New Testament Forgeries & Contradictions - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มิ.ย. 2024
- Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond". Adherents of preterism are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70.
Check out Dr. Ehrman's website and join his blog here
www.bartdehrman.com/
Theramin Trees TH-cam channel
• bending truth | how ad...
============================
GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal. 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Recommeded books 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Email MythVision 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 @DerekPodcast
Instagram: 👉 @dereklambert_7
MythVision Discord: / discord
============================
#MythVision #BartEhrman #NewTestament
Theramin Trees is Amazing !! Its great that you are promoting him !!!!
I think he is a genius thinker. Not because I agree with him but he challenges thinking, his own first of all. Open mind even when that mind is ridiculously intelligent and educated to a very high level.
'Be prepared to change your mind.'
This series is great, keep it up.
Derek keeps bringing us the best in the business. I can see those subscriptions skyrocketing after this fantastic interview.
I've read virtually every book Bart's written, some of them several times. If you've never been exposed to his work, I strongly encourage you to take the time to become acquainted.
If you're not sure where to begin, I suggest you start with Forged! - it's truly damning and guaranteed to hold your attention.
If your not sure where to begin start here.....
vridar.org/other-authors/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/
@@ghostriders_1 Bart Ehrman, an expert on textual criticism of the NT and Early Christianity, has dismissed Jesus, Neither God nor Man as "filled with so many unguarded and undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of fact, that it would take a 2,400-page book to deal with all the problems... Not a single early Christian source supports Doherty's claim that Paul and those before him thought of Jesus as a spiritual, not a human being, who was executed in the spiritual, not the earthly realm."
@@ghostriders_1 Your comment is misplaced. You're basically trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater because Bart's been critical of Doherty's books.
@@drlegendre without specific examples your comment is meaningless.
Ordering mine right now!
Great that you could have Dr, Bart back again! Hopefully more in the future??? Thanks
MythVision interviews are usually very well done & informative with all star guests. Whether it's Ehrman, Carrier, Price, et al, each one brings a different flavor to the table & has something meaningful to offer up & Derek does a good job of eliciting relevant information from each of the guest. ✌
I love when you have Dr.Bart on. And I appreciate Tovia Singer very very much. This show is just FIRE 🔥!
I actually live in Chapel Hill and would *love* to see Dr. Ehrman speak live! I’ve been binging his online talks for a while now!
When you see Dr. Ehrman ask him about the Mountain of God discovered in Arabia, which is where Paul said it was in the verse below.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
The father in law of Moses was Jethro, who was a priest of "Midian". Midian is located in Northwest Arabia.
Check out the TH-cam videos on the real Mount Sinai, if you want the truth.
A fantastic communicator and writer
@@DBCisco Muhammad was illiterate you moron. Also Hitler? Really? MK was not exactly 'Slaughter House 5' was it?
Lord Thor Named his Brother Too. Thor Talked to His Friend Too, We Named a Day of the Week After Him. So On that Note Thor is Real?
Omg, are you suggesting Thor isn’t real ? Damn heretic!
@@paxanimi3896 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
STOP!..Hammertime!!!
@@Justen1980 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Code4 Code99 “EXACTLY”! And Thanks Bro! 🤜🏼🤛🏼
I love Bart Erhman. Congratulations on having him on for a second time! You are the bomb!!
Thanks for bringing Mr. Bart. He is a real genius.
A wandering messianic preacher dies
but his memory and deeds live on through word of mouth and the written words of those who loved him and clung to his message of salvation.
Over the decades, and centuries that followed his story grew beyond the boundaries of the natural world and burst into the super natural world, empowered by human imagination
to create "The Greatest Story Ever Told".
If Jesus died in the 30's how come there were Jews who thought he died in 70s BC?
Also Philo of Alexandria wrote about an angel called Jesus and his worshippers at the time of so called historical Jesus.
@@Dzonrid i have no idea why some Jews thought Jesus lived in the 70s BCE. Philo of Alexandria is more popularly recognized importing Greek religious concepts into Judaism. If he does discuss a Jesus ( Greek for Joshua) it could have been any number of people. Jesus/ Joshua was a very common name
@@michaelhenry1763 Babylonian Talmud tells us Jesus was killed during the reign of Alexander Jannæus. Irenaeus thought Jesus was killed during the reign of Claudius.
The Gospels tell Jesus was killed while Tiberius was the emperor. Josephus on the other doesn't mention any Jews being crucified at that time.
@@Dzonrid Thank you for your post and reply. James Richard Wiley orginally wrote about how Jesus existed in one form but over time his life was transformed into the fantastical by his followers. That is an excellent synopsis of what happened.
If we are simply trying to establish the existence of Jesus, these arguements when Jesus died do not matter. Not knowing when someone dies does not disprove their existance. However, the Talmud believed Jesus existed. Irenaeus believed Jesus existed and Josephus believed Jesus existed. The gospels are earlier sources than the Tulmad's discussion of Jesus and Irenaeus. Josephus describes plenty of Jews being crucified in the early first century. Pontus Pilate was notorious for it.
@@michaelhenry1763 The angel which Philo talks about was the agent of creation and heavenly High Priest and that what the Hebrews (8:1) says about Jesus. I wouldn't say this archangel was just anybody.
Neither would I say that Josephus mentions Jesus, since we know that both references (to Jesus) in Josephus are propably inauthentic. We don't hear anything about those passages before Eusebios in third/fourth century.
Also, the Gospels are not historical documents. I wouldn't rely on them.
If James Richard Wiley thinks Jesus transformed into the fantastical over time, then how does he explain that Paul thought Jesus was already there when the world was created and gave up his super powers in order to become a slave?
The easiest way to get a doctrine is to study the bible which is a man made book based on faith not facts. Faith without evidence is like an empty swimming, it looks nice, just don't dive in.
To get a "doctrine"? Biblical scholars of Dr Erhman's ilk, if you hadn't noticed, first need to be experts in the Biblical languages, Koine Greek, Aramaic (Syriac), Hebrew, and maybe a few others like Ugaritic before they can even begin their doctorates. That way they can approach Biblical criticism without being hamstrung by incurable ignorance, whichever side of the question they lean toward..
Just downloaded 'Forged' on Audible. Love you guys.
Bart Ehrman is one of my favorite scholars in any field.
Great Podcast, bro!
'How did they crucify him if he wasn't real?' - dumb as a bag of hammers... How did the toad buy an automobile, if he wasn't real?; How did they pull Pooh out of that tree, if he wasn't real?; If Hector wasn't real, how come his old man fetched his body?; If Marlowe isn't real, how did he solve all those murders?; Elvis? Well, Elvis I saw yesterday.
Also, plenty of people besides Mark wrote about Nero's life. PS, that's how we know there was a Nero.
As Dr Price says, if the wizard of Oz isn't teal, then where does the yellow brick road go?
The problem is Paul says jesus was crucified and Paul apparently does quote a few things in the gospel attributed to jesus
@@exillens that's backwards: the gospels echo Paul.
@@RalphEllis LOL COMING FROM A RANDOM TH-camR WITH NO CREDIBILITY OR DEEGRE?
#YOU NEED TO GO SEE A PSY#
Wonderful discussion.
Oh dear. I thought this was an edit of the first interview with Dr Bart. Great to know he came back!~ Now i have to listen to him.
Great discussion.
*new to this channel and binge watching your content.bart is an amazing historian*
#me2 ✨
Absolutely love the new intro🔥🔥🔥🔥
Ehrman is great. I highly recommend checking out his Great Courses lectures and reading his books. He is an excellent communicator.
Yes but his book concerning Jesus historicity was kinda weak.
@@Sinouhe true, but that doesn't diminish his other work.
@Ehrman "how often does Paul mention Nero".... this is the most fallacious analogy... Paul was not peddling a cult of worship of Nero... he was selling a cult of worship of Jesus... so him not mentioning anything about Jesus the earthly man is relevant to the hawking he was doing for Jesus the god... but Nero does not come into it at all... Paul never mentioned Athena nor Zeus nor Neptune... and they did not exist... or did they... well!!!
Ehrman's arguments are never strong.
@@davorinmestric969 ... you are being charitable... when it comes to this issue his arguments are not rational either.
@@RalphEllis ... yup... he is engaging in CASUISTRY... because he has no rational argument at all.
Exactly! You saved me from typing a similar comment.
I can not agree, but I am awaiting evidence for or against. Was there a first century jew named Jesus (grk.)? Would have been known as Yeshua in Hebrew, more likely. Was a such a jew who was rabbinical type? Not unlikely, as Yeshua was supposedly one of the most popular names, and apocalyptic crap was popular then. Was there such a Jesus person who was slain by the Romans at the behest of the Jews? The Romans were known for killing who ever was too much trouble for them at surprising lack of modern due process. Was there such a Jesus from Nazereth who fed 5k here and 4k there, walked on water, raised the dead, rose from the dead him self, appeared after death to this one or to those over there, and visited Paul a couple of decades later ... well, the least we can say is that as usual there's a surprising lack of evidence people should expect today - but that's no worry to the true believers who often come up with directly conflicting and contradictory dogma and doctrine. Nope. No, thank you, I have little more than passing interest in stories of reputed gods and goddesses who are too pure to prove themselves today - or how well we of honest heart and minds tell the difference? Most say you will be the truth when you hear it but ignore they ALL say that.
Sounds more like, the kingdoms lost their brands greatness- we have to explain that, the kingdoms fell - we have to explain that, we're currently being run by Rome - we have to explain that, the city and the temple were destroyed - we have to explain that. Et cetera and ad nauseum. Goes on still today - but each have the secret and you had better listen up - and let's ignore the others claiming the same bar permitting entry in to their take on explaining Jewish/Christianity/Muslim claptrap masquerading as message and history.
Another GREAT SHOW! smoke!!!!!!
I love Bart, I think he is brilliant but why does he get so defensive when mythicism is brought to the table? It hits a nerve. You can tell he despises mythicism. I’m not a mythicist but I think they do make some clever points that need to be considered.
You’d probably get defensive too if you’ve spent your life researching something only to have someone come along and claim something that you find has no basis in reality but continues to be put up against real evidence which you’ve been researching. It’s like how creationists claim to have scientific evidence. I imagine real biologists would tire of people repeatedly asking them questions as if creationism has a real basis in science
@@redapol5678 I guess, but I wouldn’t say mythicists are like creationists though. There is no absolute truth in history as there is in science. Plus, I don’t consider all of the arguments of mythicists ridiculous, they’re just less likely to have happened, and a few of them are quite sound.
You can see the difference with the question about Dennis MacDonald. Bart disagrees entirely but he doesn’t get mad.
But it’s true, in Bart’s defense, some mythicists have been disrespectful to him in the past.
@@juankjoh87 Totally agree.
I'm about 50/50 either way on the mythicist/historicist position. I find convincing and unconvincing arguments on both sides.
I'd love to pick a side. But each time I come back to an argument, there's always some niggling doubt lurking about. It's quite frustrating honestly.
I can see how if you've revolved your life around having a stance on these arguments it would be frustrating for someone to come along with a radically different interpretation from yours. It takes a lot of legwork to develop these arguments and you're necessarily going to become invested in them.
Frankly, the rivalry is probably a good thing so long as it doesn't delve too deep into animosity.
We can dream.
Bart's poor arguments are more effective for mythicism than Carrier's excellent ones. Check this out.....
vridar.org/other-authors/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/
There is also the implicit “forgery” that arises from the common and unsubstantiated pretense that the gospel writers directly, (or indirectly) “knew” Jesus. We simply have no idea who these writers were, nor the basis upon which they wrote the gospels.
I think maybe the only way we'll ever see Ehrman and Carrier on the same screen together is via mythvision
You may be correct! There is no love lost between Dr's. Ehrman an Carrier. Especially after the somewhat strong words on their blogs some time ago.
Carrier... is a grifter, no?
Erhman is above Conversing with a nutty Mythicist such as Carrier
Wow... I hope those 3 trolls 👆 aren't following me. lol
I love that intro! I just woke up some minutes ago. I've been waiting for this, and I saw it just came out 6 hours ago. Hehe. Agnostic. Spiritual. Anti-Theist.
“Jesus had to exist in order to be crucified” oh dear, what a laughable defense of the historical Jesus. Satan must exist too, he had to in order to appear on earth to tempt Jesus!
indeed. A few chapters in, and its jesus against satan. Then Satan vanishes. So the creator of all.. the most powerfull force known.. beat the satan he created.. and still had his son killed 😳. No mention of satan at the passion. I thought he should have been jumping up and down with joy. 😂
The whole plot of the bible novel narrative disintegrates from the very start when a talking snake dupes the master of the cosmos, who had no clue about what was going on around him in his very own garden, hehe he, "Adam where are you? Who told you bla bla bla? It's absurd from the get go and tells the reader what other sorts of absurd plots and characters to expect.
@@TheScotsalan well he supposedly entered peter for a moment, gotta love abstract concepts and theological fables they're so zany and hocus pocus wacko.
@@hjorvarthvalamir2182 Acts 11 is my favourite. If we read in order of writing, mark first, then acts, or vice versa.. Peter sits with apostles, a bloke turns up having sold all to give to then.. bang.. dead.. his wife turns up. bang dead. Seems they held some money back. Peter just sat there. This is in the name of Jesus.. apparently. They were mafia. 😂. Whats your favourite 👍
Clearly, Satan exists. Where else do we get all this badass music?
Dr. Ehrman nailed it with his statement “we cease to exist upon death”. Although I was a born again Christian in my late teens and early twenties, I have always been a skeptic since a young age and repeatedly asked myself; “What do I believe that isn’t true?” Religion failed the test of probabilities when I began studying the bible outside of the bubble.
I just couldn’t accept the idea that there’s a “long white haired guy in the clouds who listens to everyone’s wants, needs, and desires, then decides who gets a thumbs up or thumbs down, all while leading us to some moral eternity” especially given the indecisive, intolerant, destructive, and genocidal behavior attributed to Christianity’s God in the Old Testament.
With regard to death or afterlife, I would only like to add the following; we are both matter and energy. When our material (matter) body ceases to function it breaks down into the earth through the process of natural organic reduction (if burial is done properly). But where does the energy go? I believe the best hypothesized answer is, “it gets mixed in with all the other energy floating around in the air (atmosphere) and some of it may even slip into space. I don't believe it retains our experiences.
So like I said, we are both matter and energy. But then again, so are rocks.
That doesn't really explain consciousness though. Thoughts are what? They're not material and not energy. It's too simplistic to try and explain everything as matter and energy. Materialism really falls short as a worldview and can't account for all aspects of our reality.
Neither can neuroscientists explain consciousness. So at best, it's a 50/50 probability that we'll be conscience after death.
“If he didn’t talk about Nero…,” Paul wasn’t dedicating his life to worshipping Nero. Faulty analogy.
You can’t be crucified if you don’t exist, but someone can claim that someone who never existed was crucified.
I am not saying Jesus didn’t exist, just that Ehrman’s logic on these points doesn’t work.
The Nero comment was disappointing... Adding his trade-mark forced laugh to accentuate
how obviously Correct he is,,, doesn't help.
Exactly what I was thinking... Spot on...
Well done Derek! You managed to change his agitated face into a friendly face 😄
I know right😂😂
Timestamp?
This is just my opinion, but I find Dr Price waffles and never gets to a point. Dr Carrier is convincing but whiney and comes across as a a bit of a begger. Dr Ehrman seems entrenched in his current views and totally resistant to change. I often wish the three of them could work on something together, be open minded and really thrash it all out before presenting their group conclusions.
They all are brilliant and deserve to be listened to.
@@MythVisionPodcast absolutely agree. I think I just get frustrated a little.
@@MythVisionPodcast Clever man Derek, clever man... 😉
I'm not actually sure there's much to thrash out.
What we're dealing with here are interpretations of sources with varying degrees of credibility while having to also intuit to some degree the attitudes and motivations of people thousands of years gone.
Barring more evidence coming to light, it seems as though there's enough wiggle room to remain glued to a preferred view point.
I'd love it if they all walked back some of the sillier arguments I've seen them put forth here and elsewhere. Maybe try to be a bit less dogmatic in their point of view. But my opinion doesn't even amount to a small hill of beans. So whatever.
Then there's that Derek fellow. I don't even gotta say what we all think about that guy...
Awesome. Thanks. 👍
Bart is a prophet in a sense he's revealing what he discovered. Interviewing prophets are great these days, exciting
awesome
The idea of a god being killed (crucified, hanged etc.) is very universal. Carrier always points out Osiris, Inanna etc. but even Odin in the Norse Mythology hangs himself on the World Tree, Tree of Life ("Yggdrasil" which also means "gallows of death") to gain special powers. He also sacrifices his eye to the Well of Wisdom. The idea of a mythical self-sacrifice for some kind of special power over life and death is not so unique, and Odin certainly was not a historical person. That's why I think a non-historical crucifixion is a real possibility. Odin's hanging on the World Tree probably symbolizes the soul's descent to the material world and incarnation into a body of flesh -- the same thing that happens to Christ. At least that's one interpretation. The Norse stories are mostly recorded in medieval manuscripts though, so of course they might have Christian influence. A lot of uncertainty. Some gnostics also outright made the connection between the Cross and the Tree of Life or the Tree of Knowledge.
Those kinds of myths were also convenient for ancient people because their own shamans could re-enact them. The shaman or local priest could go into a meditation or trance, and his "spirit" would travel to the underworld (land of the dead). After this dangerous trip he would return with "knowledge" or a revelation. The hellenic mystery religions did things a bit differently, but the story lends itself to that too.
In the Finnish mythology there is one resurrection (resurrection of Lemminkäinen), but its not central to the myth. Instead the myth is about a dangerous journey to the "Northlands" (Pohja or Pohjola) where the heroes try to get wives and a magical golden mill (Sampo) which is the source of wealth and life. The golden mill probably is an allegory for the sun, but the entire "dangerous journey" probably is an allegory for a shamanistic trance. The Finnish North is a real place, but I don't think the story was ever intended literally, and none of the characters are historical. When a shaman made the dangerous "journey to the North" or "to the land of the dead" they did it only in their mind. I think the quest for a wife in the North means a spiritual quest for enlightenment or spiritual completion, but obviously that's just my speculation.
My point is: a story of a nazarene being crucified is not inherently any more historical then a story of a norse god being hung, or a group of Finnish warriors going on a quest. The stories might all be just as non-historical and even serve the same basic function and message.
Maybe the Finnish stories were originally more historical sagas of adventures, which eventually took an a highly mythologized character. However, if you try to find anything historical in the Finnish mythology, it will be difficult because so many details and plot points are clearly lifted from other myths. Same is obviously the case with the Bible.
Actually Jesus is not God being crucified - he is a man who walked with God. This would actually correlate with the standard canonical texts
34:09 is this really the end of the entire interview or just the end of this particular clip of the interview? These type of interviews are usually longer & this interview "clip" seems to end abruptly.
Cool OPENNING
A bit of a straw man argument there from Ehrman: "How often did Paul mention Emperor Nero? None .. he [Nero] must not have existed then". Not quite the same thing as a claim that Paul did not know the teachings of Jesus.
I get your point but that was less of a strawman and more of a comparative example... A strawman argument tends to go completely off track.
Most Churches Now a day preach paul doctrine. The pastors them Love the New Testament
@tom todd hey whats up man!
We meet on a comment section recently.duno if you remember
This is a great channel. Great guests. It really gets down to the myths behind these massive religions.
That was an epic series of sale’s pitches at the beginning
I leaned very heavily into the mythicist camp until very recently where I have to say I lean more towards historicity. I must say while I really appreciate the knowledge and information that Ehrman provides, I couldn't find any of his rebuttals to mythicism very convincing and his dismissive attitude didn't help make the case for me.
What really helped in my situation was the case made by Tim O'Neil and especially Steve Mason.
While O'Neal could probably stand to be a bit more civil IMO, it was really Dr Mason's approach that I found most effective...his calm and measured demeanor...his 'I don't have a dog in this fight' and 'I'm willing to be convinced if the evidence shows it' attitude is most refreshing and sorely lacking in Ehrman IMO.
Anyway, it was a great listen nonetheless...thanks.
I'm about 50/50 either way.
What is it that pushed you into taking a more firm stance?
I find that there's always some shadow of doubt over most arguments or evidence/interpretations of evidence presented.
I realize that this just is how history is. To an extent. But it makes it really hard for me to actively commit to a side.
@@rainbowkrampus It's much too complicated for me to say what led me in the other direction via TH-cam comment section, especially since it took hours of Dr. Mason's interviews on this channel (as well as Harmonic Atheist's channel) as well as Tim O'Neal's interviews and his website 'History for Atheists to get me there
I will probably revisit those interviews/articles again at some point to see if where I stand those views. But the point of my original comment was not to make a case for mythicism/historicity but to point out that I did not find Ehrman's contemptuous attitudes towards mythicism (some of it perhaps understandable IMO) to be very effective for showing me other side of the debate and I much preferred O'Neal's and especially Mason's approach
@@Emelefpi Yah. Ehrmans dismissiveness was definitely not helpful for his argument. I lost a lot of respect for him in this interview. He had the same attitude when he debated Price. Not cool.
Many people become swayed by cultural pressure to fall on one side when the arguments leave one as being 50/50.
I remain as a mythicist for the simple reason of there being almost NONE of any original person left in the NT story to be historically factual. If there was a "guy", there might as well NOT have been, because the "story" is NOT about "him" anyway.
@@pheresy1367 I take the historicist position to mean that there was definitely a real person connected to all of this. But there are multiple ways to interpret "connected".
Whereas I view the mythicist position as saying there was never a real person regardless of the level of mythologizing and obfuscation.
From my point of view you are laying out a historicist hypothetical. In summary, there was a dude who inspired all of this, we don't know anything about him, but there was a dude. I see this as wholly historicist because in no way has the existence of the dude been invalidated. There is room for the possibility that some new discovery might one day shine a light on the actual person.
It's odd, given what you've laid out and based on how I'm defining things, to call yourself a mythicist. So I'm curious to know how you're defining these positions and if you see the same issues that I do.
Here is the problem with Paul. Does he speak about things concerning jesus that he knows. Or does he repeat, what he has heard about jesus. People, lie, tell half truths and exaggerate. Paul could be entirely honest but still not be giving us any truth concerning jesus.
Exactly. He never met Jesus. He says the Damascus road event could have been a dream or vision.
And christians just take his word and follow him blindly.lmfao
Pure fiction belief at best!
… nor about knowing Peter and James. I don’t understand why scholars assume Paul is telling the truth. Paul makes it almost clear that he is not particularly concerned with literal truth.
@@scienceexplains302 yeah all the answers we need about paul is literally in the bible.we can clearly see how he lied to the true disciple of jesus and later he was punished + got persecuted due to wrong jesus preaching outside the land.
Yet we still see the christians take paul seriously.they just love to get thing easily.thats all.no interest in the truth.
Paul Never met the mythical jesus,(this is shown in your bible!!). Paul knows nothing about jesus according to the bible and only refers to visions,(hallucinations), of him...Many historians now believe that Paul himself is a non-existant figure only to bolster the bible.
Excerpt from Richard Carrier PhD:
Paul and the other epistle,writers(church scribes and fathers of the church), didn't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth,(which didn't exist at the time of jesus), Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha - or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.
If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples,(again no evidence for the disciples), teachings and miracles. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul even wrote (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that Jesus did no miracles. Also, Paul thought that Peter and James were other (competing) epistle writers. Paul referred (Gal. 1.19) to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. Note that "brother" is used about 130 times in the Pauline epistles - with no use meaning blood brother. Paul wrote (in Rom. 16:25-26, Gal. 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Rom. 3:5-8. This last statement shows that Paul may have been a creation of the Church or a Church scribe to enhance the writings,because it is exactly what a "forger" would say..
This was great
Has anyone asked Dr. Erhman... Knowing what we know today, what would Christianity look like if Paul didn't exist?
@tom todd ...and consequently neither would Islam either.
@tom todd .... if you admit that the Torah and Gospels are corrupt... then you admit that your god is incapable of guarding his own words... and he kept on boasting and bragging in the 1400 years old book of errors that the Torah and Gospels are his words and that no one can alter his words... so which is it.... if they are corrupt then he was just blowing hot air.... and if they are not corrupt then you guys are abysmally wrong and in deep deep trouble with your religion.
God bless Derrick but I think he kind of blew the Paul/Historical Jesus question and got Bart off track.
It was a good example, however, of how Jesus Mythicism tends to suck the air out of the room.
New things always get the most attention (and simplification as "bad" or "good", which causes even more hyper-focus)
What does that even mean?
Jesus mythicism is like saying 9/11 was an inside job or UFOs are real. Just makes you look ridiculous
@@tripp8833 Tripp that is unfair & untrue. The examples you cite are plainly ridiculous but there is a version of mythicism that is not. Many forms of mythicism are ridiculous ie Atwill: Caesar Messiah etc and these should be shunned and avoided. The one version that is not ridiculous is the very scholarly & plausible Doherty/Carrier thesis. It's not for the lazy though you will need to read comprehensively. If you read Doherty's response to Ehrmans book: Did Jesus Exist? You will have to admit he is not ridiculous and takes Ehrman to task well for his lazy? Inadequate book. I challenge you to find any ridiculous statements by Doherty (Ehrman makes plenty, here is an example. Ehrman wrongly states that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was a preexistent cosmic being. This is just wrong & you only have to read the very earliest evidence we have from Paul to know this is wrong.) Any way here is the link, it's kind of divided into half chapters so each section is not an arduous read!
vridar.org/other-authors/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/
Dr Richard Carrier is a gifted & qualified historian who has any number of excellent lectures on YT. Watch just one and I challenge you again to find just one ridiculous claim from him in them. He is not over the top, he grants Jesus a one in three chance of being historical but concludes that the surviving evidence we have best fits a cosmic, revealed deity who was euhemerized just like Romulous or Osiris. Why that should surprise any one not ignorant of the evidence is beyond me. Have a great day.
@@ghostriders_1 I’m not even going to waste my time with that. If you think some rogue nut on TH-cam is right over every historical scholar and organization, you are not that far from a Flat Earther or 9/11 guy. Listen to expert consensus. They study this stuff for a living.
A 1/3 chance of Jesus existing is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Romans 8 shows paul thought all Christians were brothers of the Lord.
If you study Paul further Jesus is the Divine Image of God, and we are made in the image of God. So we are a copy of a copy of God. Just like an old Xerox copy that is less perfect than the copy just like a wax impression is not perfect.
@@bleirdo_dude The problem with your analogy, assuming Paul said and/or meant those words, he had no idea that a copy of a copy of a copy would be worse than the original, when he said that. So you are adding A LOT to his intention of what he said.
Using the term 'brother of the Lord' as a religious brotherhood to distinguish James from Peter presupposes Peter was not a brother of Jesus, which is false. This would only make sense if he were using that term as having a lower status than that of apostle which Peter was. If this were the case in no circumstance could Paul consider James an apostle which is in direct contradiction with 1 Corinthians 15:7 where he clearly states James had a vision of Jesus (which makes him an apostle).
@@scholarvid1842 James stayed in Jerusalem "To keep Jews good/messianic Jews?" after Roman defeated them, but Peter tried to convert immigrants and other minorities/seekers in Rome to Judaism. One of the two was less like Paul than the other.
@@letsomethingshine What is the point of your argument? I'm arguing that in the context of that passage 'brother of the Lord' only makes sense as brother in the flesh rather than brother in the faith. What is your position?
I never catch these videos live to super chat and ask questions. I just really want to ask what "scripture" was Paul referring to in 1st Corinthians ch15 vs 3-4 about jesus's death and resurrection after 3 days. Surely it wasn't in Jewish(OT) scripture. Is it possible he was referring to the gospels? If so that would change the entire accepted dating. But can anyone address this for me?
Love the intro!!
I never noticed the camera set up before.
Beautiful.
Derek’s camera is angling down making him look up almost in worship.
Bart’s is angling up. So he’s looking down.
Probably a coincidence but will see see a change in Derek’s angle in the next video?
;)
Just had to point this notable finding out!
I look up to my guest 👍
I do like it.
Don’t change it.
I think it shows respect and deference.
The "crucifixion in space/the spiritual realm" that Dr. Erhman refers to is based on an interpretation from the Pseudepigraphical Judeo-Christian text "Ascension of Isaiah" interpreted by Dr. Richard Carrier.
The first time I listed to a lecture by Dr. Carrier, I was also confused about this statement, and I struggled to find the source for this vision.
It made more sense when I read "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Dr. Carrier, where he goes through the text. It still seems like a difficult text to analyze or understand in context, but fascinating though.
It really looks like Dr. Erhman still gets very annoyed by mythicist interpretations and theories. It is understandable from a historicist perspective.
I think we can learn much about biblical history from both historicists & mythicist scholars, even if you don't always agree with everyone's conclusions.
I have certainly learned a lot from Dr. Erhman, Dr. Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, David Fitzgerald, ect.
What I can be sure of is I do not know about God and Jesus for sure and neither does any one else, and I think that the most damning evidence against any of it being the work of god.
I think Carrier doesn’t do himself any favors by using the phrase outer space, it makes it sound more gonzo than it actually is.
And I think Ehrman gets annoyed because it pulls the rug under basically his whole life of research that presupposes a historical Jesus. It’s like he stopped being a Christian but won’t let himself give up on Jesus.
Regarding James at 11:55, the mythicists took that from the Catholics because of the Virgin Mary doctrine. When I was younger, I was a Catholic and asked priests, nuns, and other members of my church about the brothers and sisters the gospels referred to and the mental contortions required were astounding. "Well, they weren't literally brothers and sisters, Joseph had them before he married Mary" "They were spiritual brothers and sisters, not blood relatives" are 2 of my favorites.
My understanding is that the words used for brother and sister in the relevant passages can be used in a more ambiguous, non-familial sense as well as a familial one.
Unless this is incorrect, I can see how either conclusion might be valid.
I love that intro! I just woke up some minutes ago. I've been waiting for this, and I saw it just came out 6 hours ago. Hehe. Agnostic. Spiritual. Anti-Theist.
Only 7 out of 13 letters of Paul are authentic ? Wow.
@@DBCisco Wow. (?) I guess Marcion didn't know the fall of Jerusalem, the development of Christianity and a million other things... or pretended to not know in order for this conspiracy theory to work?
@@DBCisco Also Marcion knows all these things, according to others (we don't have his writings). So what gives?
@@DBCisco If Patton never mentioned _anything_ after 1812, then I guess he could be your Paul character. Except even then other people would have to collaborate when writing about him to put him in that time before 1812.
@@DBCisco i'll take your point that paul never refers himself as "paul", or with any name. however those 7 letters were written (by whomever) in the first century, before 70 ce and after 50ish ce. you can google the reasons for the dating.
@@DBCisco Ok, you go and give me one person who thinks they were written in the second century? Even Dr. Price thinks they were written in the first century. Only his theory is that Marcion was the first to collect the letters into one canon.
"Born of a woman" is explained by Paul himself a little later as an allegory, as in not an actual real earthly woman, issue solved. The last supper quote anybody could have interpolated that into the text later, oldest pauline fragment is from circa. 3rd century.
The last supper is an allegory too. Just check few verses before.
People underestimate just how much of Paul could’ve been interpolated, even the authentic epistles. I mean, if people were already forging letters why not change the real ones too? We already have concrete evidence that they did.
Brilliant scholar
I really hope that Carrier would be able to have a nice and constructive conversation with Ehrman, and Atwill would be able to have one too with Carrier.
Thank you Darreck
Bart refuses to debate with Carrier because, so he says, Carrier has a bad attitude.
Um… still a mythicist. Terrible reasoning there Bart.
feels free to point out the alleged terrible reasoning. maybe I will agree.
´´Forgive me Father for I have sinned. I have a confession to make.´´ Priest: Go ahead.
I became an addict to...MythVision Podcast!!! Priest:´´AMEN!´´ ´´Go and watch some more´´.
Preach-uhhhh!
And for extra blessings, read Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell
What sign on the dotted line did he signed..just wondering.
I see a lot of comments about Ehrman debating Carrier, but would that really settle anything? Their arguments are already out there in print. Anyone who's interested can read and contrast their relative quality.
I have an Ehrman, for all his ability, is full of shit. Carrier would hit him out of the park!
You can contrast it yourself but often times I hear of people who start with Ehrman and then move to Carrier, but then there’s tons of people who love Ehrman and won’t touch mythicism with a ten foot pole because he demonizes the position so much. I mean he gets irrationally agree about it.
So a debate would bring Carrier’s position to those Ehrman fans and show how weak Ehrman’s arguments actually are. I mean I would pay to see that.
Paul is supposed to have written that he didn't know Jesus from any man, only from revelation and scriptures, so how could he meet Cephas/Peter and James - Jesus' 'brother' and not find out about Jesus or not want to find out about his hero. This is not credible. Pity Derrick you didn't ask that.
I think the usual apologetic is because they're rivals, so asking would show weakness in front of his enemies.
@Austin O Keeffe I think that part is most likely interpolation. When Irenaeus quotes Galatians 2:1 in book 3 Against Heresies it doesn't have the word "again" like in today's version, which means that there wasn't a first visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 1. Tertullian also doesn't mention it in book 5 Against Marcion when he goes through Galatians.
The bible writings could be "loved" if they were used for what they are instead of being forced as history, treating people cruelly.
People still love Hamlet without needing to think he really said all those things
Kudos on another great show with Dr Ehrman, great discussion! My only question is between a historical Jesus and mythical Jesus, there is another choice of a purely mythologized Christ, whose mythology took place on earth. The mythicists bring up great reasons to doubt an actual person named Jesus existed, but their conclusions about crucifixions in outer space don't need to accompany those doubts. Anyway, Bart is always interesting to listen to and knows his stuff.
Wonderful comments . However, I think there is a difference between Jesus of Nazareth and the Lord Jesus Christ. The mythicists are right that the Lord Jesus Christ did not exist. However, Jesus of Nazareth did.
@@michaelhenry1763 Not sure what sources you're tying that to. Paul's letters are the earliest but he never met Jesus and doesn't give many details about his life. The earliest gospel was written after 70AD according to many scholars, so even further removed. There are no other sources. So not sure where your "Jesus of Nazareth" source is coming from.
@@eximusic the New Testament was not a book in the first, second or third centuries CE. So what came to be in the New Testament are books and letters from various people. You are right that Paul did not meet Jesus and you are right that the earliest gospels were first written in 70 CE. This is proof that Paul was not an apostle he claimed to be because he did not walk with Jesus. The lateness of gospels prove that the stories recorded in them were from oral traditions and not eye witnesses. These are not reasons for the non-existence of Jesus .
Paul does write about the human Jesus a little. He especially talks of him being crucified . He also details a story of the last supper. More convincingly, he writes about his Feud with Peter and James. He describes James as the brother of Jesus. Paul is jealous of the apostles in Judea because they walked with Jesus and claimed to be the custodians of his teachings. So Paul is the first written source ( 50s and 60s). Second source is the gospel of Mark. Mark seems to capture some original sayings of Jesus and going so far as to quote his last words in Aramaic. Q would be a third source, along with M and L. Lastly, Josephus records the murder of James which he calls the brother of Jesus.
These are my sources that Jesus existed .
@@michaelhenry1763 Well yes, I had to know all that history already to give you my last reply. There is no evidence for a Q document, which is kind of similar to the theories held by the mythicists without proper support. And the Q document isn't needed as Matthew and Luke are both redactions of Mark. Q documents and oral traditions are just theories to cover spans of time that go dark evidence-wise. There are plenty of Jesus stories that address issues that arose after the destruction of the temple to show their entire creation in the late 1st or early 2nd century. The other problem for people that believe historicity but not miracles, is that many of the stories have no purpose or story when you take the miracles out. And then when you take away the stories that are retellings of Moses or other patriarchs applied to Jesus, there isn't much left at all. And those things include a prayer by Jesus when no one else was around. So a reference to James by Paul and one by Josephus doesn't recreate a real-life history that's missing. Sometimes the answers just aren't there and non-believers don't have the same motivation as Christians to weave together a back story that isn't there (you'd think, but I guess that's what mythicists do, and atheist scholars heavily influenced by believer scholarship). Even in Mormonism, we do have a historical Joseph Smith (like James) but no angel Moroni.
@@eximusic you make some excellent points. Most of the stories surrounding Jesus are legends and stories made to fulfill prophecies. I agree other stories were created to echo the Hebrew Bible, especially the Torah.
I also agree with you that we do not have a lot of evidence for the historical Jesus.
I think there are two issues you bring up: is there evidence for a historical Jesus and is there enough evidence to establish who he was. Because we are dealing with the ancient world evidence is going to be really hard to come by. We are lucky to have what we have to establish existence. However, it is much harder to establish life events . I think one of the only events we know happened is that Jesus was crucified. One reason for this is because most of the New Testament is spending time attempting to explain it away.
Lastly, I think mythicists and fundamental Christians have a lot in common. They are both ideologically driven and spend time explaining things away. I think mythicists do not want to believe Jesus existed because the debate gets conflated with a debate about the existence of God. Fundamental Christians want Jesus to exist because they believe he is God and all the stories the stories that go along with him. I believe it is somewhere in the middle: he existed, but he was not God or a miracle worker , for example
4:55-
5:57- Paul's knowledge about jesus
7:14- mythology?
9:00- times Paul quoted jesus (rewind)
12:15-
12:57- how manuscript dated? & what manuscripts do we have today?
Bart D. Ehrman is a legendary scholar.
India
I Am saying to charan.not U
@N RJ what?
😂😂😂
@N RJ Sure I'm going to take the word of random you tuber over world renowned and respected Biblical scholar and published academic.
How do you keep getting this guy on your show!? This is amazing
I can walk on water 💧😉
@@MythVisionPodcast lol
@@MythVisionPodcast Cash helps too!
@@MythVisionPodcast good answer Miracle Man!
Yeah, but Bart's epistemology is screwed up. The way he is so violently opposed to mythicism is crazy. Like, I'm pretty sure Einstein was right, but I don't go around saying people who work on MOND are fucking stupid and wasting their time.
Could someone please answer a question?
In the Roman empire, didn't the state hold a monopoly on capital punishment? What was their view on subject people's executing criminals within the empire?
You are correct. Romans reserved capital punishment for them to execute. They were occupiers and everyone was subject to their law.
@@michaelhenry1763 And this is as I thought. So the question arises, weren't the Jews able to stone blasphemers to death?
You know, like that scene in Life of Brian? I recall something about a halibut that was fit for Jehova? ;-)
@@drlegendre I cannot argue with anyone quoting life of Brian. I wonder if stoning either did not happen during the Roman period or if it was a case of mob violence.
Dear Mr Derek Mythvision, did you legally change your last name to MythVision?
Really enjoyed the interview especially agree that Hebrews was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The book of Hebrews is a detailed allegorical interpretation of the sanctuary services. Such an explanation probably would not have been relevant prior to the great need for one.
That misunderstands the worldview of minority movements that were opposed to the current temple cult as run by Herod & priestly aristocracy: the lack of any special crisis like a temple destruction had no bearing on reducing their interest in writing & obsessing about ALTERNATIVE Temple & Cultic ritual (precisely because they disagreed with the existing temple establishment, cult or hierarchy/politics).
The eventual destruction wouldn't have sparked such interest, but would rather spark sombre mourning among the mainstream who valued the temple establishment prior to it's destruction
@@tsemayekekema2918 Help me out. What "scripture" was Paul referring to in 1st Corinthians ch15 vs 3-4 about jesus's resurrection?
Hebrews is Platonism.
@@exillens when the new testament writers used the phrase "according to the scriptures", they did NOT mean that "if you search the scriptures thoroughly enough, you'll find prooftexts for what we are saying"; rather, they meant "according to the Grand Scriptural Plot/storyline of Israel's election as God's Special Property (as opposed to other pagan nations that were under the delegated ownership of inferior created pagan gods, an arrangement originally ordained by the Creator God)". A storyline which involved their deliverance from the foreign dominance of Egypt (exodus), Israel offending God in multiple ways, including the worship of foreign deities that were originally ordained for pagans & not Israel (idolatry), the ensuing Divine Wrath of an Autocratic God (ancients regarded arbitrariness & meting out of arbitrary punishment as a Fundamental Right of any divine being) on the Nation, this divine wrath was expressed by allowing some of those foreign nations & their gods gain military victories over Israel, thereby humiliating the nation, the ultimate expression of such shameful defeat at the hands of foreign aggressors was the Babylonian exile, as well as subsequent repeated defeats & foreign hegemony (from the crisis leading to the Maccabean War to the contemporary subjugation of Israel to the Roman imperial rule) which by implication meant subjugation to the oppression of foreign gods (in the ancient world, deities were understood to have more direct political control over those who revered them; religion & politics were one & the same).
Against this background, Christ was understood to have carried out a very very strange mission of dramatizing this motif of repeated military defeats at the hands of foreign rulers & their gods by allowing himself to be shamefully captured & executed by a Roman governor (and by extension, the Greco-Roman gods he & the Caesar worshipped). In doing this, Christ was understood to be a National king representing Israel & dramatizing their recurrent defeats which were understood as National Punishment meted out by God for their National Sins.
These long paragraphs represent what Paul & other new testament writers really meant my Christ's defeat (crucifixion) & Victory (Resurrection) "ACCORDING TO THE (GRAND STORY OF) THE SCRIPTURES"
Against this background, the leader of the pantheon of Greco-Roman gods who were understood as sponsors of, and reverred by the Emperor was most frequently referred to as the "devil, satan, etc" who is perhapy possibly to be identified with Jupiter or Zeus, or any top deity associated with the Imperial Cult. This is the backdrop for the early Christian conception of Greco-Roman deities as subordinates of this "satan" (a neutral Hebrew word which simply means opponent) leading the pantheon. "Followers of the devil" often referred to those non-christians who were submissive to the Imperial rule, worshipped Greco-Roman deities (occasionally called demons), and participated in activities of the Imperial Cult of Asia Minor
Dr Ehrman « If Jesus didin’t exist, how can he be crucified ? »
Ok let’s apply this argument with another character.
How can Heracles killed a Lion if he didn’t exist ?
So we get a proof that Heracles existed.
Thanks Dr Ehrman ! Much appreciated 👍🏻
Another argument from Dr Ehrman :
« Jesus got a brother (james) and he was born from a woman ».
Ok, let’s apply this argument to Heracles :
Heracles was born from a woman (Alcmene) and he got a brother (Iphicles). So basically, Heracles existed.
Thanks Dr Ehrman.
@@RalphEllis His arguments are embarrassing
Im subscribing which i do rarely do, constantly good stuff, well put across and Dr Ehrman is a dude.
Hi Derek, can you ask bart to read Plutarch so he can step-up?
We need a deabate between Ehrman and Carrier!
No we don't.
No it will never happen.
Agreed
I honestly think that Ehrman would pretty easily win the debate in the minds of any unbiased person, but Carrier is a better rhetorician than Price, so he might be able to at least appear to perform better than Price just because he’s more well read.
Carrier would destroy him, and Ehrman knows it, so he keeps away. As disingenuous as Ehrman is, he's cunning as a fox.
@@michaelgoldberg2082 nope...Carrier is polished, experienced, has extraordinary recall, and will constantly remind how 'proving history ' is supposed to be done, in a debate. Ehrman wants no part of Carrier, for good reason
I like Bart, a lot. But did he really essentially say, we have crucifixion on Earth, so someone can’t make up a story about they’re Deity being Crucified somewhere else. That makes no sense.
It’s a story, I can have anything, happening to anyone, anywhere!
Exactly, and how plausible is pre-existing being taking a form of a man, dying and returning to the Temple in the sky?
For sure. We also have castration but that doesn’t mean Attis is real because he castrates himself.
Great discussion. Already subscribe to TheraminTrees👍💪👏❤
Love Bart!! You ever get into Eric con daniken? Or Paul Wallis? Would love to see Paul on here man!!!
I like both Carrier and Ehrman. To see the hatred for either one of them is utterly ridiculous.
I suppose it is some progress at least that Ehrman has gone from flat out ignoring mythicism to raging about it. At least he is acknowledging its existence. Of course that all depends on whether one thinks Bart's opinion on the matter is worth anything in the first place. Bart has no logical reason to be as arrogant as he is. The early source material we have is just not conclusive one way or the other.
It's like Dr. Bob said (I paraphrase extensively): If we had a document from a wandering scholar that he had stopped by Nazareth and spoke with an extraordinary boy named Jesus who totally amazed him; that would be good evidence.
We have nothing like that. And considering that supposedly right after he died his followers claimed that they had seen and spoken with him, that alone would make him an extraordinary figure who would very likely have been mentioned by numerous, impartial writers residing in the region at that time.
We have nothing like that. All we have from the historical record are religious claims made by his supposed followers ... and that is only because Mark writes that into his account, which is almost certainly taken from scripture and his own imagination. And yet Bart is forever breathing fire at the doubters of an historical Jesus. His whole position is a castle in the sky: If he sees it then it has to be there, right? After all, he has an advanced degree from a reputable university and Earl Doherty only has a Bachelor degree ... so that settles the matter in his favor. Seriously?
And Where is that LAST SUPPER Table Located Now?
I think they took it to the 'Mary and Joseph House' and from there it was carried by angels to Loreto where it now resides. The Church claims this house is authentic. I am not making this up. Angels carried it to Italy from Nazareth.
@@ardalla535 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤜🏼💥🤛🏼‼️
Man my mind is spinning. I'm questioning everything. I'm so confused write now.
You had a chance to really explore Ehrman’s thoughts on historicity yet you cut him off at 12:18 simply to move onto more questions about topics with comparatively little gravity for no other reason than the mechanical reason that you had those questions. All of the comments here deal primarily with Jesus existence and none about the other esoteric questions. Why not just dedicate a show entirely to this topic alone? You really blew an opportunity here to get to the bottom of Ehrman’s beef with Carrier.
Great comment
Good thing bart doesn't debate carrier. Would be a long brutal night. His arguments are pretty weak. Having said that, I'd love to see then go at it.
Price is a wealth of knowledge but Carrier is sharp as a knife when it comes to spotting illogical arguments. Bart wouldn’t stand a chance. It’d be a round-one knockout.
What about the Q gospel/source?
How about a gladiator fight to the death between Atwill, Ellis and Valliant? That would be the stuff of legend.
Lol great idea !! :) My money is on Ralph all day long.
Why did jesus not write his own stuff down???
Because they are wittness of him.
You'd think Jesus' Father would have arranged for a biographer to follow him everywhere.
Paul was heavily inspired by Enoch, if you read those books you'll understand how Jesus can be crucified in the heavens.
Good Point.
And forget about how nowhere in 1&2 Enoch actually talks about any heavenly crucifixion
@@DBCisco
Paul the one from his letters.
I'm reluctant to believe what anyone in a cult has to say about anything. Either from now.....or 2,000 years ago.
Maybe the chronology is Mark (sans resurrection narrative) then the added separate account of Paul to literally then obsessively fill in the resurrection narrative. Then the rest is christory :D
I think its all Marcion anyway in the 120s or somethin :)
Nice one Derek ^^
I thought Bart was going to have a stroke at the very mention of mythicism. But.. hard to explain your position when you're sitting on a branch you've sawn off long ago.. Don't look down Bart!
Gottem
Lol, you ask Bart what happens when we die. He’s an atheist.
It was a donors question.
I though Bart was agnostic?
@@MythVisionPodcast I know, but I had to facepalm, anyway, he was very polite about his answer.
Even if God exists, he need not behave like a human to favour believers and show displeasure over non believers, regardless of their righteousness. Can a good CEO be displeased with you and disregard your talents just because you do not know his name?
If God only favour believers regardless of their righteousness, then he needs to have an egoistic and nepotic character like worldly tyrants and corrupt politicians.
The idea that one can go heaven without cultivating himself to higher spiritual standard is as silly as cramming unrefined squatters into premium residential estate and still expect it to remain a premium property.
Anyone claiming their religion is the only true religion needs to first prove that only their believers were continuously blessed by God since antiquity. Cheers.
Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter.
So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.q
@@galaxymetta5974 But the point is that Bart has written volumes on Heaven and Hell and it’s origin in Mediterranean and Near Eastern mythology. Consequently as a critic of the belief and an atheist/agnostic the default assumption is that he does not believe in an afterlife.
Regarding the rest of your argument, which appears to advocate Eastern religions and reincarnations, I’m afraid I don’t agree. First near death experiences only show the way the photoceptors produce signal in the off state which is integrated in the visual cortex as dark, and when these cells are deprived of energy produce white appearance in the cortex. Also no scholarly study has substantiated reincarnation, and Dr. Erhman does not suggest he believes in this either.
A final point there are a lot of people who preach on the afterlife and what they have seen, Jesus standing at the right hand of god sitting on his throne, Paul claims he had lucid vision of Jesus, a man he had never met. All manner of claims by people who have taken drugs, at least one who claims he is a quasi reincarnation of Jesus’s spirit (the 25th I believe) and that his four soulmates were reincarnations of Mary Magdalene. There’s a woman who claims she is the reincarnation of a 35,000 year old cave man, there are dozens of preachers who claim god told them that Trump will win/or won the election.
As we can see visions of the spiritual realm are very colorful, at least by people who speak of such things. Oh, and that’s the point.
Thanks for your content, as I study to become a scholar. Are there no black or minority scholars in this field. I don’t mean this to spark a debate about color. But to see someone like me on your show, thanks. Oh, have you heard of Billy Carson?
See the paperback, Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell.
I can’t think of any but as long as you stay way from fundamentalists (who are still in the field of biblical scholarship) you should be fine.
Who is Billy Carson? Google says there is an actor named Billy Carson. Two or three editorial reviews for Historical Accuracy should be coming in by the end of July. Historical Accuracy is the Case for Christ , appealed and Evidence that Demands a Verdict, a new verdict.
“Misquoting Jesus” is an incredible book. Also available on Scribd.
th-cam.com/video/rjFqbVR_Ogw/w-d-xo.html
everyone knows Ehrman's bone fide resume, etc. just get into the interview. im sure that 30min was expensive
it seems like the video abruptly ends & I wonder if this is NOT the entire interview
Really? Paul knew what Jesus said? How? Ehrman is pretty weak here. It's like his inappropriate nervous laugh is a cover for him knowing that his arguments are weak. He stutters and stammers and giggles. I lost a lot of respect for him in this interview. He is pretty intellectually dishonest here.
Great comment.
Bart sure wiggled in this video. All such a fascinating subject, but such crap. Very entertaining.
Dr. Ehrman has made a great deal of money selling books telling people what they want to hear. "Since there is no God, they are their own god and can do as they please."
One of his weaknesses seems to be very little understanding of the relationship between the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and Hebrews 12:18-24.
Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-
Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH-
Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
----------------------------------------------------
Can we prove Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures?
Prophecy Fulfillment
1. Born of Seed of the Woman Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4
2. Born of a Virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18, 24-25
3. Son of God Psalm 2:7 Matthew 3:17
4. Seed of Abraham Genesis 22:18 Matthew 1:1
5. Son of Isaac Genesis 21:12 Luke 3:23, 34
6. Son of Jacob Numbers 24:17 Luke 3:23, 34
7. Tribe of Judah Genesis 49:10 Luke 3:23, 34
8. Family line of Jesse Isaiah 11:1 Luke 3:23, 32
9. House of David Jeremiah 23:5 Luke 3:23, 31
10. Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1
11. Presented with Gifts Psalm 72:10 Matthew 2:1, 11
12. Herod Kills Children Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16
13. His Pre-Existence Micah 5:2 Colossians 1:17
14. Shall Be Immanuel (God with Us) Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23
15. Preceded by Messenger Isaiah 40:3 Matthew 3:1-2
16. Entered Jerusalem on Donkey Zechariah 9:9 Luke 19:35-37
17. Sold for Thirty Pieces of Silver Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:15
18. Price Thrown for Potter’s field Zechariah 11:13 Matthew 27:5, 7
19. Silent Before Accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 27:12
20. Wounded and Bruised Isaiah 53:5 Matthew 27:26
21. Crucified with Thieves Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38
22. Garments Parted and Lots Cast Psalm 22:14 John 19:23-24
23. His Forsaken Cry Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46
24. Bones Not Broken Psalm 34:20 John 19:33
25. His Side Pierced Zechariah 12:10 John 19:34-37
26. Fulfilled the New Covenant Jeremiah 31:31-34 Hebrews 8:6-13, 10:16-18, 12:22-24
27. Messiah killed Daniel 9:24-27 John 19:18-30
Adapted from the book… “The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
Josh McDowell set out to prove that Christianity was false.
Because of what he found in his research, he became a Christian.
The same thing happened to C.S. Lewis, and Lee Stroebel.
The probability of any man fulfilling just 8 of these is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. (17 zeros)
The writings of Roman historian Tacitus prove Jesus was a real person.
@@SpotterVideo Dude. I studied for the ministry. While studying for the ministry I did extensive personal study of all those claimed messianic prophecies and discovered they were all distortion taken totally out of context. Every single one. The gospel writers created fictional stories to make up a Messiah with cherry picked out of context verses. Do some studying. Start with Hosea 11:1....not even a prophecy and Matthews story is in conflict with Lukes. Isaiah 7:14 isn't about an immaculate conception. It was a young woman who had a son as a sign to King Ahaz the the Assyrian would conquer him. Study, dude.
@@billguthrie2218 How much did you learn about the New Covenant while you studied for the ministry?
How much did you learn about the real Mount Sinai, which is in Arabia as Paul said in Galatians chapter 4?
@@SpotterVideo Drrrr.. the New Covenant is obvious...Old vs New... pre /post Jesus. kindergarten.... Dude, I have a BA degree in Bible,. minor in NT Greek., learned Hebrew. I know The Bible and Christianity. Notice how you deflect and don't address the facts I pointed out? Read the OT quotes / claims. All pulled totally out of context. Read them for yourself.
For Hebrews focus on the single reference to Joshua. It could have been written after 70CE and is implying that Joshua had failed to give the Israelites peace. When it speaks of people of faith it mentions Jericho but omits any reference to Joshua.
I once had a rabbi tell me that Hebrew is a language, not a people. Is this true? If so, who was Paul writing to in his letter to the Hebrews?
Paul did not write Hebrews.
Yes, Paul did not write Hebrews.
Today, Hebrew is a language not a people . Thousands of years ago, Hebrews were a people and a language
@@michaelhenry1763 Thank you so much for replying. This has broken my brain for a long time now, and I can now set it aside and begin to heal. :-)