Jesus vs Paul: The Origins of a Religious Schism in Early Christianity | Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2023
- Jesus vs Paul: The Origins of a Religious Schism in Early Christianity | Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
Sign up For Bart Ehrman's new course Paul & Jesus: The Great Divide
mythvisionpodcast.com/jesusvs...
This course addresses one of the most controversial issues of early Christianity: Did Paul and Jesus have the same religion? Should they be considered the “co-founders” of Christianity? Or were the teachings of Paul at odds with the proclamations of Jesus, making Paul himself the founder of the new faith? Few questions can be more significant for understanding the origin of the Christian faith, and the answers are by no means simple.
==============================
*RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE*
Check out MVP Courses
www.mvp-courses.com
Sign up for Dr. Kipp Davis Course "The Real Ancient Israelite Religions"
mythvisionpodcast.com/israeli...
Sign up for Dr. Richard Carrier's Course "New Testament Studies For Everyone."
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/nt-...
Sign up for Bart's new Mark course "The Unknown Jesus"
mythvisionpodcast.com/unknown...
Sign up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/fir...
Sign up here for Dr. M. David Litwa's course - The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/mys...
Sign up here for Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr's course - The Quest For The Historical Jesus - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/jes...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Finding Moses - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/moses
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Other Virgin Births In Antiquity - -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/vir...
Sign up for the 7 hour resurrection debate between Dr's Bart Ehrman & Mike Licona here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/res...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Genesis "In The Beginning" Webinar here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/gen...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Christmas Webinar here - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/chr...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Did Jesus call himself God webinar - - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/bart
============================
**GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
============================
Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or contributing a one-time donation through my links below:
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon: 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal: 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 / derekpodcast
TikTok: 👉 / mythvision
Instagram: 👉 / dereklambert_7
Discord: 👉 / discord
===========================
👉👉 Checkout Our Other TH-cam Channel:
www.youtube.com/ @mythvisionclips
👉👉 Checkout MVP Courses to find new and upcoming online courses:
mvp-courses.com/
===========================
#mythvision #MythVisionPodcast #mvp #dereklambert
Sign up For Bart Ehrman's new course Paul & Jesus: The Great Divide
mythvisionpodcast.com/jesusvspaul
Definitely signing up for this
Remember the whole virgin birth story starts off from intentional mistranslations!!! Myth!!!!but I understand Bart wants to sell Christian Based books and has to continue the charade?????
Bart erman needs to watch the Star Wars video.... by Paulogia...
Or discuss the comic book Analogies of a real New York in the spider man world.
I think hes a bit too close minded to consider that it all might be just a myth
Also I don't think they are historical books as they are poticial ... if he doesn't want to say they're just flat out only religious books.
They are written to persuade not to discuss recorded acts.
@@PeterFortuna "they are written to persuade"... yes indeed and in fact they say so explicitly in the books... they are pure peddling and hawking propaganda for a cultist myth.
Bart is finally taking the gloves off and going to the core of the problem with Christianity. People are more focused on Paul's words than Jesus'.
This argument sounds more like mercantilist scholarly mumbo jumbo, I don't see it in the Bible, show me please
That's not Christianity, it's core Protestantism that overemphasizes Paul.
@@RomanPaganChurch Support your arguments with the Bible
@@innocentodinkemere4597 read the other comments. Paul and Jesus had fundamental differences
@@germanboy14
heuh ? granddad and grandson, realy ? ? no ; it's all in the family, it's all made up including the differences they are keen to sliver about. but it isn't true, just more astounding rubbish from NT and MV
This very issue is what caused me to stop being a Christian. I used to be a minister and the more I learned about the early church, the less I believed in the Pauline scriptures. Modern Christians should be called paulists not Christians.
Christians are followers of Paul and his gospel. Paul never met Jesus, unless you take his word for his encounter. Paul openly murdered the followers of Christ. He had very little association with the apostles or their teachings.
In his own words.
Galatians 1:11
But I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that was preached by me, that is not according to man;
1:12 for NEITHER RECEIVED I IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT THROUGH A REVELATION OF CHRIST.
Romans 3:7 for if the truth of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner?
2 Corinthians 12:16... I am crafty, and caught you all by trickery
Acts 12:23 and behold the hand of the LORD is upon thee, and thou SHALT BE BLIND, not seeing the sun for a season.
Jesus healed the blind, while Paul caused a guy to go blind.
Acts 20:9 and a young man... who sat in a window... as Paul discoursed...fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead🤔
20:10 but Paul went down, and fell upon him and embracing him said: be not troubled; for his life is in him.
20:12 and they broughtthe young man alive.(WOW, a convenient death, and resurrection "miracle" at the hands of Paul)
Acts 22:3... being a zealot for God, as all of you are this day,
Acts 22:24 I persecuted this way even to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women
Acts 20:26 I solemnly affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all.
1 Corinthians 9:20 I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law, NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER LAW, that I might gain these under law.
9:21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law.
9:22 to the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: TO ALL I BECAME ALL THINGS, THAT BY ALL MEANS, I might save some.
20:23 AND ALL THINGS I DO FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL.
Romans 3:7 for if the "truth" of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged a sinner?
2 Corinthians 12:16 NEVERTHELESS, I AM CRAFTY, AND CAUGHT YOU ALL BY TRICKERY
The guy is admittedly a murderer, liar, deceiver, telling people what they want to hear, causing harm to others, clean of the blood of any wrong doing, while preaching to everyone that are going to reap what they sow. Claiming his gospel is inspired by God, and not by those who were personally with Christ on a daily basis.
PAUL'S GOSPEL
John 3:13 NO MAN HATH ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN
5:28The hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.
5:29 and shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of death
3:13 no man hath ascended up to heaven
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting contempt.
2 Peter 3:4 where is the promise of his coming? Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were.
I Thesolonians 4:13 concerning them which are asleep
4:14 even so also them which sleep in christ.
4:15 WE WHICH ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD shall not prevent them which are asleep
4:16 and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
CANNIBALISM FOR IMMORTALITY
John 6:53
Jesus said.. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day.
6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
CHILD SACRIFICE FOR IMMORTALITY
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of the blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness.😂
HERE'S YOUR FAILED PROPHECY
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, THERE ARE SOME STANDING HERE, WHICH SHALL NOT TASTE DEATH, TILL THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM.
THESE GUYS BOUGHT INTO THE FAILED PROPHECY
I Thesolonians 4:14 WE WHICH ARE ALIVE, AND REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD
THE RETURN OF JESUS
Revelations 1:7 Behold he cometh on clouds
14:14 And I looked and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud, one sat like unto the son of man.
2:18 These things saith the son of God
2:23 And I will KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH
8:9 The third of the creatures which were in the sea, and have life, died
11:6 Power over the waters to turn them into blood, and smite the earth with all plagues (bioweapons) as often as they will.
16:3 Poured out his vial upon the sea, and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul in the sea died.
WOW, YOU WORSHIP GUYS THAT FLY AROUND ON "CLOUDS" MURDERING CHILDREN, FISH, AND SPREADING BIOWEAPONS.
FLYING ON "CLOUDS"
Exodus 16:10 YHWH appeared in the cloud
Numbers 11:25 YHWH came down in a cloud
Leviticus 16:2I will appear in the cloud upon my mercy seat
24:18 Moses went into the midst of the cloud and gat him up into the mount
II Kings 2:1 YHWH would take Elijah up into heaven by a whirlwind
2:11 And there appeared a chariot of fire... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven
Psalms 104:3 Maketh the clouds his chariot, who walketh upon the wings of the wind
68:17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand
Ezekiel 8:3 The spirit lifted me up between heaven and earth and brought me... Jerusalem
Psalms 18:10 He rode upon a cherub and he did fly, yea he did fly upon the wings of the wind
Luke 9:34 There came a cloud and overshadowed them, and they feared as they entered into the cloud
Acts 10:11 Saw heaven opened and a certain vessel descending unto him
10:16 And the vessel was received up again
11:5 A certain vessel descend... and it came unto me
11:10 Drawn up again into heaven
Zechariah 5:1 And I turned and lifted up mine eyes, and behold a flying roll.
5:2 And he said unto me, 'what seest thou?'
And I answered 'I see a flying roll: the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits
5:3 He said unto me 'this is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the earth'
5:5 "Lift up now thine eyes and see what is this that goeth forth?"
5:6 And I said "what is it?" "This is an ephah that goeth forth" He said moreover "this is there resemblance through all the earth"
5:7(ISV) Look, a sound lead cover was being lifted, and there was a woman seated inside.
5:9 Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and behold, there came out two women...and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven
5:10 Then said I to the angel that talked with me "whither do these bear the ephah?"
5:10 And he said unto me "to build an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set upon her own base."
6:1 And I turned and lifted up mine eyes and looked, and behold, there came (emerged) four chariots from between two mountains, and the mountains were mountains of brass
Acts 1:9 He was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight
1:11 Jesus, which was taken up from you into heaven shall so come in the like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven
Legend of the Jews 1&2
by Rabbi Louis Ginsburg
Pg 521
"All the children of Israel were TRANSPORTED thither on clouds, and after they had eaten of the sacrifice, they were carried back to Egypt in the same way."
JESUS S(L)AVES
I Peter 2:18
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh
I Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name, and our teaching may not be slandered.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything...
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart...
Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them.
‘Lost Christianities’ was the book by Dr E that truly illustrated to me the impossibility of basing a religion on a 2000 year game of ‘telephone’, with a massively complicated history of borrowings from former and later belief systems, as it continued to evolve into the directions that humans needed Christianity to go, to suppor and legitimize their regimes. Pure , fascinating human silliness
I don't think that the radiant products of the Jesus movement are necessarily delusional. I think the problem of creating a religion lies in what you exclude and bury and why you are excluding it and burying it, but also what you embellish and why you are embellishing
We can take for instance Anat in the Israelite religion. Anat was a goddess from the middle euphrates that had a higher status in early Judges that gives buried in Jahudite inscription and yet Anat is the wife of Yahweh in Elephantine Egypt. How does a goddess like Anat get to Egypt if not through Israel (ancient canaan to the exilic period). The jahudite version of early israelite history tries to bury canaanite elohim by confuscation of terms and relationships. The reason they do this is because they need to push the Yahweh of the 9th or 10th century BCE into the 11th to 15th century bce and in order for them to do that the gods of their heros need to mover aside so Yahweh can get the credit for their peity.
The work done by the Yacobian jesus followers needs to be pushed aside so that credit can be given to Paul and his 'Christ' followers for all the successors, because otherwise we would need to give credit to Ananus ben Ananus, The sicari and Zealots, Vespasian and Titus for essentially wiping the Jewish jesus followers out allowing the greco-roman jesus followers to move in and take control. This creates a strong bias in the literature towards Marks more literary framework that is a backbone of the most important part of the gospels, the passion narrative. Once the authors accept marks ending as a framework, then adding birth narratives are just normal aspects of that kind of god-genesis framework.
Clearly it isn’t impossible at all.
So many people seem to be learning about religion just to gain ammo to say it’s “yeah see it’s not real”. Lol no shit, but the question is whether the history is actually interesting to you beyond that?
You’re missing the point entirely. Impossible? Those are the perfect circumstances for basing a religion. Perhaps your expectations of religion are different than mine.
Logos Idea in Christianity is very coherent if there was a basic understanding of the original philosophy.
But in the modern era it is very difficult because, philosophy itself marginalized idealism, Gottfried Leibniz was perhaps the last Christian Neo-Platonist, and Kant a secular idealist. In the British tradition idealism was mostly rejected during the enlightenment and the modern logical positivism also rejects secular idealism.
The issue is many early Christians were obviously not material reductionist AT ALL. The Platonist tradition was one of the strongest influences on early Christianity. And Plato did not believe in an anthropomorphic literalist God, only a transcendent one, that is imminent via the Logos, to believe otherwise would be idolatry.
Some of the earliest Christian writers were Platonist and Pythagorean, Philo (who was not a Christian) was called the Pythagorean and was referenced by the Christians.
What is the basic idea? There is more to the world than the material appearance. A deeper understanding can be gained by attaining virtues which are manifestation of the Logos like reason and ethics. Jesus is the right Logos, ethical philosopher, just as Socrates demonstrated the Logos of reason, and the writer of the Psalms poetic aesthetic Logos. (Reference Justin Martyr)
We can find the virtues within as the Logos is eternal (innate) and Jesus is the guide to an ethical and spiritual way of being in the world, the kingdom of eternity heaven is right in front of us, we must wake up to see and experience it.
This idea was in the work of Justin, Origen, St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus, acquinas, Erasmus all the way to Paul Tillich and those that preserve the Logos theology.
A reverent attitude to truth and love of others and “God” the experience of existence and the deeper dimensions of life.
Bart Ehrman has such a logical approach to his writings and even his "off the top of his head" responses are so logical and quick witted. Hard not to love the guy! Thanks for this wonderful interview!
I dunno. When I was a believer I took it all to mean that Jesus was telling you what you must do as a person alone to meet the requirements, to live a holy life, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven... but ultimately it meant that it was impossible to do, something that is sketched out for us in Matthew 19... "25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” That passage hits hard, it's apparent that Jesus is making clear the meaning of his teachings. Jesus spent all that time talking about what needed to be done and then he said it was impossible for man alone. Jesus said that his death shall be a "ransom for many" Matthew 20:28, John 3:14-15: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." , Matthew 26:28: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.". So, I don't think Paul's concepts of salvation are completely alien to the rest of the early church. Of course you have the matter of who actually wrote what and was it was actually what was said, were there elements of theology being injected to suit certain points of view, etc. etc., but going from the New Testament that we have today, I don't think Paul was making things up on his own. Also, Jesus did open things up for interpretation when he indicated that he used parables to hide the true meaning and that only his true followers would understand them... So if Jesus didn't say them plainly, but he entrusted the understanding to his disciples/apostles/church, I think the leap of reason isn't really that far from what he said himself.
They taught the same thing. Salvation comes from the Jews, ie Jesus.
Loving your work brother. Thank you for all the amazing content you're putting out. It's honest, real, rigorous. passionate work like this that the world desperately needs. Thank you.
Bart continually raises for me many issues around definitions of what really is "Christianity". More and more it seems that the only thing that defines it is that there is a central belief in Jesus as being some kind of special messenger sent by God. But apart from that it is a huge mess of ideas, claims and traditions that is an impossible maze to navigate.
He made a very crucial point that is missed by virtually all Christians. We can't really say whether ANY of the followers of Jesus in the first generation actually considered themselves to have left Judaism to form a new religion. Right up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and before that the death of James, the vast majority of the followers of Jesus still considered themselves to be practicing a form of Judaism, not Christianity.
Well Paul is pretty early. The didache. Potentially Mark. And you can sort of work your way up from there. Exegete the earliest stuff first as best you can then work your way through the timeline doing the same. Then make an educated guess.
The New Testament, if you consider it early enough and potentially reliable enough to be worth the study, is a good picture of early Christian thinking by virtue of the fact that its early Christian documents. (I understand that Christianity was not one unified whole, but this is the best we can do).
For the record I think the message of the New Testament, and it's really not hard to see, is that Jesus is a human being, potentially born of a virgin/miracle of God, he taught God will soon fix the world through him then he suffered died was resurrected, and instructed his disciples to carry on his message of thay God will fix the world soon through him, start living like it and prepare.
When it comes to the nuance if how to live like it and prepare this is where the potential Paul vs Jesus argument comes into play.
Nothing about the Lutheran nonsense about "faith vs works" but rather "faith vs works *of the law* [of Moses])" To say it as simply and dumbed down as possible, if you think Jesus taught all must become Jews, that is to say to completely follow every single law of the law of Moses then Paul was certainly at odds with Jesus. However if you think Jesus did not teach that one must follow every single law of the law of Moses then Paul was not at odds with Jesus teaching.
The compilation of writings that form the New Testament, whether someone thinks they accurately reflects their 1st copies or not, certainly favor the 2nd option. That Jesus's teachings were compatible with not being a Jew, ie he did not make a teaching that people MUST be circumcised like the author of Genesis and then Moses later did.
The idea in the New Testament is that Jesus had his own teaching, some of which was similar to Moses, some of which was different and that Paul understood this first before even the disciples and fought for that idea. His main concerns were that no Gentile thought they had to get Mosaically circumcised, observe certain Mosaic dietary restriction, or observe certain Mosaic days of the year as religiously special.
That is really what the issue is, would Jesus have agreed or disagreed with Paul on those 3 things...
agreed yes. it's not even clear that he really existed.
the scholars think that they can extract truth from the gospels.
they can't, they are assuming things without proof.
Of course, before Constantine, there were many, many different gnostic groups.
Constantine forced a more united, one church. Basically, the remaining gnostic groups were declared heretics. Then, came the east/west divide in to Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic church, and then, of course the reformation, which, eventually led to the many many "denominations" of today. So what we see today is not much different from what it was like before Constantine, or is it?
@@ji8044 I doubt anybody who read the Bible misses this. This is as plain as ABC, but the question is, so what? I don't see the Paul vs Jesus issue here, Paul was as Jewish as possible, a Pharisee of Pharisees. Show me the issue in this please?
It's really remarkable how Nietzsche already anticipated all of this and wrote that Paul has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
True. I can't remember which of Nietzsche's books it comes from (Twilight of the Idols, maybe?), but I recall him saying that if Jesus had a religion, it died on the cross. Nietzsche expressed it more dramatically, but that was the essence, the implication being that Paul's religion was quite different from Jesus's.
Nietzsche had not the slightest understanding of Christianity. He decried his own parody of it without addressing the faith itself. If Ehrman follows his steps, they are mistaken from the beginning. Ehrman never understood Christianity because his entire point has always been to prove that Christ is a fictional character. It’s his dogma.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Ehrman is a professor and researcher. He was a devout Christian for most his life. His extensive research is the basis for everything he says/writes regarding Christianity. He never "sharpened his sword" and attacked Christianity, even though, to you, he has.
@@cecileroy557 Ehrman debunks the low-grade evangelicalism of his youth. He’s got nothing to offer an intelligent traditional Christian who reads.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972When researching Nietzsche's upbringing your claims are very surprising. You should go look it up and see his relationship with Christianity. It was probably more intense than yours.
B. Ehrman is an inspiring scholar. I‘m atheist (of course;) but very much interested in religion, especially the christian religion. Ehrman is one of the best sources you can find in these days.
😂 No he's not. The only thing he's doing is parroting stuff he read when he himself was at university in the 70's. He's basically quoting a handful of German scholars (I know because I am German and had to read that stuff myself when studying theology). That's were his knowledge ends. I never heard one single original thought out of his mouth. Let alone anything that contradicts the handful of theories he constantly repeats. That's not scholarship at all.
@@MrSeedi76 Even if you're correct--which I doubt--about the originality of Bart's scholarship, he obviously has a very deep knowledge of the New Testament, and his perspective as an atheist enables him to see and communicate relationships between early Christian texts that Christian scholars either don't see or don't communicate effectively to a broad audience.
@@lawsonj39 Totally agreed.
trouble is as your an atheist you clearly havent even read scripture nor are you versed in its meaning and doctrines, then tell me how can YOU even suggest you "know" anything? If you want to pull something apart, ie even reverse engineer it you have to at least understand how it works! what an idiot!
@@lawsonj39 He might have a very deep knowledge of the New Testament and he can deliver a plausible story to a broad audience as a historian. Yet you need to remember there is a clear limit to his plausible historical account- it can't be THE one conclusive story. If he is a true scholar his needs keep his balance. His historical account can't be proven and its probabilites of being true couldn't be measured. He needs to focus on that point when he communicate with lay persons.
I don't always agree with Bart, but there's no denying his deep knowledge and his easily understood explanations. Love this interview! Everyone should sign up for Bart's blog if you can!
what are his falsehoods?
he is assuming a lot without much proof.
but those scholars always do.
they sound like they know a lot. but do they really?
i see it as an opinion. not as the truth...
@ClaimClam They aren't so much falsehoods as they are simple disagreements. For example, Bart doesn't grant that the Gospels directly parallel aspects of the Homeric myths. I agree more with Dennis Macdonald and think that they do. Bart also dismisses the Mar Saba letter. I'm more in James Tabor's camp on that one. Still, I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Bart says. The disagreements are relatively minor.
@@J_Z913 great elaboration!
@@Marabarra134 When looking at history that far in the past, there is not Capital T Truth.
It's finding and looking at the available evidence and coming to conclusions based on that. There’s never going to be 100% accuracy in scholarship or in historical analysis, but you can get pretty close with the evidence we do have.
When I read the Gospels, I think about the audience and what was the writers aim. Then they make more sense. When I read the letters of Paul, I realize that he was writing for persuasion and control.
Persuasion yes. Control? Not really, it wasn’t a power trip, and he was much less strict than the followers of James who were strict with Mosaic law.
@@matthewkopp2391isn’t the point of persuasion to have a form of “control” on someone.
The power to suggest something
Sort of like Mohammed and his Quran or Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon.
Great discussion.
Always love these talks with bart
Great interview with Prof. Ehrman.. Everyone can learn from this scholar.
Thanks!
I came to the conclusion that Christian churches had very little to do with Jesus a very long time ago. I guess it started when I compared what they taught us about Jesus in Sunday School, to what Christians have actually been doing for hundreds of years. Fifty years later my opinion has not changed.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
@@micahhenley589 Or I could just declare with total conviction, that Paul invented the whole story based on a hallucination. Of somebody he never met. Then went on to supress the real teachings of Jesus being spread by his close followers. All because Paul thought that they were being a bit too "Jewish". Stating your extreme position contributes nothing to the conversation. When I never even mentioned Paul.
@@corringhamdepot4434 You are correct that Paul wanted to stomp out the teachings of Jesus. Acts 8:3 says he arrested and imprisoned many followers of Jesus and he even approved the murder of Stephen(Acts 7:58). As we can see, Paul was a bloody violent man and could technically be called a religious terrorist. His destiny is the lake of fire and burning sulfur.
But then in Acts chapter 9 we read something amazing. God would personally confront this violent man. But instead of showing wrath to Paul, God would show him mercy and grace. And Paul would be used mightily by Jesus Christ. The Lord said "Go! This man is My chosen instrument to proclaim My name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." Acts 9:15
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10
@@micahhenley589 You appear to have a reading comprehension problem? Or are you just deliberately misunderstanding my comments, so you can trot out bible quotes that are not relevant to what I said.
actually, the Catholic church claims to be the first, organized Christian church and they also claim to be created by Jesus
So, unfortunately, your conclusions would be incorrect
Jesus was considered the Christ
and would be included in all Christ-ian lore
However,
Christianity comes from Pagan beliefs so, you would see similarities there
and do
I am so glad you are doing these videos. Keep up the good work.
I am a Christian and I loved this video. It gives me hope that we can have reasonable and sober discussions about these questions. Thanks for making this!
Hopefully ur(LOS(SOL🌞)ing UR🌞(iDIOtic)-RAliJinn...&)-Sobering up(to pRAyERs & miRAcles, to jeZEUS-mARIA🌞) . 😇
The more I study the NT the more I see flaws in it
@@Isaac5123 No , your just buying his reinterpretations of the N.T.
Christianity starts off with intentional lies,and misinterpretations -virgin birth" that's not in the original Isaiah story..
Bart's just wants to sell christian-based books so he's got to continue the charade
@@3wolfsdown702 Amen
Aaaah! One of my very favourite biblical scholars. Awesome, great educator and thinker.
Congrats Derek: you've hit your silver plaque mark, well deserved
Great podcast as always!
The fact that Paul was a persecutor of those believing in Jesus at that time and then all of a sudden became a solid believer to the extent that he abandoned his old way of life including his high rank, wealth and social status only shows that he really found some truth in it big time. He was really sure about it that he became willing to even risk his own life for it so many times. Think of it, changing your beliefs is one thing but risking your life for that belief is another thing. it's not only one or twice he almost died during his ministry but instead of stopping he even became more aggressive in his teaching even when he was in jail. his actions clearly shows that he's into something way better and more important than his own life. it's like a reward where getting that reward and dying is better than living a good long life with no reward. he was convinced 100% with the promise of resurrection and that's why in one of his letter he said that if the resurrection isn't real then it would be better if they'll just eat and get drunk and enjoy life like what most people were commonly doing. There's no question that Jesus existed and even non biblical historian like Josephus who lives in the 1st century wrote about him (even though his non-believer) cause he was sure that there's really someone named Jesus that was crucified by the romans. Now whether it's true or not that he resurrected from the dead, the only evidence we have is the bible and the fact that no other plausible reason as to why his body was missing in the tomb. if only his body didn't became missing then we probably won't even heard the word Christianity at all today cause that missing body or the resurrection of Him that's the main foundation of Christianity. it was the reason why Paul and other apostles were willing to sacrifice their own life just to fulfill their mission of preaching the gospel. if this was just some traditions with no basis then why after more than 2000 years there's still people that believes in it. even roman emperor like constantine knew that he doesn't have chance to discredit the facts and would end up in his empire being divided if he will go against it so he decided that the best option for him is to take it in and became christian himself so that the whole empire can be united again.
A lot of people that had a lot of priviligies, changed to protected the persecuted trough story. Only christians think that what happened to Paul is a one time event in history, and is not.
as a Muslim this is just wonderful to hear! christians need to wake up to this!
These guys know jack. Don't get fooled. I am gonna tell you right now that I would have a field day with these 2. And after I finished, you would be converted and welcomed to true peace from a loving God. Peace to you muslim.
@@markhodges5138 I'm willing to come to your faith if you can prove to me from your Bible that your faith is not against the preaching and practice of Jesus of the Bible.
@@truthdoesntcomeeasy743 the Bible states that we need to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).
This means we need to realise that while the Bible is written to us, not all of it is written for us.
Jesus is the Messiah to the Jews, but he is Lord and Saviour to those in the Body of Christ under the current dispensation of Grace.
During the Law of Moses, people needed faith and works for salvation but under the current dispensation, we are saved by our faith alone in what Christ accomplished (his "workmanship") on the Cross.
Christ came to fulfill the Law and start a new Covenant with man. This doesn't mean that the 10 commandments are invalid but that the Law is now written on our hearts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 10 (KJV)
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"
17 "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."
18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."
19 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,"
20 "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;"
21 "And having an high priest over the house of God;"
Ephesians 2 (KJV)
8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"
9 "Not of works, lest any man should boast."
10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Just because Paul had heard of Christianity--or at least followers (as they saw it) of Jesus--before converting to support and promote it doesn't mean that he didn't largely shape what THEREAFTER was orthodox Christianity.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
Obviously. That's exactly Ehrman's position.
No one is disputing that
You need to warn that this comment is a spoiler.
Prof. Ehrman is knowledgeable and able to parse out the differences in a way easy to understand. I learn so much.
The idea that faith saves versus it is works that save has always been a divisive issue. I have difficulty reconciling the two. I'm going to read what others comment. Excellent interview.
I've been teaching about how Paul and Jesus contradicted one another for over a decade.
Well we really don’t know because Paul’s letters are the earliest source material. The Gospels are like a history of Jesus written later. Paul’s writings are first hand and the Gospels are second hand info.
@@MarcP5267the gospels werevwritten much earlier than is commonly taught, by at least 25 years, so...........
@@MarcP5267This isn’t the patent office that favors a the first to file. The Gospels were written after Paul, but they are based on oral histories that preceded Paul.
Love the topic and love Dr. Ehrman's insights on this. As a Christian, I dove into the words of Jesus and was astonished at how much at odds his thinking is with Paul's letters.
That's why you don't pay attention to Paul's letters you throw them out or your burn them, but you don't give any credit to them🤔
@@mickeydecurious What would Christianity be without Paul? It probably wouldn't even exist anymore since it wasn't succeeding as a sect of Judaism. If it did, it would probably be a Jewish sect where "the messiah" had already come, but Orthodox jewish law were still followed.
@@travis1240
Technically Jewish Orthodox laws were supposed to be followed, that was the whole message of Jesus was to come back to the true living God of Israel, and prepare yourself for the end; the teachings and everything got turned on its head once Paul opened up his mouth in the gentiles started giving him Money🤔
Then let's not even talk about the Roman Catholic Church getting a hold of it and getting in bed with the Roman government in order to force this belief unto others, sound familiar 🤔
Let's face it they've been beating society with that book of fables for over two thousand years now! When will it end, when will society as a whole stand up and say enough with your schizophrenic hateful blood cult🤔 Maybe after every one of the gen x, we die out? When most the congregation of these churches die? When will enough of this hateful cult be held accountable for their sins against Humanity for the last thousands of years 😔 When will woman start getting common sense and stay as far away from this religion as we can get?!
This refutes Christianity because it makes Jesus and his death or resurrection useless. You don't need him, just keep the commandments for eternal life.
@@mickeydecurious Burning texts, now thats proper christian.
Great program 👍
I started listening to Bart Ehrman while driving in my car. I would go to the library and check his audio out from the Great Courses selection. He was integral in my understanding some of the more harder biblical texts and scriptures in the Bible. He was also integral in my understanding of it and how I further deconstructed religion from my life after turning away from the church six years earlier. This led me to read other things not just relating to Christianity itself, but the falling away from it such as Freedom From Religion, Black Atheists, then over to Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hichens, Carl Sagan, and so on. And I have never looked back. Taking this deeper dive helped me to know even more than the Christians of said religion in my life and around me. Once, I knew and learned what I did, I couldn't unlearn it to save many of my relationships as some of my family, friends, and the church turned their backs on me as I asked questions that they couldn't answer, didn't want to answer, or couldn't continue to lie about. I was armed and it served me well and my deconstruction was permanent. And I have passed it down to my own offspring. If they want to believe, that's fine. But no one was indoctrinating them unless they were of age...16-18 years old. Guess what, it never happened because it couldn't be done. They're critical thinkers and aren't swayed by groupthink when it comes to religions of any kind or conspiracy theories running rampart on the internet.
This is a great topic! Great questions and thinking on this topic. I think what is needed is the Jewishness of Jesus & Paul and tapping into “rabbinical sources” to help parse through Jesus’ teachings.
I am finding that most authors have one part but not the other.
Thank you for this podcast because what Bart brings up are really fundamental issues that rarely get talked about.♥️
Bart really hits the nail on the head here.
While i lean away from Prof Ehrman on the historicity of Jesus, this is really the crux of the matter. What religion is Jesus talking about, and what is the religion that Paul is espousing? And why are they so different?
I think he hit his head on something, for sure
for the truth on Jesus, you need to listen to rabbi bar terhman
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
Paul didn't contradict Jesus in any way. It's just that his teachings were mostly tailored for the non Jewish audience. James for example was teaching to mostly Jewish audience since he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Paul was apostle to the gentiles.
Religion is not a plural word.
Once upon a time, there was no word for religion
and there were many cults and sects
Religion is all the same
Its all religion
There are not multiple religion (s)
it all comes from earlier religion
Religion is all the same
They are there for a different state
The rulers want people confused
there is always and only 1 truth
So, the rulers basically created a false, right to religion, that does not exist.
Religion is our slavery
government is the result
and the ruling class knows this
so they use religion as their authority
that they get from the masses, in their own confusion
Two highly intelligent men. Thank you for this inspiring discussion.
Perhaps intelligent. But not well researched.
A friend of mines PhD in archaeology was Rome in the Christian period.
He got access to the Vatican records of the Roman govt at the time.
The Romans called the "Christians" Nazarenes. Until fifty years after the heysuss crusifiction when they realised it had spread out of control cause they'd been martyring too many of them, and wrote them off as "just another oriental mystery cult."
They were matriarchal pot smoking mushroom gobbling tree hugging free love hippies led by Mary Magdalene.
Into Soma Gnosis.
(mystical revelation through magic mushroom goblins)
Paul was fifteen years old when they Crusified Mary's Boyfriend.
60 years later, Pauls drunken cavorting with groupies and living off the embellished tales of the good ol daze were wearing thin and he was broke.
He took the offer of a paid job to help the Roman Govt write the New Testament, to avoid being a warm up snack for the lions in the arena for unpaid debts.
It's Roman-Paulinnanity.
NOT Christianity. 😂
Bart is the intelligent man. I don't think the other guy's toxic skepticism is intelligent at all
Derek and Bart, I've just realized that I came to the same conclusions as Dr. Ehrman did on how to read a text. I've always tried to read everything around the text in question, and to learn the language, culture (food and dress), daily habits, etc. I've always been much more interested in Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Kant-Hegel-Schoepenhauer-Nietzsche, and the 20th century existentialists. than the bible. Of course I needed to know the development of christianity. I enjoy all the insights into the ancient world and now a personal insight about how I go about doing things. Hugs from Jim Oaxaca Mexico
This is crucial in understanding the New Testament I believe. The church may or may not have a part to play on interpretation, but a full ear must be given to everything all sorts of critical scholarship is saying.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!!
“Gentiles don’t need to become Jews” was his main mission. Christianity was a cover up for this mission
Part of the issue is the Platonic Greek philosophy originated from Pythagoras who was taught by Jews. That entire line of thought was anti-polytheistic and believed in monotheistic transcendent God “the monad” the ONE.
So many Greeks Paul converted already believed in monotheism and Paul was converting them to Jesus version of Judaism.
There were Hellenized Jews and monotheistic Greeks who first become “Christian”.
Jesus' teaching was that following the Law perfectly was required. Then, he showed all people including the religious leaders that it was impossible for them to follow the Law perfectly. His purpose was to demonstrate that all people need repentance and God's mercy, both the 'sinners' and the 'righteous' of his day. All of them needed the 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'
Problem is you're taking a modern reading and interpretation and applying it to the past.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Not at all. It is directly what is written in the words of the scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers, first and early second century sources. No interpretation required.
@@stephenbailey9969 But was Jesus in talking about the Law thinking more of legalistic moral principles or actual dictates? In other words, what was Jesus on about: the spirit of the Law or the letter of the Law?
@@paulthomas281 The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:20-48. Jesus was pointing to the Father as the ideal of righteousness. "You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." This is so as man was created to exist in the image of God. Man chose to follow a different path. That standard is far beyond simply the letter of the Mosaic Law. The Law was just a tutor, as Paul would later say, pointing to the living perfection that is Christ.
Jesus reminded people about this standard in his series of "You heard that it was said...But I tell you..." passages.
Jesus didn't come to reform religion. He came to bring new existence. But that is not the kind of Messiah that people expected. Many of the people in his day were unprepared to admit they were broken and in need of healing.
Just like many people today.
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem and can't fix it yourself.
We need a friendly debate/discussion between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Richard Miller!
Very insightful
To me. it seems that Saul aka Paul never changed his mission to eradicate the real teachings of Jesus by infiltrating the followers. By gaining their confidence, he was able to change our understanding of those teachings to invent a whole new religion very loosely based on the truth revealed by Jesus. .
Im a christian from Indonesia , i love watching bart erhman and derek , its an eye opening discussion and we can discuss about many things friendly God bless u guys
So u know that u follow paul not Jesus
@@mralchemist3976 classic bro u know what it still better to follow paul then pedohpilia prophet
muslim sudah dari dulu bilang bahwa kristen itu sebenarnya lebih tepat dibilang paulen. Kalo dibandingin dalam sejarah paul itu mirip musailamah al-kazzab yang ngaku ngaku rosul setelah nabi Muhammad SAW meninggal. Yang parahnya lagi paul itu ga pernah bertemu langsung dengan Isa AS tapi ngaku ngaku sebagai muridnya (apostle) karena mengaku bertemu secara imaginer dengn Isa AS. Untungnya kalo di muslim itu musailamah al-kazzab berhasil dibunuh sama khalifah Abu Bakar sedangkan paul berjaya.
@@UnnamedLexicon hem kenapa ya muhamad kawinin aisha d umur 6 thn halo?
@@leonkennedy9754 serius itu yang lu tanyain? Udah bosen dijawab beberapa kali tetep aja ini yang dikeularin. Salahnya apa? saat 6 tahun itu tunagannya sedannkan kawinnya pas Aisha menstruasi pertama (dalam hadits 9 tahun). Salahnya dmn?
For those who understand German, I can strongly recommend the latest book by Johannes Fried: "Jesus oder Paulus - Der Ursprung des Christentums im Konflikt". A very precise analysis and very enlightening...
Ja, danke dafür!!
Can u gave some recap like movies recapped
@@mralchemist3976 Johannes Fried shows
1) how a crucifixion like Jesus experienced was medically survivable considering the pleural effusion (pierced the side with the lance). This method is used today in accidents involving catheters.
2) how numerous Christian communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee did not know death with resurrection until the third or fourth century. There is also no mention of it in the first Christian written documents such as the Gospel of Thomas (found in the desert sands of Nag Hammadi in 1945) or the Logia Collection Q, the source of the Gospel of Markion (AD 150).
3) how the Hellenized Paul, with his Pauline christology (death, resurrection, redemption of all mankind, etc.) was at odds with the disciples in Jerusalem, such as James the Brother of the Lord. They had a Jewish-Hebrew idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who was finally supposed to liberate Israel from foreign rule. This split in views can be seen very well in the NT and is very well documented in the book.
4) how Paul addressed an international audience with Greek texts and thereby spread much further and ultimately caught on. Fried wonders how much Paul's Christianity actually has to do with the Naozorean Jesus.
This is just a very rough summary of what the book is about. Of course, you have to read it yourself to check the very many details it contains. To Fried's credit, he's a historian, not a theologian. His main area is the Middle Ages. So he was able to approach his book without bias, prejudice or religious reservations and simply look at what actually exists and what doesn't.
I leave the matter of surviving the crucifixion as a theoretically and "technically" possible option. Jesus hung "only" for six hours and not for the usual 2-3 days. In addition, there is the pleural effusion, which causes someone to lose consciousness and thus to apparent death. Oh well...
What gives me the most food for thought is the very finely worked out contrast between the Jewish idea of the Messiah and the Pauline christology by a strongly hellenized, highly intelligent and also linguistically well-versed ex-Pharisee who apparently knew little or nothing about the Nazarene Jesus and who, however, made the pre-birthly existing Son of God and Savior of all mankind.
As we know from history, after Caesarism had turned into Papacy in order to continue to survive and rule, the newly established Catholic Church (Catholic = general) came into being and all "heretical" congregations, christians or now " dissidents" were brutally persecuted and wiped out, leaving only the Roman Catholic version as the only correct one. In this respect, the question arises as to how much the books of the NT were colored Pauline or Roman Catholic so that "it is correct". Perhaps this great leap from the Jewish Nazarene to the hellenized Paul with his mighty christology is also "willed by God", as it were a new revelation of how God's way should now continue. I think everyone has to find that out and decide for himself.
What a great interview.
excellent discussion
There is an intersting article written by Sean Anyhony about "Sayf ibn Umar´s account of Paul and the corruption of Christianity". It´s based on a late and completely forged tradition of the 8th century. But it shows that stories were circulating about how early Christians split in 3 or 4 groups, each of them with their own "christology".
Just as one might expect an all-powerful all-seeing god to allow to happen to his glorious revelation! Along with having original manuscripts and first gen copies written in languages that would largely need to be reconstructed after nearly going extinct for a few centuries, and then permitting them to be lost of course, along with the first generation copies. So many things that could only have been made possible by an all-powerful all-seeing god!
Christianity comes from Judaism
So does Islam
They are considered monotheistic, Abrahamic cults
Wow! That was a good interview with Prof. Ehrman! I've heard hundreds of interviews and watched hundreds of TH-cam videos of Dr. Ehrman, and I have to say, this was one of the best ones I've ever heard. You asked all the right questions. As a former Christian myself, I love learning about Christian history. Such an endlessly fascinating topic! As an atheist, I don't believe it religiously tho, it's just something that's interesting to me, no doubt due to my past as Christian.
You can't be a former Christian. A true Christian knows the truth. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. Matthew 22:37-38. You have never loved God with all your heart, soul and mind!
@@SportStream420 do you think I haven't heard this before? I used to say these things myself, when I was a Christian. But, I know that nothing I say will change your mind. But yes, I absolutely was a Christian.
what was the second best?
@@ABARANOWSKISKI No you weren't. Ya see, many people watch sports and know all the rules to play. But very few actually suit up and take the field.
@@ABARANOWSKISKI Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. John 9:41
Bart is GeniUs in talking.. A logical man with great power of knowledge...
Blind man, you don't know how to see truth.
I enjoyed this video .
😊
I have several of Bart Ehrman's books. He has opened my eyes to so much & he continues to do so!
A sucker is born every minute
@@halwentz554...especially in religious families.
Not being able to imagine you're wrong, is not a good trait for a scholar:
And: "Unless Matthew made it up, it must have come from somewhere, so therefore it comes from somewhere". Well, no he could have made it up.
Whoever wrote Matthew made it up copied Mark and added more lies and that is evolution of the gospels.
Bingo!
There is a middle ground - it comes from somewhere, just not from Jesus. Like from stories in the OT or from pagan myths. Many people feel the Lion King is based on Hamlet, neither of which is true.
Yes, Gospels were all made up from ealier religion
Its more than likely that Mathew never existed either.
A Gospel is a God Spell (Go-spel) and the bible is a "Book of Spells"
Jesus never existed as a real person
@@je-freenorman7787 I agree with your first part but from what I can find on the etymology of "gospel," the first part is from "good" (the second "o" got dropped) and the second part is from another meaning of "spell," a story. I thought the second part was also related to "spiel" but apparently not.) I was always told gospel meant good news. Not that any of this relates to the validity of these stories - back to yes, all made up.
You summed up Christianity perfectly. it's mind boggling your not a believer. Always enjoy your lectures.
The final few minutes are excellent.
Allow me to answer the question as best I currently can.
Jesus spoke for his day.
Paul spoke for his.
In Paul's day the teachings of Jesus were TRULY problematic. Not only did Jesus not bring about or even get to enjoy living in a Divine Kingdom but he was crufied until dead.
It made the whole thing seem not quite worthwhile.
Paul chose an answer to this question (which neither he nor other early Christians appeared to be 100% convinced of) and applied to answering another question, that of the general overconcern with sin and the impossibility of perfection.
Thus he extended Jesus' message about focusing more upon the love of God than upon the fear of God as the means to salvation and tried to obviate concerns about "doing the wrong thing", by pointing out that "nobody can be perfect, so let us abide our perfection in the perfect sacrifice of the perfect martyr and simply focus on Doing The Right Thing".
This message DID NOT overtake the world and lead to its perfect redemption in his day, but it was beautiful enough to eventually spread around the world as an idea if not as a universal practice (unfortunately dragging along with it some counterproductive and not-very-nice ideas, such as antisemitism).
What neither of them foresaw was the idea of "salvation" applying almost uniquely to the matter of our post-mortem souls.
THAT idea was a pedagogic tool for children and a tool of control used upon the populace.
I am certain that it has accomplished and does accomplish much good in the world that we *know* exists (the physical, literal, shared, current world wherein I am writing this comment to you, and you are now reading it), but even those good people for whom this belief is central will acknowledge that it has and does brong along with it a great amount of evil here on earth where mass murderers can not only excuse their sins with such otherworldliness but have even engaged in them on its behalf.
But as I wrote in my comment here an hour ago (search by "newest" and it will be right below this one) I do not judge people on their beliefs and make no direct war against those people who require this Heaven/Hell focus so long as they are fine folk themselves.
Dr. ehrman you are a true legend. I have been deeply moved in fascinated with your work. Keep it going as much as you can.
A legend? Why..
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
@@Reinhard_Schneider Go look up his scholarship and read his work.
are all legends, true?
In his own mind and ignorant people on scriptures like you.
I actually do believe Paul created Christianity because it revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus, while Jesus taught his disciples to worship the one true God. He didn’t make it about himself. Bart nailed it right on the head 💯
Agreed, Jesus teaching was still Torah-oriented, norhing to do with him as a God. Jesus told his followers to respect the chair of Moses (the Law), which nullifies every Christians beliefs since they think the new testament supercedes the old testament. Jesus was a Torah-Tenach thumper, not a bible thumper.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
@@micahhenley589 While he may have stopped killing people, it's arguable that (assuming this theory is correct) that his teachings may have led to millennia of killing. Perhaps a few hundred were saved from him in his lifetime, but you can easily argue that millions have perished as a result of his teachings.
@@mattallred Jesus said many people will wrongfully kill others in His name. In John 16:2 Jesus said "In fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." They're murderers because they do not know the Son or the Father. Jesus said anyone who loves Him will keep His commandments.
The Son of God is on a mission to save people from every tribe, language, and nation and that's one of the things that makes Jesus so unique. He's saving people from all over the globe. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45
Ebionites is what they were called
It’s refreshing to hear from scholars on reasons to rejecting mimetic criticism, which in the case for Bart, the gospels resemble biographies of ancient literature
Yhis is not really what Bart E said you know
@@innocentodinkemere4597 isn’t mimetic criticism comparing the gospels to Greek literature like homer and concluding that the depictions in the gospels are more mythical? Bart Ehrman rejects such depictions in the video and also in another shorts from myth vision where he explicitly states he rejects the comparison of the gospels to Greek epics.
But here he provides an explanation that it’s because he sees more similarities with the gospels and ancient biographies of Greco Roman literature. And thus they depict the life of Jesus
@@CuteChonkies Sorry, misunderstood you. You are right here
If you read biographies of the time, they are almost all myths, first of all because they come from oral stories, so and so said so, the author will just put it in there without any other evidence. They just don't really care about "truth" in the modern sense. If there is a rumor someone prayed and it created rain, they will put it in, which is an example from Marcus Aurelius' biography.
It's only a problem for us, not for them, so if they used mimetism, it's totally normal, and does not make it any more "myth" than any biography of the time. In other words, there wasn't really any biography in the modern sense in those days. Even a thousand years later, an historian would complain all other historians didn't care about the truth and were just propagating stories without checking. So there were no history either. For us, they are all stories, maybe with grains of truth, or not.
In other words, both can be correct. What's not correct is to assume biographies are true and myths are false. They are the same in that regard.
@@OneLine122 yup I agree that biographies can be not exactly 100 percent factual whether there can be distortions and they can come via mythic portrayals at times. I think Erhman does agree with such depictions in the video.
But some scholars like Richard miller would propose that the gospels were entirely fictional stories created to express a certain belief for eg. What happened to Jesus didn’t have any essence of biographical truth but instead are crafted fictions to express various beliefs about Jesus
derek ,you sound is as clear as a bell, best i've heard ,thanks .bart's not as good .love the way bart really focuses on what you're saying . you can see his big brain fully coming on line .
Has Dr. Ehrman ever commented on Dr. Dennis MacDonald's work? I would be interested to know his thoughts.
he wouldn't take them very seriously.
Bart in stuck in a rut.
he so desperately wants Jesus to be historical.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!!
@@Marabarra134 Bart Ehrman just knows it's in his best interests to support the historical Jesus concept and repudiate mythicists.
@@deewesthill1213 i agree brother
@@Marabarra134 thanks!
If youre interested in history and you don’t have a background in acedemia or history, the thing you’d benefit from the most is taking a course or reading as much as you can about historiography or history of history. Whenever I see an an academic talking to a keen amateur this is always happening, with the questioner getting bogged down in ‘HOW do we know anything?’ etc. Scholarship is not like faith and it’s not like ‘science’ in the way it’s been presented to the public by popular science authors. You either have to learn this and save yourself years of time or just move on. There’s no point in this musing on the nature of knowledge from a non academic perspective.
You said absolutely NOTHING!
@@chighinestorr1086 People would’ve complained if the original commenter (OC) had written a lengthy essay on epistemology and historiography. What the OC is trying to say (without a lot of words) is that this is not the forum for that discussion (as I understand the OC).
You can debate the premise or not; you can complain that the OC did a poor job making their point (which I personally would agree with). You can ask the OC for clarification. But to dismiss out of hand that the OC is saying “absolutely nothing” says more about the state of your knowledge (and manners) than that of the OC
@@sbmcgonagle9671 firstly, I did an excellent job at ‘making my point’. You failed to understand it, which is a separate issue, but it was quite clear. There is no ‘epistemological’ conversation between a scholar and a lay person which would in any way be of any benefit to anybody. The salient point is that historians methods are easy to understand. Not that they’re easy to do well, but they don’t require extensive conversation. Save the cod philosophy for...I don’t know, a philosophy seminar. It’s advisable to read a little about historiography, and upon doing that either accept the validity of history as a discipline or don’t. There’s an incredible opportunity here to ask a renowned scholar anything you want, and it’s just wasted on questions a competent high school teacher could answer, that aren’t even especially pertinent to his area of expertise.
@@chighinestorr1086 I’m sorry if that came across as patronising. I’m in favor of the idea of the amateur historian, because I do think it can be a field that allows for that. But you do need to know a little of what it is historians do, and to accept its validity. If you don’t you just get stuck in conspiracy theory land. What you don’t need to be doing is musing and philosophising. I suppose there’s not a polite way to say this but it’s better being said than not.
@@sbmcgonagle9671 I know you think you're pretty smart and all but you've ALSO join the line of long-winded and substantially uninspiring blabbermouths.
Dayum, Right On cuzinz!!
He just has a great approach.
Are Spiderman books who took their stuff out Spiderman comics, biographies of Peter Parker because they based their stuff on Spiderman comics??
In the fundamentalist Church of Christ, the Gospel Jesus was the emotional component, love, praise, and worship of whom was expressed in most of the hymns and gospel songs. Paul's Epistles dominated theological and administrative aspects of the church that almost all the sermons focused on.
There is no gospel of Jesus
Not included and never made.
What makes you think there is a gospel of Jesus?
@@je-freenorman7787 I didn't say "the Gospel of Jesus". 🙄 I said "The Gospel Jesus". By that i meant the character "Jesus" in the four gospels of the New Testament.
@@deewesthill1213 Oh so , the belief of Jesus. Not the god spell itself
@@je-freenorman7787 Yes. Jesus got the songs while Paul got the sermons and the running of the church.
@@deewesthill1213 uh no, Jesus was not a person and was never alive. I'm not going to get into the apostles
The fundamental mistake that Bart and others make is in assuming that Paul's teaching vis a vis the teaching of Jesus is represented entirely by the letters. Paul also gave lectures and no doubt some people took notes. Paul was also a miracle worker and no doubt stories circulated about these events. Putting this all together we have in Paul a template for a life of Jesus and that is what we find in Matthew.
Jesus said in the gospels that there would be people who heal the sick, give to the poor, etc. and he would say “depart from me for I never knew you”
Of course is about his letters. We have no record of this lectures you are mentioning. So we can basically invent anything about them. Historians work with evidence, a thing christianity is lacking.
But is great that you have to admit that Paul letters is a complete different theology from Jesus, so much that you have to use un-recorded lectures and miracles to try to aproximate one to another.
@@sonofcronos7831 we do have a record of the oral teaching of Paul. It's called the gospel according to Matthew. Also read the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It's a record of the way Paul used to speak to the believers in the churches.
@@Kinsmen77Paul in Galatians chapter one makes that very point. "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel..."
I grew up Catholic…love this because this sums up all the arguments I had growing up with Protestants about Faith vs Works…say what you will about the Catholic Church but at least our core beliefs are more in line with the actual namesake of the religion in direct contrast with the Paulestants
I also grew up Catholic . at every Mass they actually read from the gospels where Jesus is speaking. I went to a Protestant church with my wife for a long time and I was amazed how little they read from the actual words of Jesus. I came to the conclusion that the only thing they were concerned with was John 3:16. Actually doing what Jesus taught you to do was obviously too difficult.
@@aleonyohan6745 I was recommended a Catholic Mass livestream recently here on TH-cam. I am not Catholic, but I listened in and found them to be quoting Paul just as frequently as the Gospels. Besides that, I think a speck of fecal matter in a cake ruins in the whole thing.
Paulestant? But the catholic church considers Paul one the their founders. Is Paul a enemy of the catholic church? Interesting how christianity has such divisions.
Christianity needs to be renamed as "Paulism". Paul is responsible for the jesus that we know today.
Yupp
there was a plethora of sects in the early time. then the big shots sat together, sorted out some outliers and agreed on a general line. only some others left, so as the anti trinitarian syrian church. others like gnosis very much wilted away. discussions about theological questions went on of course.
All you have to do is look at the situation with the Arian Controversy.
I read gnosis fled into Arabia and that was the Christianity the prophet Mohamed understood. Mohamed's doctrine was already in circulation prior to islam
8:08 I read that the current scholarly consensus is that there was no separate Jewish or Christian identity between the different sects, but that all factions believed that they were joining the true Israelite Judaic religion.
... the separation happened some time after the Nicene Council.
Religion is religion
Even Judaism comes from earlier religion
humans may however, track bloodlines
The BIG Problem here IS, Not understanding What Jesus was Doing! Jesus CAME to fulfill the Law and the Prophecies. Matt. 5:17. Jesus was living under the Law, and that was SO He could fulfill the Law. Paul was living AFTER Jesus had fulfilled the Law! These both were 2 separate and distinct times. When you realize this, it puts a different light on the whole thing!
I think his glasses ascended!
I tried to watch, but it's too painful. Watch his face expression at 3:17 when he asks Derek: "Are they experts?. I'd rather El-hrman do a course on methodology so that he can explain why his criteria are historically, scientifically valid.
Yes, this was particularly embarrassing for Derek. He thinks he’s a lot more educated than he is, I wish he had done more homework.
@@bmbrod34 My comment was too vague and you got me wrong, sorry. I was pointing at Ehrman typical dismissive attitude towards people who he considers are not prepared to deal with certain topics. He usually resorts to ad hominem responses so that he doesn't have to deal with the evidence.
Yes, some amateur youtubers consider themselves more educated than they are. They should take a degree in Ancient History, for example, because this is the way you really get to know a discipline: the hard way.
However, I think Derek is more honest and his effort to bring in so many different scholars has to be praised. He's grown in knowledge and his work as a host has also improved through the years.
Maybe some people who believe in Jesus cant accept that a Man that they believe as messiah who is the King of Israel die in brutal crucifixion instead of fullfill his promise as King and that's why made some of his followers invented a teaching that included his death as part of his mission in order keep their believe in Jesus and still accept him as messiah
Arrius Calpurnius Piso vs Josephus. That is a more interesting question to ponder.
06:25 how is Bart different from the Evangelical theologians? He's harmonizing things same as they.
I have no problem understanding that the origin points of all the various theisms are set on human stages. That much is self evident, but knowing what we know about the human mind and it's ability to manufacture meaning and graft fanciful, supernatural associations onto events, dashed hopes, traumas, expectations, etc. is what makes me dismiss them all.
Again, if there is, in fact a God who wants humanity to know Him, Her, or It, and It posesses the attributes ascribed to It, (i.e., omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolance) I'm confident it is capable making itself known to ALL in a clear and compelling way. If not, it's all a speculation filled circle jerk.
Your ignorance is overwhelming as God used mankind to write His Story: God didn't dictate a book 4 angels to bring down .
It's an ancient text that needs to be understood in its own Context : not your understanding from the 21st century.
Staying ignorant isn't going to help you improve your understanding C. jerk.
Well-pointed. Genuine God who desires humanity to know Him would not have allowed us to doubt His divinity or place His historicity surrounding him in the center of controversy just AS it has been the case with Jesus and Christianity up until the PRESENT DAY.
There is always and only 1 truth
We may always give thanks to something
what is "it"?
When I read Pauls word, I feel no emotion, I dont cry.
nice interview with Dr. Ehrman, would love to see him collaborate with Rabbi Tovia Singer
It is probable that they didn't want the Gentiles converting to Judaism after the Gentiles defeated their revolt and destroyed their temple.
why is that probable?
@@je-freenorman7787 Because the Gentiles defeated them, destroyed their temple and expelled them into the diaspora. Then there is their previous exclusivity. Now that's four obvious reasons. Do you need more?
Paul says, "believe MY Gospel," which is totally different from Jesus' Gospel in the Red Letters in the four Gospel books. Paul's chronology of his conversion (3 versions of it) don't add up.
Again, if you learn the language properly with etymology
you might learn and be Able? to understand that a gospel is a god spell.
and the bible is basically, a book of spells
You see, any real magician knows that believers are the target
So , they need believers to follow them
Right?
lol
HA ah ah ah
Religion, is the biggest scam in the world
and government is the slavery that results from it
They know not, what they do
When Paul uses the word “gospel” he means his good news. That’s not the same meaning as the books about Jesus.
@@je-freenorman7787 Oh good lord, to think that people like you are out there in society.
Gospel is a Middle English substitute for a Koine greek word that means “good news”. Nothing to do with “casting a spell”, that is absurd! The English language did not exist when these books were written let alone did the word “spell” mean something cast by wizards.
Hey guys, I wrote the following in response to a different video on this subject. It was written for a different crowd and different circumstances so please understand it as such.
If I were to add anything to the Bart Ehrman crowd it eould probably be that while my own background is Jewish, I have been in similar circumstances to you who is reading this right now and would have watched this video for the same reasons. Bart is incredible. It is unfortunate that some many people have a one-sided view of him as *opposing* religion rather than as *loving* religion (with reservations).
That is unfortunately the price of public acclaim and success -- not because it is a *deserved* price but because we humans are jealous by nature (see the summarizing Closing One of the 10 Commandments).
Being as I am calling for a religious revolution in the coming comment I would love to confer with Bart on the subject. I'm no God nor one-and-only son thereof (except of course from my own inner perspective as we are all the one and only God/His Son from our truest inner perspective). Just a super duper imperfect dude who thinks he'd enjoy making the world a little better place for all of us, bith as individuals and as loving-and-beloved members of Adamkind.
Comment on Paul here ( ↕️ )
This is a very complicated subject of course.
Personally I wouldn't judge Paul too harshly because his intentions were good (and perhaps his outcomes too? 🤷♂️) but he's the sort of person we've all met in our lives, "the bully who repents".
Listen, I'm not perfect either. Hell, I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't either (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not). So far be it from me to think I can condemn anyone, most especially someone whose world and life is so far from my own and who tried to pull off something pretty amazing and whose words God chose to have greater influence upon humanity than almost anyone else's...
My comments are presented from the dispassionate perspective I am uniquely capable of presenting due to the unique life I live. There are no ultimate "good guys" or "bad guys" in my world, except within the living context of their influence at the moment.
Thus, I have discussed St. Paul aka Shaul of Tarshish.
As for Paul the apostle who lives on the page in that which is know in Christian circles as "The Book" and whether we want that right now or not....
I can't say.
There's no question whatsoever that the pitch of "just believe" and you're automatically better than those who don't - oh, and are thereby saved from eternal damnation in hell, unlike all those Jews over there who killed the literal one and only Son of God.... -- well that's absolutely terrible pernicious shit. At least here on Earth in the year 2023 and looking forward.
Horrible, horrible stuff...
At least in the public square.
I have no doubt that this level of extremism does good for some people AND FURTHERMORE that it is so entangled in the warp and woof of many good communities full of good people that tearing it out is both damaging and immoral.
All we ask of those individuals and communities is tolerance of our opinions. If they give us that we will be gentle with theirs when we communicate with them. We will speak the truth nas we see it but will endeavor our human best not to condemn their interpretations as evil or as heresy.
But when we aren't addressing them in person or speaking ABOUT them AS PEOPLE, we will say the truth, that much of the supernatural element prevalent in the various historical Christianities is indeed both evil (by their fruits ye can known them) and heretical to the mission and intent of The 5 Books of the Torah and to all of the accepted sacred writ later appended to it.
But I don't know if we can pin all of this on the writings of and about Paul in the canonized writings.
Historically? Sure. He is the one who gave the traditional jewish prophetic works of Yehoshua to people who not only locked the cultural familiarity to understand them correctly, but couldn't even read or understand them in their original language.
Then again, had it not been for Shaul, who knows if the doings and sayings of Yehoshua would ever have reached us today --- never mind as the foundation text for the religious background of most of the Earth's inhabitants.
Thus Shaul.
If you want to hear more and teach more, please visit my channel and
ydydy.substack.com/
Let us bless each other and ourselves all together 🥰
Appreciate Dr. Ehrman clarifying why discounting the gospels as historical sources (simply because they are in the Bible) doesn't make sense. I hear this assertion from some atheists and mythicists (it's in the Bible, therefore throw it out; we need extra-Biblical sources to "count" as historical source material). It never made sense to me.
Paul never knew Jesus so there is no base for any agreement between a historic Jesus and Paul.
You can also ask: did the post conversion (essenic) Paul and Paul of the letters have the same religion.
You don't really know that as Paul was part of the Jewish rulers that questioned Jesus before His Crucifixion.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Paul was Titus,Titus crucified Jesus Lucifer along with 2 million Zionists, they wouldn't stop sacrificing to their God Yahweh, Jesus just means saviour in Greek, Titus called all rebellious leaders Jesus, Mary was what the Romans called all rebellious women, Magdala was a town near Galilee, Titus was the Christ.
@@davidjanbaz7728
You are right: i know nothing!
But i doubt very much that there was a crucifi(ct|x)ion during the passah in jerusalem.
What is however clear to me is, that the ca 14-17 year period of Pauls silence and the contents starting with 1Thes needs some explanation. The letter Paul is a novelty.
Are Sherlock Holmes movies biographical because they based their scripts on the books of Sherlock Holmes as chronicled by Dr. Watson??
To take it back a step, Conan Doyle based Holmes on his mentor, Dr. Joseph Bell, who was a real person, great at making deductions from minimum evidence but was a medical doctor, not a criminal detective. So Doyle did use actual elements, but still Holmes was fictional.
@@johnnehrich9601... so there was a guy who was clever and Doyle made a clever character in his fictive tales... does that make the tales historical and biographical? Which is what the claim about the Gospels is
Using your argument, any historical writing should be considered fictional because some authors base fictional stories around real people. Which is of course nonsense.
Movies are never real
they are just gospels (godspells) on the Silver Screen
for your screening
@@PC-vg8vn ... based on your illogic any fictional writing is historical because they used real stuff in the fictive story... which is of course codswallop.
I’ve been saying Christianity was the religion about Jesus and not of Jesus for the longest. Good to see an actual historian of the Bible saying the same thing.
Paul references Jesus' words in Romans 6. Jesus' words are in John 8:34. Both are about being a servant of sin. Paul uses different words to express the same idea elsewhere as does Jesus.
I agree with Bart in most, but i think his argument on the historicity of the Gospels might be flawed here. Just because two authors write about some "event" X it doesn't mean that event actually occured. For example, there could be two versions of Spiderman, but that doesn't mean i should do a historical analysis on it.
Historical figures ≠ comic book super heroes.
I agree, that seems to be the case with a lot of scholars.
They tend to take the route of placing legitimacy on the notion that because authors wrote makes it trustworthy.
Many of them don't use other tools to come to conclusions. When you question the possibility of some of these ancient authors being charlitans, con-men, or worse, they accuse you of being too extreme in thinking. In other words, you have to imply every author had genuine intentions.
Is Jesus a fictional character?
Answer: not the Jesus of the original biblical and Quranic scriptures. The Jesus figure in both bible and Holy Quran is speaking of various persons under 1 name although the initial one name was Isa in Arabic. This great Prophet who was an aboriginal Egyptian from 2000 years ago was a prototype and to serve as a sign of a latter day Jesus figure who would come at the end of the world of Satan but raised from among the enslaved that was foretold to be made captives in the prophecies of also known as the Suhufs of Abraham the prophet . That Jesus and his work was foretold in the books of the new testament which is perceived to be historical books but in reality were prophetical books of the one that would be raised , sent and then crucified in America by the Zionist Jews of this world.
So is the Jesus that white folk teach about a fictional character yes but not the true historical and prophetical ones that the scriptures really speak of.
May this help dear family
@@jonesameal1798 Wh6 do you paste this load of twaddle?
Judging from other figures if ancient times there are usually multiple narratives often contradictory or exaggerated but the basic sayings seem faithfully recorded.
I take the Gospel narrative as literature to help convey the sayings of a historical Jesus. Just as Plato has stories of Socrates that may or may not have happen but the sayings and basic demonstrations are what is important.
I think Empedocles existed, but he didn’t throw himself in Mount Etna.
To single out Jesus as ahistorical myth, and not Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Thales, Heraclitus, Diogenes, Empedocles etc. is a ridiculous thesis based on bias.
Has anyone here read the Urantia book and what it says. It sort of agrees with what you are saying.
That's perfect: and why this is just bunk as the Urantia book from Dr.Michael S.Heiser's video on it.
wait a second?
so you read the book, then it says something?
Books dont talk
HA ah ah ah
I think this is how Muslims see it - accusing Paul of teaching a "completely different thing“ from their belief that "Jesus is just one of many prophets leading to their last prophet. That Mohammed guy. Anyways, after deconverting from Christianity, Dr. Erhman's point finally made sense.
I think there was a wee bit of misunderstanding at the beginning about paul. Nobody is arguing that paul INVENTED christianity but that paul had a hand in shaping the christianity as we know it today.
Christianity =
Paul’s Religion
No, Christianity started with Jesus, it means Followers of Messiah.
@@user-lj9zq4dr5t Jesus never created Christianity. He never created a religion. Christianity was created after he died
@@user-lj9zq4dr5t original Christianity was a religion of Jesus, basically Judaism. Today's Christianity is a religion about Jesus based on Paul's false understanding.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
@@RonaldMcDonalds-or5md That's your opinion I don't see any difference between Judaism and Christianity.
Will you guys make another debate video about the stay puft marshmallow man vs. Godzilla. This is definitely one of the best fictional character vs. Fictional character channels that I've ever seen
Bart is brilliant
I am so glad i believe,accept and live my life in a coherent, reasonable, logical and most of all a loving religion. Attacked from all angles but it still remains the only course for the whole world and for all time.
Did Bart get contacts? I promise I didn't steal his cool eyeframes
Biographies? Did scholar Dr. Richard C. Miller just come on and talk about how close these are to Roman mythical stories?
This is nuts if he truly believes there aren't any literary themes in every one of those Gospels.
Ehrman has become an embarrassment. No true scholar would say, "Of course there was an historical Jesus." Those statements are reserved for the likes of Pat Robertson
@@ardalla535 "Those statements are reserved for the likes of Pat Robertson"
May he rest in piss.
Exactly.
@@ardalla535 I think it is really hard to know for sure, but I at least accept it is plausible there was a small time, apocalyptic Jew that wasn't really anything that special. The movement and writings are what mattered, and those CLEARLY have all sorts of literary and mythic themes.
As Christian theist, I would hold Mid-Acts dispensationalism solves these contrasts between the gospels and the Pauline epistles. I exhort any skeptic to look into Charles F. Baker (a trained theologian and a graduate of Wheaton) work, A Dispensational Theology & another work of his titled, Understanding the Gospels.
I’ve forever seen a schism between Paul and Christ. It seems Christians prefer Paul’s grace alone teaching
That is a USA invention. In the USA the Social Gospel followers believed in “good works” but they were an annoyance to a wealth oligarchy. The primary figure was Walter Rauschenbush who organized churches against child labor practices and organized labor in general and were good deed doers, Social Justice Warriors like Martin Luther King Jr. or Paul Tillich or Neihbuhr etc.
Fundamentalism was created by an oil tycoon against social gospel advocates. Who didn’t want all these SJW’s spoiling their bottom line.
I have to admit I can see you growing out of your biases and I commend it
Paul is surely another retro-historical fiction; revising history in order to explain it while reducing it to a single man. He is the Gentile Christian explanation for how Jewish Messianism, which had been whitewashed and morphed into its virtual opposite by Hellenizers, became "Christianity". I'm also intrigued by the idea that Paul is Marcion's invention. He "found" the letters to begin with, and when that happens, you know it's bull.
A welcome break from the stuff that ususually gets posted about subjects like this.
*Some did not believe in resurrection*
Corinthians 15:12-14 *“… some of you say there is no resurrection from the dead… And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
Paul didn’t originate the idea of resurrection, but he is telling us that some in the Corinthian assembly rejected resurrection.
Christianity in this video is treated as a binary. But it is a gradient. There are elements of Christianity and not all Christians necessarily have all elements, now or then
Resurrection is a very dark form of magic called Necromancy
@@je-freenorman7787 A form of necromancy or a partner of it?
@@scienceexplains302 the result
@@je-freenorman7787 In Mark 6:14-16, Herod and others think Jesus in John the Baptizer come back to life. But nobody was necromancing.
@@scienceexplains302 but, resurrection is necromany so, somebody was practicing lol Who displays what? lol silly
Does Ehrman think that there is a historical core to the Exodus story because we have a text that says it happened? I don’t think so. I think it is a mistake to use a religious text as a historical account. There might be historical facts in there, but without secular confirmation we can never be sure.
IDK about Bart's calling the Gospels "biography" as opposed to "myth". Are the stories about Romulus also "biography"? The gospels are very similar to this, and I would argue that they are also pretty similar to stories about Zeus and Dionysus. I mean sure, someone took the effort to put the myths in some kind of order, but i don't think they were really trying to write down what actually happened. I really doubt that there were so many detailed "oral traditions" as well. I mean sure there could be a couple of things that people passed around, but when it comes to the gospels they read more like fiction than someone trying to piece together history from many traditions.
Of course, the'd just invent that he lived in Nazareth a mini town nobody heard of in the prophecies. And they would just write down failed prophecies, right? No, it's clear for any intelligent mind that it was real but constructed differently.
There are also biographies of Homer. The Latin word is "vita" (lit. "life"), Greek βίος. I guess this is what Ehrman has in mind when he says "biography." Those vitae don't have to be accurate to be referred to as such; they can be outright fabrications but still be called that in the scholarship.
I mean he is trying to sell,$$$$$$$$$$ religious Based books of course. Lol
@Breakthechochamber your just not thinking straight!
@@davidjanbaz7728 virgin birth story is a lie and intentional mistranslated.. not in the original Isaiah story that's supposedly the start of Christianity a lie within a lie..
which book of his is he mentioning here? 21:10 can someone tell me the title?