@@thinkcatholic. I don't think so. The scriptures are open to interpretation on all sorts of points. I'm about halfway through How Jesus Became God and it's an interesting read. Try it if you haven't!
These questions have already been debated and decided by the early Christians. This guy, 2000 years removed from Jesus, isn't clever or intelligently interpreting Scripture. He's a heretic repeating heretical nonsense. I'm almost embarrassed for him, but there are too many like him that use simplistic arguments without academically honest Biblical scholarship. He's just click bate. No substance.
In Mark 14:62, Jesus is just answering the question, "are you the Messiah?" to which "I am" is a reasonable response. Whenever I say, "I am" to someone, I'm not claiming to be God. He's not claiming to be God, he's saying he's the Messiah.
The idea of "ego eimi" in Mark (14:62) being a claim to divinity seems devoid of context. Jesus is answering the question of the high priest: "are you Christ, Son of the Blessed?" To which Jesus says "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power." If we're interested in a plain reading here, "I am" is not a claim of godhood, but an affirmation of being the son of God, which is NOT the same as claiming to be God.
@@thinkcatholic. You don't need to claim to be God to blaspheme. Quoting the scriptures of Daniel 7:13 ("coming with the clouds of heaven") and Psalms 110:1 (The Lord said to my Lord "Sit at my right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool") to not only rebuke the priesthood, but to claim to be the Jewish Messiah (remember, the Jews believe this to be a separate figure from God) AND to imply that because they treat Jesus as an enemy God will make the Sanhedrin Jesus' footstool, would absolutely qualify as blasphemy in their eyes-or, if the Sanhedrin were to be treated as corrupt (implied elsewhere in the Gospels), it's certainly grounds to TREAT it as blasphemy. "I am the Messiah and have authority over you", not "I am literal God incarnate, plus this other stuff about the King of the Jews." Regardless, even if this wasn't the case, you have not demonstrated that the "ego eimi" here is a divinity claim. The phrase is used all over the place in the Bible by people that aren't claiming divinity, so this instance needs to be distinguished in a meaningful way.
‘Being the son of god is not the same as claiming to be god’ is really important here, given the context of first century Judea and the world at large. Greek and Roman religions were rife with the children of their gods, and many of their leaders were said to be sons of god. Alexander the Great, for instance, declared himself the son of Zeus in Greece, the son of Amun-Ra in Egypt, and the son of Marduk in Persia. It’s a kind of claim to divinity, to be sure, but not a claim to be a god oneself, let alone to be THE god of Israel in the form of a man. Context is important when interacting with ancient documents.
@@bradleyyurk5744 If you want to take it even further, in the Old Testament *David* is referred to as a God's "first-born son" (Psalms), and God tells David that his offspring "will be to me as a son." So even from the Jewish viewpoint, it's not necessarily a claim to divinity, let alone blasphemous.
@@bradleyyurk5744 Greek and Roman religions are also polytheistic with hundreds of gods. Judaism is strict monotheistic, there is ONLY one God, Jesus claiming to be the Son of God is a direct claim to divinity which is only accessible by one Being. Context shows that the religious views of the Jews were incompatible with the views of the Greeks and Romans, not to mention the Old Testament is rife with the Messiah being God. Isaiah 9:6-7 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." Zechariah 12:10 "“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn." Isaiah 40:3 "A voice is calling, “Prepare the way for Yahweh in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God - This is what Mark cites in the first 2 verses of his Gospel account. Mark clearly saw Jesus as Yahweh.
It is very simple.....first of all, the Hebrews were referred to and were defined as Son(s) of God, next Jesus said on several occassions (if the gospels have any truth) that he was the son of man, on top of that in any of the areas that he preached if he had suggested that he was the 'actual' son of god he would of been stoned to death immediately for blaphemy before he went any where near to Jeruslem. More important is if he had declared himself as the son of god then he could of been put to death on going to the Temple, he would of been arrested there and then, as the Roman authorities allowed Jewish autonomy on religeous matters......he would never need to have gone before Pilate as the Prefect for claiming to be the son of god. He went before Herod (who had no authority on religeous matters at all) and the accusation was that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews ie direct threat to Herod (whose family was never excepted as the Kings of the Jews, and nothing about being son of god at all. Then he was taken to Pilate because had they were civilian authority and the claims by the priests levelled against Jesus was that he was creating civil disturbance and insurrection by being the Messiah (the leader that would free Judah from Rome oppression and nothing to do with god) and that he was the King of the Jews....direct threat to the Roman supported proxy King Herod, at a time that Judah was a powder keg of potential revolt in the Levant which was a bigger powder keg (read the histories of the Jewish revolt, its chronology etc). The final part is that the Romans put him to death and the sign on the cross said 'king of the jews' and not 'son of god'. Your only argument is that in John's gospel, which is the most evangelical and questionable gospel(......or was there actually huge singing crosses at the resurrection.....and why is that never highlighted in the easter story?) is the use of I am......which in all the multiple times that thedifferent names of god are used is on a singular basis when applied to be uttered by god. Your arguments and justifications against a video are weak, and you had ample opportunity to find better challenges etc to Bart Erman's comments. Please review this video and maybe do a version 2.0 which has better substance or better let it die by pulling it totally.
Not at all! If someone claims to be God, they'd have to prove it. Jesus proved it through many supernatural acts performed in front of thousands of people. If you then claim, "that's impossible", well, wouldn't a man have to do impossible things to prove he's God?
Jesus, left no writings. Everything in the New Testament attributed to Jesus is not what Jesus said, it is what the authors of the gospels (who are unknown) say Jesus said.
@@thinkcatholic. even the bible itself notes that the Gospels are anonymous. And there is ZERO evidence Jesus could read or write, let alone write an entire book. This is a safe assumption based on the evidence we possess. Denial of these facts is dishonest.
The Gospels are considered anonymous simply because the authors did not sign their name at the bottom of their accounts. We cannot prove with academic certainty that the Gospels were authored by who they are attributed to. However, if we look at the historical evidence, attributing the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John makes the most sense. Some scholars say that the Gospels were all completed by AD 65, and even the most skeptical scholars allow that they were all written by AD 110. Papias, an early church father, notes that Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels in is work that is dated around AD 120. Many other church fathers, including Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, attributed some or all of the Gospels to their traditional authors throughout the second century AD. It is clear that the attribution of the Gospels to their authors was, by ancient history standards, very early; sometimes early enough for the attributer to be a contemporary with the alleged authors. We have no evidence that the Gospels were written by anyone other than their traditional authors. The Bible certainly does not say that the Gospels were intentionally anonymous. In conclusion, we cannot prove completely that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors, just like a child cannot prove that their mother truly loves them and I cannot prove that anyone else is truly conscious. But based on the evidence, if writing the Gospels was a crime, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would certainly be convicted.
Hi creator. The problem you highlight in this video is an interesting one. Because why would most Christians believe that Jesus is God if he doesn’t explicitly say so himself? The reason is that it was only after the death of Jesus that people started believing this. We start seeing it a little in John but more so in the writings that follow (and are not a part of the Bible). You should look more into the scholarly consensus on this topic - I think you’ll find it quite interesting. Dan McClellan has made a few videos on the topic on the trinity and they are absolutely great.
The fact that the Gospels werent written while Jesus was alive is bad enough. The fact that the Gospels were written DECADES after his death by anonymous authors who never met Jesus is even worse. And the fact that John, the last written Gospel, is the most fantastical with miraculous claims not found in the others is exactly what you would expect from a myth growing over time. Sorry but even if the Gospels were written while Jesus was alive by known authors, the fact is that testimony alone is not sufficient to believe that miracles happened. And anonymous testimony written decades after the fact by anonymous authors who weren't there and never met Jesus is ABSOLUTELY NOT sufficient to believe that miracles happened.
Testimony alone is the reason you believe 90% of the info you “know.” And apriori skepticism towards miraculous events is not itself evidence against them.
@@thinkcatholic.Let's assume you're right and 90% of what I know is from testimony alone. How do I know George Washington was the first president? That's what the testimony supports. The difference is that no one says "you must believe that Washington was the first president OR ELSE YOU WILL SUFFER FOR ETERNITY 🔥🔥🔥!" Whether or not Washington was actually the first president doesn't affect my life whatsoever. It could be true. It could be false. It doesn't actually affect my life. Your claim of miracles is the only claim which includes "and you must believe this OR ELSE 🔥🔥🔥", astronomically raising the stakes. And unlike the claim that Washington was the first president, your claim: a) invokes magic and miracles. b) and DOES make claims about how I should live my entire life. And all you have to back it up is hearsay in Gospels written decades after the fact by anonymous authors who never met Jesus followed by a threat of suffering to anyone who doesn't believe the claim? That's it? You expect me to shape my entire life around that? I couldn't be less convinced.
@@thinkcatholic. Also, I never said that miracles were impossible or assumed a priori that they didn't happen. We're talking about the evidence that these miracles occurred being poor. If the Gospels were first hand, eye witness accounts written while Jesus was alive by known authors, that testimony alone STILL wouldn't be enough to conclude that miracles actually happened. Instead the Gospels were anonymously written decades after the events described by unknown authors who never met Jesus and never witnessed the events described. And to think that an omniscient God made the evidence for *the most important thing anyone could possibly believe* this dubious? God made the Golden Ticket to Heaven be: Belief in claims by anonymous authors living 1900 years ago who never met Jesus, describing events they didn't witness, decades after they happened? Gee whiz, I'm not convinced.
@BIayne What are your reasons for saying the authors are anonymous and didn't know Jesus first hand? You mention it alot. And to the point of the decades gap after the events I think it's a disingenuous point when we compare it with other texts people consider accurate in the ancient world, along with the sheer number of manuscripts, none of which having any differences that change the meaning if the text, you can't just ignore it because it wasn't written while Jesus was alive. Plus on the note of the accuracy of eye witness testimony, we need to be honest when making comparisions, my testimony of what I ate last week should not be trusted, but if I was involved in a life changomg event, or of I saw a man raised from the dead, it could be years ago, chances are I'm going to remember the important facts about it.
@@joshuasy10 Have you never heard that the Gospel stories weren't written down for decades after the death of Jesus? The Gospel of Mark dates from AD 66-70. Matthew and Luke around AD 85-90. John AD 90-110. This isn't controversial, this has been known for ages. Every pastor and every priest who ever went to seminary knows this. Besides that, there is no evidence that any of the Gospel writers were eye witnesses. All evidence points to the Gospels being stories told orally for the decades before they were written down by anonymous authors. The names "Mathew, Mark, Luke and John" were attributed to the Gospels in the 2nd Century CE. And even if they Gospels were eyewitness accounts, testimony alone is enough to conclude that a miracle happened. How accurate and how plentiful the manuscripts are says nothing about the veracity of the story they're telling, it just says that the manuscripts were preserved accurately. I didn't say the Gospels were meaningless because they weren't written when Jesus was alive. I said it's "bad enough" that they weren't written when he was alive, as in "it would be much better if they were contemporaneous with the life of Jesus, but they aren't". But even if the Gospels were contemporary to Jesus' life, testimony alone is not sufficient to believe that a miracle happened. Even eye witness testimony, which the Gospels are not. As for your example about a witnessing a life changing event, how would you keep the story you told from mutating as it was told far and wide, even after you had died? You would remember it very vividly, therefore everyone else telling the story would tell it IDENTICALLY to you until the day it was written down 40-110 years later??? Well that's just silly. Silly is the nicest way I can say it. If my wife, who I love and trust, told me that she saw someone miraculously raised from the dead I would need more evidence to believe the claim than her testimony alone. Because my wife could be telling the truth of what she saw *and she could still be wrong* It doesn't matter how much she believes what she saw was miraculous, *she could still be wrong* People can genuinely believe things which are not true without them lying. People can be wrong. Now imagine my wife told me that she heard that in the 1950s, someone she never met was miraculously raised from the dead and she knows it's true because someone who also wasn't there told her so. That's the Gospels.
If Jesus Christ really went around Israel telling people he was God, it would have been recorded in the Bible in a straightforward, direct and unconfusing way. There are a lot of sayings, deeds and teachings of Jesus that was recorded in the Bible in a straight forward, direct and unconfusing manner. There is no reason why him calling himself God ought not to have been recorded in the same way, if he really went about calling himself God. I think God would have ensured that something as mind blowing, huge and consequential as Jesus saying I am God would have been captured in the Bible is a way that everyone can understand it and digest it. For example, the Ten Commandments which were huge and very consequential within the context of the time it was revealed to Moses were all communicated by God in a straightforward way and manner that every can easily understand and comply with. So why should Jesus saying I am God be any different? In any event, the fact that you have to do a lot of mental and word gymnastic ma to put the words I am God on Jesus lips clearly defeats your argument. God is not an agent of confusion. I don’t think God will reveal a message in a book he sanctioned to people when the said message is not clear, direct or can be subject to people’s creative interpretation. That defeats the whole message.
Chapter XV *Christ Not God, But the Son of God* When Simon heard this, he said: “Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders.” And Peter answered: “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe.” And Simon answered: “Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?” And Peter said: “Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him. *Homily XV1 chapter XV Clementine Homilies*
I concur with Prof.Ehrman on his view. The words in Mark 14;62 are not his words, because if you look at Mark14:35, why would he be talking to God if he is God?
@@thinkcatholic. Trinity is nowhere in the bible, and introduced in the 3rd century by Tertullian. God is triune? So why does Jesus sound subordinate when speaking of God? or is God speaking of himself? Mat.24:36 ?
8:54 I belive Ehrman says that he wasn't put to death by the Romans for claiming to be God. The Romans wouldn't care about that claim. Instead they were concerned about his political claim of being the King of the Jews.
Well done brother, yes Caiphas accuses Jesus of claiming to be God (which Jesus admits in Mark 14) but then accuses Jesus of being a King in front of the Roman’s to provoke the death penalty. See the short “the trial” on this channel.
Just fyi... Jesus was not a person. Jesus was the magic mushroom 🍄. If you want to understand Christianity you have to understand the psychedelic journey.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Only fools revere the myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics could believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
Trent Horn also released a video on this (Erhman’s bad arguments go on tour). Laughable claims and quickly refuted, but I do love Erhmans work on proving the historical reality of Jesus
10:32 The term "70 weeks of years" that you use, does not appear in Daniel. Daniel 9:24-26 foresees the coming of the Messiah in "70 weeks" or, in a more open translation, "in seventy sevens". The latter may refer to days, weeks, years, centuries, millenniums. What is for sure, is that after the "seventy weeks" timeline passed unfruitful, the next obvious interpretation of Daniel 9:24-26 would concern seventy sevens of years. It was also a little after Herod (an Edomite himself) had seized power in Jerusalem with the help of the Romans. According to Isaiah 11:14, the Jews under the guidance of the "Branch From Jesse" would "subdue Edom and Moab" and not the opposite. According to Isaiah 11:10 (Septuagint translation) the Elevated would "rule over the nations" and not the opposite. And according to Daniel 9:24, the Jews would have to end "sin and transgression" so that the Anointed One would come. The times were ripe for both - or so some people thought...
John 8:58: Jesus declares, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Here, Jesus uses the divine name "I AM" (the name God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14), indicating his eternal existence and divine identity.
Frankly speaking I hardly care. If Jesus indeed claimed to be divine he was even a worse scatterbrain than I already thought - being a messias claimant already was bad enough.
Jesus didn't claim in the gospels that he was God in the same way the God of the old testament didn't claim... he proclaimed the following = Mark 14 v62 "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." Im Reminded of the Serpent talking to eve when I listen to Barts specific conclusions.
If you read every single thing that Jesus is quoted as having said himself in the canonical gospels, not only does he NEVER say that he is God, who he refers to as his FATHER, but many things he says totally contradict the idea. How for example can Jesus say that God has knowledge which he himself does not have? How can he ask why God ha forsaken him on the cross if he IS God? This idea of Jesus being God is totally contradictory to Jesus's own teaching. For example he taught us to pray to OUR father, not he himself.
Jesus claim to be the Father in the flesh : John14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” 8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’ IF YOU SEE JESUS YOU THE THE FATHER (in the flesh)
It's actually all over the synoptics: Mt.11:27. All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No knows the Father but the Son.... Ehrhman fails in his scholarship: by his own standard he states Jesus is not going to say these things overtly, so he does make a statements of his divinity with care and subtlety and yet Bart rejects or does not acknowledge these things. Again he's a failed scholar.
Bart ehrman a man with a PhD on textual criticisms. Bart Ehrman a man who studied under bruce metzger a man who is the leading scholar in Christianity and its texts for the past 200 years and we have random people disputing scholars of such regard. Bart Ehrman: its my experience for many decades of research and studying in my field that Jesus did not claim to be god . Random TH-camr: i think he is wrong😂. That is why society is messed up the educated are ridiculed by the foolish
@@thinkcatholic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however it must be noted that a scholars opinion will always Trump and have more value than the average person with blind faith. If there is any honesty in one self they should accept the fact that not only are these books written by anonymous people it also has alot of forgeries, pornography as well as tales that are made up by these writers. For example when one of the gospel writers says the dead saints woke up from their graves and walked . Really zombies walking in the world and only one person reported it. It's because of these fabrications the world of Christianity crumbles when studied
@@thinkcatholic. very telling reply. should have stated that earlier, would have saved people the time of wondering if you were actually approaching the question logically and empirically rather than with motivated reasoning and presupposition
No your church was created by Paul (not Jesus or Peter), who never was a disciple of Jesus, never met Jesus, never attended his sermons, was never part of the original fellowship, did not know or speak to key figures of the 'jeruslem' church like James, Timothy, Mary, Thomas etc...and had one meeting with Peter, and forgot to tell anyone about what Peter said, his recollections, his views etc......you rely on Paulin propaganda of Paul and his spin doctor Luke. Indoctrinised much?
@@pmcginnessSaying the bible is open for interpretation is foolish, if it’s open for interpretation then you can just say that the snake in the garden of Eden is a good entity because it was freeing humanity From the selfish claws and tyrannical claws of god.
@@pxritus If it's not open to any level of interpretation then why doctrinal disagreements? The only thing foolish is your reply. And "foolish" isn't strong enough of a descriptor. But it works.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr. Ehrman helped convinced me on this point. He's a great scholar.
He is incorrect unfortunately.
@@thinkcatholic. I don't think so. The scriptures are open to interpretation on all sorts of points. I'm about halfway through How Jesus Became God and it's an interesting read. Try it if you haven't!
I agree, Jesus thought he was the Jewish Messiah, not the son of God..
Bart is right.
Bart has a more accurate description of reality.
These questions have already been debated and decided by the early Christians. This guy, 2000 years removed from Jesus, isn't clever or intelligently interpreting Scripture. He's a heretic repeating heretical nonsense. I'm almost embarrassed for him, but there are too many like him that use simplistic arguments without academically honest Biblical scholarship. He's just click bate. No substance.
In Mark 14:62, Jesus is just answering the question, "are you the Messiah?" to which "I am" is a reasonable response. Whenever I say, "I am" to someone, I'm not claiming to be God. He's not claiming to be God, he's saying he's the Messiah.
Jesus he is messenger of god
The idea of "ego eimi" in Mark (14:62) being a claim to divinity seems devoid of context. Jesus is answering the question of the high priest: "are you Christ, Son of the Blessed?" To which Jesus says "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power."
If we're interested in a plain reading here, "I am" is not a claim of godhood, but an affirmation of being the son of God, which is NOT the same as claiming to be God.
Your explanation does not match the accusation of blasphemy.
@@thinkcatholic. You don't need to claim to be God to blaspheme. Quoting the scriptures of Daniel 7:13 ("coming with the clouds of heaven") and Psalms 110:1 (The Lord said to my Lord "Sit at my right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool") to not only rebuke the priesthood, but to claim to be the Jewish Messiah (remember, the Jews believe this to be a separate figure from God) AND to imply that because they treat Jesus as an enemy God will make the Sanhedrin Jesus' footstool, would absolutely qualify as blasphemy in their eyes-or, if the Sanhedrin were to be treated as corrupt (implied elsewhere in the Gospels), it's certainly grounds to TREAT it as blasphemy. "I am the Messiah and have authority over you", not "I am literal God incarnate, plus this other stuff about the King of the Jews."
Regardless, even if this wasn't the case, you have not demonstrated that the "ego eimi" here is a divinity claim. The phrase is used all over the place in the Bible by people that aren't claiming divinity, so this instance needs to be distinguished in a meaningful way.
‘Being the son of god is not the same as claiming to be god’ is really important here, given the context of first century Judea and the world at large. Greek and Roman religions were rife with the children of their gods, and many of their leaders were said to be sons of god. Alexander the Great, for instance, declared himself the son of Zeus in Greece, the son of Amun-Ra in Egypt, and the son of Marduk in Persia. It’s a kind of claim to divinity, to be sure, but not a claim to be a god oneself, let alone to be THE god of Israel in the form of a man. Context is important when interacting with ancient documents.
@@bradleyyurk5744 If you want to take it even further, in the Old Testament *David* is referred to as a God's "first-born son" (Psalms), and God tells David that his offspring "will be to me as a son." So even from the Jewish viewpoint, it's not necessarily a claim to divinity, let alone blasphemous.
@@bradleyyurk5744 Greek and Roman religions are also polytheistic with hundreds of gods. Judaism is strict monotheistic, there is ONLY one God, Jesus claiming to be the Son of God is a direct claim to divinity which is only accessible by one Being. Context shows that the religious views of the Jews were incompatible with the views of the Greeks and Romans, not to mention the Old Testament is rife with the Messiah being God.
Isaiah 9:6-7 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
Zechariah 12:10 "“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."
Isaiah 40:3 "A voice is calling, “Prepare the way for Yahweh in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God - This is what Mark cites in the first 2 verses of his Gospel account. Mark clearly saw Jesus as Yahweh.
Your wrong. He was claiming to be king not god and was what did him in.
You’re*
It is very simple.....first of all, the Hebrews were referred to and were defined as Son(s) of God, next Jesus said on several occassions (if the gospels have any truth) that he was the son of man, on top of that in any of the areas that he preached if he had suggested that he was the 'actual' son of god he would of been stoned to death immediately for blaphemy before he went any where near to Jeruslem. More important is if he had declared himself as the son of god then he could of been put to death on going to the Temple, he would of been arrested there and then, as the Roman authorities allowed Jewish autonomy on religeous matters......he would never need to have gone before Pilate as the Prefect for claiming to be the son of god. He went before Herod (who had no authority on religeous matters at all) and the accusation was that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews ie direct threat to Herod (whose family was never excepted as the Kings of the Jews, and nothing about being son of god at all. Then he was taken to Pilate because had they were civilian authority and the claims by the priests levelled against Jesus was that he was creating civil disturbance and insurrection by being the Messiah (the leader that would free Judah from Rome oppression and nothing to do with god) and that he was the King of the Jews....direct threat to the Roman supported proxy King Herod, at a time that Judah was a powder keg of potential revolt in the Levant which was a bigger powder keg (read the histories of the Jewish revolt, its chronology etc). The final part is that the Romans put him to death and the sign on the cross said 'king of the jews' and not 'son of god'.
Your only argument is that in John's gospel, which is the most evangelical and questionable gospel(......or was there actually huge singing crosses at the resurrection.....and why is that never highlighted in the easter story?) is the use of I am......which in all the multiple times that thedifferent names of god are used is on a singular basis when applied to be uttered by god.
Your arguments and justifications against a video are weak, and you had ample opportunity to find better challenges etc to Bart Erman's comments. Please review this video and maybe do a version 2.0 which has better substance or better let it die by pulling it totally.
You may be right in saying that Jesus did claim to be God.
It's another HUGE leap to believe that he actually was.
A man is a pathetic grain of dust compared to the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.
Not at all! If someone claims to be God, they'd have to prove it. Jesus proved it through many supernatural acts performed in front of thousands of people. If you then claim, "that's impossible", well, wouldn't a man have to do impossible things to prove he's God?
@@objectivereality1392 Sure.
How do you know that any of the miraculous things that are attributed to Jesus are true?
Jesus, left no writings. Everything in the New Testament attributed
to Jesus is not what Jesus said, it is what the authors of the gospels (who are unknown) say Jesus said.
This is an assertion.
@@thinkcatholic. An assertion? Who wrote the gospels? Where can we read the writings of Jesus?
@@thinkcatholic. That's what the scholars say. Yes, it's an assertion, backed by scholars.
@@thinkcatholic. even the bible itself notes that the Gospels are anonymous. And there is ZERO evidence Jesus could read or write, let alone write an entire book. This is a safe assumption based on the evidence we possess. Denial of these facts is dishonest.
The Gospels are considered anonymous simply because the authors did not sign their name at the bottom of their accounts. We cannot prove with academic certainty that the Gospels were authored by who they are attributed to. However, if we look at the historical evidence, attributing the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John makes the most sense.
Some scholars say that the Gospels were all completed by AD 65, and even the most skeptical scholars allow that they were all written by AD 110. Papias, an early church father, notes that Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels in is work that is dated around AD 120. Many other church fathers, including Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, attributed some or all of the Gospels to their traditional authors throughout the second century AD. It is clear that the attribution of the Gospels to their authors was, by ancient history standards, very early; sometimes early enough for the attributer to be a contemporary with the alleged authors.
We have no evidence that the Gospels were written by anyone other than their traditional authors. The Bible certainly does not say that the Gospels were intentionally anonymous.
In conclusion, we cannot prove completely that the Gospels were written by their traditional authors, just like a child cannot prove that their mother truly loves them and I cannot prove that anyone else is truly conscious. But based on the evidence, if writing the Gospels was a crime, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would certainly be convicted.
Hi creator. The problem you highlight in this video is an interesting one. Because why would most Christians believe that Jesus is God if he doesn’t explicitly say so himself? The reason is that it was only after the death of Jesus that people started believing this. We start seeing it a little in John but more so in the writings that follow (and are not a part of the Bible). You should look more into the scholarly consensus on this topic - I think you’ll find it quite interesting. Dan McClellan has made a few videos on the topic on the trinity and they are absolutely great.
The fact that the Gospels werent written while Jesus was alive is bad enough.
The fact that the Gospels were written DECADES after his death by anonymous authors who never met Jesus is even worse.
And the fact that John, the last written Gospel, is the most fantastical with miraculous claims not found in the others is exactly what you would expect from a myth growing over time.
Sorry but even if the Gospels were written while Jesus was alive by known authors, the fact is that testimony alone is not sufficient to believe that miracles happened.
And anonymous testimony written decades after the fact by anonymous authors who weren't there and never met Jesus is ABSOLUTELY NOT sufficient to believe that miracles happened.
Testimony alone is the reason you believe 90% of the info you “know.” And apriori skepticism towards miraculous events is not itself evidence against them.
@@thinkcatholic.Let's assume you're right and 90% of what I know is from testimony alone.
How do I know George Washington was the first president?
That's what the testimony supports.
The difference is that no one says "you must believe that Washington was the first president OR ELSE YOU WILL SUFFER FOR ETERNITY 🔥🔥🔥!"
Whether or not Washington was actually the first president doesn't affect my life whatsoever.
It could be true.
It could be false.
It doesn't actually affect my life.
Your claim of miracles is the only claim which includes "and you must believe this OR ELSE 🔥🔥🔥", astronomically raising the stakes.
And unlike the claim that Washington was the first president, your claim:
a) invokes magic and miracles.
b) and DOES make claims about how I should live my entire life.
And all you have to back it up is hearsay in Gospels written decades after the fact by anonymous authors who never met Jesus followed by a threat of suffering to anyone who doesn't believe the claim?
That's it?
You expect me to shape my entire life around that?
I couldn't be less convinced.
@@thinkcatholic. Also, I never said that miracles were impossible or assumed a priori that they didn't happen.
We're talking about the evidence that these miracles occurred being poor.
If the Gospels were first hand, eye witness accounts written while Jesus was alive by known authors, that testimony alone STILL wouldn't be enough to conclude that miracles actually happened.
Instead the Gospels were anonymously written decades after the events described by unknown authors who never met Jesus and never witnessed the events described.
And to think that an omniscient God made the evidence for *the most important thing anyone could possibly believe* this dubious?
God made the Golden Ticket to Heaven be:
Belief in claims by anonymous authors living 1900 years ago who never met Jesus, describing events they didn't witness, decades after they happened?
Gee whiz, I'm not convinced.
@BIayne What are your reasons for saying the authors are anonymous and didn't know Jesus first hand? You mention it alot.
And to the point of the decades gap after the events I think it's a disingenuous point when we compare it with other texts people consider accurate in the ancient world, along with the sheer number of manuscripts, none of which having any differences that change the meaning if the text, you can't just ignore it because it wasn't written while Jesus was alive.
Plus on the note of the accuracy of eye witness testimony, we need to be honest when making comparisions, my testimony of what I ate last week should not be trusted, but if I was involved in a life changomg event, or of I saw a man raised from the dead, it could be years ago, chances are I'm going to remember the important facts about it.
@@joshuasy10 Have you never heard that the Gospel stories weren't written down for decades after the death of Jesus?
The Gospel of Mark dates from AD 66-70.
Matthew and Luke around AD 85-90. John AD 90-110.
This isn't controversial, this has been known for ages. Every pastor and every priest who ever went to seminary knows this.
Besides that, there is no evidence that any of the Gospel writers were eye witnesses. All evidence points to the Gospels being stories told orally for the decades before they were written down by anonymous authors.
The names "Mathew, Mark, Luke and John" were attributed to the Gospels in the 2nd Century CE.
And even if they Gospels were eyewitness accounts, testimony alone is enough to conclude that a miracle happened.
How accurate and how plentiful the manuscripts are says nothing about the veracity of the story they're telling, it just says that the manuscripts were preserved accurately.
I didn't say the Gospels were meaningless because they weren't written when Jesus was alive.
I said it's "bad enough" that they weren't written when he was alive, as in "it would be much better if they were contemporaneous with the life of Jesus, but they aren't".
But even if the Gospels were contemporary to Jesus' life, testimony alone is not sufficient to believe that a miracle happened.
Even eye witness testimony, which the Gospels are not.
As for your example about a witnessing a life changing event, how would you keep the story you told from mutating as it was told far and wide, even after you had died?
You would remember it very vividly, therefore everyone else telling the story would tell it IDENTICALLY to you until the day it was written down 40-110 years later???
Well that's just silly.
Silly is the nicest way I can say it.
If my wife, who I love and trust, told me that she saw someone miraculously raised from the dead I would need more evidence to believe the claim than her testimony alone.
Because my wife could be telling the truth of what she saw *and she could still be wrong*
It doesn't matter how much she believes what she saw was miraculous, *she could still be wrong*
People can genuinely believe things which are not true without them lying.
People can be wrong.
Now imagine my wife told me that she heard that in the 1950s, someone she never met was miraculously raised from the dead and she knows it's true because someone who also wasn't there told her so.
That's the Gospels.
If Jesus Christ really went around Israel telling people he was God, it would have been recorded in the Bible in a straightforward, direct and unconfusing way.
There are a lot of sayings, deeds and teachings of Jesus that was recorded in the Bible in a straight forward, direct and unconfusing manner. There is no reason why him calling himself God ought not to have been recorded in the same way, if he really went about calling himself God.
I think God would have ensured that something as mind blowing, huge and consequential as Jesus saying I am God would have been captured in the Bible is a way that everyone can understand it and digest it. For example, the Ten Commandments which were huge and very consequential within the context of the time it was revealed to Moses were all communicated by God in a straightforward way and manner that every can easily understand and comply with. So why should Jesus saying I am God be any different?
In any event, the fact that you have to do a lot of mental and word gymnastic ma to put the words I am God on Jesus lips clearly defeats your argument. God is not an agent of confusion. I don’t think God will reveal a message in a book he sanctioned to people when the said message is not clear, direct or can be subject to people’s creative interpretation. That defeats the whole message.
He actually did...read the Bible again. He said several times...congratulations you're idiot.
He wasn't god that's why
Chapter XV *Christ Not God, But the Son of God*
When Simon heard this, he said: “Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders.” And Peter answered: “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe.” And Simon answered: “Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?” And Peter said: “Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him.
*Homily XV1 chapter XV Clementine Homilies*
I concur with Prof.Ehrman on his view. The words in Mark 14;62 are not his words, because if you look at Mark14:35, why would he be talking to God if he is God?
Because God is Triune.
@@thinkcatholic. Trinity is nowhere in the bible, and introduced in the 3rd century by Tertullian. God is triune? So why does Jesus sound subordinate when speaking of God? or is God speaking of himself? Mat.24:36 ?
8:54 I belive Ehrman says that he wasn't put to death by the Romans for claiming to be God. The Romans wouldn't care about that claim. Instead they were concerned about his political claim of being the King of the Jews.
Well done brother, yes Caiphas accuses Jesus of claiming to be God (which Jesus admits in Mark 14) but then accuses Jesus of being a King in front of the Roman’s to provoke the death penalty. See the short “the trial” on this channel.
Just fyi... Jesus was not a person. Jesus was the magic mushroom 🍄. If you want to understand Christianity you have to understand the psychedelic journey.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Only fools revere the myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what lunatics could believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
Trent Horn also released a video on this (Erhman’s bad arguments go on tour). Laughable claims and quickly refuted, but I do love Erhmans work on proving the historical reality of Jesus
10:32 The term "70 weeks of years" that you use, does not appear in Daniel. Daniel 9:24-26 foresees the coming of the Messiah in "70 weeks" or, in a more open translation, "in seventy sevens". The latter may refer to days, weeks, years, centuries, millenniums.
What is for sure, is that after the "seventy weeks" timeline passed unfruitful, the next obvious interpretation of Daniel 9:24-26 would concern seventy sevens of years. It was also a little after Herod (an Edomite himself) had seized power in Jerusalem with the help of the Romans.
According to Isaiah 11:14, the Jews under the guidance of the "Branch From Jesse" would "subdue Edom and Moab" and not the opposite. According to Isaiah 11:10 (Septuagint translation) the Elevated would "rule over the nations" and not the opposite. And according to Daniel 9:24, the Jews would have to end "sin and transgression" so that the Anointed One would come. The times were ripe for both - or so some people thought...
John 8:58: Jesus declares, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Here, Jesus uses the divine name "I AM" (the name God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14), indicating his eternal existence and divine identity.
when it's not stated in the bible, he is not god.
conjecture and subjective are the culture of christianity.
Frankly speaking I hardly care. If Jesus indeed claimed to be divine he was even a worse scatterbrain than I already thought - being a messias claimant already was bad enough.
In Jewish tradition only God can forgive sin. Jesus forgave sin.
I Think I Could Make a Better Case for Both Sides of The Question
God bless you!
Jesus didn't claim in the gospels that he was God in the same way the God of the old testament didn't claim... he proclaimed the following =
Mark 14 v62 "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."
Im Reminded of the Serpent talking to eve when I listen to Barts specific conclusions.
If you read every single thing that Jesus is quoted as having said himself in the canonical gospels, not only does he NEVER say that he is God, who he refers to as his FATHER, but many things he says totally contradict the idea. How for example can Jesus say that God has knowledge which he himself does not have? How can he ask why God ha forsaken him on the cross if he IS God? This idea of Jesus being God is totally contradictory to Jesus's own teaching. For example he taught us to pray to OUR father, not he himself.
I would recommend watching the video.
@@thinkcatholic. Yes but I doubt it will put Jesus correct. I go only by the teachings of Jesus not by the teachings of men.
God said my name is I am that 😂I am Jesus over and over said (I am ) the light over and over I am.
John 10:30: Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." This statement directly asserts his unity with God the Father, indicating his divine nature.
Jesus claim to be the Father in the flesh :
John14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’
IF YOU SEE JESUS YOU THE THE FATHER (in the flesh)
It's actually all over the synoptics: Mt.11:27. All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No knows the Father but the Son.... Ehrhman fails in his scholarship: by his own standard he states Jesus is not going to say these things overtly, so he does make a statements of his divinity with care and subtlety and yet Bart rejects or does not acknowledge these things. Again he's a failed scholar.
You lack credibility sir. Bart is correct.
Bart ehrman a man with a PhD on textual criticisms. Bart Ehrman a man who studied under bruce metzger a man who is the leading scholar in Christianity and its texts for the past 200 years and we have random people disputing scholars of such regard.
Bart Ehrman: its my experience for many decades of research and studying in my field that Jesus did not claim to be god .
Random TH-camr: i think he is wrong😂.
That is why society is messed up the educated are ridiculed by the foolish
In so far as someone disagrees with the Church established by Christ, he cannot be correct.
@@thinkcatholic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion however it must be noted that a scholars opinion will always Trump and have more value than the average person with blind faith. If there is any honesty in one self they should accept the fact that not only are these books written by anonymous people it also has alot of forgeries, pornography as well as tales that are made up by these writers. For example when one of the gospel writers says the dead saints woke up from their graves and walked . Really zombies walking in the world and only one person reported it. It's because of these fabrications the world of Christianity crumbles when studied
@@thinkcatholic. very telling reply. should have stated that earlier, would have saved people the time of wondering if you were actually approaching the question logically and empirically rather than with motivated reasoning and presupposition
No your church was created by Paul (not Jesus or Peter), who never was a disciple of Jesus, never met Jesus, never attended his sermons, was never part of the original fellowship, did not know or speak to key figures of the 'jeruslem' church like James, Timothy, Mary, Thomas etc...and had one meeting with Peter, and forgot to tell anyone about what Peter said, his recollections, his views etc......you rely on Paulin propaganda of Paul and his spin doctor Luke. Indoctrinised much?
Prophet Behrman (pbuh) is often wrong
Thank you for this comment
@@kongziarusu8518 Well, the scriptures are wide open to interpretations and we're not getting celestial clarifications from God.
@@pmcginnessSaying the bible is open for interpretation is foolish, if it’s open for interpretation then you can just say that the snake in the garden of Eden is a good entity because it was freeing humanity From the selfish claws and tyrannical claws of god.
@@pxritus If it's not open to any level of interpretation then why doctrinal disagreements? The only thing foolish is your reply. And "foolish" isn't strong enough of a descriptor. But it works.