Has anyone read “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament” by DS WAGGONER? The free “sample” pages look like a pot of gold! Just curious
@deborahrodriguez-castinado9536 The new testament claims Jesus was of divine birth and that Mary is a virgin If anything i say intrigues you, I advise looking at the video series why we can trust the bible by DLM Christian Lifestyles, as well as the video by Reedemed Zoomer one 10 arguments for God. But the way I see it If everything had a cause, nothing would exist because before we could get to the present, an infinite amount of events would need to happen first, which is impossible. So there needs to be a definite start. Since life comes from life and not nonlife, that definite start would be a thinking feeling life, God. We can see attributes of God in us like our ability to reason and love and feel. As well as there are things that I believe are objectively wrong (like murder) and in order for things to be objectively wrong, there would need to be someone with an authority above us to set said morals in place, which would be God. Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy). His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). Or people like James, Jesus's half brother who was a skeptic at first but saw Jesus after his ressurection and from that point on knew Jesus was God and reffered to himself as a servant of the Lord Jesus. And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and witnesses and documentation to prove this to be true and says their the only way, imma listen. Jesus claimed to be God, had miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches), and says he's the only way. God is good, so sin and evil is when you disobey God and his will. God loves us so he gives us the free will to choose what we want to do, even if it's wrong. However, God is still just, so he can't leave evil unpunished. He is so just that all who sin aren't worthy of his Kingdom. And we all sin. Think about it like this, a lot of pain and suffering in the world is caused by us, whether big or small. God loves us and doesn't want anyone hurting us. But in order to remove all the pain from the world, He'd have to remove us as removing the free will he gave us isn't just. God cared for us enough to meet us where we are. As whilst we were still sinners, God came to Earth as a man (Jesus), lived the perfect sinless life we should've lived and paid the price for our sins (death) and defeated death when he rose again on the third day, so that we can have peace, salvation, eternal life and a relationship with him. And all we need to do is repent (express remorse) for our sins and follow Jesus. He cares for each one of us enough to die for the sins of each one of us (crimes he didn't commit), so he cares about people (including you) on an individual level too, that's why he wants a relationship with you. Romans 5:8-9 New International Version (NIV) "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" God gives us the free will to choose to follow him or not. However, when you follow him, you allow him to work in your heart to give you peace and joy and to make you a better person. But if u refuse to follow him, God honors your free will and choice to do so. However, that means you are claiming that you can live a good life without Him. So when God is judging people and their actions (as he must as He is both good and just) all the sins of the unbeliever are weighed against them, because they claimed full responsibility for their actions and choices. But the believer has accepted the gift Jesus gave in paying the price for their sins, so they are weighed as blameless. God doesn't force you to follow him. He gives you free choice, but the different choices have consequences. God wants us to follow him because he wants to have a relationship with us, as we are his children who he loves dearly. So believers meet God in heaven to live eternally, because they followed him. And non believers are to be judged for their sins and since everyone sins, they are thrown into Hell. That's why believers are called to share this message so that people accept Jesus and can be saved by repenting their sins and accepting and following Jesus. Jesus lived a life helping those who were sick, poor in spirit, and hurting. He lived his life poor when he could've chosen to be born rich. This is why I trust in God's goodness and love for us, even when i don't fully understand some things This is why I believe God is real, loves you and you can put your trust in him. And though there are people who twist religion to hurt others (Jesus warned against false prophets and scribes we should be weary of), I'm not going to let the corrupt nature of some people ruin my relationship with God. There will always be people who try take a good thing and use it for evil, so even though there are many times of people using the Bible for their own motives, I can trust in the God who was willing to face physical and spiritual death for me even when I didn't do anything to earn it, who wants to grant me peace and joy and who emphasized loving God and loving thy neighbour. Repent and follow Jesus
If anything i say intrigues you, I advise looking at the video series why we can trust the bible by DLM Christian Lifestyles, as well as the video by Reedemed Zoomer one 10 arguments for God. But the way I see it If everything had a cause, nothing would exist because before we could get to the present, an infinite amount of events would need to happen first, which is impossible. So there needs to be a definite start. Since life comes from life and not nonlife, that definite start would be a thinking feeling life, God. We can see attributes of God in us like our ability to reason and love and feel. As well as there are things that I believe are objectively wrong (like murder) and in order for things to be objectively wrong, there would need to be someone with an authority above us to set said morals in place, which would be God. Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy). His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). Or people like James, Jesus's half brother who was a skeptic at first but saw Jesus after his ressurection and from that point on knew Jesus was God and reffered to himself as a servant of the Lord Jesus. And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and witnesses and documentation to prove this to be true and says their the only way, imma listen. Jesus claimed to be God, had miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches), and says he's the only way. God is good, so sin and evil is when you disobey God and his will. God loves us so he gives us the free will to choose what we want to do, even if it's wrong. However, God is still just, so he can't leave evil unpunished. He is so just that all who sin aren't worthy of his Kingdom. And we all sin. Think about it like this, a lot of pain and suffering in the world is caused by us, whether big or small. God loves us and doesn't want anyone hurting us. But in order to remove all the pain from the world, He'd have to remove us as removing the free will he gave us isn't just. God cared for us enough to meet us where we are. As whilst we were still sinners, God came to Earth as a man (Jesus), lived the perfect sinless life we should've lived and paid the price for our sins (death) and defeated death when he rose again on the third day, so that we can have peace, salvation, eternal life and a relationship with him. And all we need to do is repent (express remorse) for our sins and follow Jesus. He cares for each one of us enough to die for the sins of each one of us (crimes he didn't commit), so he cares about people (including you) on an individual level too, that's why he wants a relationship with you. Romans 5:8-9 New International Version (NIV) "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" God gives us the free will to choose to follow him or not. However, when you follow him, you allow him to work in your heart to give you peace and joy and to make you a better person. But if u refuse to follow him, God honors your free will and choice to do so. However, that means you are claiming that you can live a good life without Him. So when God is judging people and their actions (as he must as He is both good and just) all the sins of the unbeliever are weighed against them, because they claimed full responsibility for their actions and choices. But the believer has accepted the gift Jesus gave in paying the price for their sins, so they are weighed as blameless. God doesn't force you to follow him. He gives you free choice, but the different choices have consequences. God wants us to follow him because he wants to have a relationship with us, as we are his children who he loves dearly. So believers meet God in heaven to live eternally, because they followed him. And non believers are to be judged for their sins and since everyone sins, they are thrown into Hell. That's why believers are called to share this message so that people accept Jesus and can be saved by repenting their sins and accepting and following Jesus. Jesus lived a life helping those who were sick, poor in spirit, and hurting. He lived his life poor when he could've chosen to be born rich. This is why I trust in God's goodness and love for us, even when i don't fully understand some things This is why I believe God is real, loves you and you can put your trust in him. And though there are people who twist religion to hurt others (Jesus warned against false prophets and scribes we should be weary of), I'm not going to let the corrupt nature of some people ruin my relationship with God. There will always be people who try take a good thing and use it for evil, so even though there are many times of people using the Bible for their own motives, I can trust in the God who was willing to face physical and spiritual death for me even when I didn't do anything to earn it, who wants to grant me peace and joy and who emphasized loving God and loving thy neighbour. Repent and follow Jesus
There's some compelling theories. The most likely ones are that 1. it wasn't considered relevant to the goal of Acts as a text and 2. that it was more dramatically compelling to end with Paul on trial than his death and execution
@@GameTimeWhy firstly its not me who picked the dates secondly why Paul's companion and author of the Acts book haven't wrote about his book's two main figures deaths (Saint Peter and Saint Paul) "according to bart ehrman 16:46 " who bart himself claimed that they died by the 60's. i think i have an argument what is yours or are you just a regular atheist parrot
@@CopticPrince-hh2yi i don't know and neither do you but at least Bart is an expert and doesn't need to backup his arguments with bad apologetics or church tradition.
8:20 i know it is such a niche joke that nobody will get it, but Megan with her perfect British accent saying, "the answer is always a resounding no" just reminds me so much of the song in La La Land where one person asks, "you need some medication?" And the British girl answers, "the answer's always yes!" Okay, I'll go slink back to my corner now. Great episode!
If anything i say intrigues you, I advise you try reading the Bible and the gospels for yourself and looking at the video series why we can trust the bible by DLM Christian Lifestyles, as well as the video by Reedemed Zoomer one 10 arguments for God. But the way I see it If everything had a cause, nothing would exist because before we could get to the present, an infinite amount of events would need to happen first, which is impossible. So there needs to be a definite start. Since life comes from life and not nonlife, that definite start would be a thinking feeling life, God. We can see attributes of God in us like our ability to reason and love and feel. As well as there are things that I believe are objectively wrong (like murder) and in order for things to be objectively wrong, there would need to be someone with an authority above us to set said morals in place, which would be God. Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy). His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). Or people like James, Jesus's half brother who was a skeptic at first but saw Jesus after his ressurection and from that point on knew Jesus was God and reffered to himself as a servant of the Lord Jesus. And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and witnesses and documentation to prove this to be true and says their the only way, imma listen. Jesus claimed to be God, had miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches), and says he's the only way. God is good, so sin and evil is when you disobey God and his will. God loves us so he gives us the free will to choose what we want to do, even if it's wrong. However, God is still just, so he can't leave evil unpunished. He is so just that all who sin aren't worthy of his Kingdom. And we all sin. Think about it like this, a lot of pain and suffering in the world is caused by us, whether big or small. God loves us and doesn't want anyone hurting us. But in order to remove all the pain from the world, He'd have to remove us as removing the free will he gave us isn't just. God cared for us enough to meet us where we are. As whilst we were still sinners, God came to Earth as a man (Jesus), lived the perfect sinless life we should've lived and paid the price for our sins (death) and defeated death when he rose again on the third day, so that we can have peace, salvation, eternal life and a relationship with him. And all we need to do is repent (express remorse) for our sins and follow Jesus. He cares for each one of us enough to die for the sins of each one of us (crimes he didn't commit), so he cares about people (including you) on an individual level too, that's why he wants a relationship with you. Romans 5:8-9 New International Version (NIV) "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" God gives us the free will to choose to follow him or not. However, when you follow him, you allow him to work in your heart to give you peace and joy and to make you a better person. But if u refuse to follow him, God honors your free will and choice to do so. However, that means you are claiming that you can live a good life without Him. So when God is judging people and their actions (as he must as He is both good and just) all the sins of the unbeliever are weighed against them, because they claimed full responsibility for their actions and choices. But the believer has accepted the gift Jesus gave in paying the price for their sins, so they are weighed as blameless. God doesn't force you to follow him. He gives you free choice, but the different choices have consequences. God wants us to follow him because he wants to have a relationship with us, as we are his children who he loves dearly. So believers meet God in heaven to live eternally, because they followed him. And non believers are to be judged for their sins and since everyone sins, they are thrown into Hell. That's why believers are called to share this message so that people accept Jesus and can be saved by repenting their sins and accepting and following Jesus. Jesus lived a life helping those who were sick, poor in spirit, and hurting. He lived his life poor when he could've chosen to be born rich. This is why I trust in God's goodness and love for us, even when i don't fully understand some things This is why I believe God is real, loves you and you can put your trust in him. And though there are people who twist religion to hurt others (Jesus warned against false prophets and scribes we should be weary of), I'm not going to let the corrupt nature of some people ruin my relationship with God. There will always be people who try take a good thing and use it for evil, so even though there are many times of people using the Bible for their own motives, I can trust in the God who was willing to face physical and spiritual death for me even when I didn't do anything to earn it, who wants to grant me peace and joy and who emphasized loving God and loving thy neighbour. Repent and follow Jesus
Please read Jesus is God Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy) His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and says their the only way, imma listen.
In regards to Gnostics arguing amongst themselves, some, I believe it was Elaine Pagels, but I maybe mistaken about it being her, believed the following was meant as a criticism of some fellow Gnostic sects and their practices. "put your hands over your eyes, and tell what you see." But when I had done it, I did not see anything. I said, "No one sees [this way]." Again he told me, " Do it again." And there came into me fear and joy, for I saw a new light, greater than the light of day” -The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter 71:15-25
25:00 I think the reason that Gentiles, or rather Greeks, adopted a new religion so readily is that their gods failed to protect them from Roman invaders. What's worse is that Romans, who conquered Greece around 30 BCE, worshiped the same gods as the Greeks. If your gods let you down that badly, its time to get new god(s).
How so? From what I heard it was more focused on smoothing out differences between the Paul and James/Peter factions of the early church. In favor of the Pauline view.
Question for next week: many of the first century Chrestians were highly ranking Flavians in Rome, as you mentioned, have you read Creating Christ and Caesar's Messiah? What are your thoughts regarding the creation of Serapis, Rabbinical (Pharisaic) Judaism's claim that Titus is the Son of Man, and if they had tried various ways to bring the Apocalyptic Messianic Jews to heel, why would Christianity be different from these examples?
I want to try and chart on a spectrum everything in the New Testament in terms of how certain we are of its historicity , because there is little else so engrained into the fabric of our civilization as Christianity, and it’s very difficult to have a discussion without having the entire story laid out in terms is reliability. ESPECIALLY, because it’s engrained into Christian apologia to reference back to the Bible for everything else. In one end, you have the historic person of Jesus, and Paul, and then you can have the baptism further along and Peter’s martyrdom broken down in the middle (in Rome? Crucified? Upside down?), and then to the right, the massacre of the innocents, and then the transfiguration. And if we laid the whole thing out, I think it would really help us piece more of the actual history together.
I've never understood why people believe that the same person who wrote the gospel of Luke also wrote Acts. I believe Acts was written pseudonymously. In Acts 1 the writer says "The former treatise have I made" only to give the new treatise an authority, in order for it to be taken seriously or to be considered. Apparently that was quite common in ancient times. But how can the same writer say at the end of the gospel of Luke that Jesus ascended to Heaven the very day of his resurrection when in Acts he says that Jesus remained on earth for forty days?
Jerhimiah 29:28 For therefore he sent unto us in Babylon, saying, This captivity is long: build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant🍄🌿 gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
Another great episode! I'm left with one big question though: if Luke wanted to mimick Jesus' life in the stories of Paul and Peter, isn't it really strange that their deaths aren' recorded in Acts? Is it the "Luke didn't want to upset the Roman authorities"-argument?
Does authorship matter when the text has been so edited, changed, redacted and alternated by committees. It is really useful to think of authorship as a solitary person when the work is a communal activity: which we continue to adapt and change.
i think M. David Litwa and the implications of the Schwegler hypothesis is probably accurate in that: 1. Marcion’s canon does not contain some of the material in “Luke” and none of the material in acts. If we use this data point to push forward the date of the pastorals we should use it to push forward acts as well. 2. acts and the epistula apostolorum, infancy jacob, and Infancy Thomas were probably written in close proximity to each other. 3. None of the other Gospels give an account of Paul despite knowing who he was. 4. Parts of “Luke” and the entirety of acts is copied material from josephus, something that wouldn’t make sense to be in Marcion’s version of the text. 5. Interpolations are very common. It wouldn’t be difficult at all to create the false impression of common authorship. We’ve been thinking the “we” passages were authentic for much of christian history. 6. acts fits within a particular genre of writing that didn’t take off until the middle of the second century CE and doesn’t at all fit with what Marcion’s “Luke” was doing. 7. acts, like the epistula apostolorum, seems to know “John” while “John” seems to know Marcion’s Gospel. 8. More stuff.
Thanks for this enlightening episode, especially for pointing out the emphasis on the Holy Spirit's central place in both volumes. Acts 19: 1-7 seems to be a bit of an outlier/misfit in this regard. Who are these "disciples" who have absolutely no knowledge of a Holy Spirit. Were they not true early Christians? John's disciples perhaps? Did one have to believe in a Holy Spirit in order to become a Christian? It seems that up to the time of the writing of Acts the Spirit was not considered to have personhood. It was more like a force of another kind. What do you think?
Acts shows several clear movements of the Holy Spirit, first in Jerusalem, then Samaria, then the rest of the world. The author of Acts uses this to validate/authorise the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. You see this motif in Acts 19 too. It's Jesus' baptism, not John's that ultiamtely brings the Spirit, authorising Jesus' baptism as the effectual one.
I was raised Episcopalian. The altar boys attend the services (they aren't taken out for church school like younger children). Fifteen is old enough to be paying attention. I find it hard to believe, under those circumstances--having heard dozens of Gospel and Epistle readings, with the name of the book and the verses announced before the reading or written in the program--that he didn't know there were other books in the Bible. How did he get confirmed? Didn't he take confirmation classes? What was the religious education like at his parish? His statement makes it sound like Episcopalians don't pay any attention to the Bible at all. We don't think it's inerrant; we don't give hour long sermons consisting mostly of quotes from it. But we do read from it in each service, and we do study it in church school.
@@jasonnelson316 I'm sorry it came across as berating. I intended it to be incredulity. Mr. Ehrman and I are about the same age. The Episcopal Church in the US wasn't as fractured back when we were teens--we should have had about the same experience, regardless of location. Episcopalians worship according to our Prayer Book--every Sunday, every Episcopal congregation in the country (back then) would have been reading the same lessons prescribed by the same lectionary. His church and my church (in our denomination) were the SAME church. I am incredulous that his experience was that different from mine. It doesn't seem plausible. That's all I meant.
I was rather taken aback by his statement that he was raised Episcopalian but didn't seem to know much about the Bible. Every service there are prescribed readings from the Old Testament, New Testament and Psalms. Over several years through these readings you are exposed to most of the Bible. I've heard a lot more of the Bible read in my Episcopal church than I ever did in the southern Baptist "Bible believing" congregation where I grew up.
I attended an Episcopal Church until either just a bit before or just a bit after I turned thirteen. At first we would miss the minister’s sermon because we would taken into Sunday School. Sunday School was a hodgepodge of activities and discussions, some of which having little or nothing to do with religion. When we got older, we would sit through the sermon, and the sermon would often quote from the Bible, but not in any methodical, chronological manner. I first learned the story of Jesus as a cohesive narrative, rather than isolated bits, from Jesus Christ Superstar, in fact.
@jeffburns4219 I guess I'm a little confused by your comment. Little kids usually go to what my church calls children's chapel but he said he was an altar server, which means he was older. Also, the first and second lesson readings from the Bible are before the sermon. This is based on the Book of Common Prayer Rite 1 or Rite 2 Holy Eucharist. At least at the four churches I've attended. Plus, large chunks of the Prayer Book services are taken from scripture. I didn't attend the Episcopal Church as a child (as a Southern Baptist we didn't get a lot of scriptural teaching, as much as they holler about being Bible-based) but on Sundays the congregations at St. John's would contain lots of teens who had been confirmed.
There is some evidence pushing the dates of composition of Luke-Acts into the early Second Century such as the suspected use of works by Josephus. I think a possible writer of Luke-Acts is Crescens, the assistant of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp collected and issued together copies of Ignatius of Antioch’s letters around 115CE. Polycarp sent Crescens as his emissary to Philippi and Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians with the assistance of Crescens. Polycarp and his known emissary and secretary Crescens have left their forgers’ finger prints on 2 Timothy by putting mention of parchments that Paul wants being with ‘Carpos’ (an abbreviation of Polykarpos ) at Assos (not far from Smyrna, Polycarp’s power centre) as well as referring to a Crescens whom Paul has sent to Galatia. This is likely the forgers’ fantasy of ‘If I had lived in the days of Paul…’. In a similar way Acts has elements of forgery in suggesting a link to a travelling companion of Paul and emphasises the importance of Timothy. Interestingly, it has been suggested that Polycarp collected and issued copies of Paul’s letters. A creation of ‘Acts’ would make sense as a supporting document to elevate the importance of a collection of Paul’s letters. In a similar way Polycarp in a famous visit to and intervention in the Roman congregations, promoted the importance of the gospel of ‘John for that particular matter of when to celebrate ‘Easter’/Passover. If Luke is indeed written last it would serve as a similar Polycarp-influenced introduction to a collection of several gospels that included John. The last few verses of John may also have been added by Polycarp to explain why most of John does not appear in Luke Matthew or Mark and yet four gospels and no more is a good number!
The message of Early Christianity and especially Paul included rules of conduct and morality that stressed loving and trusted relationships among the previously pagan gentiles. Fellowship, trust and agape love replaced pagan religions with little if any morality that would bind people together. Basically a safe "family" atmosphere where people looked out for each other's welfare. The rigid religion of Temple based Judaism (Sadducees and Pharisees) was indeed a "heavy yolk to bear". The Temple rituals rather than fellowship and sense of community certainly was not an attractive inducement to get circumcised! People are attracted to kindness and caring where none exists. The early Christians were often at the bottom of the food chain for power and wealth.
People didn’t need religion for morality. Their basic humanity bound them together, and their morality was a combination of tradition and philosophy. The Christians eventually realised that their resources were inadequate, and adopted Stoic morals and tried to find theological justification for them.
Sounds like it's a commissioned work for some wealthy benefactor. If you don't have a copy of Mark and you don't have a copy of Matthew, but you know all the stories, you just retell them and get paid. There weren't any Barnes & Nobles. If you wanted a book, someone had to copy it, and if you didn't have the original book to copy, someone had to retell the story. It just sounds like Sturges doing Kurosawa.
Also, the order of the stories is not chronological, but geographical. In Luke, the story is told from farther away from Jerusalem and gradually moves inward to Jerusalem. Acts starts in Jerusalem and moves outward.
I enjoy the topics that they both raised completely but I must say, and I'm quite sure that I'm not alone in this, that Megan a complete distraction. What a beautiful, intelligent and articulate woman! I never thought I could imagine having a crush on The host of a podcast...
I have to say, at first I didn't find Megan very attractive, not my type. But the more I see and hear from her, the more attractive I find her. 🫣 I liked her personality from the start!
Facts,she looks like a huge nerd who had a glowup and now looks like a really attractive women,like that kind of girl who was unattractive in school but peaked later on
On who Theophilus was or, more specifically, what he was (most excellent?). My New Testament Greek is a few decades rusty, but κράτιστε doesn't mean "most excellent", which seems to be the standard in English translations. it means "most powerful", which fits much better Bart's theory of him being some high-ranking Roman official.
The Jews were not able to say the name of god. Vampire Weekend wrote a song, Ya Hey, that mocks the Jewish refusal to say the name of god. One of my favorite songs. Hit the nail on the head.
How does the portrayal of Jesus in Luke and Acts align with the role of a prophet, particularly in guiding and instructing his followers, especially considering that He never explicitly claims to be God and is clearly defined as a man approved of God in Acts 2:22? As a two-work set, how do the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles complement one another? What message is this continuity being used to convey?
I gather that the teachings of Paul and the early church were significantly different from the core teachings of Jesus. But these inconsistencies appear not to have been a problem for the author of Luke and Acts. How can we understand that?
I mean... look at how people still manage to ignore or split these differences as if they can be harmonized. Matthew 5, which insists on the old law, can not be the same religion as 1 Corinthians, which says the old law doesn't apply. Yet ask most modern Christians if the two are compatible and belivers will insist they are, despite any contrary evidence. Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating thing.
Some suggest that Paul’s teachings preceded the gospels and influenced them so what appear as core conflicts aren’t an issue in the written gospels. Lots of theories to choose from.
Yes the teachings were significantly different, but both Paul and Peter both understood there were differences. This does not necessarily mean that the teachings were contradictory to each other. They simply need to be put into their proper place. Peter’s gospel was that of the circumcision and Paul’s that of the uncircumcision. Some laws and regulations differ between Canada and America, but once it is understood that they are two separate Countries we see them as not contradictions, but differences.
@TerryClemens-uv2er Why do you need the authors to agree about things they plainly don't? What is upsetting about the idea that they had different opinions on issues such as faith alone vs works of law vs works of faith? Or the necessity of baptism? Stuff that STILL isn't resolved in Christianity because everyone chooses which verses to prioritize to make the Bible agree with them, even if it also contradicts them elsewhere. Why not just admit they actually disagree?
One of the reasons I enjoy Bart Erhman is because he notices some of the differences. You are correct that there are two different gospels. It is really important to understand WHY there are these differences. Here is a very brief, basic explanation from the Concordant commentary “Only Paul's epistles, from Romans to Philemon, are written to, or intended for the Uncircumcision. While all blessing for the nations was planned to come through the sons of Israel, this channel is choked when they reject the testimony of the apostles, as recorded in the book of Acts. All blessing for the present is based on their apostasy, and comes to us, not through them, but through their defection, and is limited to the period of their rejection.”
To me, Acts reads more like the Gospel of John than it does Luke's, in tone, at least. I kind of assumed the similar Acts' similar intro to Luke's was an artifice to piggyback off of Luke's renown.
Does anyone read the comments ? Can anyone tell us what day the livestream is, the time and what time zone it is in? I want to submit one but I don’t know if I’ll be able to attend
You mentioned the transition of Christianity to the Gentile world. Perhaps you could devote an interview to that subject? If Paul did indeed go to Rome 3 times, could it be that Christianity first spread among the Jewish community there? I've read that there may have been as many as 50,000 Jews in Rome at that time. That may be an exaggeration, but due to Pompey taking Jews as slaves to Rome in the 1st Century BCE, there was no doubt a significant community. How well would Jews in Rome have followed Jewish law? Is it possible that Paul relaxed the requirements for circumcision and diet to accommodate Romanized Jews? Just some wild thoughts.
I think Bart gets it wrong when he says it’s easier for Gentiles to convert based on his reasoning that they have a two step process and have to give up the Pantheon of Gods. The Greeks and Romans believed in a Pantheon where one God, Zeus/Jupiter is the most powerful deity. In Xtianity they believe that Jehovah is the most powerful of the deities. But they also have the Holy Spirit and Jesus (Son of God), along with the chief angels/demons.
I agree. Christianity is only monotheist if either Yahweh or Jesus isn't a god. And even Judaism of the time had a polytheist worldview with the 70 sons of El overseeing the nations of Earth. These became the "Archons" and Paul's "authorities of the powers of the sky." Monotheism is essentially a later philosophically-derived religion, instead of the allegedly revealed one of the Bible.
Gospel of John is the best gospel. Mainly because Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and drops one of the coldest lines of all time: "I am the resurrection and the life."
Interesting the YWEH does not appear in the NT. But isn't God the Father in the OT the God El, with Jehovah being one of His sons? This concept of El, only later being absorbed into Jehovah...
Most of NT authors are unknown, except handful of so-called Pauline letters. So, Luke is Luke. But who wrote Acts (not Paul of course)? Well, you say 'why we SHOULD'? We don't have to think, do we? If we think, does it help any?
I am not convinced that Luke and Acts have a common author. I would expect more of the contents of the gospel to appear in Acts, such as the parables, if written by the same individual.
Idk.. wether a roman official would want to read or not read a two volume book (which in all honesty is not that large in size compared to how many pages an average book has today), would not take away from the author (as an individual or group) of Luke-Acts to plead or explain to this roman official that christians or christianity is not a threat. Or indeed.. maybe this roman official may have been interested in Jesus before having been informed by the accounts of Luke-Acts... To write it off as "theophilus" being a target group of people can work, but considering the tension that arose around christians (during the last days and right after Jesus death), it may as well have been a roman official instead for all I can see. Even the choice of the name itself may have been a "sweettalking" address to soften the approach to a roman official? I mean.. there's this other side of the story outside the narrative of the Bible, where Rome has an approach to this newly formed "sect" called christians. If Pilate did order Jesus death, the reason was most likely in the interest of Rome, who have different interests than the Jews/Sanhedrin. They may have seen the extent of Jesus (christians) as a potential threat as well and a persecution did happen if I'm not mistaken. Pleading with Roman officials or having friends/trusties/benefactor to give information (hence the more bureaucratic approach), may have been valuable to these roman officials. Why bother spending money and time on persecution if it is not necessary. Who knows... the accounts may have sparked more reason for persecution eventually... ? I'd love to hear Bart's response to this..
Can I ask Bart what “blasphemy” refers to in the Bible, particularly the gospels? From what I’ve seen online, in Jewish tradition, “blasphemy” is a very very specific crime in which one invokes the name of God asking Him to curse Himself. When we read in Mark Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin, it says: “The high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ 62 ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ 64 The high priest said, ‘You have heard the blasphemy,’ and they all condemned him as worthy of death.” The traditional view is that the Sanhedrin interpret Jesus’ response as a divine claim, and condemn him for that. But that would be the crime of what Muslims would call shirk, or lituf, for Jews. Why “blasphemy” when Jesus absolutely does NOT curse God.
The Gospels seem to attribute to Jews of the time, a different definition of blasphemy than all evidence of Jewish tradition has. In John 10, they say: “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” But that’s not what blasphemy is. Is it maybe a problem with translation, or why might this be? Thanks
Scholars are confident that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author based on several lines of evidence, despite the overall difficulty of identifying ancient authors with precision. These texts are traditionally attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul, though this attribution is not universally accepted by all scholars. Here’s why scholars conclude the same author wrote both texts: 1. Language and Style: The writing style of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts is quite similar. The Greek used in these texts is considered more sophisticated than that of other New Testament writings. Additionally, both texts exhibit a similar vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structures, suggesting they were composed by the same person. 2. Prologues and Structural Parallels: Both Luke and Acts open with a formal prologue, addressed to a certain “Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-2). This is a unique feature not found in the other Gospels or New Testament books. The prologue in Acts directly references the “former book” (the Gospel of Luke), implying continuity between the two. 3. Theological Consistency: The theological outlook and themes across Luke and Acts are consistent. Both texts emphasize particular themes such as concern for the marginalized (women, the poor, outcasts), the role of the Holy Spirit, and salvation history that moves from Israel to the Gentiles. Acts can be seen as the unfolding of the mission of Jesus as narrated in Luke, providing a coherent theological narrative across both books. 4. Narrative Continuity: The Gospel of Luke ends with Jesus' resurrection and ascension (Luke 24:50-53), while Acts begins with a retelling of the ascension (Acts 1:9-11) and the subsequent actions of the apostles, showing a clear continuity in the story. Acts picks up almost exactly where Luke leaves off, creating a seamless transition between the two volumes. 5. Historical Context: In terms of historical context, both Luke and Acts reflect a similar understanding of Roman governance and Jewish customs, suggesting they come from the same social and intellectual world. The author displays an interest in situating the events of Jesus' life and the spread of early Christianity within the broader Greco-Roman world, which is distinctive of these two works. Who Was the Author? Traditionally, these works have been attributed to Luke, believed to be a physician and a companion of Paul (as mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 1:24). This attribution is largely based on early Christian tradition, particularly from the 2nd century onwards (e.g., Irenaeus). However, there is no internal claim of authorship, and scholars debate the historical accuracy of this tradition. It is possible that the author had some connection to the Pauline mission, given the prominence of Paul in Acts, but beyond that, nothing can be stated with certainty about the author. Why Two Books Instead of One? There are a few theories as to why the author chose to write two books rather than one: Scroll Length: Ancient books were written on scrolls, and there were practical limitations to how much could be included in a single scroll. The Gospel of Luke, as one of the longest books in the New Testament, may have already filled a scroll. Acts, which is also lengthy, likely required its own scroll. Literary and Theological Separation: The Gospel of Luke focuses primarily on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Acts, on the other hand, shifts focus to the spread of the Christian message after Jesus' ascension, primarily through the actions of the apostles. Thematically, they cover different periods and aspects of the Christian story, which may have encouraged the author to create two distinct volumes. Narrative Structure: The two-volume set allows for a more organized narrative structure. The first volume (Luke) tells the story of Jesus, while the second (Acts) tells the story of the early church. This division might have allowed the author to focus more clearly on the progression of events and the expansion of the Christian faith in a clear, structured way. In sum, the Gospel of Luke and Acts are seen as a cohesive narrative written by the same author due to their stylistic, theological, and narrative continuity. The choice to create two volumes rather than one likely arose from practical considerations and a desire to structure the story of early Christianity in a way that highlighted both the life of Jesus and the growth of the early church.
Acts is so much less skillfully crafted, and immediately contradicts Luke. I can only see the Theophile opening as a false attribution, just like in the pseudo-Pauline epistles. The "we" passages alone reflect editorial sloppiness in combining sources which is not present in Luke. I'm surprised to hear Bart thinks otherwise.
I disagree with Ehrman, because I think the author of Acts was not the author of Luke, but rather someone copying Luke’s style. I’m a computer programmer, and here’s an analysis I made. Luke consists of 24,160 words; 9,116 words are narrative - approx. 38%. Acts consists of 22,960 words; 12,104 words are narrative - approx. 58%. Luke has a vocabulary base of 1,336 words. Acts has a vocabulary base of 1,724 words. Luke utilizes 619 words that Acts does not. Acts utilizes 1,008 words that Luke does not. Luke is the only gospel that does not use the word Sanhedrin, though all the other gospels do. In Acts, it is used in narrative ten times and quoted four times. Jesus stood trial before the Sanhedrin, the religious ruling body in Jerusalem. In Luke, this body is referred to as the “council of the elders,” to include the “chief priests” and “teachers of the law.” Luke also refers to them as the “Council.” The Greek word for Sanhedrin is synedrion. Several Greek words are used for council, the most prominent being presbyterion. It’s difficult to understand why the author of Luke did not use synedrion when the author of Acts used it quite frequently. Caiaphas was the high priest before whom Jesus stood trial. Matthew and John, but not Luke, mention him by name during Jesus’ trial. Luke does refer to the “high priest” twice, though, before whom Jesus was taken. Caiaphas is mentioned by name once in Acts. He is also mentioned by name at the beginning of Luke. Why the author of Luke did not name him during Jesus’ trial is a mystery. The authors of Matthew and John referred to Caiaphas as the high priest. However, the author of Acts said that “Annas was the high priest.” In Acts, Jesus appeared over a period of forty days, but that significant detail is not in Luke. In fact, according to Luke, Jesus appears to have been taken to heaven after three days. After Jesus finished his final speech in Acts, we are told that he was taken up before the disciples’ very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. In Luke, we are told that Jesus led the disciples out to the vicinity of Bethany where he was taken up to heaven. There is no mention of clouds. In Acts, after Jesus ascended into a cloud, the disciples returned to the upper room where they were staying. There they prayed with Mary (the mother of Jesus), Jesus’ brothers, and the women. In Luke, we are told that the disciples stayed continually at the Temple praising God. It’s unlikely that the disciples could be in two places at one time, so this is a direct contradiction. There are other reasons I could list, but this is enough for now.
Please elaborate more or tell us other research you have found on other books in the Bible. Very interesting and really appreciate you sharing. Thank you
26:13 "have to agree that Jesus is the Messiah so why would two steps be easier than one step it seems like it'd be twice as" Thank you Dr. Ehrman, The issue is much more complicated than that, here are some key points: -God's nature: Jews believe in one singular indivisible God: Allah. Judaism in one sentence is: Allah is the only God, and Moses is His messenger. Christians have three or four Gods in their pantheon: God, The father, The son and Dyonisus (The spirit) -These Gods immoral actions within the New Covenant: include forcing Mary, covering up their act,bearing false withness and demanding worship of an idol (Jesus in the flesh/cross) -Jesus radical changes to the religion: such as allowing unclean foods, forbidding divorce, missionising, demand people worship Jesus in flesh and spirit, hatred for one's family, and perverting the established laws (see E.Wiesel my love for the talmud). Furthermore the whole story is verry simmilar to other Greek myths: The Father: Zeus/Poseidon The Spirit Dionyseus Mary: Medusa/Ariadne Joseph: Achilles Jesus: Prometheus
They pretty much nail the answer in the first 5 minutes: * consistency in themes addressed, *similarity in writing style, * both books addressed to the same person and * referencing the first book (Luke) in the second book (Acts) before proceeding with the rest of the story. And although all that could be the due to the efforts of a clever forger, most scholars (although not all) do not think that is the case.
Bart's whole view point of things seems to come from Mark being dated 70 CE that there is really no proof for. Gospels mostly as we know them 35 - 180 CE with parts of John ~125 CE and always allowing for some editing of anything that passed through Eusebius. Does Bart thing Mark was John Mark?
@@KarlKarsnark I was just giving the shortest and longest time possible with not really anything but assumptions to determine when. The earliest might be the Gospel of Thomas since it does not even say Jesus is dead.
The reference to the Temple being destroyed is taken as a reason for dating Mark to post-70 CE, but I don’t know why it is dated as early as 70 -80? Why can’t it be later? (And for once, I agree with the apologists who complain about the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted it. Mind you, I think that Mark was using Josephus’ story about Jesus Ben Ananias.)
@@robinharwood5044 The Temple had been destroyed before and the Romans were the most powerful enemy the Jews had so the temple being destroyed again is not that hard of a prediction to make.
While that might be true, it seems more likely, imo, that there was a person named Jesus who, like others before him and after him, preached the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God and that after his death, stories were then built up around him that never happened and words put in his mouth that he never said. So that what we have in the gospels is a mixture of fact and fiction about Jesus; and that what scholars like Bart are trying to do is determine which is which.
Thank you. But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician". The name "Luke" itself is the Greco-Roman Loukas or Loukios, but both from latin "lux" for light, and meaning "light-giving" or luminous or "bright one" or "one born at dawn...", just another invented name like Theosophus you mentioned? Or a real person? In a world of illiteracy, a physician trained in probably a Hippocratic Greek school of medicine, or indicating from the area of "Lucania" in southern Italy, it's proposed the Greek medical school at TARSUS (where perhaps he met Paul) said to be equal to the schools at Athens or Alexandria, but being a physician at that time (where autopsies of the human body were illegal & 100 years later, late 2nd century, the infamous Greek physician GALEN would serve as physician to the gladitorial games, where such wounds & death there, gave him access to human anatomy, but was altogether distasteful, the injuries & deaths for sports entertainment... Yet a medical man would be, could we say, more "objective", educated, not a priestly cast, but a trained physician, lends some weight to his "observations" & beliefs and message of SALVATION in a world of violence, war, death, poverty, & unbearable pain! In those times, medicine was beginning to become a science, at least in Greek-speaking areas, and it MUST be said, the middle east was difficult to rule, zealots murdering soldiers, etc. The Greek world & gods, were stronger, the reason folks often changed gods, after conquest! The winner's god is stronger! (Exceptions include the Roman conquest of GREECE, where the GREEK culture was taken in wholesale by the Romans); HERE was a more sophisticated culture where philosophy, medicine, democracy, debate, trial-by-jury, free speech, and theatre, were amongst their creations . . . The Foundations of Western Civilization, passing to Rome, the Arab world, Byzantium, and throughout Europe, these new concepts of thinking & organizing society, GREEK ideas were passed on through surviving texts, plato, aristotle, euclid, galen,et al. (The only problem is that ARISTOTLE the biologist & GALEN the physician, became the "biblical word" on medicine for the next 1200 years! And Galen had much so, so wrong, lol. But on a positive note, the Palestinian Christian minister in the Bethlehem Church, is inspiring as he watches a genocide of his people (one of the oldest christian churches was bombed in gaza), last December his manger scence included huge blocks of stone & cement... Now, that's a "living" religion, as the world struggles to live in peace! Which brings me to "Ceasar's Messiah", a theory that since judea was a hotbed of uncontrollable jews, the empire CREATED the Christ story... That the actual journey of jesus & the disciples, copies exactly the route Roman generals took to conquer Judea, and out of anger toward the murderous zealots, destroyed the temple in retrobution, & marching the goodies back to Rome, the winners. Josephus was used in this plot... th-cam.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=QtoOnUgUVWjYwqAB CEASAR'S MESSIAH. Can this be my question for open mic? Thank you again!
"But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician"."
One thing I never understood about the scholar Ehrman. He(Bart) had zero problems with a supernatural realm populated with supernatural entities but he(Bart) had problems supernatural entities being mean. He had so many problems with the supernatural entities being mean that it started his doubts about supernatural realms populated by supernatural beings. This the reasoning of a top end scholar in the arts program.
Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: Luke and Acts DO have the same author, which was Lucius, a nephew of Luke. It's nice knowing stuff! You can too. Presumption be damned.
I think Luke was written to usurp Mathew. Mathew referenced prophecies about the birth of Jesus and his story fulfills them. Luke makes no mention of those prophecies but nevertheless fulfills them but in a completely different way. Mathew found some important prophecies but just made up stories to fulfill them. Luke, the historian, did the research and found the true story and it did fulfill the prophecies. Luke, therefore, is more reliable. I believe Luke had access to Mathew but in the story that came with Luke, he was not aware of Mathew.
@@TheDanEdwards Yes. I think the Mathew was the source of the virgin birth and Luke just copied the idea. The prevailing view among Bible scholars is that Luke was totally unaware of Mathew. That would mean that Luke independently came up with the virgin birth and accidentally fulfilled the prophecies of Mathew or they both were drawing from the same traditions. I don't think the gospel authors are given enough credit for being able to make stuff up.
@@TheDanEdwards Also, the author of Matthew was likely using the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, which is how "young woman" got translated into "virgin."
I think it's possible that Matthew is responding to Luke, or to the proto-Luke of Marcion's gospel. That doesn't mean Luke is more accurate to historical events, though. Luke gives two different years for the birth of Jesus, for example. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, and the Census of Qurinius happened in 6 CE. This means Luke's Mary is pregnant for 10 years... or Luke is getting his history wrong to make a political point instead.
Paul was 100% a false apostle. All of Asia Minor rejected Paul. They complained to James about Paul that he was trying to make them end the Laws. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, James questions Paul in Acts 21:21 about this complaint which the people of Asia Minor made. James made Paul do a nazarite vow in Acts 21:26, which included shaving his head and animal sacrifice. So they were still sacrificing animals long after Jesus. The people of Asia Minor came back to Jerusalem and seen Paul. They dragged him out of the temple and beat him up and nearly killed him in Acts 21:27-32 for preaching against the Law of Moses. The Roman guards came and took Paul away and jailed him. Paul then writes to Timothy and says all of those in Asia Minor had rejected him in 2 Timothy 2:15. After Paul dies, Jesus is speaking to the people of Asia Minor. The very people who rejected Paul. Jesus is praising them for rejecting false apostles in Revelation 1:20 and Revelation 2:1-2. The argument which no Christian can answer to is, why was Jesus praising the enemies of Paul who nearly killed him? If Paul was a true apostle, then Jesus would have rebuked them. But he was praising the very people who rejected Paul, proving Paul could never have been a true apostle. Jesus never mentioned Paul even once to them. Even Barnabas completely fell out with Paul. The church is hiding this as they know most Christians don't read Bible and are just blindfollowers.
Paul was definitely a selfproclaimed apostle. But again, checking the title of the video... "Why Should We Think Luke and Acts Have the Same Author?" Hm.. it's not about Paul. There is no reason to assume that Luke and Acts are written by Paul, on the contrary actually. Did you watch the whole video? Having read this comment and the other one you posted, I wonder if you are a racist muslim with a vendetta. I'm only speculating ofcourse, but there seems to be a lot of hate/animosity lol
Did you read Acts 15 (the council of Jerusalem) where James and Peter concluded that the Gentile Christians were NOT supposed to follow certain laws like circumcision and the Jewish festivals? Paul’s argument was not Jews not following the law (the Jews didn’t even follow all the laws). Paul’s argument was that the Gentile Christians did not have to follow the Jewish laws (the laws which became a cultural practice for the Jewish people) and both Peter and James agreed with Paul. This was why the Jewish Christians wrote a letter to the Gentile Christians commanding them to follow only a few of the Mosaic law, like obtaining from sexual immorality which Paul also preached about. Your false book, the Quran states that your Jesus (Isa) came to change some of the laws by permitting certain things which were not permitted for the Jews. I guess Muhammed was a false prophet then. Irrespective of your answer, he was a false prophet.
Paul never said in 2 Timothy that all those in Asia Minor has rejected him, ABDUL the stone kisser. Paul didn’t even talk about the law in that context. Paul mentioned two people who were false teachers because they were preaching that the resurrection had already happened.
@edward1412 You're a liar just like them that evil pope. Paul was rejected by Asia Minor and he admitted it. They threw him out of the temple because he was preaching against God's Laws. Anyone who speaks against God's Laws is from the devil. Jesus praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostle. The only person in Bible who was rejected by them we know was Paul. Not Barnabas, not James, etc. It was Paul who was rejected.
@edward1412 James questioned Paul at the council. Jesus never said the Law was done away with. This is why he praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostles. Answer me one single question, why didn't Jesus rebuked Asia Minor for rejecting Paul? 🤣
When you change the spelling to make it look similar to the -polis ending (meaning city), maybe. But it's definitely a u quality vowel, making that the better transliteration. Wait, you changed the i to a o AND the u to an i. No, just no
@@hive_indicator318 _it's not an interpretation._ *The entire nonsense comment about changing the spelling, polis meaning city and transliteration was not your interpretation of something?* _It's what was written, Theophilus_ *The vocative Θεοφιλε is written in Luke/Acts.* _For the record:_ The question _"Do we know anything about Theopholis?"_ was copied/pasted directly from the video description.
While there was a REGION of Palestine in the first century CE, I don't know of a "province of Palestine" in Ancient Rome in the first century CE. It's only 135 CE that a province called Syria-Palestina was established by Rome, to take the place of the formerly called province Judaea. You know... where plenty of jews lived. I'm aware there are Palestinians who think Jews never lived in the area of Palestine/Israel before Palestine was created, so it makes me wonder why you would say what you're saying. It's almost as if you're making claim to a geographical area for some reason... Has it got anything to do with what is going on in the Israel-Gaza conflict? And I will never understand the "smileys" people like to add as in an added attempt of mockery, when the idea is presumably to come across as a serious person, because it doesn't have that effect at all. As a matter a fact, quite the contrary is true. In Bart's defense, he did not say that in the first century CE there was an area called "Israel", but the way I understand it is that he refers to the one of today, to make it easier for the listener at that moment in time. Most of us will know where "Israel" is about much better than 1st century CE Judea, or Galilee, or Syria, or Nabatea, or Perea, or Decapolis, etc
There was a Philistia at the time, but the whole region was Roman Judea until Emperor Hadrian renamed the area as a direct insult/punishment for the failed Bar Kokhba revolt. What the Brits did to Ottoman Palestinians was atrocious, and so was Rome's devastation of the region which similarly forced out tens of thousands of people in the name of imperial conquest.
And believing in a god whose existence cannot be proven by even the best cranial flatulence is ignorance and not wisdom. The amount of wisdom in the bible is overwhelmed by it sheer lunacy and stupidities and cruelties. You are an irrelevant moron here...
@@bloodgrss Their statement could have been more respectful. We all have opinions. But regarding your requirement for "proof" of God, you should know that the scientific method has it's limitations so that even the big dogs in theoretical physics now believe things, like string theory, for which there is no proof, nor can be. If the physical universe is unknowable in its entirety, your demand for proof of the metaphysical comes off irrational (and disingenuous)
@Sojourning-e1n I won't waste much time on you here, let's just begin by pointing out your own disingenuous logic. String theory is indeed a theory; so you are comparing that to God? Is he (as I believe) a theory too? 🤔
@@bloodgrss If you want to understand more, search for the Forbes article "Why Trust A Theory? Physicists and Philosophers Debate The Scientific Method".
@@Sojourning-e1n Physicist don’t believe in String theory like an article of faith, but as a working hypothesis and theory that they wound gladly drop if another theory comes along that explains all the known facts more completely and precisely. Like they dropped the idea of a static universe (that many had strongly held) once the evidence for an expanding universe became overwhelming.
100% of the NT is written in Koine Greek. Bart can't read Greek. Bart has never actually read the NT, which makes any sort of "literary" or linguistic analysis irrelevant. It's like a 'Shakespeare Scholar" that can't read English, which Bart apparently struggled with, as well. We don't "know" anything about "Luke", or any of the other authors. This is all just typical assumption-based, narrative-pushing "Biblical scholarship" with no basis in physical evidence, the Scientific Method, or proper critical analysis. Bart is a nice guy, but he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
Mr. Ehrmann studied Koine Greek extensively and has been engaging with those text thoroughly for years. You may not agree with his points, but the man is an accomplished scholar and has all the necessary qualifications to give a well-informed perspective and opinion. Why do you think he doesn’t know what he is talking about?
@@Jan-Dehning No, he knows "Biblical Greek". He cannot read Koine and has admitted it on many occasions. Go ahead, give him a pop quiz ;) He's only "well-informed" in Protestant, English-speaking "Christianity" (i.e. Anglican Church/Evangelical). He admits he became a "Believer" BEFORE he read the Bible, and even then KJV was too hard. LOL! He literally had to read the "Dumb American's Bible for Dumb Americans". He's a hack and huckster. Nothing more. It's literally his JOB to peddle the "Modern Jesus Narrative" for profit. He has no interest in objective research or criticism.
Bart seems to very friendly. Problably a great beer drinking talk.
This podcast is such a great part of my week! :)
Has anyone read “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament” by DS WAGGONER? The free “sample” pages look like a pot of gold! Just curious
@deborahrodriguez-castinado9536
The new testament claims Jesus was of divine birth and that Mary is a virgin
If anything i say intrigues you, I advise looking at the video series why we can trust the bible by DLM Christian Lifestyles, as well as the video by Reedemed Zoomer one 10 arguments for God.
But the way I see it
If everything had a cause, nothing would exist because before we could get to the present, an infinite amount of events would need to happen first, which is impossible. So there needs to be a definite start. Since life comes from life and not nonlife, that definite start would be a thinking feeling life, God. We can see attributes of God in us like our ability to reason and love and feel.
As well as there are things that I believe are objectively wrong (like murder) and in order for things to be objectively wrong, there would need to be someone with an authority above us to set said morals in place, which would be God.
Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy). His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). Or people like James, Jesus's half brother who was a skeptic at first but saw Jesus after his ressurection and from that point on knew Jesus was God and reffered to himself as a servant of the Lord Jesus. And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and witnesses and documentation to prove this to be true and says their the only way, imma listen.
Jesus claimed to be God, had miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches), and says he's the only way.
God is good, so sin and evil is when you disobey God and his will.
God loves us so he gives us the free will to choose what we want to do, even if it's wrong. However, God is still just, so he can't leave evil unpunished. He is so just that all who sin aren't worthy of his Kingdom. And we all sin. Think about it like this, a lot of pain and suffering in the world is caused by us, whether big or small. God loves us and doesn't want anyone hurting us. But in order to remove all the pain from the world, He'd have to remove us as removing the free will he gave us isn't just.
God cared for us enough to meet us where we are. As whilst we were still sinners, God came to Earth as a man (Jesus), lived the perfect sinless life we should've lived and paid the price for our sins (death) and defeated death when he rose again on the third day, so that we can have peace, salvation, eternal life and a relationship with him. And all we need to do is repent (express remorse) for our sins and follow Jesus. He cares for each one of us enough to die for the sins of each one of us (crimes he didn't commit), so he cares about people (including you) on an individual level too, that's why he wants a relationship with you.
Romans 5:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"
God gives us the free will to choose to follow him or not. However, when you follow him, you allow him to work in your heart to give you peace and joy and to make you a better person. But if u refuse to follow him, God honors your free will and choice to do so. However, that means you are claiming that you can live a good life without Him. So when God is judging people and their actions (as he must as He is both good and just) all the sins of the unbeliever are weighed against them, because they claimed full responsibility for their actions and choices. But the believer has accepted the gift Jesus gave in paying the price for their sins, so they are weighed as blameless.
God doesn't force you to follow him. He gives you free choice, but the different choices have consequences. God wants us to follow him because he wants to have a relationship with us, as we are his children who he loves dearly.
So believers meet God in heaven to live eternally, because they followed him.
And non believers are to be judged for their sins and since everyone sins, they are thrown into Hell. That's why believers are called to share this message so that people accept Jesus and can be saved by repenting their sins and accepting and following Jesus.
Jesus lived a life helping those who were sick, poor in spirit, and hurting. He lived his life poor when he could've chosen to be born rich. This is why I trust in God's goodness and love for us, even when i don't fully understand some things
This is why I believe God is real, loves you and you can put your trust in him. And though there are people who twist religion to hurt others (Jesus warned against false prophets and scribes we should be weary of), I'm not going to let the corrupt nature of some people ruin my relationship with God. There will always be people who try take a good thing and use it for evil, so even though there are many times of people using the Bible for their own motives, I can trust in the God who was willing to face physical and spiritual death for me even when I didn't do anything to earn it, who wants to grant me peace and joy and who emphasized loving God and loving thy neighbour.
Repent and follow Jesus
If anything i say intrigues you, I advise looking at the video series why we can trust the bible by DLM Christian Lifestyles, as well as the video by Reedemed Zoomer one 10 arguments for God.
But the way I see it
If everything had a cause, nothing would exist because before we could get to the present, an infinite amount of events would need to happen first, which is impossible. So there needs to be a definite start. Since life comes from life and not nonlife, that definite start would be a thinking feeling life, God. We can see attributes of God in us like our ability to reason and love and feel.
As well as there are things that I believe are objectively wrong (like murder) and in order for things to be objectively wrong, there would need to be someone with an authority above us to set said morals in place, which would be God.
Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy). His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). Or people like James, Jesus's half brother who was a skeptic at first but saw Jesus after his ressurection and from that point on knew Jesus was God and reffered to himself as a servant of the Lord Jesus. And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and witnesses and documentation to prove this to be true and says their the only way, imma listen.
Jesus claimed to be God, had miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches), and says he's the only way.
God is good, so sin and evil is when you disobey God and his will.
God loves us so he gives us the free will to choose what we want to do, even if it's wrong. However, God is still just, so he can't leave evil unpunished. He is so just that all who sin aren't worthy of his Kingdom. And we all sin. Think about it like this, a lot of pain and suffering in the world is caused by us, whether big or small. God loves us and doesn't want anyone hurting us. But in order to remove all the pain from the world, He'd have to remove us as removing the free will he gave us isn't just.
God cared for us enough to meet us where we are. As whilst we were still sinners, God came to Earth as a man (Jesus), lived the perfect sinless life we should've lived and paid the price for our sins (death) and defeated death when he rose again on the third day, so that we can have peace, salvation, eternal life and a relationship with him. And all we need to do is repent (express remorse) for our sins and follow Jesus. He cares for each one of us enough to die for the sins of each one of us (crimes he didn't commit), so he cares about people (including you) on an individual level too, that's why he wants a relationship with you.
Romans 5:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"
God gives us the free will to choose to follow him or not. However, when you follow him, you allow him to work in your heart to give you peace and joy and to make you a better person. But if u refuse to follow him, God honors your free will and choice to do so. However, that means you are claiming that you can live a good life without Him. So when God is judging people and their actions (as he must as He is both good and just) all the sins of the unbeliever are weighed against them, because they claimed full responsibility for their actions and choices. But the believer has accepted the gift Jesus gave in paying the price for their sins, so they are weighed as blameless.
God doesn't force you to follow him. He gives you free choice, but the different choices have consequences. God wants us to follow him because he wants to have a relationship with us, as we are his children who he loves dearly.
So believers meet God in heaven to live eternally, because they followed him.
And non believers are to be judged for their sins and since everyone sins, they are thrown into Hell. That's why believers are called to share this message so that people accept Jesus and can be saved by repenting their sins and accepting and following Jesus.
Jesus lived a life helping those who were sick, poor in spirit, and hurting. He lived his life poor when he could've chosen to be born rich. This is why I trust in God's goodness and love for us, even when i don't fully understand some things
This is why I believe God is real, loves you and you can put your trust in him. And though there are people who twist religion to hurt others (Jesus warned against false prophets and scribes we should be weary of), I'm not going to let the corrupt nature of some people ruin my relationship with God. There will always be people who try take a good thing and use it for evil, so even though there are many times of people using the Bible for their own motives, I can trust in the God who was willing to face physical and spiritual death for me even when I didn't do anything to earn it, who wants to grant me peace and joy and who emphasized loving God and loving thy neighbour.
Repent and follow Jesus
Barts knowledge is expressed so well through his calming voice 👍👍
You can see how passionate he is on the topic when he starts geeking out and riling himself up over the stuff he's saying. Gotta love him for it. 🤣
Everyone complimenting Megan on her looks...Bart you lookin great too! Don't let anyone tell you you're just a brilliant mind 😅
Yeah. Bart looks like he could be on the cover of GQ magazine like Conor McGregor.
😂👏
Love your show! Thank you both!
Interesting discussion. Thank you.
What's Bart opinion on why Acts does not tell about the final fates of the apostles, including Paul, despite being written well after Paul's death?
no you will not find that as he presupposed that acts was written 80AD because he presupposed that Mark was written 70AD (instead of 35-50AD)
There's some compelling theories. The most likely ones are that 1. it wasn't considered relevant to the goal of Acts as a text and 2. that it was more dramatically compelling to end with Paul on trial than his death and execution
You presuppose they were written earlier based on nothing. @@CopticPrince-hh2yi
@@GameTimeWhy firstly its not me who picked the dates secondly why Paul's companion and author of the Acts book haven't wrote about his book's two main figures deaths (Saint Peter and Saint Paul) "according to bart ehrman 16:46 " who bart himself claimed that they died by the 60's.
i think i have an argument what is yours or are you just a regular atheist parrot
@@CopticPrince-hh2yi i don't know and neither do you but at least Bart is an expert and doesn't need to backup his arguments with bad apologetics or church tradition.
This is the most educational show on you tube. Love your show
👍
8:20 i know it is such a niche joke that nobody will get it, but Megan with her perfect British accent saying, "the answer is always a resounding no" just reminds me so much of the song in La La Land where one person asks, "you need some medication?" And the British girl answers, "the answer's always yes!"
Okay, I'll go slink back to my corner now. Great episode!
Awesome stuff, as always!
I never even read Bible since I was raised in strict muslim family, but boy do I love listening to Bart. He's just a very good teacher.
If anything i say intrigues you, I advise you try reading the Bible and the gospels for yourself and looking at the video series why we can trust the bible by DLM Christian Lifestyles, as well as the video by Reedemed Zoomer one 10 arguments for God.
But the way I see it
If everything had a cause, nothing would exist because before we could get to the present, an infinite amount of events would need to happen first, which is impossible. So there needs to be a definite start. Since life comes from life and not nonlife, that definite start would be a thinking feeling life, God. We can see attributes of God in us like our ability to reason and love and feel.
As well as there are things that I believe are objectively wrong (like murder) and in order for things to be objectively wrong, there would need to be someone with an authority above us to set said morals in place, which would be God.
Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy). His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). Or people like James, Jesus's half brother who was a skeptic at first but saw Jesus after his ressurection and from that point on knew Jesus was God and reffered to himself as a servant of the Lord Jesus. And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and witnesses and documentation to prove this to be true and says their the only way, imma listen.
Jesus claimed to be God, had miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches), and says he's the only way.
God is good, so sin and evil is when you disobey God and his will.
God loves us so he gives us the free will to choose what we want to do, even if it's wrong. However, God is still just, so he can't leave evil unpunished. He is so just that all who sin aren't worthy of his Kingdom. And we all sin. Think about it like this, a lot of pain and suffering in the world is caused by us, whether big or small. God loves us and doesn't want anyone hurting us. But in order to remove all the pain from the world, He'd have to remove us as removing the free will he gave us isn't just.
God cared for us enough to meet us where we are. As whilst we were still sinners, God came to Earth as a man (Jesus), lived the perfect sinless life we should've lived and paid the price for our sins (death) and defeated death when he rose again on the third day, so that we can have peace, salvation, eternal life and a relationship with him. And all we need to do is repent (express remorse) for our sins and follow Jesus. He cares for each one of us enough to die for the sins of each one of us (crimes he didn't commit), so he cares about people (including you) on an individual level too, that's why he wants a relationship with you.
Romans 5:8-9 New International Version (NIV)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"
God gives us the free will to choose to follow him or not. However, when you follow him, you allow him to work in your heart to give you peace and joy and to make you a better person. But if u refuse to follow him, God honors your free will and choice to do so. However, that means you are claiming that you can live a good life without Him. So when God is judging people and their actions (as he must as He is both good and just) all the sins of the unbeliever are weighed against them, because they claimed full responsibility for their actions and choices. But the believer has accepted the gift Jesus gave in paying the price for their sins, so they are weighed as blameless.
God doesn't force you to follow him. He gives you free choice, but the different choices have consequences. God wants us to follow him because he wants to have a relationship with us, as we are his children who he loves dearly.
So believers meet God in heaven to live eternally, because they followed him.
And non believers are to be judged for their sins and since everyone sins, they are thrown into Hell. That's why believers are called to share this message so that people accept Jesus and can be saved by repenting their sins and accepting and following Jesus.
Jesus lived a life helping those who were sick, poor in spirit, and hurting. He lived his life poor when he could've chosen to be born rich. This is why I trust in God's goodness and love for us, even when i don't fully understand some things
This is why I believe God is real, loves you and you can put your trust in him. And though there are people who twist religion to hurt others (Jesus warned against false prophets and scribes we should be weary of), I'm not going to let the corrupt nature of some people ruin my relationship with God. There will always be people who try take a good thing and use it for evil, so even though there are many times of people using the Bible for their own motives, I can trust in the God who was willing to face physical and spiritual death for me even when I didn't do anything to earn it, who wants to grant me peace and joy and who emphasized loving God and loving thy neighbour.
Repent and follow Jesus
Please read
Jesus is God
Like any other historical source, the disciples and other eyewitnesses of Jesus life, miracles, resurrection and that he is God, held true to their claims till death, even though their claims didn't benefit them and got them persecuted and killed, making them reliable sources. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are some of these eyewitness accounts. His disciples being monotheistic Jews who's bias wouldve compelled them to say He is not God, but instead threw away their lives because they saw him do miracles (making their claims more trustworthy) His crucifixion (which has been documentation outside religion) was due to the Jewish citizens agreeing that his claim to be God was heresy (as they didn't know Jesus is truly God and the pharisees were afraid of losing power). And if someone claims all this and has miracles to back it up, is kind to everyone (doesn't use this to get power or riches) and says their the only way, imma listen.
@@Another_TH-camChannel it’s a big mistake to make such statements on Bart Ehrman’s channel.
Both books mention going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters
But detail nothing of the Kessel Run. Terrible author!
Under rated comment
Megan does a great job with these interviews
Amen
Acts was my favorite book when I was a teenager.
Brilliant, as usual.
Fascinating & very informative - Thank You
Thanks for the talk, both!
The promo for Bart's new course has weird panning on the sound
In regards to Gnostics arguing amongst themselves, some, I believe it was Elaine Pagels, but I maybe mistaken about it being her, believed the following was meant as a criticism of some fellow Gnostic sects and their practices.
"put your hands over your eyes, and tell what you see." But when I had done it, I did not see anything.
I said, "No one sees [this way]." Again he told me, " Do it again." And there came into me fear and
joy, for I saw a new light, greater than the light of day”
-The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter 71:15-25
Thank you.
The way the screen is split reminds me of those phone conversations scenes on 1950s movies… Can’t complai, though: he’s brilliant, she’s gorgeous.
25:00 I think the reason that Gentiles, or rather Greeks, adopted a new religion so readily is that their gods failed to protect them from Roman invaders. What's worse is that Romans, who conquered Greece around 30 BCE, worshiped the same gods as the Greeks. If your gods let you down that badly, its time to get new god(s).
The Book of Acts was written by to satisfy questions about the inconsistencies in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.
How so? From what I heard it was more focused on smoothing out differences between the Paul and James/Peter factions of the early church. In favor of the Pauline view.
Question for next week: many of the first century Chrestians were highly ranking Flavians in Rome, as you mentioned, have you read Creating Christ and Caesar's Messiah? What are your thoughts regarding the creation of Serapis, Rabbinical (Pharisaic) Judaism's claim that Titus is the Son of Man, and if they had tried various ways to bring the Apocalyptic Messianic Jews to heel, why would Christianity be different from these examples?
I want to try and chart on a spectrum everything in the New Testament in terms of how certain we are of its historicity , because there is little else so engrained into the fabric of our civilization as Christianity, and it’s very difficult to have a discussion without having the entire story laid out in terms is reliability.
ESPECIALLY, because it’s engrained into Christian apologia to reference back to the Bible for everything else.
In one end, you have the historic person of Jesus, and Paul, and then you can have the baptism further along and Peter’s martyrdom broken down in the middle (in Rome? Crucified? Upside down?), and then to the right, the massacre of the innocents, and then the transfiguration.
And if we laid the whole thing out, I think it would really help us piece more of the actual history together.
I've never understood why people believe that the same person who wrote the gospel of Luke also wrote Acts. I believe Acts was written pseudonymously. In Acts 1 the writer says "The former treatise have I made" only to give the new treatise an authority, in order for it to be taken seriously or to be considered. Apparently that was quite common in ancient times. But how can the same writer say at the end of the gospel of Luke that Jesus ascended to Heaven the very day of his resurrection when in Acts he says that Jesus remained on earth for forty days?
Jesus obviously forgot to shut down the stove.
Like and Acts were written on the same scroll
@@Andy_Pandy2000Or is it that we have copies of Luke and Acts written on the same scroll?
@@Andy_Pandy2000Is that your opinion? Or is that fact you are able to support with irrefutable evidence?
@@Andy_Pandy2000I was trying to get you to admit that you’re a liar. Or just a troll. We have no originals so only a troll would make that assertion.
Jerhimiah 29:28 For therefore he sent unto us in Babylon, saying, This captivity is long: build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant🍄🌿 gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
Another great episode! I'm left with one big question though: if Luke wanted to mimick Jesus' life in the stories of Paul and Peter, isn't it really strange that their deaths aren' recorded in Acts? Is it the "Luke didn't want to upset the Roman authorities"-argument?
Does authorship matter when the text has been so edited, changed, redacted and alternated by committees. It is really useful to think of authorship as a solitary person when the work is a communal activity: which we continue to adapt and change.
So why do scholars believe luke and Acts have the same author? Answer: 4:50+
i think M. David Litwa and the implications of the Schwegler hypothesis is probably accurate in that:
1. Marcion’s canon does not contain some of the material in “Luke” and none of the material in acts. If we use this data point to push forward the date of the pastorals we should use it to push forward acts as well.
2. acts and the epistula apostolorum, infancy jacob, and Infancy Thomas were probably written in close proximity to each other.
3. None of the other Gospels give an account of Paul despite knowing who he was.
4. Parts of “Luke” and the entirety of acts is copied material from josephus, something that wouldn’t make sense to be in Marcion’s version of the text.
5. Interpolations are very common. It wouldn’t be difficult at all to create the false impression of common authorship. We’ve been thinking the “we” passages were authentic for much of christian history.
6. acts fits within a particular genre of writing that didn’t take off until the middle of the second century CE and doesn’t at all fit with what Marcion’s “Luke” was doing.
7. acts, like the epistula apostolorum, seems to know “John” while “John” seems to know Marcion’s Gospel.
8. More stuff.
Wow. Good News for Modern Man was my grammar school New Testament.
Thanks for this enlightening episode, especially for pointing out the emphasis on the Holy Spirit's central place in both volumes. Acts 19: 1-7 seems to be a bit of an outlier/misfit in this regard. Who are these "disciples" who have absolutely no knowledge of a Holy Spirit. Were they not true early Christians? John's disciples perhaps? Did one have to believe in a Holy Spirit in order to become a Christian? It seems that up to the time of the writing of Acts the Spirit was not considered to have personhood. It was more like a force of another kind. What do you think?
Acts shows several clear movements of the Holy Spirit, first in Jerusalem, then Samaria, then the rest of the world. The author of Acts uses this to validate/authorise the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. You see this motif in Acts 19 too. It's Jesus' baptism, not John's that ultiamtely brings the Spirit, authorising Jesus' baptism as the effectual one.
There is a comedic undertone suggesting Abbot & Costello on or about the antiquities.
I was raised Episcopalian. The altar boys attend the services (they aren't taken out for church school like younger children). Fifteen is old enough to be paying attention. I find it hard to believe, under those circumstances--having heard dozens of Gospel and Epistle readings, with the name of the book and the verses announced before the reading or written in the program--that he didn't know there were other books in the Bible. How did he get confirmed? Didn't he take confirmation classes? What was the religious education like at his parish? His statement makes it sound like Episcopalians don't pay any attention to the Bible at all. We don't think it's inerrant; we don't give hour long sermons consisting mostly of quotes from it. But we do read from it in each service, and we do study it in church school.
Seriously? You're berating an adult about his 15 year old existence as an altar boy? Perhaps what they taught at your church was different than his.
@@jasonnelson316 I'm sorry it came across as berating. I intended it to be incredulity. Mr. Ehrman and I are about the same age. The Episcopal Church in the US wasn't as fractured back when we were teens--we should have had about the same experience, regardless of location. Episcopalians worship according to our Prayer Book--every Sunday, every Episcopal congregation in the country (back then) would have been reading the same lessons prescribed by the same lectionary. His church and my church (in our denomination) were the SAME church. I am incredulous that his experience was that different from mine. It doesn't seem plausible. That's all I meant.
How did the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman’s effect who was writing and how the Jews were perceived?
I was rather taken aback by his statement that he was raised Episcopalian but didn't seem to know much about the Bible. Every service there are prescribed readings from the Old Testament, New Testament and Psalms. Over several years through these readings you are exposed to most of the Bible. I've heard a lot more of the Bible read in my Episcopal church than I ever did in the southern Baptist "Bible believing" congregation where I grew up.
I attended an Episcopal Church until either just a bit before or just a bit after I turned thirteen. At first we would miss the minister’s sermon because we would taken into Sunday School. Sunday School was a hodgepodge of activities and discussions, some of which having little or nothing to do with religion. When we got older, we would sit through the sermon, and the sermon would often quote from the Bible, but not in any methodical, chronological manner. I first learned the story of Jesus as a cohesive narrative, rather than isolated bits, from Jesus Christ Superstar, in fact.
@jeffburns4219 I guess I'm a little confused by your comment. Little kids usually go to what my church calls children's chapel but he said he was an altar server, which means he was older. Also, the first and second lesson readings from the Bible are before the sermon. This is based on the Book of Common Prayer Rite 1 or Rite 2 Holy Eucharist. At least at the four churches I've attended. Plus, large chunks of the Prayer Book services are taken from scripture. I didn't attend the Episcopal Church as a child (as a Southern Baptist we didn't get a lot of scriptural teaching, as much as they holler about being Bible-based) but on Sundays the congregations at St. John's would contain lots of teens who had been confirmed.
There is some evidence pushing the dates of composition of Luke-Acts into the early Second Century such as the suspected use of works by Josephus. I think a possible writer of Luke-Acts is Crescens, the assistant of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp collected and issued together copies of Ignatius of Antioch’s letters around 115CE. Polycarp sent Crescens as his emissary to Philippi and Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians with the assistance of Crescens. Polycarp and his known emissary and secretary Crescens have left their forgers’ finger prints on 2 Timothy by putting mention of parchments that Paul wants being with ‘Carpos’ (an abbreviation of Polykarpos ) at Assos (not far from Smyrna, Polycarp’s power centre) as well as referring to a Crescens whom Paul has sent to Galatia. This is likely the forgers’ fantasy of ‘If I had lived in the days of Paul…’. In a similar way Acts has elements of forgery in suggesting a link to a travelling companion of Paul and emphasises the importance of Timothy. Interestingly, it has been suggested that Polycarp collected and issued copies of Paul’s letters. A creation of ‘Acts’ would make sense as a supporting document to elevate the importance of a collection of Paul’s letters. In a similar way Polycarp in a famous visit to and intervention in the Roman congregations, promoted the importance of the gospel of ‘John for that particular matter of when to celebrate ‘Easter’/Passover. If Luke is indeed written last it would serve as a similar Polycarp-influenced introduction to a collection of several gospels that included John. The last few verses of John may also have been added by Polycarp to explain why most of John does not appear in Luke Matthew or Mark and yet four gospels and no more is a good number!
Never heard of him, thx for your comment.
I can see my old Jehovah's Witness congregation freaking out if anyone said anything from this video
Well, Josephus wrote General History, fine. But he also wrote his own Autobiography, which you'll admit is technically a biography.
Yes.
The message of Early Christianity and especially Paul included rules of conduct and morality that stressed loving and trusted relationships among the previously pagan gentiles. Fellowship, trust and agape love replaced pagan religions with little if any morality that would bind people together. Basically a safe "family" atmosphere where people looked out for each other's welfare. The rigid religion of Temple based Judaism (Sadducees and Pharisees) was indeed a "heavy yolk to bear". The Temple rituals rather than fellowship and sense of community certainly was not an attractive inducement to get circumcised! People are attracted to kindness and caring where none exists. The early Christians were often at the bottom of the food chain for power and wealth.
aka a cult! 😂 Interesting reflections tho, thanks for sharing them
@@gibbano101A cult but not in the modern sense of Scientology. They lacked a “leader”. Even the local bishop was just some guy early on.
@philsphan4414 true, l Ron went on for longer and was 100 charlatan. But the shortlived J.C. was the cult leader.
People didn’t need religion for morality. Their basic humanity bound them together, and their morality was a combination of tradition and philosophy. The Christians eventually realised that their resources were inadequate, and adopted Stoic morals and tried to find theological justification for them.
Sounds like it's a commissioned work for some wealthy benefactor. If you don't have a copy of Mark and you don't have a copy of Matthew, but you know all the stories, you just retell them and get paid. There weren't any Barnes & Nobles. If you wanted a book, someone had to copy it, and if you didn't have the original book to copy, someone had to retell the story. It just sounds like Sturges doing Kurosawa.
Good thoughts.
That's very insightful
And created by a committee with various scribes, editors, publishers - doesn't read as work of an individual
Also, the order of the stories is not chronological, but geographical. In Luke, the story is told from farther away from Jerusalem and gradually moves inward to Jerusalem. Acts starts in Jerusalem and moves outward.
I enjoy the topics that they both raised completely but I must say, and I'm quite sure that I'm not alone in this, that Megan a complete distraction. What a beautiful, intelligent and articulate woman! I never thought I could imagine having a crush on The host of a podcast...
I have to say, at first I didn't find Megan very attractive, not my type. But the more I see and hear from her, the more attractive I find her. 🫣
I liked her personality from the start!
Facts,she looks like a huge nerd who had a glowup and now looks like a really attractive women,like that kind of girl who was unattractive in school but peaked later on
On who Theophilus was or, more specifically, what he was (most excellent?). My New Testament Greek is a few decades rusty, but κράτιστε doesn't mean "most excellent", which seems to be the standard in English translations. it means "most powerful", which fits much better Bart's theory of him being some high-ranking Roman official.
The Jews were not able to say the name of god. Vampire Weekend wrote a song, Ya Hey, that mocks the Jewish refusal to say the name of god. One of my favorite songs. Hit the nail on the head.
How does the portrayal of Jesus in Luke and Acts align with the role of a prophet, particularly in guiding and instructing his followers, especially considering that He never explicitly claims to be God and is clearly defined as a man approved of God in Acts 2:22? As a two-work set, how do the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles complement one another? What message is this continuity being used to convey?
Abdul spotted muslims doesn't share Historical Jesus.
Christians share the historical Jesus ime his death .
I gather that the teachings of Paul and the early church were significantly different from the core teachings of Jesus. But these inconsistencies appear not to have been a problem for the author of Luke and Acts. How can we understand that?
I mean... look at how people still manage to ignore or split these differences as if they can be harmonized. Matthew 5, which insists on the old law, can not be the same religion as 1 Corinthians, which says the old law doesn't apply. Yet ask most modern Christians if the two are compatible and belivers will insist they are, despite any contrary evidence. Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating thing.
Some suggest that Paul’s teachings preceded the gospels and influenced them so what appear as core conflicts aren’t an issue in the written gospels. Lots of theories to choose from.
Yes the teachings were significantly different, but both Paul and Peter both understood there were differences. This does not necessarily mean that the teachings were contradictory to each other. They simply need to be put into their proper place. Peter’s gospel was that of the circumcision and Paul’s that of the uncircumcision. Some laws and regulations differ between Canada and America, but once it is understood that they are two separate Countries we see them as not contradictions, but differences.
@TerryClemens-uv2er Why do you need the authors to agree about things they plainly don't? What is upsetting about the idea that they had different opinions on issues such as faith alone vs works of law vs works of faith? Or the necessity of baptism? Stuff that STILL isn't resolved in Christianity because everyone chooses which verses to prioritize to make the Bible agree with them, even if it also contradicts them elsewhere. Why not just admit they actually disagree?
One of the reasons I enjoy Bart Erhman is because he notices some of the differences. You are correct that there are two different gospels. It is really important to understand WHY there are these differences. Here is a very brief, basic explanation from the Concordant commentary “Only Paul's epistles, from Romans to Philemon, are written to, or intended for the Uncircumcision. While all blessing for the nations was planned to come through the sons of Israel, this channel is choked when they reject the testimony of the apostles, as recorded in the book of Acts. All blessing for the present is based on their apostasy, and comes to us, not through them, but through their defection, and is limited to the period of their rejection.”
To me, Acts reads more like the Gospel of John than it does Luke's, in tone, at least. I kind of assumed the similar Acts' similar intro to Luke's was an artifice to piggyback off of Luke's renown.
We all are #1 !
@@jttj742 "That would be telling."
Most of All…There’s a big sale at Macy’s this week!
Dr.Ammon Hilman .Hi is the best .
Does anyone read the comments ? Can anyone tell us what day the livestream is, the time and what time zone it is in? I want to submit one but I don’t know if I’ll be able to attend
They don't really cover the whole Darth Vader thing.
It’s a shame. But I get it. Things get too political these days and they don’t want to divide the audience
makes a change from watching the slow end of the American Republic.
Do not despair...vote! I just wrote 40 letters to Pennsylvania urging people to go to the polls. Do something!
@@erichodge567And Vote Red so we won’t be dead.
Very good
You mentioned the transition of Christianity to the Gentile world. Perhaps you could devote an interview to that subject? If Paul did indeed go to Rome 3 times, could it be that Christianity first spread among the Jewish community there? I've read that there may have been as many as 50,000 Jews in Rome at that time. That may be an exaggeration, but due to Pompey taking Jews as slaves to Rome in the 1st Century BCE, there was no doubt a significant community.
How well would Jews in Rome have followed Jewish law? Is it possible that Paul relaxed the requirements for circumcision and diet to accommodate Romanized Jews?
Just some wild thoughts.
I think Bart gets it wrong when he says it’s easier for Gentiles to convert based on his reasoning that they have a two step process and have to give up the Pantheon of Gods. The Greeks and Romans believed in a Pantheon where one God, Zeus/Jupiter is the most powerful deity. In Xtianity they believe that Jehovah is the most powerful of the deities. But they also have the Holy Spirit and Jesus (Son of God), along with the chief angels/demons.
Don't forget the saints! They're both pantheons.
I agree. Christianity is only monotheist if either Yahweh or Jesus isn't a god. And even Judaism of the time had a polytheist worldview with the 70 sons of El overseeing the nations of Earth. These became the "Archons" and Paul's "authorities of the powers of the sky." Monotheism is essentially a later philosophically-derived religion, instead of the allegedly revealed one of the Bible.
Gospel of John is the best gospel. Mainly because Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and drops one of the coldest lines of all time: "I am the resurrection and the life."
I couldn't ever bring myself to hate you as I'd like
Nah. Mark if the best by a mile.
Interesting the YWEH does not appear in the NT. But isn't God the Father in the OT the God El, with Jehovah being one of His sons? This concept of El, only later being absorbed into Jehovah...
Most of NT authors are unknown, except handful of so-called Pauline letters. So, Luke is Luke. But who wrote Acts (not Paul of course)? Well, you say 'why we SHOULD'? We don't have to think, do we? If we think, does it help any?
I am not convinced that Luke and Acts have a common author. I would expect more of the contents of the gospel to appear in Acts, such as the parables, if written by the same individual.
Why? If the same person wrote both of them, why should they say the same thing twice?
@@NickG-x6t Thanks. People have a tendency to repeat themselves, especially if they think something is important.
Idk.. wether a roman official would want to read or not read a two volume book (which in all honesty is not that large in size compared to how many pages an average book has today), would not take away from the author (as an individual or group) of Luke-Acts to plead or explain to this roman official that christians or christianity is not a threat. Or indeed.. maybe this roman official may have been interested in Jesus before having been informed by the accounts of Luke-Acts...
To write it off as "theophilus" being a target group of people can work, but considering the tension that arose around christians (during the last days and right after Jesus death), it may as well have been a roman official instead for all I can see. Even the choice of the name itself may have been a "sweettalking" address to soften the approach to a roman official?
I mean.. there's this other side of the story outside the narrative of the Bible, where Rome has an approach to this newly formed "sect" called christians. If Pilate did order Jesus death, the reason was most likely in the interest of Rome, who have different interests than the Jews/Sanhedrin. They may have seen the extent of Jesus (christians) as a potential threat as well and a persecution did happen if I'm not mistaken. Pleading with Roman officials or having friends/trusties/benefactor to give information (hence the more bureaucratic approach), may have been valuable to these roman officials. Why bother spending money and time on persecution if it is not necessary. Who knows... the accounts may have sparked more reason for persecution eventually... ?
I'd love to hear Bart's response to this..
Can I ask Bart what “blasphemy” refers to in the Bible, particularly the gospels? From what I’ve seen online, in Jewish tradition, “blasphemy” is a very very specific crime in which one invokes the name of God asking Him to curse Himself. When we read in Mark Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin, it says:
“The high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ 62 ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ 64 The high priest said, ‘You have heard the blasphemy,’ and they all condemned him as worthy of death.”
The traditional view is that the Sanhedrin interpret Jesus’ response as a divine claim, and condemn him for that. But that would be the crime of what Muslims would call shirk, or lituf, for Jews. Why “blasphemy” when Jesus absolutely does NOT curse God.
The Gospels seem to attribute to Jews of the time, a different definition of blasphemy than all evidence of Jewish tradition has. In John 10, they say:
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
But that’s not what blasphemy is.
Is it maybe a problem with translation, or why might this be? Thanks
Canonical Luke and Acts are from the same author but there's a proto Luke probably Marcion Luke that precedes both
To Bart. Did Jesus really overturn tables and shutdown the temple? If no, what is believed to have actually have happened.
Saluditos como puedo escucharlo en español Saluditos
Scholars are confident that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author based on several lines of evidence, despite the overall difficulty of identifying ancient authors with precision. These texts are traditionally attributed to Luke, a companion of Paul, though this attribution is not universally accepted by all scholars.
Here’s why scholars conclude the same author wrote both texts:
1. Language and Style:
The writing style of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts is quite similar. The Greek used in these texts is considered more sophisticated than that of other New Testament writings. Additionally, both texts exhibit a similar vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structures, suggesting they were composed by the same person.
2. Prologues and Structural Parallels:
Both Luke and Acts open with a formal prologue, addressed to a certain “Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-2). This is a unique feature not found in the other Gospels or New Testament books. The prologue in Acts directly references the “former book” (the Gospel of Luke), implying continuity between the two.
3. Theological Consistency:
The theological outlook and themes across Luke and Acts are consistent. Both texts emphasize particular themes such as concern for the marginalized (women, the poor, outcasts), the role of the Holy Spirit, and salvation history that moves from Israel to the Gentiles. Acts can be seen as the unfolding of the mission of Jesus as narrated in Luke, providing a coherent theological narrative across both books.
4. Narrative Continuity:
The Gospel of Luke ends with Jesus' resurrection and ascension (Luke 24:50-53), while Acts begins with a retelling of the ascension (Acts 1:9-11) and the subsequent actions of the apostles, showing a clear continuity in the story. Acts picks up almost exactly where Luke leaves off, creating a seamless transition between the two volumes.
5. Historical Context:
In terms of historical context, both Luke and Acts reflect a similar understanding of Roman governance and Jewish customs, suggesting they come from the same social and intellectual world. The author displays an interest in situating the events of Jesus' life and the spread of early Christianity within the broader Greco-Roman world, which is distinctive of these two works.
Who Was the Author?
Traditionally, these works have been attributed to Luke, believed to be a physician and a companion of Paul (as mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 1:24). This attribution is largely based on early Christian tradition, particularly from the 2nd century onwards (e.g., Irenaeus). However, there is no internal claim of authorship, and scholars debate the historical accuracy of this tradition. It is possible that the author had some connection to the Pauline mission, given the prominence of Paul in Acts, but beyond that, nothing can be stated with certainty about the author.
Why Two Books Instead of One?
There are a few theories as to why the author chose to write two books rather than one:
Scroll Length: Ancient books were written on scrolls, and there were practical limitations to how much could be included in a single scroll. The Gospel of Luke, as one of the longest books in the New Testament, may have already filled a scroll. Acts, which is also lengthy, likely required its own scroll.
Literary and Theological Separation: The Gospel of Luke focuses primarily on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Acts, on the other hand, shifts focus to the spread of the Christian message after Jesus' ascension, primarily through the actions of the apostles. Thematically, they cover different periods and aspects of the Christian story, which may have encouraged the author to create two distinct volumes.
Narrative Structure: The two-volume set allows for a more organized narrative structure. The first volume (Luke) tells the story of Jesus, while the second (Acts) tells the story of the early church. This division might have allowed the author to focus more clearly on the progression of events and the expansion of the Christian faith in a clear, structured way.
In sum, the Gospel of Luke and Acts are seen as a cohesive narrative written by the same author due to their stylistic, theological, and narrative continuity. The choice to create two volumes rather than one likely arose from practical considerations and a desire to structure the story of early Christianity in a way that highlighted both the life of Jesus and the growth of the early church.
Cutting and pasting long passages into TH-cam comments is a bit silly.
@@TheDanEdwards Looks more like AI generated text. (They always end with "In sum," "In conclusion," "In a nutshell")
@@TheDanEdwardsYou are too kind. It is the ChatGPT response to Bart's prompt. I couldn't resist posting.
Acts is so much less skillfully crafted, and immediately contradicts Luke. I can only see the Theophile opening as a false attribution, just like in the pseudo-Pauline epistles. The "we" passages alone reflect editorial sloppiness in combining sources which is not present in Luke. I'm surprised to hear Bart thinks otherwise.
"Good News for Modern Man" was the Bible I was started with when I was a kid. What exactly is so wrong with "Good News for Modern Man" ???
Its name if I gotta guess
It's apparently aimed at only rather less than half of modern people.
What you see as good news, I see what has become a vehicle for hate, intolerance and division.
@@longcastle4863 Idiot.
@@NickG-x6t Huh?
I disagree with Ehrman, because I think the author of Acts was not the author of Luke, but rather someone copying Luke’s style. I’m a computer programmer, and here’s an analysis I made. Luke consists of 24,160 words; 9,116 words are narrative - approx. 38%. Acts consists of 22,960 words; 12,104 words are narrative - approx. 58%. Luke has a vocabulary base of 1,336 words. Acts has a vocabulary base of 1,724 words. Luke utilizes 619 words that Acts does not. Acts utilizes 1,008 words that Luke does not. Luke is the only gospel that does not use the word Sanhedrin, though all the other gospels do. In Acts, it is used in narrative ten times and quoted four times. Jesus stood trial before the Sanhedrin, the religious ruling body in Jerusalem. In Luke, this body is referred to as the “council of the elders,” to include the “chief priests” and “teachers of the law.” Luke also refers to them as the “Council.” The Greek word for Sanhedrin is synedrion. Several Greek words are used for council, the most prominent being presbyterion. It’s difficult to understand why the author of Luke did not use synedrion when the author of Acts used it quite frequently. Caiaphas was the high priest before whom Jesus stood trial. Matthew and John, but not Luke, mention him by name during Jesus’ trial. Luke does refer to the “high priest” twice, though, before whom Jesus was taken. Caiaphas is mentioned by name once in Acts. He is also mentioned by name at the beginning of Luke. Why the author of Luke did not name him during Jesus’ trial is a mystery. The authors of Matthew and John referred to Caiaphas as the high priest. However, the author of Acts said that “Annas was the high priest.” In Acts, Jesus appeared over a period of forty days, but that significant detail is not in Luke. In fact, according to Luke, Jesus appears to have been taken to heaven after three days. After Jesus finished his final speech in Acts, we are told that he was taken up before the disciples’ very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. In Luke, we are told that Jesus led the disciples out to the vicinity of Bethany where he was taken up to heaven. There is no mention of clouds. In Acts, after Jesus ascended into a cloud, the disciples returned to the upper room where they were staying. There they prayed with Mary (the mother of Jesus), Jesus’ brothers, and the women. In Luke, we are told that the disciples stayed continually at the Temple praising God. It’s unlikely that the disciples could be in two places at one time, so this is a direct contradiction. There are other reasons I could list, but this is enough for now.
Wow!😲
No, please go on.
Please elaborate more or tell us other research you have found on other books in the Bible. Very interesting and really appreciate you sharing.
Thank you
16:34
26:13 "have to agree that Jesus is the Messiah so why would two steps be easier than one step it seems like it'd be twice as"
Thank you Dr. Ehrman,
The issue is much more complicated than that, here are some key points:
-God's nature: Jews believe in one singular indivisible God: Allah.
Judaism in one sentence is: Allah is the only God, and Moses is His messenger.
Christians have three or four Gods in their pantheon: God, The father, The son and Dyonisus (The spirit)
-These Gods immoral actions within the New Covenant: include forcing Mary,
covering up their act,bearing false withness and demanding worship of an idol (Jesus in the flesh/cross)
-Jesus radical changes to the religion: such as allowing unclean foods, forbidding divorce,
missionising, demand people worship Jesus in flesh and spirit, hatred for one's family,
and perverting the established laws (see E.Wiesel my love for the talmud).
Furthermore the whole story is verry simmilar to other Greek myths:
The Father: Zeus/Poseidon
The Spirit Dionyseus
Mary: Medusa/Ariadne
Joseph: Achilles
Jesus: Prometheus
They seem to be talking mostly about everything else than what the title of the videos is about.
They pretty much nail the answer in the first 5 minutes:
* consistency in themes addressed,
*similarity in writing style,
* both books addressed to the same person and
* referencing the first book (Luke) in the second book (Acts) before proceeding with the rest of the story.
And although all that could be the due to the efforts of a clever forger, most scholars (although not all) do not think that is the case.
25:07
10:11
Bart's whole view point of things seems to come from Mark being dated 70 CE that there is really no proof for. Gospels mostly as we know them 35 - 180 CE with parts of John ~125 CE and always allowing for some editing of anything that passed through Eusebius. Does Bart thing Mark was John Mark?
Show me a "Gospel" from 35 AD. LOL!
@@KarlKarsnark I was just giving the shortest and longest time possible with not really anything but assumptions to determine when. The earliest might be the Gospel of Thomas since it does not even say Jesus is dead.
The reference to the Temple being destroyed is taken as a reason for dating Mark to post-70 CE, but I don’t know why it is dated as early as 70 -80? Why can’t it be later?
(And for once, I agree with the apologists who complain about the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted it. Mind you, I think that Mark was using Josephus’ story about Jesus Ben Ananias.)
@@robinharwood5044 The Temple had been destroyed before and the Romans were the most powerful enemy the Jews had so the temple being destroyed again is not that hard of a prediction to make.
@@marksolum1794 Indeed. Supernatural powers not needed.
Jesus is a character created by story writers...with the final gap filler John's gospel...which is written by unknown story writer.
Crank.
While that might be true, it seems more likely, imo, that there was a person named Jesus who, like others before him and after him, preached the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God and that after his death, stories were then built up around him that never happened and words put in his mouth that he never said. So that what we have in the gospels is a mixture of fact and fiction about Jesus; and that what scholars like Bart are trying to do is determine which is which.
aw man i liked the little chats about their life before they got to the topic of the episode 😞
Thank you. But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician".
The name "Luke" itself is the Greco-Roman Loukas or Loukios, but both from latin "lux" for light, and meaning "light-giving" or luminous or "bright one" or "one born at dawn...", just another invented name like Theosophus you mentioned? Or a real person?
In a world of illiteracy, a physician trained in probably a Hippocratic Greek school of medicine, or indicating from the area of "Lucania" in southern Italy, it's proposed the Greek medical school at TARSUS (where perhaps he met Paul) said to be equal to the schools at Athens or Alexandria, but being a physician at that time (where autopsies of the human body were illegal & 100 years later, late 2nd century, the infamous Greek physician GALEN would serve as physician to the gladitorial games, where such wounds & death there, gave him access to human anatomy, but was altogether distasteful, the injuries & deaths for sports entertainment...
Yet a medical man would be, could we say, more "objective", educated, not a priestly cast, but a trained physician, lends some weight to his "observations" & beliefs and message of SALVATION in a world of violence, war, death, poverty, & unbearable pain!
In those times, medicine was beginning to become a science, at least in Greek-speaking areas, and it MUST be said, the middle east was difficult to rule, zealots murdering soldiers, etc. The Greek world & gods, were stronger, the reason folks often changed gods, after conquest! The winner's god is stronger! (Exceptions include the Roman conquest of GREECE, where the GREEK culture was taken in wholesale by the Romans); HERE was a more sophisticated culture where philosophy, medicine, democracy, debate, trial-by-jury, free speech, and theatre, were amongst their creations . . . The Foundations of Western Civilization, passing to Rome, the Arab world, Byzantium, and throughout Europe, these new concepts of thinking & organizing society, GREEK ideas were passed on through surviving texts, plato, aristotle, euclid, galen,et al.
(The only problem is that ARISTOTLE the biologist & GALEN the physician, became the "biblical word" on medicine for the next 1200 years! And Galen had much so, so wrong, lol.
But on a positive note, the Palestinian Christian minister in the Bethlehem Church, is inspiring as he watches a genocide of his people (one of the oldest christian churches was bombed in gaza), last December his manger scence included huge blocks of stone & cement...
Now, that's a "living" religion, as the world struggles to live in peace!
Which brings me to "Ceasar's Messiah", a theory that since judea was a hotbed of uncontrollable jews, the empire CREATED the Christ story... That the actual journey of jesus & the disciples, copies exactly the route Roman generals took to conquer Judea, and out of anger toward the murderous zealots, destroyed the temple in retrobution, & marching the goodies back to Rome, the winners. Josephus was used in this plot...
th-cam.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=QtoOnUgUVWjYwqAB
CEASAR'S MESSIAH.
Can this be my question for open mic?
Thank you again!
"But I'm surprised Luke's profession as a medical physician wasn't mentioned. Found in COLOSSIANS 4:14, where the author of that book (pseudonymous/ Paul) refers to Luke as "the beloved physician"."
One thing I never understood about the scholar Ehrman. He(Bart) had zero problems with a supernatural realm populated with supernatural entities but he(Bart) had problems supernatural entities being mean. He had so many problems with the supernatural entities being mean that it started his doubts about supernatural realms populated by supernatural beings.
This the reasoning of a top end scholar in the arts program.
Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: Luke and Acts DO have the same author, which was Lucius, a nephew of Luke. It's nice knowing stuff! You can too. Presumption be damned.
The unfortunate thing about this subject is I can't tell if you're joking, or actually think you talk to a man who lives forever in a cloud chariot.
I think Luke was written to usurp Mathew. Mathew referenced prophecies about the birth of Jesus and his story fulfills them. Luke makes no mention of those prophecies but nevertheless fulfills them but in a completely different way. Mathew found some important prophecies but just made up stories to fulfill them. Luke, the historian, did the research and found the true story and it did fulfill the prophecies. Luke, therefore, is more reliable. I believe Luke had access to Mathew but in the story that came with Luke, he was not aware of Mathew.
The "true" story, including many things that were not in Mark, and almost certainly did not happen
"Mathew referenced prophecies about the birth of Jesus"
@@TheDanEdwards Yes. I think the Mathew was the source of the virgin birth and Luke just copied the idea. The prevailing view among Bible scholars is that Luke was totally unaware of Mathew. That would mean that Luke independently came up with the virgin birth and accidentally fulfilled the prophecies of Mathew or they both were drawing from the same traditions. I don't think the gospel authors are given enough credit for being able to make stuff up.
@@TheDanEdwards Also, the author of Matthew was likely using the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, which is how "young woman" got translated into "virgin."
I think it's possible that Matthew is responding to Luke, or to the proto-Luke of Marcion's gospel. That doesn't mean Luke is more accurate to historical events, though. Luke gives two different years for the birth of Jesus, for example. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, and the Census of Qurinius happened in 6 CE. This means Luke's Mary is pregnant for 10 years... or Luke is getting his history wrong to make a political point instead.
Paul was 100% a false apostle.
All of Asia Minor rejected Paul. They complained to James about Paul that he was trying to make them end the Laws. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem, James questions Paul in Acts 21:21 about this complaint which the people of Asia Minor made. James made Paul do a nazarite vow in Acts 21:26, which included shaving his head and animal sacrifice. So they were still sacrificing animals long after Jesus.
The people of Asia Minor came back to Jerusalem and seen Paul. They dragged him out of the temple and beat him up and nearly killed him in Acts 21:27-32 for preaching against the Law of Moses.
The Roman guards came and took Paul away and jailed him. Paul then writes to Timothy and says all of those in Asia Minor had rejected him in 2 Timothy 2:15.
After Paul dies, Jesus is speaking to the people of Asia Minor. The very people who rejected Paul. Jesus is praising them for rejecting false apostles in Revelation 1:20 and Revelation 2:1-2.
The argument which no Christian can answer to is, why was Jesus praising the enemies of Paul who nearly killed him? If Paul was a true apostle, then Jesus would have rebuked them. But he was praising the very people who rejected Paul, proving Paul could never have been a true apostle. Jesus never mentioned Paul even once to them. Even Barnabas completely fell out with Paul. The church is hiding this as they know most Christians don't read Bible and are just blindfollowers.
Paul was definitely a selfproclaimed apostle.
But again, checking the title of the video...
"Why Should We Think Luke and Acts Have the Same Author?"
Hm.. it's not about Paul. There is no reason to assume that Luke and Acts are written by Paul, on the contrary actually.
Did you watch the whole video?
Having read this comment and the other one you posted, I wonder if you are a racist muslim with a vendetta. I'm only speculating ofcourse, but there seems to be a lot of hate/animosity lol
Did you read Acts 15 (the council of Jerusalem) where James and Peter concluded that the Gentile Christians were NOT supposed to follow certain laws like circumcision and the Jewish festivals?
Paul’s argument was not Jews not following the law (the Jews didn’t even follow all the laws). Paul’s argument was that the Gentile Christians did not have to follow the Jewish laws (the laws which became a cultural practice for the Jewish people) and both Peter and James agreed with Paul.
This was why the Jewish Christians wrote a letter to the Gentile Christians commanding them to follow only a few of the Mosaic law, like obtaining from sexual immorality which Paul also preached about.
Your false book, the Quran states that your Jesus (Isa) came to change some of the laws by permitting certain things which were not permitted for the Jews. I guess Muhammed was a false prophet then. Irrespective of your answer, he was a false prophet.
Paul never said in 2 Timothy that all those in Asia Minor has rejected him, ABDUL the stone kisser.
Paul didn’t even talk about the law in that context.
Paul mentioned two people who were false teachers because they were preaching that the resurrection had already happened.
@edward1412
You're a liar just like them that evil pope. Paul was rejected by Asia Minor and he admitted it. They threw him out of the temple because he was preaching against God's Laws. Anyone who speaks against God's Laws is from the devil. Jesus praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostle. The only person in Bible who was rejected by them we know was Paul. Not Barnabas, not James, etc. It was Paul who was rejected.
@edward1412
James questioned Paul at the council. Jesus never said the Law was done away with. This is why he praised Asia Minor for rejecting false apostles. Answer me one single question, why didn't Jesus rebuked Asia Minor for rejecting Paul? 🤣
_Do we know anything about Theopholis?_
Theopholis was a group/community of Greek speaking Gentiles who worshiped YHWH, without converting to Judaism.
When you change the spelling to make it look similar to the -polis ending (meaning city), maybe. But it's definitely a u quality vowel, making that the better transliteration.
Wait, you changed the i to a o AND the u to an i. No, just no
@@hive_indicator318 That is quite an interesting interpretation of what was written.
God-lover
_NOT_
God-city
@@John.Flower.Productions it's not an interpretation. It's what was written, Theophilus
@@hive_indicator318 _it's not an interpretation._
*The entire nonsense comment about changing the spelling, polis meaning city and transliteration was not your interpretation of something?*
_It's what was written, Theophilus_
*The vocative Θεοφιλε is written in Luke/Acts.*
_For the record:_
The question _"Do we know anything about Theopholis?"_ was copied/pasted directly from the video description.
@@hive_indicator318 What happened?
True or False
God is trolling atheists, lol
11:00 there was no israel at that time. it was roman province of Palestine..please correct your own historical accuracy first..😂
While there was a REGION of Palestine in the first century CE, I don't know of a "province of Palestine" in Ancient Rome in the first century CE. It's only 135 CE that a province called Syria-Palestina was established by Rome, to take the place of the formerly called province Judaea. You know... where plenty of jews lived.
I'm aware there are Palestinians who think Jews never lived in the area of Palestine/Israel before Palestine was created, so it makes me wonder why you would say what you're saying. It's almost as if you're making claim to a geographical area for some reason... Has it got anything to do with what is going on in the Israel-Gaza conflict?
And I will never understand the "smileys" people like to add as in an added attempt of mockery, when the idea is presumably to come across as a serious person, because it doesn't have that effect at all. As a matter a fact, quite the contrary is true.
In Bart's defense, he did not say that in the first century CE there was an area called "Israel", but the way I understand it is that he refers to the one of today, to make it easier for the listener at that moment in time. Most of us will know where "Israel" is about much better than 1st century CE Judea, or Galilee, or Syria, or Nabatea, or Perea, or Decapolis, etc
There was a Philistia at the time, but the whole region was Roman Judea until Emperor Hadrian renamed the area as a direct insult/punishment for the failed Bar Kokhba revolt.
What the Brits did to Ottoman Palestinians was atrocious, and so was Rome's devastation of the region which similarly forced out tens of thousands of people in the name of imperial conquest.
It wasn't just because he was a more powerful God, it was because he was willing to sacrifice for us.
What did he "sacrifice?"
@@kev868 his only begotten son.
Human sacrifice is the selling point? I guess that's why drinking god blood was the icing on the cake, then.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 we sacrifice our children all the time. It's called war.
@@bradweir3085 That's because we can't just snap our fingers and fix it with magic. If we could, any kind of blood sacrifice would be unnecessary.
Opinion is cranial flatulence, nothing more. Knowledge is worthless without wisdom. Wisdom starts with knowing God intimately.
And believing in a god whose existence cannot be proven by even the best cranial flatulence is ignorance and not wisdom. The amount of wisdom in the bible is overwhelmed by it sheer lunacy and stupidities and cruelties. You are an irrelevant moron here...
@@bloodgrss Their statement could have been more respectful. We all have opinions. But regarding your requirement for "proof" of God, you should know that the scientific method has it's limitations so that even the big dogs in theoretical physics now believe things, like string theory, for which there is no proof, nor can be. If the physical universe is unknowable in its entirety, your demand for proof of the metaphysical comes off irrational (and disingenuous)
@Sojourning-e1n I won't waste much time on you here, let's just begin by pointing out your own disingenuous logic. String theory is indeed a theory; so you are comparing that to God? Is he (as I believe) a theory too? 🤔
@@bloodgrss If you want to understand more, search for the Forbes article "Why Trust A Theory? Physicists and Philosophers Debate The Scientific Method".
@@Sojourning-e1n Physicist don’t believe in String theory like an article of faith, but as a working hypothesis and theory that they wound gladly drop if another theory comes along that explains all the known facts more completely and precisely. Like they dropped the idea of a static universe (that many had strongly held) once the evidence for an expanding universe became overwhelming.
100% of the NT is written in Koine Greek. Bart can't read Greek. Bart has never actually read the NT, which makes any sort of "literary" or linguistic analysis irrelevant. It's like a 'Shakespeare Scholar" that can't read English, which Bart apparently struggled with, as well. We don't "know" anything about "Luke", or any of the other authors. This is all just typical assumption-based, narrative-pushing "Biblical scholarship" with no basis in physical evidence, the Scientific Method, or proper critical analysis. Bart is a nice guy, but he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
Mr. Ehrmann studied Koine Greek extensively and has been engaging with those text thoroughly for years. You may not agree with his points, but the man is an accomplished scholar and has all the necessary qualifications to give a well-informed perspective and opinion.
Why do you think he doesn’t know what he is talking about?
@@Jan-Dehning No, he knows "Biblical Greek". He cannot read Koine and has admitted it on many occasions. Go ahead, give him a pop quiz ;)
He's only "well-informed" in Protestant, English-speaking "Christianity" (i.e. Anglican Church/Evangelical). He admits he became a "Believer" BEFORE he read the Bible, and even then KJV was too hard. LOL! He literally had to read the "Dumb American's Bible for Dumb Americans".
He's a hack and huckster. Nothing more. It's literally his JOB to peddle the "Modern Jesus Narrative" for profit. He has no interest in objective research or criticism.
@@Jan-Dehning Hiding my replies. LOL! More of that impeccable, entirely unbiased "Modern Biblical Scholarship". LOL!
@@KarlKarsnark “Hiding your replies”? What are you talking about?
Luckily we have internet-experts like you trumping decades of research experience and university education.
If you REALLY want the Truth....Read The URANTIA BOOK....
Then chuck it in the trash.
@@NickG-x6t The "URANTIA BOOK" is Not for Everyone.....ONLY FOR THOSE WHO WANT THE ... TRUTH !!!