My favorite line from this lecture (13:42): "It has widely been recognized... well, it's been recognized by some scholars... widely enough for my purposes.... Dale Martin and I agree on this!" I laughed out loud! Martin and Ehrman are the dynamic duo of 21st century scholarship in early Christianity. I'm right now reading both Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" and Martin's "Biblical Truths." Not only are they scholars of the highest order, but they're great friends too, from all they've said of each other. So if Dale agrees with it, that's good enough for Bart, and me too!
These conflicting and confussing Christology clearly shows Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but a religion about him. Apologists like James White, David Wood, and Sam Shamoun do not care about this facts, they just keep on offering lips service.
I'd be curious to see how his views may have developed since this lecture. Maybe he's found more evidence to support them, or maybe opened his eyes to new ideas, or both.
From an historical perspective, Bart Ehrman is hard to argue with. Still, his lectures don't shake my core beliefs. Enhancement would be more descriptive.
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus" Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" So what was the name of the grandfather of Jesus (as is supposed).
Christian dilemma: Why did the Prine of Peace also say I came not to bring peace but a sword and division? What is his real identity, Christ the son of God, or Jesus the son of man? He was no son of man according to the virgin birth. But really the blood history of ths religion tells the truth...most aggresive people on the planet. When has America ever forgiven any slight or transgression?
The more and more I look at the Evidence; as Jesus become more and more as a myth. but there is much more evidence to look at. so I will not say one way or the other. So I am very skeptic both ways.
It can be very confusing, but don't despair. Do what Jesus peace be upon him did and pray to whom he prayed to. Directly to God through no one! May you be guided, ameen!
pretty good evidence of Jesus the man, little that he was divine, he would’ve been stoned to make this claim, And mark, Matthew , Luke , would’ve mentioned this claim. Which they didn’t ..in any case we need a Central focus ...
Interesting polemical address. Makes some leaps to prove that the text could have been read in another way than the traditional one. Seems to need much more proof or evidence to back up his claims. He makes some jumps (like deleting the first two chapters of Luke but there are many more) that the hearer must think are likely or plausible for his polemical speech to work. He definitely brilliant but I can't make those jumps (especially as easily as he is doing in this lecture).
Carl Peterson Have listened to part 1 in this lecture series? It sounds like you haven't listened to this part either. It's clear he's not trying to prove that one interpretation is more correct over another. That's something us Christians have to figure out, and the fact that nobody agrees is proof in of itself that it is highly likely the same scenario played out in early Christianity as well. This guy is a historical textual critic; he's more concerned about the development of early Christianity and its doctrines rather than deciding which one is right. To say that Christianity has never splintered or been interpreted differently is blindly denying history of writings by Church fathers (and contemporary obvious facts about differences of denominations). Moreover, as a textual critic, it makes sense for him to weigh Mark more heavily than the beginning of Luke since he believes the earliest version of Luke didn't contain the nativity narrative. I don't think it's true, but he does have evidence, watch part 1/3 or read his book. This response is already long enough, haha, sorry.
Amazing lecture. This should be a must for any Christian. It is my favourite lecture of Ehrman.
My favorite line from this lecture (13:42): "It has widely been recognized... well, it's been recognized by some scholars... widely enough for my purposes.... Dale Martin and I agree on this!" I laughed out loud! Martin and Ehrman are the dynamic duo of 21st century scholarship in early Christianity. I'm right now reading both Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" and Martin's "Biblical Truths." Not only are they scholars of the highest order, but they're great friends too, from all they've said of each other. So if Dale agrees with it, that's good enough for Bart, and me too!
These conflicting and confussing Christology clearly shows Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but a religion about him. Apologists like James White, David Wood, and Sam Shamoun do not care about this facts, they just keep on offering lips service.
Nice lecture thanks
I'd be curious to see how his views may have developed since this lecture. Maybe he's found more evidence to support them, or maybe opened his eyes to new ideas, or both.
He is open about being an agnostic atheist.
From an historical perspective, Bart Ehrman is hard to argue with. Still, his lectures don't shake my core beliefs. Enhancement would be more descriptive.
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus"
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
So what was the name of the grandfather of Jesus (as is supposed).
The seed came from Mary's linage...it can't come from Joseph because he is not of the line of David...
@@geebrad4048 just a theorie
When did the hebrew god begin to bee seen as Jesus?
Christian dilemma: Why did the Prine of Peace also say I came not to bring peace but a sword and division? What is his real identity, Christ the son of God, or Jesus the son of man? He was no son of man according to the virgin birth. But really the blood history of ths religion tells the truth...most aggresive people on the planet. When has America ever forgiven any slight or transgression?
Interesting
All of Erhman's arguments make much more sense if Jesus was simply a fictional character used to spread a religion.
The more and more I look at the Evidence; as Jesus become more and more as a myth. but there is much more evidence to look at. so I will not say one way or the other. So I am very skeptic both ways.
Thisnk:::You might find the book "Antiquity Unveiled" to be of interest. And you can download a copy for free.
It can be very confusing, but don't despair. Do what Jesus peace be upon him did and pray to whom he prayed to. Directly to God through no one! May you be guided, ameen!
k0smon
At free it's overpriced.
@@TabsiraProject Christianity is not right. But that DOES NOT mean islam is!
pretty good evidence of Jesus the man, little that he was divine, he would’ve been stoned to make this claim, And mark, Matthew , Luke , would’ve mentioned this claim. Which they didn’t ..in any case we need a Central focus ...
Interesting polemical address. Makes some leaps to prove that the text could have been read in another way than the traditional one. Seems to need much more proof or evidence to back up his claims. He makes some jumps (like deleting the first two chapters of Luke but there are many more) that the hearer must think are likely or plausible for his polemical speech to work. He definitely brilliant but I can't make those jumps (especially as easily as he is doing in this lecture).
Carl Peterson Have listened to part 1 in this lecture series? It sounds like you haven't listened to this part either. It's clear he's not trying to prove that one interpretation is more correct over another. That's something us Christians have to figure out, and the fact that nobody agrees is proof in of itself that it is highly likely the same scenario played out in early Christianity as well. This guy is a historical textual critic; he's more concerned about the development of early Christianity and its doctrines rather than deciding which one is right. To say that Christianity has never splintered or been interpreted differently is blindly denying history of writings by Church fathers (and contemporary obvious facts about differences of denominations). Moreover, as a textual critic, it makes sense for him to weigh Mark more heavily than the beginning of Luke since he believes the earliest version of Luke didn't contain the nativity narrative. I don't think it's true, but he does have evidence, watch part 1/3 or read his book. This response is already long enough, haha, sorry.