Just an extra aside, As Bart has explained himself multiple times, it was the "problem of evil" that eventually drove him to stop being convinced of the existence of god. Interestingly, his scholarship drove him to stop being a conservative/inerrantist believer, but wasnt the main driver of his deconversion. Meanwhile, many readers of his work tend to find it difficult to hold the position of their current evangelical faith while digesting his content. Not everyone has the ability to grapple with the cognitive dissonance his work tends to evoke in believers that hold to inerrancy and univocality.
Agreed. I can certainly see how many Christians (including myself) can read and accept his conclusions. But I don't see how evangelicals can. However, I honestly don't see how they can maintain a belief that the bible is without error even without Ehrman.
You seem to be confusing "digesting his content" with "agreeing with his conclusions". It's entirely possible for somebody to read Ehrman's books, digest their content, and completely disagree with him. Though given that his popular level books rarely engage with a steelman version of conservative scholarship you'd probably have to be familiar with the other side of the issue before reading them to do that.
@@stephengray1344 I certainly didn't mean to imply that everyone needs to accept his conclusion. There are plenty of scholars out there who do not. My comment above was meant to say, I think that Christians should be able to accept academic scholarship. Evangelicals don't have that option. If they ever do come to feel that the weight of historical evidence challenges their belief in the inerrancy of scripture, they can't accept it (Definitionally, that is. If they do, they cease to be an evangelical).
@stephengray1344 I'm more saying if one finds themselves having the same conclusion through Bart's trade books or academic work, then they ultimately have to grapple with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that comes with having to accept one conclusion and put away another conclusion they've maybe held all their lives. Challenging one's concreted world veiw is no simple task.
@@brandonrunyon In some cases, yes. However, I think the thing that made Bart so popular was that so many people who were brought up with conservative beliefs were finding them untenable. They were ready to challenge them but didn't have the words or knowledge. I find this often leads to the other extreme, i.e., people who were so relieved to find Bart (and some who look at him as something of a savior), that now everything he says is taken as gospel.
Bart is invaluable for persons like myself who can no longer believe the library of 66 books that have been bound together- but having invested so much time and nervous energy into these books over the years now want to know what each of these books actually says and why. Thank you Bart.
He's got a terrific intro to New Testament you should check out if you have not already. Your description is perfect! I think there are so many of us who were raised evangelical who also have exerted so much "nervous energy" into the bible. It is liberating to find out that there are way to study it that make sense.
@@vinceendris Cheers Vince. I spent some time using Christine Hayes and others to better understand the Hebrew bible. A better understanding of the Hebrew bible allows one to appreciate the books there on their own terms. Then it becomes more obvious that the christian bible does not follow the Hebrew bible at all. Unconditional love to all.
As a Muslim throughout the years I’ve heard the name Bart Ehrman so many times in debates that a couple of years ago I actually purchased his books the first of course “Misquoting Jesus” and recently finished reading “The Triumph of Christianity”. And let me tell you these books made me appreciate Christianity even more because not only is biblical scholarship massive but also the history of Christianity is so rich and vast that it will take many lifetimes to appreciate it. And Bart Ehrman is one of the reasons for that plus I stopped watching *or should I say limited myself* from watching polemical debates between Christians and Muslims and just learn Christianity from the actual scholars from the secular and the believers. Btw I’m reading the New Testament for the first time from the beginning because I don’t want to disrespect the holy book by reading cherry picked passages because I believe it’s unfair. So right now enjoying it very much 😁
I'm glad to hear that. Yes, I would stay away from debates like that. All Christians aren't shut off to other religions, as I would assume not all Muslims aren't either. In fact, I would argue that it is the true Christians that are loving and accepting of all. Thank you for you comment.
UR-man is the white winter coat of the stoat. Bart's surname is German and is pronounced EHR-man. Bart was not raised as an evangelical. He states that his parents were not "overly conservative" and they attended an Episcopal church. He was 15 when he was inducted into evangelism. th-cam.com/video/e6DUD1KHEnk/w-d-xo.html
@@vinceendris His scholarship is without peer. I don't dabble in scripture much, only as required for my occasional writing projects, like "Sherlock Holmes and the Twelve Apostles," my homily on the Problem of Evil, and my 3-Act play, "Midnight in the Temple of Isis," which leaned heavily on Flavius Josephus.
Great video. I am a Christian who just discovered Bart Erhman. I find his work absolutely fascinating- he has given voice to several issues I was unable to articulate, but so far not a threat to my faith. I appreciate your very rational and reasonable approach and wish other believers would adopt it.
Frequently cited as " A Historian," Professor Ehrman degrees are actually in Biblical Languages, Theological Seminary, and Greek NT and Exegesis. In 1985, he studied under Bruce Metzger in the following areas: Textual crickets (sic) [Criticism] of the Bible, Development of the New Testament Canon, and the New Testament Apocrypha. To my knowledge, he never studied or received formal education at a University level in the area of History. His only contact with the study of history would be in the narrow and specialized sense, a background for the study of NT documents.
I agree and disagree. Agree: yes. He is trained in textual criticism and not an historian. However, like I said, his "specialty" is really taking scholarly ideas and making them known to the public. He says very little of his own stuff. He cites trained historians. Disagree: I don't mind calling him a historian because I think he is probably more deserving of the title than some trained evangelical historians, or historians who get their degrees from 3rd rate online schools. But, fair point.
In earlier days, during interviews, I remember Bart referring to himself simply as an authority or specialist in the area of NT textual criticism and exegesis. A historian normally analyzes, studies, and interprets from a wide variety of sources (cultural artifacts, lithography, as well as documents, texts ...). Beyond this, a historian normally has much training and understanding of how history is obtained in different eras so as to give her or himself a perspective. Then, finally, there are the varieties of interpretation and how one's results should be presented, both to one's peers and to the wider public. From this, I think the the term Historian 🎉 has eroded and lost its value over the last several decades and is often draped over anyone who takes a historical approach (or receives an honorary degree) in reponse to their particular expertise. Historians, while they are in no way 100% free of bias, they are also extensively trained and provided with the methods and tools to avoid it.
Yes, he is primarily a textual critic. However, I'd say he probably has a lot more training than people who get their history degrees online. Like you said, the term has eroded. I disagree that Historians are better at avoiding biases. I think biases are deep seeded. Also, like in all academia, there is a good pay off to never change your mind.
@@vinceendris You state, "I disagree that Historians are better at avoiding biases." - no one said that. The statement was, "Historians, while they are in no way 100% free of bias, they are also extensively trained and provided with the methods and tools to avoid it." Historians and other academic disciplines are indeed trained and urged to recognize the issue of bias and techniques to avoid and deal with it. Since Ehrman does publish in peer-reviewed journals, it would behoove him to work to the extent possible to keep in mind and address his own biases in his work. This brings up another point - you state, "Like in all academia, there is a good pay off[sic] to never change your mind". That is a highly generalized opinion with no factual basis or cogent argument to support it. As you mention, Dr, Ehrman publishes scholarly books. His introductory textbook on The New Testament is one example of a book written differently from the trade books he writes. Can you point out anywhere in any of his scholarly books or articles where he offers a position contrary to the one he offers in his popular books? In fact, he does provide bibliographies in both his scholarly and popular books, does he not? I have heard him specifically call people out who claimed he writes one thing in his scholarly books and something different in his popular books, asking them to provide specific examples. I do not follow every word Dr. Ehrman says nor the words of other Biblical scholars I have followed over the years. I do not always agree with Ehrman. But I have heard him speak on various occasions where he was asked a question concerning some topic or something he had written on a topic where he stated that his opinion has changed over time based upon developments in the scholarship as well as, his revisiting a previous position. I have also heard Dan McClellan state the same thing. I do want to state that I was impressed in general with your effort here. I do not want you to think I am just hopping down your throat. I only do that to street preachers who can't speak a word of Biblical Hebrew and decide to lecture me about what the Tanakh says.
@@johnpetry5321 I'm not at all offended and I appreciate your discussion. Also, I promise not to lecture you on the Tanakh, ha. I'm not really sure what our disagreement is, however. Are you saying that he does not have biases, that he does but is better at concealing them, or something in between and we are just talking about degree? I disagree with the statement that historians are trained to avoided biases. In fact, this is why grad students are encouraged to pick a school based on the professors they would like to work with - professors have biases and people want to work within those parameters. Otherwise, it would one professor would just be as good as any other. To clarify, my statement was just that people should always remember that everyone they read or listen to, including Ehrman, has biases. Even though I think he is good at concealing his (or avoiding), it still needs to be remembered - everyone's got an agenda.
I appreciate your tone and manner. I was raised christian, certainly don't see things that way now :-), and am very interested in religion and the grip that holds on people. Something like mystic understanding of the Absolute is closer to where I 'see myself'' now; hard to put into words. I like history of all this Buddhsim, Christianity, Ramakrishna and other Indian spiritual characters, etc. "Advaita vedanta"
@@johnk8174 I, likewise, appreciate our conversation. I think so much of the problems humanity faces could be solved if we just learned how to talk to one another. I am by far a post modernist and think we have far surpassed the notion on “objective truth.” Anyone doubting this need only look at our current president elect. The book I was referring to, “the nature of doctrine “ sees our religion much like a language. We use what we are comfortable with to encounter the divine. It’s been 20 years since I read it, so at least that’s what I remember.
Perhaps you have made this point elsewhere, but it is also important to understand what text criticism is as well as what it is not. Text criticism is the process of studying manuscript evidence and trying to figure out what is most likely the most accurate and closest to the original. In other words: determining what the text actually, authentically is. Too many evangelicals think that scholars like Bart Ehrman are trying to "debunk the Bible" while too many athiests think that they have. That isn't their game.
Exactly. Yes, I have a video on textual criticism, but no, I don’t think I make the point in it about how it is an academic field, not a religious one. Well put!
หลายเดือนก่อน +1
There's an inherent conflict between critical analysis of the Bible and the belief that it is divinely inspired.
14:29 - 14:44 Sorry but this is not a mere "bias" - this is an axiom which is contrary to the scientific methods of discerning scientific truth. A choice between two equal possibilities according to the word of the Bible can be a bias. Starting from the word of the Bible as a scientist is not a bias: It's a distortion. It's like using a scientific title to give credibility to your faith or your personal obsessions. All scientists are biased to one direction or another. A doctor that would prescribe "a little wine for your stomach" though, just because it is written in 1 Timothy 5:23 and "Bible can't be wrong", is not just a biased physician: He is a dangerous man.
On number 3, it doesn't seem valid to say that it's not hard to imagine that Bart would choose the alternative most against evangelical Christianity, particularly after mentioning the awareness of bias which good historians recognize. It is always important to be aware of that possibility, whoever we're listening to. The tricky part is knowing enough about the subject being discussed to be able to recognize such an occurrence, no mean feat when it's an accomplished historian, rather than having to take one side or the other's word for it. A choice often influenced by our own biases.
@@blueglassdave I agree and wasn’t sure if I should include the point or not. However, it IS something that I try to keep in mind with all historians, so I figured I’d include it. I do find Ehrman to be one of the most honest, but I do think there are times he shows his bias.
@@blueglassdave oh, I think everyone does. This is why I said it was something to keep in mind. You might or might not believe how many people figure that if Ehrman (or whoever their favorite writer is) says it, that it’s true and unbiased.
@@vinceendris Having been raised a fundamentalist, I have the greatest respect for humanity's susceptibility to certainty, yearning for significance and capacity for self-deception. Even more so as we contend with our incoming oligarchical kleptocracy.
What stands out for me is that evangelicals seem to want to have something to show God on judgement day, like a list of all his promises that would grant entry to heaven. They want that leverage to "hold" God to his word.
8:40 This is what makes Bart's debates so frustrating for me. It would be great if his opponents wouldn't ultimately back up their arguments with Christian faith which, as an agnostic from a Buddhist/Shintoist culture, I can't relate to on practically any level.
Actually the educated ones have some very interesting if not convincing arguments. It depends on what area (textual, historical, archeological, Genetics, Chemical biology, Forensics, religious doctrine, ethics ...) there are specialists in these fields and others that have given and argued in an abductive approach grounds for this type of "historical" religion. I can't say I buy everything. Yet, there are for example people like Bruce Metzger, who oversaw Bart Ehrman's doctrinal work provide textual verification.. . and someone else like Cliff Knechtly has an ethical & philosophical approach ... John Lennox & David Berlinsky more mathematical. If you're expecting a one or two sentence knock down proof, you will of course be disappointed. I think a number of medieval philosopher-theologians already tried that. I'm a person interested & fascinated with many different belief systems on planet earth, including the many different forms of atheism and agnosticism. And yes, I am a robot.
@@vinceendris Because we are in Europe, and thus more likely to meet Europeans who pronounce their names 'natively.' Also, it's considered more polite these days to use native pronunciation and not anglicise foreign words. We're stuck with 'Paris' and 'Prague' but we can learn some basic pronuciation rules like 'cz' or 'sz' in Czech, or 'ge' and 'gi' in Italian. Many older Brits learned French, and none of us say 'ay-dolf.' A very interesting video about Ehrman, Vince, some things I hadn't appreciated, so thank you.
Same is true of those who share the man's agenda and logical lapses, such as missing the point that nearly all significant textual variants are minor and that the consensus reading is far more likely the right one than a few outliers,
@@RobertEWaters the variants do matter and when trying to go back to the “original gospels” we run into problems. Matthew and Luke clearly want to change mark. So the woman afflicted with bleeding… did anyone see her besides Jesus? In mark no but in the other gospels there is a public announcement. In the feeding of the 5000. In mark it’s 5000 men. In others it’s 5000 men plus women and children. So what’s the original? Why was it changed?
Not at all. In fact, he is not "technically" a historian. He was still a Christian when he wrote his seminal work, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" (summarized on my channel). It was really the problem of evil that made him convert.
Inerrancy can be viewed differently : God can use, if a person will be guided by the Sprit, to the verses which will benefit most. Even the simplest will not do wrong if they read scripture in light of context and Spirit guidance. Once a person decides they are smarter than the Biblical authors, they are no longer permitting themselves t" o trust God, and lean not on their own understanding." Ehrman does enjoy destroying young people's faith. He takes great pride in doing so.
Vince Endris mentions faith, and as any person who has religious beliefs faith in something is belief without evidence. Also from my understanding Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and only an atheist with respect to all current religions.
Bart Ehrman *was raised* as a fairly generic *Episcopalian.* He had an Evangelical "awakening" (or whatever you call it) in his late teens and had his "fundamentalist" phase from there. Aside from that ... good job. 🤓
Hey, thanks for the clarification. I gathered that he was raised an evangelical Episcopalian. This was always funny to me since, growing up, I thought all evangelicals were Southern Baptist.
For the first five minutes or so, I thought your intent was to try to tear Dr. Ehrman down,. I was wrong, and I think you were for the most part very fair. He is a scholar of early Christianity, the early church fathers and a biblical historian. I think what is difficult for many evangelical Christians to understand is that there is a big difference between theology (faith) and history. I think Dr. Ehrman would say one can believe anything they want to, but it doesn't mean it's historically accurate. And since he's the historical scholar, he's in the know, sort of speak. The problem with having a serious discussion with an evangelical, in my opinion, is that the discussion is a "closed loop". They may not have a reason for something, and will say "I don't know either, but only God knows" or "he can do it if he wants", after all he is God. So yes, historical opinions and arguments are always going to bring dissonance, especially to those who believe that historical scholarship is an attack on their own theology which they hold to be personally sacred. Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe Dr. Ehrman's "change" in his beliefs occurred because of his rebellion against evangelical teachings, but because of his scholarship. He may take great sport in baiting evangelicals in his arguments, but I don't believe for one minute he is intentionally trying to be mean, but wants the listener to make up their own mind when confronted with the evidence, if any exists. And apparently, some cannot make that distinction. They immediately cling to the theological implications. Anyway, good video.
@@jimdoyel5044 I agree, for the most part. He is clear: his studies changed him from a conservative Christian to a liberal Christian and his problem with evil changed him to atheist/agnostic. And he thinks evangelicalism (read inerrancy) is faulty, misleading and dangerous. But he is never mean about it and I never meant to imply that he was. As far as I can see he is a hell of a nice guy.
Not exactly sure what you are revealing here? Ehrman talks about his background extensively, and it's hard to imagine that anyone reading his books would be surprised that he is a historian taking a critical look at textual sources. It's not like he's hiding anything. What are you telling us?
@@ReasonOrDogma I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I don’t claim that he’s hiding anything or that there is anything to be “revealed.” I do disagree with you that all people reading him know what critical scholarship is and how to evaluate it.
@@vinceendris Sorry. Your title "Things to remember when reading Ehrman" made it sound like you were going to reveal something important and unique about reading Ehrman. What you actually talk about is something more along the lines of "how to approach a work of scholarship," which perhaps may be useful in its own right.
@@ReasonOrDogma No Prob. In my opinion, when I hear people talking about Bart, it seems that they either hate him (because they think he is attacking Christianity and they love Christianity) or that they worship him (because they think he's attacking Christianity and they hate Christianity). I like to do book summaries on my channel and before doing one on "How Jesus Became God" I wanted to make a video that I thought might address both of these.
@@vinceendristhis is a very good point. As a non believer I enjoy Bart for his academic rigor and the way he goes through scripture as a historian. All I get is food for thought, no hate no vitriol and little to no biases. A great scholar indeed.
Your response is either disingenuous (and I wouldn't want to speculate as to your motivations for feeling you need to dismiss a clearly intelligent video as negligible in use when it so obviously isn't), or you are willfully unaware of what this video identifies right from the start: Ehrman is a lightning rod for people who finds academic biblical research threatening. There is incontrovertibly merit in creating a space to deconstruct and navigate the viewer through the myriad ways in which people DO distort and misconstrue Ehrman. I'm sorry but I find your objection irritatingly inane and a bit childish.
Ehrman's position on the resurrection seems to be that the veracity of supernatural claims cannot always be historically adjudicated. I would imagine that he would also accept that some such claims can be discounted on the basis of historical evidence. But an accumulation of historical facts could surely also compel the historian to a position of genuine agnosticism about the veracity of supernatural claims. This seems to be Dale Allison's position on the resurrection, especially when factoring in the increasingly enigmatic shroud of Turin as a possible relic of the resurrection. Is Ehrman's position, qua historian, on the resurrection one of deep skepticism or is it agnosticism. Put differently, if Allison is saying there is a 50/50 chance that it is true, and Ehrman is saying there is a 5% chance that it is true (or refuses to make any kind of rough probabilistic assessment) then I would say that Allison is being the better historian.
No, actually, he would not say that we can disprove the resurrection. He would say that it is outside of the realm of history. In fact, taken his argument about what history can and cannot say about miracles (which is a pretty standard view), he comes as close as he would say a historian can to validity of the resurrection. By which I mean that he says there is no doubt in his mind that historically at least some of Jesus' followers believed they saw after his death. Now, how we choose to interpret this is outside of the realm of history. To him, these were hallucinations. To a believer, they would be because the resurrected Jesus actually appeared to them. I have not heard Allison say that. That is interesting. I'll need to look it up. Thanks
It would be good to explain to the audience your background a little. Is your training in textual criticism or history of the Bible? Are you a preacher or layman? It would make a difference in how we value your opinions.
This is certainly not a terrible idea. I give biographical info on my channel and in other videos. But the big problem with autobiographical info on a video like this is that immediately you are conformed to people's biases. For instance, I hate telling people I'm a pastor, or even a Christian because both of those things are generally interpreted as "evangelical" or "white Christian nationalist" or just "dumb." Maybe I should start my videos by saying, "I'm Vince. I'm education in and have read a lot on the New Testament, and I'm against any belief or religion that excludes others." More than anything, in my summaries, I try to be as objective as possible. Thank you for the suggestion. I need to think of how to do this.
What do you think about the large or groving number of scholars and professors who consider Bart Ehrman a great authority and call anyone who disagrees with Ehrman as "pseudoscientists"? And who never say or write anything of their own, but everything what they say and write repeats what Bart Ehrman has said and written and emphasizes that only Erhman's word is the pure truth and trustworthy? Like when Bart Erhman said he don't believe that Jesus was put in a rock tomb because it wasn't a Roman custom, but rather the body was thrown into an open pit and now scholars repeat that Jesus was thrown into a pit because Erhman said so? Or when Bart Erhman said he don't believe that Jesus visited Jerusalem several times because it is unlikely that pilgrimages were mandatory and now scholars say that Jesus only visited Jerusalem once during his whole life because Erhman said so? I also tried to ask Erhman this same question a few years ago, but I never got an answer.
I haven't heard of any such scholars - sorry. In fact, as I say in the video, he says very little that is it own. In fact, the thing about Jesus not being put in a tomb was proposed by Crossan. Ehrman cites him in his book when mentioning it.
@vinceendris In that case, it may be a country-specific phenomenon. For example, here in Finland, Matti Myllykoski is a big, big, big fan of Erhman and often talks in the media about what Erhman has said and written and how it represents scientific truth and consensus.
In my opinion, this is a good critique of the entire discipline of history. I wouldn't call historians dumb, but I would say they have to put an awful lot of faith in their sources.
THINGS TO REMEMBER when reading Ehrman. You can not read Hebrew or Greek. He can. You cannot see the oiginal manuscripts. He can. You spend your day doing whatever you do. He spends his day studying the subject.
@@nextworld9176 except there a dozens of other scholars who can do this also. I think I addressed this in one of my points- he’s a fantastic scholar, but he’s not the only game in town.
@@vinceendris True, true. But I find some of your statements here to be imprecise to the point of being wrong. The main point I have to make is about biases. The ultimate bias is the American brand of Christianity. An historian might be biased as you say, but when a thinking Christian such as yourself continues to believe that a supernatural and uncreated entity created the universe and is a sentient, conscious being who interferes in human affairs today... Well, that is madness. I recommend traveling, Vince. Go see the rocks and stones, the stella and scribbles of ancient scribes. Look at the temples of Jupiter, the Pharoahs, and the Hindus. Study up on the history of Canaan's gods and the Taliban-like men who wrote the scriptures. Pay particular attention to how Constantine chose the Chi Rho for his guiding star. Why would Christianity be useful for kings who use violence to rule? Once your see the reality of humanity's past, you might understand how the fables came to rule the Western world.
@ you’re all over the place. It’s hard to follow your thought pattern. Plus, you seem to have very little knowledge about what I believe, where I have traveled or what I’ve studied. As a short aside to your first post, there are no original manuscripts, and, as an answer to your second post, according to Ehrman, Christianity was desired by Constantine because of the unity it promoted (though I think it had more to do with being able to oppress as per Nietzsche).
@@vinceendris Take each sentence as its own chapter. I do have little knowledge of you. Those are my impressions, and you have not refuted hem. My own view is that Yahweh is unlike other gods known to the Romans. He's a warrior who destroys cities on a whim and kills off mankind when he is displeased with own invention. He allows Job to be tortured merely to settle a bet. And IMPORTANTLY, prescribes death for even questioning him. MOST importantly, Christians are required to obey kings, because all authority comes from God. In other words, this is a religion perfectly designed for the emperors of Rome and anyone who wishes to conquer the world. No wonder it has thrived through the ages.
@ I guess take half of my non-response as a confusion because this has nothing to do with the video in question. The other half because you obviously know very little about Christian theology (especially post modern or post liberal). Out of my videos, I can suggest God if the Oppressed by James Cone or my video on Rene Girard. But a terrific book would be by George Linbeck called The Nature of Doctrine. I don’t have a video on it, but need to. I’ll put it in my list.
I don't see Bart as being radical. I just think he is trying to be honest to the text. I agree that I think there is sufficient evidence that we should take mysticism seriously, but I think some of the more far out views just say thing that will generate a large audience, but have little evidence.
@@donaldgoertzen8741 that seems a little harsh for a video about things to remember when reading Ehrman. After all the point is the same regardless of when his conversion took place. But my apologies.
Bart treatment of Paul not agreeing with Jesus is very unpleasant,but why not talk about Peter and his writings James and John's epistles and see what they say about Jesus
As with all historians, Bart's conclusions are based on many other conclusions. At the core or it, I would say, is that all historians have to figure out which sources they think are reliable or not. Bart agrees with the majority of critical scholars in biblical studies that think Peter, James and John were written later. The earliest writings we have were from Paul. My problem, by the way, with his conclusions about Paul and Jesus is that our knowledge of Paul is so limited. I find any historical conclusions about Paul to be very suspect.
When you say that Ehrman is an historian that's slightly misleading. His academic background and training is in text criticism, rather than in history. So when he writes popular level history books he's actually stepping outside of his academic specialty. He's still a popular historian, but it's not clear that he can accurately be described as an academic one. Also your closing comment pitting evangelicals against historians (as if there aren't plenty of people who are both) gives the impression of a substantial bias on your part.
I don't necessarily disagree with your first point. However, in his trade books, he is not really saying anything new. He is just summarizing scholarship. My only disagreement would be that one of the big thing about his "orthodox corruption" was the it bridged the gap between text criticism and history that had previously existed. Yes, I'm biased against evangelical thought. However, I think I can justify my claim. In my view, historians, much like scientists, have a set of agreed upon methodologies that have been developed over centuries. I consider an historian to be one that sticks to those methodologies, or explains logically why they are not. Evangelicals (much like pseudoscientists) add an ad hoc rule, i.e., the bible is correct in all it says. However, point taken.
@@vinceendris He's summarising one side of scholarship. But almost entirely ignoring the other side. Which isn't uncommon in people who write for a popular audience. But is still something that needs to be borne in mind when reading him. And I'm not entirely convinced that scholarship on Biblical history follows the same methodology that is used in other historical fields. Crtitical scholarship typically treats the Biblical texts with far greater levels of scepticism than most fields treat their historical sources. Ehrman is also a prominent example of another issue that is present in some parts of scholarship. His oft-stated view that it's invalid to harmonise the gospel accounts because they are trying to say different things is essentially rejecting the historical method (trying to reconstruct events and their causes by looking at the claims made by all of our historical sources) in favour of literary criticism (trying to determine the meaning intended in an individual text). Yes, some Evangelical scholars let their view on inerrancy affect their historical work too much. But for most of them its impact isn't any different from the ideological lenses and other biases that every historian brings to their work.
@ I think I mentioned that in my point 4 - that writing trade books allows him to neglect other scholarship. Basically, keep in mind that there is always a competing argument. I can agree that when it comes to biblical studies, the biases will be much stronger on both sides due to the sensitivity of the subject. Also, you are probably right that not all evangelical historians are overly affected by their inerrancy beliefs when it comes to their work in history. I just personally (no doubt due to my own biases) have a problem reading them because I disagree with their starting point and find myself always questioning just how “tainted” their conclusions are.
James White has always been an insufferable apologist. Has a fake degree too. I remember Habermas as a fringe apologist 20 years ago because he believed the shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. Most evangelicals and apologists at the time distance themselves from the shroud and Habermas. And I find the minimal facts theory by Habermas to be question begging, and illogical in that the resurrection cannot follow from the "facts". Also, I enjoy reading Ehrman's popular books as they're more approachable. Before he started writing popular books, I had to read his dense academic work like the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. BTW, when I started reading about the history of Jesus and Christianity I considered Ehrman a little too "conservative". I had been reading books by the Jesus Seminar people like Funk, Crossan, and Mack; and they are a lot less generous about the historicity of Jesus' words and deeds. Now I see Ehrman as "middle of the road".
I didn't know that about Habermas. Thanks. I saw an interview where Jimmy Akin said that White must have really ticked off Ehrman during their debate because Ehrman went after him and made him look like an absolute idiot. I got ticked off at the debate because I find Ehrman to be such a nice guy, and White was such a jerk. I think you're right about Ehrman being on the conservative side when it comes to history. When it comes to theology, I prefer Crossan and Borg. When it comes to history, I'm a Dale Allison/Ehrman fan.
Bart is brilliant, but he contradicts himself constantly. I've heard him say, " Jesus was a nobody. They left his body on the cross, and the dogs ate it". Then he'll tell you about Josephus mentioning Jesus and John and James. Was he a nobody, or was he important enough for Josephus to mention?
I don't think this is correct. I'm not saying it isn't, but I've heard Bart talk about Josephus. Again, he doesn't really say anything original here. He agrees with most scholars that the specific verses about Jesus from Josephus were added later and that Jesus is only mentioned by him in saying that there were people who followed him. So doesn't really mention Jesus; he talks about this faction that follows Jesus.
7:03 I don't know, lol...I heard Ehrman say, in debates and such, several times, that what destroyed his faith was the problem of evil, and not the problems with the Bible...though those problems did cause him to no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, etc...
@@apennameandthata2017 probably but 1) I think I talked about the problems with defining evangelicalism and provided how I (agreeing Ehrman) defines them. And 2) this is a video about reading Ehrman and as far as I’ve seen he doesn’t make a distinction.
I think so. I do. In fact, everyone I know who grew up evangelical but learned their way out of hold some resentment to it. But I don't think I ever said grudge. My opinion is that he has a bias against traditional Christian thought. It could be that he, like most of us, just likes to be known as an independent thinker.
Bart is a sensationalist, which is what is required to sell books. His celebrity offends groups because they are full of it, and his material exposes that manipulation of the bible. He is on the same spectrum as them just on the opposite side. I don’t really understand what motivates him but he is a workaholic, and I find quite a bit of his work to be on the border of absurdity. I ask many questions of him on his blog, and it is also amazing of the “institutional” answers I receive back. So he is in the same political situation a leader of a evangelical church would be, in the defense of the interests of his “turf.” Bart fell into a niche and the power brokers of the world made him famous. In a way it’s helpful, in another it’s not helpful to be so negatively doubtful of everything in the NT. He doesn’t even know himself what the answers are he just sits there and picks them apart. It has never for a second cast doubt on my faith, I hear for some it has I can’t imagine why? Though I do, and the churches they belong too are loosing bodies which equals money, and their grip on power. Bart is just another ass in a sea of asses, he has made millions being extra critical of something that he even admits is not a big deal, and now there are so many others out there now doing the same, some very extreme. So it appears we are headed in the opposite direction of church dominance, and as bad as it was I imagine it far better than the direction we are headed. In the larger scheme of things nothing has changed, the faithful will be faithful, the ones who seek will find.
@ Well you have too, otherwise you are a heretic. Ha, I’m just joking. Funny I was going through some of you videos this morning. Reminds me of (some) the things I say in my (sermons) videos, though mine are just unorganized thoughts on video for friends and Quora people I speak with. Seems we could be in view of the sweet spot of what this thing is all about, I pray. Nice to meet you. Merry Christmas.
Ha! The facepalm makes this hilarious. You think that having a bias means you have to disagree completely with everything a person says? I'm biased against Evangelical scholarship but still believe Jesus exists. I also have a bias for alternative energy sources, but I realize gasoline is combustible. I don't think you know how biases work. I do give a good example in my video on "How Jesus Became God," btw.
I would question whether Ehrman should be considered a historian. I majored in history as an undergraduate and we were taught to rely on primary source material. Modern biblical criticism, however, usually tries to discount the primary sources (in this case, the four gospels in the New Testament), and instead tries to come up with an alternative scenario based largely on speculation and conjecture.
You majored in history? Which college taught you that you should rely on stories of miracles in ancient documents and literature? Historians do not do that. If you read the synoptics honestly, you will immediately become aware that they are loaded with apologetics for the converted and those they hope to convert. It is marketing propaganda and polemics against Jews that would not convert. It is us vs. them. It is carrots and sticks. It is 1000% propagandic bullshit by propagandist that were doing what they could to get their cult into the mainstream in a marketplace of competing philosophies, ideologies, superstitions, legends, wives tales. They were competing in the religious marketplace of their era. Their savior was embellished to be the biggest and baddest savior ever. He could do it all and then some. Jesus had to be made superior to all the other demigods as well as the heroes of the Hebrew ancient literature like Adam, Abraham, Moses, King David, John the Baptist, Joseph, Daniel... Jesus could do all their miracles and die for sins. How could anyone refuse the offer? It is a win, win unless you think reality should matter. Then you see it is all just fantasy, wishful thinking, and a way to herd people into an effective useful sacred belief systemused to combat cultures with other religious belief systems, usually for land, resources, or access to consumer markets for their domestic corporations.
I'm not sure how much Ehrman you have read, but his arguments come mostly form his reading of the gospels and other sources around at the time. In fact, as I mentioned in the video, in his trade books he rarely quotes other scholars (secondary sources). The differences between him and, say, Crossan, Wright, or Allison is their methodology in using the gospels.
Quite ironic when he primarily uses the gospels to highlight his points. Before dismissing him as a historian check his credentials out I think you might change your mind
The best evidence against God is the diversity of Christian faiths and all the other religions. God doesn't care about our interpretations of his teachings or whether one believes the actual resurrection occurred vs. spiritual or metaphorical... or more likely, Christianity's borrowed Jewish conceived tribal God is just as much a human invention as all the other gods, before or since.
Christianity is not a topic, it's a reality. Have you ever prayed? Did God answer your prayer? No matter how bulletproof any argument might be, if you have ever prayed and seen God's work then there's no way to reconcile the intellect no matter how wayward it might be with faith that has been confirmed by God himself.
You disagree with that statement? You should read some of the comments I get. I also know many people like this. Saying anything negative about Ehrman is considered blasphemy.
Ehrman is a BS artist. He's not a historian or a scholar. He's a malcontent who attacks Christianity with ruthless mendacity. Case in point, he claims Jesus Christ never claimed to be God. John 14:9 "“Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?" ... John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM" ... Revelation 1:8; 21:6 As the Alpha and Omega, Jesus existed before creation and was with God in the beginning John 1:1. He is, therefore, eternal.
Thank you for your comment, but I'm a Christian minister, and I don't believe he attacks Christianity at all. Like all historians, he questions the sources. Therefore, the fact that John says Jesus says something doesn't mean Jesus said something. That is a theological claim.
Just a correction Bart was referring to the synoptic gospels(Matthew, Mark,Luke) not John(in which your quoting scriptures from)and he gives the reasons why in his book How Jesus became God. Attack the argument not the person because if u bothered to research his claim that Jesus HIMSELF didn't say he was God in the synoptic gospels you would of found out he was right.
@@jasonleslie4349 Jason Leslie you're dead WRONG. Ehrman attacks Christianity head on by denying it's reason for existing. The central truth Christians know, is Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Before Abraham lived I AM lived. Before the world existed Jesus knew us. The high priest ripped his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy because Jesus said, "And you will see the Son of Man (which Jesus called himself) seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven." ... Everyone will see this. Every knee will genuflect to Jesus, who will come on the clouds of Heaven in triumph and glory. Christ also said "I and the Father are one. Anyone who's seen me has seen the Father. How can you say 'show us the Father?" ... You're defending an apostate who is dedicated to scattering Jesus's flock. You can read all his lies and books and believe Ehrman's twisted logic if you like. You're a badly confused individual.
@bobgarrett7134 Sorry but where does he say 'I am God?'Matt26:64 and Mark14:62 did he refer to himself as the"Son of Man?"Did he say explicitly I am the SON of Man? The 1st 3 gospels are written before the gospel of John and nowhere do the 3 say anything to Jesussaying HIMSELF I A M G O D only when John is written he does this.Why?Wouldn't that be the most important thing to mention? Yet the 1st 3 gospels don't until John.Look, we can have a difference of opinion about him. And I understand that he is not a popular guy in christain circles. But if you are a christain calling him a BS artist doesn't sound Christlike aren't you suppose to 'love your enemies'','...turn the other cheek?'
@@jasonleslie4349 Why do you continuously insult God and Jesus Christ? Jesus obviously referred to himself as the Son of Man. Matt 8: 20 And Jesus said to him, 'The foxes have holes and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" Matthew is not John. Jesus Christ didn't need to say "I AM GOD" for readers of the scriptures to understand that Jesus is claiming to be God. As doubting Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and my God." Now, in Romans 9:5, Paul writes "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." As you know, Paul is not John. Do you not believe anything in the Bible? Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and tear you to shreds" ... "Do not cast your pearls before swine" ... This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It means that Christians should not be hypocritical judges, but should be able to discern who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel -- specifically talking about con artists like Ehrman, who are bent on turning people away from God.
Ehrman is one of the brightest lights in modern Christianity. He stopped being a Christian when he came to the unavoidable conclusion that Jesus - not his real name - is not G-d and that only G-d is G-d and there is ONLY ONE, which is the theological basis of Judaism, the only true monotheistic religion. Christianity, like Islam, has always been a henotheistic religion, worshipping one god in particular but not denying the existence of other gods. In the end, one's theology is not as important as one's comportment. Words are meaningless without action.
@@JeffShacter about the first part - I don’t think theology and monotheism had anything to do with Ehrman’s change of heart. About the second part- I completely agree. Christianity took a major wrong turn when it started concentrating on theology rather than loving action. One could argue that this was a natural consequence of it becoming a Greek rather than Jewish religion.
Just an extra aside, As Bart has explained himself multiple times, it was the "problem of evil" that eventually drove him to stop being convinced of the existence of god. Interestingly, his scholarship drove him to stop being a conservative/inerrantist believer, but wasnt the main driver of his deconversion. Meanwhile, many readers of his work tend to find it difficult to hold the position of their current evangelical faith while digesting his content. Not everyone has the ability to grapple with the cognitive dissonance his work tends to evoke in believers that hold to inerrancy and univocality.
Agreed. I can certainly see how many Christians (including myself) can read and accept his conclusions. But I don't see how evangelicals can. However, I honestly don't see how they can maintain a belief that the bible is without error even without Ehrman.
You seem to be confusing "digesting his content" with "agreeing with his conclusions". It's entirely possible for somebody to read Ehrman's books, digest their content, and completely disagree with him. Though given that his popular level books rarely engage with a steelman version of conservative scholarship you'd probably have to be familiar with the other side of the issue before reading them to do that.
@@stephengray1344 I certainly didn't mean to imply that everyone needs to accept his conclusion. There are plenty of scholars out there who do not.
My comment above was meant to say, I think that Christians should be able to accept academic scholarship. Evangelicals don't have that option. If they ever do come to feel that the weight of historical evidence challenges their belief in the inerrancy of scripture, they can't accept it (Definitionally, that is. If they do, they cease to be an evangelical).
@stephengray1344 I'm more saying if one finds themselves having the same conclusion through Bart's trade books or academic work, then they ultimately have to grapple with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that comes with having to accept one conclusion and put away another conclusion they've maybe held all their lives. Challenging one's concreted world veiw is no simple task.
@@brandonrunyon In some cases, yes. However, I think the thing that made Bart so popular was that so many people who were brought up with conservative beliefs were finding them untenable. They were ready to challenge them but didn't have the words or knowledge. I find this often leads to the other extreme, i.e., people who were so relieved to find Bart (and some who look at him as something of a savior), that now everything he says is taken as gospel.
Bart is invaluable for persons like myself who can no longer believe the library of 66 books that have been bound together- but having invested so much time and nervous energy into these books over the years now want to know what each of these books actually says and why. Thank you Bart.
He's got a terrific intro to New Testament you should check out if you have not already. Your description is perfect! I think there are so many of us who were raised evangelical who also have exerted so much "nervous energy" into the bible. It is liberating to find out that there are way to study it that make sense.
@@vinceendris Cheers Vince. I spent some time using Christine Hayes and others to better understand the Hebrew bible. A better understanding of the Hebrew bible allows one to appreciate the books there on their own terms. Then it becomes more obvious that the christian bible does not follow the Hebrew bible at all. Unconditional love to all.
As a Muslim throughout the years I’ve heard the name Bart Ehrman so many times in debates that a couple of years ago I actually purchased his books the first of course “Misquoting Jesus” and recently finished reading “The Triumph of Christianity”. And let me tell you these books made me appreciate Christianity even more because not only is biblical scholarship massive but also the history of Christianity is so rich and vast that it will take many lifetimes to appreciate it. And Bart Ehrman is one of the reasons for that plus I stopped watching *or should I say limited myself* from watching polemical debates between Christians and Muslims and just learn Christianity from the actual scholars from the secular and the believers.
Btw I’m reading the New Testament for the first time from the beginning because I don’t want to disrespect the holy book by reading cherry picked passages because I believe it’s unfair. So right now enjoying it very much 😁
I'm glad to hear that. Yes, I would stay away from debates like that. All Christians aren't shut off to other religions, as I would assume not all Muslims aren't either. In fact, I would argue that it is the true Christians that are loving and accepting of all.
Thank you for you comment.
Sir, your point of view is well reasoned and concise. I disagree with some things, but I am impressed. I have subscribed.
@@themtbrowns thank you very much for the encouragement. My number one goal is to be cogent and clear.
UR-man is the white winter coat of the stoat. Bart's surname is German and is pronounced EHR-man. Bart was not raised as an evangelical. He states that his parents were not "overly conservative" and they attended an Episcopal church. He was 15 when he was inducted into evangelism. th-cam.com/video/e6DUD1KHEnk/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for the correction.
All true, but Bart himself pronounces his name UR-man.
You have restored my faith . . . in Ehrman.
@@jguenther3049 thank you. I’m glad to hear it. He’s, as far as I can tell, a great guy with a big heart.
@@vinceendris His scholarship is without peer. I don't dabble in scripture much, only as required for my occasional writing projects, like "Sherlock Holmes and the Twelve Apostles," my homily on the Problem of Evil, and my 3-Act play, "Midnight in the Temple of Isis," which leaned heavily on Flavius Josephus.
Ehrman is fantastic and very reasonable and logical. Ive never seen him loose a debate. His books are bestsellers for a reason.
@@roberthoyle1971 agreed
I never has seen him loose a debate, but I've seen him tighter up a debate a few times.
Great video. I am a Christian who just discovered Bart Erhman. I find his work absolutely fascinating- he has given voice to several issues I was unable to articulate, but so far not a threat to my faith. I appreciate your very rational and reasonable approach and wish other believers would adopt it.
I'm glad to hear it, and thanks for the encouragement.
Frequently cited as " A Historian," Professor Ehrman degrees are actually in Biblical Languages, Theological Seminary, and Greek NT and Exegesis.
In 1985, he studied under Bruce Metzger in the following areas: Textual crickets (sic) [Criticism] of the Bible, Development of the New Testament Canon, and the New Testament Apocrypha.
To my knowledge, he never studied or received formal education at a University level in the area of History.
His only contact with the study of history would be in the narrow and specialized sense, a background for the study of NT documents.
I agree and disagree. Agree: yes. He is trained in textual criticism and not an historian. However, like I said, his "specialty" is really taking scholarly ideas and making them known to the public. He says very little of his own stuff. He cites trained historians.
Disagree: I don't mind calling him a historian because I think he is probably more deserving of the title than some trained evangelical historians, or historians who get their degrees from 3rd rate online schools.
But, fair point.
In earlier days, during interviews, I remember Bart referring to himself simply as an authority or specialist in the area of NT textual criticism and exegesis. A historian normally analyzes, studies, and interprets from a wide variety of sources (cultural artifacts, lithography, as well as documents, texts ...). Beyond this, a historian normally has much training and understanding of how history is obtained in different eras so as to give her or himself a perspective. Then, finally, there are the varieties of interpretation and how one's results should be presented, both to one's peers and to the wider public. From this, I think the the term Historian 🎉 has eroded and lost its value over the last several decades and is often draped over anyone who takes a historical approach (or receives an honorary degree) in reponse to their particular expertise.
Historians, while they are in no way 100% free of bias, they are also extensively trained and provided with the methods and tools to avoid it.
Yes, he is primarily a textual critic. However, I'd say he probably has a lot more training than people who get their history degrees online. Like you said, the term has eroded. I disagree that Historians are better at avoiding biases. I think biases are deep seeded. Also, like in all academia, there is a good pay off to never change your mind.
@@vinceendris
You state, "I disagree that Historians are better at avoiding biases." - no one said that. The statement was, "Historians, while they are in no way 100% free of bias, they are also extensively trained and provided with the methods and tools to avoid it."
Historians and other academic disciplines are indeed trained and urged to recognize the issue of bias and techniques to avoid and deal with it. Since Ehrman does publish in peer-reviewed journals, it would behoove him to work to the extent possible to keep in mind and address his own biases in his work. This brings up another point - you state, "Like in all academia, there is a good pay off[sic] to never change your mind". That is a highly generalized opinion with no factual basis or cogent argument to support it.
As you mention, Dr, Ehrman publishes scholarly books. His introductory textbook on The New Testament is one example of a book written differently from the trade books he writes. Can you point out anywhere in any of his scholarly books or articles where he offers a position contrary to the one he offers in his popular books? In fact, he does provide bibliographies in both his scholarly and popular books, does he not? I have heard him specifically call people out who claimed he writes one thing in his scholarly books and something different in his popular books, asking them to provide specific examples.
I do not follow every word Dr. Ehrman says nor the words of other Biblical scholars I have followed over the years. I do not always agree with Ehrman. But I have heard him speak on various occasions where he was asked a question concerning some topic or something he had written on a topic where he stated that his opinion has changed over time based upon developments in the scholarship as well as, his revisiting a previous position. I have also heard Dan McClellan state the same thing.
I do want to state that I was impressed in general with your effort here. I do not want you to think I am just hopping down your throat. I only do that to street preachers who can't speak a word of Biblical Hebrew and decide to lecture me about what the Tanakh says.
@@johnpetry5321 I'm not at all offended and I appreciate your discussion. Also, I promise not to lecture you on the Tanakh, ha. I'm not really sure what our disagreement is, however. Are you saying that he does not have biases, that he does but is better at concealing them, or something in between and we are just talking about degree?
I disagree with the statement that historians are trained to avoided biases. In fact, this is why grad students are encouraged to pick a school based on the professors they would like to work with - professors have biases and people want to work within those parameters. Otherwise, it would one professor would just be as good as any other.
To clarify, my statement was just that people should always remember that everyone they read or listen to, including Ehrman, has biases. Even though I think he is good at concealing his (or avoiding), it still needs to be remembered - everyone's got an agenda.
I appreciate your tone and manner. I was raised christian, certainly don't see things that way now :-), and am very interested in religion and the grip that holds on people. Something like mystic understanding of the Absolute is closer to where I 'see myself'' now; hard to put into words. I like history of all this Buddhsim, Christianity, Ramakrishna and other Indian spiritual characters, etc. "Advaita vedanta"
@@johnk8174 I, likewise, appreciate our conversation. I think so much of the problems humanity faces could be solved if we just learned how to talk to one another.
I am by far a post modernist and think we have far surpassed the notion on “objective truth.” Anyone doubting this need only look at our current president elect.
The book I was referring to, “the nature of doctrine “ sees our religion much like a language. We use what we are comfortable with to encounter the divine. It’s been 20 years since I read it, so at least that’s what I remember.
@@vinceendris Looks like there is a new edition (or at least a new forward and bibliography)
Perhaps you have made this point elsewhere, but it is also important to understand what text criticism is as well as what it is not. Text criticism is the process of studying manuscript evidence and trying to figure out what is most likely the most accurate and closest to the original. In other words: determining what the text actually, authentically is.
Too many evangelicals think that scholars like Bart Ehrman are trying to "debunk the Bible" while too many athiests think that they have. That isn't their game.
Exactly. Yes, I have a video on textual criticism, but no, I don’t think I make the point in it about how it is an academic field, not a religious one. Well put!
There's an inherent conflict between critical analysis of the Bible and the belief that it is divinely inspired.
No there is not.
@@byrondickens lol yes there is. a divinely inspired text is not subject to criticism.
Superstitious idolatry
14:29 - 14:44 Sorry but this is not a mere "bias" - this is an axiom which is contrary to the scientific methods of discerning scientific truth.
A choice between two equal possibilities according to the word of the Bible can be a bias. Starting from the word of the Bible as a scientist is not a bias: It's a distortion. It's like using a scientific title to give credibility to your faith or your personal obsessions.
All scientists are biased to one direction or another. A doctor that would prescribe "a little wine for your stomach" though, just because it is written in 1 Timothy 5:23 and "Bible can't be wrong", is not just a biased physician: He is a dangerous man.
Fair point. I'm certainly not going to argue against that. ha
Thank you, extremely helpful and educational... well done!
Thank you so much for the encouragement!
On number 3, it doesn't seem valid to say that it's not hard to imagine that Bart would choose the alternative most against evangelical Christianity, particularly after mentioning the awareness of bias which good historians recognize. It is always important to be aware of that possibility, whoever we're listening to. The tricky part is knowing enough about the subject being discussed to be able to recognize such an occurrence, no mean feat when it's an accomplished historian, rather than having to take one side or the other's word for it. A choice often influenced by our own biases.
@@blueglassdave I agree and wasn’t sure if I should include the point or not. However, it IS something that I try to keep in mind with all historians, so I figured I’d include it. I do find Ehrman to be one of the most honest, but I do think there are times he shows his bias.
@@vinceendris Is there anybody who doesn't?
@@blueglassdave oh, I think everyone does. This is why I said it was something to keep in mind. You might or might not believe how many people figure that if Ehrman (or whoever their favorite writer is) says it, that it’s true and unbiased.
@@vinceendris Having been raised a fundamentalist, I have the greatest respect for humanity's susceptibility to certainty, yearning for significance and capacity for self-deception. Even more so as we contend with our incoming oligarchical kleptocracy.
@@blueglassdave amen brother.
What stands out for me is that evangelicals seem to want to have something to show God on judgement day, like a list of all his promises that would grant entry to heaven. They want that leverage to "hold" God to his word.
@@superjfbm that’s a good way to put it. Tell God how God has to act.
8:40 This is what makes Bart's debates so frustrating for me. It would be great if his opponents wouldn't ultimately back up their arguments with Christian faith which, as an agnostic from a Buddhist/Shintoist culture, I can't relate to on practically any level.
@@lazykbys agreed!
Actually the educated ones have some very interesting if not convincing arguments. It depends on what area (textual, historical, archeological, Genetics, Chemical biology, Forensics, religious doctrine, ethics ...) there are specialists in these fields and others that have given and argued in an abductive approach grounds for this type of "historical" religion. I can't say I buy everything. Yet, there are for example people like Bruce Metzger, who oversaw Bart Ehrman's doctrinal work provide textual verification.. . and someone else like Cliff Knechtly has an ethical & philosophical approach ... John Lennox & David Berlinsky more mathematical. If you're expecting a one or two sentence knock down proof, you will of course be disappointed. I think a number of medieval philosopher-theologians already tried that. I'm a person interested & fascinated with many different belief systems on planet earth, including the many different forms of atheism and agnosticism. And yes, I am a robot.
Is it ermine or airman?
@@jguenther3049 I think er’men. I’ve heard British scholars say air’men.
@@vinceendris Because we are in Europe, and thus more likely to meet Europeans who pronounce their names 'natively.' Also, it's considered more polite these days to use native pronunciation and not anglicise foreign words. We're stuck with 'Paris' and 'Prague' but we can learn some basic pronuciation rules like 'cz' or 'sz' in Czech, or 'ge' and 'gi' in Italian. Many older Brits learned French, and none of us say 'ay-dolf.' A very interesting video about Ehrman, Vince, some things I hadn't appreciated, so thank you.
@ thank you so much.
Agree ❤ Bart is great and he is one historician of early Christianity among many. There are just too many fundamentalists who won’t act in good faith
Agreed! I think some of them (like Michael Bird) could be really good if they would just admit there biases, and go from there.
@ that’s one reason I like Bird.
@@vinceendrisTheir.
Same is true of those who share the man's agenda and logical lapses, such as missing the point that nearly all significant textual variants are minor and that the consensus reading is far more likely the right one than a few outliers,
@@RobertEWaters the variants do matter and when trying to go back to the “original gospels” we run into problems. Matthew and Luke clearly want to change mark. So the woman afflicted with bleeding… did anyone see her besides Jesus? In mark no but in the other gospels there is a public announcement. In the feeding of the 5000. In mark it’s 5000 men. In others it’s 5000 men plus women and children. So what’s the original? Why was it changed?
No, actually Bart graduated to Athiest when he became a Historian. Not vice versa.
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT ?
Not at all. In fact, he is not "technically" a historian. He was still a Christian when he wrote his seminal work, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" (summarized on my channel). It was really the problem of evil that made him convert.
Inerrancy can be viewed differently : God can use, if a person will be guided by the Sprit, to the verses which will benefit most. Even the simplest will not do wrong if they read scripture in light of context and Spirit guidance.
Once a person decides they are smarter than the Biblical authors, they are no longer permitting themselves t" o trust God, and lean not on their own understanding."
Ehrman does enjoy destroying young people's faith. He takes great pride in doing so.
Vince Endris mentions faith, and as any person who has religious beliefs faith in something is belief without evidence. Also from my understanding Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and only an atheist with respect to all current religions.
Bart Ehrman *was raised* as a fairly generic *Episcopalian.*
He had an Evangelical "awakening" (or whatever you call it) in his late teens and had his "fundamentalist" phase from there.
Aside from that ... good job. 🤓
Hey, thanks for the clarification. I gathered that he was raised an evangelical Episcopalian. This was always funny to me since, growing up, I thought all evangelicals were Southern Baptist.
@@vinceendris I think evangelizing is against Episcopalians' religion. 😏😀
@ 🤣
#4 shocked me!
ha ha! Great, I did it!
For the first five minutes or so, I thought your intent was to try to tear Dr. Ehrman down,. I was wrong, and I think you were for the most part very fair. He is a scholar of early Christianity, the early church fathers and a biblical historian. I think what is difficult for many evangelical Christians to understand is that there is a big difference between theology (faith) and history. I think Dr. Ehrman would say one can believe anything they want to, but it doesn't mean it's historically accurate. And since he's the historical scholar, he's in the know, sort of speak. The problem with having a serious discussion with an evangelical, in my opinion, is that the discussion is a "closed loop". They may not have a reason for something, and will say "I don't know either, but only God knows" or "he can do it if he wants", after all he is God. So yes, historical opinions and arguments are always going to bring dissonance, especially to those who believe that historical scholarship is an attack on their own theology which they hold to be personally sacred. Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe Dr. Ehrman's "change" in his beliefs occurred because of his rebellion against evangelical teachings, but because of his scholarship. He may take great sport in baiting evangelicals in his arguments, but I don't believe for one minute he is intentionally trying to be mean, but wants the listener to make up their own mind when confronted with the evidence, if any exists. And apparently, some cannot make that distinction. They immediately cling to the theological implications. Anyway, good video.
@@jimdoyel5044 I agree, for the most part. He is clear: his studies changed him from a conservative Christian to a liberal Christian and his problem with evil changed him to atheist/agnostic. And he thinks evangelicalism (read inerrancy) is faulty, misleading and dangerous. But he is never mean about it and I never meant to imply that he was. As far as I can see he is a hell of a nice guy.
Not exactly sure what you are revealing here? Ehrman talks about his background extensively, and it's hard to imagine that anyone reading his books would be surprised that he is a historian taking a critical look at textual sources. It's not like he's hiding anything. What are you telling us?
@@ReasonOrDogma I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I don’t claim that he’s hiding anything or that there is anything to be “revealed.” I do disagree with you that all people reading him know what critical scholarship is and how to evaluate it.
@@vinceendris Sorry. Your title "Things to remember when reading Ehrman" made it sound like you were going to reveal something important and unique about reading Ehrman. What you actually talk about is something more along the lines of "how to approach a work of scholarship," which perhaps may be useful in its own right.
@@ReasonOrDogma No Prob. In my opinion, when I hear people talking about Bart, it seems that they either hate him (because they think he is attacking Christianity and they love Christianity) or that they worship him (because they think he's attacking Christianity and they hate Christianity). I like to do book summaries on my channel and before doing one on "How Jesus Became God" I wanted to make a video that I thought might address both of these.
@@vinceendristhis is a very good point. As a non believer I enjoy Bart for his academic rigor and the way he goes through scripture as a historian. All I get is food for thought, no hate no vitriol and little to no biases. A great scholar indeed.
Your response is either disingenuous (and I wouldn't want to speculate as to your motivations for feeling you need to dismiss a clearly intelligent video as negligible in use when it so obviously isn't), or you are willfully unaware of what this video identifies right from the start: Ehrman is a lightning rod for people who finds academic biblical research threatening. There is incontrovertibly merit in creating a space to deconstruct and navigate the viewer through the myriad ways in which people DO distort and misconstrue Ehrman. I'm sorry but I find your objection irritatingly inane and a bit childish.
Ehrman's position on the resurrection seems to be that the veracity of supernatural claims cannot always be historically adjudicated. I would imagine that he would also accept that some such claims can be discounted on the basis of historical evidence.
But an accumulation of historical facts could surely also compel the historian to a position of genuine agnosticism about the veracity of supernatural claims. This seems to be Dale Allison's position on the resurrection, especially when factoring in the increasingly enigmatic shroud of Turin as a possible relic of the resurrection. Is Ehrman's position, qua historian, on the resurrection one of deep skepticism or is it agnosticism. Put differently, if Allison is saying there is a 50/50 chance that it is true, and Ehrman is saying there is a 5% chance that it is true (or refuses to make any kind of rough probabilistic assessment) then I would say that Allison is being the better historian.
No, actually, he would not say that we can disprove the resurrection. He would say that it is outside of the realm of history. In fact, taken his argument about what history can and cannot say about miracles (which is a pretty standard view), he comes as close as he would say a historian can to validity of the resurrection. By which I mean that he says there is no doubt in his mind that historically at least some of Jesus' followers believed they saw after his death. Now, how we choose to interpret this is outside of the realm of history. To him, these were hallucinations. To a believer, they would be because the resurrected Jesus actually appeared to them.
I have not heard Allison say that. That is interesting. I'll need to look it up. Thanks
It would be good to explain to the audience your background a little. Is your training in textual criticism or history of the Bible? Are you a preacher or layman? It would make a difference in how we value your opinions.
This is certainly not a terrible idea. I give biographical info on my channel and in other videos. But the big problem with autobiographical info on a video like this is that immediately you are conformed to people's biases. For instance, I hate telling people I'm a pastor, or even a Christian because both of those things are generally interpreted as "evangelical" or "white Christian nationalist" or just "dumb." Maybe I should start my videos by saying, "I'm Vince. I'm education in and have read a lot on the New Testament, and I'm against any belief or religion that excludes others."
More than anything, in my summaries, I try to be as objective as possible.
Thank you for the suggestion. I need to think of how to do this.
What do you think about the large or groving number of scholars and professors who consider Bart Ehrman a great authority and call anyone who disagrees with Ehrman as "pseudoscientists"? And who never say or write anything of their own, but everything what they say and write repeats what Bart Ehrman has said and written and emphasizes that only Erhman's word is the pure truth and trustworthy? Like when Bart Erhman said he don't believe that Jesus was put in a rock tomb because it wasn't a Roman custom, but rather the body was thrown into an open pit and now scholars repeat that Jesus was thrown into a pit because Erhman said so? Or when Bart Erhman said he don't believe that Jesus visited Jerusalem several times because it is unlikely that pilgrimages were mandatory and now scholars say that Jesus only visited Jerusalem once during his whole life because Erhman said so? I also tried to ask Erhman this same question a few years ago, but I never got an answer.
I haven't heard of any such scholars - sorry. In fact, as I say in the video, he says very little that is it own. In fact, the thing about Jesus not being put in a tomb was proposed by Crossan. Ehrman cites him in his book when mentioning it.
@vinceendris In that case, it may be a country-specific phenomenon. For example, here in Finland, Matti Myllykoski is a big, big, big fan of Erhman and often talks in the media about what Erhman has said and written and how it represents scientific truth and consensus.
1. He says 1 himself.
@@apennameandthata2017 yes.
Wow, insults in the first 3 minutes. Very intellectual.
@@jmaniak1 wow, sarcasm. Guess you showed me what intellectualism looks like.
I think Bart is DUMB for not thinking Paul would lie.
In my opinion, this is a good critique of the entire discipline of history. I wouldn't call historians dumb, but I would say they have to put an awful lot of faith in their sources.
truth hurts baby
Ehrman goal is to deconstruct faith.
THINGS TO REMEMBER when reading Ehrman.
You can not read Hebrew or Greek. He can.
You cannot see the oiginal manuscripts. He can.
You spend your day doing whatever you do. He spends his day studying the subject.
@@nextworld9176 except there a dozens of other scholars who can do this also. I think I addressed this in one of my points- he’s a fantastic scholar, but he’s not the only game in town.
@@vinceendris True, true. But I find some of your statements here to be imprecise to the point of being wrong. The main point I have to make is about biases. The ultimate bias is the American brand of Christianity. An historian might be biased as you say, but when a thinking Christian such as yourself continues to believe that a supernatural and uncreated entity created the universe and is a sentient, conscious being who interferes in human affairs today... Well, that is madness. I recommend traveling, Vince. Go see the rocks and stones, the stella and scribbles of ancient scribes. Look at the temples of Jupiter, the Pharoahs, and the Hindus. Study up on the history of Canaan's gods and the Taliban-like men who wrote the scriptures. Pay particular attention to how Constantine chose the Chi Rho for his guiding star. Why would Christianity be useful for kings who use violence to rule? Once your see the reality of humanity's past, you might understand how the fables came to rule the Western world.
@ you’re all over the place. It’s hard to follow your thought pattern. Plus, you seem to have very little knowledge about what I believe, where I have traveled or what I’ve studied. As a short aside to your first post, there are no original manuscripts, and, as an answer to your second post, according to Ehrman, Christianity was desired by Constantine because of the unity it promoted (though I think it had more to do with being able to oppress as per Nietzsche).
@@vinceendris Take each sentence as its own chapter.
I do have little knowledge of you. Those are my impressions, and you have not refuted hem.
My own view is that Yahweh is unlike other gods known to the Romans. He's a warrior who destroys cities on a whim and kills off mankind when he is displeased with own invention. He allows Job to be tortured merely to settle a bet. And IMPORTANTLY, prescribes death for even questioning him. MOST importantly, Christians are required to obey kings, because all authority comes from God.
In other words, this is a religion perfectly designed for the emperors of Rome and anyone who wishes to conquer the world. No wonder it has thrived through the ages.
@ I guess take half of my non-response as a confusion because this has nothing to do with the video in question. The other half because you obviously know very little about Christian theology (especially post modern or post liberal). Out of my videos, I can suggest God if the Oppressed by James Cone or my video on Rene Girard. But a terrific book would be by George Linbeck called The Nature of Doctrine. I don’t have a video on it, but need to. I’ll put it in my list.
Great commentary.
Thank you so much!
I personally think Bart is not radical enough. Im more in the realms of Ammon Hillman or Carl Ruck
I don't see Bart as being radical. I just think he is trying to be honest to the text. I agree that I think there is sufficient evidence that we should take mysticism seriously, but I think some of the more far out views just say thing that will generate a large audience, but have little evidence.
Bart was raised as an Episcopalian. He was an alter boy. He became an evangelical in high school. This guy does not know what he is talking about.
@@donaldgoertzen8741 that seems a little harsh for a video about things to remember when reading Ehrman. After all the point is the same regardless of when his conversion took place. But my apologies.
Bart treatment of Paul not agreeing with Jesus is very unpleasant,but why not talk about Peter and his writings James and John's epistles and see what they say about Jesus
As with all historians, Bart's conclusions are based on many other conclusions. At the core or it, I would say, is that all historians have to figure out which sources they think are reliable or not. Bart agrees with the majority of critical scholars in biblical studies that think Peter, James and John were written later. The earliest writings we have were from Paul. My problem, by the way, with his conclusions about Paul and Jesus is that our knowledge of Paul is so limited. I find any historical conclusions about Paul to be very suspect.
When you say that Ehrman is an historian that's slightly misleading. His academic background and training is in text criticism, rather than in history. So when he writes popular level history books he's actually stepping outside of his academic specialty. He's still a popular historian, but it's not clear that he can accurately be described as an academic one.
Also your closing comment pitting evangelicals against historians (as if there aren't plenty of people who are both) gives the impression of a substantial bias on your part.
I don't necessarily disagree with your first point. However, in his trade books, he is not really saying anything new. He is just summarizing scholarship. My only disagreement would be that one of the big thing about his "orthodox corruption" was the it bridged the gap between text criticism and history that had previously existed.
Yes, I'm biased against evangelical thought. However, I think I can justify my claim. In my view, historians, much like scientists, have a set of agreed upon methodologies that have been developed over centuries. I consider an historian to be one that sticks to those methodologies, or explains logically why they are not. Evangelicals (much like pseudoscientists) add an ad hoc rule, i.e., the bible is correct in all it says.
However, point taken.
@@vinceendris He's summarising one side of scholarship. But almost entirely ignoring the other side. Which isn't uncommon in people who write for a popular audience. But is still something that needs to be borne in mind when reading him.
And I'm not entirely convinced that scholarship on Biblical history follows the same methodology that is used in other historical fields. Crtitical scholarship typically treats the Biblical texts with far greater levels of scepticism than most fields treat their historical sources. Ehrman is also a prominent example of another issue that is present in some parts of scholarship. His oft-stated view that it's invalid to harmonise the gospel accounts because they are trying to say different things is essentially rejecting the historical method (trying to reconstruct events and their causes by looking at the claims made by all of our historical sources) in favour of literary criticism (trying to determine the meaning intended in an individual text).
Yes, some Evangelical scholars let their view on inerrancy affect their historical work too much. But for most of them its impact isn't any different from the ideological lenses and other biases that every historian brings to their work.
@ I think I mentioned that in my point 4 - that writing trade books allows him to neglect other scholarship. Basically, keep in mind that there is always a competing argument.
I can agree that when it comes to biblical studies, the biases will be much stronger on both sides due to the sensitivity of the subject.
Also, you are probably right that not all evangelical historians are overly affected by their inerrancy beliefs when it comes to their work in history. I just personally (no doubt due to my own biases) have a problem reading them because I disagree with their starting point and find myself always questioning just how “tainted” their conclusions are.
James White has always been an insufferable apologist. Has a fake degree too.
I remember Habermas as a fringe apologist 20 years ago because he believed the shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. Most evangelicals and apologists at the time distance themselves from the shroud and Habermas. And I find the minimal facts theory by Habermas to be question begging, and illogical in that the resurrection cannot follow from the "facts".
Also, I enjoy reading Ehrman's popular books as they're more approachable. Before he started writing popular books, I had to read his dense academic work like the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
BTW, when I started reading about the history of Jesus and Christianity I considered Ehrman a little too "conservative". I had been reading books by the Jesus Seminar people like Funk, Crossan, and Mack; and they are a lot less generous about the historicity of Jesus' words and deeds. Now I see Ehrman as "middle of the road".
Yes. That's true, indeed.
More like ~ J A M E S ~ W R O N G ~
I didn't know that about Habermas. Thanks.
I saw an interview where Jimmy Akin said that White must have really ticked off Ehrman during their debate because Ehrman went after him and made him look like an absolute idiot. I got ticked off at the debate because I find Ehrman to be such a nice guy, and White was such a jerk.
I think you're right about Ehrman being on the conservative side when it comes to history. When it comes to theology, I prefer Crossan and Borg. When it comes to history, I'm a Dale Allison/Ehrman fan.
Haha. I see what you did there Greyz.
The playlist Paulogia has about Habermas is brutal.
Bart is brilliant, but he contradicts himself constantly. I've heard him say, " Jesus was a nobody. They left his body on the cross, and the dogs ate it". Then he'll tell you about Josephus mentioning Jesus and John and James. Was he a nobody, or was he important enough for Josephus to mention?
I don't think this is correct. I'm not saying it isn't, but I've heard
Bart talk about Josephus. Again, he doesn't really say anything original here. He agrees with most scholars that the specific verses about Jesus from Josephus were added later and that Jesus is only mentioned by him in saying that there were people who followed him. So doesn't really mention Jesus; he talks about this faction that follows Jesus.
Opinion...opinion...opinion...
7:03 I don't know, lol...I heard Ehrman say, in debates and such, several times, that what destroyed his faith was the problem of evil, and not the problems with the Bible...though those problems did cause him to no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, etc...
Except YOU conflate evangelical and fundamentalist.
@@apennameandthata2017 probably but 1) I think I talked about the problems with defining evangelicalism and provided how I (agreeing Ehrman) defines them. And 2) this is a video about reading Ehrman and as far as I’ve seen he doesn’t make a distinction.
Wow, 146 subscribers. Bart holds a "grudge" against his former beliefs?
I think so. I do. In fact, everyone I know who grew up evangelical but learned their way out of hold some resentment to it. But I don't think I ever said grudge. My opinion is that he has a bias against traditional Christian thought. It could be that he, like most of us, just likes to be known as an independent thinker.
You did say "grudge" . I listened to the video again.
@@loismcmasters4680 interesting. Thank you. Must be my own biases coming out. I say he’s one or two clicks below grudge. Ha
#3 Failure
Well, he tries.
Bart is a sensationalist, which is what is required to sell books. His celebrity offends groups because they are full of it, and his material exposes that manipulation of the bible. He is on the same spectrum as them just on the opposite side. I don’t really understand what motivates him but he is a workaholic, and I find quite a bit of his work to be on the border of absurdity. I ask many questions of him on his blog, and it is also amazing of the “institutional” answers I receive back. So he is in the same political situation a leader of a evangelical church would be, in the defense of the interests of his “turf.” Bart fell into a niche and the power brokers of the world made him famous. In a way it’s helpful, in another it’s not helpful to be so negatively doubtful of everything in the NT. He doesn’t even know himself what the answers are he just sits there and picks them apart. It has never for a second cast doubt on my faith, I hear for some it has I can’t imagine why? Though I do, and the churches they belong too are loosing bodies which equals money, and their grip on power. Bart is just another ass in a sea of asses, he has made millions being extra critical of something that he even admits is not a big deal, and now there are so many others out there now doing the same, some very extreme. So it appears we are headed in the opposite direction of church dominance, and as bad as it was I imagine it far better than the direction we are headed. In the larger scheme of things nothing has changed, the faithful will be faithful, the ones who seek will find.
@@CKennethBauer dude, it is remarkable how much of that I agree with. Haha
Thank you for sharing.
@ Well you have too, otherwise you are a heretic. Ha, I’m just joking. Funny I was going through some of you videos this morning. Reminds me of (some) the things I say in my (sermons) videos, though mine are just unorganized thoughts on video for friends and Quora people I speak with. Seems we could be in view of the sweet spot of what this thing is all about, I pray. Nice to meet you. Merry Christmas.
@@CKennethBauer nice to meet you too. Merry Christmas.
He is not biassed against evangelicals because if he was, he would think Jesus did not exist!!! 🤦♂️
Ha! The facepalm makes this hilarious. You think that having a bias means you have to disagree completely with everything a person says? I'm biased against Evangelical scholarship but still believe Jesus exists. I also have a bias for alternative energy sources, but I realize gasoline is combustible. I don't think you know how biases work. I do give a good example in my video on "How Jesus Became God," btw.
I would question whether Ehrman should be considered a historian. I majored in history as an undergraduate and we were taught to rely on primary source material. Modern biblical criticism, however, usually tries to discount the primary sources (in this case, the four gospels in the New Testament), and instead tries to come up with an alternative scenario based largely on speculation and conjecture.
You majored in history? Which college taught you that you should rely on stories of miracles in ancient documents and literature? Historians do not do that. If you read the synoptics honestly, you will immediately become aware that they are loaded with apologetics for the converted and those they hope to convert. It is marketing propaganda and polemics against Jews that would not convert. It is us vs. them. It is carrots and sticks. It is 1000% propagandic bullshit by propagandist that were doing what they could to get their cult into the mainstream in a marketplace of competing philosophies, ideologies, superstitions, legends, wives tales. They were competing in the religious marketplace of their era. Their savior was embellished to be the biggest and baddest savior ever. He could do it all and then some. Jesus had to be made superior to all the other demigods as well as the heroes of the Hebrew ancient literature like Adam, Abraham, Moses, King David, John the Baptist, Joseph, Daniel... Jesus could do all their miracles and die for sins. How could anyone refuse the offer? It is a win, win unless you think reality should matter. Then you see it is all just fantasy, wishful thinking, and a way to herd people into an effective useful sacred belief systemused to combat cultures with other religious belief systems, usually for land, resources, or access to consumer markets for their domestic corporations.
I'm not sure how much Ehrman you have read, but his arguments come mostly form his reading of the gospels and other sources around at the time. In fact, as I mentioned in the video, in his trade books he rarely quotes other scholars (secondary sources). The differences between him and, say, Crossan, Wright, or Allison is their methodology in using the gospels.
Quite ironic when he primarily uses the gospels to highlight his points. Before dismissing him as a historian check his credentials out I think you might change your mind
@@vinceendris I have a couple of his earlier books, but not his later ones.
@@jasonleslie4349 His background, I believe, is in New Testament textual criticism.
The best evidence against God is the diversity of Christian faiths and all the other religions. God doesn't care about our interpretations of his teachings or whether one believes the actual resurrection occurred vs. spiritual or metaphorical... or more likely, Christianity's borrowed Jewish conceived tribal God is just as much a human invention as all the other gods, before or since.
@@stenblann9784 you may have commented on the wrong video. Nothing here about proving or disproving god.
Christianity is not a topic, it's a reality. Have you ever prayed? Did God answer your prayer? No matter how bulletproof any argument might be, if you have ever prayed and seen God's work then there's no way to reconcile the intellect no matter how wayward it might be with faith that has been confirmed by God himself.
Thank you for commenting, but you might have commented on the wrong one. This was not about theology or prayer.
"Fan base ... believes him no matter what he says". What a ridiculous video. 36 seconds in. Nop.
You disagree with that statement? You should read some of the comments I get. I also know many people like this. Saying anything negative about Ehrman is considered blasphemy.
Ehrman is a BS artist. He's not a historian or a scholar. He's a malcontent who attacks Christianity with ruthless mendacity. Case in point, he claims Jesus Christ never claimed to be God. John 14:9 "“Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?" ... John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM" ... Revelation 1:8; 21:6 As the Alpha and Omega, Jesus existed before creation and was with God in the beginning John 1:1. He is, therefore, eternal.
Thank you for your comment, but I'm a Christian minister, and I don't believe he attacks Christianity at all. Like all historians, he questions the sources. Therefore, the fact that John says Jesus says something doesn't mean Jesus said something. That is a theological claim.
Just a correction Bart was referring to the synoptic gospels(Matthew, Mark,Luke) not John(in which your quoting scriptures from)and he gives the reasons why in his book How Jesus became God. Attack the argument not the person because if u bothered to research his claim that Jesus HIMSELF didn't say he was God in the synoptic gospels you would of found out he was right.
@@jasonleslie4349 Jason Leslie you're dead WRONG. Ehrman attacks Christianity head on by denying it's reason for existing. The central truth Christians know, is Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. Before Abraham lived I AM lived. Before the world existed Jesus knew us. The high priest ripped his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy because Jesus said, "And you will see the Son of Man (which Jesus called himself) seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven." ... Everyone will see this. Every knee will genuflect to Jesus, who will come on the clouds of Heaven in triumph and glory. Christ also said "I and the Father are one. Anyone who's seen me has seen the Father. How can you say 'show us the Father?" ... You're defending an apostate who is dedicated to scattering Jesus's flock. You can read all his lies and books and believe Ehrman's twisted logic if you like. You're a badly confused individual.
@bobgarrett7134 Sorry but where does he say 'I am God?'Matt26:64 and Mark14:62 did he refer to himself as the"Son of Man?"Did he say explicitly I am the SON of Man? The 1st 3 gospels are written before the gospel of John and nowhere do the 3 say anything to Jesussaying HIMSELF I A M G O D only when John is written he does this.Why?Wouldn't that be the most important thing to mention? Yet the 1st 3 gospels don't until John.Look, we can have a difference of opinion about him. And I understand that he is not a popular guy in christain circles. But if you are a christain calling him a BS artist doesn't sound Christlike aren't you suppose to 'love your enemies'','...turn the other cheek?'
@@jasonleslie4349 Why do you continuously insult God and Jesus Christ? Jesus obviously referred to himself as the Son of Man. Matt 8: 20 And Jesus said to him, 'The foxes have holes and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" Matthew is not John. Jesus Christ didn't need to say "I AM GOD" for readers of the scriptures to understand that Jesus is claiming to be God. As doubting Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and my God." Now, in Romans 9:5, Paul writes "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever." As you know, Paul is not John. Do you not believe anything in the Bible?
Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and tear you to shreds" ... "Do not cast your pearls before swine" ... This is part of the Sermon on the Mount. It means that Christians should not be hypocritical judges, but should be able to discern who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel -- specifically talking about con artists like Ehrman, who are bent on turning people away from God.
Ehrman is one of the brightest lights in modern Christianity. He stopped being a Christian when he came to the unavoidable conclusion that Jesus - not his real name - is not G-d and that only G-d is G-d and there is ONLY ONE, which is the theological basis of Judaism, the only true monotheistic religion. Christianity, like Islam, has always been a henotheistic religion, worshipping one god in particular but not denying the existence of other gods.
In the end, one's theology is not as important as one's comportment. Words are meaningless without action.
@@JeffShacter about the first part - I don’t think theology and monotheism had anything to do with Ehrman’s change of heart.
About the second part- I completely agree. Christianity took a major wrong turn when it started concentrating on theology rather than loving action. One could argue that this was a natural consequence of it becoming a Greek rather than Jewish religion.