No thanks, it appears that much of what is said are mere speculations on his part and his thoughts/feelings. Two person examining the exact same set of facts, may come to two very different conclusions. How can this be? All of us, as fallen humans, are at war with the God who created us. All of us have an enmity toward God that must first be removed if we are ever going to see the evidence clearly. Evidence is a matter of objective truth, proof is in the mind of the evaluator, and many of you resist the truth in spite of many evidence that goes against your narrative. We can offer evidence all day long: facts about eyewitness testimony, archeological verification, scientific harmony and even probabilities, but none of this will serve as proof unless you first change your heart. I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. (Proverbs 8:17) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28) To seek God with all our heart is fundamental to God’s revealing himself to us (Jer. 29:13). As the philosopher & famous pascal Blaise Pascal put it: Willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition. But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. (Deuteronomy 4:29) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and *my thoughts than your thoughts*. (Isaiah 55:8-9) If you look at your faith you will look in vain. If you look to him, knowing you have insufficient faith, and you do not consider your faith or the lack thereof, he will receive you as you are, having less faith than a grain of finely ground pepper. He will then call you his own. Then your faith is not in your faith; it is in his faithfulness. Then you have entered the world of biblical faith-all praise to him and no brag on our part. The disciples wanted more faith, and Jesus’ answer indicated they were barking up the wrong tree. We relate to God with so little faith that he has to make up the difference with the blood he shed on the cross. It is not the quantity of faith that moves God, it is the heart focus. A tiny amount of faith fixed on the all-sufficient grace of God will not move a mountain, but it will guarantee us a place on Mt. Calvary where our sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus. It is not how much faith we have, it is how much our faithless hearts are dependent upon him. The grace of God covers every sin except unbelief. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). The Bible teaches security of the believer. It does not teach security of the unbeliever. Properly understood, Bible doctrine espouses that sinners are saved by believing, and those who continue to believe are the same ones who will be saved in the end. The Bible message is that great sinners are saved by a little faith-ever trusting in his finished work while repudiating personal works as of any value to produce or maintain salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 4:5; 11:6).
Looking at archeo-genetic facts like other such facts points out that Jews are a Greek like Mediterranean SeaPeople that intruded in to Eastern Mediterranean coastal line and adopted various alphabets, stories, identities...from local people.As such there is NO evidence of them being a pastoral, warrior, tribal alliance called ISRAELITES at all further questioning the whole Greek-Jewish copy cat culture and they intentions.
The Messiah did not start Christianity. The greco-roman philosophers concocted it from their own imaginations after listening to the Followers they persecuted.
My wife just said you don't understand women's behavior. The women are frightened and run away without saying anything to anyone. But they still tell their best friend. Who only tells her best friend. Who only tells her best friend and the next day, everyone in the market knows it.😄
@@urmasalas right...human nature has not changed that much. And the game of telephone (let alone other experiments on cognition and eye witness testimony unreliability) easily demonstrate that what you hear from a friend, of a friend, of a friend, of a friend...is not reliable. ESPECIALLY when 'recorded, by someone over 60 years after the fact, and with an agenda/purpose/goal of the writing. So women's behavior aside (which, is not a scientific statement to begin with)...zero reliability or ability to even call it evidence with a lower case 'e'.
Don't commit murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't bear false witness. Don't defraud. I love that because those are the commandments that the money hungry usually breaks the most.
@@joshchurch785 If you want to know the truth, he was an apocalyptic preacher, one of many. When he was crucified, his followers, in trying to make sense of this, came up with the redemption story. Which is not what Jesus was preaching. So , no god, no messiah, and No redemption, just a story
*_”THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT,” Jesus answered, “is THIS: ‘Hear O Israel! The Lord OUR GOD, the Lord is ONE!’”_* _(Mark 12:29)_ *_Jesus said, “Why do you call ME good? No one is good but GOD ALONE!”_* _(Mark 10:18)_ *_Jesus said, “Father...now THIS is Eternal Life: that they know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus the Messiah whom YOU HAVE SENT!”_* _(John 17:3)_ *_”Followers of the Bible-do not go too far in your theology, and do not say anything about God but the truth! The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is only God’s messenger, as well as His word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him! So believe in God and His messengers, and do not speak of a trinity! Stop it-it is for your own good! God is one sole divinity, who is far above having a son! He owns everything in the heavens and everything on earth! And God is able to manage it all on His own!”_* _(The Qur’an, Sūrah 4:171)_
It would these days, but it would be called history in ancient Rome. Most of historical biographies of antiquity were written hundreds of years after the person died such as that of Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plutarch, etc. The gospel of Mark was written about 40 years after Jesus' death which is remarkably close to the actual events it portrayed and when eyewitnesses were still alive.
@@DavidS_Tanbased on what I have learned and read, the actual author of Mark isn’t known and did not personally witness the life or death of Jesus. Nor is there any record of any other actual witnesses. All accounts of the gospels were stories passed down, and none were actual witnesses. But, I may be wrong.
@@TheIndianTree Nothing wrong with mythicism. It's well established that there is no physical evidence of Jesus. Even many scholars state that there was no one man named Jesus the bible was based on and instead he was a composite character. Which is the same thing as saying he was fictional which is the same thing as mythicism
@@TheIndianTree *Do you think all the secular scholars are simply lying. Some of them even go as far as saying the fact he existed and was crucified is one of the most certain facts of history* Majority of scholars who say Jesus definitely existed are Christians who work for religious organizations and probably signed a statement of faith as a requirement of their employment. You're not going to get an objective viewpoint from them especially if they're already believers. So leaving out all these scholars who are Christians who are associated/employed by religious organizations, you're left with a lot less scholars than you think who believe Jesus was definitely real. And of course, without EVIDENCE, any scholar who is CERTAIN Jesus was real, is lying. No scholar worth his sheepskin will say for sure Jesus did. They have no evidence, only conjecture that he did. Look up their arguments. See what they offer as "proof". All you're going to get is their theories. The most the honest ones will say is Jesus _probably_ existed, but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible. But of course, saying a Jew in 1st century ce Judea name of Yeshua existed, is like saying James Bond existed in the UK, when you're really wanting to imply the super spy James Bond. It becomes a moot point.
@@TheIndianTree What archeological evidence?? There’s no first century evidence of him. The New Testament was put together in the third century. There’s no first century evidence of him. No Roman records, no hieroglyphics, no statues, no archeological evidence anywhere. This man that supposedly did all these miracles etc and no one recorded it?? All the first century philosophers living in the first century and never mention Jesus in their writings?? There’s tons of evidence for Constantine and Cesar and lots of first century historical figures. Yet absolutely not one piece of evidence for Jesus?? Little odd don’t u think?
Love how the scholarship is progressing in New Testament studies. MythVision is providing great exposure to scholarship that would not be available or accessible otherwise
What stikes me, is that it took near 2k years. When I think of all the conspiricy theories out there that are mostly propagated by christains, moon landing, flat earth, are examples, yet the real conspiricy is the bible 😂👍
Yet early Christian works show.. It is said that each one of the twelve and of the seventy wrote a Gospel; but in order that there might be no contention and that the p. 115 number of 'Acts' might not be multiplied, the apostles adopted a plan and chose two of the seventy, Luke and Mark, and two of the twelve, Matthew and John.
@red watch mine is this.. CHAPTER XLVIII2. OF THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES, AND OF THE PLACES OF EACH ONE OF THEM, AND OF THEIR DEATHS3. NEXT we write the excellent discourse composed by Mâr Eusebius of Caesarea upon the places and families of the holy apostles
@red watch also from that I have note each tribe Simon, the chief of the apostles, was from Bethsaida, of the tribe of Naphtali. He first preached in Antioch, and built there the first of all churches, which was in the house of Cassianus, whose son he restored to life. He remained there one year, and there the disciples were called Christians. From thence he went to Rome, where he remained for twenty-seven years; and in the three hundred and seventy-sixth year of the Greeks, the wicked Nero crucified him head downwards James, the brother of John, preached in his city Bethsaida, and built a church there. Herod Agrippas slew him with the sword one year after the Ascension of our Lord. He was laid in Âkâr, a city of Marmârîkâ2. Philip also was from Bethsaida, of the tribe of Asher. He preached in Phrygia, Pamphylia and Pisidia; he built a church in Pisidia, and died and was buried there. He lived twenty-seven years as an apostle3. Thomas was from Jerusalem, of the tribe of Judah. He taught the Parthians, Medes and Indians4; and because he baptised the daughter of the king of the Indians, he stabbed him with a spear and he died5. Andrew his brother preached in Scythia and Nicomedia and Achaia. He built a church in Byzantium, and there he died and was buried. John the son of Zebedee (Zabhdai) was also from Bethsaida, of the tribe of Zebulun. Simon Zelôtes was from Galilee, of the tribe of Ephraim. He preached in Shemêshât (Samosâta), Pârîn (Perrhê), Zeugma, Hâlâb (Aleppo), Mabbôg (Manbig), and Kenneshrîn (Kinnesrîn). He built a church in Kyrrhos, and died and was buried there9. James, the son of Alphaeus (Halphai), was from the Jordan, of the tribe of Manasseh. He preached in Tadmor (Palmyra), Kirkêsion p. 107 (Kirkîsiyâ), and Callinîcos (ar-Rakkah), and came to Batnân of Serûg (Sarûg), where he built a church, and died and was buried there1. Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, was from the town of Sekharyût of the tribe of Gad, though some say that he was of the tribe of Dan.
Well now, let’s be honest, the New Testament, I’d argue, that the Gospels themselves, outside of the Epistles are certainly the most influential writings of all time.
@@I-AmTheLiquor Depends on the definition of "influential". As stories and literacy, one could argue that the Greek epics are more influential, since they heavily influenced the Gospels themselves. Perhaps when measured in something like human suffering and the justification for it, then sure, they could be considered the most "influential".
The fact that Mark ends with the empty tomb is Mark's way of saying, as others said of Roman deities, that Jesus was also a god, since his body was missing. Just as Asclepius went missing and the bodies of other Greco-Roman figures went missing, he ended his story abruptly with the 'young man' telling the women 'he is risen. He is not here'. 'Risen' as in he rose upwards into the sky and that's why 'He is not here'. I think what we have in the gospel stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus is an amalgamation of historical stories and mythic themes. The historical part would be that this wannabe Messiah did manage to historically get himself crucified. The mythic theme is that he was deified when he resurrected and ascended on high just like Romulus and others. So they took the story of some guy who had a following, spoke in parables (easy to do really), probably performed magic tricks that looked like miracles, caused a stir in Jerusalem which put him on the Roman radar, and got himself crucified (probably had Messianic tendencies). So, they attached the story of a resurrection and ascension to prove that he really was a god (or the Messiah) because you just...couldn't...kill him! The gospels are historical docu-dramas. A mix of fact and fiction.
Excellent comment. I have an hypothesis to add to it. Suppose that at the time Mark wrote there was not yet any firm tradition that Jesus had risen from the dead, but that the followers of his cult were still struggling with the cognitive dissonance that comes from their messianic teacher, whom they had expected to bring about God's millennium, having been executed. So Mark came up with the idea (or maybe took the idea from some vague popular memes that were beginning to form), "Hey, he's not really dead. He rose up into the sky, and leads us still." Hence, he created the story of the women being told this news by the young man at the tomb. That left Mark with the problem of explaining why no one, or very few, had heard about this before. Solution: say that the women ran away and told no one, because they were afraid. In this hypothesis, the women are simply a literary device for adding the idea of the resurrection to the biographical narrative, and the bit about their telling no one was a way of explaining why many people hadn't heard this idea before. Or, if there were already stories about resurrected Jesus talking to his disciples, but that Mark thought these stories were widely disrespected, this was his way of distancing himself from them while preserving the idea of resurrection itself. Of course the issue of how anyone was supposed to have learned about it at all was left hanging. But a smart propagandist realizes that this would not matter. Most people have the critical thinking skills of a guppy. This hypothesis and your comments about the source of the resurrection idea being widespread cultural traditions that have post-mortem ascension as an expected feature of acquired divinity, jive with Richard Carrier's opinion that the initial ideas of Jesus' resurrection had more the character of a spooky spiritual ascension (Carrier thinks it all took place in the spiritual, or sky realm) but lacked at first any component of a tradition of the corporeal Jesus walking around and talking to his followers. Mark's version leaves it more or less on that level, but adds in the women being informed just to make it a definite item in the narrative. We then have to look at the Book of Matthew as the first recorded instance of anybody claiming that a bodily resurrected Jesus got up, walked around, and preached to his followers. So then we have a fairly clear picture of the evolution of the resurrection tradition. First you have Paul, a decade or so after the crucifixion, claiming a supernatural visitation from Jesus, which could not be seen by his companions of the moment. Paul speaks of Jesus' resurrection, but only in terms that cannot be distinguished from a spiritual event that has taken place in the heavens. Then you have the Mark story that brings the moment of resurrection back to the time and place immediately after Jesus' death, but still being a spooky ephemeral event that was not directly witnessed by anyone. Then you have Matthew and the rest expanding the story and making the post-resurrection period a narrative about the flesh and blood Jesus shooting the shit with his followers and having them put their hands into his wounds and all the rest of it. And this expanded tale of an earthly post-resurrection walkabout never appears until everybody who could have known the original Jesus is dead and gone.
@@donnievance1942 Your timeline, of Paul first mentioning the resurrection but in more or less 'spiritual terms', then Mark making it a physical apotheosis but the women told no one about it, then Matthew, Luke, and John coming along anywhere from 10-40 years later and having Jesus making guest appearances on The Late Show, fits the 'known' dates of these writings. The story grows and gets new elements and embellishments added to it. Of course, in the Roman world, there were demigods of whom it was assumed they ascended back to heaven because their bodies went missing (Romulus, Asclepius, etc) and that's about where Mark leaves off, so if Mark was aware of these earlier myth-themes, he would likely have written his exaggerated story about the life of a rebel Jewish teacher and miracle ('magic') worker named Jesus with those themes in mind. In the past, I've likened the gospels and other works of that era as the comic books of that day and age.
I to know Jesus existed but only to save his people the Jews from being taken out of ISRAEL by the ROMAN Occupation at that time ! The JEWS were rebelling against the ROMAN Occupation and tried to warn the JEWS that if they continue to rebel against the ROMAN Occupation, that they ( the JEWS) would be TAKEN OUT of ISRAEL ! This happened during the time of JESUS ! The JEWS rebelled against the ROMAN Occupation on three occasions the last rebellion happened at the hilltop fortress at MASADA, in which the JEWS held out against the ROMAN army and were finally defeated ! Every Jew involved with that rebellion committed suicide rather than being put into slavery by the ROMAN Legions !
There are two reasons Mark’s end abruptly: 1. It didn’t end there. The rest hasn’t been found / has been lost. 2. Mark meant it to end there. The reasons for #2 can be many. You present a very good one. There are other reasons: Mark was protecting Christians - as they started to be prosecuted. Mark (writing for Peter) wanted to leave it open ended. Or, many other reasons. We’ll never know.
I just have to note that Mark is likely missing its ending. 16:8 in my mind cannot be the ending of the text because the final word is "gar." This is incredibly rare. Mark is not a strong writer of Greek, and is not using a strange form to replicate an original language in Greek. As such, I cannot imagine that he would employ an unusual form for effect. The use of "efobounto gar" requires an object explaining that which is feared. Cf. Mark 11:18. If Mark had intended to convey something like, "They said nothing because they were afraid," he'd have more likely used a participle structure translating to, "and being afraid, they said nothing." Mark 16:9 also cannot be the original ending because it does not complete the sentence.
Genesis chapters 1- 11 is recorded in Chinese pictographs which are silent witnesses of events, these are rather like fingerprints of historical facts that took place, being historical in character not forgeries. Evolutionists believe everything is a forgery if it calls evolution into question, we must not go against this world religion of Darwinian Origins for it is a sacred cow. We must ignore, suppress and disregard any evidence that calls evolution into question. The pictographic clues to our ancient past have remained in hidden view for thousands of years. There is evidence of antiquity which is undeniable, but evolutionists will always remain arrogant and defiant to the reality of this evidence. The question is: Where did the Chinese picture concepts come from? Concepts that are memorialized in ancient Chinese pictographs and why do these figures match the Genesis account. Many Chinese people who were former communists have recognized the historical account in Genesis in their pictographic ancient language and have turned to Christ for salvation, knowing that their for bearers had knowledge of their migration from the Tower of Babel. These are just three pictographs as examples and there are others for those who want to do their own research. Noah’s Flood is mentioned in pictographic evidence particularly where the symbol for eight is concerned, because eight persons entered the Ark. It doesn’t matter what evidence points towards Creation, fall, Flood and redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, evolutionists as goats will still head-butt the evidence, such as andesite stones carved with dinosaurs on them found in Nazca tombs in the desert with patina on them which takes thousands of years to form, speaking of antiquity. Dr Dennis Swift through this evidence he discovered doing excavations, turned him 360 degrees from an evolutionist to a creationist. Dinosaur figurines which are quite numerous in Mexico were studied by Dr Don Patton and were found to be genuine. See you-tube. The evidence is clear that the indigenous Indians lived alongside dinosaurs a few thousand years ago. They did not die out 65 million years ago, this is purely a religious concept. The Turin Shroud depicting Jesus crucified was produced, when the fire of God’s presence raised him from the dead, leaving a negative impression on the shroud which scientists have tried to reproduce, in order to prove it a forgery. When the Lord’s body was exposed to God’s light, just like film being exposed in a camera to light, it produced a negative. In all these things God has not left us without his divine witness of events.
I am wondering if the concept of resurrection does not originate in the previous myths as a attribute of divine being, We have it often, one god or deity killing the other, dying in battle or being swallowed by a fish, but at the end NO, victory, the deity somehow survives the death, is back to life again and acts. This is something people were buying, they were used to the fact that deity somehow can not be permanently killed because killing means can not act anymore. The resurrection was needed to add to Christ the importance and makes his teaching immortal, gives immortality and power to his messages. The resurrection itself had to happen in a cave, he had to wrapped, there had be someone witnesses to make it real and believable
@@TheScotsalan Infinity, eternity and death (own in particular) are very hard to understand and accept . It seems to be almost biologically impossible for our brains. it is much easier to accept existence of divine being behind all than reality, universe, black holes etc.
As a Christian I will respond: the suffering servant also is a theme troughout in the old testament. It started with Joseph as the one suffering, being thrown into a pit and left to die, eventually he was sold. In the end he forgives his brothers and saves his family. I actually believe this myth became fact as this pattern seems to be a returning one throughout history, even to this day. Rene Girard has written on it as his theory of mimesis which is very interesting.
@@405servererror As a former Christian: Gospels were written by people who knew Old Testament, so it would be even surprising not seeing the analogies. Everybody is different but we also share many common things. Most of us will more likely believe in something and less likely with something else. More believable stories would more likely be fixed through generations then less believable, but the fact that beyond lighting is electricity and not a divine being (Ball, Zeus, Perun and so on) is a fact despite divine being being a original explanation across many cultures in the past.
I’ve always found it comical that the other gospel writers felt the need to change Mark’s ending. Clearly, when Mark ends it with “The women were terrified and told no one” he is using irony because obviously they must’ve told someone for the disciples to know and later preach the resurrection. You can almost see “Mark” winking at the reader because Jesus was constantly telling everyone not to say some thing about him and they almost always turn around and do it anyway.
No, he's specifically trying to diminish the women. Early Christianity had two conflicting traditions on who became the first witness to the resurrected Jesus. Some thought it was Mary Magdalene, others Peter. Paul knew only the Petrine tradition ("...first to Cephas..."). Mark knew both traditions, but Mark also had a beef with Peter (or followers of the real Peter). He can't erase the traditions because he knew that's how Christianity started, so he had to begrudgingly write down both while being a bit of an ass about it. As a result, the women became the first witness BUT TOLD NO ONE, diminishing them, and the story ended before Peter could become the first witness. However, he did subtly concede with the command to go to Galilee that he accepted the Petrine witness tradition. Basically Mark is saying, okay, I don't think the women were the first witnesses, but I'm not going to exalt Peter with my pen, so there!
A simpler explanation is that Jesus later appeared (or appeared to appear) to the disciples in person, which IMO would be a much better proof of his resurrection.
I thought that I saw demons when I was in my early twenties and didn't tell anyone for more than a year. Looking back, I was probably unwittingly going through the DTs.
You have to rightly divide the word of truth. Ask yourself who is the author writing too. Most of the Bible was written to Jews. Only Paul wrote to Gentiles.
@@coltoncatalli8148, what do reasonable people think? These two men are fools for it is obvious. The women came back upset that Jesus was gone and thinking someone took their Lord and so the men (disciples ran to the tomb) when the women finally told the men it was because they also were confirming the empty tomb and the women then told them the story they heard from the messenger (angel) and that they would see Jesus. What is the point of the end of Mark? The Christians exist because Jesus rose again and was seen and men died for the gospel because they picked up the cross daily and laid the only foundation that can be laid and were persecuted because they are not above their master. So were Luke and Matthew trying to correct the fool Mark or were they writing the truth that Mark not only told the truth to a point which would never die for Jesus is the Lord of the whole universe and so His movement is full of power? The lie is Islam will wipe away Judaism and Christianity away with the wiping away of Israel, but then read Revelation 11:7-15 and believe in the power of Christ Jesus to testify of Himself with millions of dead bodies. You see the Muslims fall never to rise again per Amos 8:14 for enemies be made footstools per Psalms 110:1 and the Muslims in ash forms shall be an abhorrence unto all flesh per Isaiah 66:24, but know that Jesus' arm is not short in that some of the Muslims leave Islam between the second and third woe in Revelation 11:7-15 by screaming out "YAHWEH IS MY ELOHIM" per Zechariah 13:8-9. You can either choose Jesus with your last breath or scream out for the rocks to fall upon you for who shall be able to stand. No one is able to stand before Jesus without His blood covering them when they approach the throne of Jesus who has all the power of Shekinah Glory, so be indwelt with the Spirit of Christ Jesus unless you are Enoch who can walk with Jesus whenever you want, like Adam in the Garden of Eden. The ending is don't be like the women who don't tell the gospel of good news. See Christianity? We are brave and still speak of Christ to all the ends of the Earth, but the testimony does come to an end. Know Revelation 11:7-15.
15:19 Against the argument of a real person who was a spiritual teacher named Jesus speaks the fact that nothing he said was written down immediately in the year 30 or 33, but instead the first Paul letters and the first gospels were written decades later.
@@masterbaiter7537 Scientific studies in religious hospitals show that prayer for others doesn't work. Never works. Self-prayer works because of the Placebo effect. I believe strongly in most of the moral beliefs that I think you do though I never in my life thought these were divinely inspired. Academic estimates around 90,000,000-1.2 billion people have died as a result of Islam and its continuous war of religious expansion since its inception. Problem: they take it too literally. Christians over time are less fanatical. A strong morality should be taught but most religions and holy books demonstrate a lot of immoral or questionable dogma. It's so obvious. Some people think there is no morality without god but this is total nonsense as proven by scientific studies on the equal morality of non-believers. Good behavior comes from being taught by parents, mentors, or even imaginary 'gods'. It can be imbued from childhood and reinforced over the years, setting up an internal moral clock that usually plays a role in good behavior. The best and most moral people do good when not being rewarded or watched because it feels good and we are rewarded for our feeling good. I think the basis for moral behavior is largely one's level of empathy. The seeming display of empathy by religious people may be motivated by scoring points with their imaginary god for the reward of a good imaginary afterlife or avoidance of imaginary hell.
I always have this issue with the resurrection: Roman guards were placed at the tomb at the behest of the Pharisees, yet they never testify to the resurrection. They aren't even there. Roman soldiers would rather die in battle with a host of angels than be executed for desertion, which required death by burning.
Lets see, an angel appeared and rolled the stone away. The guards were frightened so that they collapsed to the ground as if dead. My reasoning is that when they came to and saw the body was gone after seeing the angel and putting 1+1 together, I don't think they had much fear of man, and they were probably prepared to report what happened, fantastic though it was, because let's face it, that was their only chance. Pilate didn't give a flying rat's ass. He was placating the Jews to get them off his back. He never did want to have Jesus crucified; he's the one who put the sign up before God and men proclaiming Jesus to be the king of the Jews to mock them. I think he would've laughed at the Jews plight should the body turn up missing, which it did. That Jesus disciples came at night and took the body away on their watch looked pretty stupid until what must've been a very large sum of money came into play. What's it going to be? A fantastic story or a lie and a big bag of money? With a large sum of money you could bribe the next Roman in line you reported to. And they certainly weren't going to tell their sargent or whoever that the body was stolen; the Jews merely paid them to spread the rumor of such a tale. To say it was an angel isn't likely to be believed. And where did you get the notion that Roamn soldiers would rather die in battle with a host of angels malarkey? IT just told you what they did; they fainted. If you saw a very powerful angel, besides scream like a little girl, shit your pants and faint, what would your options be? No matter what, the body they were supposed to be guarding was gone. What would you do? Besides, another option was after 3 days their watch was over as per Pilate's agreement, with the Jews, and maybe the Jews concocted the story that His disciples took the body after that. They weren't going to stay and guard the tomb forever. It happened. Get over yourself. You want to say it didn't happen because you are so desperate for it not to be true, otherwise you wouldn't even be on here looking to support that hope that there will be no one to judge you when you die. As if getting enough people to agree with you, all of you together would somehow cause the greatest miracle since the resurrection, and make this horrible nightmare of a risen messiah who will judge you go away. It will never go away; to the end of history it won't go away. One way or the other you're going to have to deal with it, and the way you're dealing with it now reminds me of the Roman guards. But what does all this boil down to? All this point counterpoint, story vs facts vs liars with motives doesn't prove anything one way or the other. And MANY people believe in Jesus for the same stupid blind reasons that Muslims believe their twaddle. This is how you should look at the whole picture: If there really was a man named Jesus who was crucified and risen from the dead 3 days later proving to be the Son of God, don't you agree He would be able to prove that reality to anyone He pleased? Of course you would have to believe that. And that's precisely what He does do without a by your leave from you or me or any man. TBH, I hope everything works out for you in the end.
When the Holy Spirit of God, the Father fell unto me, love beyond comprehension open my heart to a Love for others, that cannot die unless I would refuse the Christ. Jesus crucified for every person. And I have warm and comfort and Love no mater if I have difficulties and trials I go through. Its been 42 years and counting There is no judgement in Love, for anyone can turn to God till their last breath.
This type of Deep dive into Mark's gospel in itself was done over 10 years ago in a book by John Carroll called The Existential Jesus. Obviously I don't know how close the content is but it seems like the intent was very similar. The book is still available and well worth a read.
The gospel of Mark presents Jesus as both a hidden Messiah in some parts and also as a overt self proclaimed Messiah. A part of the story that makes it clear that Jesus proclaimed he was the Messiah to others and didn't keep it a secret is at the end when he was captured and is being accused of blasphamy in the court of the high priest (Mark 14). The gospel states that some people were testifying against Jesus that they heard him say "I will destory this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands" (Mark 14:58). It is clear that Mark knew of the original statement because Mark says that it was misrepresented/misquoted, saying "And some stood up and bore false witness against him..." the actual statement being "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" which is quoted in John's gospel (John 2:19). This shows that Jesus made known to others outside of his disciples about his resurrection. The other clear self proclamation was when the high priest blatently asked "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" which shows that Jesus clearly expressed himself in Messianic ways and was believed to be the Messiah by others because for what other reason would the high priest have asked him this. Jesus proceeds to reference Daniel 7:13, 14, and the people of the time knew that through this he was proclaiming to be the Messiah because he was attributing the passage to himself.
The rich young man example Bart gives at 5:09 is interesting. Key differences: 1. Mark's Jesus tells the man to keep the commandments but only lists commandments 5 to 9 (re murder, adultory, stealing, false witness, and honour parents) . He omits the 'thou shall not covet' as well as the god commandments (numbers 1-4 and 10). But as Bart says, he curiously adds a new 'don't defraud' commandment, which is not in the original 10. 2. Matthew's Jesus says the same as Mark' Jesus, but leaves off the don't defraud commandment. 3. Luke's Jesus similarly says the same as Mark's Jesus, except for also omitting the don't defraud commandment... but then adds a new 'love your neighbour as yourself' commandment... which is not part of the 10 given to Moses. The other interesting thing is that all three lists maintain exactly the same order of entries as each other... but which is different to the order recorded in Moses's ten commandments. This seems to be strong evidence of not only direct plagiarism, but the invention of 'improvements' by Matthew and Luke.
@@1amCrucifiedWithChrist Covet: Yearn to possess Defraud: iIlegally obtain money from (someone) by deception You do understand the difference between 'thought crimes' and actual crimes?
@@1amCrucifiedWithChrist No. You are 100% wrong. Please back up your claimed correct translation of Mark 10:19 ... which bible translation you using? Every bible's translation of this word in this passage that I can find has Jesus commandment as do not 'defraud' or do not 'cheat'. Not one of them says do not 'covet' as you claim. In addition, Mark's Jesus disagrees with not just the Exodus 20 commandment of Moses' god, but with the 2 different Jesus characters discussion with the same rich young man in Matthew's (Matthew 19:18), and Luke's (Luke 18:20) gospels
Hello Gentlemen great teachings don't stop. I was brough up going to Church I had fun ,but when I became a teenager things started to change my first moment I wondered why the pictures of God looked like humans so l askef that question in Sunday School the answer l got was God can look like anything He wants to.Then I asked if God is not a man why do you say He when you refer to GOD never got a answer to that 19:0319:03 one. After a while I lost interest.I told my grandma I am not going to church,I waited for the fireworks, there weren't any to my surprise .She said come here son sit down ,she gott her bible said to me come here let me show you something ,JOHN 5: 24 she said if you can just do this you will be alright forget all of that other nonsense. lam now ,70 yrs old and never forgot that. 🤔👍
Wow, I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but the empty tomb is one of my favorite parts of the Gospel. I didn't do what Crossan did though, look at crucifixion records, I looked at other legends instead. Specifically, legends involving a King returning from the dead, a rock, and a tomb (The Door to Hades). Guess which legendary Corinthian King and legendary Son of Virtue and the God of the Wind fits the Bill? The Empty Tomb of a King, at the end of the Gospel, is the end of labor that was given to Sisyphos by Zeus. The sacrifice of an innocent man being the Key. The innocent rock at the entrance to Hades (The door to the tomb) and the Rock of Sisyphos. Sisyphos is the reason the gospel had to end with "An Empty Tomb for a King".
It's very eye-opening when you learn about the parallelisms Christianity shares with many much older mythologies. And some apologists say the parallelisms don't contradict the Christian Gospel. I don't know how they justify it at that point.
The only flaw in his argument, Is the romans in all 4 gospels, were hesitant to crucify Jesus and did so after much pressure from the jews. So the romans wanting to leave his corpse up, for the (full punishment) as they did others, isn't as solid as it would be for a random criminal in Judea at the time.
@@leviandhiro3596That’s only a potential flaw if you believe that the romans were pressured to crucify Jesus. I think Bart’s position is that the blame placed on the Jews was a later addition.
Well, he didn't. He made a story to try and fulfill the prophecies from the Old testament. He didn't care About what really happened, but emphasizing on the character of Jesus.
A number of years ago, a man in the UK memorised the Gospel of Mark; which he used to deliver at public events. If my memory is correct, he gave his recitation during the Edinburgh Festival.
Hi Ashley, yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I came across this, from Dr. Ehrman. Pretty cool. Have a wonderful day!! Sheldon th-cam.com/video/f_L4_LmqImY/w-d-xo.html
It is said that each one of the twelve and of the seventy wrote a Gospel; but in order that there might be no contention and that the p. 115 number of 'Acts' might not be multiplied, the apostles adopted a plan and chose two of the seventy, Luke and Mark, and two of the twelve, Matthew and John.
The part about the dogs makes me wonder about... “Do not give what is holy to the dogs... lest they...tear you in pieces” (Matthew 7:6). I wonder if Matthew was referencing that and warning the Romans to what they had done in his (Matt's) eyes.
In context of the narrative it was probably to the hostile Jewish Pharisees, though perhaps with rippling meaning towards anyone whose reaction to the gospel is violent and continuously hostile. (As an aside, we see in Matthew Jesus call a Gentile woman a dog, but then still give what is holy to her. Her reaction is Thanksgiving and faith, no indication of trampling and violence...unlike the hostile Pharisees and eventually the Roman authorities)
Mark 14:28 Jesus says to Peter - "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." There was no need for the women who fled the empty tomb to ever say a word. Jesus already told the Disciples where to meet him.
Arthur Conan Doyle [Sherlock Homes] 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. It's common in religions and cults to believe the leader will return, you find it right around the world, it's in some Buddhist sects, Cult Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Nordic folk traditions. I've met followers of Bagwan Rashneesh (the Indian cultists who opropriated just about every belief and practice imaginable) who believe he's coming back. It's common because in group think there's nostalgia and that leads to cognitive dissidence on this, as well as other claims people come up with about miracles, it's a coping mechanism that's very easily exploited by successor leaders.
I like hearing Ehrman talk about the way his thought evolves. That's the strength of a thinker - you work within a certain paradigm because you have to, but you make discoveries within that paradigm that eventually break it and force you to construct a new one that incorporates your data in a holistic way. And then the cycle repeats, as your theoretical model is constantly being refined towards a closer approximation of the truth. (Note, btw, that "truth" is ultimately a matter of elegance and simplicity and convenience of thought. You CAN argue, knowing everything we know, that the Bible is literally true from beginning to end without a single error of fact. You'll just be forced to some monstrous contortions to maintain that argument - as when astronomers had to come up with crazy systems to explain the observed movements of the stars and planets under a geocentric theory, while heliocentrism explained everything very neatly.)
3 guys walk into a lions den, one was afraid for his life, one thought he could tame it, the other saw himself.... understanding the outside world as yourself without fear of it is the key to life, its only when a child is taught what is right and wrong that they become divided into someone else's fears. A child has no fear until they are programmed to run from it instead of learning to deal with it.
Apparently the scholars have it all worked out. Whenever the gospels agree, they have been directly copied and should not be trusted. Whenever they differ, they are "in disagreement" and therefore should not be trusted. I wish they could spend some time listening to courtroom testimony for various trials. When multiple people see the same event, they are going to describe some things in the same way but also provide different "takes" on the same event based on their own personal perspective. In this case, it is declared the Gospels can't be trusted because Mark's ending is "different" from Matthew and Luke, and it all centers around a single verse: Mark 16:8 "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." In order for us to believe the women never spoke a word of this to anyone (ever) and thus were involved in keeping the resurrection of Jesus some sort of "secret", we must interpret the last phrase to mean they never spoke of this encounter to any single person ever again (which as the PhD said, makes no sense, since the author tells us in the previous verse the women were instructed to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee -- and spoiler alert, that happened). Remember omission here does not imply contradiction there. Common sense suggests the author is conveying that the women were too afraid to go around telling everybody they ran into about what they experienced. It's little details like this that actually make the gospels more trustworthy, because if the women had run screaming from the tomb telling their story to every person that would listen, scholars would conclude this moment as the starting point of some dissemination of a myth. So ask yourself, if they were afraid and didn't tell anybody, and instead went straight to the disciples (who already believed in Jesus) how did the news of the resurrection of Jesus get out? Was it not through the gospels and the preaching of the apostles? You have the truth right in front of you. Take hold of it! Read the actual gospels (and Acts) instead of watching someone promoting their wares on a channel that is simply a revenue stream made possible by your view. Even if you choose to believe this one verse is a difference (and hey, that's what free will is all about) it is no reflection on Jesus. As the PhD concedes, this account matches the other gospels in proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus. He's the same Jesus in all accounts.
The amount of differences between the gospels is staggering. It’s not just one verse. What were his supposed last words? Who went to see the tomb? If you allow a religion based off this evidence to dictate your life, you should rethink this. It’s crazy to think we know anything Jesus said or did. 13 books of the NT are Pauls letters. 6 of those are known forgeries. This book is fraudulent full stop and the gospels were all anonymous written decades after this supposed event.
One notices the word “trust”. What prompts someone to trust another? Or trust a story? What prompts distrust? Magicians develop techniques to manipulate and exploit the trust we place in what we see. These tricks can still amaze and delight…like peek a boo for grown ups. Peek a boo is probably the oldest magic trick ever! And it still delights. Christians are finding people don’t trust the ancient books, the spell is broken for many of us. And Many good people just quietly go along with the true believers and for understandable reasons… Love, family, and friends are trusted and needed far more than ancient myths of heaven and hell…which is understandable. Thomas trusts his own senses…he needed evidence… that evidence remains enough to trust the story still today…at least for true believers. The ancient authors of the Gospels remain trusted by true believers…why? …apparently they trust what they see in the ancient texts… This functions as confirmation bias and special pleading…or faith…depending on one’s view of reality.
While valid, the usual crucifixion timeline may not apply in this case. Other questions would need to be answered. We do know that his family and followers would be highly motivated to give him a proper burial. Would Pilot care or even notice if he was taken down the same day? Would a simple bribe be enough? Were bribes common in these circumstances? If true, why would a soldier stab him with a spear to ensure death unless he was planning to leave him to his family who was at the scene.
@@richardlawson6787there’s fictional elements, but a guy called Jesus was killed, who taught something that probably pissed off romans- that’s pretty clear
could it be that Pilate didn't want him to die because he understood that the Jews were coercing him, so they took Jesus off the cross not too long after the crucifixion, brought him to the tomb, treated him and let him go/or took him to Galilee or somewhere else?
2:55 If they copied it they also changed it? Who says? Luke gathered eyewitness accounts and Matthew was an apostle. So was John. Of course they would add their own witness accounts. But should I change the answers if I’m cheating in a test? Also, who would want to collectively change something they were literally giving their lives for? So important was it to them.
@@JesusisaMuslim Not really, as we know there was a bunch of cults early on who in various ways centered on aspects of the "Christ" narrative! Heck, even Islam have aspects of this cult-like fan-fiction of parts of the Jewish and the Christian narratives which Mohammed in his trade as a merchant undoubtedly came into contact with before he started having his seizures!
This is the most illuminating discussion of the Jesus story I have ever heard. These ideas should be required debate in classes on religion. I am an atheist, not because I dismiss the ethical teachings of Jesus, because in general I don't. It is just that they are predicated on supernatural assumptions which I find completely unnecessary.
Love the channel and the outstanding legitimacy of it. Also, got a huge chuckle to learn that you are an expatriated, Fayettecong!! i was at bragg in '65 with the 82nd for several months before heading out for the Nam. i was a mindless 17 year old then. After all of that military misery was past, i easily fell into butt.......another "cult," and did a 30 year "tour" as a fundi in the church (oy vavoy!!). Presently, i yam an Ehrman-style, "christian atheist," delivered from any cultist thinking, whatsoever. i do have an abiding respect for the historical Jesus, butt.......without subscribing to any supernatural, religious nonsense about him. i am ever so thankful for that liberation. So, keep on keepin' on with disseminating rational thinking. "IF" we manage to survive our own selves, it will be due to our having clawed our way out of our present, Neanderthal mode of superstitious thinking. Getting rational is the only way that we'll ever do that. The "ministry" of debunking such irrational thought as that which defines religion, appears to be your present calling. You're good at it. Never give it up. Never go back to being mind controlled by cultists, no matter what it costs you. Take it from a former mind slave. Ha! A Fayettecong! Who would have guessed it!!! -🐴
Who is the person that wrote “Mark”? What is the extant evidence? Where is the extant evidence? When was that written? Why was it written? What language is it in? What languages did it go through on its way from the extant text to modern English?
But Jesus predicts his death 3 times in Mark. 8:31-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34. How could the apostles be that surprised? Bart seems oblivious to theophanies. They occurred in the OT. Why he thinks Jesus can't appear to Paul at any time is puzzling.
@@mistermurtad2831 There are ways to test and interrogate perceptual and sensory experiences. It helps if one has a basic grasp of the natural laws (i.e. physics), is not prone to believing in supernatural nonsense and things such as animals, bushes, and rock formations are capable of speaking. This is partly why schizophrenics are unable to effectively implement these tests. But would it matter if I were? The hallucination isn't ordering me to kill people, telling me that I'm just so very special to have knowledge 'revealed' to me that others are not special enough to have revealed to them or are not permitted to consider, telling me to smash someone in the face because they are laughing at me behind my back, or that others should be condemned if they don't do what my hallucination tells me they should be doing.
@@deeder001 You miss the point entirely. The video implied that Mark did not have knowledge of Jesus's death. It is clear he knew of Jesus projecting this before his death. You presume that all can be known has to fit into the natural world. There a many unexplained phenomena that can't be explain by a narrow view of the law of physics.
It's easy to predict something when you're documenting what has already happened. Paul is the antichrist because he changed the new law back to the old
Mark was a teenager in the time of Jesus, so he would not have known all the facts about Jesus that well BUT Matthew was a Disciple of Jesus so he would have corrected the gaps in Mark's Gospel. SO IT DOES NOT MATTER IF MARK WAS WRITTEN FIRST. THE POINT IS MATHEWS GOSPEL IS THE MOST ACCURATE. DEBATE CLOSED
These are indeed textual problems. It gets worse, there are versions of Mark that are far more ancient than the manuscript used for our Canonical Mark that is 100% like Matthew word for word. The incident of Jesus cursing the fig and the passage that Jesus says "why do you call me good" are word for word exactly like Matthew in these ancient Markan manuscripts found in trash rubble's in Alexandria. Some experts have speculated our Canonical Mark is not original and was changed a bit to make it look like is different than Matthew. These papyrus fragments are know as Oxyrhynchus Mark texts. They also found old versions of John where it differs a bit than canonical John. In this Gospel fragment of John seems older than all Gospel's called Egenton fragments. In one section of Egerton Jesus was in the temple with his disciples and the priest asked why they haven't changed to white garments. Then after that incident it moves forward to Jesus leaving the temple and going to Jordan river. I long have speculated our Canonical Mark was edited by Marcion because these ancient Manuscripts of Mark are closer to Matthew with almost no disagreement than the current canonical Mark. Some of these shows evidence that Matthew was begining to become contracted and redacted.
This is fairly new to me and I realized that I am a year behind on this, but I am going to ask this anyway...regarding Mark and the abrupt ending. I pulled out my Gideon Bible and there is in Mark chapters 9 through 20 which tells a further resurrection story. Doing some research I read where some older manuscripts did not include these later verses - however the King James version does, the New International Version does as well as the version the Catholic Church uses - though the Jehovah Witnesses do not. I don't know why Mr. Ehrman wouldn't acknowledge the discrepancy, but also don't understand how or why the discrepancy arose in the first place. Can someone help??
To most scholars they agree Mark was added to, so Bart assumes the abrupt ending is what to talk about. The bible also got a bit about the Trinity being added, otherwise the Trinity is not in the bible at all and is just a stupid greek idea where the spirit/word of a thing was a separate power. No apostle would agree to a third godlike creature beside Jesus, one which did no miracles on earth yet we are supposed to pray to based on a few fake passages in bible. Jesus didn't teach much that was new, be nice and judge less and obey gods commands... The Catholics then added crazy holy spirit and saints and 7 commandments and priests having power to forgive and priests having power to interpret bible and we must accept....
The saints came out of the grave and went down into the holy city. They didn't even bother about picking up a death certificate. (Matthew 27:52-53)(Romans 3:7)
I don't have expert knowledge on the gospels, the revising and editing, etc, but everyone has a right to an opinion. Personally, I find it hard to go from "a young boy who works with his father as a carpenter" to "a young philosophical child displaying critical and free thinking at the synagogues" to "an adult who thinks he's divine and asks random fishermen and tax collectors to become his disciples" to "an adult who is crucified for teaching his non-tolerated beliefs in Roman territory" to "a divine person and son of God who ascends to heaven after going to hell"......... and further christian theological luggage......... I go about as far as "an adult who is crucified for teaching his non-tolerated beliefs in Roman territory" and THAT could even be a stretch.
On the cognitive dissonance point of re-booting the understanding that the crucifixion had to change the narrative is somewhat problematic in light of the early Hellenist writing of Daniel. Chapter 9 explicitly portrays the Messiah as being cut off for the people stands both early and apart from the earliest gospels or their revisions.
There is a large caveat to Bart's empty tomb theory. The Roman Army in Judea during this time didn't consist of classical Roman legions as we know them, they were auxillary forces who didn't have Roman citizenship and were recruited among locals living in that area. Therefore it's quite possible they didn't adhere to all traditions of a roman crucifixion.
That is not a caveat. Bart's historical belief is based on a well established practice. Your supposition is that Jesus was an exception to the Romans even though there is no indication he would have been.
Citation needed for that claim. It strains credulity from an administrative perspective, as it could result in military units more loyal to the vassal state than Rome itself, with inherent conflicts of interest potentially leading to siding with a rebellion.
Well, the Local authorities also had their own troops .the Temple had a palace guard of 600. The temple was more the treasury, courts and place of government, housing, commerce as well as various temples. Herodian dynasty also had its own army. The wars they caused were part of the reason for Roman intervention to protection trade. There had been major wars between Greek kingdoms over previous century too If there was a complex social situation for a novel missiah to emerge: this was the place.
The question of whether Jesus was buried in a tomb is a completely different question than whether there actually was an empty tomb. If Jesus was buried in a tomb, that doesn't mean there was an empty tomb. We don't know where Jesus' body ended up - all we can do is speculate. Him being buried in a tomb could have been completely made up in order to tell a "missing body" story which was common in Greco-Roman culture.
@@decades5643 we don't have to speculate at all. There is evidence or we don't know. I'm we could speculate that Jesus body flew away and laugh at the whole scene - which is another story that was told. Again, with no evidence
The death and resurrection were added later to appease the 'pagan' or old religions and their beliefs. Rome was attempting to provide a national religion that appealed to all for easier governance.
If Jesus was resurrected physically, what happened to his body? ascended/ floated up into the sky after only 40 days? a faithful intelligent interpretation might be that many of his followers had "visions" of Jesus after his "death", where they were certain that he-was-alive which became legendary ...ie the Emmaus Rd. even Paul said, "and lastly, he appeared to me". of course Paul never said that Jesus as a body appeared to him, yet he had no doubt that it was Jesus.
"Because, the deal is... Mark knows that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee; he has that tradition. Because he tells the women, go tell the disciples to go to Galilee..." (10:38) I'm sorry, Dr. Ehrman... but it proves the opposite; it proves Original Mark knew the "apostles" never saw Yeshua again, for so he affirmed by ending his gospel with the women supposedly running off and telling no one to go to Galilee. But you're right in one sense: Obviously Original Mark's author must have known or heard of an actual Galilean appearance by "Yeshua" to disciples there following the crucifixion... and that the "apostles" were not in attendance for it. Only this explains all we see -- and don't see -- in Mark. Only this explains why Mark would scapegoat the women (something only seen in Mark) AND then end his Gospel with the "apostles" never learning of the resurrection, never traveling to Galilee, and never experiencing that final appearance there by Yeshua. And ... it was all the women's fault. See how nicely this "story" all seemed to work at the time? Of course, the Church leaders soon realized they had backed the wrong mythological "horse", here. Thus why, beginning with Matthew, they attempted to correct this glaring error by doing a complete about-face hoping we wouldn't notice (and sadly, few do). Remember, Mark's is the first "Gospel" intended to proselytize a new religion... a religion created by, headed by and being marketed by the "apostles" - and Saul(Paul). Thus, as their first "PR" agent", Mark had to ensure the "apostles" were the "good guys" of the story... as much as possible and within reason. Yet all while knowing that despite credible evidence for Yeshua actually appearing post-crucifixion to disciples in Galilee... the "apostles"... the HEROES of the story of Christianity ... had not been invited and had not even been there! WOW! How do you explain that in a way that still has the "apostles" portrayed as Yeshua's closest confidants, as true insiders?! Oh, wait... let's find scapegoats to blame for their glaring Galilean absence! Yeah... that'll do the trick! And so, that's exactly what Mark does... and blames the women. Right... as if God/Yeshua/"angels" couldn't have appeared to and spoken with the "apostles" just as they had to the women. Only decades later was it realized such an appearance by Yeshua to the "apostles" was absolutely requisite to the Gospel's/Church's claims to being divinely commissioned to become a world-wide religion. Of course, the problem was... there was Mark's Gospel ALREADY OUT THERE declaring them absent from any such and ending the account thusly! OOPSIE! Hence why the Gospel of Matthew was concocted to directly contradict Mark's... and Mark was amended to include its own later-concocted version of a final appearance to them by Yeshua, one that contradicts both Matthew's and Luke's. 😳 Don't you see? It's not Mark's exclusion of these later false claims of a "Final Commission" appearance to the "apostles" that evidences for those later claims as true... but, instead, its that very exclusion of all such in Mark, the earliest Gospel, that proves these later claims false.
@@srebalanandasivam9563 synoptic gospels, not signs gospels. Good to see that you're taking an interest in it all. I'm just putting you right on that. Me, when I became interested in art mispronounced Renoir and called him Renor until someone corrected me 🤣
Derek, I must say; I am in complete agreement with on a big point that you made. Although in many ways, the church does a lot good to help the poor and needy; it has also done great harm to many people. I was one of them. I can't begin to describe the agonizing shame and guilt I deal with, for so many years; due to my sexuality. Although I worked through all of that long before I found your channel; I have seen great benefit in the episodes of MythVision. I really do believe that any Christian who's willing to just hear you guys out and, do their own research; will be far less harmful in many ways to those they seek to convert. I want to thank you; for both creating this channel and, putting it to such enlightening use. Thank you little brother.
Maybe required for clickbait? ... Ehrman would not say in general, "you do not know Jesus." He might... say, "many people have a view of Jesus that is not in keeping with history." I'm guessing I'm unusual here, but these kind of sensationalist titles put me of. I want to like MythVision. I want to watch the videos. I do not want title after title coming saying something overly sensational. I think the straight scoop is just as good.
I don't think the title of this one is so bad, but I take your general point - I fear that Dereck can put off the very people who most need to hear this stuff, by over-cooked choice of title.
I'm going to throw this out as a possibility for an empty tomb. I had a friend a few decades ago who was in the Peace Corps in West Africa. She told a story about how the nephew of a powerful politician got kidnapped. He was eventually found dead with body parts missing. What had happened was that the kidnappers thought that because he was related to the powerful politician, he had a connection with power, and the same was true of his body parts. Possibly, then, shortly after Jesus was laid in the tomb, grave robbers came by to take it away, since Jesus was known for performing miracles. Those who stole him may have thought that his body parts would be powerful. Of course, these are unenlightened beliefs, but if it could happen today, it is even more likely that it could have happened two thousand years ago.
The first verse of the Gospel according to Saint Mark is a confession of Jesus' Divinity. The midway point of Mark's Gospel (Chapter 8) relates Saint Peter's Confession of Jesus' Divinity. And toward the end of the Gospel the Centurion at the Foot of the Cross confesses Jesus as true God and true Man. The Canonical Gospels are timeless documents of Christian Faith; they cannot be properly understood let alone explained by an avowed atheist who rejects the Bible as the authentic Word of God written for our salvation.
This is an oversimplification and not necessarily true. Because: (1) Everyone has a different perspective on the same story or the same events. (2) People involved in interrogations have noted that a guilty person has a rehearsed lie they keep telling over and over, while innocent people tend to change their stories while under intense pressure to try to appease their interrogators and end the exhausting interrogation process.
@@gerasoras It is really telling that you are attaching the same weakness as humans under interrogation to a god that is alleged by believers to be Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and Omni Intelligent. Seriously, a Supreme Being that is supposedly far superior to Humans can't get his story straight? WTF???!!! So what I can conclude from this is that your comment is alluding to the fact that god is Man- Made with all the weakness of Human Attributes and Characteristics.
An empty grave is a sign of being a god? David Marcus and Saavik found Spock's casket/torpedo tube empty on the Genesis Planet in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. So is Spock a god?
Matthew and John were two of the twelve Apostles while Mark was not. Mark is believed to be a just a disciple. So Matthew and John knew first hand what happened after the Resurrection.
Agreed. Some things are so easy that a child could understand. But, and I could be wrong, I also thank God for scholarship. I have learned things from scholarship no church has ever taught me. And in the Bible we see the power of when scribes turn to God. Like Paul, Stephen, and the wise scribe in Mark 12. I am a Gentile and many of us are Gentiles, and we don't have the benefit or education to understand the Jewish context of some of the stories. Nor do we even understand or get educated in the Greco-Roman context of it. These scholars God has raised up for us do all the historical work for us and then write neat simple little books we can read in one week what took them 20 years to learn. I appreciate them and thank God for that. Because I and many others would never ever take the time to learn so much for the Bible's sake.
It is interesting to me that people are still coming after Jesus. It goes to show that if He wasn't who He said He was then why bother? The question is still a valid one, "who do men say that I am" a quote from Jesus. Time will tell but as for me, He is who He said that He is... Shalom.
Johnny Stewart Nobody "coming after" Jesus of Nazareth, polytheist. These are scholars having a discussion and uncovering some lies about your lying imposter religion.
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for the..um...revelation that the _Book of Acts_ and the _Gospel of Luke_ were both written by the same author and _still_ manage to contradict each other.
😂 Good one. The question almost no theologian ever asks is why. Why did the church accept four gospels that contradict each other? Why did they not follow the cleaned up canon of Marcion? Why are there even contradictions within one and the same parable? Once you come to an understanding of that problem, you're much closer to understanding the gospel writers and their audience. In all my years at university to get my MA, I only found one author that really addressed this issue. And to this day it was one of the most profound books on religion that I ever read.
i used to believe that, until i realized most books are full of BS. so i threw out most and only refer to my bibles in the original greek. life makes more sense now
I saw my father in a powerful dream after his death and my father and I interacted in a loving manner in the dream. Our love for each other was communicated even though I was the sole person speaking. I can see where a dream this powerful could appear to be verification that my dad survived death because otherwise he could not be seen in physical form. BTW: From my Fundamentalist Christian past I believe that that brand of faith is so narrow that this Ermann course would be heretical because the entire issue with fundamentalism is the doctrine is absolute and cannot be changed or looked out in ANY essentially alternative manner.
What if it was from grave up, back down in the same pure state that all the priests were afraid of dying from, and around for a bit to show that it wasn't all a lie before taking back off into whatever's beyond the furthest beyond? That's what I've always understood the gist of it as. And Paul would've been referring to the incident on the road to Damascus as to seeing after the fact. Seeing who was being persecuted face to face made him blind. According to the account.
Please do a video on the Gospel of the holy12, with Bart 1st century true bible confirmed by the Clementine homilies Gospel of the Nazarene Gospel of the ebunites oh yeah, & the Adam Eve apocrypha Ethiopic Geez original, they switched the offering of Cain and Abel. At the council of Nicaea. The problem is you can read the Bible in Cain‘s eyes or Abel‘s eyes. You won’t know this until you avoid the meat and the strong drink. It’s the flesh that blinded us from the kingdom. The gospel of the holy 12 is the gospel of Q if you know what that means also, conveniently they killed all the early Christians no one’s following the original commandments, nor Yeshua’s teachings today people follow Paul and they don’t even realize he contradicts Yeshua in every single way smh 🤦♂️
Supposedly being the operative word. We don't know who wrote the book of Matthew. We can assume he was Jewish and local because he corrects the book of Mark's mistakes. But there is nothing telling us he was an apostle. Plus the book was written in the late 1st century ce, long after anyone who might have known a real Jesus was dead.
man the idea of jesus getting eaten by dogs is new to me, its pretty crazy and it reminded me of catholics eating the eucharist or his "body". could it be a ritual that came from that????!!!!
Not necessarily bro, none of The Four Gospels have to be in any "chronological order" as you say. Each one is from the individual perspective at the same time that it happened from each person who was observing it as it was occuring.It's done that way to show us today that it actually took place from a bystanders point of view!
Well, except they are. The book of Mark was written first, after 70 ce. Since both the authors of Matthew and Luke copy the book of Mark, they had to be written even later than Mark. Book of Luke doesn't say it was an eyewitness account, none of them do, so they're not individual perspectives. Since the book of Luke's author says all the other gospels are bogus and he's going to the write the one TRUE gospel, that means he wants his readers to believe all the other gospels floating around (including Mark) are fake.
Yeah but he said in Matthew 24:5 that calling him "the Christ" or "the Messiah" was the deception and most pastors just skip right over that or claim that it means there will be multiple Christ which it does not because "epi" in Greek is a layer or coating over or superimposing of something on top of something else. Example would be epidermis is your upper layer of skin. Mat 24:5 For many will come in [superimposing on] my name, SAYING, ‘I AM THE CHRIST," and will lead many astray.
Good video. I think (as Dr Ehrman says) it's perfectly reasonable to believe the empty tomb was a legend, based on what knowledge we have available regarding Roman standard operating procedures (SOPs) for performing a crucifixion. But, it's also perfectly reasonable to believe an exception was made in Jesus' case. Even in modern times, deviations and exceptions to SOPs are made-and sometimes fairly frequently-by virtually every organization. Certainly capital punishments performed today don't always go just one way. That's not a result of cognitive dissonance. It is a result of organizations adapting to an unusual situation that exists at that specific moment in time. They adapt to their perception of the potential risks and needs that exist, regardless of how they might normally prefer to operate. If the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John said there was an empty tomb, why not believe them? Why discount their writings over those of some other authors who were writing about a different time, place and participants? I don't disagree with Dr Ehrman's view, but he didn't convince me that it was the correct one.
It is so unlikely that the Roman authorities would treat a dissident who questioned the very authority of Rome with any favour. I struggle to believe other than the gospel writers, Mark in particular were wrong.
@@robertloader9826 Not disagreeing with you. I just have a hard time believing the Romans would crucify someone as a dissident rebel who said things like "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s" (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:20-22). They must've crucified Jesus for a different reason. My guess is Pilate was afraid of a Jewish rebellion starting on his watch, and how that would look to his superiors. So I think he crucified Jesus for purely political optics reasons (appeasing conservative Jews; such as Caiaphas, the wealthy Sadducees who liked their money, the traditionalistic Pharisees. etc; who did not want Jesus questioning the status quo or making any changes to their religion). If this was not a routine treason crucifixion, then why compare it to one? Pilate didn't crucify Jesus because he saw him as a threat to Rome, but to keep relations relatively peaceful with the locals. If we can believe people at that time behaved much like people do today, then it is perfectly reasonable to agree with the Gospels that the Romans didn't do a by-the-book crucifixion on Jesus. It really could've happened just the way they said it did. Bart Ehrman is an extremely smart man, but even very smart men can be wrong about some things.
@@dmw0077 Not really a convincing argument, nothing you said there gives any indication as to why the body of Jesus would be treated in any way different to the body of any other dissident. To remove the body to a tomb would create a shrine, the last thing Pilate would have desired!
@@robertloader9826 Why would Pilate care if a tomb became a shrine? Again, there is zero evidence that Jesus was advocating rebellion against Roman rule. Caiaphas probably did cared, but he wasn't the one in charge of crucifixions. Once Jesus was dead, Pilate's interest in the whole affair was over. If anyone had pleaded for the body, why wouldn't he have given it to him (or her)? The Romans were occupiers. Augustus wanted peace in the region, which is why he let Herod Antipas appear to have some local power in the area, when the real power was 100% Roman. The Romans cared little (if at all) about the Jewish religion. Pilate could've easily let someone take Jesus' body to a tomb just to thumb his nose at Caiaphas and his religious concerns. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...only to point out that Dr Ehrman's take on the subject is highly questionable.
@@dmw0077 It is just as likely that Pilate may have feared unrest and ordered the body buried quickly and quietly in secrecy to avoid any surprises, so that nothing more be heard of Jesus! Pilate’s interest in the whole affair may not have been entirely bound by his duty, but of his inner thoughts we shall never know. I still however regard Mr. Ehrman’s position that the body would have been left as per standard procedure more likely than it being removed to parties unknown. Not sure why your purely speculative opinion is less questionable than his informed one.
I can see how people will compare the gospels, doing such an analysis, come to certain conclusions, but here is some points from historians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries said: * John Mark followed Peter around as he preached, wrote down what he said, showed it eventually to Peter, who was indifferent to it, neither approving nor disproving. Clement of Alexandria having studied under direct students of the apostles James, John, Peter, & Paul wrote about 190 AD: "5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: 6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. 7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement." Souce: Eusebius Ecclessiastical History. Book 4, CH 14 www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm * Long after the synoptic gospels were written, the apostle John was asked by Christians to write his experiences with Jesus. He finally agreed. * Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew to the Jews. Later, many translated it.
Matthew in oral form in hebrew is the first one in my opinion. If you gather Papias, Ireneas, the Muratorian Fragment. A lot say he wrote it in Hebrew, but I think its composed in hebrew and writen down in the end in greek. Papias is the one who got it right "He composed the oracles of Jesus in hebrew and people translated them as best as they could." The reason why, is because if you look at it, it looks like it was writen as an oral recitable memorisation composition, in hebrew, and then writen down in greek by the author, translated. And also how the earllyest history vertions are that Matthew is the first Gospel, hence that its alwayse the first in the order in Bibles. But the fact it was memorised standard narrative, explains why Mark and Luke and Matthew are so similar and basicly one same narrative with some difference. And the end of Mark was likely dropped off at the end of an early key copying. The things in the end of Mark are in the Diatessaron mid second century work, and Ireneas knows it. All that is before P45 and SInaiticus and Vaticanus.
@@ngmui430 The evidence for Mark being the first prototype Gospel are what ? It's deffinetely not "All the evidence". And as for the ending of Mark, I was surprised watching a debate between two christians who held both opiions about the ending of Mark, and seeing alll the evidence they discussed, now hearing people like Bart Ehrman choose not to count it as reliable material is surprising. The 1 John 5:7 and the Woman taken in adultery isnt that shocking, (and I've made videos on my former channel on those two, I am going to update the 1John5:7 one sometime because of new evidence I came cross.) But the longer ending of Mark just looks like a text critic is looking for a stirr up. And that's silly imo. Heres a presentation about the Ending of Mark and Matthew being a developement of Mark. th-cam.com/video/aXGpi7kC0Mw/w-d-xo.html
I think there probably was a memorization text, but I have some suspicion that the Gospels used Memory Loci a popular technique of the era, to encode the text. In other words the important thing was the sayings and the geographical narrative was important symbolically but also as a memorization technique. The method of loci was an Ancient Greek strategy for memory enhancement, which uses visualizations of familiar spatial environments in order to enhance the recall of information.
Also it was Passover. They didn't keep Jesus up on the cross during Passover. They took him down early. He was being nursed through the night. When Mary went to the tomb his was gone and then showed up asking Mary why was she crying? She recognized him and saw his clothes were changed. The book says at first she mistook him for a gardener. Then this is the kicker! John 20:17 King James Version, Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Now somebody tell me what does that say?
I HAVE READ THE SCRIPTURES OF DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND PRAYED TO GOD TO REVEAL THE TRUTH. JESUS APPEARED TO ME AS ALMIGHTY GOD. PREPARE FOR THE COMING BACK OF JESUS
BEST SUGGESTION: Empty your cup and Walk with nothing as Christ taught. I would share the 2 teachings of Christ that maintains balance if people listened. 1. Follow the Golden Rule - Love thy neighbour as you Love GOD and Love thyself. 2. Turn the other Cheek - which does not mean what most think and helps you remain on the Righteous path. Christ taught: When a person strikes you with their right hand on the right cheek...offer the left. This became known as turn the other cheek but is not understood fully. It does not mean to let people walk over you or be mild and weak...It means to be meek and strong and take a moment to offer mercy allowing you to remain on the righteous path because those that show no mercy shall receive none. In order for the right hand to strike the right cheek it must be a backhand blow which is usually done as a sneak attack or emotional outburst...either of which could bring instant regret to the transgressor and might end there if you don't escalate it further. It is just taking a moment and asking; Are you sure this is the path you want to go down? Mercy triumphs over Judgment. Never said you have to let them hit you...because as i did say; Those that show no mercy shall receive none and they will have chosen their fate but you will remain on the righteous path regardless of their actions.
Sign up for Bart's new Mark course
mythvisionpodcast.com/unknown-jesus
Hey Derrick
Why do you have a white man in the thumbnail ? That's not me
even his hair isn't accurate
No thanks, it appears that much of what is said are mere speculations on his part and his thoughts/feelings. Two person examining the exact same set of facts, may come to two very different conclusions. How can this be? All of us, as fallen humans, are at war with the God who created us. All of us have an enmity toward God that must first be removed if we are ever going to see the evidence clearly. Evidence is a matter of objective truth, proof is in the mind of the evaluator, and many of you resist the truth in spite of many evidence that goes against your narrative. We can offer evidence all day long: facts about eyewitness testimony, archeological verification, scientific harmony and even probabilities, but none of this will serve as proof unless you first change your heart.
I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. (Proverbs 8:17)
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)
To seek God with all our heart is fundamental to God’s revealing himself to us (Jer. 29:13). As the philosopher & famous pascal Blaise Pascal put it:
Willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. (Deuteronomy 4:29)
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and *my thoughts than your thoughts*. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
If you look at your faith you will look in vain. If you look to him, knowing you have insufficient faith, and you do not consider your faith or the lack thereof, he will receive you as you are, having less faith than a grain of finely ground pepper. He will then call you his own. Then your faith is not in your faith; it is in his faithfulness. Then you have entered the world of biblical faith-all praise to him and no brag on our part.
The disciples wanted more faith, and Jesus’ answer indicated they were barking up the wrong tree. We relate to God with so little faith that he has to make up the difference with the blood he shed on the cross. It is not the quantity of faith that moves God, it is the heart focus. A tiny amount of faith fixed on the all-sufficient grace of God will not move a mountain, but it will guarantee us a place on Mt. Calvary where our sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus. It is not how much faith we have, it is how much our faithless hearts are dependent upon him.
The grace of God covers every sin except unbelief. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). The Bible teaches security of the believer. It does not teach security of the unbeliever. Properly understood, Bible doctrine espouses that sinners are saved by believing, and those who continue to believe are the same ones who will be saved in the end. The Bible message is that great sinners are saved by a little faith-ever trusting in his finished work while repudiating personal works as of any value to produce or maintain salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 4:5; 11:6).
Looking at archeo-genetic facts like other such facts points out that Jews are a Greek like Mediterranean SeaPeople that intruded in to Eastern Mediterranean coastal line and adopted various alphabets, stories, identities...from local people.As such there is NO evidence of them being a pastoral, warrior, tribal alliance called ISRAELITES at all further questioning the whole Greek-Jewish copy cat culture and they intentions.
The Messiah did not start Christianity. The greco-roman philosophers concocted it from their own imaginations after listening to the Followers they persecuted.
My wife just said you don't understand women's behavior. The women are frightened and run away without saying anything to anyone. But they still tell their best friend. Who only tells her best friend. Who only tells her best friend and the next day, everyone in the market knows it.😄
😅😅 so true
I’m pretty sure they didn’t have best friends that time.
@@mooshei8165 They sure had. :) Human nature has not changed that much.
@@urmasalas right...human nature has not changed that much. And the game of telephone (let alone other experiments on cognition and eye witness testimony unreliability) easily demonstrate that what you hear from a friend, of a friend, of a friend, of a friend...is not reliable. ESPECIALLY when 'recorded, by someone over 60 years after the fact, and with an agenda/purpose/goal of the writing.
So women's behavior aside (which, is not a scientific statement to begin with)...zero reliability or ability to even call it evidence with a lower case 'e'.
Human behavior may not have changed - a debatable statement - but social morés, customs and the law sure have.
Don't commit murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't bear false witness. Don't defraud. I love that because those are the commandments that the money hungry usually breaks the most.
Agreed . I love Jesus and I just want the truth about him . Like he likely was a good man , but is he god ? Who knows .
@@joshchurch785 If you want to know the truth, he was an apocalyptic preacher, one of many. When he was crucified, his followers, in trying to make sense of this, came up with the redemption story. Which is not what Jesus was preaching.
So , no god, no messiah, and No redemption, just a story
Don't forget love your enemies and don't swear oaths which eliminate any chance of Christians being in the government or military or police
*_”THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT,” Jesus answered, “is THIS: ‘Hear O Israel! The Lord OUR GOD, the Lord is ONE!’”_* _(Mark 12:29)_
*_Jesus said, “Why do you call ME good? No one is good but GOD ALONE!”_* _(Mark 10:18)_
*_Jesus said, “Father...now THIS is Eternal Life: that they know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus the Messiah whom YOU HAVE SENT!”_* _(John 17:3)_
*_”Followers of the Bible-do not go too far in your theology, and do not say anything about God but the truth! The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, is only God’s messenger, as well as His word which He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him! So believe in God and His messengers, and do not speak of a trinity! Stop it-it is for your own good! God is one sole divinity, who is far above having a son! He owns everything in the heavens and everything on earth! And God is able to manage it all on His own!”_* _(The Qur’an, Sūrah 4:171)_
@@celestialknight2339 Oh boy, the Qur'an. That's a good one 😂 Perfect Qur'anic preservation is a lie, there are many versions of the Qur'an
If a writer copies another work and embellishes on a story about someone he’s never met, don’t we call it “fan fiction” these days?
@Martians on Maui - I think so.
😂 true
Fan fiction. Religious doctrine. Give it enough time and all of those fanfics about My Little Pony will spur it's own religion called Gnorsticism. 😉
It would these days, but it would be called history in ancient Rome. Most of historical biographies of antiquity were written hundreds of years after the person died such as that of Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plutarch, etc. The gospel of Mark was written about 40 years after Jesus' death which is remarkably close to the actual events it portrayed and when eyewitnesses were still alive.
@@DavidS_Tanbased on what I have learned and read, the actual author of Mark isn’t known and did not personally witness the life or death of Jesus. Nor is there any record of any other actual witnesses. All accounts of the gospels were stories passed down, and none were actual witnesses. But, I may be wrong.
You already know this but your channel just keeps getting better man! Production value as well as scholarly value is something to be cherished
Agreed! P.S. Derek, I like your new hair style. 😮
@@patricianoel7782 idek who you are
This is perfect! A double dose of Mark from Dr. Tabor and now Bart Ehrman
Thank you! I love both of these gents.
On your Marks.... get set....
Yes! I know they are pals - how do they look at Mark differently?
I would like to know whether Ehrman basically affirms his 1999 book "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium" -- or not.
@@jamesboswellii2034 I've heard him say many times that Jeshua was an apocalyptic preacher
Not a Christian, but always enjoy learning about different Cultures which includes religion, to Me!!!
@@TheIndianTree Not, That interested! Just stumbled across... Won't change my beliefs. People can do that 🤫🥰
@@TheIndianTree I am a weirdo, so I use emojis. Enjoy your day!
@@TheIndianTree Nothing wrong with mythicism. It's well established that there is no physical evidence of Jesus. Even many scholars state that there was no one man named Jesus the bible was based on and instead he was a composite character. Which is the same thing as saying he was fictional which is the same thing as mythicism
@@TheIndianTree *Do you think all the secular scholars are simply lying. Some of them even go as far as saying the fact he existed and was crucified is one of the most certain facts of history* Majority of scholars who say Jesus definitely existed are Christians who work for religious organizations and probably signed a statement of faith as a requirement of their employment. You're not going to get an objective viewpoint from them especially if they're already believers. So leaving out all these scholars who are Christians who are associated/employed by religious organizations, you're left with a lot less scholars than you think who believe Jesus was definitely real. And of course, without EVIDENCE, any scholar who is CERTAIN Jesus was real, is lying. No scholar worth his sheepskin will say for sure Jesus did. They have no evidence, only conjecture that he did. Look up their arguments. See what they offer as "proof". All you're going to get is their theories.
The most the honest ones will say is Jesus _probably_ existed, but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible. But of course, saying a Jew in 1st century ce Judea name of Yeshua existed, is like saying James Bond existed in the UK, when you're really wanting to imply the super spy James Bond. It becomes a moot point.
@@TheIndianTree What archeological evidence?? There’s no first century evidence of him. The New Testament was put together in the third century. There’s no first century evidence of him. No Roman records, no hieroglyphics, no statues, no archeological evidence anywhere. This man that supposedly did all these miracles etc and no one recorded it?? All the first century philosophers living in the first century and never mention Jesus in their writings?? There’s tons of evidence for Constantine and Cesar and lots of first century historical figures. Yet absolutely not one piece of evidence for Jesus?? Little odd don’t u think?
Love how the scholarship is progressing in New Testament studies. MythVision is providing great exposure to scholarship that would not be available or accessible otherwise
Agreed 👍🏼
So true.
What stikes me, is that it took near 2k years. When I think of all the conspiricy theories out there that are mostly propagated by christains, moon landing, flat earth, are examples, yet the real conspiricy is the bible 😂👍
Very much
So did Jesus actually exist, or what's going on here?
The world is a much better place for Dr. Ehrman's cool rationality and clear explanations.
Yet early Christian works show..
It is said that each one of the twelve and of the seventy wrote a Gospel; but in order that there might be no contention and that the p. 115 number of 'Acts' might not be multiplied, the apostles adopted a plan and chose two of the seventy, Luke and Mark, and two of the twelve, Matthew and John.
@@michaelbernard7402 Credible sources are needed to verify a claim. What are yours?
@red watch mine is this..
CHAPTER XLVIII2.
OF THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES, AND OF THE PLACES OF EACH ONE OF THEM, AND OF THEIR DEATHS3.
NEXT we write the excellent discourse composed by Mâr Eusebius of Caesarea upon the places and families of the holy apostles
@red watch also from that I have note each tribe
Simon, the chief of the apostles, was from Bethsaida, of the tribe of Naphtali. He first preached in Antioch, and built there the first of all churches, which was in the house of Cassianus, whose son he restored to life. He remained there one year, and there the disciples were called Christians. From thence he went to Rome, where he remained for twenty-seven years; and in the three hundred and seventy-sixth year of the Greeks, the wicked Nero crucified him head downwards
James, the brother of John, preached in his city Bethsaida, and built a church there. Herod Agrippas slew him with the sword one year after the Ascension of our Lord. He was laid in Âkâr, a city of Marmârîkâ2.
Philip also was from Bethsaida, of the tribe of Asher. He preached in Phrygia, Pamphylia and Pisidia; he built a church in Pisidia, and died and was buried there. He lived twenty-seven years as an apostle3.
Thomas was from Jerusalem, of the tribe of Judah. He taught the Parthians, Medes and Indians4; and because he baptised the daughter of the king of the Indians, he stabbed him with a spear and he died5.
Andrew his brother preached in Scythia and Nicomedia and Achaia. He built a church in Byzantium, and there he died and was buried.
John the son of Zebedee (Zabhdai) was also from Bethsaida, of the tribe of Zebulun.
Simon Zelôtes was from Galilee, of the tribe of Ephraim. He preached in Shemêshât (Samosâta), Pârîn (Perrhê), Zeugma, Hâlâb (Aleppo), Mabbôg (Manbig), and Kenneshrîn (Kinnesrîn). He built a church in Kyrrhos, and died and was buried there9.
James, the son of Alphaeus (Halphai), was from the Jordan, of the tribe of Manasseh. He preached in Tadmor (Palmyra), Kirkêsion p. 107 (Kirkîsiyâ), and Callinîcos (ar-Rakkah), and came to Batnân of Serûg (Sarûg), where he built a church, and died and was buried there1.
Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, was from the town of Sekharyût of the tribe of Gad, though some say that he was of the tribe of Dan.
@@redwatch. John the Baptist was of the tribe of Levi. Herod the tetrarch slew him, and his body was laid in Sebastia.
Just gotta love how heartfelt Dr. Ehemann talks about the Gospel tbh
Well now, let’s be honest, the New Testament, I’d argue, that the Gospels themselves, outside of the Epistles are certainly the most influential writings of all time.
@@I-AmTheLiquorBart Ehrman would agree!
@@nodrog567I certainly hope so.😅😂
@@I-AmTheLiquor Depends on the definition of "influential". As stories and literacy, one could argue that the Greek epics are more influential, since they heavily influenced the Gospels themselves.
Perhaps when measured in something like human suffering and the justification for it, then sure, they could be considered the most "influential".
@@Bluesruse You could definitely make that argument. I need to start listening to audiobook of The Odyssey
The fact that Mark ends with the empty tomb is Mark's way of saying, as others said of Roman deities, that Jesus was also a god, since his body was missing. Just as Asclepius went missing and the bodies of other Greco-Roman figures went missing, he ended his story abruptly with the 'young man' telling the women 'he is risen. He is not here'. 'Risen' as in he rose upwards into the sky and that's why 'He is not here'. I think what we have in the gospel stories about the death and resurrection of Jesus is an amalgamation of historical stories and mythic themes. The historical part would be that this wannabe Messiah did manage to historically get himself crucified. The mythic theme is that he was deified when he resurrected and ascended on high just like Romulus and others. So they took the story of some guy who had a following, spoke in parables (easy to do really), probably performed magic tricks that looked like miracles, caused a stir in Jerusalem which put him on the Roman radar, and got himself crucified (probably had Messianic tendencies). So, they attached the story of a resurrection and ascension to prove that he really was a god (or the Messiah) because you just...couldn't...kill him! The gospels are historical docu-dramas. A mix of fact and fiction.
Excellent comment. I have an hypothesis to add to it. Suppose that at the time Mark wrote there was not yet any firm tradition that Jesus had risen from the dead, but that the followers of his cult were still struggling with the cognitive dissonance that comes from their messianic teacher, whom they had expected to bring about God's millennium, having been executed. So Mark came up with the idea (or maybe took the idea from some vague popular memes that were beginning to form), "Hey, he's not really dead. He rose up into the sky, and leads us still." Hence, he created the story of the women being told this news by the young man at the tomb. That left Mark with the problem of explaining why no one, or very few, had heard about this before. Solution: say that the women ran away and told no one, because they were afraid.
In this hypothesis, the women are simply a literary device for adding the idea of the resurrection to the biographical narrative, and the bit about their telling no one was a way of explaining why many people hadn't heard this idea before. Or, if there were already stories about resurrected Jesus talking to his disciples, but that Mark thought these stories were widely disrespected, this was his way of distancing himself from them while preserving the idea of resurrection itself. Of course the issue of how anyone was supposed to have learned about it at all was left hanging. But a smart propagandist realizes that this would not matter. Most people have the critical thinking skills of a guppy.
This hypothesis and your comments about the source of the resurrection idea being widespread cultural traditions that have post-mortem ascension as an expected feature of acquired divinity, jive with Richard Carrier's opinion that the initial ideas of Jesus' resurrection had more the character of a spooky spiritual ascension (Carrier thinks it all took place in the spiritual, or sky realm) but lacked at first any component of a tradition of the corporeal Jesus walking around and talking to his followers. Mark's version leaves it more or less on that level, but adds in the women being informed just to make it a definite item in the narrative.
We then have to look at the Book of Matthew as the first recorded instance of anybody claiming that a bodily resurrected Jesus got up, walked around, and preached to his followers. So then we have a fairly clear picture of the evolution of the resurrection tradition.
First you have Paul, a decade or so after the crucifixion, claiming a supernatural visitation from Jesus, which could not be seen by his companions of the moment. Paul speaks of Jesus' resurrection, but only in terms that cannot be distinguished from a spiritual event that has taken place in the heavens. Then you have the Mark story that brings the moment of resurrection back to the time and place immediately after Jesus' death, but still being a spooky ephemeral event that was not directly witnessed by anyone. Then you have Matthew and the rest expanding the story and making the post-resurrection period a narrative about the flesh and blood Jesus shooting the shit with his followers and having them put their hands into his wounds and all the rest of it.
And this expanded tale of an earthly post-resurrection walkabout never appears until everybody who could have known the original Jesus is dead and gone.
@@donnievance1942 Your timeline, of Paul first mentioning the resurrection but in more or less 'spiritual terms', then Mark making it a physical apotheosis but the women told no one about it, then Matthew, Luke, and John coming along anywhere from 10-40 years later and having Jesus making guest appearances on The Late Show, fits the 'known' dates of these writings. The story grows and gets new elements and embellishments added to it. Of course, in the Roman world, there were demigods of whom it was assumed they ascended back to heaven because their bodies went missing (Romulus, Asclepius, etc) and that's about where Mark leaves off, so if Mark was aware of these earlier myth-themes, he would likely have written his exaggerated story about the life of a rebel Jewish teacher and miracle ('magic') worker named Jesus with those themes in mind. In the past, I've likened the gospels and other works of that era as the comic books of that day and age.
I to know Jesus existed but only to save his people the Jews from being taken out of ISRAEL by the ROMAN Occupation at that time !
The JEWS were rebelling against the ROMAN Occupation and tried to warn the JEWS that if they continue to rebel against the ROMAN Occupation, that they ( the JEWS) would be TAKEN OUT of ISRAEL !
This happened during the time of JESUS !
The JEWS rebelled against the ROMAN Occupation on three occasions the last rebellion happened at the hilltop fortress at MASADA, in which the JEWS held out against the ROMAN army and were finally defeated ! Every Jew involved with that rebellion committed suicide rather than being put into slavery by the ROMAN Legions !
There are two reasons Mark’s end abruptly: 1. It didn’t end there. The rest hasn’t been found / has been lost. 2. Mark meant it to end there. The reasons for #2 can be many. You present a very good one. There are other reasons: Mark was protecting Christians - as they started to be prosecuted. Mark (writing for Peter) wanted to leave it open ended. Or, many other reasons.
We’ll never know.
@@BabyBoomerChannel No one was interested in some weird cult. A lot of them existed in the Roman Empire. The cult was so tiny no one noticed it.
I just have to note that Mark is likely missing its ending. 16:8 in my mind cannot be the ending of the text because the final word is "gar." This is incredibly rare. Mark is not a strong writer of Greek, and is not using a strange form to replicate an original language in Greek. As such, I cannot imagine that he would employ an unusual form for effect. The use of "efobounto gar" requires an object explaining that which is feared. Cf. Mark 11:18. If Mark had intended to convey something like, "They said nothing because they were afraid," he'd have more likely used a participle structure translating to, "and being afraid, they said nothing." Mark 16:9 also cannot be the original ending because it does not complete the sentence.
Have enjoyed learning from Bart through The Great Courses and will encourage anyone to follow his thought process.
Genesis chapters 1- 11 is recorded in Chinese pictographs which are silent witnesses of events, these are rather like fingerprints of historical facts that took place, being historical in character not forgeries. Evolutionists believe everything is a forgery if it calls evolution into question, we must not go against this world religion of Darwinian Origins for it is a sacred cow. We must ignore, suppress and disregard any evidence that calls evolution into question. The pictographic clues to our ancient past have remained in hidden view for thousands of years. There is evidence of antiquity which is undeniable, but evolutionists will always remain arrogant and defiant to the reality of this evidence. The question is: Where did the Chinese picture concepts come from? Concepts that are memorialized in ancient Chinese pictographs and why do these figures match the Genesis account. Many Chinese people who were former communists have recognized the historical account in Genesis in their pictographic ancient language and have turned to Christ for salvation, knowing that their for bearers had knowledge of their migration from the Tower of Babel. These are just three pictographs as examples and there are others for those who want to do their own research. Noah’s Flood is mentioned in pictographic evidence particularly where the symbol for eight is concerned, because eight persons entered the Ark. It doesn’t matter what evidence points towards Creation, fall, Flood and redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, evolutionists as goats will still head-butt the evidence, such as andesite stones carved with dinosaurs on them found in Nazca tombs in the desert with patina on them which takes thousands of years to form, speaking of antiquity. Dr Dennis Swift through this evidence he discovered doing excavations, turned him 360 degrees from an evolutionist to a creationist. Dinosaur figurines which are quite numerous in Mexico were studied by Dr Don Patton and were found to be genuine. See you-tube. The evidence is clear that the indigenous Indians lived alongside dinosaurs a few thousand years ago. They did not die out 65 million years ago, this is purely a religious concept.
The Turin Shroud depicting Jesus crucified was produced, when the fire of God’s presence raised him from the dead, leaving a negative impression on the shroud which scientists have tried to reproduce, in order to prove it a forgery. When the Lord’s body was exposed to God’s light, just like film being exposed in a camera to light, it produced a negative. In all these things God has not left us without his divine witness of events.
I am wondering if the concept of resurrection does not originate in the previous myths as a attribute of divine being, We have it often, one god or deity killing the other, dying in battle or being swallowed by a fish, but at the end NO, victory, the deity somehow survives the death, is back to life again and acts. This is something people were buying, they were used to the fact that deity somehow can not be permanently killed because killing means can not act anymore. The resurrection was needed to add to Christ the importance and makes his teaching immortal, gives immortality and power to his messages. The resurrection itself had to happen in a cave, he had to wrapped, there had be someone witnesses to make it real and believable
Yup. To me now, its no different than kids being upset about a pets death, and the parents saying.. its ok, he is in heaven now.
@@TheScotsalan Infinity, eternity and death (own in particular) are very hard to understand and accept . It seems to be almost biologically impossible for our brains. it is much easier to accept existence of divine being behind all than reality, universe, black holes etc.
As a Christian I will respond: the suffering servant also is a theme troughout in the old testament. It started with Joseph as the one suffering, being thrown into a pit and left to die, eventually he was sold. In the end he forgives his brothers and saves his family. I actually believe this myth became fact as this pattern seems to be a returning one throughout history, even to this day. Rene Girard has written on it as his theory of mimesis which is very interesting.
@@405servererror As a former Christian: Gospels were written by people who knew Old Testament, so it would be even surprising not seeing the analogies. Everybody is different but we also share many common things. Most of us will more likely believe in something and less likely with something else. More believable stories would more likely be fixed through generations then less believable, but the fact that beyond lighting is electricity and not a divine being (Ball, Zeus, Perun and so on) is a fact despite divine being being a original explanation across many cultures in the past.
I’ve always found it comical that the other gospel writers felt the need to change Mark’s ending. Clearly, when Mark ends it with “The women were terrified and told no one” he is using irony because obviously they must’ve told someone for the disciples to know and later preach the resurrection. You can almost see “Mark” winking at the reader because Jesus was constantly telling everyone not to say some thing about him and they almost always turn around and do it anyway.
No, he's specifically trying to diminish the women. Early Christianity had two conflicting traditions on who became the first witness to the resurrected Jesus. Some thought it was Mary Magdalene, others Peter. Paul knew only the Petrine tradition ("...first to Cephas..."). Mark knew both traditions, but Mark also had a beef with Peter (or followers of the real Peter). He can't erase the traditions because he knew that's how Christianity started, so he had to begrudgingly write down both while being a bit of an ass about it. As a result, the women became the first witness BUT TOLD NO ONE, diminishing them, and the story ended before Peter could become the first witness. However, he did subtly concede with the command to go to Galilee that he accepted the Petrine witness tradition. Basically Mark is saying, okay, I don't think the women were the first witnesses, but I'm not going to exalt Peter with my pen, so there!
Or, it's all just made up.
@@andrewsuryali8540 that’s your opinion. Interesting hypothesis, but not very convincing.
A simpler explanation is that Jesus later appeared (or appeared to appear) to the disciples in person, which IMO would be a much better proof of his resurrection.
@@lazykbys ahha very true
I thought that I saw demons when I was in my early twenties and didn't tell anyone for more than a year. Looking back, I was probably unwittingly going through the DTs.
If you'd lived 2000 years ago and written it all down, perhaps your book would now be in the New Testament.
The bible is so diverse that nobody knows what the heck it is talking about.
😂facts your right
I don't think Apostle Paul would want to hear that. When does the next Jesus slave ship sail? (Romans 3:7)(Acts 15:36-39)
That's because it's a Jew lie.
You have to rightly divide the word of truth. Ask yourself who is the author writing too. Most of the Bible was written to Jews. Only Paul wrote to Gentiles.
Bart’s laugh is so entertaining. It goes 0-100 and then 100-0 so quickly lol
Laughing for what cause?
@@ReligionOfSacrifice happiness
@@coltoncatalli8148, what do reasonable people think?
These two men are fools for it is obvious. The women came back upset that Jesus was gone and thinking someone took their Lord and so the men (disciples ran to the tomb) when the women finally told the men it was because they also were confirming the empty tomb and the women then told them the story they heard from the messenger (angel) and that they would see Jesus.
What is the point of the end of Mark?
The Christians exist because Jesus rose again and was seen and men died for the gospel because they picked up the cross daily and laid the only foundation that can be laid and were persecuted because they are not above their master. So were Luke and Matthew trying to correct the fool Mark or were they writing the truth that Mark not only told the truth to a point which would never die for Jesus is the Lord of the whole universe and so His movement is full of power? The lie is Islam will wipe away Judaism and Christianity away with the wiping away of Israel, but then read Revelation 11:7-15 and believe in the power of Christ Jesus to testify of Himself with millions of dead bodies. You see the Muslims fall never to rise again per Amos 8:14 for enemies be made footstools per Psalms 110:1 and the Muslims in ash forms shall be an abhorrence unto all flesh per Isaiah 66:24, but know that Jesus' arm is not short in that some of the Muslims leave Islam between the second and third woe in Revelation 11:7-15 by screaming out "YAHWEH IS MY ELOHIM" per Zechariah 13:8-9. You can either choose Jesus with your last breath or scream out for the rocks to fall upon you for who shall be able to stand.
No one is able to stand before Jesus without His blood covering them when they approach the throne of Jesus who has all the power of Shekinah Glory, so be indwelt with the Spirit of Christ Jesus unless you are Enoch who can walk with Jesus whenever you want, like Adam in the Garden of Eden.
The ending is don't be like the women who don't tell the gospel of good news.
See Christianity? We are brave and still speak of Christ to all the ends of the Earth, but the testimony does come to an end. Know Revelation 11:7-15.
A delightful burst of energy!
its disturbing
15:19 Against the argument of a real person who was a spiritual teacher named Jesus speaks the fact that nothing he said was written down immediately in the year 30 or 33, but instead the first Paul letters and the first gospels were written decades later.
So cool you got Dr Ehrman on your show :) His books are great!
He tends to contradict myself in his own books, but he is a good debater, I 'll give him that.
@@masterbaiter7537 Scientific studies in religious hospitals show that prayer for others doesn't work. Never works. Self-prayer works because of the Placebo effect. I believe strongly in most of the moral beliefs that I think you do though I never in my life thought these were divinely inspired.
Academic estimates around 90,000,000-1.2 billion people have died as a result of Islam and its continuous war of religious expansion since its inception. Problem: they take it too literally. Christians over time are less fanatical.
A strong morality should be taught but most religions and holy books demonstrate a lot of immoral or questionable dogma. It's so obvious. Some people think there is no morality without god but this is total nonsense as proven by scientific studies on the equal morality of non-believers.
Good behavior comes from being taught by parents, mentors, or even imaginary 'gods'. It can be imbued from childhood and reinforced over the years, setting up an internal moral clock that usually plays a role in good behavior. The best and most moral people do good when not being rewarded or watched because it feels good and we are rewarded for our feeling good. I think the basis for moral behavior is largely one's level of empathy. The seeming display of empathy by religious people may be motivated by scoring points with their imaginary god for the reward of a good imaginary afterlife or avoidance of imaginary hell.
Love Bart’s new mic!
I always have this issue with the resurrection: Roman guards were placed at the tomb at the behest of the Pharisees, yet they never testify to the resurrection. They aren't even there. Roman soldiers would rather die in battle with a host of angels than be executed for desertion, which required death by burning.
Lets see, an angel appeared and rolled the stone away. The guards were frightened so that they collapsed to the ground as if dead. My reasoning is that when they came to and saw the body was gone after seeing the angel and putting 1+1 together, I don't think they had much fear of man, and they were probably prepared to report what happened, fantastic though it was, because let's face it, that was their only chance. Pilate didn't give a flying rat's ass. He was placating the Jews to get them off his back. He never did want to have Jesus crucified; he's the one who put the sign up before God and men proclaiming Jesus to be the king of the Jews to mock them. I think he would've laughed at the Jews plight should the body turn up missing, which it did. That Jesus disciples came at night and took the body away on their watch looked pretty stupid until what must've been a very large sum of money came into play. What's it going to be? A fantastic story or a lie and a big bag of money? With a large sum of money you could bribe the next Roman in line you reported to. And they certainly weren't going to tell their sargent or whoever that the body was stolen; the Jews merely paid them to spread the rumor of such a tale. To say it was an angel isn't likely to be believed. And where did you get the notion that Roamn soldiers would rather die in battle with a host of angels malarkey? IT just told you what they did; they fainted. If you saw a very powerful angel, besides scream like a little girl, shit your pants and faint, what would your options be? No matter what, the body they were supposed to be guarding was gone. What would you do? Besides, another option was after 3 days their watch was over as per Pilate's agreement, with the Jews, and maybe the Jews concocted the story that His disciples took the body after that. They weren't going to stay and guard the tomb forever.
It happened. Get over yourself. You want to say it didn't happen because you are so desperate for it not to be true, otherwise you wouldn't even be on here looking to support that hope that there will be no one to judge you when you die. As if getting enough people to agree with you, all of you together would somehow cause the greatest miracle since the resurrection, and make this horrible nightmare of a risen messiah who will judge you go away. It will never go away; to the end of history it won't go away. One way or the other you're going to have to deal with it, and the way you're dealing with it now reminds me of the Roman guards.
But what does all this boil down to? All this point counterpoint, story vs facts vs liars with motives doesn't prove anything one way or the other. And MANY people believe in Jesus for the same stupid blind reasons that Muslims believe their twaddle. This is how you should look at the whole picture: If there really was a man named Jesus who was crucified and risen from the dead 3 days later proving to be the Son of God, don't you agree He would be able to prove that reality to anyone He pleased? Of course you would have to believe that. And that's precisely what He does do without a by your leave from you or me or any man. TBH, I hope everything works out for you in the end.
Glad to see Robert Englund doing well👍🏽
When the Holy Spirit of God, the Father fell unto me, love beyond comprehension open my heart to a Love for others, that cannot die unless I would refuse the Christ. Jesus crucified for every person. And I have warm and comfort and Love no mater if I have difficulties and trials I go through. Its been 42 years and counting There is no judgement in Love, for anyone can turn to God till their last breath.
This type of Deep dive into Mark's gospel in itself was done over 10 years ago in a book by John Carroll called The Existential Jesus. Obviously I don't know how close the content is but it seems like the intent was very similar. The book is still available and well worth a read.
It's not Mark's gospel, it's the gospel (of Jesus Christ) according to Mark.
@Tryme Yes! Mark died for our sins and rose from the dead... But he didn't want his mother in law to know so he called himself "Yhéssuss"...
Thanks!!
Found it used on Amazon for about a dollar! Yea!🎉
@@lunarmodule6419 Okay phoney.
The gospel of Mark presents Jesus as both a hidden Messiah in some parts and also as a overt self proclaimed Messiah. A part of the story that makes it clear that Jesus proclaimed he was the Messiah to others and didn't keep it a secret is at the end when he was captured and is being accused of blasphamy in the court of the high priest (Mark 14). The gospel states that some people were testifying against Jesus that they heard him say "I will destory this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands" (Mark 14:58). It is clear that Mark knew of the original statement because Mark says that it was misrepresented/misquoted, saying "And some stood up and bore false witness against him..." the actual statement being "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" which is quoted in John's gospel (John 2:19). This shows that Jesus made known to others outside of his disciples about his resurrection. The other clear self proclamation was when the high priest blatently asked "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" which shows that Jesus clearly expressed himself in Messianic ways and was believed to be the Messiah by others because for what other reason would the high priest have asked him this. Jesus proceeds to reference Daniel 7:13, 14, and the people of the time knew that through this he was proclaiming to be the Messiah because he was attributing the passage to himself.
Yep. You're smarter than Ehrman. But you probably don't blame fake Christianity for turning you away from real Christianity like Ehrman does
The rich young man example Bart gives at 5:09 is interesting. Key differences:
1. Mark's Jesus tells the man to keep the commandments but only lists commandments 5 to 9 (re murder, adultory, stealing, false witness, and honour parents) . He omits the 'thou shall not covet' as well as the god commandments (numbers 1-4 and 10). But as Bart says, he curiously adds a new 'don't defraud' commandment, which is not in the original 10.
2. Matthew's Jesus says the same as Mark' Jesus, but leaves off the don't defraud commandment.
3. Luke's Jesus similarly says the same as Mark's Jesus, except for also omitting the don't defraud commandment... but then adds a new 'love your neighbour as yourself' commandment... which is not part of the 10 given to Moses.
The other interesting thing is that all three lists maintain exactly the same order of entries as each other... but which is different to the order recorded in Moses's ten commandments. This seems to be strong evidence of not only direct plagiarism, but the invention of 'improvements' by Matthew and Luke.
Defraud - to rob, get what is not yours. it is in the Commandments, do not covet. please study the word and not just believe what this fool is saying.
@@1amCrucifiedWithChrist Covet: Yearn to possess
Defraud: iIlegally obtain money from (someone) by deception
You do understand the difference between 'thought crimes' and actual crimes?
@@canwelook its the translators fault not the writer. the greek word is simple as covet.
@@1amCrucifiedWithChrist No. You are 100% wrong. Please back up your claimed correct translation of Mark 10:19 ... which bible translation you using?
Every bible's translation of this word in this passage that I can find has Jesus commandment as do not 'defraud' or do not 'cheat'. Not one of them says do not 'covet' as you claim.
In addition, Mark's Jesus disagrees with not just the Exodus 20 commandment of Moses' god, but with the 2 different Jesus characters discussion with the same rich young man in Matthew's (Matthew 19:18), and Luke's (Luke 18:20) gospels
Hello Gentlemen great teachings don't stop. I was brough up going to Church I had fun ,but when I became a teenager things started to change my first moment I wondered why the pictures of God looked like humans so l askef that question in Sunday School the answer l got was God can look like anything He wants to.Then I asked if God is not a man why do you say He when you refer to GOD never got a answer to that 19:03 19:03 one. After a while I lost interest.I told my grandma I am not going to church,I waited for the fireworks, there weren't any to my surprise .She said come here son sit down ,she gott her bible said to me come here let me show you something ,JOHN 5: 24 she said if you can just do this you will be alright forget all of that other nonsense. lam now ,70 yrs old and never forgot that. 🤔👍
Wow, I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but the empty tomb is one of my favorite parts of the Gospel. I didn't do what Crossan did though, look at crucifixion records, I looked at other legends instead.
Specifically, legends involving a King returning from the dead, a rock, and a tomb (The Door to Hades).
Guess which legendary Corinthian King and legendary Son of Virtue and the God of the Wind fits the Bill?
The Empty Tomb of a King, at the end of the Gospel, is the end of labor that was given to Sisyphos by Zeus.
The sacrifice of an innocent man being the Key.
The innocent rock at the entrance to Hades (The door to the tomb) and the Rock of Sisyphos.
Sisyphos is the reason the gospel had to end with "An Empty Tomb for a King".
It's very eye-opening when you learn about the parallelisms Christianity shares with many much older mythologies. And some apologists say the parallelisms don't contradict the Christian Gospel. I don't know how they justify it at that point.
Yeah. Sure. Yawn. But no number of people willingly and freely went to their deaths for Zeus.
It just does not compare.
@@lorenzor124 And how do you know?
What do the super honest pedophile Catholics have to say about Zeus?
@@lorenzor124 yeah because who would believe that the most violent civilizations, that happened to be very religious, didn't die for their gods.
@@lorenzor124 you are cherry picking avoiding whole series of similarities
you literally try to refute good arguments with own random non argument
The only flaw in his argument,
Is the romans in all 4 gospels, were hesitant to crucify Jesus and did so after much pressure from the jews.
So the romans wanting to leave his corpse up, for the (full punishment) as they did others, isn't as solid as it would be for a random criminal in Judea at the time.
You are misinformed
@@leviandhiro3596That’s only a potential flaw if you believe that the romans were pressured to crucify Jesus. I think Bart’s position is that the blame placed on the Jews was a later addition.
If the women did not tell anybody, how did the author of Mark know about it?
They didn't tell anybody. They told Mark. He's not anybody he's Mark
Checkmate atheist
Well, he didn't. He made a story to try and fulfill the prophecies from the Old testament. He didn't care About what really happened, but emphasizing on the character of Jesus.
He is winking to the audience
@@JasonHenderson you think Mark was written by Mark? You have to be kidding.
A number of years ago, a man in the UK memorised the Gospel of Mark; which he used to deliver at public events.
If my memory is correct, he gave his recitation during the Edinburgh Festival.
Can you get Dr. Ehrman to talk about Revelation on a future podcast?
Hi Ashley, yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I came across this, from Dr. Ehrman. Pretty cool.
Have a wonderful day!!
Sheldon
th-cam.com/video/f_L4_LmqImY/w-d-xo.html
He did on his own TH-cam channel yesterday
It is said that each one of the twelve and of the seventy wrote a Gospel; but in order that there might be no contention and that the p. 115 number of 'Acts' might not be multiplied, the apostles adopted a plan and chose two of the seventy, Luke and Mark, and two of the twelve, Matthew and John.
The part about the dogs makes me wonder about... “Do not give what is holy to the dogs... lest they...tear you in pieces” (Matthew 7:6). I wonder if Matthew was referencing that and warning the Romans to what they had done in his (Matt's) eyes.
In context of the narrative it was probably to the hostile Jewish Pharisees, though perhaps with rippling meaning towards anyone whose reaction to the gospel is violent and continuously hostile.
(As an aside, we see in Matthew Jesus call a Gentile woman a dog, but then still give what is holy to her. Her reaction is Thanksgiving and faith, no indication of trampling and violence...unlike the hostile Pharisees and eventually the Roman authorities)
Mark 14:28 Jesus says to Peter - "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
There was no need for the women who fled the empty tomb to ever say a word. Jesus already told the Disciples where to meet him.
Arthur Conan Doyle [Sherlock Homes] 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. It's common in religions and cults to believe the leader will return, you find it right around the world, it's in some Buddhist sects, Cult Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Nordic folk traditions. I've met followers of Bagwan Rashneesh (the Indian cultists who opropriated just about every belief and practice imaginable) who believe he's coming back. It's common because in group think there's nostalgia and that leads to cognitive dissidence on this, as well as other claims people come up with about miracles, it's a coping mechanism that's very easily exploited by successor leaders.
Nice conversation Derek but whose feet are those in the background?
Jesus’s teachings were absolutely about his death and resurrection.
Jesus quite literally prayed to be saved from death
I like hearing Ehrman talk about the way his thought evolves. That's the strength of a thinker - you work within a certain paradigm because you have to, but you make discoveries within that paradigm that eventually break it and force you to construct a new one that incorporates your data in a holistic way. And then the cycle repeats, as your theoretical model is constantly being refined towards a closer approximation of the truth. (Note, btw, that "truth" is ultimately a matter of elegance and simplicity and convenience of thought. You CAN argue, knowing everything we know, that the Bible is literally true from beginning to end without a single error of fact. You'll just be forced to some monstrous contortions to maintain that argument - as when astronomers had to come up with crazy systems to explain the observed movements of the stars and planets under a geocentric theory, while heliocentrism explained everything very neatly.)
3 guys walk into a lions den, one was afraid for his life, one thought he could tame it, the other saw himself.... understanding the outside world as yourself without fear of it is the key to life, its only when a child is taught what is right and wrong that they become divided into someone else's fears. A child has no fear until they are programmed to run from it instead of learning to deal with it.
Or until they touch fire and burn their skin
How many of the 3 guys walked back out of the lions den alive?
Apparently the scholars have it all worked out. Whenever the gospels agree, they have been directly copied and should not be trusted. Whenever they differ, they are "in disagreement" and therefore should not be trusted.
I wish they could spend some time listening to courtroom testimony for various trials. When multiple people see the same event, they are going to describe some things in the same way but also provide different "takes" on the same event based on their own personal perspective.
In this case, it is declared the Gospels can't be trusted because Mark's ending is "different" from Matthew and Luke, and it all centers around a single verse: Mark 16:8
"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."
In order for us to believe the women never spoke a word of this to anyone (ever) and thus were involved in keeping the resurrection of Jesus some sort of "secret", we must interpret the last phrase to mean they never spoke of this encounter to any single person ever again (which as the PhD said, makes no sense, since the author tells us in the previous verse the women were instructed to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus would meet them in Galilee -- and spoiler alert, that happened). Remember omission here does not imply contradiction there.
Common sense suggests the author is conveying that the women were too afraid to go around telling everybody they ran into about what they experienced. It's little details like this that actually make the gospels more trustworthy, because if the women had run screaming from the tomb telling their story to every person that would listen, scholars would conclude this moment as the starting point of some dissemination of a myth. So ask yourself, if they were afraid and didn't tell anybody, and instead went straight to the disciples (who already believed in Jesus) how did the news of the resurrection of Jesus get out? Was it not through the gospels and the preaching of the apostles? You have the truth right in front of you. Take hold of it! Read the actual gospels (and Acts) instead of watching someone promoting their wares on a channel that is simply a revenue stream made possible by your view.
Even if you choose to believe this one verse is a difference (and hey, that's what free will is all about) it is no reflection on Jesus. As the PhD concedes, this account matches the other gospels in proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus. He's the same Jesus in all accounts.
The amount of differences between the gospels is staggering. It’s not just one verse. What were his supposed last words? Who went to see the tomb?
If you allow a religion based off this evidence to dictate your life, you should rethink this.
It’s crazy to think we know anything Jesus said or did. 13 books of the NT are Pauls letters. 6 of those are known forgeries. This book is fraudulent full stop and the gospels were all anonymous written decades after this supposed event.
One notices the word “trust”. What prompts someone to trust another? Or trust a story? What prompts distrust? Magicians develop techniques to manipulate and exploit the trust we place in what we see. These tricks can still amaze and delight…like peek a boo for grown ups. Peek a boo is probably the oldest magic trick ever! And it still delights.
Christians are finding people don’t trust the ancient books, the spell is broken for many of us. And Many good people just quietly go along with the true believers and for understandable reasons…
Love, family, and friends are trusted and needed far more than ancient myths of heaven and hell…which is understandable.
Thomas trusts his own senses…he needed evidence… that evidence remains enough to trust the story still today…at least for true believers.
The ancient authors of the Gospels remain trusted by true believers…why? …apparently they trust what they see in the ancient texts…
This functions as confirmation bias and special pleading…or faith…depending on one’s view of reality.
While valid, the usual crucifixion timeline may not apply in this case. Other questions would need to be answered. We do know that his family and followers would be highly motivated to give him a proper burial. Would Pilot care or even notice if he was taken down the same day? Would a simple bribe be enough? Were bribes common in these circumstances? If true, why would a soldier stab him with a spear to ensure death unless he was planning to leave him to his family who was at the scene.
“Pilot” 😂
You can't make sense out of a fictional story..
@@richardlawson6787there’s fictional elements, but a guy called Jesus was killed, who taught something that probably pissed off romans- that’s pretty clear
The best Gospels are the Gnostic Gospels. Unchanged, unaltered. Pure Gospel truths.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Truths?😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@cloudman8911 Textually, pure.
I'll sign up for the course, if Bart tells me where he got his eyeframes.
Malaysia. But he doesn’t want anyone else to have them. 😂
Hogwarts.
@Wolfgang - He makes them look really good.
@@mnamhie figures
could it be that Pilate didn't want him to die because he understood that the Jews were coercing him, so they took Jesus off the cross not too long after the crucifixion, brought him to the tomb, treated him and let him go/or took him to Galilee or somewhere else?
2:55 If they copied it they also changed it? Who says? Luke gathered eyewitness accounts and Matthew was an apostle. So was John. Of course they would add their own witness accounts. But should I change the answers if I’m cheating in a test? Also, who would want to collectively change something they were literally giving their lives for? So important was it to them.
I adore Mr Ehrman's happy laughter 🌞
His laugther is infectious.
@@williamsawyer9894 It is nauseating.
Always make me smile!
Bart Erman was very smart to have left Christianity. Christianity is a 4th century Greek theatre production
@@JesusisaMuslim
Not really, as we know there was a bunch of cults early on who in various ways centered on aspects of the "Christ" narrative!
Heck, even Islam have aspects of this cult-like fan-fiction of parts of the Jewish and the Christian narratives which Mohammed in his trade as a merchant undoubtedly came into contact with before he started having his seizures!
This is the most illuminating discussion of the Jesus story I have ever heard. These ideas should be required debate in classes on religion. I am an atheist, not because I dismiss the ethical teachings of Jesus, because in general I don't. It is just that they are predicated on supernatural assumptions which I find completely unnecessary.
Love the channel and the outstanding legitimacy of it. Also, got a huge chuckle to learn that you are an expatriated, Fayettecong!! i was at bragg in '65 with the 82nd for several months before heading out for the Nam. i was a mindless 17 year old then.
After all of that military misery was past, i easily fell into butt.......another "cult," and did a 30 year "tour" as a fundi in the church (oy vavoy!!). Presently, i yam an Ehrman-style, "christian atheist," delivered from any cultist thinking, whatsoever. i do have an abiding respect for the historical Jesus, butt.......without subscribing to any supernatural, religious nonsense about him. i am ever so thankful for that liberation.
So, keep on keepin' on with disseminating rational thinking. "IF" we manage to survive our own selves, it will be due to our having clawed our way out of our present, Neanderthal mode of superstitious thinking. Getting rational is the only way that we'll ever do that.
The "ministry" of debunking such irrational thought as that which defines religion, appears to be your present calling. You're good at it. Never give it up. Never go back to being mind controlled by cultists, no matter what it costs you. Take it from a former mind slave.
Ha! A Fayettecong! Who would have guessed it!!!
-🐴
Who is the person that wrote “Mark”?
What is the extant evidence?
Where is the extant evidence?
When was that written?
Why was it written?
What language is it in?
What languages did it go through on its way from the extant text to modern English?
But Jesus predicts his death 3 times in Mark. 8:31-33, 9:30-32, 10:32-34. How could the apostles be that surprised?
Bart seems oblivious to theophanies. They occurred in the OT. Why he thinks Jesus can't appear to Paul at any time is puzzling.
They occur in every culture known. Today, we call them hallucinations....
@@deeder001 Than how do you know you are not hallucinating right now?
@@mistermurtad2831 There are ways to test and interrogate perceptual and sensory experiences. It helps if one has a basic grasp of the natural laws (i.e. physics), is not prone to believing in supernatural nonsense and things such as animals, bushes, and rock formations are capable of speaking. This is partly why schizophrenics are unable to effectively implement these tests.
But would it matter if I were? The hallucination isn't ordering me to kill people, telling me that I'm just so very special to have knowledge 'revealed' to me that others are not special enough to have revealed to them or are not permitted to consider, telling me to smash someone in the face because they are laughing at me behind my back, or that others should be condemned if they don't do what my hallucination tells me they should be doing.
@@deeder001 You miss the point entirely. The video implied that Mark did not have knowledge of Jesus's death. It is clear he knew of Jesus projecting this before his death.
You presume that all can be known has to fit into the natural world. There a many unexplained phenomena that can't be explain by a narrow view of the law of physics.
It's easy to predict something when you're documenting what has already happened. Paul is the antichrist because he changed the new law back to the old
Mark was a teenager in the time of Jesus, so he would not have known all the facts about Jesus that well BUT Matthew was a Disciple of Jesus so he would have corrected the gaps in Mark's Gospel. SO IT DOES NOT MATTER IF MARK WAS WRITTEN FIRST. THE POINT IS MATHEWS GOSPEL IS THE MOST ACCURATE. DEBATE CLOSED
These are indeed textual problems. It gets worse, there are versions of Mark that are far more ancient than the manuscript used for our Canonical Mark that is 100% like Matthew word for word. The incident of Jesus cursing the fig and the passage that Jesus says "why do you call me good" are word for word exactly like Matthew in these ancient Markan manuscripts found in trash rubble's in Alexandria. Some experts have speculated our Canonical Mark is not original and was changed a bit to make it look like is different than Matthew. These papyrus fragments are know as Oxyrhynchus Mark texts. They also found old versions of John where it differs a bit than canonical John. In this Gospel fragment of John seems older than all Gospel's called Egenton fragments. In one section of Egerton Jesus was in the temple with his disciples and the priest asked why they haven't changed to white garments. Then after that incident it moves forward to Jesus leaving the temple and going to Jordan river. I long have speculated our Canonical Mark was edited by Marcion because these ancient Manuscripts of Mark are closer to Matthew with almost no disagreement than the current canonical Mark. Some of these shows evidence that Matthew was begining to become contracted and redacted.
wars between projections of more convenient "truth"
you could add more differences from that scripture that's what ppl are interested in
This is fairly new to me and I realized that I am a year behind on this, but I am going to ask this anyway...regarding Mark and the abrupt ending. I pulled out my Gideon Bible and there is in Mark chapters 9 through 20 which tells a further resurrection story. Doing some research I read where some older manuscripts did not include these later verses - however the King James version does, the New International Version does as well as the version the Catholic Church uses - though the Jehovah Witnesses do not. I don't know why Mr. Ehrman wouldn't acknowledge the discrepancy, but also don't understand how or why the discrepancy arose in the first place. Can someone help??
To most scholars they agree Mark was added to, so Bart assumes the abrupt ending is what to talk about. The bible also got a bit about the Trinity being added, otherwise the Trinity is not in the bible at all and is just a stupid greek idea where the spirit/word of a thing was a separate power. No apostle would agree to a third godlike creature beside Jesus, one which did no miracles on earth yet we are supposed to pray to based on a few fake passages in bible. Jesus didn't teach much that was new, be nice and judge less and obey gods commands... The Catholics then added crazy holy spirit and saints and 7 commandments and priests having power to forgive and priests having power to interpret bible and we must accept....
An empty tomb just means the tomb is DAMN EMPTY!
The saints came out of the grave and went down into the holy city. They didn't even bother about picking up a death certificate. (Matthew 27:52-53)(Romans 3:7)
Here's a wild thought, different details is one thing, but shouldn't any of the gospels disagreeing with each other raise a red flag or two?
I don't have expert knowledge on the gospels, the revising and editing, etc, but everyone has a right to an opinion. Personally, I find it hard to go from "a young boy who works with his father as a carpenter" to "a young philosophical child displaying critical and free thinking at the synagogues" to "an adult who thinks he's divine and asks random fishermen and tax collectors to become his disciples" to "an adult who is crucified for teaching his non-tolerated beliefs in Roman territory" to "a divine person and son of God who ascends to heaven after going to hell"......... and further christian theological luggage......... I go about as far as "an adult who is crucified for teaching his non-tolerated beliefs in Roman territory" and THAT could even be a stretch.
Demystifying Jesus makes him much more 'obtainable' and that is dangerous to the pharasies of the world gatekeepers of god.
On the cognitive dissonance point of re-booting the understanding that the crucifixion had to change the narrative is somewhat problematic in light of the early Hellenist writing of Daniel. Chapter 9 explicitly portrays the Messiah as being cut off for the people stands both early and apart from the earliest gospels or their revisions.
There is a large caveat to Bart's empty tomb theory.
The Roman Army in Judea during this time didn't consist of classical Roman legions as we know them, they were auxillary forces who didn't have Roman citizenship and were recruited among locals living in that area.
Therefore it's quite possible they didn't adhere to all traditions of a roman crucifixion.
That is not a caveat. Bart's historical belief is based on a well established practice. Your supposition is that Jesus was an exception to the Romans even though there is no indication he would have been.
Citation needed for that claim. It strains credulity from an administrative perspective, as it could result in military units more loyal to the vassal state than Rome itself, with inherent conflicts of interest potentially leading to siding with a rebellion.
Well, the Local authorities also had their own troops .the Temple had a palace guard of 600. The temple was more the treasury, courts and place of government, housing, commerce as well as various temples. Herodian dynasty also had its own army. The wars they caused were part of the reason for Roman intervention to protection trade. There had been major wars between Greek kingdoms over previous century too
If there was a complex social situation for a novel missiah to emerge: this was the place.
The question of whether Jesus was buried in a tomb is a completely different question than whether there actually was an empty tomb. If Jesus was buried in a tomb, that doesn't mean there was an empty tomb. We don't know where Jesus' body ended up - all we can do is speculate. Him being buried in a tomb could have been completely made up in order to tell a "missing body" story which was common in Greco-Roman culture.
@@decades5643 we don't have to speculate at all. There is evidence or we don't know. I'm we could speculate that Jesus body flew away and laugh at the whole scene - which is another story that was told. Again, with no evidence
The death and resurrection were added later to appease the 'pagan' or old religions and their beliefs. Rome was attempting to provide a national religion that appealed to all for easier governance.
Recommend: “Q, the earliest Gospel “ by John Kloppenborg. His charts of the commonalities of the gospels make so much sense. Enjoy!
except there is no Q in mark nor John
If Jesus was resurrected physically, what happened to his body? ascended/ floated up into the sky after only 40 days?
a faithful intelligent interpretation might be that many of his followers had "visions" of Jesus after his "death", where they were certain that he-was-alive which became legendary ...ie the Emmaus Rd. even Paul said, "and lastly, he appeared to me". of course Paul never said that Jesus as a body appeared to him, yet he had no doubt that it was Jesus.
once the foot is seen, it can't be unseen
I see feet...
"Because, the deal is... Mark knows that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee; he has that tradition. Because he tells the women, go tell the disciples to go to Galilee..." (10:38)
I'm sorry, Dr. Ehrman... but it proves the opposite; it proves Original Mark knew the "apostles" never saw Yeshua again, for so he affirmed by ending his gospel with the women supposedly running off and telling no one to go to Galilee. But you're right in one sense: Obviously Original Mark's author must have known or heard of an actual Galilean appearance by "Yeshua" to disciples there following the crucifixion... and that the "apostles" were not in attendance for it. Only this explains all we see -- and don't see -- in Mark. Only this explains why Mark would scapegoat the women (something only seen in Mark) AND then end his Gospel with the "apostles" never learning of the resurrection, never traveling to Galilee, and never experiencing that final appearance there by Yeshua. And ... it was all the women's fault. See how nicely this "story" all seemed to work at the time? Of course, the Church leaders soon realized they had backed the wrong mythological "horse", here. Thus why, beginning with Matthew, they attempted to correct this glaring error by doing a complete about-face hoping we wouldn't notice (and sadly, few do).
Remember, Mark's is the first "Gospel" intended to proselytize a new religion... a religion created by, headed by and being marketed by the "apostles" - and Saul(Paul). Thus, as their first "PR" agent", Mark had to ensure the "apostles" were the "good guys" of the story... as much as possible and within reason. Yet all while knowing that despite credible evidence for Yeshua actually appearing post-crucifixion to disciples in Galilee... the "apostles"... the HEROES of the story of Christianity ... had not been invited and had not even been there! WOW! How do you explain that in a way that still has the "apostles" portrayed as Yeshua's closest confidants, as true insiders?! Oh, wait... let's find scapegoats to blame for their glaring Galilean absence! Yeah... that'll do the trick! And so, that's exactly what Mark does... and blames the women.
Right... as if God/Yeshua/"angels" couldn't have appeared to and spoken with the "apostles" just as they had to the women.
Only decades later was it realized such an appearance by Yeshua to the "apostles" was absolutely requisite to the Gospel's/Church's claims to being divinely commissioned to become a world-wide religion. Of course, the problem was... there was Mark's Gospel ALREADY OUT THERE declaring them absent from any such and ending the account thusly! OOPSIE! Hence why the Gospel of Matthew was concocted to directly contradict Mark's... and Mark was amended to include its own later-concocted version of a final appearance to them by Yeshua, one that contradicts both Matthew's and Luke's. 😳
Don't you see? It's not Mark's exclusion of these later false claims of a "Final Commission" appearance to the "apostles" that evidences for those later claims as true... but, instead, its that very exclusion of all such in Mark, the earliest Gospel, that proves these later claims false.
The making of the Jesus legend is very interesting. Did Paul's letters precede the signs Gospels and the Q?
Paul's letters (50s), then Mark (70s) then Matthew (80s) then John (90s). Q is hypothetical and frankly unnecessary.
@@phyllis9998 what's the chronology of the signs gospel? When was it compiled?
@@srebalanandasivam9563 synoptic gospels, not signs gospels. Good to see that you're taking an interest in it all. I'm just putting you right on that. Me, when I became interested in art mispronounced Renoir and called him Renor until someone corrected me 🤣
@@srebalanandasivam9563 we have no extant work that is known as the signs gospel
@@srebalanandasivam9563 It is still debated but the majority opinion is as I stated above.
Derek, I must say; I am in complete agreement with on a big point that you made. Although in many ways, the church does a lot good to help the poor and needy; it has also done great harm to many people. I was one of them. I can't begin to describe the agonizing shame and guilt I deal with, for so many years; due to my sexuality. Although I worked through all of that long before I found your channel; I have seen great benefit in the episodes of MythVision. I really do believe that any Christian who's willing to just hear you guys out and, do their own research; will be far less harmful in many ways to those they seek to convert. I want to thank you; for both creating this channel and, putting it to such enlightening use.
Thank you little brother.
Maybe required for clickbait? ... Ehrman would not say in general, "you do not know Jesus." He might... say, "many people have a view of Jesus that is not in keeping with history." I'm guessing I'm unusual here, but these kind of sensationalist titles put me of. I want to like MythVision. I want to watch the videos. I do not want title after title coming saying something overly sensational. I think the straight scoop is just as good.
I don't think the title of this one is so bad, but I take your general point - I fear that Dereck can put off the very people who most need to hear this stuff, by over-cooked choice of title.
I agree, but i don't care at all about regular guy named Jesus, the magical guy clearly didn't exsist.
It means the same thing, doesn't it? That's not what click bait means. The title doesn't have to be a quote, it just has reflect the actual content.
I'm going to throw this out as a possibility for an empty tomb. I had a friend a few decades ago who was in the Peace Corps in West Africa. She told a story about how the nephew of a powerful politician got kidnapped. He was eventually found dead with body parts missing. What had happened was that the kidnappers thought that because he was related to the powerful politician, he had a connection with power, and the same was true of his body parts.
Possibly, then, shortly after Jesus was laid in the tomb, grave robbers came by to take it away, since Jesus was known for performing miracles. Those who stole him may have thought that his body parts would be powerful. Of course, these are unenlightened beliefs, but if it could happen today, it is even more likely that it could have happened two thousand years ago.
The first verse of the Gospel according to Saint Mark is a confession of Jesus' Divinity. The midway point of Mark's Gospel (Chapter 8) relates Saint Peter's Confession of Jesus' Divinity. And toward the end of the Gospel the Centurion at the Foot of the Cross confesses Jesus as true God and true Man. The Canonical Gospels are timeless documents of Christian Faith; they cannot be properly understood let alone explained by an avowed atheist who rejects the Bible as the authentic Word of God written for our salvation.
A lie always has several versions, while the truth has only one version.
This is an oversimplification and not necessarily true. Because: (1) Everyone has a different perspective on the same story or the same events. (2) People involved in interrogations have noted that a guilty person has a rehearsed lie they keep telling over and over, while innocent people tend to change their stories while under intense pressure to try to appease their interrogators and end the exhausting interrogation process.
@@gerasoras It is really telling that you are attaching the same weakness as humans under interrogation to a god that is alleged by believers to be Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and Omni Intelligent. Seriously, a Supreme Being that is supposedly far superior to Humans can't get his story straight? WTF???!!! So what I can conclude from this is that your comment is alluding to the fact that god is Man- Made with all the weakness of Human Attributes and Characteristics.
6:56 , The women were afraid and didn't tell anyone.????? If the women didn't tell anyone , how is someone able to write about it?
Obviously, Mark received this information by divine inspiration. (j/k)
An empty grave is a sign of being a god? David Marcus and Saavik found Spock's casket/torpedo tube empty on the Genesis Planet in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. So is Spock a god?
Matthew and John were two of the twelve Apostles while Mark was not. Mark is believed to be a just a disciple. So Matthew and John knew first hand what happened after the Resurrection.
It never ceases to amuse me that we need serious scholarship to understand what Jesus thanks God for being so simple a child could understand.
Agreed. Some things are so easy that a child could understand. But, and I could be wrong, I also thank God for scholarship. I have learned things from scholarship no church has ever taught me. And in the Bible we see the power of when scribes turn to God. Like Paul, Stephen, and the wise scribe in Mark 12.
I am a Gentile and many of us are Gentiles, and we don't have the benefit or education to understand the Jewish context of some of the stories. Nor do we even understand or get educated in the Greco-Roman context of it.
These scholars God has raised up for us do all the historical work for us and then write neat simple little books we can read in one week what took them 20 years to learn.
I appreciate them and thank God for that. Because I and many others would never ever take the time to learn so much for the Bible's sake.
It is interesting to me that people are still coming after Jesus. It goes to show that if He wasn't who He said He was then why bother? The question is still a valid one, "who do men say that I am" a quote from Jesus. Time will tell but as for me, He is who He said that He is... Shalom.
Johnny Stewart Nobody "coming after" Jesus of Nazareth, polytheist. These are scholars having a discussion and uncovering some lies about your lying imposter religion.
@@youknowitstrue3826 now everyone is a scholar 🤔...time will tell and the truth will be revealed...
@@johnnystewart6812 Is Jesus God's son or God #2? You had the truth, right?
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for the..um...revelation that the _Book of Acts_ and the _Gospel of Luke_ were both written by the same author and _still_ manage to contradict each other.
😂 Good one. The question almost no theologian ever asks is why. Why did the church accept four gospels that contradict each other? Why did they not follow the cleaned up canon of Marcion? Why are there even contradictions within one and the same parable? Once you come to an understanding of that problem, you're much closer to understanding the gospel writers and their audience. In all my years at university to get my MA, I only found one author that really addressed this issue. And to this day it was one of the most profound books on religion that I ever read.
@@MrSeedi76Currently one hypothesis is "Greco-Roman Biographical" genre.
I am from ethiopia
it is good perspective bart!! thanks 🙏🙏🙏🙏
He who dies with the most books in a bookshelf wins.
Wins the attention of the audience.
'He surely must know what he is talking about.'
i used to believe that, until i realized most books are full of BS. so i threw out most and only refer to my bibles in the original greek. life makes more sense now
@@ngmui430 Original Greek?
I saw my father in a powerful dream after his death and my father and I interacted in a loving manner in the dream. Our love for each other was communicated even though I was the sole person speaking. I can see where a dream this powerful could appear to be verification that my dad survived death because otherwise he could not be seen in physical form.
BTW: From my Fundamentalist Christian past I believe that that brand of faith is so narrow that this Ermann course would be heretical because the entire issue with fundamentalism is the doctrine is absolute and cannot be changed or looked out in ANY essentially alternative manner.
Funny how the people here hasn't seen the debates with Daniel B. Wallace and how he crushes Bart Ehrman
Il have a look
I always enjoy Dr. James White as well. Wallace and White dig deeper. God bless their insight. 👍✝️
What if it was from grave up, back down in the same pure state that all the priests were afraid of dying from, and around for a bit to show that it wasn't all a lie before taking back off into whatever's beyond the furthest beyond?
That's what I've always understood the gist of it as.
And Paul would've been referring to the incident on the road to Damascus as to seeing after the fact. Seeing who was being persecuted face to face made him blind. According to the account.
There were verses added to the end of Mark.
Why women gone with perfume so it indicated something wrong, third day also applied means not dead
Please do a video on the Gospel of the holy12, with Bart 1st century true bible confirmed by the Clementine homilies Gospel of the Nazarene Gospel of the ebunites oh yeah, & the Adam Eve apocrypha Ethiopic Geez original, they switched the offering of Cain and Abel. At the council of Nicaea. The problem is you can read the Bible in Cain‘s eyes or Abel‘s eyes. You won’t know this until you avoid the meat and the strong drink. It’s the flesh that blinded us from the kingdom. The gospel of the holy 12 is the gospel of Q if you know what that means also, conveniently they killed all the early Christians no one’s following the original commandments, nor Yeshua’s teachings today people follow Paul and they don’t even realize he contradicts Yeshua in every single way smh 🤦♂️
Why would Matthew who was supposedly an apostle and an eye witness copy from Mark who was not an eye witness?
Supposedly being the operative word. We don't know who wrote the book of Matthew. We can assume he was Jewish and local because he corrects the book of Mark's mistakes. But there is nothing telling us he was an apostle. Plus the book was written in the late 1st century ce, long after anyone who might have known a real Jesus was dead.
As far as I know Mark was not the first gospel it is the oldest surviving gospel there are fragments from older gospels
What "older" gospel?
Are you referring to the Q fragments that they think is proto-Mark? I think they settled on them being just a really old draft of Mark.
@@ProgrammedForDamage Apparently they don't know what they are actually referring to.
open minded Christians I appreciate both of you
They're atheists
bart is a former christian. then he woke up.
Bart has the best laugh and personality 🤣 😂
A cartoon of Bart is needed or talking doll😅
man the idea of jesus getting eaten by dogs is new to me, its pretty crazy and it reminded me of catholics eating the eucharist or his "body". could it be a ritual that came from that????!!!!
Not necessarily bro, none of The Four Gospels have to be in any "chronological order" as you say. Each one is from the individual perspective at the same time that it happened from each person who was observing it as it was occuring.It's done that way to show us today that it actually took place from a bystanders point of view!
Not at the time it was happening
@@crede9427 and smarty-pants how do you know when they "happened?"
So Luke was there when exactly?
No thy where written at different times and were later given the names but where not on the book at that time only later
Well, except they are. The book of Mark was written first, after 70 ce. Since both the authors of Matthew and Luke copy the book of Mark, they had to be written even later than Mark. Book of Luke doesn't say it was an eyewitness account, none of them do, so they're not individual perspectives. Since the book of Luke's author says all the other gospels are bogus and he's going to the write the one TRUE gospel, that means he wants his readers to believe all the other gospels floating around (including Mark) are fake.
Yeah but he said in Matthew 24:5 that calling him "the Christ" or "the Messiah" was the deception and most pastors just skip right over that or claim that it means there will be multiple Christ which it does not because "epi" in Greek is a layer or coating over or superimposing of something on top of something else. Example would be epidermis is your upper layer of skin.
Mat 24:5 For many will come in [superimposing on] my name, SAYING, ‘I AM THE CHRIST," and will lead many astray.
Good video. I think (as Dr Ehrman says) it's perfectly reasonable to believe the empty tomb was a legend, based on what knowledge we have available regarding Roman standard operating procedures (SOPs) for performing a crucifixion. But, it's also perfectly reasonable to believe an exception was made in Jesus' case. Even in modern times, deviations and exceptions to SOPs are made-and sometimes fairly frequently-by virtually every organization. Certainly capital punishments performed today don't always go just one way. That's not a result of cognitive dissonance. It is a result of organizations adapting to an unusual situation that exists at that specific moment in time. They adapt to their perception of the potential risks and needs that exist, regardless of how they might normally prefer to operate. If the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John said there was an empty tomb, why not believe them? Why discount their writings over those of some other authors who were writing about a different time, place and participants? I don't disagree with Dr Ehrman's view, but he didn't convince me that it was the correct one.
It is so unlikely that the Roman authorities would treat a dissident who questioned the very authority of Rome with any favour. I struggle to believe other than the gospel writers, Mark in particular were wrong.
@@robertloader9826 Not disagreeing with you. I just have a hard time believing the Romans would crucify someone as a dissident rebel who said things like "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s" (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:20-22). They must've crucified Jesus for a different reason. My guess is Pilate was afraid of a Jewish rebellion starting on his watch, and how that would look to his superiors. So I think he crucified Jesus for purely political optics reasons (appeasing conservative Jews; such as Caiaphas, the wealthy Sadducees who liked their money, the traditionalistic Pharisees. etc; who did not want Jesus questioning the status quo or making any changes to their religion). If this was not a routine treason crucifixion, then why compare it to one? Pilate didn't crucify Jesus because he saw him as a threat to Rome, but to keep relations relatively peaceful with the locals. If we can believe people at that time behaved much like people do today, then it is perfectly reasonable to agree with the Gospels that the Romans didn't do a by-the-book crucifixion on Jesus. It really could've happened just the way they said it did. Bart Ehrman is an extremely smart man, but even very smart men can be wrong about some things.
@@dmw0077 Not really a convincing argument, nothing you said there gives any indication as to why the body of Jesus would be treated in any way different to the body of any other dissident. To remove the body to a tomb would create a shrine, the last thing Pilate would have desired!
@@robertloader9826 Why would Pilate care if a tomb became a shrine? Again, there is zero evidence that Jesus was advocating rebellion against Roman rule. Caiaphas probably did cared, but he wasn't the one in charge of crucifixions. Once Jesus was dead, Pilate's interest in the whole affair was over. If anyone had pleaded for the body, why wouldn't he have given it to him (or her)? The Romans were occupiers. Augustus wanted peace in the region, which is why he let Herod Antipas appear to have some local power in the area, when the real power was 100% Roman. The Romans cared little (if at all) about the Jewish religion. Pilate could've easily let someone take Jesus' body to a tomb just to thumb his nose at Caiaphas and his religious concerns. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...only to point out that Dr Ehrman's take on the subject is highly questionable.
@@dmw0077 It is just as likely that Pilate may have feared unrest and ordered the body buried quickly and quietly in secrecy to avoid any surprises, so that nothing more be heard of Jesus! Pilate’s interest in the whole affair may not have been entirely bound by his duty, but of his inner thoughts we shall never know. I still however regard Mr. Ehrman’s position that the body would have been left as per standard procedure more likely than it being removed to parties unknown. Not sure why your purely speculative opinion is less questionable than his informed one.
I can see how people will compare the gospels, doing such an analysis, come to certain conclusions, but here is some points from historians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries said:
* John Mark followed Peter around as he preached, wrote down what he said, showed it eventually to Peter, who was indifferent to it, neither approving nor disproving.
Clement of Alexandria having studied under direct students of the apostles James, John, Peter, & Paul wrote about 190 AD:
"5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement."
Souce: Eusebius Ecclessiastical History. Book 4, CH 14
www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm
* Long after the synoptic gospels were written, the apostle John was asked by Christians to write his experiences with Jesus. He finally agreed.
* Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew to the Jews. Later, many translated it.
Matthew in oral form in hebrew is the first one in my opinion. If you gather Papias, Ireneas, the Muratorian Fragment. A lot say he wrote it in Hebrew, but I think its composed in hebrew and writen down in the end in greek. Papias is the one who got it right "He composed the oracles of Jesus in hebrew and people translated them as best as they could." The reason why, is because if you look at it, it looks like it was writen as an oral recitable memorisation composition, in hebrew, and then writen down in greek by the author, translated. And also how the earllyest history vertions are that Matthew is the first Gospel, hence that its alwayse the first in the order in Bibles. But the fact it was memorised standard narrative, explains why Mark and Luke and Matthew are so similar and basicly one same narrative with some difference.
And the end of Mark was likely dropped off at the end of an early key copying. The things in the end of Mark are in the Diatessaron mid second century work, and Ireneas knows it. All that is before P45 and SInaiticus and Vaticanus.
i love how christians ignore all the evidence and simply state “in my opinion” or “i (want to) believe….”. lmfao
@@ngmui430 The evidence for Mark being the first prototype Gospel are what ? It's deffinetely not "All the evidence".
And as for the ending of Mark, I was surprised watching a debate between two christians who held both opiions about the ending of Mark, and seeing alll the evidence they discussed, now hearing people like Bart Ehrman choose not to count it as reliable material is surprising. The 1 John 5:7 and the Woman taken in adultery isnt that shocking, (and I've made videos on my former channel on those two, I am going to update the 1John5:7 one sometime because of new evidence I came cross.) But the longer ending of Mark just looks like a text critic is looking for a stirr up. And that's silly imo.
Heres a presentation about the Ending of Mark and Matthew being a developement of Mark.
th-cam.com/video/aXGpi7kC0Mw/w-d-xo.html
I think there probably was a memorization text, but I have some suspicion that the Gospels used Memory Loci a popular technique of the era, to encode the text. In other words the important thing was the sayings and the geographical narrative was important symbolically but also as a memorization technique.
The method of loci was an Ancient Greek strategy for memory enhancement, which uses visualizations of familiar spatial environments in order to enhance the recall of information.
Also it was Passover. They didn't keep Jesus up on the cross during Passover. They took him down early. He was being nursed through the night. When Mary went to the tomb his was gone and then showed up asking Mary why was she crying? She recognized him and saw his clothes were changed. The book says at first she mistook him for a gardener. Then this is the kicker! John 20:17
King James Version,
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Now somebody tell me what does that say?
Subtitles in spanish please!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Calma pueblo
Just updated that for you my friend.
@@MythVisionPodcast muchas gracias!
I HAVE READ THE SCRIPTURES OF DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND PRAYED TO GOD TO REVEAL THE TRUTH. JESUS APPEARED TO ME AS ALMIGHTY GOD. PREPARE FOR THE COMING BACK OF JESUS
I don't believe in it. But still mildly interesting from a literature standpoint. But not very.
There’s no faster way to become an atheist than by reading the Bible.
You don't believe in what?
BEST SUGGESTION: Empty your cup and Walk with nothing as Christ taught.
I would share the 2 teachings of Christ that maintains balance if people listened.
1. Follow the Golden Rule - Love thy neighbour as you Love GOD and Love thyself.
2. Turn the other Cheek - which does not mean what most think and helps you remain on the Righteous path.
Christ taught: When a person strikes you with their right hand on the right cheek...offer the left. This became known as turn the other cheek but is not understood fully.
It does not mean to let people walk over you or be mild and weak...It means to be meek and strong and take a moment to offer mercy allowing you to remain on the righteous path because those that show no mercy shall receive none.
In order for the right hand to strike the right cheek it must be a backhand blow which is usually done as a sneak attack or emotional outburst...either of which could bring instant regret to the transgressor and might end there if you don't escalate it further. It is just taking a moment and asking; Are you sure this is the path you want to go down? Mercy triumphs over Judgment.
Never said you have to let them hit you...because as i did say; Those that show no mercy shall receive none and they will have chosen their fate but you will remain on the righteous path regardless of their actions.