 1, and along their progression, and at 33°, 2 additional oaths are:
To worship Lucifer (most people have an idea of what is involved with that, I would hope, it isn’t just an empty promise, that’s for sure) and
To pour down a steady stream of vilification upon Christianity, and to work to destroy and defile the name of Jesus Christ (though publicly, they can claim to be anything they want, atheist, Christian, agnostic, Muslim, pagan, Buddhist, it all serves to appear that all viewpoints are being represented...(they also drink from a human skull and have a a hug from a skeleton to remind them that the “cold arms of death will encircle them forever” if they break their oaths).
Interestingly, these “fine, upstanding individuals” are not so atheist, agnostic, or any other religion after all. They all very much believe in Jesus Christ...as their mortal enemy, as the only thing that can come between them and completely dominating the masses. According to them, he is quite real, and he is the enemy, as he “treads upon crowns and tiaras”, meaning he doesn’t believe in humans claiming superiority over others, instead that no man or woman should oppress other men, and he gave the people the way to put a stop to it on a higher level, it’s all in the Bible. You want the best on your side when you’re outnumbered, you need supernatural help, not to try to overcome by trying to use the stacked-deck, made-up methods for “justice” and a “democratic process” that the oppressors give to the oppeessed (while they play by a totally different rule book, it’s like a casino giving lessons on how to beat the house, would people really believe their methods were anything but a way to get more people to gamble?). People need to know they consider themselves to be above the masses, that the masses are just “material” to experiment on, “subjects” for study, and entirely disposable. One has only to read up on their own published writings to prove it to one’s self.
Now, the Bible gets a lot of flak for supposedly being a tool to “control the masses”, when in fact, only the abuse of it, and lies about what it contains therein has been used as such. No real Christian could or would use it for harming others as history has shown, that was all to stop those using it as Jesus said, to empower the little guy, and they abused it to make people hate it altogether, again, to prevent empowering the masses. In fact, it holds all the people need to put a stop to the corrupt men and women of the world oppressing the people. This is why is gets so mocked, so twisted, and why Scientism* screams and rails against it incessantly, in a steady stream of vilification, actually, just like their oath says to do (*blind faith in unsubstantiated pseudoscience, people would be shocked if they actually looked for the actual evidence of their favorite science beliefs. They won’t find what they think they will. They’ll find the opposite, that it is a lot of conjecture, and endless rounds of finger-pointing and “don’t question the experts, you’re too stupid” kinds of nonsense.
So, Jesus outlines how to stop them, (more and more, real science is proving the ways these things can happen, and it does in fact work, but we’ll leave the “how to” to the true seekers, it’s best for the good of all that way), and they hate him for that. They feel they are somehow superior, and this delusion gets reinforced by the mindless masses not ever questioning them or their authority, so this alone makes them feel they have the right to control anyone who could be so stupid as to just go along with whatever they tell them. Their own words. If you’re dumb enough to believe them when they holler “science”, and you don’t even look at alternative evidence, or read, study and test the Bible like it says to do, but reject it without even giving it some rigorous study and testing, then they figure you deserve to have them do whatever that want to you. Free will. It’s obvious to them there is a Creator. They laugh at anyone who bought their lies about earth, how it all works, when so much of their teaching defies common sense. They delight in getting people to toss aside their own senses and observations, their own critical thinking-not daring to use it outside the socially accepted “norm”, and their own common sense. This is hysterical to them, as they pretend to be the friend of the students, posing as their science gods of knowledge...
Some people seem to have issues with knowing there are indeed other dimensions with beings and energies that are present and interact nonstop, yet they do believe and have 100% faith in invisible TV and radio broadcast waves, which are all around everyone right now, whether anyone believes in them or not, it won’t change the fact of their existence, will it? Having no TV or radio will not remove their existence. And childish attempts to mock those who do know that these other dimensions and beings are present, those who have their proverbial spiritual TV’s and radios turned on will not at all be affected by disbelievers. But disbelievers may just miss out on an important transmission, for good or bad, (they will and do, every day), and that is their loss, not mine. I will continue to be amused by their obvious childish fear of the unknown, rather than just being brave and realizing they just fear what they cannot see, but it will not make anything not be there, nor will it fail to affect them regardless of their denial, any more than denying germs will prevent disease, so it’s better to figure out who does what, and who is really in your side, and who is a trickster. How easy it is to control someone if you an convince them that one of their senses isn’t there. Cover their eyes and convince them there is no such thing as sight. OK, geniuses of the world, go ahead and stumble around. It won’t hurt those who can see. One day, you may just begin to wonder what the others saw that you did not, would not see, and what you missed out on because of your pride and ego.
Now, I am only saying this vid has the smell of FM, I do not make a direct accusation, I have no substantiation for the particular man here in this vid. But I do for others, and I have seen what is written and illustrated in their own handbooks, and the blood oaths they either flat-out deny, or if confronted with a copy of their own handbook, they sometimes try to claim is “just in fun”, but that simply isn’t true. If they fail in their duties, or openly acknowledge that which they’ve sworn to deny, they can and do get whacked.
It’s very helpful to educate one’s self on who is a 33° FM, or an equivalent such as the Order of the Eastern Star, which is for the women...for example Walt Disney was one, and has the 33 Club at Disneyland, where it reeks of FM symbolism (note nearly all Disney movies have the theme of an absent natural mother, who usually dies tragically, leaving behind a vulnerable child, then by showing the family as persecuting the poor child, always being mean to him or her, the vulnerable child is taught to reject any remaining family and trust and go away with the friendly strangers. Over and over and over and over. Same theme. What a way to traumatize and program children! I always used to wonder why anyone in their right mind would show their kids Disney movies, I only saw one as a child and I thought it was horrible. With all the subliminal and not so subliminal sexual imagery and whispered words, it should be obvious their true motives. Disneyland should be called Pedoland, but I digress...)
...and Walt Disney helped with NASA, and NASA, coincidentally, was also founded and is still being run by Luciferian 33° FM’s. Note all “space missions” were named Apollo, after Apollyon, the keeper of the bottomless pit...just like CERN has the Hindu god Shiva, god of destruction and creation, coincidentally built over the former temple site of Apollyon...these and so many other scientists, most particularly ones that get a lot of air time on TV, lots of coverage and lots of prestige, almost always just so happen to also be 33° FM’s. All this Apollyon and other god worship certainly is odd for a bunch of agnostic and atheist big-bangers and evolutionists (talk about blind faith, evolution, and science actually debunking it at every turn). Serious sciensts dedicating their work and their lives to false gods and Lucifer, kinda seems
to go against the world view they try to promote to the gullible masses ...all “astronauts” have to be 33° FM or OES, (and many world leaders, they show their affiliation through their paraphernalia and other symbolic and blatant ways, once you know what they are, it is obvious. It’s their sick way of “informing” you, so they can say they told you so and you followed with your own free will.
Remember all that when they start spewing their lies at you. NASA doesn’t lie about a few things, they lie about everything, even their own documents prove that. (I could write a novel on all the details, but it’s all there to be found, NASA fraud, multi-millions a day, for CGI “images”, not photos...). Even the Luciferian Vatican (easily researched) joined with NASA and named their jointly-owned telescope L.U.C.I.F.E.R. It goes on and on.... Washington, D.C., where one must go to be initiated into the 33° FM, that’s where the ceremony is held, is one giant homage to Luciferian Freemasonry. It even has a statue of Albert Pike, an infamous Luciferian FM, Scottish Rite, and founder of the KKK. Why don’t Americans demand that statue get pulled down? Revering a racist right there in the heart of the Corporation of the US? (That’s another thing to research, the incorporation of the US as a foreign-owned corporation, it has foreign investors...).
It is all out there to be found, so I’ll just go ahead and ignore any comments from all obviously uninformed trolls. This is about where they come in with their mind-controlled responses, using silly Cointelpro and Tavistock phrases like “Conspiracy theory”, “tin foil hat”, “Satanic Panic”, “False Memory Syndrome”, “seek help”, “you must live in your mother’s basement”, “take your meds”, blah, blah, blah, so unoriginal... all designed and put forth in the media for the sole purpose of silencing the timid and weak-minded, and to keep them from investigating and reading actual documented facts. They are either perps working for them, or they are clueless little mind-controlled parrots, programmed by their TV’s and movies, who dutifully spew the phrases out like good little caged parrots in response to anything they don’t themselves know, and they don’t even notice the ring in their nose by which they are continually being led down the garden path. Amusing, but those tired old phrases are so last-century, and it only proves either the fear (or sheer laziness) that people have of doing their own homework, or their willingness to betray humanity....
To @@misskim2058. I looked to find one thing of truth in all that you said by choosing Albert King. You stated he was the founder of the KKK. I couldn't find anything to prove this statement.
There was another Christian prognosticator, like yourself, who claimed September 23, 2015 would be the day of the Rapture. Of course, this never happened but he made many of the same statements concerning Cern's Hadron Collider, Luciferianism/Satanism being promulgated by celebrities or worse government institutions, the false god Shiva and so on. I actually have no issue with this, per se. What I take issue with is somehow thinking Bart Ehrman has some ulterior motive, entrusted to him by Lucifer, with the sole purpose of vilifying Jesus Christ. Did you pay attention to the content in this video?
I'm sure nothing in this video will awaken you to one simple truth: Christianity was a split from Judaism. Adherents to the "Law," to Temple Judaism did not see Jesus Christ as the messiah. The aftermath is as plain to understand as was the entirety of circumstances before Jesus ever became a messianic contender. Judaism is no different than any other religion, there is and was dissent from within the ranks. So it was with early Christianity: Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, Acetics are all different Christian sects prior to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Well, Kim, what explains this? Interpretations differ on who Jesus was prior to the Catholic church and its excesses.
You may or may not care but you should at least consider the fact that Christianity is not the only system of faith in the world. As you disparage other "false gods" and "false religions," your bias is no different than that of your perceived enemies. How can anyone claim to not believe in Christianity by saying they are Satanists? Satan is a character in the Bible with no other sources to reference, perhaps. I say perhaps because the Bible did not happen in a vacuum. Which is to imply the Bible, Judaism and Christianity arrived by way of syncretism; to adopt or implement certain aspects of other religions into one's own. With any depth of research you'll find Lucifer/Satan became a "bad guy," after ancient Hebrews observed Zoroastrianism's take on evil. This also further suggests
Bart Ehrman is an academic who seeks to elucidate the truth inherent in studying the Bible from its very own historical context. There is no way around it lest you prefer to think the Earth is flat, NASA is in league with the Catholic Church to summon up the Anti-Christ, while aliens are probing the rectums of sleeping innocents as our government covers it all up for the Freemason 33's or whoever you prefer. While both may be true, Ehrman definitely isn't out to vilify Jesus....the Bible and all the circumstances surrounding its redacted state is doing the vilifying.
Neil Hasid Excellent comment.
@@laguanhayes214 wish you would have looked into theme of Disney movies, much more relevant to the masses than something about history which can only ever be considered hearsay
Also, you said in answer to someone's question that yes, Jesus taught love as the umbrella under which the law fell under, but you were still expected to keep the other laws. Well I think people who want to defend the law cannot see what even the details in the law represented. For instance-food laws. Food laws were part of the overall "purity laws" that are in Leviticus 11-15. In that passage we have laws about mold, discharge, women who are menstruating, women who recently gave birth etc etc. These laws seem odd to people at first and rather than try to understand what they were teaching (since we later learn from Paul that ALL of the law was a school master to lead us to the Messiah) but Christians often don't want to think that critically and really neither do Jews.
But at the end of the Leviticus 11-15 purity laws, God tells them exactly why he's giving them. He's giving them so that they do not defile the temple in their midst and die. But why would God want to kill them just for contaminating the temple? That's not what these laws were given for. FI they were a teacher/school master then in the future they must have a spiritual application. That's what we're told in scripture.
So the temple in the their midst (Leviticus 15:31) was a place that only Jews would enter because only they were pure because they were not defiling themselves so that they could enter the temple or if they became defiled they had a mikveh and were cleansed. SO the temple was ONLY for Jews and only the undefiled could enter. This kept Israel isolated. They couldn't have defilement in their camp and those defilements are listen in Lev 11-15.
But in Acts 10 Peter receives a vision with unclean animals on a sheet and Jesus says "kill and eat" and Peter says that he has NEVER eaten anything unclean and this is about 10-15 years after the resurrection. So Peter has been eating according to the law even though Jesus has been resurrected which makes sense because the temple was till standing at this time and people were still pretty much carrying on as before and of course the food laws were about the temple anyway-to keep it pure. So all of this makes sense. But Jesus tells Peter "do not call unclean what I have made clean" and then the vision disappears. Peter gets a knock on the door-Cornelius the Gentile needs him to come to his house. Peter goes there and realizes that the Gentiles now have the holy Spirit too.
On top of this pafter in that Paul told the Galatians "you are the temple of God". Not as individuals, but as the body of believers. SO the body of believers is now what the temple was only now, as it is spiritual, it moves from a physical building to the body of believers.
So it would seem that the purpose of the laws about all these things that defile the temple were never about the actual thing (like food, women who recently has a baby or have monthly period) but about the fact that the temple was only for the Jews that purified themselves. Now that the Gentiles were coming in. And at first, the body of believers was comprised of Jews, but now that the Gentiles were coming in, who were formerly considered impure and unclean are welcome into the "temple" of the body of believers. And this is why Peter got the vision. What God ONCE considered unclean (Gentiles) were not CLEAN. The food laws had been an object lesson for this future event. The purity laws had been the school master to prepare them for the spiritual fulfillment that was coming in the future. Peter realized that apparently, because later when he was in Antioch and Paul called him out, Paul saw him eating with Gentiles, but when Some certain Jews showed up he started teaching Gentiles to follow Jewish laws and Paul called him out. Peter was EATING with Gentiles and Paul accused him of acting like a Gentile yet putting on a false persona when other came around. What was Peter eating? Probably whatever the Gentiles put on the table-because by this time he had already understood that the food laws were never really about the animals, they were a school master object lesson for what was coming. SO why wouldn't Peter now be eating shellfish or whatever he wanted after that?
And you know all this how? Nice to be special.
Intro ends at 4:00
Send forth the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
@Pol Fartin . Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
What a genius
How does anything Ehrman talks about here contradict christian theology? Most Christians would agree with almost every point he makes here.
This just comes to show how little Christians know of their own beliefs
How can people believe something, and not know what it is that they believe? NONSENSE!
Why did the Apostle Paul compel the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31?
Why are we not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18, but are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Sion in Hebrews 12:22-24?
What did Paul say about the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16-17? Why did the early Church meet on the first day of the week?
Are there two different sets of commandments in John 15:10?
Are we ministers of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8?
Why is the same little word "until" found in Matthew chapter 5, and also in Galatians 3:16-29?
Did Paul say the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed could come to whom the promise was made?
Why did Christ contrast the the two covenants in Matthew chapter 5, where He quoted from the Old Covenant and then added "But I say..."?
Is the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 quoted word-for-word in Hebrews 8:6-13?
Is part of it quoted in Hebrews 10:16-18?
. .
So, is a rebranding exercise that not all caught?
_Did Paul come while Jesus was not talking much with his disciples?_
John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
_Didn't all of Paul's teachings come while Jesus was not talking much with his disciples?_
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
John 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
How and when did Jesus exit the closed tomb? According to one biblical record, tomb was closed until an angel alit at it and opened the tomb to show to the women who came to the tomb at that very time that Jesus was no longer in it.
And if Jesus was resurrected on the promised time and the women knew the time Jesus would exit the tomb and rise to heaven, why have they come to the tomb to prepare the body for reburial?
Suppose the women did not know that Jesus said more than a few times that he'd be killed, resurrected, and then ascend to his Father?
Thus their mistake in wanting to rebury Jesus!
But thousands of his followers and disciples knew of the Jesus' prediction, yet not one of them showed up at the tomb at proper time to witness the greatest ever miracle: a dead man walking and seeing him soaring thru the air to heaven.
But, say, not one of his followers believed Jesus that he'd be slain and rise on the third day after expiring. But if they haven't believed it; then, they weren't his true followers.
Be it as it may, Jesus after rising, goes, reportedly, incognito or in secret to distant and hated galileans; where he had, reportedly, been seen by mere 500 people, instead of the city's nearest synagog to show pharisees and jerusalemites that he indeed was resurrected; thus, proving to thousands of people [and more later] that he was at a minimum a Messiah or Son of God?
Since the Christ often spoke in parable perhaps many of his followers did not understand he would be resurrected (from the tomb) on the third day, in the precise manner in which it happened ! .As far as the women , they were going to prepare the body obvious oblivious to the event that had taken place .
Christians, is the Torah still in effect or not? Please tell us precisely what rules Christians are to obey (and why).
You've lost weight, Dr. Ehrman! Looking good!
It's called getting old
@@shootingstar5359 just because you get old does not mean you get skinny, my 70yr old grandfather is sligtly overweight as he has allmost allways been
@@shootingstar5359 no it’s not. I know several 70-80+ year olds that are over weight.
I’ve seen loads and loads of Bart’s videos and debates, from all the way back when he was wayyy younger, all the way up to the present day, and I must say I don’t think he ever, ever appeared to be overweight. So. Yeah. Weird comment thread here.
I think that most people get fatter with age.
Starts at 3:50
There are only nine of the ten commandments reiterated in the NT - the missing one? keeping the sabbath.
You are wrong ----read Mt. 24.20 - Jesus told His followers to still honor the Sabbath in AD 66-70 when Rome should attack Judea and they were to flee from the city of Jerusalem and not one Christian died in the siege
Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords! He is the Risen! He sits and the right hand of the Father!
Cool, now tell us about how Pinocchio became a real boy!