Apologize. The source video was simply challenging, with a large number of sound issues. My engineer spent a few hours adjusting volume of each speaker due to varied microphone uses. We genuinely try to provide the best possible media on my channel. I don't monitor TH-cam comments, but any thoughts can be expressed here: ehrmanblog.org/contact-bart/
@j t I'm an atheist even I can tear down your argument. The bible never claims the the earth is 6000 years old it is found no where in the text of the bible. The biblical creation account is more of a allegory for the quest of knowledge and how it's better to be ignorant of things you can't understand. The king James bible is a poor translation and even the English language has changed drastically to the point you have to study the history of the English language to know that unicorn is a word that refers to rhinos, that leviathan's most likely crocodiles, that alot of the mythical animals mentioned in the king James bible never existed in the original text and was used as placeholders because king james translaters had the foggiest clue to what some of those words mean. There is no reason that jesus would be recorded except by converts and moses birth story was simply a retelling of Sargon. Precious metals from Tarshish in Israel point that someone was definitely ruling during that time and that Israel was definitely an organized Kingdom during the time period that Solomon supposedly ruled. You can date a text by word choice, syntax, world knowledge, what it addresses vs what it can address. Computer programs with neural networking AI can do this so well that it can get individual years and the sex of the author when fed unknown data.
I could listen to Dr. Bart D. Ehrman all day long, he´s intelligent, funny, with pleasant voice and gives most valuable information. 45:55 - 46:56 irrefutable point!!
As usual Dr Bart was *brilliant*. On the other hand , Justin was out of topic because his approach was clearly theological one. Remarkable sayings by dr Ehrman in this debate " *Jesus didn't say in any passages of NT I Am God* " " *Sayings of ( I am ) by Jesus are found only in John's gospel. why we can't find them in our earliest gospels? because these statements were not from Jesus* " " *If Mark, Matthew, Luke, Q,L, and M knew about Jesus being God, how on the world could they fail to tell us about it* " " *The dominant view among NT scholars in this universe say that Historical Jesus didn't declare himself to be God* " " *We Have discrepancies in our survival Gospels* " Note I don't like the attitude of questioners in this debate which reflects that they had NO idea about what dr Bart was talking about or which the approach he was looking through.
I'd say he brought the confidence and experience that a theology education provides to a fight against someone who has done decades of research far beyond what's available in a full Christian ministry education
I think you'll have a hard time showing that Paul thought Jesus was God. Paul specifically stated that Jesus was a man just like Adam - as distinct from God - a multitude of time. Indeed, Paul recognized that Jesus had/had a God... That's not someone who's a God.
Apostle Paul calls Jesus/Y'shua GOD! Read Romans 9:5, 1 Timothy 3:16, Titus 2:13! The DIVINITY of CHRIST is very OBVIOUS! Look my comment up! In him i explain where is God the Word (YAHSHUA) in the O.T. ... GOD the FATHER, the WORD (the SON) and the SPIRIT (the Holy Spirit) bless you!
@@НатанаилСталев-ф2р Well since Paul likely didn't write Titus or 1 Timothy, we're down to one source. The translation of Romans 9:5 has Paul stating this: "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised!" (emphasis mine) Notice that Paul did not say Christ was actually Yahweh. He never wrote that or even seemed to consider it.
@@НатанаилСталев-ф2р Jesus is a word not thee word, and so called holy spirit is angel jibril, paul likely saw devil in acts 9,4 matching luke 10,18. Jesus is son figuratively. He said Father is Greater then I, there does the trinity paradox, I myself can do nothing, He is fully dependant, SAid why do you call Me Good only God is, is Fully human. All Prophets peace and blessings on them taught worship 1 Lord and be 1 under the law, paul taught lawless man worship to give judeo criminals usury elitists an edge and destructure christendom. crucifiction is fiction see mathew 27,17 there were 2 Jesus. real 1 Got away! Also Jesus as sent only to israelites, paule changed the faith again. Early christians said Jesus was switched with Simon! paul even went to Arabia where he knew the final Prophet of isiah 42 was to come! the comfortor of john 14,16 whose message will last forever its Quran! John 17,3 has JEsus saying He is not God again, as for being with the Lord before, we all were in ephesians 1,4! Again showing that Jesus is a human! Even luke 3,22 says Jesus was adapted as an adult Son, this shows the literal begotting is a pagan fabrcation, a mirculous creation like Adam peace on him! This proves the Quran true that the bible's structural message is to be guided by Quran, its been changed and Quran is the guide, bible admits its been changed and Quran is right and not only is the Quran structurally right but in content as well. Christians added trinity in john 5,7 making Jesus God wrongly and the bc pagan trinity model, Hiding JEsus is a iRighteous man and not son of God in the change of luke 3,22 and that Jesus wasn't crucified by hiding mathew 27,17! Jesus was only sent to israelites as Islam was to come for the world and last forever as the message of the comfortor, and last but not least, so called holy spirit in Angel Jibril. so thats the deconstruction of trinity, JEsus is fully Human, God is above all, He doesn't need to sacrifice, paul degraded God wrongly, see exekiel 19. and pauline doctrine proves atheism right when the Lord sent Prophets to reconnect with him and connect and function together properly and paul;s atheistic appraoch to bible actualyl proves atheism wrong and contradicts and he defeats himself. Isolate paul who fight the Prophets peace and blessings on them who taught worship 1 Lord and follow law just like Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings on him revived and follow the religion of JEsus who is a Muslim and a human just like us and the rest of the PRophets if you Love Jesus then follow him, and follow Islam which he will teach on his return!
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543 But, nobody ever seen him again! Why? Then why can't he have a human father? Can you show any evidence of virgin birth earlier than 80 CE? Your Quran is full of bullshit.
In the 1:40:00 section where Ehrman questions Bass about what he thinks may be historically inaccurate, he completely elucidates Bass' confirmation bias. Bass seems embarrassingly reluctant to admit that he thinks these things are untrue, yet he knows he should admit this. Keeping them honest. Or, attempting to anyway. Nice job, Bart.
I genuinely mean this with the most respect to Dr. Bass, but he appears to be far, far out of his league in this debate. Ehrman is spot on. In every point/counterpoint.
I don't think his disciples thought he was divine. I think they thought he was one of the prophets, Moshiach as opposed to Ha Moshiach. That's why they were religious Jews like Jacov (James) Jesus' brother. Jesus was a revolutionist in a way, he criticised the elite for their hypocricy for not following the Law but puting oral law first and using people (widows) but he has no intention of being equal with Gd. His words in Getsemani are a good example of a faithful servant of Gd. He would be in for a shock if he saw what pagans did to religion of his Gd.
Doctor Ehrman, thank you for posting these videos. I've been reading your books and will be catching up on these debates; they are very educational. Thank you - Jason
I like this guy, respectful and makes some good points. As Bart Ehrman tells us, be prepared to listen to the alternative view. I am not a scholar so I can only read these guys and watch the debates. It's great stuff.
The part that really stuck out to me was when Dr. Ehrman cornered Dr. Bass about his reading of the NT as a devotional book vs a historical book. Are there parts of the NT he thinks is untrue? Dr. Bass flounders (heh) and struggles to come up with an answer. It really showed how Dr. Bass had a vested interest in this, and thus was problematic in analyzing the NT from a historical-critical perspective.
Bass should have waited for a few years, study more, meditate on these issues more before debating Bart. I am a christian but found Ehrman's debate first class.
In modern Hebrew, "son of man" ben adam means "someone" or "a person". It is used in Scriptures to mean "mortal" or "human" It's always nice when you use the real language.
As far as I can tell, the best argument Bass has, except for quoting the same verses over and over again with great conviction, is that "many brilliant scholars" (names undisclosed) agree with the view that Jesus claimed to be God. He sounds more like a televangelist than a historian. What a travesty of an academic debate.
Nope. He did not. No where in the NT does Jesus say he is God. And considering how significant that detail is one would think that's all Jesus would be saying to everyone he meets. "Nice to meet you. I'm God."
Tal Moore You apparently haven't studied the New Testament Gospels or Old Testament Jewish theology by making such a statement. I'll ask a simple question, can anyone other than God provide eternal life according to scripture?
***** I have studied this topic more than you'll ever study it in a lifetime. Trust me. And your question isn't simple. It's stupid. You're essentially begging the question by presuming that life is something that has to be "provided".
Tal Moore And what makes you think I havent studied this topic just as much if not more? I am not begging the question as I am not asking about your personal opinion regarding whether or not eternal life is something that "has to be provided", but rather whether it is consistent with what the scripture says. The question is, Did Jesus claim to be God? Well, according to Old Testament, God is the only one who has the authority to provide eternal life (salvation) which is EXACTLY what Jesus claimed to have the authority to do in John chapter 10. Jesus claimed to be the "I AM" that appeared before Moses in the Old Testament while He was on trial before the High Priests. He claimed to the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven and sitting on the right hand of power which is a CLEAR reference to divinity within Jewish tradition and referenced multiple times in the Old testament as Messianic prophecy. Jesus emphatically claimed to be Yahweh (The name of God in the Jewish tradition).
Bass's sermon, and Bart's historical evidences, enough Drama. Bass is just lingering on the Gospel's narratives not knowing that we don't know who these authors were at the first place. You see, if the base is stable then the building will stay strong, but if the bases of Gospel's narratives or its writings are unknown or written anonymously. One in all humility can't accept them to be reliable. Just like you wanna present a reliable or authentic authorized evidence to prove your case in the court, but if you bring documented evidence with no base, it'll be rejected. Bart is very straight to his points and not dancing here and there within the Gospel's narratives as Bass is doing, and sounds more like preaching than presenting substantial evidence, but no he doesn't want to loose his sheep. I'm so done with these apologists, really they need to open their mind including the audience.
Zombie apocalypse in the Gospel of Matthew - always cracks me up when that is brought up: "And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; 27:52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; 27:53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. 27:54"
How can he use Paul as evidence? Paul never even met this so called jesus. I wish Bart had that discussion with Robert M Price, that would really be a worthwhile endeavour.
+CU NEXTTUESDAY It means that they will be debating in October. You expressed your desire to see this, and he was telling you that it will happen. Simple.
Yet another baffoonish comment. Ehrman was destroyed in the 2nd Licona debate. He wasn't able to provide any naturalistic explanation for the Jesus post-mortem appearances.
Except for them being visions and not actual appearances. Which makes a lot more sense from a logical standpoint. Funny how all 4 gospels contradict each other on who discovered the "empty tomb" and where Jesus was to meet his deciples post resurrection. Not to mention the absurb amount of other conflicting stories the gospels give like the day he was executed or what occurred during his trial or the best one, how Jesus only claimed to be a god in the book of John! But u have faith in the NT accounts of his life? Definition of faith- pretending to know something that u don't really know. Lmfao at u
Les, he devoted several chapters to that issue in "How Jesus became God." People have visions all the time, even groups of people. They are particularly common after the sudden tragic death of a loved one. That is all very well documented. If you claim that Peter and Mary Magdalene's visions were authentic, you also have to accept the numerous similar claims of other religions.
Wow.. The FUNNIEST moment is 1:34:10 when Dr Ehrman asks him: “ so you are saying that they believed Jesus as Son of Man, they revered him as Son of Man, they worshipped him as Son of Man but they never called him as Son of Man”? and then this guy, while contorting his face and totally baffled by his own stupidity responds :”Kind of...” and then whole audience explodes in laughter!!
Maybe I overlooked it, but Bass came back to the "no one knows the Father except through the Son" near the end...did he ever address Old Testament references to people (and Israel itself) who were called "son" by God?
+s bushido Christians do not read/study the Hebrew Scriptures, they only read and go after things that they can try to make it look like it is about Jesus. Ask them about Ezekiel 18, where the prophet says that if one stop being evil and start doing good, it is enough for them to be called righteous. They would never read it. It does not fit the narrative that one need a human sacrifice
I feel so sorry for Dr. Ehrman because he is trying to debate and teach his opponent the nature of historical research (and New Testament issues). The Christian debtor is one sophomoric scholar.
I remember that I once had a "magic set" for Christmas called Hocus Pocus. I was very excited opening the box. Later, after trying everything, I was disappointed. There wasn't actually any magic in it. I can still recall the feeling. Recently, I went to a magic show. It was in a huge building. There were loads of people watching a bloke in a dress performing a trick. He turned some bread and wine into the body of a guy who had been dead for 2000 years. Amazing trick and during the show, a plate of money was handed around! Brilliant, I couldn't believe my luck. I can't wait for the next show to see what else he can do.
God commands man to believe, but God also accords him the prerogative to unbelief. Believing man is never to relinquish his right to live the life of faith. But he is not to curtail the original state of freedom that God has afforded others the condition of independence, even if they openly reject God. Bart with his distinguished scholarly research is without doubt has given us Biblical literacy! Thank you Bart.
Just brilliant Bart. You had this other guy rattled. He couldn't separate his faith from the historicity issue. No one was there recording Jesus's words and life plus the scientific flaws in memory ect made won the debate. Unfortunately, very few people actually listened to what you said. They didn't rethink anything. Such a shame. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Cheers, Mike
I enjoy these debates: 1) We can have these debates...try having a debate of this nature in other parts of the world; 2) Prof. Ehrman provides a clear picture of what the bible is, and what the bible is not, a far cry from what a typical Sunday school teacher will ever muster; 3) this information is essential for those who are all too quick to quote its contents.
1) Dr. Bass summarizes his closing speech with a very clearly, unequivocally religious assertion, and, considering that this debate is clearly, unequivocally supposed to be about the historical Jesus, it seems to me that Dr. Bass is guilty of a significant and inexcusable transgression. 2) I was less disturbed, but disturbed nevertheless, to notice that Dr. Bass, presumably a native speaker of English with a doctorate continually mangling the language. He says “just like” when he means “just as” and says “like I said”. “Like” is an adjective, not an adverb; it cannot modify a verb such as “says”. Dr. Bass says “subordinationism” when he means “subordination”, and so on. i don’t care what his doctorate is in: a native speaker of English who has attained that level of education and who teaches at the college level should be an exemplar of proper speech. 3) It occurs to me that an actively religious practicing Christian has a vested interest in maintaining the Jesus called himself divine, whereas an atheist, agnostic, or non-practicing Christian should have no particular vested interest in maintaining that Jesus did NOT call himself divine. If Dr. Bass maintains that Jesus called himself divine, we naturally will want evidence Dr. Bass is not doing this merely so that he can align his historical belief system with his religious system. Thus if Dr. Bass wants us to accept his arguments, the onus is on him to demonstrate that he is keeping his religious beliefs and historical research separate. Dr. Bass does just the opposite; he continually and egregiously conflates the two. This is unscholarly behavior for which he should be held academically accountable. If, on the other hand, Dr. Ehrman maintains Jesus did not call himself divine, we can feel confident that Dr. Ehrman has arrived at this conclusion in an honest and scholarly manner. He may still be wrong, but unlike Dr. Bass, he is not arguing in bad faith. 4) I find Dr. Ehrman’s arguments convincing and Dr. Bass’s arguments unconvincing-and not just because Dr. Bass has a discernible vested interest and Dr. Ehrman does not. That doesn’t make me absolutely sure that Jesus did not call himself divine, but until I encounter robust evidence or a robust argument to the contrary, I’m going to assume that the real historical Jesus he did not.
What a truly wonderful and enchanting debate. Despite being a Muslim and holding immense respect for Dr. Bart, I feel it is unfair to paint the skills and memories of all peoples with one stroke. The historian in Dr. Bart wouldn't let him think otherwise. Having said that I think the debate was well balanced. Again despite completely disagreeing with Dr. Bass, I believe he was able to respond to a towering figure like Dr. Bart in quite an appropriate manner.
I used an amp to improve the sound. It works very well and I really enjoyed the debate. Thank you Bart for an informative, interesting analysis of a seemingly complex subject. I will think about the issues carefully. I suspect my conclusion is life changing - for the better.
Dr Ehrman, you could not have been clearer in your questions to Dr Bass, man can he jump around a question, and give you an answer that's anymore convoluted. Your argument regarding the book of John is so on point, 75% of the gospels do not make claim that Jesus calls himself God. Only 1 gospel, and the last gospel... hrmmm I wonder why? Great debate, you absolutely creamed him.
Not only did Jesus not call himself divine, but that as a Jew, he would consider it blasphemous for anyone today to think so! I'd love to go back in time to the middle of the historical Jesus' ministry and be able to take him to visit the present day and show him what his legacy was going to be. Here's a self-styled rabbi, an apocalyptic Jew with a small following thinking the world was about to end and preaching to get ready for it.
To show him that instead he would soon be killed and to make sense of his death and failure to return in his followers lifetimes, they would proclaim him to be not only divine, but part of a weird triune godhead, churches would be established to worship him, governments would be based on his church, people would be tortured and wars would be fought over how to understand and worship him and his image and fake writings about him would be carried all over the world until the church built on his name became the biggest religion in the world, forced on millions because the most powerful nations in the world happened to be in his church's sphere of influence. I imagine he would just say (in Aramaic, of course), "WTF, that's not what I wanted!"
Whilst fishing, I caught a big bass but directly after I decided to throw it back into the river, it started to become very apologetic about the meaning of life. So, I ate it *-**___**-*
Very informative debate, thank you Dr. Ehrman I doubt Jesus would have broken one Law of the Torah, by claiming such a thing. He never would have called himself the Messiah!!! I believe that by following The Torah, Jesus felt ONE with The God of Israel, and that is what he taught...he claimed himself a son of a human being only! IF he claimed to be Divine, That HUGE claim, WOULD have been on all the lips of the people of that Time. The New Testament claims of Jesus' Divinity appears to be an Urban Legend. P.S. Why wasn't the Book of James a part of the Gospels? Wasn't James Jesus' older brother??? I think Jesus was a Faithful Servant, like a Hira Krishna, or a Buddhist but teaching of THE ONE GOD, and teaching about the Torah Law, himself being a light to others, as the Torah teaches to do....AND I'm very sorry to say, that "speaking of Paul to me is just as similar as speaking of Joseph Smith....sorry, I have no trust left in self proclaimed "prophets that come into the picture AFTER the fact...." PP. S: when in Daniel, the spokesman is referring to the four animals (nations), that "look like unto" certain animals, then refers to the human "like unto son of man:" that is expressly telling the reader, it is a human being, not looking like an animal....LOLOL context, context, context! and read the Hebrew Bible translation, not the King James...he's biased....LOLOL
Bass: "Paul claims Jesus is God in the letter to the Philippians, although he's not quoting Jesus. Therefore, Jesus claimed himself to be God." "The Son of Man seats in his throne with the twelve disciples of Israel. Where does Jesus seat?" Isn't Jesus the Son of Man according to the synoptic Gospels? Bad argument after bad argument from Bass.
Brother Bass have the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) you don't! GOD is YAHSHUA! The DIVINITY of the WORD and the SPIRIT (the Holy Spirit) is BIBLICAL! Read my comment on the video! Philippians 2:11 and every tongue will profess that MarYa {The Lord-YHWH} is Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}, unto The Glory of Alaha {God}, His Father. God bless!
Every time Dr. Ehrman points out the plain meaning of a piece of text, Dr. Bass can barely hear him over the cacophony of previous interpretations that have been layered on top of it by theologians over the centuries. Of course being the sacrificial lamb *MUST* mean you're god, because what other sacrifice could take away all the sins? Never mind that sacrificial animals were not divine, and never mind that that extended justification isn't in the text. The leaps in logic are no longer even seen.
I am not sure Dr. Bass even understand what "history," "historical facts," and an "argument from history" even are. He seems to think that believing that something happened means that said belief is actually a historical fact.
I saw son of man hovering over the water!! Son of Mary Jesus Jesus called himself son of man to prove he is servant of God. He didn’t walk around and telling people he is son of God as pagan Christian claiming.
Ehrman: "Joseph of Arimethea gave him the information?" Bass: "How do you know he didn't?" Crowd erupts in applause. Um...you people don't understand how this works. How about a mini lecture on the burden of proof before we start these debates?
I noticed that too. When the applause erupted, I was sad inside. It was like responding to the question of Bigfoot by asking “Joe Bob gave him the information?” And the Bigfoot apologist says “how do you know he didn’t?” - and the crowd applauds. Absolutely ridiculous.
Ehrmann schooled him. Bass and the audience kept forgetting the debate topic. The “skeptic” of his skepticism didn’t pay attention to his arguments and then had to be taught the fundamentals of the burden of proof...something a skeptic should know.
Yes, the audio isn't the best, but headphones help quite a lot. One of the things that gives me cause for doubt regarding this whole Jesus story as being true is the conversations Jesus had whilst he was crucified just before he died, he seemed to be having a rational chat with one of the thieves, and a little later, a conversation with God. That seems a little far fetched to me, also you have to ask, who was writing all this down as it occurred?, it seems far more likely to me that these conversations were made up.
The Christian guy ridiculously believes, that all the quotes are least close to what Jesus said. And he has the cheek to dismiss the mythicists as not taken seriously.
Thank you BE you rock for challenging the mundane errancy that has evolved to be believed ...ans become the greatest money maker the world over.......this is the greatest thing to ever happen to Christendom......
I have watched many debates. My favorite debaters are Bart Ehrman & Richard Carrier. They are both extremely knowledgeable about the bible and it's history. They are both agnostic/atheist. Pretty powerful reasons to reject the bible contents.
The constant breaking into Hebrew on the part of the Christian apologist is irritating and does nothing to overcome the impression that he knows nothing about Judaism or Jewish belief in the Second Temple period. It's also irrelevant. The NT is written in Greek. There is no reason to believe the authors were Jews, with the exception -- maybe -- of Paul, if he is, indeed, the author of the texts ascribed to him. One can only think, then, that the use of Hebrew on the part of the Christian apologist is nothing more than a rhetorical device ... either that or a tic of some sort.
Apologists they never learn. Makes you wonder why for example Jesus simply didn't write down all of his teaching unless ofcourse being all knowing doesn't exclude you from being illiterate.;-)
"Why do Matthew, Mark, and Luke make no mention of Jesus claiming to be God?" "You don't allow any kind of literary artistry..." If Jesus said it, then it should have been reported! This isn't "Oh, Jesus said something appearing in all gospels in a flowery way that might possibly be construed as claiming divinity." This is "According to John, Jesus made explicit claims to divinity that are entirely missing in all three of the other gospels. Explain their absence."
I have a question. When Bart questions why Mathew Mark and Luke don't quote Jesus's claims to divinity in the Gospel of John, why has no one postulated that the discrepancy could be explained by the possibility that Jesus said things to the John source that he didn't say to the others? After all, in one place he was purported to have exhorted the disciples not to say anything to anyone and possibly because he was not ready to be arrested for blasphemy.
Both debaters already assume there was a year CERO when the Jesus character was born. But even from the Gospels there is an irreconcilable gap of ten years between the two references used to pinpoint that alleged event.
And just before that, in John 20:17, Jesus says, ",I ascend to my father, and your Father; and to *my God,* and your God." So,...your Jesus has a God! Does your god have a God, too? th-cam.com/video/ODetOE6cbbc/w-d-xo.html May god b-less. ; )
Some people find religion through reading the bible. Some people leave religion by reading the bible. I'm of the latter. Just saying. Love me some Dr. Bart!
ﻟﻮﻗﺎ 10:22 (AVD) والتفت الى تلاميذه وقال كل شيء قد دفع اليّ من ابي. وليس احد يعرف من هو الابن الا الآب ولا من هو الآب الا الابن ومن اراد الابن ان يعلن له. Luke 10:22 (ESV) All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
"I and the father are one" & "Whoever has seen me has seen the father" THAT SIMPLY MEANS: God, the Father and I, Jesus, have the same qualities, the same "heart formation", the same adherence to the rules, the same values. Whoever follows me, Jesus, automatically follows the Father, God! (As it is also said: "He created man in the image of God.")
justin's "THEO-ILLOGICAL" presentation really bored me to death, like i can confidently tell the rest of his argument. He didn't even try to enggage with the subject..
1:34:08 "Ok, give me a yes or no answer: you are saying that the earliest followers of jesus believed he was the son of man, they revered him as the son of man and worshiped him as the son of man, but they didn't call him the son of man?" "...Kinda..." *face palm*
Dear Prof Ehrman You are right and your search of truth is a valid question.. In AlQuran Allah says that He sent Gospel, there in guidance and light... Allah give light to who He pleased
I find these debates a bit like arguing about the benefits and properties of oxygen before you discover that there is an element oxygen. Why do the closing statements of the pro-religious side always end-up being a sermon.
Bart D Ehrman you are awesome! Even though I am a christian and I might disagree with some of your points but I find my personal feelings irrelevant about your character and you are a excellent historian IMO! I am a admirer of you attitude, your arguments, your style, your character, and your honesty! I find that whenever I read something you wrote or have written to be very clear and well informed. So thank you for your hard work! . Despite the argument I still feel there is good reason to believe that Jesus Christ did say and do what is written. I think there is some minor flaws; language barriers, understanding the language and meaning correctly to what is being said. But I still think there is reason to believe it. But overall all I think you were right 55 minutes in when you said Justin failed to address your argument. I was listening he never challenges your original position. Also I heard something about you and Richard Carrier getting into a battle of words so to speak. Not you directly and I cannot find anything you said negative about him. Although, he does say alot of negative things about you which I found to be completely fallacious. I think you would destroy his circular reasoning. I think the main problem with Carriers assertions personally is that in all of the context everything has to be a allegory in its reading. And alot of the biblical text doesn't read that way. I not saying that its 100% perfect or inerrant and I think its sad to see some christians take this position. :( I think it gives a vast majority of us a bad name. Sometimes I wonder what these people are reading about Jesus to get this Idea that Jesus doesn't want us to take care of ourselves when its needed. Especially since Jesus feed his followers bread and fish and even broke bread with his disciples. :( In any case. Dr, Ehrman you are GREAT! And I hope Christians everywhere show you the respect you deserve and we keep receiving your expert opinion in historical cases. Personally, I would be very interested to read your opinion on what the life of Jesus was like and what he might have said or did say and why was he killed. ^I vote for a Dr. Erhman inspired movie! :)
+supermandefender Dr. Erhman, I hope us christian's aren't giving you a hard time either. That I believe is not our intentions to make it personal in any case and I hope you don't take it that way. Arguments are truly a good thing. Especially, when done so professionally by someone as respectable as you are. Personally, I give incredible respect to you as a historical scholar. You truly are a historical scholar! And if any historians deserves some kind of highly respectable prize or position. I believe its you! I think all of us christian's should come together to show you our respect and honor your hard dedication you have given us. Well, that's just me. I have so much respect for you as a person! God Bless Erhman.
Dr Ehrman said what everybody says, that Paul said he got his information about the Lord's supper from those who followed Jesus before Paul did. Yet what Paul actually says is "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus .." 1 Cor 11:23. That is Paul SAYS he received his information from the Lord, not anyone else. It sounds like this Lord's Supper ritual was revealed to Paul (in a dream?), since Paul never met "the Lord" on earth. Ehrman has deduced that Paul got this information from other followers of Jesus,. but Paul doesn't say it.
“Mark got his information from Joseph of Aramatheia” “What’s your evidence for your historical claim?” “How do you know he didn’t?!” The obvious shifting of the burden of proof is so irritating.
Dr. Bass tries to make a competent argument, yet he uses later writings of others that claim jesus was Divine, but never do they say Jesus claimed he was, Paul makes that claim, not jesus and Paul was sermonizing to Gentiles far from sources that could expose them as possibly false. Bart Ehrman makes some excellent observations about the bible
1:40 to 1:46 This interaction between Bart and Bass really doesn't leave much doubt that Bass lacks the ability to look at the gospels in a unbiased historically critical way. he can barely bring himself to verbally acknowledge what he thinks isn't historically accurate, even do he finally admits it, it was like drawing blood from a cannonball. It's clear that in order to get to an accurate accounting of history, one must not hold do or die biased beliefs before an investigation has even been made. Starting with an answer before you have the question is a very good way to be wrong the overwhelming majority of the time.
Having the power of "Revelation" separates Messengers from ordinary men. (As "abstract thought" separates us from animals, as "superior perception" separates animals from plants etc..) "The seas of Divine wisdom and Divine utterance have risen under the breath of the breeze of the All-Merciful. Hasten to drink your fill, O men of understanding!" ~ Baha'u'llah
Bart Ehrman is on another level. Respectful, Knowledgeable, and his ability to deliver facts in a personable, relatable way is just something special.
Dr. Ehrman won. This was like a debate between a professor and a student.
Bart Ehrman: "I'm not going to win this debate."
Bart Ehrman: *Wins the debate*
Ehrman: "I allow the artistry. Artistry is not history."
This should have received applause. If only people realized what they were hearing.
Apologize. The source video was simply challenging, with a large number of sound issues. My engineer spent a few hours adjusting volume of each speaker due to varied microphone uses. We genuinely try to provide the best possible media on my channel. I don't monitor TH-cam comments, but any thoughts can be expressed here: ehrmanblog.org/contact-bart/
+Bart D. Ehrman headphones really do help. thanks for the upload.
I'd rather view credible sources, thanks drahmed.
+Chef Asbury
sorry, about what Mr chef
I didn't say sorry, drahmed. I said I would rather view credible sources. That means someone who thinks critically.
+Chef Asbury
do you want to see another sources if you don't mind
I am a devout Christian and advid student of theology, and I know that Dr. Ehrman won this debate without question. I enjoyed it though.
medene religion has to be based on clear proof and verses not ambiguous theological verses which can be translated this way or that way
@@azad1718 which religion provides that?
@j t I'm an atheist even I can tear down your argument. The bible never claims the the earth is 6000 years old it is found no where in the text of the bible. The biblical creation account is more of a allegory for the quest of knowledge and how it's better to be ignorant of things you can't understand. The king James bible is a poor translation and even the English language has changed drastically to the point you have to study the history of the English language to know that unicorn is a word that refers to rhinos, that leviathan's most likely crocodiles, that alot of the mythical animals mentioned in the king James bible never existed in the original text and was used as placeholders because king james translaters had the foggiest clue to what some of those words mean. There is no reason that jesus would be recorded except by converts and moses birth story was simply a retelling of Sargon. Precious metals from Tarshish in Israel point that someone was definitely ruling during that time and that Israel was definitely an organized Kingdom during the time period that Solomon supposedly ruled. You can date a text by word choice, syntax, world knowledge, what it addresses vs what it can address. Computer programs with neural networking AI can do this so well that it can get individual years and the sex of the author when fed unknown data.
I could listen to Dr. Bart D. Ehrman all day long, he´s intelligent, funny, with pleasant voice and gives most valuable information.
45:55 - 46:56 irrefutable point!!
indeed!
As usual Dr Bart was *brilliant*. On the other hand , Justin was out of topic because his approach was clearly theological one.
Remarkable sayings by dr Ehrman in this debate
" *Jesus didn't say in any passages of NT I Am God* "
" *Sayings of ( I am ) by Jesus are found only in John's gospel. why we can't find them in our earliest gospels? because these statements were not from Jesus* "
" *If Mark, Matthew, Luke, Q,L, and M knew about Jesus being God, how on the world could they fail to tell us about it* "
" *The dominant view among NT scholars in this universe say that Historical Jesus didn't declare himself to be God* "
" *We Have discrepancies in our survival Gospels* "
Note I don't like the attitude of questioners in this debate which reflects that they had NO idea about what dr Bart was talking about or which the approach he was looking through.
Love how Dr Bart knew he could "waste" a bunch of his time telling stories and jokes and still know his points would come through
Why does everyone (except Bart Ehrman) keep forgetting the subject and title of the debate?
they look for loopholes!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤜
Dr. Erhman, I am sincerely appreciative of the dedication and knowledge you exhibit in this field of studies.
"Give me one person other than Jesus who was thought to be equal to God."
"Sophia."
"Sophia?"
"Yeah."
Dr. Bass brought a feather to a gunfight.
yup he was crushed - he didn't even know about the basic heartier that were debated and agreed upon by christians in the first few centuries
😂😂😂😂
I'd say he brought the confidence and experience that a theology education provides to a fight against someone who has done decades of research far beyond what's available in a full Christian ministry education
@@ShalomYal.,, How may Christians were there in earlier 1st Century ??
Bass is a simpleton. Yes, Paul thought Jesus was God. That proves nothing about what Jesus said.
I think you'll have a hard time showing that Paul thought Jesus was God. Paul specifically stated that Jesus was a man just like Adam - as distinct from God - a multitude of time.
Indeed, Paul recognized that Jesus had/had a God...
That's not someone who's a God.
Apostle Paul calls Jesus/Y'shua GOD! Read Romans 9:5, 1 Timothy 3:16, Titus 2:13!
The DIVINITY of CHRIST is very OBVIOUS! Look my comment up! In him i explain where is God the Word (YAHSHUA) in the O.T. ...
GOD the FATHER, the WORD (the SON) and the SPIRIT (the Holy Spirit) bless you!
@@НатанаилСталев-ф2р Well since Paul likely didn't write Titus or 1 Timothy, we're down to one source.
The translation of Romans 9:5 has Paul stating this: "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised!" (emphasis mine)
Notice that Paul did not say Christ was actually Yahweh. He never wrote that or even seemed to consider it.
@@НатанаилСталев-ф2р Jesus is a word not thee word, and so called holy spirit is angel jibril, paul likely saw devil in acts 9,4 matching luke 10,18. Jesus is son figuratively. He said Father is Greater then I, there does the trinity paradox, I myself can do nothing, He is fully dependant, SAid why do you call Me Good only God is, is Fully human. All Prophets peace and blessings on them taught worship 1 Lord and be 1 under the law, paul taught lawless man worship to give judeo criminals usury elitists an edge and destructure christendom. crucifiction is fiction see mathew 27,17 there were 2 Jesus. real 1 Got away! Also Jesus as sent only to israelites, paule changed the faith again. Early christians said Jesus was switched with Simon! paul even went to Arabia where he knew the final Prophet of isiah 42 was to come! the comfortor of john 14,16 whose message will last forever its Quran! John 17,3 has JEsus saying He is not God again, as for being with the Lord before, we all were in ephesians 1,4! Again showing that Jesus is a human! Even luke 3,22 says Jesus was adapted as an adult Son, this shows the literal begotting is a pagan fabrcation, a mirculous creation like Adam peace on him! This proves the Quran true that the bible's structural message is to be guided by Quran, its been changed and Quran is the guide, bible admits its been changed and Quran is right and not only is the Quran structurally right but in content as well. Christians added trinity in john 5,7 making Jesus God wrongly and the bc pagan trinity model, Hiding JEsus is a iRighteous man and not son of God in the change of luke 3,22 and that Jesus wasn't crucified by hiding mathew 27,17! Jesus was only sent to israelites as Islam was to come for the world and last forever as the message of the comfortor, and last but not least, so called holy spirit in Angel Jibril. so thats the deconstruction of trinity, JEsus is fully Human, God is above all, He doesn't need to sacrifice, paul degraded God wrongly, see exekiel 19. and pauline doctrine proves atheism right when the Lord sent Prophets to reconnect with him and connect and function together properly and paul;s atheistic appraoch to bible actualyl proves atheism wrong and contradicts and he defeats himself. Isolate paul who fight the Prophets peace and blessings on them who taught worship 1 Lord and follow law just like Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings on him revived and follow the religion of JEsus who is a Muslim and a human just like us and the rest of the PRophets if you Love Jesus then follow him, and follow Islam which he will teach on his return!
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543 But, nobody ever seen him again! Why?
Then why can't he have a human father? Can you show any evidence of virgin birth earlier than 80 CE? Your Quran is full of bullshit.
In the 1:40:00 section where Ehrman questions Bass about what he thinks may be historically inaccurate, he completely elucidates Bass' confirmation bias. Bass seems embarrassingly reluctant to admit that he thinks these things are untrue, yet he knows he should admit this.
Keeping them honest. Or, attempting to anyway. Nice job, Bart.
I genuinely mean this with the most respect to Dr. Bass, but he appears to be far, far out of his league in this debate. Ehrman is spot on. In every point/counterpoint.
I don't think his disciples thought he was divine. I think they thought he was one of the prophets, Moshiach as opposed to Ha Moshiach. That's why they were religious Jews like Jacov (James) Jesus' brother. Jesus was a revolutionist in a way, he criticised the elite for their hypocricy for not following the Law but puting oral law first and using people (widows) but he has no intention of being equal with Gd. His words in Getsemani are a good example of a faithful servant of Gd. He would be in for a shock if he saw what pagans did to religion of his Gd.
Doctor Ehrman, thank you for posting these videos. I've been reading your books and will be catching up on these debates; they are very educational. Thank you - Jason
Professor Ehrman makes it look easy, he's a genius, and a true one at that.
I like this guy, respectful and makes some good points. As Bart Ehrman tells us, be prepared to listen to the alternative view.
I am not a scholar so I can only read these guys and watch the debates.
It's great stuff.
“I don’t care what you believe. I do care that you think about it.” Some people are ready to try “think” some are not. Love it.
The part that really stuck out to me was when Dr. Ehrman cornered Dr. Bass about his reading of the NT as a devotional book vs a historical book. Are there parts of the NT he thinks is untrue? Dr. Bass flounders (heh) and struggles to come up with an answer. It really showed how Dr. Bass had a vested interest in this, and thus was problematic in analyzing the NT from a historical-critical perspective.
Bass should have waited for a few years, study more, meditate on these issues more before debating Bart. I am a christian but found Ehrman's debate first class.
In modern Hebrew, "son of man" ben adam means "someone" or "a person". It is used in Scriptures to mean "mortal" or "human" It's always nice when you use the real language.
Maybe, but the OT is written in _ancient Hebrew._ ; )
As far as I can tell, the best argument Bass has, except for quoting the same verses over and over again with great conviction, is that "many brilliant scholars" (names undisclosed) agree with the view that Jesus claimed to be God. He sounds more like a televangelist than a historian.
What a travesty of an academic debate.
Definitely gish gallop material.
Bass misses the point so many times.
What a non-debate.
Did the historical Jesus claim to be God? No.
+Tal Moore yes He did
Nope. He did not. No where in the NT does Jesus say he is God. And considering how significant that detail is one would think that's all Jesus would be saying to everyone he meets. "Nice to meet you. I'm God."
Tal Moore You apparently haven't studied the New Testament Gospels or Old Testament Jewish theology by making such a statement. I'll ask a simple question, can anyone other than God provide eternal life according to scripture?
***** I have studied this topic more than you'll ever study it in a lifetime. Trust me. And your question isn't simple. It's stupid. You're essentially begging the question by presuming that life is something that has to be "provided".
Tal Moore And what makes you think I havent studied this topic just as much if not more? I am not begging the question as I am not asking about your personal opinion regarding whether or not eternal life is something that "has to be provided", but rather whether it is consistent with what the scripture says. The question is, Did Jesus claim to be God? Well, according to Old Testament, God is the only one who has the authority to provide eternal life (salvation) which is EXACTLY what Jesus claimed to have the authority to do in John chapter 10. Jesus claimed to be the "I AM" that appeared before Moses in the Old Testament while He was on trial before the High Priests. He claimed to the Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven and sitting on the right hand of power which is a CLEAR reference to divinity within Jewish tradition and referenced multiple times in the Old testament as Messianic prophecy. Jesus emphatically claimed to be Yahweh (The name of God in the Jewish tradition).
This guy is preaching he needs to stick to facts.
I thought honesty was a Christian virtue. I fine it ironic that the atheist was the more honest of the debaters.
Bass's sermon, and Bart's historical evidences, enough Drama.
Bass is just lingering on the Gospel's narratives not knowing that we don't know who these authors were at the first place.
You see, if the base is stable then the building will stay strong, but if the bases of Gospel's narratives or its writings are unknown or written anonymously. One in all humility can't accept them to be reliable.
Just like you wanna present a reliable or authentic authorized evidence to prove your case in the court, but if you bring documented evidence with no base, it'll be rejected.
Bart is very straight to his points and not dancing here and there within the Gospel's narratives as Bass is doing, and sounds more like preaching than presenting substantial evidence, but no he doesn't want to loose his sheep.
I'm so done with these apologists, really they need to open their mind including the audience.
Unfortunately, Apologists are Orthodoxy's bratty offspring.
Zombie apocalypse in the Gospel of Matthew - always cracks me up when that is brought up: "And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; 27:52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; 27:53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. 27:54"
How can he use Paul as evidence? Paul never even met this so called jesus. I wish Bart had that discussion with Robert M Price, that would really be a worthwhile endeavour.
+CU NEXTTUESDAY Ehrman and Price will be debating in Milwaukee on Oct 21, 2016.
what does that even mean?
+CU NEXTTUESDAY It means that they will be debating in October. You expressed your desire to see this, and he was telling you that it will happen. Simple.
Ehrman versus these clowns...just not fair. I always feel bad for professor Ehrman's opponents, desperately holding on to their fundamentalism.
+Jonah Conner indeed, to me it sounded like a scholar debating a priest
The Outsider or even worse - a scholar versus an evangelist.
Yet another baffoonish comment. Ehrman was destroyed in the 2nd Licona debate. He wasn't able to provide any naturalistic explanation for the Jesus post-mortem appearances.
Except for them being visions and not actual appearances. Which makes a lot more sense from a logical standpoint. Funny how all 4 gospels contradict each other on who discovered the "empty tomb" and where Jesus was to meet his deciples post resurrection. Not to mention the absurb amount of other conflicting stories the gospels give like the day he was executed or what occurred during his trial or the best one, how Jesus only claimed to be a god in the book of John! But u have faith in the NT accounts of his life? Definition of faith- pretending to know something that u don't really know. Lmfao at u
Les, he devoted several chapters to that issue in "How Jesus became God." People have visions all the time, even groups of people. They are particularly common after the sudden tragic death of a loved one. That is all very well documented. If you claim that Peter and Mary Magdalene's visions were authentic, you also have to accept the numerous similar claims of other religions.
Bart is very knowledgeable of scriptures, doctrine, history, philosophy, and many other areas. Bart really explains his views and points very well.
Wow.. The FUNNIEST moment is 1:34:10 when Dr Ehrman asks him: “ so you are saying that they believed Jesus as Son of Man, they revered him as Son of Man, they worshipped him as Son of Man but they never called him as Son of Man”? and then this guy, while contorting his face and totally baffled by his own stupidity responds :”Kind of...” and then whole audience explodes in laughter!!
Maybe I overlooked it, but Bass came back to the "no one knows the Father except through the Son" near the end...did he ever address Old Testament references to people (and Israel itself) who were called "son" by God?
+s bushido Christians do not read/study the Hebrew Scriptures, they only read and go after things that they can try to make it look like it is about Jesus. Ask them about Ezekiel 18, where the prophet says that if one stop being evil and start doing good, it is enough for them to be called righteous. They would never read it. It does not fit the narrative that one need a human sacrifice
I feel so sorry for Dr. Ehrman because he is trying to debate and teach his opponent the nature of historical research (and New Testament issues). The Christian debtor is one sophomoric scholar.
I remember that I once had a "magic set" for Christmas called Hocus Pocus. I was very excited opening the box. Later, after trying everything, I was disappointed. There wasn't actually any magic in it. I can still recall the feeling. Recently, I went to a magic show. It was in a huge building. There were loads of people watching a bloke in a dress performing a trick. He turned some bread and wine into the body of a guy who had been dead for 2000 years. Amazing trick and during the show, a plate of money was handed around! Brilliant, I couldn't believe my luck. I can't wait for the next show to see what else he can do.
God commands man to believe, but God also accords him the prerogative to unbelief. Believing man is never to relinquish his right to live the life of faith. But he is not to curtail the original state of freedom that God has afforded others the condition of independence, even if they openly reject God. Bart with his distinguished scholarly research is without doubt has given us Biblical literacy! Thank you Bart.
Just brilliant Bart. You had this other guy rattled. He couldn't separate his faith from the historicity issue. No one was there recording Jesus's words and life plus the scientific flaws in memory ect made won the debate. Unfortunately, very few people actually listened to what you said. They didn't rethink anything. Such a shame. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
Cheers,
Mike
I enjoy these debates: 1) We can have these debates...try having a debate of this nature in other parts of the world; 2) Prof. Ehrman provides a clear picture of what the bible is, and what the bible is not, a far cry from what a typical Sunday school teacher will ever muster; 3) this information is essential for those who are all too quick to quote its contents.
Wow, you've certainly slimmed-up, Dr. Ehrman.
Great suit. Great work.
1) Dr. Bass summarizes his closing speech with a very clearly, unequivocally religious assertion, and, considering that this debate is clearly, unequivocally supposed to be about the historical Jesus, it seems to me that Dr. Bass is guilty of a significant and inexcusable transgression. 2) I was less disturbed, but disturbed nevertheless, to notice that Dr. Bass, presumably a native speaker of English with a doctorate continually mangling the language. He says “just like” when he means “just as” and says “like I said”. “Like” is an adjective, not an adverb; it cannot modify a verb such as “says”. Dr. Bass says “subordinationism” when he means “subordination”, and so on. i don’t care what his doctorate is in: a native speaker of English who has attained that level of education and who teaches at the college level should be an exemplar of proper speech. 3) It occurs to me that an actively religious practicing Christian has a vested interest in maintaining the Jesus called himself divine, whereas an atheist, agnostic, or non-practicing Christian should have no particular vested interest in maintaining that Jesus did NOT call himself divine. If Dr. Bass maintains that Jesus called himself divine, we naturally will want evidence Dr. Bass is not doing this merely so that he can align his historical belief system with his religious system. Thus if Dr. Bass wants us to accept his arguments, the onus is on him to demonstrate that he is keeping his religious beliefs and historical research separate. Dr. Bass does just the opposite; he continually and egregiously conflates the two. This is unscholarly behavior for which he should be held academically accountable. If, on the other hand, Dr. Ehrman maintains Jesus did not call himself divine, we can feel confident that Dr. Ehrman has arrived at this conclusion in an honest and scholarly manner. He may still be wrong, but unlike Dr. Bass, he is not arguing in bad faith. 4) I find Dr. Ehrman’s arguments convincing and Dr. Bass’s arguments unconvincing-and not just because Dr. Bass has a discernible vested interest and Dr. Ehrman does not. That doesn’t make me absolutely sure that Jesus did not call himself divine, but until I encounter robust evidence or a robust argument to the contrary, I’m going to assume that the real historical Jesus he did not.
What a truly wonderful and enchanting debate. Despite being a Muslim and holding immense respect for Dr. Bart, I feel it is unfair to paint the skills and memories of all peoples with one stroke. The historian in Dr. Bart wouldn't let him think otherwise. Having said that I think the debate was well balanced. Again despite completely disagreeing with Dr. Bass, I believe he was able to respond to a towering figure like Dr. Bart in quite an appropriate manner.
I used an amp to improve the sound. It works very well and I really enjoyed the debate. Thank you Bart for an informative, interesting analysis of a seemingly complex subject. I will think about the issues carefully. I suspect my conclusion is life changing - for the better.
Bass just proved that Paul invented the entire religion. OK
Rather, Bass just raped Paul's text using his own personal theology...love of tradition...and lousy exegesis.
Dr Ehrman, you could not have been clearer in your questions to Dr Bass, man can he jump around a question, and give you an answer that's anymore convoluted. Your argument regarding the book of John is so on point, 75% of the gospels do not make claim that Jesus calls himself God. Only 1 gospel, and the last gospel... hrmmm I wonder why? Great debate, you absolutely creamed him.
Bass ought to attend Dr. Ehrman's classes.
Great debate by both debaters.My perspective or Understanding of the New Testament changed tremendously.
Not only did Jesus not call himself divine, but that as a Jew, he would consider it blasphemous for anyone today to think so!
I'd love to go back in time to the middle of the historical Jesus' ministry and be able to take him to visit the present day and show him what his legacy was going to be. Here's a self-styled rabbi, an apocalyptic Jew with a small following thinking the world was about to end and preaching to get ready for it.
To show him that instead he would soon be killed and to make sense of his death and failure to return in his followers lifetimes, they would proclaim him to be not only divine, but part of a weird triune godhead, churches would be established to worship him, governments would be based on his church, people would be tortured and wars would be fought over how to understand and worship him and his image and fake writings about him would be carried all over the world until the church built on his name became the biggest religion in the world, forced on millions because the most powerful nations in the world happened to be in his church's sphere of influence.
I imagine he would just say (in Aramaic, of course), "WTF, that's not what I wanted!"
Whilst fishing, I caught a big bass but directly after I decided to throw it back into the river, it started to become very apologetic about the meaning of life.
So, I ate it *-**___**-*
Very informative debate, thank you Dr. Ehrman I doubt Jesus would have broken one Law of the Torah, by claiming such a thing. He never would have called himself the Messiah!!! I believe that by following The Torah, Jesus felt ONE with The God of Israel, and that is what he taught...he claimed himself a son of a human being only! IF he claimed to be Divine, That HUGE claim, WOULD have been on all the lips of the people of that Time. The New Testament claims of Jesus' Divinity appears to be an Urban Legend. P.S. Why wasn't the Book of James a part of the Gospels? Wasn't James Jesus' older brother??? I think Jesus was a Faithful Servant, like a Hira Krishna, or a Buddhist but teaching of THE ONE GOD, and teaching about the Torah Law, himself being a light to others, as the Torah teaches to do....AND I'm very sorry to say, that "speaking of Paul to me is just as similar as speaking of Joseph Smith....sorry, I have no trust left in self proclaimed "prophets that come into the picture AFTER the fact...." PP. S: when in Daniel, the spokesman is referring to the four animals (nations), that "look like unto" certain animals, then refers to the human "like unto son of man:" that is expressly telling the reader, it is a human being, not looking like an animal....LOLOL context, context, context! and read the Hebrew Bible translation, not the King James...he's biased....LOLOL
Bass: "Paul claims Jesus is God in the letter to the Philippians, although he's not quoting Jesus. Therefore, Jesus claimed himself to be God." "The Son of Man seats in his throne with the twelve disciples of Israel. Where does Jesus seat?" Isn't Jesus the Son of Man according to the synoptic Gospels? Bad argument after bad argument from Bass.
Brother Bass have the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) you don't! GOD is YAHSHUA!
The DIVINITY of the WORD and the SPIRIT (the Holy Spirit) is BIBLICAL!
Read my comment on the video!
Philippians 2:11 and every tongue will profess that MarYa {The Lord-YHWH} is Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}, unto The Glory of Alaha {God}, His Father.
God bless!
Every time Dr. Ehrman points out the plain meaning of a piece of text, Dr. Bass can barely hear him over the cacophony of previous interpretations that have been layered on top of it by theologians over the centuries. Of course being the sacrificial lamb *MUST* mean you're god, because what other sacrifice could take away all the sins? Never mind that sacrificial animals were not divine, and never mind that that extended justification isn't in the text. The leaps in logic are no longer even seen.
The Gospel of John was someone's fanfic rewrite of Jesus's life.
I am not sure Dr. Bass even understand what "history," "historical facts," and an "argument from history" even are. He seems to think that believing that something happened means that said belief is actually a historical fact.
I saw son of man hovering over the water!! Son of Mary Jesus Jesus called himself son of man to prove he is servant of God. He didn’t walk around and telling people he is son of God as pagan Christian claiming.
Ehrman: "Joseph of Arimethea gave him the information?"
Bass: "How do you know he didn't?"
Crowd erupts in applause.
Um...you people don't understand how this works. How about a mini lecture on the burden of proof before we start these debates?
Cloud Of Time people are happy to use fallacies to support their point. Lol
I noticed that too. When the applause erupted, I was sad inside. It was like responding to the question of Bigfoot by asking “Joe Bob gave him the information?” And the Bigfoot apologist says “how do you know he didn’t?” - and the crowd applauds. Absolutely ridiculous.
Ehrmann schooled him. Bass and the audience kept forgetting the debate topic. The “skeptic” of his skepticism didn’t pay attention to his arguments and then had to be taught the fundamentals of the burden of proof...something a skeptic should know.
Next week we discuss: Is the brain damage that evangelical suffer from a consequence of their belief or was it there before?
Yes, the audio isn't the best, but headphones help quite a lot. One of the things that gives me cause for doubt regarding this whole Jesus story as being true is the conversations Jesus had whilst he was crucified just before he died, he seemed to be having a rational chat with one of the thieves, and a little later, a conversation with God. That seems a little far fetched to me, also you have to ask, who was writing all this down as it occurred?, it seems far more likely to me that these conversations were made up.
The Christian guy ridiculously believes, that all the quotes are least close to what Jesus said. And he has the cheek to dismiss the mythicists as not taken seriously.
Justin was outclassed, but still respect ful. Overall, a great debate.
I like that Dr. Justin W. Bass called "the zombi apocalypse" the moment when dead went out of their tombs after Jesus death
Thank you BE you rock for challenging the mundane errancy that has evolved to be believed ...ans become the greatest money maker the world over.......this is the greatest thing to ever happen to Christendom......
I have watched many debates. My favorite debaters are Bart Ehrman & Richard Carrier. They are both extremely knowledgeable about the bible and it's history. They are both agnostic/atheist. Pretty powerful reasons to reject the bible contents.
The constant breaking into Hebrew on the part of the Christian apologist is irritating and does nothing to overcome the impression that he knows nothing about Judaism or Jewish belief in the Second Temple period.
It's also irrelevant. The NT is written in Greek. There is no reason to believe the authors were Jews, with the exception -- maybe -- of Paul, if he is, indeed, the author of the texts ascribed to him.
One can only think, then, that the use of Hebrew on the part of the Christian apologist is nothing more than a rhetorical device ... either that or a tic of some sort.
Can we resolve the pronunciation debate already? Is Ehrman pronounced Air-men or Eer-men?
Apologists they never learn. Makes you wonder why for example Jesus simply didn't write down all of his teaching unless ofcourse being all knowing doesn't exclude you from being illiterate.;-)
Why would god make the fact that he was god out to be some riddle? That’s just cruel.
"Why do Matthew, Mark, and Luke make no mention of Jesus claiming to be God?"
"You don't allow any kind of literary artistry..."
If Jesus said it, then it should have been reported! This isn't "Oh, Jesus said something appearing in all gospels in a flowery way that might possibly be construed as claiming divinity." This is "According to John, Jesus made explicit claims to divinity that are entirely missing in all three of the other gospels. Explain their absence."
Why does no one question why he is not as rigid as Bart, and under what purpose does it serve to not be rigid in secular study of history? Seriously??
I have a question. When Bart questions why Mathew Mark and Luke don't quote Jesus's claims to divinity in the Gospel of John, why has no one postulated that the discrepancy could be explained by the possibility that Jesus said things to the John source that he didn't say to the others? After all, in one place he was purported to have exhorted the disciples not to say anything to anyone and possibly because he was not ready to be arrested for blasphemy.
Both debaters already assume there was a year CERO when the Jesus character was born.
But even from the Gospels there is an irreconcilable gap of ten years between the two references used to pinpoint that alleged event.
I'm looking forward to the Bart Ehrman - Robert M Price debate. I believe that it is scheduled for Oct 21, 2016 in Milwaukee.
Ha, Christians think Jesus suffered ....Bart Ehrman has suffered these fools continually and voluntarily. He should be a Saint.
He should be god.
You do realise Bart doesn’t dispute Jesus’s crucifixion? He acknowledges that Jesus was crucified and tortured.
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, *My Lord and my God.* - John 20:28
And just before that, in John 20:17, Jesus says,
",I ascend to my father, and your Father; and to *my God,* and your God."
So,...your Jesus has a God! Does your god have a God, too?
th-cam.com/video/ODetOE6cbbc/w-d-xo.html
May god b-less. ; )
Some people find religion through reading the bible. Some people leave religion by reading the bible. I'm of the latter. Just saying. Love me some Dr. Bart!
ﻟﻮﻗﺎ 10:22 (AVD) والتفت الى تلاميذه وقال كل شيء قد دفع اليّ من ابي. وليس احد يعرف من هو الابن الا الآب ولا من هو الآب الا الابن ومن اراد الابن ان يعلن له.
Luke 10:22 (ESV) All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Disappointed in the sound quality to an otherwise excellent video.
"I and the father are one" & "Whoever has seen me has seen the father" THAT SIMPLY MEANS: God, the Father and I, Jesus, have the same qualities, the same "heart formation", the same adherence to the rules, the same values. Whoever follows me, Jesus, automatically follows the Father, God!
(As it is also said: "He created man in the image of God.")
YOUR interpretation.
@@bme7491 But a very good one!
John 17 3
The father is the only true God - Jesus
@@emkfenboi Yeah, Jesus ALWAYS said: Don´t adore/pray to me, pray to god!
@@bme7491 Or just the true meaning of the words of the bible - even gramatically.
I was expecting Dr. Bass to be better after his first argument presentation, but my expectations were dashed.
justin's "THEO-ILLOGICAL" presentation really bored me to death, like i can confidently tell the rest of his argument. He didn't even try to enggage with the subject..
ehrman roflstomped this fool
1:34:08
"Ok, give me a yes or no answer: you are saying that the earliest followers of jesus believed he was the son of man, they revered him as the son of man and worshiped him as the son of man, but they didn't call him the son of man?"
"...Kinda..."
*face palm*
Dear Prof Ehrman
You are right and your search of truth is a valid question..
In AlQuran Allah says that He sent Gospel, there in guidance and light...
Allah give light to who He pleased
if bart was intelligent enough to critisize the gospels, would you think he would accept a joke like the quran???
Trying to be respectful to Justin, but that was brutal. It was like an NFL team (Bart) playing a high school team (Justin).
I can see the professor was very angry and sad, but he was still more polite than his opponent
I find these debates a bit like arguing about the benefits and properties of oxygen before you discover that there is an element oxygen.
Why do the closing statements of the pro-religious side always end-up being a sermon.
Bart smash!
+Kristi Winters Bart won.
History deconstuctionist
Bass needs to reevaluate his "explicit" verse claim where Jesus claims divinity. God called the prophet Ezekiel “son of man” many many times.
I wouldn't waste my time debating religious people. It's always going to end up being a debate about their beliefs.
every1 should definately watch the 1 hour 34 min mark where the son of man was discussed. ehrman put bass in a confused state
Bart D Ehrman you are awesome!
Even though I am a christian and I might disagree with some of your points but I find my personal feelings irrelevant about your character and you are a excellent historian IMO! I am a admirer of you attitude, your arguments, your style, your character, and your honesty!
I find that whenever I read something you wrote or have written to be very clear and well informed. So thank you for your hard work! .
Despite the argument I still feel there is good reason to believe that Jesus Christ did say and do what is written. I think there is some minor flaws; language barriers, understanding the language and meaning correctly to what is being said. But I still think there is reason to believe it.
But overall all I think you were right 55 minutes in when you said Justin failed to address your argument. I was listening he never challenges your original position.
Also I heard something about you and Richard Carrier getting into a battle of words so to speak. Not you directly and I cannot find anything you said negative about him. Although, he does say alot of negative things about you which I found to be completely fallacious. I think you would destroy his circular reasoning.
I think the main problem with Carriers assertions personally is that in all of the context everything has to be a allegory in its reading. And alot of the biblical text doesn't read that way. I not saying that its 100% perfect or inerrant and I think its sad to see some christians take this position. :( I think it gives a vast majority of us a bad name.
Sometimes I wonder what these people are reading about Jesus to get this Idea that Jesus doesn't want us to take care of ourselves when its needed. Especially since Jesus feed his followers bread and fish and even broke bread with his disciples. :( In any case. Dr, Ehrman you are GREAT! And I hope Christians everywhere show you the respect you deserve and we keep receiving your expert opinion in historical cases.
Personally, I would be very interested to read your opinion on what the life of Jesus was like and what he might have said or did say and why was he killed.
^I vote for a Dr. Erhman inspired movie! :)
+supermandefender Dr. Erhman, I hope us christian's aren't giving you a hard time either. That I believe is not our intentions to make it personal in any case and I hope you don't take it that way. Arguments are truly a good thing. Especially, when done so professionally by someone as respectable as you are. Personally, I give incredible respect to you as a historical scholar. You truly are a historical scholar! And if any historians deserves some kind of highly respectable prize or position. I believe its you!
I think all of us christian's should come together to show you our respect and honor your hard dedication you have given us. Well, that's just me. I have so much respect for you as a person! God Bless Erhman.
In Daniel chapter 7 it says one who is "like" the son of man.
Bart was giving facts and provided sound evidence. Justin was just preaching.
Dr Ehrman said what everybody says, that Paul said he got his information about the Lord's supper from those who followed Jesus before Paul did. Yet what Paul actually says is "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus .." 1 Cor 11:23.
That is Paul SAYS he received his information from the Lord, not anyone else. It sounds like this Lord's Supper ritual was revealed to Paul (in a dream?), since Paul never met "the Lord" on earth.
Ehrman has deduced that Paul got this information from other followers of Jesus,. but Paul doesn't say it.
“Mark got his information from Joseph of Aramatheia”
“What’s your evidence for your historical claim?”
“How do you know he didn’t?!”
The obvious shifting of the burden of proof is so irritating.
Dr. Bass tries to make a competent argument, yet he uses later writings of others that claim jesus was Divine, but never do they say Jesus claimed he was, Paul makes that claim, not jesus and Paul was sermonizing to Gentiles far from sources that could expose them as possibly false. Bart Ehrman makes some excellent observations about the bible
Experience vs. Amateur here. Justin was shown up by the master in the field.
1:40 to 1:46
This interaction between Bart and Bass really doesn't leave much doubt that Bass lacks the ability to look at the gospels in a unbiased historically critical way.
he can barely bring himself to verbally acknowledge what he thinks isn't historically accurate, even do he finally admits it, it was like drawing blood from a cannonball.
It's clear that in order to get to an accurate accounting of history, one must not hold do or die biased beliefs before an investigation has even been made.
Starting with an answer before you have the question is a very good way to be wrong the overwhelming majority of the time.
Having the power of "Revelation" separates Messengers from ordinary men. (As "abstract thought" separates us from animals, as "superior perception" separates animals from plants etc..) "The seas of Divine wisdom and Divine utterance have risen under the breath of the breeze of the All-Merciful. Hasten to drink your fill, O men of understanding!" ~ Baha'u'llah