Відео

No. We can say only that Mark was written c.50-70. See ‘Rethinking the dates of the NT (Bernier)’ for an update as to why the sack of Jerusalem isn’t dispositive. Also, by all means please delineate for me these “solitude” passages and identify precisely what you think they demonstrate about historicity.

@@iPUB_org even if it was written at 50 ce, that will not change the fact that Jesus died presumably at 33 ce,by that mark was a history not a prophesy, then it was very likely as to my assumption above. But the prevailing assumption by majority of scholars is that mark was written in the 70 not earlier. At mark 14:36 he prayed alone. When anybody pray alone he would not say it loudly, sometimes just like mumbling silently. But the writer wrote what Jesus said. It is easy to fabricate stories when it already happened.

@@rolssky1 Mark 14 says “advancing a little he fell to the ground.” How little? Was it out of ear shot? We can’t say. Were all three times the same distance? It doesn’t say. Is this the only episode you can find?

Ehrman is an atheist, not a Christian

Not a bad approach to trust Ehrman as a default. He’s an accomplished scholar. But nobody is always right. Maybe take the time to engage my argument more specifically. My simple approach is to use Mark to interpret Mark and Luke to interpret Luke. You can judge for yourself whether you think Ehrman has done this.

This video is Mark vs Ehrman, not me vs Ehrman. If you disagree, please show precisely where I misrepresent Mark or Ehrman.

@@iPUB_org Oh, no, Bill. I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting Ehrman. I'm simply expressing my view of your capacity to counter Ehrman's arguments. All in all, it appears that you hope to support Christianity against Ehrman's assault. It's in your questioning words and your skeptical tone, IE: "Is that REALLY what you would conclude?" You present Ehrman fairly. Then you present your own contradicting view. In fact, your final words are, after you've made your case, that you "correct the record" against Ehrman's assertions. Then you ask who is more accurate, either "Ehrman, or what we've gone through here." That's a clear (but passive aggressive) way to say Ehrman is wrong, I am right. Maybe you are right, but I doubt it. Should I take your view as correct, or Ehrman's? You're both far more well-read than I am. But Ehrman is decades ahead of you.

​@@nextworld9176 Well, you seem confident critiquing and criticizing ME, my motives, psychology, and even my capacity/skill level - all of which is perfectly fair.. You seem rather perspicacious. Yet you demur when challenged to critique Ehrman vs Mark!? I doubt you are so incapable of reading Mark’s/Luke’s obvious meaning here and of drawing the obvious conclusion that Ehrman just misfired a bit in a live debate where misfires are more prone to occur.

​@@nextworld9176You sound like a shit

The gist of the two accounts is the same, as demonstrated in the video. Many times the sayings between Mark and Luke are so similar that the assumption by scholars is that Luke is using Mark as a main source.

Should be .....ascension

That is not what explains the arrangements/structures of the gospels. Check out my videos on John’s arrangement and its relationship to his stated purpose for his work, as an example.

In other words, guys everything you read in the gospels in today s copies of the bible should read with a cupful grain of salt.

Ehrman is beside the point in this video and I think he is an excellent textual critic whose work I too profit from. The question here is narrow: do you think the crucifixion account in Mark and Luke is accurately described by Ehrman and if so please explain the apparent disconnect in the survey of Mark and Luke vs Ehrman’s description

That's interesting. What about his idea that Jesus was not teaching eternal torment but destruction. One can be Christian and believe that. Bart thinks the historical Jesus did not teach hell but the Biblical one did. He said the whole culture of the non-Jews was steeped in Plato who spoke of Hades. Same with the immortal soul that can live outside the body. Small hints of that only, in the OT, and even that from later Judiasm influenced by Greeks, but very robust idea of soul and hell right after Christianity spread among Greek speaking gentiles. Does Barts historical analysis of things like this affect this doctrine for you?

@@joecheffo5942 like most Jews at the time including the temple leaders were teaching to repent as the end of times were coming: Jesus message was to love your neighbor as yourself and love the Lord your God with all your heart. He was against violence in every form… Don’t you remember Turn the other cheek?

@@elliottbest622 Yes. But most Christians currently have the fire and brinstone idea. I would guess many you know think like that. I really think the fig tree thing was added, seems weird and out of character. Its as if they were adding it to make things match their view as angry judge. Same with the temple. Why not just tell them to leave. He came like in like a Clint Eastwood character. I think he vould have shamed them or ordered them out quietly.

@@joecheffo5942I address/critique Ehrman’s view on the afterlife in the Bible in a video here ua-cam.com/video/bagjx_GZEiY/v-deo.htmlsi=bZ6ZBK4amIbHYsyz

Honestly, I have never deleted comments and don’t know how to, but will look into how to restore yours.

This is all I could find that seemed relevant. I replied to you and can't find the replies or your comments. Maybe try one or two comments this time(?): "If your comment is flagged as spam or violates the guidelines, it may be removed. Posting large volumes of comments in a short amount of time, repeatedly posting the same comment, sharing links, or excessively using emojis or unusual characters can be detected as spam and result in comment removal"

Keep dreaming buddy

This video is about whether the crucifixion scenes in Mark and Luke were accurately represented by Ehrman. You seem to conclude he did not. The question as to why Jesus predicted his own violent death is a separate one I plan to address in a future video.

Oh, I forgot to ask you at what precise point in Mark’s Gospel you think Jesus reveals he knows he is going to die as a result of his mission.

Thanks for this. Mark states that Peter “followed” Jesus to the courtyard after his arrest. Where does he say Peter fled after the denial?

@@thedividepodcast Yeah that's exactly what I thought. You clearly see Peter following Jesus from a distance in the Gospel of Mark. Not that he just ran away.

the source of Mark's gospel is not known, and any claim that it is is just wild speculation.

Yet modern day jews refuse to accept Jesus as their promised messiah probably because of the shameful way he died....by crucifixion not the dramatic way they expected him to come with blowing trumpets and Jesus coming down from the clouds in glory and spl

Additionally, the expected return of Jesus as he promised is aimed not for those who already believe This time Jesus is coming back for his brother Jews for whom he originally came but was soundly rejected which caused him

Cont....to turn to us, the gentiles as second choice to offer his salvation, as a salve or consolation for his great disappointment of being rejected by his own people, the jews. So, guys sorry, we were not really the prior targets for salvation by Jesus but only a fallback second choice. Not very flattering, is it? Still, dont forget, that his apostles and earlier disciples were former jews except for the only non Jew, who is mostly responsible for spreading Christianity beyond the limiting bonds of Judaic theology but to thenmore liberal all encompassing and apostolic one and beyond the geographic limitations of Jerusalem and environs but throughout the known Roman empire of that day!

Uh, pub(strange name, you a regular of pubs?), good luck on your desertation on John. Let me remind you however that John wrote his gospel in his late years, an age where fact and fancy start to get mixed up as you will notice his Revelations, driven more by his love for Jesus than for historical facts, tended to engage in flights of fancy and gave way to his imagination of his own personal scenario of what he wished would happen. Your PhD might simply be founded on the musings of an old man who might no longer be "there". Remember too that John in his gospel might be writing from memory from a distance of about 90 to 100 years after the death of Jesus, using snatches of rumor here and there based on earlier rumors here and there and you know how rumors get twisted, modified, erased or edited, depending on the personal agenda of the rumorists.

Honestly, I think the better challenge for you and the subject of your doctoral thesis is to prove that Jesus did not really die on the cross but merely fainted. To help start you off, take a closer look at the clues for this theory. It has been normally accepted tha Jesus died on the cross. What if he merely fainted? Fact 1. Jesus was in the prime of his life at age 32, grew up in the rugged hills of the countrysid

Cont....of the countryside, as a young, carpenter apprentice to his father, then after an absence of some 15 or 16 years(strong speculation is he traveled widely In Asia, India and Egypt)and came back at age thirty as traveling preacher living on the rough diet of fruits and fish afforded by that environment, with occasional food from feasts where he was invited as his popularity grew. This rural background served to toughen his young physic for the coming ordeal.

As his followers grew so did his powerful enemies who felt their religious leadership seriously challenged by this uptart young preacher. The rest is religious history from which we can pick salient and vital clues to support our theory. He was finally brought to trial as challenging the authority of Rome as a revolutionary leader to hide the religious threat the Sanhedrin felt to their leadership. Despite Pilate's obvious efforts to mitigate Jesus' punishments (clues that he symphathized with Jesus knowing he was being used by the Sanhedrin to obtain the maximum penalty for treason, the crucifixion)he finally gave in and gave Jesus up for crucifixion.

TheorybTwo. Jesus' carrying the heavy cross (or the horizontal beam of it in some versions) uphill, accompanied by flogging each time he fell, his flogging and crowning with thorns, his nailing on the cross, and the lance piece on his side were not fatal enough to cause his death as the flow of blood was minimal. His extreme thirst added to his discomfort and would contribute to his fainting spell. His loyal and secret friends in the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, knew time was critical to save Jesus from actual death as they hurriedly got the okay from Pilate, who is also a secret symphatizer as seen by his previous attempts to mitigate Jesus' punishment, to take Jesus down from the cross and secret him to a ready tomb, not really meant for him (he was really meant to stay on cross as a seditious criminal). The tomb belonged to Joseph of A.as a luxury item for the priestly class, but now used to try revive Jesus quickly with reviving herbs,aloes and other curative plants, then able to stand and walk with support of his two friends to another tomb, located further away from well travelled roads and pathways to the city, there to heal, recover with nourishment and rest for three days. They rolled back the covering stone to the tomb to delay discovery until after three days. The covering stone was rolled back by Sanhedrin soldiers as they instructed and brought back the confirming report of their doubt that Jesus' was stolen.

μυθος can be a true story in Greek

Thanks for this. How does his statement about his burial relate to 14.1? Who is doing the “killing” in 14.1 and do you think this killing will lead to a luxury funeral? Who killed John the Baptist and did he get a luxury funeral? Or, let’s assume you are 100% correct, why is he talking about his blood being poured out as the result of betrayal in the next story? Why is he in agony in the garden in the subsequent story? What do these things naturally indicate about the kind of death he was facing?

@@iPUB_org 14.1 is the voice of the author, rather than a quote from Jesus. Presumably the author knew what happened, so he's relaying that.

@@iPUB_org regarding the "poured out" section, a plain reading suggests that the wine that he's pouring, representing the new covenant, will be distributed to the masses. My translation says "poured out to many".

​@@iPUB_org and just wanted to say that I disagree with some of your reasoning but I appreciate your thoughtfulness. You're engaging with the material in the way I think it ought to be engaged with.

@@iPUB_org About being in agony, he knows the Roman authorities are looking for him. He might not get to see the arrival of the Son of Man. I wouldn't be able to sleep either. Point is, Jesus is not cool and collected.

Thanks for your reply. I’m confused by what you claim I omitted. I didn’t quote that one verse, correct. But at 15:10ff I emphasize how Jesus fell to the ground and prayed for the cup to be removed. I plainly meant to show how Mark highlights Jesus’s distress and conflicted desire about the death he was facing. Yet, I also quote how he prays immediately for God’s will to be fulfilled and has earlier in the evening asserted repeatedly that what has been written needs to be fulfilled (14.21, 27). The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak, etc. I also emphasized how the same twin themes of distress and confidence are present in Psalm 22 which he quotes on the cross. In short Jesus knows what is happening and is confidently taking steps to fulfill it rather than avoid it and to prepare his disciples for what is going to happen. Yet he is in distress and conflicted about his death while doing so. I don’t see how you missed this in the video or how Ehrman fails to emphasize the same two things(?)

@@iPUB_org My fault I stopped watching just before when you said. Fundamentally, we probably just disagree; when Jesus prays for the cup to be removed what that means is that he does not want to go through with it. It does not mean that he is confidently taking steps to fulfill it. Sure he wants God's will to be fulfilled -- we all do. But in the end, what he actually says is: "My God why have you forsaken me?" and your interpretation is that he means: "I am confident." I do respect now that you understand the nuances better than I thought you did before.

@@ufoskeptik-uw9oi I didn’t say “remove this cup” and “My God..” indicate he’s “confident.” I said those specific parts plainly indicate both distress and confliction. I note however that other parts, in fact most of the narrative, emphasizes Jesus’s awareness and confidence that what is happening is according to what was written in Scripture. Even though in distress and conflicted at moments in the narrative, Jesus continues to fulfill what is written.

​@@iPUB_org And who witnessed Jesus praying and asking for the cup to be removed? A birdie in a tree? Not the disciples who were sleeping according to the writer of MARK.

@@slik00silk84 Mark gives us exactly zero information about what those disciples heard or didn't hear during the "one hour" Jesus prayed and uttered his words. We know only that they were sleeping when Jesus returned to them all three times. This is my last reply since you didn't reply to my question.

I surveyed chs 14-16, the entire passion narrative to the crucifixion. Nothing was intended to be “tricky.”

@@iPUB_org You: "I surveyed chs 14-16, the entire passion narrative to the crucifixion. Nothing was intended to be “tricky.” Ehrman was quite specific, he starts with Jesus being brought before Pilate (Mark 15), not when he was questioned by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14). Hence, you're ambiguous to say the least. If you say "not intentional ... to be tricky", I wonder how you, given that you present yourself as a scholar, could have 'missed' that? What bothers me even more is when you summarise Ehrman' s argument and posit that Ehrman implies that Jesus "doesn’t know what is happening”. That is a blatant strawman, Ehrman never says that during his talk (and I've watched the entire debate with Akin), et iterum, Ehrman doesn't adress Gethsemane and the Sanhedrin scenes. Hence, to then imply that Ehrman isn’t being accurate in representing the gospel author(s) by demonstrating that Jesus does know what will happen, is a fallacy of considerable magnitude-intellectual dishonesty would be more accurate since I'm convinced you know what Ehrman stated, and what not. What Ehrman does argue for, and the accounts of Mark and Luke are clear on this, is that both accounts are in conflict: in Mark, Jesus remains silent during 'the carrying of the cross', yet not according to Luke; in Mark, Jesus is in despair on the cross ("why have you forsaken me"), while according to Luke he's accepting and at peace with it. Ehrman’s argument holds, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a critical NT scholar in dissent-I’ve never came across one. He was accurate right from the start; you 'fuzzied the waters' first in an attempt to make your strawman argument 'stick'.

@@lizadowning4389 My summary of Ehrman’s retelling is quotes from Ehrman (e.g. 1:47 “in shock” 2:10 “doesn’t know why it is happening”). If I wrote or said “what is happening”, that is definitely an error on my part and you are right to call me on it. But it makes little difference to his point. I have zero interest in misrepresenting Ehrman who is an excellent scholar I find very helpful at many levels. Btw, you more or less show I don’t misrepresent him by defending his presentation of the crucifixion scene in a way that for my part is plainly inaccurate or inconsistent with Mark and Luke’s final narrative sections. As for the content I survey, I explain precisely why I do this. I say that I agree with Ehrman that Luke can’t be used to reshape the plain meaning of Mark, but that it’s irresponsible to not let Mark shape the meaning of Mark. Mark 14 is Mark’s own narrative beginning of the events that lead to Jesus’s crucifixion. I think Ehrman is correct to highlight differences of emphasis. But I am hardly alone in thinking Mark doesnt present Jesus as in “shock” and “not knowing why it is happening.” Jesus states flatly why he will die when at the Passover supper.

Resigned vs. surprised when confronted with other gospels doesn't change the fact that the gospels' descriptions of crucifixion describe esentially three different people named Jesus crucified at two different times, where the maim point dr. Ehrman makes is that given the above at the most only one of them can be historically accurate, and the accuracy of one is not certian, while the Christians consider them all accurate, and in their minds create from them 5th very accurate gospel. Furthermore the autor of the channel just admitted that the autors were interested presenting theological claims and ground Jesus in Tanakh, and not the historical accuracy. The fact that for example the gospel of Mark is internally consistent doesn't mean that it is historically accurate. This is THE point.

The point was whether Ehrman’s description of the account was accurately representing the text.

@@iPUB_org Yep, it does. Comparing the gospels of Mark and Luke (not even to mention John) you can clearly see that the people crucified according to them are two different persons with two different attitudes, who happened to be called by the same name: Jesus. Only one can be historically accurate, but it is unlikely that either is. Jesus was executed by Romans for treason against Rome, subverting Roman authority and creating public unrest harming the regional economy by interrupting comerce at the Temple. There is no way that Pilat would have found him not guilty. Why he was sentenced was spelled out The King of the Jews". There was no known tradition to release a convicted man on Passover, so the release of "Son of the Father" was also fiction. Furthermore, there is no way that the Romans - given the circumstances - would have released the body of crucified Jesus to his family for burial, yet alone to strangers, since denying proper burial was the integral part of punishment by crucifixion. THIS is the historical context. The gospels are not historically accurate.

@@iPUB_org Thank you! One question: How can we be sure that the Gospel accounts are reliable? Wouldn’t Ehrman claim that many passages were actually added later in order to make the stories more credible? How can we be sure that no one made up at least a good part of these stories? I would appreciate your response! Thank you!

@@Anna-mc3ll Ehrman could assert that, yes. But on what basis? Both sides of the question have to make arguments to support their view. Mere assertions out of skepticism aren’t persuasive in themselves. And in fact that’s the very topic of the original debate between Akin and Ehrman. For my part I think Akin does a good job over all in presenting good reasons for concluding the gospels are not unreliable and that much of Ehrman’s scholarship supports this over all conclusion. If you listen to the debate and have a follow up question here, I’m happy to add my two cents at that point.

You haven't watched, have you?

I’m a classicist who teaches in a university, not a pastor.

And so you should.

I think that s what you call a scholar'sn privilege.

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing…”

Uh, bro. You are only half right. His real purpose can be found in his statement: ...." I have come that you might have life and have it abundantly."

@@edward1412 Can't you use this tactic with anything? If I am selling rocks as gold, I can say "only a fool will ask for mans gold, and not see the real gold in front of him". If a person thinks something is foolish or wrong, what are they supposed to do? It does seem strange that people can just forgive but God apparently can't. If you didn't know the Bible and someone just said, there is an all powerful, all loving, God, a father to us all. He made the word. If we do somethings wrong, do you think he can forgive us like you forgive your children? Wouldn't must people probably say "Sure, why not"? Is that foolishness? If we found a new Gospel that said God can in fact just forgive, would you believe that is possible? What if it was proven more accurate than the others?

And your point is…?

@@iPUB_org Nothing. That's where I paused or stopped.

Kind of you to say, but definitely not true

Then I’ll say, “ no one I know…”

You would be better informed if you read the Clouds by Aristophanes and the essay called Man Against Darkness by atheist Walter Stace.

@@iPUB_org I have better books for atheists (and i read them a lot) Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics. These are all the books that I need. These are the books that saves lifes, ease the pain and feed the hungry.

@@iosiflengyel1835 “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord”

“In him was life” remains the best explanation for reality and it already has won, since Jesus was raised from the dead.

80 years is a generation?

@@iPUB_org that's the average life span now . Right

Address a specific weakness in my reading of Matt 24.34 instead of all the platitudes.

@@iPUB_org You asked me to: “Address a specific weakness in my reading of Matt 24.34 instead of all the platitudes.“ Regarding Mt 24:34, “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Do I think it is the most embarrassing verse in the New Testament. Yes, because it plainly refers to this generation. If not one specific wave of the populace (generation), then it refers to all who might hear Jesus' words (current generations). I am not talking about all the things mentioned in the video, because you asked me to address a specific weakness of your reading. I think much of it was trying to explain some way to interpret the verse in a non-embarrassing way. It isn't successful in making the Bible make better sense, as a whole. As I said in my 'platitudes', Mt 24:34 is among the most embarrassing verses. One last thing. You referred to my original comments as “all the platitudes.” Definitions from Oxford Languages noun; plural noun: platitudes a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. Critical comments about the inconsistencies of the Bible are as old as the Bible. Dismissing interesting or thoughtful criticisms as platitudes is often a way to side-step them without answer. Be well.

Address Matt 24.34 or you won’t be taken seriously

Jesus spoke about a lot more than the destruction of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse.

Address a specific weakness in my reading of Matt 24.34 and I’ll try to reply.

@@iPUB_org The issue I have is you take this verse to be figurative, and your "supporting" verses to be literal. This is called biblesplaining as the verses are interpreted to fit your narrative.