ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
4 Misconceptions Christians Spread About The New Testament (feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 พ.ย. 2021
- Dr. Bart Ehrman joins me here to discuss extremely common misconceptions about the New Testament and early Christianity. The misconceptions are:
“The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were written by eyewitnesses, possibly the apostles themselves.”
“Christianity was relatively unified in the first few centuries, and only became theologically diverse and fragmented with time. The further you go back, the more united Christianity is.”
“The proto-orthodox church fathers did not accept the authority of any texts we’d now consider non-canonical, such as the apocalypse of Peter.”
“Legendary accounts of Jesus birth, ministry, and death did not have time to form by the time the Gospels were written. So, the gospel accounts are purely historical.”
Check out and sign up for Dr. Ehrman’s webinar here (thanks for the support!):
gmskeptic--ehr...
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
------------------------------------------SUPPORT------------------------------------------
Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
------------------------------------------Resources for atheists in need------------------------------------------
Find a Secular Therapist: www.secularthe...
Recovering from Religion helps connect those who are leaving or have left their religion with support, resources and community: www.recovering...
Resources for Ex-Mu’s: exmuslims.org/...
The Deconstruction Network: www.phildrysda...
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA
![เหนื่อยหน่อยนะ (SOMEONE LIKE ME) - GEMINI Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M55XjfhbrNw/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out and sign up for Dr. Ehrman’s webinar here (thanks for the support!):
gmskeptic--ehrman.thrivecart.com/did-the-christmas-story-really-happen/
Wait, are you telling us that Dr. Ehrman's webinar is NOT going to have the word "legendary" anywhere in the title?! That sounds like a sorely missed opportunity for self imposed greatness. I will secretly long for such a title in my _real life_ dreams.🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for another epic video, gamer.
(My Response) MISCONCEPTIONS About the New Testament EXPLAINED: th-cam.com/video/mpODf8nTcwc/w-d-xo.html
Sorry, no way I can afford $50 right now... not in the middle of a divorce I never wanted from a man who now calls me greedy.
This webinar looks quite interesting, but holy Jesus there's no way I can pay $50 dollars for that. Especially not considering my country has a weak currency, so that's a quarter of the minimum wage here.
Dr. Erhman deconverted me. I was struggling with my faith and was searching for better answers than I was being given. I ended up purchasing his "Heaven and Hell" on Audible, and listened to it 5 or 6 times, and lost my fear of Satan and Hell. I then listened to his "How Jesus Became God" and my heart (and faith) broke. I had become a Christian at 18 (through a very emotional presentation), and stayed a Christian for 34 years. But eventually the emotions just couldn't keep up with the problems of life and I needed functional, rational, reliable answers. It's certainly been a difficult transition, but at least my eyes are finally open. I'm glad I'm finally here. Thanks Drew, and thanks Dr Ehrman, for helping people like me find our way towards truth. Love to you both!
Merry Christmas! /s
Would you agree that someone who engages in cognitive dissonance is most likely wrong? Because you are irrationally dismissing this person's experience with an unjustified, and frankly childish, false statement?
@@overcookedcooki5285 cope
@@andrewk9037this is true
You are 100% correct. We need people like Bart to reveal things that evangelicals wish to stay oblivious to.
My mother is extremely religious, but she loves history. I have shared a couple videos of Bart with her. Even though she doesn't agree with everything, she does appreciate his dedication and bringing information that even she was unaware of.
@@sidneyadnopoz3427 cope with your idiocy
oOOOoOOoooOOooOOooOOooooOOOoooOooOOOooOOooOhHHHhhhHHHhhhhHHhhHHhhhhhhhhhhhhHhhhhhhhhhHHhhhHhhhHhhhhhhhhhhh (I don't think you're an idiot only that comment, just to be clear)
I just wanted to say that as a Christian pastor your content is refreshing. You speak extremely well, are level-headed, and use credible sources/people. Thank you for the way you present your information.
I really appreciate that, thank you!
this is a cop out to actually answering the big questions.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Negative, my post is a compliment to the content creator and the manner in which he presented the information; not an attempt to refute the information in question.
@@crucified2202 the whole "wow how civil how nice CiViLL wowww" is a dogwhistle stab at those who cut right through to the truth with with abusers using the harsh tone it deserves. it doesn't matter how someone presents information. either it's right or it's wrong. address the content.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 His address to the content may very well be that he disagrees. But the fact that he's going to come to an atheist channel and compliment the atheist host asking atheist questions on the nature of those questions is a step above the rest. Let's put down the pitchforks for a second and realize that we might just have a decent person who believes differently than us on our hands. Not every Christian needs to answer for the discrimination of others Christians at all times. It's just a compliment from someone who thinks differently.
Drew, your gentle approach to atheism is a welcome oasis in a desert of snarky antipathy. And Dr Ehrman's scholarship is eye opening. So I bought a pass to the webinar to support both of you.
"Snarky antipathy" is a great way to put it. I think more people would be convinced if we all adopted an approach more like Drew's.
Mostly the snark is earned... just sayin'.
@@TheRobdarling Agreed, but "deserved" is always relative, and the person on the other end of the snark is almost certainly going to think it undeserved. They will leave having learned only one thing: that atheist was snarky.
I enjoy the snark as well. :) Seriously, I have no problem with multiple angles. Not all atheists have to be alike (as I'm sure you agree).
@@Bill_Garthright Agreed.
Anyone who thinks there wasn't time for legends to develop should take a look at the different narratives circulating for what happened on Jan 6, 2021
This is my go-to example when discussing this subject now.
Honestly, the same example that came to my mind. Just imagine if there wasn't all of the video evidence how such an event would be misrepresented even worse than they are already attempting to do with all of this evidence and more coming our every day about the behind the scenes planning.
@@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic yeah. To see is to perceive. You cannot separate the two. This is why there are so many studies on the validity of eye witness testimony as a reliable source. Spoiler alert: it's not.
And it is all on video.
As a non American, I'm curious, what are the different narratives?
"How we speak is as important as what we say." so true
This is why I use SE now, it makes it easier to speak with people who I disagree with, without the intensity of the conversation getting out of hand.
I think we need to do a better job of this on our side of the aisle.
@@simonodowd2119 Please forgive my ignorance. What is SE?
@@musicalintentions no forgiveness required! Please forgive my presumptive shorthand.
By SE I mean Street Epistemology. I recommend Anthony Magnabosco or Pinecreek (Doug) if you're interested in seeing two different variations of it in action.
It's essentially asking questions to find the main or central reason why someone believe something, e.g. "I believe in God because I think the Bible is divinely inspired". Then exploring the reason/s why they've concluded that is the case.
I honestly think it's the best and most underutilised tool at our disposal when speaking with someone who disagrees with us on deeply held beliefs.
@@simonodowd2119 Now I know!. Thank you. :~)
I appreciate this from Drew. It’s easy for both sides to feel anger or defensiveness when discussing faith. I definitely have these feelings sometimes myself, especially when I first left Christianity.
You know as a person who isn't really interested in the concept of religion in practice I find the development and the culture of religion incredibly fascinating. It's some of longest lasting traditions, though changes in form generation on generation.
Same here, I don't like the meetings and sermons, but I'd like to know their history.
@@ghostagent3552 same, I'm a middle ages nerd so find the interactions between religion and country's government's interesting. Hell it's part of the reason I really liked castlevania
It wasn't until I left Christianity that I became interested in the sociological/anthropological/political/historic aspects of religion. I have spent more time studying religion as a non-believer than as a believer.
That’s what happens when you threaten people with a eternity of hellfire if they don’t follow those traditions
@@theoffor647 Sad that that is the case for many people.
"How we speak is often as important as what we say." This is a gift of a great advocate that is born from kindness and humility.
I actually envy how you can be so calm and peaceful after knowing you have been lied to for half your life. As an Ex-Evangelical, I just can't take the Church seriously anymore. You're a great inspiration to many of us who come from these toxic environments, and I am grateful for your example.
None of these revelations are especially "ground breaking." Bart Erhman just has a habbit of poorly presenting the facts or twisting them to mislead people. The fact of the matter is all these "objections" were known to early christians in the centuries that followed and to the gospel writers themselves, yet they still believed in Jesus. That's because a lot of what Erhman presents here are just blatant lies or half truths. Not to mention, Erhman is seperated from the life of Jesus by almost 2000 years, while the early church fathers like Origen, Papias, Tertulian, Augustine, Ireaneus, etc. were seperated by a couple centuries. So who are you going to believe? This old lying hack who claims to know secrets christians have apparently been oblivious to all this time? Or the people who were intimately connected to the apostolic tradition and who had access to many more records now lost to time? The only thing this guy has going for him are arm chair theories meant to demystify an account of God in the flesh that's just too fantastic for him. When we're talking about God here, it isn't wise to definitively declare what is possible and not, or more likely than not.
The only reason he has any shred of credibility or notoriety is because of his sensationalism. He always puts forth the most polemical and provocative theories because it seems modern scholarship is more concerned with stirring controversy and making headlines than actually discerning what is true. For these people nothing is sacred. They have perverted the realm of academia with use of artifice and deceit.
Point being don't forsake your faith in Jesus over such lame and circumstantial evidence. If you had a bad experience with your church, you should know that a life devoted to Jesus doesn't have to be like that. Just do what a lot of Christians and scholars refuse to do: read scripture
@@lyongreene8241 I'm with Joshua here: scholarship is much more likely to uncover a fact based understanding of ancient times than ideologically inspired patristic writings. Defaming Dr.Ehrman's learning and motivation is evidence only of bias. Joshua's growing resentment is - I hope I have understood him - not to do with having a "bad experience" with a particular church, but rather indignation that our minds were colonised by an ideology before we knew how to think critically, rendering us unable - or only able with great difficulty - to get outside this traditional (and cultural) mindset so as to take an objective view. In the last resort, who are you going to trust,, someone whose learning has actually changed their mind, or folk who think instilling beliefs into children's unformed minds is an ethical enterprise?
@@lyongreene8241 can’t agree more 😂😂.. idk why they just be shout Bart ehrman said Bart ehrman said they are other New Testament scholars but y’all don’t believe them 😂
@@ritawing1064 I’m skepticism is good faith is not blind my faith in God is based on evidence but it gets to a point you ask yourself what 1st century evidence is credible for some skeptics?… I actually like the fact we are all seeking the truth
@@quicksilver7532 What evidence? I mean, all faith in religious scripture is blind. If you actually read the bible from front to cover with a critical mind and still believed, that would be the day. There is so much heinous inhumane shit in there, so much illogical nonsense that anyone who says they have truly read the bible and still believes IS discarding everything in favor of blind belief. And for what actually? Do you really want to spend a billion billion billion years in some Christian Disney World you can't leave, every day having to worship your god? Is that really the reason, to be in an eternal prison of *bliss*?
One of the last points you briefly made is very important and frequently overlooked: It is helpful and effective to be empathic with believers. Give them time, listen and only then reply politely with the facts. Respect beats mockery and polemicism hands down.
i just crushed Erhman. just because u were too foolish to be able to crush him does not mean you were both right.
Agreed.
You may be a christian who regards atheists as those who have not seen the light.
You may be an atheist who regards christians as those who have been lied to.
In both cases your subject is, at worst, a victim or, more typically, misinformed. You owe it to your fellow human to be kind and respectful. The search for the truth does not have to be a battle between antagonists.
Great point David! As a Christian, it is always surprising to me when some (I stress some!) who notionally want to change my mind think that insults etc are a good option. I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would work out!
I see my fellow Christians (and members of various other belief based groups, such as fellow lefties etc.) do the same to others all the time and I always think it reveals a lot about people's actual motives.
@@LlywellynOBrien Jesus insulted people. Called them vipers etc. I think your motives are prideful and arrogant and satanic but i could be wrong.
@@LlywellynOBrien My wife and one of our sons are Christian. The other son and I are non-believing free thinkers. That doesn't get in our way. Through personal experience and from what I read I conclude that there are good people who are believers and also less good people who are believers. The same applies to non-believers. Being religious or athiest seems not to have a noticable effect on virtuous behaviour.
I am no longer a Christian, and I would never try to make those who are lose their faith. I would like that more Christians look at their faith and what they are taught critically.
Why not? Beliefs strongly affect how people act, and I for one don't enjoy living among people who believe (and act like) being gay is wrong, and that Jesus is coming back soon so we can just keep polluting and it won't matter anyway. It does matter what other people believe about reality.
@UC5KeYKz0sT4kXCy6kf959yg You don’t know what they did. I wouldn’t say that.
@Galaxy Guy AMEN
@@Venaloid Their indoctrination of children really gripes my ass.Teaching them about hell and the devil is child abuse,even though most of them don't realize that.
@@shriggs55 Not sure how its child abuse. And no one even knows for sure if there is a heaven or hell. If christains are right, then sucks for everyone else, and if atheists are right, well then, you just die.
I'm a catholic yet I enjoy your analytical take on the discrepancies of Christianity. I don't want to be blind to my faith. I want to know how the gospels came together. And how did Christianity came to be what it is today
Cultural genocide is a big one. Just looks at the millions killed in Latin America by the Spanish empire. That's a how Christianity was developed.
I am Roman Catholic as well. But i do not pray the Rosary. I do not believe that God would even care if you keep repeating the same scripted prayer lines over & over again. Many Catholics pray the rosary like robots. It makes no sense!
@@freddiereadie30 it certainly doesn’t.
@Miguel Limzon - I am an ex-Catholic. I quit the religion after reading the Bible for myself.
*I'd strongly recommend that you read the Bible for yourself.*
I understand what you’re saying. It’s very interesting and challenging.
What? Christians not knowing what their own holy book says? I am shocked! Truly shocked!
I'm about halfway though reading the whole Bible, and so many things have made me stop and ask, "wait people actually believe this stuff?"
A really funny story is the one about Noah getting drunk and passing out naked. His son Ham sees him and, long story short, Noah finds out the next morning, so he curses Ham's son Canaan, his own grandson. Who btw wasn't involved in the "incident". I literally laughed out loud when I read this. It's in Genesis IIRC
@@saintburnsy2468 i don't know how you got that far. 😂😱
Oh and that anecdote about Noah getting drunk just appears out of nowhere too! It's like, the flood receded and everyone got out of the ark, oh and Noah got drunk one time and cursed Canaan, oh then Noah lived another 350 years and died.
Anyways so this guy named Nimrod...
LOL! 😂
@@markhaunert5029 Honestly I read it for the comedy. Little nuggets like that, or like Elisha's she-bears in Kings, keep me coming back for more!
Also it's nice to know the Bible more than the average believer. Gives me great ammo
@@saintburnsy2468 i definitely agree with the ammo part. Only way i can do it is by watching videos like friendly atheist does. Good luck getting through the whole thing 😃✌
You can tell Dr Bart is a huge nerd by the way he talks.
It's good to see a kindred spirit, GMS is too handsome and well-spoken for me to really sympathize with him.
But there is a handsomeness to you too my friend! You have a heart that can care for people, and a mind that can think. In this vast universe of ours, those are very rare indeed. Be the best you that you can be! Be brave. Be smart. Be kind. Be YOU.
PEACE
@@steveperks7054 It seems I somehow traveled to a parallel universe where youtube comments are very nice and wholesome.
You wouldn't believe the stuff people say in the universe I'm from.
Thank you for the kind words.
I love your work. I became more spiritual since becoming an ex-Christian. It’s truly a zombie like mindset that follows it. And they’re not aware of its hold on them. Because they’ve given into that blind faith that they’re taught, they end up like Samson. Bound, blinded and grinding at the wheel. It took me over a decade to deprogram myself from that teaching. And I never grow tired of research. I’m thankful for that experience. And I never want to go through it again. You’re helping many people to open their eyes. I’m so proud of you. Thanks for your hard work.
I was a follower of a religion too. Ik it takes a lot of hard work to leave a faith and to work on yourself and to leave the bias and misconceptions or myths we once held onto behind.
i just crushed Erhman. just because u were too foolish to be able to crush him does not mean you were both right.
@@j919or You sound awfully proud of yourself for smashing other peoples truth. Just remember, pride is just a mask of weakness.
@@danampolizzi7489 ....and bullshit.
I think you would like some of the content produced by Michael S. Heiser. He digs into biblical context that goes outside of a lot of the traditions held by Christian organizations.
I love and appreciate how frequently you encourage your listeners to be kind and how you constantly promote healthy, respectful dialog. Thanks for your great work!
People this year believed that JFK Jr. was gonna pop up. That should tell a lot about just how gullible us humans can be.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Wait, what?
Fahad Ayaz, a certain section of QAnon followers believed that JFK Jr. was going to come back to life and appear in Dallas, all to help Trump be reinstated and that JFK Jr. was then going to become Vice President.
The whole reality is stranger than fiction thing.
wait, what happened two years ago x')
If my name was Bart I would definitely call my book "according to Bart" and "fact checked by Lisa" xD
Dr. Erhman is a fantastic speaker and his delivery though historical perspective makes it approachable for believers and non-believers alike. His "How Jesus Became God" lectures is a must for any biblical scholar.
the bart world tour on atheist youtube continues let’s go!
Jesus was Jewish. Christians are not. As you to fall in this category.
So drop the Christian stories.
What do you know about the Jewish stories?
Probably nothing.
You should look my confused and immature friend. Before you thump your atheist hand book.
Because you know nothing in the grand game of life. Nothing!
@@hellwithit And what are your credentials, Professor Numbnuts?
@@hellwithit bro literally who asked here? Did you comment in the wrong place?
@@hellwithit Yo what the hell is this donut actually talking about though
@Richdragon 😂😂😂
The "too early" line is one that never made sense to me. Mom tried to tell me the reason the sheriff got a warrant for my brother's place was because he threatened someone online - and she told me that a week after my brother had been arrested and was sitting in jail waiting for my parents to decide whether to bail him out or not. I texted Dad and learned that the actual reason for the warrant was because he had been throwing himself in front of traffic and the neighbors had called the police (he was trying to kill himself). I have no idea where Mom got that idea, but she'll swear it's true.
Anyone with a mother like mine who just invents details when she either doesn't know what really happened or doesn't want to believe what really happened will fully understand that the "too early" line is just nonsense. And my mother is fully convinced that her version of the story is 100% true and accurate. She point blank refuses to believe there's any real problem with my brother that a Bible study can't solve while my dad's practically tearing his hair out trying to get my brother actual help.
BTW, the reason for the arrest was because they found unlicensed hemp plants in the garage. And no, it's not that difficult to get a license to grow hemp plants. Weed isn't legal in our state with the exception of cannaboid oil or whatever it's called - and even that has to be produced outside the state. There's no licensed growers/manufacturing allowed in our state.
I'm so sorry to hear about your family trouble. I hope that your brother, especially, gets the professional help he needs and finds stability and relief.
Beth Badger
I will pray for your brother my friend.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 Fuck off with the prayers. He needs actual help from licensed therapists.
@@SadisticSenpai61
I prayed that God would give him proper help, what's wrong with you dude!
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 Not a dude and seeing as he's convinced it's God in his head telling him to kill himself, I doubt God would help.
I had a discussion with a very devout Christian somewhere in a TH-cam comment section about how Christians have always believed in the trinity. He did a pretty clever trick to dismiss my argument that in the early days some people believed differently. He linked to a TH-cam video that had millions of views that talked about the struggle between the aryans, gnostics and CHRISTIANS. Basically the video just called everyone who disagreed with him not a Christian
That's a "No True Scotsman" fallacy right there. Orthodoxy falls into this one a lot, honestly.
Arian, that could cause some major confusion friend. Aryans were a VERY different people group.
So is anyone who tries to call themselves a Christian actually a Christian? Is a religion not defined by its beliefs?
@@omnitroph1501 maybe, but who's the authority on defining which belief constitute Christianity? You cannot take 'what person beliefs' because that would exclude everybody who does not believe that. Imagine if an Russian orthodox leader would be allowed to define who is a Christian
@sjoerd Glaser, I hope I'm understanding what you are saying, you're asking who the authority is for Christianity, well the answer to that is what is clearly stated in Scripture
Will edit this if it's included in the video, but I'd say my favorite is how Lucifer isn't actually a name for the devil. In reality, Lucifer means "morning star" in Latin and was merely an analogy in the Bible verse it was included that was meant to mock the king of Babylon after his kingdom fell.
Fun fact though, the morning star is actually a planet, the planet Venus. Venus also just so happens to be the Roman Goddess of love and considering how strict conservative Christians are about love, maybe she really is the devil. Just a thought.
Heck, the devil hardly appears in the bible at all. The _only_ time he is anything more than God's henchman is in his tempting of Jesus. Hell barely appears either, for that matter. Most of what we think about hell is from a long poem from the Middle ages.
@@timeshark8727 and Dante's inferno lol
@@timeshark8727 and the books called "Enoch"
@@jamtaco2667 that's the poem I was referring to. You got it in one.
@@jamtaco2667 Enoch is actually part of the Ethiopian orthodox Bible believe it or not, but only first Enoch.
I love how each Christians interpret the word of God all differently to fit their narrative agendas.
@@jsnlimbaugh It IS a valid reason to not only discredit Christianity (whatever THAT is), but also to reveal what a pack of self serving , propagandists most theologians are.
It also stands as one of the truly examples of the crazy way human minds work.
@@jsnlimbaugh Honest examination of your foundational document IS all that is required to discredit your belief-system.
The infinite # of interpretations of it (line by line & as a whole) is just one of the many failings of a document that identifies itself as the instructions of a perfect being.
@@jsnlimbaugh
1) Authorship
2) Canonicity
3) Historicity
3) Immorality/ Ethics
3) Internal Inconsistency
4) Scientific Ignorance
5) Translation Issues
6) Un-/Indemonstrability of the supernatural
7) Variant (myriad, often irreconcilable & yet contextually viable) interpretations of the alleged perfect, true & infallible communication from an otherwise omnipotent, perfect being....
The failure of an Omnipotent, Perfect being to communicate perfectly.
@@jsnlimbaugh There, a 'bit more' for ya. Ask & ye shall recieve.
@@jsnlimbaugh HI Jason.
I squandered some 15 yrs of my adulthood IN.....and a further 5 years of gradual Liberation, Healing & Recovery FROM the Over-Arching Cult of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity....
I've studied & employed Christian Evangelism & Christian Apologetics throughout those years.
Regrettablely, I've Been there. Shamefully, I've Done all that which you endeavor in your pursuit of this converation with me......
Drew I know you'll probably never see this comment but I just want to thank you. For reaching me how to think for myself. I've watched every one of your videos and you helped me. Thank you a million times ❤️
Good for you. We all need a hand to help us lift ourselves out of false teachings and contradictory beliefs, even if most of society can't see what they are.
Random different background bc im traveling for one of the colonizer days
First
@@gamernade1907 you are pretty late, kid.
I mean , First to comment
I am a Christian and a huge fan of yours. You don't have believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian. For a long time I struggled to reconcile my faith with my skepticism. Great video!
Drew, you are such a good example of the soft-spoken skeptic. You always speak with respect.
Anyone who says "there was no time for legend to develop" should look at the crazy shit people say about Tupac
You take that back!
A pretty well-known modern example of legend building is Roswell. Yes, that Roswell. It all started with someone finding some remains of a weather balloon - a few sticks, some aluminum foil (or mylar? Can't remember, doesn't matter). As for material facts, that's it. And how many people even today swear there was solid evidence of aliens? Look at the old newspapers - nothing spectacular whatsoever. And yet, the legend built incredibly fast.
Exactly. People do love to tell, and embellish, stories.
And there's always the legends about *Elvis Presley* ... which popped up pretty quickly after he died.
There are people who are also saying that the Apollo Moon Landings were LEGENDARY. They never happened. They were shot inside the Universal Studios soundstage. LOL
@@pauligrossinoz Not just Elvis. Pretty much every celebrity with sufficient fame that did not die of old age.
I drove through Roswell a month ago. Based upon the number of businesses touting alien logos for their various products, services, and souvenirs, there's no hurry from the city to dispel any myths.
To add to your comment about articles of faith, those of us raised in "the South" were actively taught not to question any of the teachings from an adult and to just "have faith". From my own experience, I can tell you that most people will never admit to or embrace their own true feelings in life, much less ever seek out their own truth as far as belief in a higher power is concerned. Thank you for your posts and your channel.
"Christianity was relatively united in the first few centuries." oh, no no no no
i often wonder how history might have turned out different if the Alexandrian Gnostic Church had won out over Roman Catholicism. at least based on the surviving fragments, they seemed more interested in Discourse than Orthodoxy.
you must have been stoked to get Dr. Ehrman. he's a legend.
i just crushed Erhman. just because u were too foolish to be able to crush him does not mean you were both right.
Or if John the Baptist outlived Jesus.
Because he seemed to be quite a rival of Jesus at the time and his own disciples are often credited with creating some of the many gnostic affiliations.
@@j919or You crushed Dr. Ehrman? When and how?
How is beating Dr. Erhman related to being right - regarding both Dr. Erhman and the one who administered the beating?
@@SerendipitousProvidence i destroy everything he says. Try me. quote one of his arguments here.
@@j919or OK, all the points he might've made in this video: how about that?
Oh man, I love Dr. Ehrman! His book on the introduction to the Bible has helped me SO much while perusing through it, it's inconceivable!
And as expected, the answers are short, concise and exhaustive. I love this man.
I wish I could purchase this seminar, love Dr. Ehrman's personality and how he explains things. Keep up the good work Drew!!
Thank you Drew. Mirroring other's comments, I genuinely appreciate your calm, methodical approach to these topics. a role model for peaceful, dispassionate conversation, vs generally emotionally charged argument.
One of two reasons I watch your channel is because you are very kind and respectful of others' beliefs. The second is because I am very interested in the validity of biblical text. Thank you
Thanks for sharing this thoughtful conversation between you and Dr. Ehrman. It was quite engaging to watch. Having been through the 35 years and counting of deconstructing my faith, such insights are always both of interest and beneficial to me.
In my case, I believed fiercely in the basic simplicity of Christ's Gospel and just recently, came to realize that it remains the one thing that never left me--but then again, I chose to do the radical act of reading the Bible as it was written, for comprehension with an open mind. Sharing as it seems that if Christians did the same, the world would likely be a much better place, IMHO. It's just a thought.
Dude this was so great. I've been reading Dr. Ehrman since I was a teenager. That lecture is the perfect time for me to finally throw my support to GMS.
Practicing Catholic and believer here. Really appreciate your perspective.
Me too! It's good to listen to the other side too as pope Benedict XVI wrote in one essay before becoming pope that atheistic teachings have a cleaning effect on religion.
What's up early people
Nothing much hbu
Sup
@Eastern fence Lizard not god?
This occasional claim by theists that there wasn't enough time for legend to grow is laughably absurd. We've all seen this happen to current figures right here in our own lifetimes. For example, Bruce Lee had supernatural stories told about him before his own life was even over....and some people continue to circulate those legends.
Even if they begin in jest like Jesus-themed Chuck Norris jokes, legends can spring up and begin propagating any time and grow into viral legends.
@09mrmarshall we all see people dying for Allah in wars or terrorism, Hindu and Buddhist ascetics living in penance and renounce like Christians or Aztecs sacrificing their own children for their gods. Not to count all the people who died for Hitler, the Communist utopia or Jehova witnesses who don't accept given blood...
Just look at the Jan 6th insurrection and the widely different interpretations and accounts about it less than a year after the tragedy.
Claims by Christians. Theists are a much larger group that predominantly reject the validity of the gospels.
@@the_polish_prince8966 He didn't mention the gospels. The arguments used by Christians are hardly contained to just Christians. Theists all over the world use these exact same arguments for their own holy texts.
Are you sure the supernatural stories about Bruce Lee are untrue?
Are they properly speaking stories rather than explanations? I'll give an example to clarify : Hercules killed the Nemean lion with his hands (story) and had the needed strength because he was son of Jove (explanation).
My guess is that Christian appologists would claim that early 1st century Christianity was fairly united (with, perhaps, minor disagreements), but that there was an explosion of radically differing views (what they call 'heresies') in the late 1st or early 2nd century. They would likely further claim that after these 'heresies' went away, there was (mostly) a return to the ideas of the early 1st century.
Whilst modern Christians would claim that Biblical figures, such as the apostles and Paul, shared their views, many of the 'heretics' said the same. Valantinius (one of the Christians who believed in over 300 gods) claimed that Paul shared his views.
My guess is that there are exactly as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians. Man makes god in his own image.
Should be obvious when you actually stop to think about it, too. Any time you get a new field of something, at first people are going to run with it in any possible direction, so you get a huge diversity of different variations until it settles into something more organised.
Paul talked a lot about the different views of christianity in his own time, apparently only 20 years or so later. Believe me, not them, was a constant theme in his letters.
The divisions with the earliest Christians is well documented in their own holy book. Just read *Acts of the Apostles* to see their dirty laundry being aired. Paul and Peter were often on _really_ bad terms in Acts!
The first time I read Acts I was exhorted to do so by a Christian who told me that Acts documents that the Apostles were poor, desperate dudes who consciously chose a life of being hunted down, tortured and killed by the Romans while they still clung doggedly to their supposedly "true" faith.
Then I read Acts for myself. _What a joke!_ Only somebody who hasn't actually read Acts could characterise it in that way!
The earliest Christian writings we have are from Paul in the mid 1st century and he documents at least one major disagreement with James and Peter. They weren’t United even back then.
Hi Drew, your discussions mirror my own thoughts and beliefs in so many ways. Thanks for discussing these topics so rationally and intellugently
Drew is the remedy to "new atheist" rudeness and arrogance. I cant even listen to matt dillahunty types interact with callers. Its painful. Its just a fight rather than a conversation. Thanks for setting a good example Drew
I have an embellished story told about something I was involved in, by a guy who saw it. I prefer his version, it makes me look like much more of a badass than the truth. If he's around, and it comes up, I always let him tell it.
I was involved in an event while dinner was being prepared. By the time we were eating, the characters and events of the story had changed. I'm still amazed.
I find it interesting how little true believing Christians know about early Christianity and how the bible came about. They should read Dr. Ehrman's easily understood books on what really was going on back then.
Information risks belief. When I was a Baptist, I feared deep down that knowledge and rational thinking would ruin my faith.
@@tvnorminstudio3080 Hey I was born into a Baptist family! It's kinda funny... you'd think that the true faith would be able to stand up to rationality, stand up to scrutiny...
Or read for themselfes. Why just listen to the opinions of others?
@@saintburnsy2468 GMS was also an ex-independent fundamental baptist himself. It’s cool to find people online who understand the predicament as well as we do.
Oh no they would rather read hacks like Lee Strobel. Seriously that guy even claims to be an ex athiest. Can you seriously believe he was an athiest for a second ?
I’ve brought up Bart Ehrman to others in the past and they tell me Bart isn’t telling the whole truth or that other bible scholars have a better grasp of the subject (usually where that grasp is oppose to Ehrman’s). Some of these people are well spoken and confident and I’m convinced a lot of em just don’t like the fact that someone who “should” be defending their views isn’t..
Bishop John Shelby Sponge is a good one to mention.
I definitely think many Christians are afraid to gauge with Eherman due to fear and then simply just write him off as foolish or something. Eherman is a very capable scholar. In fact, Eherman presents a case in light of the early creeds, the death and burial of Jesus, and the disciples’ later response of what the saw to be his resurrection that even Christian scholars like Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig pretty much find agreement with Eherman’s historical assessment.
Any non-theologian who says that Bart Ehrman is lacking in the subject will probably be left in tears if they ever try to debate him (haha).
Though, personally, there are a few moments where I find Eherman can be a little misleading in his work. For instance, in his book Misquoting Jesus Eherman leads the reader to the notion that the Christian’s confidence in the consistency of scripture can be somewhat thwarted by the sheer number of textual variants. However, in either his preface or forward (Or it may be in the editorial note in the later edition, it’s been a while haha) he states that these variants don’t negatively affect any major doctrines within Christianity. I think that he has great integrity to mention that, but I wonder if there are a lot of people that are just going to miss that section altogether.
Also, he does carry a strong emphasis on this notion of “Christianities” in the early church and that it became unified under Roman influence. However, other NT scholars find that the Christian faith in the early centuries had by and large a unification of core doctrines and that the strong differences came from fringe groups centuries later (e.g., Arianism, Docetism/Gnosticism, etc.,). But perhaps that is something to be further to be debated? Perhaps on the geneticallymodifiedskeptic TH-cam channel!? 😉👍
Bart has one big flaw which is scoffing at the potential that Jesus is strictly a made up superhero based on no real person at all.
@@crhu319 lol the delusion is unreal😆.. Jesus existed get over it
@@quicksilver7532 Yes he did and he was a failed end times preacher. Get over it.
The end is near?
*The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme:
Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came)
Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’.
Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’.
Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away before all these things take place’.***
Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man)
Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.*
1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent)
1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.*
Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.*
1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord.
Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son.
Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.*
James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.*
1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.*
1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.*
1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming.
Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.*
Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.*
*It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.*
www.kyroot.com/
Watch "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman" on TH-cam
th-cam.com/video/s6GHEOOAXRI/w-d-xo.html
I like the reporting of Jesus's prayers in Gethsemane, the story specifically says everyone else was asleep and he was arrested in the morning. It can only be a made up tale.
We have here fan fiction stories that authors produced to propagate their idol. What we see in the new testament are sales patches for their product Yeshuah.
Here's how the virgin birth story originated:
Mary: Joseph, I'm pregnant!
Joseph: Dammit! We have to come up with a story...
Um, if Jesus wasn't divine than he would have been born perfectly naturally. Thus, he would have been born and his parents wouldn't have blinked an eye. They certainly wouldn't have tried to claim that he was born supernaturally. Thus, under Atheism, the idea of the Virgin birth came in to tradition some other way after his death. There's no way his parents made up the story for a child that they had no idea would start a new religion.
@@petery6432 First rule of Comedy: Never explain the joke.
@@MichaelPiz Whoops.
Sorry, to disappoint but Joseph was a later invention. The earliest gospels didn't mention him at all 😅
No Joseph in Mark, but he's in Matthew so invented or not, he can't be too late an addition to the Gospel tradition.
I think a book called "Revelation , a rabbit hole according to Bart" would be pretty good title for a book
I don't think they actually care about any "truth" you bring. Heck. I had a Baptist get mad because I called him a Protestant, and he told me that the Baptist church never split from the Catholics during the Protestant Schism . He said only the Baptist church has the true unbroken linage from John the Baptist (This linage, according to him, is being covered up by the Catholic Church)
😂
The New Testament does NOT disavow the practice of slavery.
Paul doesnt, but Jesus talks against people ruling over other people, a position which entails being against slavery, tho if we think about it it is much broader and much more radical than just that.
@@zelenisok Well if he did, he wasn't very adamant about it. There wasn't any sense of urgency or gravitas to the sentiment.
@@zelenisok absolute nonsense.
So wtf is this to do with the Christmas story? Great black Friday deals on slaves coming up at Wal-Mart? An unusual Christmas gift for your mum?
And therefore is disqualified as a source of ethics?
The unholy trinity of TH-cam:
Genetically Modified Skeptic, Rationality Rules and Cosmic Skeptic
lol
I wouldn't mind holy Kool aid being added to make them the four horsemen of yt atheism
and the og NonStampCollector
I’ve mentioned this in another video’s comment section, but it’s so relevant here too. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school from 1st grade through my Sophomore year in high school. I was very much a devout Catholic through my grade school years, less so later, but only because with my dad being a single parent who owned his own business, we ended up being just C & E Catholics once I was in high school, plus, I was probably starting to have my doubts about God then. But, in 5th or 6th Grade, one of my teachers said the Christmas story wasn’t true, it was added because people wanted to know about the Messiah’s birth, but no information about that would have been available, so they made up a story that seemed fitting for someone as important as the Messiah. I felt really disappointed that it wasn’t true, because what kid doesn’t love a story that involves a magical baby, animals, mysterious figures like the Wise Men following a star to find the magical baby (that last part probably appealed to me as I was already an astronomy nerd and the 3 Wise Men probably subconsciously reminded me of Obi Wan Kenobi. Come to think of it, if the baby JC had a long lost twin sis he finds later in the Gospels….I digress). But my faith was not shaken by this information at all. So it really is odd to me that grown up supposedly hard core Christians faith is so weak that they can’t cope with the idea that the story of the Nativity is not factual.
For me the daftest part of the nativity story is the fact that Bethlehem is only 7 kilometers from Jerusalem.
I could cover that distance in a 30 minute run, and the supposed Magi shouldn't have taken much longer than an hour or so. So ... _why didn't Herod just have the Magi followed from Jerusalem if he was really so keen to find the baby Jesus???_
When the New Testament opens with such a daft story ... it's pretty good bet that the rest of it is just garbage too.
@@pauligrossinoz Speak for yourself; I couldn’t run 7 kilometers in 30 minutes. ;)
That’s a good point, but the Magi were included in the story for the same reason other parts of that story are there: they fulfilled Old Testament predictions of what would happen when the Messiah arrived, specifically verses in Isaiah and the Psalms. Whoever created these stories knew their Scripture. So they had to include these elements, but it seems they had to include other things as well. I’d guess that when this story was written or created first as an oral tradition, it was understood that people like the Magi, whether they were kings of other lands or were important men in some other way, entering another nation without visiting the King would have been unacceptable. So, to make the story believable, the Magi had to visit King Herod. But that posed another problem for the author because Herod would have been threatened by someone being referred to as King of the Jews, or at least that’s what the author of this story believed. So, they added that the Magi had dreams telling them Herod planned to harm baby Jesus, so they snuck out of Israel through a different route. There is no explanation for Herod not having them followed, except, perhaps, that one King having other Kings followed could cause problems if those following the Magi were caught. Or when Herod told the Magi, who voluntarily came to him asking where the baby JC was being born, trusted that they would return with the information as to his whereabouts as requested, “so Herod could pay tribute,” with Herod never suspecting they’d figure out his true motives through supernatural means. Whatever the explanation for what we see as holes in this story, it made sense to the people at the time, and that’s what was important because these were stories used to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah. And given the care taken to make the story of Jesus’s birth match the Old Testament, I’d think the intended audience was Jews in Judea and not the Gentiles St. Paul spent his time converting.
@@paradoxical_taco - all you have done is created a newer, contradictory interpolation of an already extremely dubious story.
The opening gospel claims that the Magi followed the star from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. A distance of only 7 kilometers!!!!
That's the salient point here - it's utterly absurd to use any form of celestial navigation - ie: "follow a star" - for such a minuscule distance as Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
You tried to add a new twist wherein these Magi supposedly left the country to actively prevent themselves being followed, whereas the original narrative says nothing of the sort - just that they followed a star. And that's an even more absurd journey, given the practical difficulties of actual celestial navigation. The star's behavior gets even more weird in your version!
_It seems that you are blind to your own _*_blind faith_*_ here._ You are better off just conceding that you believe these gospel stories on *blind faith,* rather that making such ad-hoc and dubious interpolations to an already dubious narrative.
And there are even more stupid stories than that in the opening gospels. If you stay on your chosen path of making up absurd stuff to cover up already absurd stuff ... that just looks like ... well ... something that I can't say without going close to violating TH-cam's terms of service.
I read the description of the video and I realized I don't need to watch it because I read Dr. Ehrman's books and I can easily defend those points. Many thanks to this man for being almost single-handey responsible for my deconversion.
You were never actually and truly converted.
I don't know why, but I find deconstructing the histories of oral traditions, and trying to unwind the game of telephone into the past to see how things changed and developed, to be the most exciting coolest thing. The way culture and storytelling evolves over time, whether those stories be religious, legends, fairytales, just-so-stories, etc is super fun to me.
I love videos like this Drew! I say this as someone who's a bit of a religious studies nerd as well as someone who transitioned from agnostic to apatheist AND Christian Modernist who now even goes to church somehow. And to kind of tie this in from your last video, I think you'd find a great home doing a major in religious studies yourself and I would highly enjoy even more of such videos if you'd go in that direction!
Send this to Christians spreading misinformation....I don't have that much bandwidth.
The American author Samuel Clemens, known to all as Mark Twain, said it best when he said, "Religion began when the first con artist met the first naive fool."
Mark Twain should have read Psalm 14:1, where the true "fool" is described.
I attended Princeton Theological Seminary while Bart was doing his doctorate. Almost everything he says is known by every seminarian. Most of us continued in the faith, shedding literalisms and mining the depths of Scripture for meaning. The natural dividing line between Bart and many of us is faith itself. We don't differ much on scholarship ideas, but we vary completely on "ground of being" issues. Bart is a good guy and a good foil against Bibliolatry. We can be friends and disagree in good form.
While I didn't attend seminary per se, I've been a Christian and bible scholar my whole life, and I have a minor in Biblical Studies. The thing that I am struggling with is how to keep my faith while "shedding literalisms", as you put it. I just don't see how to reconcile the two, especially considering the claims made in scripture.
@@soccerchamp0511 I believe we read Scripture rightly when we do so oriented in belief, as a start. For me, seminary taught me how to read the text both at face value and with multiple lenses as on a microscope. Every translation is an interpretation. There are those who go too far--looking at the text so closely that its meaning is completely spread out and lost, like someone taking apart an intricate watch until they can never reassemble it. I suspect Bart is in that group. He's climbed down the microscope and wanders among the intricacies but can no longer see the whole. On the other side, there are those of us who read Scripture and church history critically but have a faith that is not dependent upon the words, but the Word--as T.S.Eliot said: "The Word within the word that dare not speak a word." People of faith hear that Word in spite of the words--hence
"shedding literalisms." Only the faith of a fool stands or falls on inessentials.
@@NoelAndersonhere I agree with what you're saying in regards to interpreting scripture through different lenses and being willing to reevaluate the "inessentials". I guess what I'm struggling with is how to continue to have faith in something that is not necessarily based in truth when it comes to the essentials. For example, the strongest part of my faith is in Jesus because of who scripture says he was and what he did. But if we don't even know if the Gospels are true then isn't the whole basis for our faith hollow?
@@soccerchamp0511 But he is who Scripture says he is. Ehrman is wrong about many things--chiefly the claims of fabrication or fabulism--the essentials are in what the gospels proclaim: that Jesus is the incarnate logos, the Son of God, and that he was resurrected, etc. Just note--all the people who instructed Ehrman--Metzger, McCord, Loder, Allen, McCormack--affirm those essentials with their lives. As do I. Ehrman has chosen the path of reductive materialism and sophistry.
@@NoelAndersonhere And that is what I want to believe as well, but I'm struggling I guess because there I haven't seen enough definitive evidence to refute claims of fabrication. So how do you look at scriptures outside the gospels? Do you consider them inessential?
So there is an ex-christian group that I'm a part of where someone came saying they were a representative of Bart for his marketing team and they asked who Bart Erhman should talk to on his upcoming book tour and I listed you amongst others with your subscriber counts to get him to talk to you. If I played any part in this connection, I'm very happy.
The gospels occasionally give detailed accounts of characters' internal thoughts, in addition to events where there were no witnesses (other than Satan). In fiction, that is called the third person omniscient point of view.
Would you mind giving examples?
Matthew and Luke chapters 4, the disciples would obviously have taken Jesus' word for what happened with Satan.
Examples where Jesus tells what certain think, well, we would be accepting Jesus as omniscient, more than just a human eyewitness.
Motives of Judas - very clear in retrospect, after one knew of his treason.
Are there any others that would be a real issue?
Not only that but there are parts to the story where no one is present. Mark has the resurrection narrative with women discovering the empty tomb and not telling anyone. How would Mark know this? How would anyone know this? That’s not first hand account eye witness testimony.
@@friendo6257 Not telling anyone IMMEDIATELY, but they would have afterwards.
@@omnitroph1501 not according to the gospel of Mark. Read the last chapter
@@friendo6257 "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."
Does it mean that they lived in constant fear for the rest of their lives and took their secret to the grave? No, of course not. It means that in the immediate aftermath of the event, they said nothing, only later sharing their story.
The disagreements of the Church Fathers strengthened my faith. Reading their rational discussions on the nature of Christ shows that they weren’t fundamentalists. We still read the letters of Clement (part of the early writings removed from the canon) as part of the Liturgy of the Hours. These books weren’t removed from Christianity just Biblical canon.
That seems to be a healthy way to look at things.
Not original writings.
A Latin translation from the 2nd or 3rd century was found in an 11th-century manuscript in the seminary library of Namur, Belgium, and published by Germain Morin in 1894. ....and it is often just attributed to Clement. Although most "scholars" claim that an "original" was written between 96-140....but this is all just wishful thinking.
As a non believing catholic, I used to wonder how changes were made in the canon. Isn't god's word unchangeable by mere mortals?
Rational discussions on an irrational topic IMO.
I came across Dr. Ehrman's lectures organically on TH-cam, and it's wild to see him popping up on all these channels I normally follow along with.
Two GM Skeptic videos in 1 month? Sign me up!
I have 2, possibly 3 videos coming in December too!
@@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic Drew, you’re spoiling us this Christmas
Good video. Usually people who are knowledgeable like him don’t have a good camera personality and come across as dry. This guy is informative and entertaining
Fantastic video, you two are both such a great resource to help people 'wake up'.
Thank you.
Thank you for these videos - as a skeptic, being able to have the most accurate information is vastly more important than having the best "gotchya" information.
As a Christian my guiding light is the teachings of Christ, which for the culture and times was amazingly kind, merciful and inclusive, He was not a typical Rabbi or religious figure of the day, the Apostle Paul layed the blue print for the church and his instructions has with stood with time. If Christian's just lived by the Golden Rule the controversy of early writings would be interesting but not the focal point of the faith. Thank you for very valid points about scripture.
Live by the golden rule?
Except, there are entire verses about how people should treat their slaves and that slaves should work hard, not just for their worldly master, but for Christ and God the Master of all?
Doesn't keeping slavery violate the rule?
Interesting that he was listened to, given how offbeat he must have appeared to orthodox Jews of the time...
but then I gather he wasn't that popular amongst them...
@@philcoombes2538 ,
He was less popular amongst them than amongst the people of what is now Ethiopia, Greece, and Rome...
"The Bible is the *inerrant* word of God."
I always get a chuckle, whenever I hear that.
The original manuscripts were composed perfectly, and the copies we have today transmit that message with incredible accuracy, so that nothing God wanted us to know about Himself is in doubt. What God originally inspired, He had every intention in preserving. Ehrman has been shown to be inaccurate, and at times willfully dishonest. He's now joined the fraternity of glorified frogs, which further diminishes his credibility. Do you really think a man can think straight in his rejection of intelligent design?
@EC Welling The Bible is the most well preserved work of antiquity, and we can have total confidence that it communicates the message of the original writings. You are just like so many, who want to find an excuse for NOT responding to God's divine revelation to mankind. Are you among the fraternity of glorified frogs too? I feel sad for you.
@EC Welling Come on now, let's do your homework. Let me just comment on the last supposed contradiction. There is only one true God, all other gods are idols. And the reference to Satan, a fallen angel, being the "god" of this world, clearly does not mean he is an eternal, divine being, but only the influential head of a sphere of fallen souls ("the god of this world"). It's rather lame of you to spit out verses that you have not actually studied.
@EC Welling You are clearly not interested in "facts". You charged that in one text the Bible says there is only on God, then quoted another which states that Satan is "the god of this world." I pointed out the obvious fact that the term god when used of Satan is only applied in a very restrictive sense, making reference to his influence over the sphere of unbelieving men. Anyone honestly looking at this text and usage, would never cite it to prove polytheism. Satan had a beginning, is a created being, a fallen angel, and of limited power. THAT IS A BIBLICAL FACT.
@EC Welling Are you just searching for this stuff on the internet, citing the baseless arguments of those who have not lifted one finger of investigation when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of truth? The answer to the various texts stating that God appeared to people, and that NT text stating that no one has seen God at anytime, has quite an easy and obvious explanation. That NT text speaks exclusively of God's core "essence" and nature, which no sinful man can be exposed to without being incinerated in judgment, for God is altogether holy. All the other manifestations of God were limited revelations. It's very similar to looking at the sun with special glasses that filter out the dangerous rays. In fact, the OT states that when Moses asked to see the glory of God, God agreed to show him, but he hid Moses behind a cleft of a rock, stating that no man could directly see His glory and live. Once again, all you want to is rattle off Bible verses that prove absolutely nothing, failing to do any homework on the issues at all. Very typical of skeptics like yourself.
It seems pretty widely known that December 25 was initially celebrated as the birth of the Sun god, but when the Christian missionaries penetrated Northern Europe, they latched onto that date and claimed that their Son god was born on that day. [Actual date according to the midwayers: Aug 21, 7 BC.] But that the festival of lights portion of the pagan holiday was then appropriated as a part of the Christian religion. The pine tree being the symbol for Sun god.
As for the "star of Bethlehem":
"122:8.7 (1352.3) These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts."
truthbook.com/urantia-book-viewer/122-Birth-and-Infancy-of-Jesus/#ubf-paperDiv
Knowing about the solar system, and earth revolving on its axis, meant that no "star" could have "hovered over Bethlehem." It was however common to use stars as reference points for navigation, e.g. the North Star.
I have always enjoyed listening to Dr Ehrman and reading his (popular) books. I agree with much he said in these excerpts. However as to the anonymity of the Gospels and their late composition, other scholars have mounted a vigorous counter-argument supporting their early composition and traditional attribution to Matthew,Mark, Luke and John. And to correct a factual error in Dr Ehrman’s brief presentation: both Luke and John claim to have eyewitnesses as primary source materials.
John 21:20-24 "... This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true."
Luke 1:1-3 This one in my opinion is a bit weaker because it says that he had eyewitnesses delivered to him. So, not a firsthand account but an eyewitness account one degree removed. John seems to me to be pretty straightforward though. I'm a Christian by the way.
2:37 John 21:20-24 "... This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true."
Drew your videos are so fullfing to watch, and and calmness manner of their delivery helps with processing, thank you.
Bart Ehrman admits he left the faith because of the problem of evil/suffering. There have been plenty of answers to this problem (logical and evidential). He is a skeptic that brings up arguments Christians should have an answer for AND THEY HAVE, so what Ehrmans arguments are simply are guesses based on probability which is always skewed based on your presuppositions.
The problem of good and evil is straightforward to address without reference to anything supernatural, so there is no need to introduce the concept of a god to account for it.
It turns out that the concept, while intuitively appealing to the credulous, has no explanatory power. At best it replaces a physical unknown with a metaphysical one.
@@starfishsystems I could be mistaken but this answer seems the same as saying “evolution explains everything with no need for a Creator” or “we have science so we don’t need a god” when those two are not conflicting in any way or in no way contradict one another.
I would agree that depending on your worldview that would change how this “problem” is viewed. An atheist sees no problem within their view but sees it as a contradiction to a theist’s view. Yet what we see time and time again is atheists appealing to some type of standard of morality when that now becomes inconsistent. For an atheist to say “this action or behavior is wrong” is irrational to their worldview.
If this issue was so straightforward I think philosophers would not have wasted efforts to answer one another on both sides.
As a sort of Christian I'm a great fan of Dr BE, something too many people forget is that Christianity was not based on the Bible originally. The Bible was not even finalised in current content until 300 plus years after Christ. The Bible may be a book about God, it is not a book by God. For most of History most people, including Christians, were either not in possession of a Bible or were illiterate anyway.
Just ordered three of Dr Ehrman's books from Amazon, How Jesus Became God, Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus Interrupted
they are all great books.
@@lil-al - No doubt. I'm looking forward to reading them.
Regarding the last point, it is entirely plausible and possibly more probable that stories about Jesus grew out of pure legend rather than history. After all, there is no actual evidence that any such Jesus existed as an historical person. We can say with confidence that Peter probably existed, and he is a likely candidate for being an early source of Jesus tales, which Paul expanded upon and promulgated. And in none of those extant tales as told by the earliest writers did Jesus exist on the Earth (i.e. Paul never mentioned Disciples, miracles, a ministry, or anything about where Jesus was born, lived, or traveled). It wasn't until years later that historical tales were written down in Mark...and yeah, there was more than enough time for even complex stories to develop. And since those tales are full to the brim with symbolism, magic, and many logical inconsistencies, it follows that they were invented rather than built upon an actual person.
“I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.”
-Professor Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina in an interview by The Infidel Guy
@@tobyc8668 Indeed there are serious historians who doubt the existence of Jesus. For good reason: there is zero contemporary evidence for Jesus; the earliest stories are clearly mystical in nature; and later stories are written as allegory and imbued with symbolism. There is *vastly* more evidence for many people from his time...so much so, that the complete lack of any evidence for him is, at the very least, a cause for doubt.
@@AshBowie
Below are a few quotes from that time - taking to account that information take time to disseminate to the masses (there were no social media and electronic communication devices). Therefore, something must have happen to cause this phenomenon.
Pliny the Younger (c. AD 63-113) - Provincial Governor
“Christians asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117): “For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.”
Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155): “Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth . . ., and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.
And, there were independent ancient chinese records during the events of the birth of Christ, his crucifixion & resurrection.
1. Christ's Birth
Astronomy Records of the book of the Han Dynasty 天文志 of 汉书
156、天文志:二年二月，彗星出牵牛七十馀日。传曰：“彗所以除旧布新也。牵牛，日、月、五星所从起，历数之元，三正之始。彗而出之，改更之象也。其出久者，为其事大也。”其六月甲子，夏贺良等建言当改元易号，增漏刻。诏书改建平二年为太初元将元年，号曰陈圣刘太平皇帝，刻漏以百二十为度。八月丁巳，悉复蠲除之，贺良及党与皆伏诛流放。其后卒有王莽篡国之祸。
In the second month of the second year, the comet was out of Altair for more than 70 days…It is said, ‘Comets appear to signify the old being replaced by the new.’ Altair, the sun, the moon and the five stars are in movement to signify the beginning of a new epoch; The beginning of a new year, a new month and a new day…The appearance of this comet undoubtedly symbolizes change. The extended appearance of this comet indicates that this is of great importance.
Matthew 2:9-11
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
Comet appears for 70 days, undoubtly symbolizes changes. The extended appearance of this comet indicates that this is of great importance. (approx 9th march to late may 5th BC)
2. Jesus's Crucifixion
History of the Latter Han Dynasty Volume 1 Chronicles of Emperor Guang Wu 7th year 五行六 of 后汉书
癸亥晦，日有食之，避正殿，寑兵，不听事五日。诏曰：“吾德薄致灾，谪见日月，战栗恐惧，夫何言哉！今方念愆，庶消厥咎。其令有司各修职任，奉遵法度，惠兹元元。百僚各上封事，无有所讳。其上书者，不得言圣
This paragraph originated from 後漢書 (Houchan shu) After the Han Dynasty, and it reads like this:
In the day of Gui Hai, the last day of the month, there was a solar eclipse(the emperor) avoided the throne room, suspended all military activities and did not handle official business for five days. And he proclaimed, My poor character has caused this calamity, that the sun and the moon were veiled. I am fearful and trembling. What can I say? Anyone who presents a memorial is not allowed to mention the word holy.
Historians claim that the time frame of such an eclipse phenomenon that happened in the Han Dynasty is in accordance with what is described in the Bible Luke 23:44-46 :
Luke 23:44-46:
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
History of Latter Han Dynasty, Vol. 1，Chronicles of Emperor Guang Wu, 7th year
夏4月壬午，诏曰：比阴阳错谬，日月薄食。百姓有过，在予一人，大赦天下。 光武帝7年
As translated:
Summer, fourth month (of the year), on the day of Ren Wu, the imperial edict reads, Yin and Yang have mistakenly switched, and the sun and moon were eclipsed. The sins of all the people are now on one man. Pardon is proclaimed to all under heaven.
It is interesting to note that they came to that interpretation without knowing Jesus.
3. Jesus's death
History of the Latter Han Annals No.18 Gui Hai
癸亥日蚀，天人崩。
Eclipse on the day of Gui Hai Man from Heaven died.
Luke 23:44-46:
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
4. Jesus's resurrection (3 days later)
History of the Latter Han Annals No.18 Gui Hai
光武建武7年4月丙寅，日有晕抱，白虹贯晕。 后汉书 志18
During the reign of emperor Guang Wu, on the day of Bing Yin of the 4th month of Jian Wu, a halo-a rainbow-encircled the sun.
Three days after the eclipse this was recorded by Chinese astronomers: Christ’s resurrection also apparently caused a celestial event that was observable.
"Nothing to suggest." "High level of probability."
Ehrman is one of the most important scholars of this generation. But his value is not in his alleged refutation of common assumptions. What he does do, though, is demonstrate how many assumptions cannot be proven. Anonymous sources are plausibly written by the names assigned to them by people who are 1850 years closer to them than we are. But as Ehrman rightly says, just because we have traditions that go back that far, it doesn't mean those traditions are factually correct. That's the nature of traditions.
A possible hiccup for someone who wants to treat Ehrman's personally held conclusions as normative is that, if you dispense with all falsely ascribed texts, you're still left with seven letters written by Paul, who met the eyewitnesses within a few years of the resurrection. Does the fact that we have authentic, second hand claims that Jesus was dead and raised to life mean that he was? That's the problem with the superficial dismissal of later texts. It's possible for oral accounts to transmit historical data, and it's possible, as Ehrman says, for accounts that are written down shortly after an event to be false.
So what do we do with all this? As someone who studied with the "Craig" to whom Ehrman refers, who has all the credentials that Ehrman does (and some additional near eastern languages to boot), I think there will always be nagging questions on both sides of this debate. I find most of what Ehrman says to be very probable. I don't see any of it as a linchpin for my faith though. I think Craig Evans and others land some haymakers on points that Ehrman oversimplifies. But many of Ehrman's points also stand up under scrutiny.
Either way, I am thoroughly impressed with the tone of most comments here.
I don't trust the guy personally
I like the way you and Erhman explain calmly and will not try to force how we should take about the topic. Most of Christian apologists will talk so fast and will not try to let us think logically, I guess that’s their tactics and not really confident in what their saying. I think the atheist presents more preferably.
Thanks Drew!! That’s super awesome that Dr. Ehrman joined your video to interact!
If Bart Ehrman is your unchallenged expert, I feel sorry for you.
so, can you actually challenge Ehrman's claim?
0:30 What exactly are the qualifications of Bart Ehrman supposed to be?
New Testament scholar ... sure. Probably he _does_ know a bit about textual variants found in manuscripts, and that two passages of John (adulteress and trinitarian version of witnesses above) are lacking from Sinaiticus.
But he also defends the kind of scholarship - if you like to call it that - where all tradition actually surrounding a work is suspect, while in fact, in general, the main clue to author assignation remains precisely tradition. And when I say "in general" I mean for non-NT works, like tragedies of Sophocles or comedies of Plautus.
What the faithful most often get wrong about faith is that they should have it in the first place.
Bart is just Hitchens both men extremely knowledgeable & comical at the same time I do miss Hitchens & still find there's so much more to learn from his work in which he's basically written enough works to have his own library not just section so now having Bart picking up the mantel & taking us further I feel grateful to join him on the journey. I will definitely be joining this seminar albeit from the majesty of Social media. I congratulate u on ur work on bringing the truths of Christianity to the masses & doing so in a respectful manner which I feel is the only way not to discourage people from listening & maybe changing their individual stance
For anyone unfamiliar with Bart's work he has a whole bunch of books about how the bible was put together and what early christians wrote. He goes in pretty deep for a layperson but they're never so dense that it feels like a textbook. A good starting point is Misquoting Jesus, that was hit first big hit. For reference, I've read four of his books and just ordered two more. He's a good author.
Check out Mike Winger he has good refutations of Ehrman's stuff.
Dr Ehrman has also written and edited numerous textbooks used in university Theology courses.
He sure is!
✅✅✅
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 yh and many others have responded to his books .. there are other New Testament scholars Bart is not the only one 🤦🏾♂️
@@quicksilver7532
One scholar to rule them all.😂
"Legends had no time to form so the accounts are purely historical"? Have these people not played Telephone as kids? Didn't take us 20 minutes to go from someone's favorite character in Lion King being Pumba to someone eating dogs. Especially in ancient times before being able to read and write was largely spread, it could have taken just days to mystify anything that happens
Moreover, the practice of skepticism was in its very earliest form, known to only a few scholars. Most people were illiterate, so accurate information would seldom be noted for later reference. When stories spread by word of mouth, there were therefore no filters to keep the stories reasonable or accurate.
Great job. I interact and sometimes debate with lots of Christians in the course of a year and its very true that at least some of them have never heard sophisticated arguments against Christianity and when I bring them up they usually are a bit taken aback. Sometimes they reach for am Apologetics Bible which has stock answers to these questions that I've already heard and that dont make sense if you look closer and objectively. So it is indeed always important to remain kind and respectful when stating your case as for some it will be the first time hearing views like this.
Dr Ehriman is really powerful and fearlessly free
People actually believe these things? Nobody studies the history of Christianity? For a real treat, learn Koine Greek and read the New Testament in its original language. You'll see how much cherry-picking the translators engaged in.
It's always baffled me, the lack of emphasis on reading the Bible in Greek/ Hebrew/ Aramaic... despite also believing it's the Word of God.
If God had a book written for me to read, you'd think I'd want to understand it...
"No, just because you dont like something doesn't mean it's Satanic."
It's hard to argue with kindness with people who believe you should be condemned and hidden from society. I know not all Christians have that belief but the ones I tend to argue with do.
I always find it interesting that many skeptics hang their hat on Bart Ehrman. If you actually looked at the scholarship of the New Testament, he REALLY plays fast and loose with the facts. He talks about how many "errors" it contains in the variances of the manuscripts. What he fails to tell you is this: John went to the store and then John went home vs. Jon went to the store and then Jon went home vs. John went to the store and then he went home. Those are the errors he is talking about. If each one of those had 5,000 copies of each sentence in it, they are counted as 15,000 variances, and they make NO difference in the reading of the text. There is not a SINGLE variance in any of the thousands of manuscripts that change the doctrine or any theological point. Bart Ehrman even admitted in an interview that we pretty much know what the originals would have said. Ehrman takes passages out of context to make it look like something else, for example, Ehrman claims that the Gospel of Mark has the lowest Christology in it because they hadn't worked out Jesus' divine nature like the Gospel of John which was written later. This is actually completely false. Mark WAS written first and actually has the HIGHEST Christology of Jesus being the Son of God in it and John actually has the lowest. Ehrman claims that Christians claim ALL of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. Again, he is stretching accepted scholarship to fit his own agenda. The majority of scholars agree that Mark was written using Peter's testimony, who was an eye witness. BUT, Ehrman is correct that it wasn't written BY an eyewitness. The Gospel of Luke wasn't written by an eyewitness, but an associate of Paul and also Luke went and interviewed eyewitnesses for his writing. So, again not written by an eyewitness, but they were interviewed. Look into Dr. Habermas on the subject, he takes 5 points that the majority of atheists/skeptics AGREE on (I believe around a 70% acceptance) with the historical record of the gospels. They are: 1) that Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; 3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; 4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion (based on early creeds about 6 months after the crucifixion and written down about 2 years after) 5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ; and 6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.
Ehrman is a lost and confused man.
You either terribly mis-informed or with purpose, libeling his meticulous & honest scholarship.
So...Cite scholarship directly supporting your claim...or scurry back to one of your pervy pulpit-daddys.
This was a great video, I love the way that the two of you revealed this misconceptions for what they are without attacking those who unknowingly perpetuate them. This is one of those few videos that make me check to see if I’m subscribed multiple times throughout the duration! As always, keep up the great work.
Really glad to see more YT atheists listening to Ehrman. Hopefully that means eventually more will let go of mythicism
Na I still clinger to the idea that Jesus is a mythology. It's important to understand traditions of Hebrew authors. Kabbalah is all stories and alogory. I think mythicism need to be taken more seriously.
I’m agnostic about a real Jesus. Today I lean historical. I keep hearing good arguments on both sides.
Is there an argument for a historical jesus? I read Bart's book about it, but never really saw actual evidence. I know Bart has a historical belief in his jesus. But the jesus Bart claims is historical, is not the christian NT jesus. It is like claiming that Optimus Prime is based on a historical ordinary human being.
Human beings are not perfect, not even Bart. All it took for me to disregard his position on mythicism was hearing him say "we know there are stories in the gospels that are historically true". There is no evidence of that. Now, the gospels do include actual historical things; like Pontius Pilate, who we can easily prove is a real historical person. But it was common in ancient times & still today to include real persons and places in fiction.
If Bart wanted to put mythicism to rest he should debate Richard Carrier. Instead he chose to pick on the befuddled old frump that is Robert Price. I wonder why?
P.S. Jesus historicity is an interesting academic issue; but it is moot regarding the truth of the gospels. We actually know that they are fictional. Whether or not there was a historical person behind these myths is a separate issue.
@@ericcraig3875 It's more like claiming that Imhotep or the Buddha were real, historical, ordinary human beings. Yes, the subsequent mythologization of their lives and deification obscures much of what we can know about their actual existences, and yet most scholars agree all three probably were historical figures. Jesus is actually, in many ways, better attested than the other two, and lived more recently.
One story about me is that I got in a barfight with an outlaw motorcycle club. I got in a fight with a douchebag that rode a Japanese import one night when the band I played bass for, near an Air Force Base (now called a Joint Base). The guy turned out to be an AF washout wearing a biker kutte with a USAF logo after the AF mustered him out. Like I said. Douchebag. If I survived a fight with Hell's Angels or Mongols, I'd accept MYSELF as my personal savior.
When I was in my teens I used to do live role playing. One of the trips involved going to an old WWII fort off the coast at southend (I’m a brit). It was beginning of December and was cold and wet. At one point during the trip we were on the upper floor and were crossing an open sided bridge, and I slipped off sideways and fell 20 ft to the concrete below.
I ended up being airlifted to hospital. Stayed there for a couple of weeks in ICU.
2 years later and I’m back at the LARP caves headquarters in London, and I hear 2 guys in front of me talking about other places the company operates, and they mention the fort. Then one goes ‘I heard a couple of years back a guy got hurt after he jumped off a bridge to launch himself at some guys playing the part of monsters below’, and the other guy goes ‘yeah, I heard that as well’.
They were talking about me. My slip sideways had apparently become this heroic ‘launching myself at guys 20ft below’ and was being spread like that around the community. I had become a legend in my own lifetime as it were.
That’s how easy it is for stories to become embellished and fantastic.
Signed up! Luv Dr.Bart bought a book and seen lots of his lectures. Super interesting scholar
NGL: The fact that this lecture is on my Mom's birthday who is SUUUPER christian does makes this all feel a bit naughty.
I was brought up in a Christian household and I do still believe, but from an early age I questioned everything. I had an excellent role model in my grandfather, a man who lived his life as close to being Jesus like as anyone I’ve seen. However wasn’t one to say if it is in the Bible then it is 100% fact. Obviously science and other accounts of history put much of the Bible in conflict. As I grew older and learned that the Bible and what is contained within was chosen by man I had to do some heavy thinking. I decided to live not as a Christian, but as a follower of Jesus. Let me explain, the four main gospels tell the story of a man who just wanted everyone to get along, love your neighbor( I’ve always taken that to mean everyone on Earth) So I try to live my life treating everyone with the same respect I’d show my best friend. Sometimes all it takes is a kind word from a stranger to turn someone’s day around. This is the behavior that was modeled for me as a Christian. However I find that dividing the religion again and again has turned the togetherness promised by the religion into something impossible to achieve at this point. So I will live my life showing kindness and respect to others but no organizations for me. I have come to enjoy your channel because I think the more we understand each other the more we can get past the divisions and come together believer and non believer to make the world a better place. Please know that I have my reasons despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary to still hold onto my faith, but I hold no one else in a lower regard for not. We are all brothers and sisters in the human race and their is enough room for us to all believe or not believe whatever we want. Be a good person that people can look up to no matter what, because actions speak louder than anything I could say. Sorry for the ramble keep putting out well made thought provoking videos, because everyone deserves to see both sides of a coin.
Well said.
The Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John. We know by how he defined himself in the script, the one who Jesus loved. He also revealed in Revelation he was a witness to all things and was in Patmos to testify as a witness.
The Gospel of John was actually very late in comparison to the synoptic gospels. It was likely written in response to the Gospel of Thomas considering it is the only book to make Thomas look like a bumbling idiot. Which by the way, the Gospel of Thomas sometimes gets dated to 60AD. So why aren't you including that in your canon?
@@reviewtechUSSR1
So, you assume it was written as a response to the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, therefore it must have been written as a response to Thomas?
It sounds like speculation rules your thinking process.
John wrote his gospel. He was a witness to the ministry of Jesus. He wrote Revelation first, then he wrote his letters, then he wrote his gospel.
His gospel covered issues the others didn't in connection to his book of Revelation and his letters (and the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the minors, and the others).
He even warned about the Gnostics in his letters, calling them the "antichrist". They teach Jesus was just a man and the Christ was a spirit with Jesus. John simply did not use the term Gnostic but called them by a descriptive name.
As are as the Gnostic works. Jesus said, " ' My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand'. " (John 10:27, 28)
The Gnostic gospels are not in the voice of Lord Jesus. I will not listen to them.