Did Paul and Jesus Have the Same Religion?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2023
- Today I'm joined by friend of the channel Dr Bart Ehrman to talk about Paul and Jesus! Just how different are their teachings? Why does Paul not talk about the life of Jesus? Why do they preach different ways to achieve salvation?
Sign up for Bart's course using my affiliate link! emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart...
Join this channel to get stompid emmotes (see what I did there)
/ @emmathornevideos
Like and subscribe if you enjoyed!
Website: www.emma-thorne.co.uk
Backstage with Emma Thorne: / @emmathornebackstage
Gaming Channel: / littleduckgaming
Twitch: / emmalittleduck
Instagram: @emmainashes
Twitter: @EmmaTheGoblin
Patreon: / emmathornevideos
Merch: emma-thorne.com
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/emmathorne
Submit suggestions here:
Emma Thorne Channel Suggestion box: forms.gle/Xef8kpTzWLXAbtqGA
Little Duck Gaming Suggestion box: forms.gle/yp2X2K5QoLtTMgyc9
PO BOX:
Emma Thorne
PO Box 78387
LONDON
E4 0HY
Huge thank you to my Colossal Quackers and Giant Chickens on Patreon!
Bill Garrett
Curious Quakka
HiMyNameIsSpoon
Jaderian
Jeremy Buck
Kori Gailliot
Lord Nibbles Dankworth IX
Philip Doherty
Robi Groves
Samandme59
Sean Hamill
James Eastwood
John newman
Matto
Chocolate Jesus
Aspen
Fat Houdini
Chad Stewart
supremepotato 471
A very confused looking badger
Alexander C Fairbanks
Andy is ducking around
April Washburn
Azku
Bert Whitehead
Brandon
Brian McKemey
Broos Nemanic
Buddmeister2.0
Chantale
cmd
Connla "Chicken Maximus" Lyons
Darth_Rondoudou
Dave Kircher
Daylin
denny5252
Dr. Mint
Dreffed
Dylan Sweetland
Ephemeral Entropy Buffer
FalcorTheGinger
Farron Sutton
Faye The Succubus
Flash prez Bluewolf
Fulcrum
GamingRidge
Geeeee (NOT FOR VIDEOS)
Henry Curtis
JadedJabberwocky
Jan Bojarp
Jason Runcie
Jim Lathrop
Jo Ro
John Fry
Justin Rogers
Kevin Levites
Kiwi Satan
Laughing Sisyphus
Lizzy Gayle
Lulidine
Lynn Dobbs
Lynn Shackelford
Matthew Goderre
Matthew Green
Mattus McChicken Nuggetus
Militant Agnostic
Mordlex 200
Mr Smeeth
Niamh Coghlan
NINJARED
Nixie
NotMyselfThisTime
Novaria Lebedev
Nullunit
ohsosmooth
Paul McGinty
paul mueller
Peter Kyrouac
PlatypusBear
Quique León
razbitom
Red Ochsenbein
RileyTheTortoise
Rosyna Keller
RPGMP3
Sarah Chavis
Sean
Siliconself
SIRIUSLY
Tank Lowe
Tax Man
The Shropshire Lad
Thomas V Lohmeier
Valyrie
WeirdyBeardy
Willow the Wendigo
jedidragonwarriorqueen
PaulM
Will Crouch
Ambo aka Fearless Ambassador
Ceilidh
Dave Smith
Andrew
Abigail Hess - บันเทิง
Did Paul transform the Jewish religion OF Jesus to the Christian religion ABOUT Jesus? Why does Paul not mention the life of Jesus outside of the death and resurrection? Do Jesus and Paul's teachings on following the Law of God contradict each other? If you're interested in exploring this topic, Bart has a new 8 part lecture in his "How Scholars Read the Bible" series that you'll love! You get 8 30-40 minute lectures, PDF lesson guides, a Q&A, audio downloads, FAQ's and a further reading list to really dig deep, plus discounts on other lectures in the series.
Sign up for Bart's course using my affiliate link here! emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart.com/paul/
I was the first comment. I'm proud of myself
"Why does Paul not mention the life of Jesus outside of the death and resurrection"
Because he was a nutter making stuff up.
I've long said that these people aren't "christians", they are "Paulians".
Edit: Bart Ehrman disagrees with me.
@@pineapplepenumbrahaha
Jesus didn't actually exist, so...
Let's get the book of James involved. That'll clear things up. 👀😅 /s
The differences between Paul and Jesus teachings is what first led me away from Christianity. Wonderful to hear from a scholar on the subject. Great interview!
I chose Jesus over Paul any day. Paul should have just shut up
@@jessicayoung3656 I choose either two over the maniac Yahweh.
@@jessicayoung3656you can also choose yourself
@GameTimeWhy I'm an atheist so yes i do. I was just comparing the t
Now imagine coming from a country that arguably became Christian because Paul crashed on your turf, when St Luke would've been enough for the job
I can't help but think that Jesus and Paul were very different fellows, and both Emma and Bart alluded to this as one reason Christianity lacks any real consistency. If I was a Christian, I would be even more confused than I am already! 🙂
There is no such thing as Christianity. The reason people buy into Paul is because over the past 200 years or so, people have decided they don't like what Jesus taught. For example, when Jesus told the woman whose daughter had a demon, I've only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He meant it. We don't know God, and until that changes, confusion will reign supreme.
Am I alone in feeling a little burst of pride for our lovely person Emma when Dr Ehrman genuflects on what a good question she just asked?
The fact that Paul didn't get along with Jesus's top 2 disciples, one of which was Jesus's own brother, is pretty significant as to whether or not he followed the teachings of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus himself called Peter "Satan" at one point might hint to the fact that he wasn't always in accordance with the master either. Hard to say what's fiction and what's history in those texts however. But considering in what bad a light Peter is shown, I'd tend to think it's authentic.
That word meant opposer and not necessarily a literal Satan, and Jesus said it after Peter said he wanted to stop Jesus from being killed. If that was even true and not inserted to make the cross look like an intentional and foretold part of Jesus' life. Jesus also told Peter that he was the rock upon which the church would be built. He was the rightful successor to Jesus' movement.
@@BlondeEyes7thanks for the explanation - I should have mentioned that I studied theology and interreligious studies so I know what the word meant. The whole thing is - Peter was at the beginning more the apostle of the Jews and Paul of the gentiles. There is no true opposition between the two. Having gentile "sympathizers" (Greek, eusebes) of the Jewish religion was already a thing. They followed the same laws as were decided to also be applicable to gentile Christians (the so-called noahide laws, which include eating kosher BTW, something almost no Christian today does). The Pauline "lawless" Judaism was not as new or revolutionary or as distant to the teachings of Jesus or Judaism as people think. (in fact the excellent channel "Esoterica" by Prof. Sledge, made a good argument for Paul being a Jewish mystic of a mystic school of the time.) There are actually jewish scholars who have written about Paul (like Shalom Ben-Chorin or Pinchas Lapide) and never really saw him that far outside of traditional Judaism. He even still called himself a pharisee after becoming a "Christian".
This artificial confrontation of "Jesus vs Paul" was very en vogue at a certain time in theories about the first decades of Christianity.
After having studied all of this stuff and reading hundreds of books on the matter, I can safely say, each generation will interpret all of if new over time. Many theories have merits, many have flaws. None is or will ever be "proven" above the level of being a more or less clever or consistent interpretation of texts.
I often say, "theology is like studying literature but with just one book."
One thing I forgot in my lengthy comment. It's interesting to see that people like Ehrman especially try to convince people that the gospels have been altered and changed basically at will to fit the teachings of the church but suddenly those texts are somehow "proof" that Peter was the rightful successor to Jesus? Ain't that convenient. Goes to show that the critics of the gospels pick and choose as much as any evangelicals which parts of the texts they deem authentic.
So either a text is inserted for purpose of doctrine and therefore inauthentic or it's not. And if Ehrman and most other scholars are right, and Paul's letters are the oldest Christian writings, how easy would it have been to insert this thing about Peter being the rock, etc into the gospels, if there had been any conflict in leadership? If one were to believe the theory that those texts were all changed at will.
@@MrSeedi76 It would seem that, if we were to go by what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, when Paul made his post-conversion claim to being a Pharisee, he did so specifically in the context of belief in the resurrection of the dead. (Acts 23:6) Indeed, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection while the Sadducees did not. Furthermore, with reference to the Pharisees, he is quoted as saying: "I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."-Acts 24:15.
Incidentally, I remember reading some years ago a summary of the differences between the two parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The writers had the temerity to claim the Pharisees as the "liberal" party and the Sadducees as the "conservative" party. However, that claim rang hollow as both parties were equally insistent upon a literalist interpretation of the Torah. The only divergence between them was on the question of the resurrection of the dead. Otherwise, as I read the summary, both parties were equally conservative. Nonetheless, Paul was ostensibly a member of the Pharisaical party prior to his conversion, and regarding them he is again quoted as saying: "Indeed, as to the manner of life from youth up that I from the beginning among my nation and in Jerusalem, all the Jews that have been previously acquainted with me from the first know, if they but wish to bear witness, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived as a Pharisee." (Acts 26:4,5) If even a member of the Pharisaical party could admit to that same party as "the strictest sect", how "liberal" could it actually be? Even by the standards of the first century A.D., it was anything but.
Granted, none of this specifically addresses the purported resurrection of Christ specifically. However, that particular claim could be said to be an outgrowth of the Pharisaical belief in a general resurrection. "After all", the thought goes, "if Yahweh could raise humanity from the grave, why would he not do the same for his own Son?" The alleged resurrection of Christ, consequently, becomes the basis for Paul's treatise on the general resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. In effect, Paul there claims that the resurrection of Christ is the assurance of the general resurrection. He makes the argument: "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:19) Therein lies the problem. Christians 'hope in Christ' for the prospect of getting life in his kingdom. However, they can not provide evidence that the historical Christ of the Gospels even existed beyond possibly a composite of any number of individuals in the Mid East during the period 2 B.C.-A.D. 33. They certainly can not provide incontrovertible evidence that he was raised from the dead, let alone that he is "seated at the right hand of the Father" and will "come again to judge the living and the dead", as they claim in the Creed they recite during "the memorial of his death and resurrection", the Eucharist, where they claim to partake of his body and blood under the auspices of bread and wine. On the contrary, in view of the lack of incontrovertible evidence, due to their 'hoping in Christ', whether "in this life alone" or in that which is allegedly to come, Christians are of all people "most to be pitied". They are, at best, hoping in someone who has long since died, was buried in a mass grave and has certainly not been raised therefrom.
It's noticeable that Fundies rely much more on Paul than the Gospels.
As a former fundie, yes 100%
They don't rely on either. They mainly rely on the old testament. That's why I call evangelicals a Jewish fringe sect.
How so?? Most quoted scriptures are usually from the gospel of John. I hear more about the book of Revelation than from Paul's letters. I will say that atheists need to read the book of acts because they always get confused about the dietary laws and ceremony laws.
Fundies loathe the concept of unconditional love because they worship capitalism above their own god.
A lot of christian bigotry comes from second epistle to the romans
This discussion made me think of the film The Last Temptation of Christ. Many Christians were extremely offended by the depiction of Jesus as someone who struggled, had doubts, and at one point wanting to choose to marry and have children rather than be crucified. However, I felt that there was a part of the story that (in my opinion) was far more subversive than that, which was that Paul was falsely claiming that the death and resurrection happened. Paul was a charlatan.
Seeing this film was the first time that it had occurred to me that so much of the belief system of modern Christianity (at least that I was exposed to) was based on Paul, not Jesus. And with this realization, I found it rather surprising that Christians didn't seem to be bothered by the depiction of Paul as a fraud in that movie. It seemed to me that folks were getting upset over some details that aren't really that important to the religion (such as did Jesus ever have doubts, struggles, or (god forbid) sex but glossed over the implications that the foundation of the modern church could be founded by a liar.
I was a Christian when I read that book. I remember how controversial it was, but I found it fascinating, just to look at Jesus as an actual human.
Given that Jesus being tempted is actually part of the gospels, it made it even stranger that people got upset by a depiction of Jesus being tempted.
I have not seen the film, but based on your comment I have a pretty good idea as to why Christians were more bothered by the depiction of Jesus. In Christianity, Jesus is the perfect son of God, as well as being God himself. Yes, he was tempted but he never gave in, and he wished that he did not have to die, but he willingly went through with it. The actions of him and Paul in this movie both fundamentally change their character. The major difference is that Paul is a sinful human, while Jesus is a sinless human/God. The idea of him acting against his nature is far more serious than Paul doing so, even if in the end both depictions are very... troubling. Though, again, I have not seen it, so I could be way off base.
@claffert _"at one point wanting to choose to marry and have children rather than be crucified. "_
Just like Christians at large want and like the idea that Jesus getting crucified for theological implication, there is another ethnic group likes and wants Jesus(pbuh) getting killed as well, their ethnicity starts with "Je".
I know that you know who they are.
This ethnic group and Christians are close friends, whereas Muslims love the notion that God saved Jesus(pbuh) from near death ordeal, just like God saved many prophets before Jesus, these Muslims are considered to be foe by the Christians and Je.
One group loves the notion saving Jesus(pbuh) and one who want Jesus(pbuh) getting crucified, whose belief is valid before the God and stands before the God?
@claffert In Islam God saved Jesus(pbuh) from humiliation, torture, nakedness and near death ordeal, just like God saved many prophets before the God.
Two of my most favourite humans talking together. Thanks so much Emma and Bart.
I'd never even considered the question of whether it was in fact Paul who founded Christianity - it makes logical sense. Fascinating topic. Love your channel Emma ❤
Theologists were asked to rank the most important figures in the history of christianity. Paul was number one. Jesus was number five.
Two sides of Christianity. Peter and Paul. The martyr, the regretter, the giver. Paul, the hypocrite, the misogynist, the war monger. Two face, thy name is Christianity.
@@ninab.4540only people who never read Paul can write so much nonsense about him.
It doesn't make sense. Paul didn't found anything.
Read these verses and the surrounding verses in context. (see comments below)
1 - Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
Ro 1:1-6.
2 - Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Ac 18:9-11.
3 - But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Ga 1:8-9.
1) Here we see that Paul says that he's a "...bondservant of Jesus Christ...separated to the gospel...". How could Paul be a bondservant to that which he came up with himself? How could he be a bondservant to both Christ AND himself, if Paul's message originated with Paul?
2) Here we see the Lord Jesus talking to Paul by a vision. Paul speaks to these people a "year and six months" the "word of God". Now, what is this word of God? How could Jesus tell Paul to speak that which Paul came up with himself?
3) On what ground and on what kind of authority would Paul have to claim for himself to curse angels in the event on them teaching a different gospel? Paul would have to be God. But Paul is not God. So what Paul speaks must be on the basis of Paul being an ambassador (see 2 Corinthians 5:20) and telling others what God wants. The message then comes from Christ through Paul. Paul didn't invent it or originate it.
Paul is the founder of Christianity, he was an imposter who wanted to deliberately distort the message of Jesus.Its painful that Christian follow Paul and go against what Jesus preached.
I've learned so much more about Christianity since I became an atheist than I was ever taught in 30 years of going to church
😂 Sure you did....
@@rs72098What makes you so sure @russb24 isn't telling the truth?
Grew up going every Sunday (Methodist.) Baptised, confirmed. Sunday school, youth groups, retreats, choir, etc. Every week with rare exceptions my first 18 years. Hardly attended in college or early 20s but came back because I wanted to be in good standing leading up to my wedding. (Catholic this time for my fiancee.) I trusted what I was told but never read the bible. I never knew that the gospels weren't written by firsthand witnesses. I never knew that most of the new testament was written by one guy who never knew Jesus (I don't think a vision counts.) Never knew that hell as it's always been taught to me is completely absent from the book.
I'm not making up my experience, and it's not surprising that a true believer thinks they know me better than I do.
@@russb24sorry to say this but you fell for an anti-apologist who's using tricks on you. He's only telling half of the story. There is no reason to doubt that the gospels were written by the people whose names they carry. There is no single proof that they were ever anonymous. Those are all just theories based on a priori assumptions. Basically Ehrman parrots the stuff he read when he studied theology himself. Especially German theologians who were always super critical. Guess how I know - I'm German and studied theology and religious science. Ehrman is nobody that was ever mentioned when I studied. Probably because US American theologians are utterly unknown in the rest of the world, especially when they don't add anything new to the debate. To really form your own opinion, you need to look at both sides. Ehrman seems to not be interested in regaining the faith he lost. Therefore he only tells you about the stuff that will raise doubts about things to separate people from their faith. His agenda is to destroy the faith by spreading falsehoods and one sided arguments. Never telling you about the problems with these theories and they are many. Just the dating of the gospels alone fills whole libraries if you're getting into it. I looked at all the arguments and I'm no fundamentalist or evangelical. Also studying theology at a German state university is rather liberal. Still the liberal arguments from the 70s, which is what Ehrman bases most of his work on, make not much sense if you look closely. They are completely removed from any historical facts and only based on a priori assumptions like "the people back then were mainly all illiterate" - complete BS as they were Jews who had a long standing literal tradition at that point. Or, "they all expected the end of the world is imminent so they didn't write anything down". Also nonsense as we know that there were older collections of Jesus's teachings. Nobody would have prevented anyone from writing stuff down. We know for a historical fact that many people back then could read and write. Any claim to the contrary is just a plain lie. Don't get fooled by Ehrman and his TH-cam fame. Go to a library and see for yourself.
@@MrSeedi76lol, lmao even.
Wow. The Clark Kent Effect is real. I barely recognise Ehrman without his glasses!
Trust me I wear glasses and I litgit had coworkers not recognize me when I walked in without glasses lmao
I remember as a child being dragged to church and being bored so I would look at these things. (I was already a non-believer at this point) But I remember thinking and wondering why Paul's writings were even included in the bible, his entire story seemed like a sham, and he was extremely misogynistic which was when I realized why his writings were included in the bible
Calling Paul a mysoginist clearly shows you neither read nor understood what he wrote. Typical trope of liberal theology of the 1970s. Long since debunked.
Emma thank you so much for this. It’s a question I have been wrestling with. ❤
youve really been wrestling with this question? it takes 30 seconds to figure out if u really were 100 percent clueless
I used to be Catholic. After 9 years of Catholic school, I believed that Jesus was preaching a kinder, gentler form of Judaism. Paul's message--which is the one that stuck--was that, no, this is its own new thing.
to me the new testament is the story of a god that rapes a woman and gives the child up to be tortured and killed... they hurry to gloss that over and give full limelight to the character of that child, but why this was necessary in the universe of an all knowing creator... ?
And it became even more of it's own thing after Rebellion in Judea.
The Hebrews destroyed decent amount of Roman legions so everyone in Rome was really pissed so Christians had to decide between :
We are with Romans.
We are with Jews.
They chose Romans and this was the begining of anti-semitism in Christianity.
You know the phrase "Jesus, protect me from your followers..." that was definitely about Paul. Paul was an unhinged zealot. His story reminds me of political extremists. I am a socialist, so I am used to interacting with political extremists. The ones that are willing to burn the world down to remake a new one are usually converted to the Left from the Right. I find them to be extremely dangerous, authoritarian, etc. Paul's story reminds me of that. Paul went from persecuting Jesus's followers to the extreme opposite. Zealotry is zealotry at the end of the day.
@@karenholmes6565 In most ideologies, and this includes religions, adult converts are often the most zealous and extreme. Perhaps because the emotional event involved drives them in that direction? If one reads The Communist Manifesto, one can see Marx's emotions coming through very strongly...the same with Paul...it certainly makes one think.
@@karenholmes6565 This seems like a lot of reading into things.
For one, we have no idea what Paul meant by "persecute". He never elaborates on it and he could just as easily be lying about it, kinda like all the "former atheist turned believer" stories we see from modern apologists. The story about him from Acts, along with pretty much everything in Acts, is fiction as far as critical scholarship is able to determine. So this claim doesn't really tell us anything about him or his behavior beyond, "Paul claimed to have persecuted christ followers".
Meanwhile, the pastoral epistles are all regarded as forgeries and there are some questionable sections in the authentic letters. Beyond that, the letters only survived as fragments which were pieced together after the fact. So it's entirely possible that later people spun up narratives from unrelated fragments. Which tells us that we should be hesitant to make any strong assertions about his personality given that even the bits we do have that we are reasonably certain are his are not necessarily presenting his intent.
Paul was an unusual character to be sure. But not that unusual for his time and cultural context. The weirdest thing I can think of about him is his insistence that people not have sex at all unless they really can't keep it in their pants. In which case to only do so dispassionately. Which, not great. But considering the extremely dubious conceptions of consent back then, slavery, women's complete lack of autonomy and the like, "don't have sex at all" is frankly a step up. There's also the whole messianic cult aspect of it. If you thought that you were about to be translated to a new, perfect spiritual body, you'd be worried about possible spiritual contamination too. Remember, everybody believed in demons and assorted malevolent spirits back then. They were as real to them as bacteria and viruses are to us. You should read up on jewish bathroom demons some time.
Point being, zealotry is context dependent. Most jews in the 1st century CE were religious extremists by today's standards. Contextually, I'd argue Paul's worst character trait is that he comes off more like a narcissistic grifter than anything else. He dunks on Peter and co. all the time, humble brags about being the last apostle and when someone asked him about where the money from all the groups he spun up is going his response was essentially, "Shut up, don't talk to me about my money."
Most of the homophobia and misogyny in the New Testament come from Paul. I was reared in a Bible reading home. My parents weren't into brainwashing us to be Christian. They believed it was up to us to decide what our religion would be, but I was raised around parents that heavily researched and read the Bible. I have read that book myself more than once, complete with concordance and different versions. I am not a Christian. What I decided was that Jesus was a cool dude and most of the troubling aspects of Christianity are rooted in Paul. Paul's entire origin story is also disturbing to me. He was a zealot. Before his conversion story he was a zealot against the Jesus movement, and then afterwards he was a zealot for it. And if life has taught me anything is that zealots are problematic in their charisma and their ability to pull people over to their worldview. Perhaps Christianity would never have launched without Paul, but I can't be a Jesus follower because of him.
As I understand it; the misogyny and homophobia was later interpolated anyway.
As I always say: we all know what happened to Peter. Odd how we don't know what happened to Paul after he dead. 😂
@@ninab.4540 Hmm… …I always understood that Peter was crucified with nails, and possibly upside down. And that Paul was beheaded.
Am I missing something?
@@danieleyre8913 We don't actually know that about either of them. There are other videos by Bart Ehrman on the lives and deaths of the apostles and the short version of them is: there is no reason to believe that Paul was beheaded or even that he was a Roman citizen. Same goes for Peter or any of the other disciples. The book of acts just isn't a reliable source.
So basically you made up your own religion.
Loved this conversation! Thanks for your approach to the topic
That was a very fascinating conversation. Thank you
👍👍 I love these insights, they're so fascinating! Thank you for the upload!
Thank you, Emma. I really appreciate your interviews.
This helped to answer questions that have been at the back of my mind for decades. Thank you.
This is fascinating, thank~you!
This is SUCH a great video. Thank you for this.
Hi, Emma,just wanted to thank you for everything that you do, and especially for making me aware of the Greg Locke Witch bit. An excerpt of the sound is gonna be in the intro to my band's concert on sunday!
i have to start this before i even watch this as i have asked myself the same question time and time again...this is gonna be great, thank you
Great interview, very informative and entertaining
Yay! Nothing better than Bert Herman!
The challenge is that we have no way of knowing with certainty what Jesus actually said and did. There is the life of Jesus, there is the crucifixion, there is a claim about a resurrection...the next thing we have is Paul's letters (and we don't have the answers to any of them, which would be hugely interesting), and he basically ignores everything Jesus said and did, for whatever reason...then the gospel accounts begin to emerge, by now a generation and more later, with all the Pauline baggage and who knows what else in between impacting these accounts, not to mention the conventions of standard Greco-Roman literature and its tropes of the time which show up very clearly in all of the gospels...by the time we get to the last gospel account we are more than two generations down the road (at the very least) and we get a very different account from all the others, and there's no way to know if any of it reflects reality.
👽: ???
Excellent discussion about something I hadn't heard before.
Very interesting discussion
Emma and Bart - beautiful - thank you.
Great video, Emma. Just shows once again how very complicated and contradictory Christianity is when the slightest bit of critical thought is applied.
🧂
@@CHIEF_420🍼
This is a great video and introduction to what seems to be a very fascinating course but I would have liked to hear his take on John 14:6 when Jesus says that he is the way. I would have also liked to hear about Peter’s contributions to “the church”
Thanks a lot, Emma and Bart. I have been confused about the distinction between Moral Law and Ceremonial Law. Is it that Jesus intended for us to follow the ceremonial laws (minus animal sacrifice) such as observing the Sabbath and not eating pork, but that we just shouldn't be legalistic about it. For example, if our boss calls and tells us that he really needs us to work on Saturday because the person who was to be in the office got very sick. We should then not observe the Sabbath because to be selfless we should sacrifice our day off and help our boss out of a jam. And with respect to pork, if we were starving and all we had to eat was pork, then we should eat pork. Is that your understanding?
Completely unknowable.
@@apjapki Thanks for responding. The distinction between moral and ceremonial law is an interesting topic, and I have been pondering about this a lot. And will probably be pondering about it for some time. 🙂
@@themusespeakstome4467in Judaism there is no distinction. Problem is that what could be called ceremonial would only apply if the temple was still in existence. And for gentile Christians only the noahide laws apply. A convenient solution as "Zadiks" already existed. And the same laws applied.
When I was a Christian, I explained it as the Law having three parts: ceremonial law, civil/conduct law, and purity law. I came to the conclusion that the civil/conduct law must still apply so that we can continue to live in societies, while the purity law no longer applied because salvation is by grace, and the ceremonial law no longer applied because the temple is gone.
Of course, this division is completely arbitrary AND it still leaves one picking and choosing, which leads to people emphasizing the parts that it suits them to emphasize. And so the supposedly perfect and objective God-given morale code leaves us with endless arguments and conflicts - just as if it was entirely human-created.
And thus I conclude that we are better off to work things out for ourselves in the 21st century, and have our arguments there, rather than try to fit ourselves into the rules invented by a bronze-age pastoral society that no longer exists.
@@njhoepner Nathan, thanks a lot for this detailed response. I did not think of the law in three parts like that. You are right that it looks like an arbitrary situation that leads to a lot of picking and choosing. And endless arguments. If God (not the Judeo-Christian one) does exist, they must be shaking their head at humanity. Thanks again for your response.
I think it's cool you brushed upon this topic. There's definitely two different theologies you get whether you focus on the teachings of Jesus and the gospels, or Paul's writings. You can find similar discrepancies within Buddhism as well. Some Buddhists believe you ought to strive to achieve what the Buddha achieved, enlightenment. There are other sects of Buddhism that believe that you need only believe that Buddha reached enlightenment to escape samsara(reincarnation). When you boil both down its works vs faith.
@YT_EmmaThorne IMPOSTER!!!!
I want reincarnation it's a comfort. The one catch is to forget.
@@ninab.4540 Samsara is cool. It's fun to think about. I just wonder how that would work with a population that's continuously growing.
Interesting. I saw Bart's video on this the other day, and wondered whether you were going to have him on again.
great video, i wish more christians would got to this point in thought, i know when i did it was the beginning of the end, you start to see churches as a methodology of control...that you yourself are stuck inside with no support
Paul had such a deep dismissal for Peter and James for this exact issue. Letter of James reverses the faith and works order.
TBF - Peter was a bit of a misogynistic ass.
I really like the ideas around the development of the 'oral law' of Christianity I'm the century+ between the death of Jesus and his words getting written down. I similarly like the discussion of 'salivation through repentance' vs 'salvation through belief that Jesus is the risen messiah who shall return in glory etc'
I need to read one of his books.
I was recently on a hospital ward with an English Converted Muslim, an English Mormon and an African Christian. There's a joke in there somewhere but this genuinely happened to me (an atheist).
"An english converted muslim, a mormon, an african christian and an atheist were in the same hospital ward. When they died the same thing happened to all of them"
👽: jajaja
@@mikearchibald744 But that's not a joke; that's a fact?
@@dlevi67 LOL, good point.
@@mikearchibald744 It actually was a very good ironic joke - given the premise of the OP. Have a good weekend!
Okay but I love the fact that he was so kind and respectful to you in general. And to the fact that Christians can cherry pick verses. I am not a Christian but this guy would make me want to listen to him. 10/10
I once struggled to understand how Paul was able to make Christianity less Commandments orientated and get away with it. Jeebus was all about obeying his dad's rules. Whereas Paul was not. Then I heard that Paul decided to play-down the whole Positive Commandment 216 deal. In other words, Paul found willing participants, provided they could keep their wedding tackle intact.
I'm pretty sure I read one of Paul's letters and he spent a lot of it talking about the importance of circumcision.
@@capitalb5889 And that is why Christians are still being circumcised to this day... Nah, he dropped that idea fairly quick.
It's very easy in fact. Ever heard about the tzadiks and the noahide laws? Look it up, you'll be amazed how easy those supposed "riddles" are solved. Paul simply used a long existing tradition to solve the question of how to integrate gentiles into the Christian community mainly made up of Jews. And the solution was pretty obvious in fact. Or read acts, especially the part where the apostles decide that gentile Christians should follow the noahide laws and not the whole 613 commandments.
He was not all about rules, Jesus mostly preached about unconditional love
@@balkanbaroque Yes indeed. I completely agree. We were raised by the Church of England to fear god and to embrace Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness. From the age of four years old, we were taught that god is Jealous, Vengeful, Wrathful, The Creator of Evil, The Lord of War and the Giver of Laws. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Jesus taught us Love, Peace and Forgiveness.
But Jesus did tell us to obey god's rules. Jesus was specific on this point. He even endorsed Slavery, never once did he condemn it. And Jesus introduced us to Heaven and... Hell.
Had the Roman Catholic Church not canonised Saul, would we even need to have this conversation?
Dr Ehrman talking about modern Evangelical Christians that pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow.
My brain thinking of all the TH-camr Evangelical's that are heavily Tattooed saying gay people are going to hell because it says so in the Bible.
If I recall correctly the main reason a lot of people think (or used to think) Paul's version of Christianity is so different is because he was the first to write down the stories and teachings of the Philosopher Yahshua (the Historical Jesus) as Yahshua taught them and didn't include the life of Jesus because to him Yahshua (Historical Jesus) and Jesus (Biblical Jesus) where not one and the same. Yahshua was just a man going around teaching a Philosophy and Faith based system in Sermon on the Mount-esc styled lectures for being a good person that included an allegory of a god made flesh. Yahshua likely was a real person that gave the real Sermon on the Mount but he was just a regular guy saying "hey let's all just be nice to each other." Sometime between the time of Paul's writings and the time of Matthew and Mark's writings this became confused and lost in translation so this is why Matthew and Mark both write about Jesus living here on Earth as a god made flesh giving the Sermon on the Mount and performing all these miracles. Paul's original writings where either accompanied by the teachings of Yahshua, or the teachings of Yahshua where so well known and established at the time for followers it was implied that Paul was providing a summary or illuminated text on the teachings of Yahshua with the focus on the birth, death, and resurrection of the son of god (god made flesh). Kind of like "Here is the core of the Religion as per our founder's stories, this is our Faith, this is our Trinity, this is the important part for eternal life. Anything not found here in our other texts are just historical accounts and record of our founder's life, how he went about teaching his philosophy, and examples of his favorite allegories to teach his lessons (likely how we got the miracles.)" Matthew and Mark on the other hand coming onto the scene to write gospels half a century after the fact and being 1 to 2 generations removed from the time of Jesus either saw that the teachings of Yahshua where being lost or altered as two separate books and attempted to condense it into a single text which was then confused later on by future transcriptions in the nearly 250 years of Christianity being mostly Nomadic Cults before the Roman Empire converted. Or they could have been the first to legitimately confused the separation between Yahshua and his son of god/god made flesh (Jesus) character from his allegories/faith and put them directly together as the same person.
I’m not a Christian but I’m interested in ancient history and literature. This was a fascinating video. Thank you :)
Thank you for this very interesting invitation and discussion! Yet there are some points that seems to never be mentioned when Bart speaks on this subject, and there were not here either; here are a few that I think are worth considering.
Before even considering the answer to the title question, I think there should ba some agreement on what one means by (a specific) religion. I do _not_ think the general scholarly opinion is that a religion is determined by the way it answers the question "what brings salvation?" (which question implicitly assumes salvation is a thing); rather I think religions are characterised by (i) some common (metaphysical or other) beliefs (ii) common rituals, traditions, and practices (iii) a (spiritual) community. Only after agreeing on the determining factors of a religion can one meaningfully discuss the title question.
While there is little doubt that Jesus and Paul differ on the question as to whether belief in the resurrection of Jesus (it is not hard to believe in his death) is a condition for salvation, I think there is very little evidence that Jesus himself even held such a belief; the fact that the gospels, written long after the fact by people who obviously _did_ hold such a belief, put predictions about his own resurrection in the mouth of Jesus is not at all convincing evidence that it actually happened.
Also, I don’t think there is much reason to assume that Jesus considered questions of faith and belief of great importance at all, whatever the subject; in any case he never appears to answer questions about what one should do in terms of having faith or believing certain things. In this sense he seems to align much more with Judaism than with Christianity. The only thing I can think of that maybe he thought one should believe is his apocalyptic message that the kingdom of God was at hand (it was not).
In fact, I think that the theory that belief (in the resurrection) is of crucial moral importance is a true innovation by Paul, alongside the (related) theory that after the death and resurrection of the messiah, God had lost his interest in adherence to the Jewish law. Sure enough, belief in the resurrection must have existed in a certain group of people before the conversion of Paul, but is there any evidence that these people believed that this fact alone would bring them salvation? That twist is due to Paul, I would think. It is quite convenient to make the _defining_ criterion of (proto-)Christianity into its main virtue. It also is a viral twist: once one is infected by the belief that faith is the only road to salvation, one’s whole existence gets oriented towards maintaining and spreading that belief, and doubting becomes morally objectionable.
I don't think there's proof that people before Paul believed this fact alone would bring them salvation, but I do think it's very likely. One argument is sort of using the lack of evidence as evidence. :) Both Paul and Acts document conflict between Paul and the other Apostles, but that conflict is all over whether Gentile converts have to keep the Law, not over Paul's position on salvation. That strongly suggests that he shared their basic theology there.
I do agree that Jesus didn't teach salvation though belief in him and his resurrection. That seems most likely to have arisen in the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion and the claimed resurrection as Jesus's followers grappled with the idea of a crucified Messiah. That had to mean something important or it had to mean Jesus wasn't really the Messiah after all.
Hi Emma, still watching your videos but loving it ♥ Did not finish this one here but always thought that Paul as the "opposite" of Jesus... Loving your work and have a nice day.
Paul really is the opposite
Paul introduced the idea of Gentiles getting in without converting to Judaism? What implications does that have for earlier text that said the other live by their own laws? Others, thought to be Gentiles.
Paul: "Keep the commandments? Nah, never mind. Like kicking a dead horse. Do this resurrection thing instead."
There was no infrastructure for Jewish practices outside of Israel, especially after the Temple destruction. So it had to become a spiritual exercise.
I Corinthians I5:20-23 resurrected like Christ as Paul describes or traptured like the pulpit masters teach? Ezekiel I3:20. You know the fake doctrine Elohim warned us about?
interesting vid
I don’t want eternal life, as a Buddhist, I am trying to end the cycle of rebirth
Do you think rebirth is real? If so, what reasons do you have to believe so?
I've always found it interesting how Buddhism and Christianity have opposite afterlife goals: a Christian's aim is to live forever, and a Buddhist's aim is to stop living forever. Both of them have the same aim of stopping existing with suffering. (Buddhists by stopping existing, and Christians by either going to heaven or God's new kingdom.)
@@danielduvana
I believe in reincarnation, if only of a chemical sort: someday other critters will have the carbon & etc I'm currently built from 😋
@@AMcAFavesFrom the little I know about Buddhism, it’s not about ending existence, it’s about not coming back into a physical body.
@@davidkeller6156 i was thinking the same thing
Does the course explore any of the cultures and differences of the times? Always wondered if part of the different understanding of these two was who they were addressing. Jesus is a Jewish teacher or prophet. Paul seems to have moved to incorporating Gentiles into his community. Always wondered if who each was addressing flavored the emphasis in teaching?
It definitely does. And one has to keep in mind that Paul always wrote to certain communities addressing very specific issues. As a theologian myself I'd say it's pretty much impossible to come up with a coherent "theology of Paul" in its entirety because he never intended to write such a thing.
@@MrSeedi76 Yeah I think the teaching company has a course just on Paul. As said above, Paul was sort of a moderator of christianity to the gentile world, Jesus wasn't really interested. As another talk said, jesus was an apocalyptic preacher in the jewish world.
9:37 in, I had a thought. Basically, Jesus was Steve Wozniak to St. Paul's Steve Jobs? :D
Ehrmagerd! Another video with Dr Ehrman! I'm deep into his _Armageddon_ atm. I've always been fascinated by the difference in Paul v Jesus being all packaged up as Christianity. Make it make sense, Dr!
great guest!
Two of my favorite people in one video.
Paul seemed to approach Jesus' teachings in a similar way to how any other cult leader would (funnelling it through his own values and perspective); the only difference being that his temporal proximity Jesus' execution helped guarantee his version more orthodoxy.
Otherwise, he's more of a cult leader than Jesus ever was.
The spot I got before the video is scary really. As this is a “religious video” it was a spot for a ministry that I never got before
When non-believers spend much of their time, energy--their lives discussing the very thing they don't believe in, any of us, followers of Jesus---Christians, call that progress. God Bless You All In Jesus Name.
Jesus was Marx, Paul was Lenin. There's always a Lenin.
Constantine was Stalin?
Paul was Stalin in that metaphor.
Who was Ringo?
@@AMcAFaves
I dunno, but from now on I'll be calling the gnostics the Pete Best of christianity
@@pattheplanterAbsolutely 🤗
Does the course address the different Pauline letters? There are two distinct voices in the Epistles. The later letters, possibly not written by Paul at all, are the ones filled with homophobia, misogyny, etc. Curious...
[Edit} These questions come from distant Catholic high school religion classes. I remember the distinction (in my words) between the zealous, spreader of the faith Paul vs. the jerkish Paul.
is there really any scholarly doubt as to the pauline authorship of romans?? i ask because id be interested to know, cause ive never heard this before!!
Emma got a hair cut...Nice. Me like!!
I'm no Buddhist, but the whole idea of eternal life fills me horror. Why? Eternity never ends. There is no escape.
Exactly!
If eternal life after this earthly life is inevitable, as it is in Christianity, heaven and hell are the same eventually. At most you'd get a couple of thousand years of reprieve from extreme and eternal suffering if you get to heaven instead of hell. In the end, the result is the same...
Dude, chill
Nothing would suck all of the meaning out of existence quite like it never ending
@@AnotherCraig Prove it
@@apjapki I dunno, friend: would you really-- truly-- continue to appreciate the most absolutely breathtakingly beautiful sunset in the world... if it lasted all day, every day, for a year? How about for a trillion years? On the trillionth trillion-year anniversary?
Maybe you don't agree, but I just happen to think some things are all the more beautiful and worth being treasured because they, and we, are finite 😊
One of the things not mentioned about Paul's letters is they were primarily addressed to problems in the community. Would he necessarily refer to the Gospel stories in that context. He does talk about communion, so he does know something about Jesus. My reading of Paul is that the Law is only filled through grace, though that raising its own issues. To add to the confusion, Paul isn't the only one creating theology and orthodoxy around Jesus and the place of his teachings. I don't think there was ever a single interpretation of the work of Jesus, or the nature of the Christ, even from the very beginning. Fascinating discussion.
Thank you Emma for having this scholar talk about the Paul/Jesus problem, first I'd heard about it. Even my mother, a multi-religionist, saw Paul for the mysoginist, icky one, he was. Great question; was Paul the founder of the Christian religion, the co-founder? I'll bet it's not a question argued by the American fundies. That would require questioning their fantasy life and would, and has, lead to "war and rumours of war".
I always found the resurrection story to be very ad hoc.
Jesus says, Eyes to see!
Paul says, Faith without Sight.
Jesus says, Beware of Blind Guides.
Paul says, Jesus blinded me!
Jesus says, 'Are grapes picked from Thorns? You will know them by their fruit.'
Paul says, 'I have a Thorn from the Angel of Satan.'
If I want to enter the kingdom of heaven can I use my UK passport, or do I need to apply for a visa first?
You're fine as long as the expiry date on your passport is an eternity beyond your proposed entry date.
Also to add this is also why there are Pauline paradoxes within the Messianic Christian movement.. which let me tell you are always fun to talk about :0
11:22 this is a somewhat weird argument. The book of Acts doesn’t cover the historical trivia of Jesus’ life anymore than Paul’s letters, but no one would seriously argue that meant the author had no concern for the historic Jesus.
Letters of instruction to churches in some kind of crisis aren’t just going to be recitations of the gospel stories.
Jesus: "Call no man your Father..."
Saul: "Have I not been a Father to you?"
With respect to the advice of Jesus to give all your wealth to the poor, can we have some discussion of how Christians cannot be against a welfare state? Ecclesiasticus 34:21: "The bread of the needy is their life: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood."
I think therein lies the difference between Historical and Biblical Jesus, and Republican Jesus.
Very much so. As a German I never understood how that can even be a thing. Christians being against helping the poor looks like a contradiction in itself for me.
Christians aren't generally against helping the poor, they are against institutionalizing the helping of the poor. We now LITERALLY see secular governments doing away with poverty altogether.
@@AMcAFaves when you mix white supremacy and unmitigated capitalism into biblical literalism, you get Republican Jesus.
It's just more of the picking and choosing...the parts that one can weaponize against everyone one hates (the bible Evangelicals read)...the parts that one doesn't want to follow so interprets away as "metaphor" or "allegory" or "covered by grace" (all the parts that would be detriment one's lifestyle)...and the version that Evangelicals actually live by, which is a cobbled together mish-mash of right-wing politics, nationalism, and culture wars "traditional values" that would be exactly the same if they were all to become pagans tomorrow.
I struggle too!
I've always pointed out to people that basically all the conservative and regressive parts of christianity were brought up by Paul.
Almost like handing your love and peace religion over to a hyper-conservative authoritarian former religious zealot isnt a great idea.
Honestly it seems to me that many christians don't even bother with Paul, and just say 'in Jesus' name' while jumping straight to the most callous, cruel, judgemental, & bloody parts of the old testament.
@@AnotherCraig then you've never sat in on an evangelical sermon. They LOVE Paul.
@@davidtaylor142
Fair! Thanks for the correction. I was raised Catholic; my experience of evangelicals comes almost exclusively from raging televangelists and Republican rationalizing
@davidtaylor142 They might claim they do but they pick and choose from Paul's letters just as they do from the rest of the Bible. Or how often have you heard them quoting, "the man isn't master over his own body but the woman"?
@@MrSeedi76 Another way to blame women again.
I used to have a very similar shirt as Dr Bart.
Nice shirt, though it is an abomination to the Lord. Like the Lord, I prefer pure linen when I can get it, but I don't make that much fuss.
I could be convinced that Dr Ehrman did, in fact, voice the character Agent Wendy Pleakley in Lilo and Stitch
thanks
Only at the 1:50 min mark but I would argue the claim of a "knee jerk reaction" is not so for a great many Christians. Please, give us a little more credit than that. Excellent video by the way.
I love that Emma was able to genuinely surprise Bart with her “Paul is just a guy” comment 😸
Paul really does seem like a Joseph Smith that that came along early enough to get in the Bible.
I really like you Emma. 🎉
Blue Sky Thinking. Is that a SS13 reference?
Each person approaches a subject from distant angles. The disciples were preaching at the same time perhaps teaching more about jesus and his life and teachings.
When Jesus didn't return immediately, his followers had to come up with something different.
Any idea where i can find something on Paul that isn't an oversimplification?
Paul was the first "pick and chooser".
Hi, Emma, I hope you are well.
My friend and I have been having this very discussion for years now. So, I'm interested in seeing your thoughts on the subject. Also, what the fuck were manbeds?
On "it's so complicated, how do Christians do it" -- I feel like most Christians wouldn't know who Paul is.
4:20 I don't think Jesus would have said acquiring eternal life was contingent on an event that was yet to occur, even if he foretold that event.
But think about it, simply believing in His death and resurrection alone now saves you? Doesn't' Satan and the Demons also believe that Christ died and was Resurrected?
Like James the brother of Christ and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem stated it is "Faith and Works" together that saves. This is consistent with what Jesus told the rich man. He told him to keep the commandments and follow me. The work is being upright and keeping the commandments, the faith is to believe that He is Christ and to follow Him. However, as we can see faith without works is dead because even the devil can believe.
Galatians 1:10
For do I now persuade me, or God?or do I seek to please men?for if I please men, I should not be a servant of christ.
1 Corinthians 10:33
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
Colossians 3:9
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.
Roman's 3:7
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory than why am I also judged as a sinner.?
Definition of a sinner
1)a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.
2)a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
Acts 9 6-7
And he trembling and astonished said lord what will thou have me to do?and the lord said unto him arise and go into the city and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
AND THEN WHICH JOURNEYED WITH HIM STOOD SPEECHLESS HEARING A VOICE BUT SEEING NO MAN.
Acts 22:7-9
And I fell unto the ground and heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul why persecutest thou me?and I answered who art thou lord?and he said unto me I am Yeshua (Jesus)of Nazareth whom thou persecutest
AND THEY THAT WERE WITH ME SAW INDEED THE LIGHT AND WERE AFRAID BUT THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE OF HIM THAT SPOKE TO ME.
ACTS 26:13-14
At midday o king I saw in the way a light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining around about me and them, which journeyed with me AND WHEN WE WERE ALL FALLEN TO THE EARTH, I HEARD A VOICE SPEAKING UNTO ME, saying in the hebrew tongue Saul why persecutest thou me.
Do you see anything strange about Pauls conversion story about what happened to him on the way to Damascus. There are no named witnesses to his covertion store,just (the men).
Pauls conversion story also changes every time he tells it.
1 Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain them that are under the law, as under the law,that I might gain them that are under the law.
1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law being not without law unto God ,but under the law to christ, that I might gain them that are without law.
.....Paul claims to have become as under the law and then without the law ,which puts on a false appearance and acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
Paul is a confessed hypocrite by the very definition of the word. Paul says it himself, he became all things to all men.😮 scripture from the old testament that predicte, prophesied Isaiah 7:14...
Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 53 :3-7
Psalm 22:18,Zachariah 12:10
Micah 5:2.........................read your bible
Well if anything is obvious it is that there are many different Christianities, with each one convinced they are the most authentic one. Convinced.
Which is something worth contemplating, especially for those who insist that it all comes by direct inspiration from just one God.
Which is it keep the commandments or believe in the death and resurrection? I just noticed this now
Well,, what about Peter?
I find things like this so interesting. I took a lot of religious studies courses in University, just because they were so interesting. It would be like 8 or 9 people studying for the ministry and me, I just like to argue lol but like, in a fun devil's advocate way, not in a I hate you way. I just like when people actually think about things
What a question. Why didn't you ask about any of the other beatles?
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Because she was a Matrix only character.
Send that to bart so he is not confused about who paul is and why
You have been sent my book which explains what you're asking without any religion doctrine, dogma etc. D. Scott Schoen author of I Am is Inside Out. If you didn't get it in March let me know. It cost me $82 to send it.
I got it! It's very... big, heh
Is it strange that I'm finding the bible much more fascinating after losing my faith?🙂 Great interview!
It's fanfiction about the plight of Jews lasting 2,000 years that had been highjacked by Mohammed and a Roman who was probably gay and hated women
You never had faith, you just believed in something taught by men. Understand that faith is not mere belief or acceptance, but rather it is spiritual wisdom and understanding.
What they taught you was not truth, it was dogmatic and incongruent with the scriptures. You've always felt things were off, it just took you a while to accept the error of your faith.
Proverbs 29:25
Trust in man will prove to be a snare, but whoever fears the LORD is kept safe.
In short, don't let mere men tell you what to believe.
Great interview. The death and resurrection have to be used in this myth or there’s no reason for the passion at all.
Paul et al we’re recruiting for bodies and believers, probably tithing too. 😊
I sometimes think that is evangelicals have made an apotheosis of Paul,and another point his rapture in Thessalonians in my view is the apostles interpretation of the last days that Jesu s poke about.
Babe wake up there's a new Emma/Bart vid
In reading the new testament, I always got the hint of an impression that Paul was winging it.
Give into Caesar what is Caesars is absolutely Jesus winging it.