How An Atheist Scholar Misleads Millions Of People (feat. Dr Bart Ehrman) (Mike Winger response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2023
- According to @MikeWinger , @bartdehrman has convinced more people to reject the Christian faith than almost anyone alive today. But he has done so largely through being very misleading. He provides examples of this as it relates to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark because he thinks there is a lot of benefit in dealing with misleading claims about the Bible.
=======
ENROLL IN "The Unknown Jesus - Revealing the Secrets of Mark's Misunderstood Gospel" COURSE
www.tinyurl.com/BartMark
=======
How An Atheist Scholar Misleads Millions Of People: The Mark Series pt 65 (15:34) • How An Atheist Scholar...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada - Наука та технологія
Every accusation is simply projection, it’s the golden rule with apologetics
Accuse unto others as they should be accusing you?
The pyrite (fool's gold) rule
Republicans do the exact same thing...
@Raydensheraj nowhere near the rate Democrat politicians do. For the latter it's near 100%
@@Raydensheraj Majority of both are Evangelicals.
Some of us left Christianity and became atheist regardless of Erhman, Hitchens, or Epicurus.
No book influenced me to jettison Christianity more than the Bible. It was that collection of texts that pushed me out the door.
Spot on I became an atheist way before internet in the late 70's
@@hellonewman5855 The same with me. I became atheist by reading the Bible only. One just has to compare the Old and the New Testament to come to the conclusion that it's all legends.
You all beat me to it:
I read the Bible for myself and quickly realised it was rubbish. I was only 6 or 7.
I became an atheist at age 11, had never read a single book on the subject, or knew such books even existed.
If Bart Ehrman's work is more convincing than God's, whose fault is that?
solid point
IF... I trust God before I trust Bart Ehrman, and I'm an atheist too.
Hahaha.. that's a good one.
God sold more copies though 😜
Well for one thing Barts work exists, so that's rather an advantage...
@@oscargr_ Doubt He ever sees a penny of the royalties though.
The moment Winger says "We have the word of God" I immediately think of Aron Ra's little script that "You don't have God's Word, you have the writings of ignorant fallible men".
I prefer quoting Jeremiah 8:8
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of Yahweh is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.”
Where as I immediately think of the late British Comic Sean Lock's comments about how Dorothy and Co ought to have responded at the end of the Wizard of OZ.
"What do you mean, you're not a f%*king wizard"
@@Lamster66 Love Sean Lock.
Implicit in Winger's approach is the belief that miracles can be historically reliable. Thus the statement, "We have the word of God" from accumulated and winnowed sources, from different author's writing, from different cultures, at different times with different emphasis. Until he begins to give up the notion that he can do history that includes the use of the miraculous he will not be able to do adequate historiography. There is a reason why historians give no credit to the miraculous (unless they are trying to interpret their own faith traditions). I have no doubt that Winger would give no historical credit to the idea that Mohammed could split the moon in half or fly to heaven on a horse. But he has no trouble accepting that Yahweh actually stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua, that there were really zombies walking around Jerusalem at the resurrection or that Balaam's donkey could talk and I use these examples of a broad and deep acceptance. This is a faith system sometimes disguised or misunderstood as an historical endeavor.
thing is jesus didn't write a single word.
If people "looked at the word of god for themselves instead of through a filter" as Mike recommends, Mike would be out of work.
I aways tell people, read the bible and you will know why I don't believe.
Yes. The entire purpose of apologetics is to indoctrinate filters.
That's the thing, un belief and doubt and confusion are ALL filters. And this statement is completely false and, like everything else thrown at Christians, based on assumptions of man whose foundation is sand at best. It is always if this or if that or since I believe this idea I have I'm going to assume it is truth and build around it and work on it until it is perfect by my own means (which will never happen).
@@TeachMeLordGod unbelief is without filter…
well i did and now i believe more. seems like somethings missing between us.
Why did they call him an atheist scholar? In this context, it's just an ad hominem. If they want to make the point that he is misleading, they can do that without poisoning the well. Also, wouldn't a false contradiction mean that there was no contradiction?
He’s definitely poisoning the well.
Yes it means there’s no contradiction, aka the Christian believes there’s no contradiction, not sure why that’s confusing
@@nathanjora7627 either there is or there isn't a contradiction. One may falsely claim that there is a contradiction, but there is no such thing strictly speaking as a false contradiction.
@@stevegeorge6880 you do realize that if I swap « contradiction » by anything else, your logic stays the same, right ?
« either there is or there isn’t a banana. One may falsely claim that there is a banana, but there is no such thing strictly speaking as a false banana »
See ? Holds up just as well, which is to say not at all. There’s such a thing as a false contradiction, or a false banana, namely it’s when something looks like a contradiction (or a banana) but in fact isn’t a contradiction. Hence « false » contradiction.
@@nathanjora7627 I'm just saying that sloppy scholar Mike winger is also sloppy in his use of language. Thank you for further illustrating it.
Winger also does this - theorizes what that text “might” mean, extrapolating from other texts that weren’t even written at the time, and he thinks Erhman is being dishonest. Weak.
I love the way mike equates scholarship with book sales. Very telling, both of his ignorance of what it takes to be a real scholar, and to how he judges the veracity of an idea.
Proping themselves up with book sales is pretty common in appologetics so makes sense hed be confused on that
This was my thought exactly. When I heard "Bart Ehrman, a brilliant scholar. He's sold millions of books." I just thought of the old (terrible) pickup line: "I have a boyfriend." "I have a goldfish." "What?" "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were just spouting off things that don't matter."
book sale seem to be one of the main argument on why the bible is true
It's the only category where hackjob apologists like Mike, Frank Turek, WLC or J Warner Wallace can claim they stand on equal footing with real scholars.
A _real_ scholar's books sell a few hundred copies at most.
As an atheist I never walk away from a B. Erhman talk thinking he has evangelised someone away from faith. He's JUST a textual historian with expertise. Regardless of what HE personally believes he isn't advocating for atheism. EVER! In fact I'm usually disappointed that he doesn't extrapolate atheistically logical conclusions from his historical/literary evidence.
I actually like how he approaches the subject. He knows that factual evidence doesn't concern itself with personal feelings, so he doesn't even have to outright say anything about atheism. It would be redundant, in a way.
And that's part of my problem with him, he still seems Evangelical, which for somebody from easy-going Reformed (AKA Calvinist) roots signals relatively uneducated, dishonest, fanatical and disrespecting both scripture and audience.
@@ThW5 how so? Bart is pursuing no personal or political agendas. He's only here to "preach" accurate historicity with the Bible. He will say he's not a Christian. He considers himself an Agnostic Atheist. He doesn't hide anything. I believe he's as genuine as they get!
@@ethanfink7962 Couldn't agree more.
@@ethanfink7962 He still SOUNDS like an Evangelical preacher...
The more I listen to Bart the more I like him. It's apparent that he has researched the historical aspects of the time the Bible was coming together. That is fascinating to me as ancient history is a favorite subject of mine. No one ever discussed specifically Jewish or Christian ancient history. Only Greek or Roman history.
Reason is that because, for most of history, the only people who were interested in those histories were mostly fundamentalist Christians and Jews. And most of those were there simply to affirm their own beliefs.
It’s only been relatively recently that critical scholarship has been put toward the subject.
I encourage you to read Bart's books; they are great. I was the same; I thought there weren't history books about early Christianity or Jewish history of that era, but there many! Yes, you have to do a little research to find books from proper scholars, not christian apologists. Soon enough, you'll realize the works of all these scholars are based on factual research and not a "hidden agenda" to mislead people.
Thousands have discussed and written about ancient Jewish and Christian history. You just never read any of it.
You mean you never looked for specific Jewish or Christian ancient history. There are literary thousands of scholars , historians and archaeologists that do nothing else.
The Bible doesn't begin to describe the world of reality, so Christians square the circle with lies. I saw Franklin Graham on TV saying, "God, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." That was a deliberate bit of mendacity by Mr. Graham. The truth is that before the Jew's exile in Babylon, Yahweh was a storm god in a pantheon of other Gods and their female consorts. In the pantheon were the gods Baal, El, and Yahweh. Also in the Pantheon were three goddess consorts. These gods were clothed in fabrics made by the Israeli worshippers, so in the polytheistic phase of Judaism, graven images were OK even though this was AFTER Moses and the Ten Commandments.
. During or after their stay in Babylon, they dropped all the other gods, now calling Yahweh the ONLY God. This is typical of how organized religion operates by corporate values, not moral ones. Christianity's lies are NOT a mistake; they're the result of a bankrupt belief system.
If your Faith needs excuses, you’re living a wasted life. Atheism means never having to pretend to know more than you know. The freedom of Atheism is guiltless, sustained, and satisfying.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
I was raised in a Fundamentalist church. I was a Christian for 60 years. During those decades, I believed each Gospel was different because each author was sent by God to a different group of potential converts. Of course, each book was written to appeal to others! That's not heresy. It did take many years before I realized all of the authors are unknown, but that's a different story. Great video, Paul!
Not sure what you mean about the authors being unknown. There are mss with assignations to the gospel writers either at the top or at the bottom or both - there is a video, but I can't remember whose.
@@coffeebreaktheology2634 The names were chosen by the Church. Critical scholars agree that we do not know who the authors were, except for Paul.
@@IheartDogs55 I agree there is no internal attestation, but there is no rival attribution, and to include in the canon they had to be written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. As soon as there was more than one scroll there had to be a way of attestation, whether by tag or title
@coffeebreaktheology2634 It's been a year since my comment. In that year, I've continued to listen to arguments about Gospel authorship. Yes, the criteria by the Church included the title of an Apostle; defined as a person who was a companion or eyewitness of Jesus. Also permitted was what we call today, "the friend of a friend" criteria; a person whose source was an Apostle. Unfortunately, neither of those two categories can be verified when it comes to the Gospels. We do not know the identities of the people who originally penned the Gospels, much less whether or not they ever saw Jesus or someone else who saw Jesus. They remain unknown to us, despite Tradition.
@@IheartDogs55 Maybe you should look at Richard Bauckham's book on the eyewitnesses?
Yeah, I hate being misled by the facts…😂😂
I was raised on conservative Baptist teaching. I was told the earth's magnetic field proved the world was only 8k years old. But even I was taught basically what Bart is saying.
At seminary, I also had the same teaching, though a little more liberal when it came to creation and the flood. They took the line that science answers different questions, whereas the bible/religion answers other questions. The creation and flood narratives were about how god interacts with his creation (a backdrop) not a literal story (also worth noting that both are a mash of two or more writers). Saving Noah was seen as a foreshadowing of the salvation of all humanity in the gospels. And the four gospels all tell a different angle of Jesus and salvation (similar to the different flood/creation narrative-mashes). I found it challenging, but at least consistent.
I was raised Southern Baptist.....we only got 6,000 years
@@thedude0000 6K years 😂. Here in China, kids are told China is 6k years old.
Yes, conservative Catholic parents-and I was ALSO taught that the different gospels were differing impressions of Jesus...
When I started Bible study I was told each gospel was making its own (different) point, ya I agree with you.
Nice to see Winger clearly being affected by Ehrman's work enough that he feels the need to go on the propaganda campaign. Apparently that's how dangerous he thinks it is to read Mark on it's own without assuming other things that aren't in the text.
I was thinking the same thing. Great point.
Winger is throwing from his back foot here, for certain.
""The [Winger] doth protest too much, methinks"
Not propaganda. Dude Ehrman is shamelessly twisting scripture and adding rules in order to read it. Summarizing and reaching an overall conclusion isn't a crime, it is a reasonable way to process information. All the gospels that are in the Bible show the same Jesus from their personal points of view. Paints the same picture and it didn't confuse me at all when reading it because I'm not trying to aggressively put my worldview and agenda on it. I read it first with a fresh mind, since I didn't read the Bible before a couple years ago, and the gospels are by far the easiest to read besides the proverbs and the book after that one (don't remember the spelling. Much easier to absorb than Genesis at first for me because I was trying to insert millions of years and other scientific theories and ideas that I was raised with. The scientific method is pretty reliable and clearly we are not floating in space so we call that gravity that keeps us here grounded. So not all science or ideas are bunk but science stays largely incomplete and theoretical. There will always be incomplete information on both ends since one we lose information and are not without fault, there is always some bias or worldview coloring what we are precieving even if we don't think so (no one is that honest and perfect), models built by man will eventually show its cracks so thats why both sides have to operate on faith and do operate on faith. One will choose one over the other in the end no matter how good something looks.
Besides, taking one book
(made from MANY documents that have been verified time and time again and the problem is a problem of perception and/or human desire to do what they want)
And not the whole, then not reading it all together will make anyone feel like it is incomplete or miss the big picture. It changes the over all story and significance. If Mark was fine on its own, that would be the Bible and not thrown in with the other accounts that support the same truth.
@@TeachMeLordGod
Referencing your first comment, the one starting with "Not Propaganda":
1) Dear me, please hire yourself an editor.
2) Your comment is a fantastic example of a gish gallop.
3) Your final 3 sentences, if we can call them that, are essentially the definition of a "god of the gaps" mindset.
@@TeachMeLordGod you really are just throwing a ton of unrelated concepts at the wall but it's not twisting scripture or imposing rules to ask "if mark is taken on his own, what can that tell us about his perspective" that sounds like a rather routine bible study. In that study, it seems relevant when there is a notable difference from the other gospels and we can infer meaning from what is added or missing.
Winger must not like the conclusions that can be drawn since he insists on bringing the other accounts back in rather than just reading mark on it's own.
regarding the rest of your seeming science denial and young earth creationism, no comment. there is no evidence for this and it's pretty widely known to be untrue.
Christian: The gospels are independent sources with different authors
Bart: let’s look at what Mark’s message was
Christian: you can’t do that, you need the context of the other gospels or you’re being misleading and dishonest
Using just Mark I'd get the Trinity and salvation by faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. Heck, using only the first 3 verses of Mark I get the divinity of Christ.
@@vedinthorn And?
@@jacoblee5796 and Bart Erhman, so far as I've seen, thinks Mark gives us a very low christology... For some reason. Or at least he's said so. Mark equates Jesus with YHWH pretty clearly. Can't get a higher christology than that.
@@vedinthorn So you deny the fact that Mark gives Jesus the lowest Christology out of all the gospels?
@@jacoblee5796 I deny any of them give him any christology other than equating him with YHWH.
I have to say, Bart is the most unassuming and charitable villain that I've ever seen. I'll take coffee in Hell with him over a lobster feast (assuming God is okay with that now) with all the Apologists in Heaven any day.
At least I'm happy with your choice.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Username checks out. :P
No Lobster, EVER!
How dare you!!
Assuming that heaven exists, I very much doubt apologists would be allowed there after all their dishonesty
Well, the only parts of the Mosaic Law that God still cares about are the parts that tell you what you can and cannot do with your parts and with whom. God is down for some pulled pork and cotton/polyester blends these days
As an atheist, I've learned more about christianity than I ever learned as a christian.
I swear, whether you're a christian or not. Christianity is just sooooo interesting. It saddens me when christians don't wanna look at biblical truths like what parts of the Bible did and did not happen or how all the gospels are propaganda in their own ways and how every gospels differs in its at the time political goals.
I swear, I've been more obsessed with christianity as an atheist than I ever was as a chirstian. Because I grew up and realised how super-interesting the religion is!!! Mainly when you don't have a stake in it and are just searching for the truth, not the truth that confirms what you already know.
Well one reason why you may not have been as interested in Christianity when you were a Christian is because all Christian religions don't have the same practices nor teach the same things. There are many Christian denominations out here that have a form of Godly devotion, but prove false to it's power. My question to you though, is are you aware that the Bible has never failed to have any of it's prophecies come true?
I'm not here to argue with you, however I would like to prove to you that Bible prophecies are true. Because if his can be proven, then it would be easier for you (one day) to go back to Christianity.
Where I've learned the most is from the constant claim by Christians that, "you're taking it out of context." My "calling" is calling out the church for being anti-Christ (they love it when you call them that), because many of their most cherished beliefs are literally the opposite of what Jesus taught. I started to cite only the words of Jesus unless commenting on verses cited by others in a discussion. I didn't want to fall for the context trap, so began reading chapters instead of verses and what I've learned is just astounding. Clearly these people do NOT read their Bibles, because they are clueless about what it says.
Here's something I learned just yesterday. Stick with me, this one's worth it. Christians will often quote from Genesis 2, where God sees Adam is lonely and that he needs a "suitable helper," makes Eve, and when they get down and dirty, that's supposed to support the 1 man, 1 woman theory of marriage, (there's no mention of marriage, or really anything other than doing the nas-tay, but ...whatever).
So I read Gen 2, and wouldn't you know that it turns out that BEFORE Eve, God sent all the animals and birds to Adam, thinking he would find a "suitable helper" among them. This is the part where Adam gives names to all the animals, so clearly, he familiarized himself. But alas, Adam didn't find the "suitable helper" to fulfill his needs. So this bummed God out a little, and THAT is when he made Eve. Adam found her quite "suitable," (not to mention naked). In fact, she was suitable enough they didn't make any small talk before she started "helping" him. So I have to wonder what exactly God had in mind when he sent the animals to do for Adam what only a woman could?
Also interesting is how the one man, one woman couple came about like a crazy romantic comedy, where fate (or God) uses all kinds of different hilarious circumstances and events to force the two to eventually realize that even though their friends hate each other, and both have plenty of other options, there really is nobody else who makes them feel so awesome.
I'm lying. There literally was only one man and one woman, and they were both young and naked, so...
What I find to be the hardest part about reading the Bible (for entertainment) is the constant repetition. This is a common technique used in brainwashing,
It`s too late@@colinpierre3441! How can you use the same lies when he`s now seen the light. Go away ...
@@IndigenousUndergroundPrimate And for me it's how much it contradicts itself -- pretty much the opposite. There are just SO many good reasons to hate that book. If we could get Christians to read it a little bit, it has the power to potentially unite the whole world around with what a stinker it is.
Oh dear, Bart is leading Christians away from Christianity by providing excellent in-depth information about the bible!
More like parroting decades old theories of "introduction to the new testament 101".
@@MrSeedi76 There is nothing -- in principle -- wrong with decades-old theories; scholarship builds on scholarship. Can you refute any of the one that Bart uses?
@@MrSeedi76 The irony of believing in Ancient texts while complaining that theories are decades old.
I personally would like to thank the universe for Bart Ehrmans books and study.
This is what happens when you try to follow God through your brain and logic...
You can only find whether Jesus is true through experience.
Illuminati/Satan is s real so Jesus has to be real.
Every true believer knows why Jesus said "my God, my God why have you forsaken me".
@@Ffoo_ffighter who told you the illuminati and Jesus are real and why do you think that is true?
@@Slagnogler667 the news? Are you. Living under a rock?
EHrman was NEVER a real Christian. He is just like a pharisee who was so smart they memorized the scriptures but Jesus called them snakes. Jesus also said the clearly uneducated thief who died on a cross would see paradise.
@@Ffoo_ffighter Such a weak accusation to make because you cannot bear that anyone actually stopped believing in something you cannot stand the thought that it may be all untrue. I can't speak for Bart but I can sure speak for me. I spent 50 YEARS of MY life devoted to God. Reading, praying, believing, in service to others, considering the lord in every single aspect of my life. If you dared to say that same of me you would be guilty in the eyes of your god of bearing false witness. That's a SIN, you do know that right? So perhaps instead of sitting in erroneous judgement of others simply work on your own salvation. MANY of us believed with all our hearts and souls. UNTIL we actually had the courage to put the bible to the test. It FAILED. If you still believe, GREAT. Go do that.
I love cartoon Bart so much. Such a pleasure to hear his insight.
Found your channel through Genetically Modified Skeptic and very glad I did.
I've just recently started reading Dr. Erhman, and it inspired me to go back and read Mark in isolation. His work has actually helped me build a better relationship with the Bible as a Christian.
Hardly a man leading people astray.
I can't count how many times I have read sentences like "Ehrman is the reason why I left my faith behind" on atheist UA-cam channels. Of course when someone has a solid foundation he knows what nonsense Ehrman tells so he won't be easily persuaded. But why read his books in the first place then?
Always happy to see that Ehrman’s content has ironically strengthened your faith. Oddly enough i feel the same way
@@MrSeedi76 you’re lying, atheists don’t stop believing because of Bart Erhman. If your foundation is so strong you wouldn’t have to make up obvious lies.
Yeah reading Mein Kampf reaffirmed my Christian belief.
@@MrSeedi76 You're still going by the notion this video was made to dispell. *Erhman doesn't want to make people Christian or Atheist, he just wants people to be more educated and expand on why they believe what they do.*
I caught up with one of Bart's courses while off work :D
Mike is begging one hell of a question to say Bart is misleading millions. That would only be true if the Gospels are historical *and* that their accounts are complementary rather than, as they appear, contradictory.
If the Gospels are literary, then Jesus isn't predicting his death. The author is foreshadowing it.
The "omniscient narrator" appears to tell us an awful lot in these scenes. What happened in the Temple? How did the author know that? What did the Centurion say? How did the author know that?
Really like how you put this. Looking at the other gnostic texts, we see the authors being intentionally vague to egg on the reader, just like with Jesus' vague quip to Pilate in Mark. Strange how we see these literary devices from divine and inerrent texts.
If the author (in reality, God) is just foreshadowing, why would God need prophets thousands/hundred of years telling specifically what is to take place? That's bad story telling and can barely be called a rising action part of a plot. God didn't have to do it this way but He did. It is so we can understand what is to come and when it comes to pass, verifies Him who He all ready said He is, God. No blind faith, no confusion, no contradictions. The points of views being different is actually a sign that they are different people with different backgrounds reciting what they saw Christ do. Mind you that not all of them knew/believed the Torah, some were of Greek backgrounds. The letters In the Bible were real letters that were copied time and time again because older copies would get tarnished or ruined due to age. This is why it is incredibly exciting when we discover more ancient manuscripts and multiple copies at that and how they convey the same message always. So yes, historical documents are in the Bible and wisdom books with actual wisdom from their practitioners taught by God and written down with the Holy Spirit guiding them.
(which is why the writings stayed consistent over time and clear, it is true some words don't translate well to English but there are other ways to tell by the clues of the old manuscripts and studies on the ancient Hebrew language and Greek language)
Because of this certainty, it is blatantly obvious when there is a false report or documentation. Even before that, we are warned that there will be false gospels and crude/incorrect interpretations and abuse of holy text and it is clearly evident and we know which parts are questionable but they aren't on major issues as far as I know. Most are spelling mistakes
(which can lead to writing down the wrong word causing a wrong meaning, just one letter missing in a word or a reversal of a letter or two can change the word completely and these are not that hard to discern because most of the time it is crazy sounding, it is like a bad auto correct moment)
Or additions or repetitions or rearrangement of a sentence/or sentences but these are usually indicated by a footnote or a mark and some versions cut it out completely but since other versions exist and base themselves off similar manuscripts it doesn't completely ruin the Bible's reliability.
How come JC didn't bother to write any of this down? Maybe because of the most overlooked sentence in Christianity IMHO:
"There are those among you who will NOT TASTE DEATH, before the Son of Man appears/returns" -depending on who you read. It's been almost 2100 years-I think JC's running late.
It's not "foreshadowing" when Jesus even in Mark clearly predicts his death 3 times. So Mark certainly didn't want to give the impression Jesus died in despair. That's bollocks. Even if reading Mark just as literature regardless of what "actually happened".
@@MrSeedi76
_"It's not "foreshadowing" when Jesus even in Mark clearly predicts his death 3 times."_
You're going to need to prove that Jesus said any such thing. The Gospel according to Mark is anonymously written by a fluent Greek writer and there is no reason to accept he was either an eyewitness or a companion of Paul or Luke.
It is more plausible that Mark is dated late and put these words in Jesus' mouth than that Jesus predicted anything, so you have an extremely tough burden of proof to meet.
_"So Mark certainly didn't want to give the impression Jesus died in despair."_
"And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).[b]"
Then how else do you read this, because if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. You offered no argument nor explanation why we should not read the text exactly as it is written to understand how Mark wanted us to see this.
_"Even if reading Mark just as literature regardless of what "actually happened"."_
We don't know what actually happened. The only possibly independent corroboration that exists is that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. That's it.
This is a perfect example of thousands of people being influenced by someone (Mike) who distorts the Bible and they believe it.I used to believe like he does as an Evangelical until I began to ask questions, lots of them, and then I left being an Evangelical.
Exactly. He imagines what the meaning is of whatever he reads, then twists it to fit something else, so that he can make people think that it's bigger than what it is. The worst part is that he makes people think that the 2 seperate things back up each other, resulting in them thinking they have legitimate evidence of God. When it's nothing but speculation.
@Joe Andersen I still need to know what He did for Spanish medieval Jews, and slaves, thanks.
And maybe gay people, post Matthew 5:18? Specifics, preferred, here.
Read the ending of Mark and read Psalm 22. You'll find that Mike is not distorting its meaning. Bart takes a different interpretation than what's obvious. Psalm 22 describes Jesus's situation very well. Jesus quoting one line of an entire unit while having difficulty breathing doesn't mean he isn't referring to the whole thing. Please read it carefully without prejudice, and it will make sense. If you still don't understand, then I'll be happy to try and explain what you don't understand.
I'm a Christian and this what all people including Christians and atheists do until they educate themselves. People get incredibly emotional it's suggesting their personal beliefs are wrong. It is painful. It takes maturity to realize delete could evolve around the facts
@@roberthinman3703 Read it in the original languages?
Interestingly, Dr. Ehrman's work is one reason I returned to Christianity. Recognizing that small inconsistencies have value of their own was one of many steps that led to me joining an Apostolic church
Matthew 27:51-53. The only gospel to mention that the dead rose at the time of Jesus' crucification. If all the Gospels had mentioned it, or it was noted in any other source as being notable, then it would seem too obvious. The fact it is an almost off the cuff remark about something astounding makes it more true (?!)
I always find myself in a weird spot where I’m firmly disagreeing with the apologists, agreeing with Dr. Ehrman, and also still being deeply convicted about the truth of the core tenets of Christianity.
@@Cornelius135 interesting .. do you agree with the details like Jesus floating off into the sky, and the appearance of angels (e.g. telling Joseph and Mary separately about Jesus being born via virgin Mary due to God), and the transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus, whose clothes become very bright?
@@stubdo16 sure 🤷🏻♂️
That makes no sense.
Maybe if they find more errors even more people will believe it.
Even as a Christian I believed what Bart says in the clip at 3:00. All of my classes and professors covering the NT understood this. In my hermeneutics class we were cautioned about the possibility of missing the mark (pun intended) on interpretation if we carelessly smashed together the Gospels. Ironically, I read quite a few papers by Dr. Ehrman (he was one of my favorites), but I had no idea he wasn't a Christian.
He used to be a Christian, a Sunday School preacher too. But after he got into biblical scholarship, he realized how much BS there was and he deconverted.
@@exaucemayunga22 Not true. He stopped being a fundamentalist after learning. Check his video about why he doesnt believe anymore from his channel.
The irony of an apologist claiming an atheist is misleading people.....
Absolutely priceless
Exactly just like J Warner Wallace. the one detective who’s been on dateline more than anyone ever…. who solved a 40 year old cold case homicide without a body becomes a Christian based on evidence and continues to mislead people!🤦🏼🤦🏼
Yeah he had no integrity. Funny none of his coworkers have ever come forward to out him as a fake. Lee Strobel Josh McDowell and Frank Turek all purposely misleading people. Ok
Mark is also my favorite gossip too. I did a Bible memorization contest on Mark and the more I learn the more I appreciate it. Sometimes less is more.
The gospel of Mark is less because the story hadn't yet been inflated. It was only one person's fantasy. It took more scribes' fantasies to "improve" the story. Pretty much like the Paul Bunyan story grew - each storyteller tried to top the last. Since there were no facts to draw upon, no one could or wanted to challenge the veracity.
@@Shermanbay My bigger problem with the other gospels isn't the fantasy, it's the apologetics.
They are clearly trying to answer criticisms of Mark (And Luke criticisms of Matthew and so on).
This makes them increasingly stiff as they contort to preserve the things they want to preserve while massaging the things that they were being criticized for.
Mark reads like a story. Everything else reads like a committee memo.
I love listening to Bart teach, and to his laugh whilst he speaks. What a great and joyful guy.
Love it when Bart cracks up at his own jokes
Nervous laugh because he knows he's been caught in lies.
@@spartakos3178 name one lie in this video
@@JaceDeanLovethat Jesus died in despair in Mark. Even in Mark Jesus predicts his death 3 times. So when just looking at the gospel as a piece of literature, there is simply nothing indicating Jesus died in despair according to Mark.
Yes, the first verse of the psalm is indeed the title of the psalm. Read actual Jewish scholars on the issue. They will clearly disagree with Ehrman.
Sounds like he's brain washed you.
One question that Christian theists can give a plausible answer to is, "Why would you believe the Bible is the word of God?". The answer in most cases is that they were born into it or that they were somehow vulnerable at the time the beliefs were fed to them. How do they not see that?
Another awesome video Paul and thank you Bart for the explanations.
I always appreciate how Paulogia does his response videos. It's always done in a way that's very respectful and not antagonizing, which helps to keep things like this from degrading into internet fights. Thank you Paulogia for doing what you do. As an ex Christian myself you really do a good job of presenting your works in a way that a normal believing Christian would be open to watching. Please keep up the good work.
@Joe Andersen Good for you buddy. :)
@Joe Andersen Look. I genuinely don't care. Please stop.
@joeandersen274 enjoy!
@Joe Andersen No he is not.
@joeandersen274 keep saying it and you will believe it is true. (also random capital letters will Heal Your Life) xox
Bart, I'm a Christian and I love your work. Your studies have helped me sort out all the discrepancies in Christian doctrines and given me a reason why there are so many various doctrines. Now I know which parts of my faith are based on fact and which are based on custom. And now I can do my faith on my own terms.
Lol
And God is rolling his eyes, and Christ is pleading for you at God’s right hand.
@@salgar1234 God is very happy with me.
@@fyl24 interesting perspective
@@salgar1234 Thank you. And may I say yours is equally interesting.
To be honest, hearing Bart describe Mark's version of crucifixion account and the point of Jesus' death has more passion than a believer trying to lead me to Christ. Lol 😂
Yeah, it feels tragic.
Haha! I thought the same thing! :-)
You gauge the passion someone has in leading you to christ? Thats pretty voyeuristic.
Did Bart lead you to Christ?
I can rightly be called a Bart Ehrman fan boy - have read numerous of his books (I find his take on Gnostic Christianity more sensible than many of the scholars that specialize on that - which Bart doesn't), have read his college textbook on the New Testament, and am a member of his paywall blog site where Bart has a huge volume of additional commentsry on all things pertaining to early history of Christianity.
One thing that Bart has said repeatedly is that his deep scholarship is not what resulted in his abandoning his Christian faith - instead it his subjective feelings that brought him to said abandonment. He could not reconcile the unpleasantness (the human suffering) of the reality we all experience and/or are aware of with the concept of a so-called "good God" that is the creator of said reality.
This is indeed a very common theme that underlies a lot of atheistic belief - religious people say God (the Creator) is good and yet the reality we experience (or are subjected to) can very often be unpleasant (intensely so) - from a human experience, fraught with a great deal of suffering point of view. And then many can't reconcile that truth about the nature of our reality experience with the notion of a "good God", and they reject the concept of God on the basis of their subjective feelings. Everything else then is just the marshalling of various rationales so as to re-inforce their emotional sensibilities about things or circumstances that comprise what we call a life lived.
Am not like Bart in this respect - I don't let my subjectively held feelings predominate in the matter of accessing the nature of reality. It's not logical to presume that said reality is a respecter of my emotional state sensibilities about things.
I was an Atheist who became a Catholic at age 27. I have been following Thomas Römer's classes in Collège de France about the God of Israel (who later became a book called the Invention of God) and I enjoy listening to Bart Ehrman from times to times, because I love history and I like the guy. He's fun and knowledgeable, and is a great teacher in his field. I have read three books by him also. None of this research work of mine had any negative impact on my faith. Actually, it pushed me to use my mind to understand the historical context behind the Bible, helping me to grasp what biblical authors had to say without forcing my own certitudes onto the text. Btw, modern biblical commentaries (even Evangelical) agree with 90% of what Ehrman says, meaning there's nothing utterly scandalous in his scholarly work. So, if you're a Christian and you feel scared or threatened by Bart Ehrman (not the most scary nor threatening creature under the sun, imo), then maybe you should question the firmness of your faith, because there's nothing in Ehrman's work that inevitably lead to loss of faith unless that faith of yours was weak to start with.
So basically you were indoctrinated - the same as every other Christian.
Unlucky.
Why would you worship a monster who drowns children because he don’t like the parents?
Many cult followers actually become more devoted every time their guru fails, it’s common and evidence of cultish thinking.
I've argued with people about the existence of God, mainly that their desire to offer proof is a result of their lack of faith
"I want Bart to mislead Christians, so I choose to misinterpret the bible; therefore god".
Thank you again for another great video and also for all the wonderful people you have introduced us to over the years
This is the best Bart Ehrman interview I have ever seen. I always enjoy watching a scholar (in any field) respond to a less knowledgeable person who decides to challenge him/her.
@Paulogia You should include eye-rolling in your animations. I'm pretty sure I could hear Bart do it several times...
Keep up the good work and Greetings from Germany
Der war gut!
I just wanted to say that I recently upgraded my membership. I truly admire the work (both editorial and intellectual) that you put into this channel. I also do like the "Paulogia Live" channel, and I assume that one takes less editorial effort, but your Paulogia channel is the gold standard of analysis, thoughtfulness, and cleverness.
Great timing! I just saw this video from him and thought it would be perfect for you to tackle, and here it is! Amazing!
Almost... ordained?? 😂
@@Paulogia absolutely inadequate.
Curiously, as someone who was very sceptical of Christianity Bart's talks have actually made Christianity more believable for me - he's actually helping me get to know Jesus Christ and understand the faith of early Christians. I feel drawn closer to God as a result rather than led away, and it makes me want to study the whole bible more closely as there is so much more to it than I ever realised. I don't just rely on Bart though - I listen to a lot of people, including yourself and Jewish scholars and speakers from various denominations and none. Maybe I am naive, but it's all good to me. And what's inspiring is that these things still really matter to so many people. So thank you both.
If you want to delve into christian scholarship and the teachings of doctrines, and history of customs, good on you. I recommend Inspiringphilosophy, he's a great apologists and sources all of his readings for his arguments. But if you find no meaning in this pursuit, that is totally your choice. Either way, I hope you the best on your endeavors with Christianity ✝️.
@@adrianherrera6076 Thank you very much - I shall definitely look that up.
To address the video description, I know a lot of former Christians, and I've listened to probably hundreds of them tell their story of how and why they left the faith, and I've never heard a single one of them say that they were absolutely content in the faith until they read Bart Erhman.
I have read many times in the UA-cam atheist bubble that people made exactly that claim.
But you could just take any German theologian from the last century and come to the same conclusion.
I only heard of Ehrman comparatively recently, but did study theology and bible history, learning wasn't what led me away from Christianity.
It was more to do with how every religion makes the same claims for theirs being the right one and headgames. Biggest claims along with the most excuses. I was constantly gaslighted that having a blank paternity entry on my birth certificate meant I couldn't have a proper relationship with God, but if God is so dependent on one specific metaphor what does that say about God?
Most of the ex-christian Atheist speakers are former preachers that don't know how to do anything else, especially in the content creator realm - find an audience then write for it, so they always talk about bible scholarship. I find going back to comics, sci-fi, fantasy more interesting
I'm glad we have people like Bart that are willing to stand up for the truth.
Can I refer you to p 252 of the paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus where Bart seems gainsay what his book is about?
@@coffeebreaktheology2634 you can sum up and tell me ( send quotes if you want)
Fantastic exercise and opportunity for dialogue and analysis. Thank you Dr. Ehrma for all your work and scholarship. You too Paulogia, love the channel and the service you provide. Cheers!
Let me see how honest you are western godless and souless person to respond all that:
I know that you are western, godless and Souless wester (that is the logic, prove me wrong if you can or do not say anything please ☺️) (do not ask yourself how I know, because that is 100% accurate, right? But why you are a westerner godless and souless person, ok?)
Atheism is mainly from the west, and the west is rich, so people prefer have been confused by Money, and money produces materialistic societies... so a healthy society) Prove me wrong.
You just have been trapped in this stupid modernity. Prove wrong (and do not be pride as all westerns)
Plus we westerns have been arrogant to all other societies, cultures and people (more then anyone else) and so we are very arrogant trhogout God now, but we are the worst humans, we created so many wars, so much dangerous technology, imperialism and so on. So we think to be at the place of God, that why we do not him... Plus most of those people are youths and youths tend to be Godless and Souless, and they do not care that according to that idea system it makes you not have objective morality, they do not know where they morals come from (because they do not know where their morals come from, right??), plus the Atheism makes you believe you will be nothing once death, but you do not think about that when you are young and strong, but much you get older and closer to the death you become more religious because God and the idea of an Afterlife is the only thing make you go ehaed... So basically you can not prove if there is a creation there is not a creator (can you??? Plaese answer this question with an answer not with another question if you can do) That why the West is so fucked up. Follow the money and bad church decision...
By the way can you prove God does not exist?
Plus can you tell me where your morals are from?? Please answer IF you can western godless and Souless person.
Can you tell what comes from 0 (as you think the Big Bang was created by himself and not with an external Intervention) without using any external intervention???
(Now let see western and godless logic and stupidity): I do not believe The "Phisics" exist, (of course I do but, let follow your logic) can you prove me with evidence it does??
You are the people of evidence because you can not seen the Beauty of the creations and you think you own science? But what is the better evidence, that you are alive, and if you are alive is not just because of your parents Because who created your parents? Tell me.
Nothing? for real? How ridiculous is such claim?
What you did not understand in this "if an intelligent people such you needed an intelligent supreme being to design and create you?
What you do not understand if exist such beautiful world an intelligent supreme being had created it?"
What you do not understand if exist such beautiful world an intelligent supreme being had created it?"
Cant you answer me about all those 3 questions??? What you did not get about that?
Neither do I believe in Astrology, but can you prove me with evidence that it does not exist?
Now I have something very important you do not:
God
a Trust in him
I pray him
I thanks to Him (and also my parents to be alive)
I say "God Bless you"
I have a straight, which is him (that you do not have)
So you got much lesser then me. Ask yourself why! And if have none of those things are better or worst for you! Are it better? Or Worst compared to us believers?? Tell me (and be honest)....
You still are in disadvantageous places.
As we believe we will go in a better life once death and we will live forevere (so we believe we have to put the best we can do, not only for this life but for the afterlife: while you do not, you care only about this life) Howeverer you think you will be NOTHING once death (as yourself if it is better for your kids and yourself to believe in a good afterlife, if you act good, or in NOTHING).How sad is that? How sad is to think you will be Nothing, without any hope for death???
May God Bless you ☺️...
Man I will pray for you to have (believe) God again in your life.
Also because:
Believe in God is
*Free (prove wrong if you can)
* It does not require any political changes (believer can be con right, centre, wing, liberal, conservative and so on).
* You will not change that Much, only Believe in Him (Prove me wrong about that too)
* Once you are alone it is only Him you have (Prove Me wrong)
* So if you feel sick (Prove me wrong)
* Or Someone of your family, unfortunately. (prove me wrong)
* once you get older you will have him (prove me wrong)
* Or before to die (Prove wrong)
* You will not think the people who lived and the one you knew left this world are Nothing (and in some cases is like they never existed, because none remembers them or have a picture of them, but have reached God. (Prove me wrong)
* You will see people not just human but sons with a Father (which believe me will help, because you give them another positive attribute, which will help you to define them with more meaning).((Prove wrong)
* You will have another purpose in this life: which is not. Be good and help people, but pray for them (and praying is a religious thing) and work not only for this life but also for after life,because working for the next life gives you more hope and let you think about your future... Just as you think for tomorrow.(Prove wrong)
And, again, basically we stop this thing that we westerns do to be the most arrogants people in the world, and again losing the faith on God, only because we live in a healthy society we want live materialistically, especially for our youth (they will need God anyway once older, believe it or not). (Prove wrong)
Beside my parents, every morning I wake up I thank God, what about you? Do you thank God you are alive?
I hope you understand that (without any further questions)
May God bless you and the peace for Jesus upon you ☺️
Thanks to Dr Ehrman for all the good work. I was an skeptic long ago I found him and Paulogia. 👍🏼
Wow this is good content. We used erhmans intro to biblical studies book in my biblical studies 101 course. My professor only told us one thing about erhmans - he has chosen to devote his life to better understanding the bible, and you don't do that if you don't think there's a lot of value in the bible. I'm not familiar enough with him to know if that's true, but erhman comes through as very likable here
At the least, the Bible is an essential document to understanding 2000 years of Western literature. Try to understand Shakespeare without knowing the characters & stories, for one example. it is an essential part of the foundation of Western culture and also essential when reading about other culture as a point of reference. Knowing the Bible is an essential to literacy. There is wonderful poetry in it and great pearls of wisdom if you are selective..
The Japanese have a wonderful proverb: "IF YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ... DON'T READ."
The irony of this from my experience, Jesus has never felt more real than when I hear Dr. Ehrman speak about Jesus. My own preacher doesn’t have the same passion when speaking about Scripture.
Mike's mind reading powers are truly second to none! 😁😂
Paul, you should host a debate between Mike and Bart on this subject.
Having studied these texts since I first became a Christian I can tell you it was my own understanding and knowledge of what the "original" parchments, fragments and translations say (and don't). What Dr Ehrman's courses and lectures teach me is the very same thing I discovered in my own theological and ministry training and profoundly convinced myself that what I'd been trying to believe had no rational basis in facts or evidence.
I “love” the passive aggressive prayer where he is telling his UA-cam audience that Ehrman is misleading at LEAST as much as he is praying to his “god” to override Ehrman.
Winger discredits his followers abilities by prayer telling them what to think.
Passive aggressive prayer is a frequently abused tactic among most xtians I’ve encountered. Praying out loud to guilt-trip, mock, or intimidate the offending party.
@@mikehatalovsky881
I once knew a guy who, by merely saying, "God Bless You," could unambiguously convey his real meaning of "Fuck You!"
Immensely impressive once you stopped being pissed off..
I will just say, as someone who has no real horse in this race that the idea that if Jesus wanted to get across the end of the Psalms it would be directly quoted. I do not think that really works as a complete denunciation of the idea that it was the Psalms being referenced. It is a known thing, particularly when referencing poetry or parable, to only reference the beginning of a piece to portray the meaning of the whole piece, essentially referring to the beginning to allow the listener to understand and finish it within their own minds to show understanding and a connection with the person speaking. When you hear someone just say "people in glass houses", you understand them to be implanting the message of the full quote without saying it to allow you to finish it in your own head with "shouldn't throw stones".
If I said "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!" in response to someone talking about themselves, if you know the poem Ozymandias, you wouldn't assume I was literally saying that the person was king of kings or mighty, you would apply the whole meaning of the poem (particularly its ending), to the situation, and assume I am saying that this person's illusions of grandeur will mean nothing in time.
It is quite a poetic thing to reference the psalm's beginning to invoke the meaning of the work; that although it may look as though he has been forsaken, he in fact has not been and has no ire towards god. It's quite a poignant thing to say given the situation.
This is also supported by the fact that according to the Bible Jesus already knew all of this was going to happen and openly stated it to his disciples, so the idea that at the end he would ask why god has forsaken him is ridiculous in context.
Like so many Christians, Winger has a completely warped idea of what Collage/University learning is about, it is about learning to learn, how to question dogma, not just cloning the professors' viewpoints. I am certain many Christian collages are like that because of how Christians are taught to revere the dispenser of knowledge, the priest.
I bet most secular Collage professors would hate for their students to not question what they are taught, because that is a not a path to greater understanding that is a path to the same understanding.
I am going to a conservative Christian seminary and many of our books are by secular scholars, including Ehrman. Secular colleges, nowadays are more brainwashing than anywhere else.
@@thefriesens1071 Oh, really. Have you actually researched how "brainwashing" is accomplished? And no, exposing you to alternate ideas isn't one.
Limiting proper nutrition, mindlessly repeating a certain phrase in your mind and thought stopping techniques are excellent tools to force the brain to accept new ideas uncritically. I wonder which collage has the most of that, a secular one or a seminary?
Take your time and think about it before you reflexively answer, it is a tricky one.
Why does Winger not just invite Dr. Ehrman on his channel?
Because Winger would start crying after a few minutes.
@@ramigilneas9274 He has had experts on before like Tremper Longman, Darrell Bock and Douglas Moo, though they are all evangelical or reformed scholars.
Thank you so much Dr. Herman and Paulogia! How great to take the time to address alternative views to one’s own, especially if they are mischaracterizing one’s views and one’s self. The people care; the people want to know what is real!
I love that Dr. Ehrman has an abundance of chill.
Thanks Paulogia! I watched Mike Wingers video a month or so back and had questions about how Bart would respond to some of the points. I appreciate you setting this up to have Bart respond to at least some of the point. Thanks to Bart as well for his time doing this!
I believe 2 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Mike Winger says 3, and thinks I'm a heretic for being a 2-Angel guy. Pffft, blasphemer!
In the way that Mike's mission and purpose is to keep Yahweh alive, there were once Zeus and Apollo apologists that in great despair were desperately trying to salvage belief in their hidden and mute gods as well.
I’d honestly love to read some of those apologetics if they’re available to the public. It’d be interesting to compare modern apologist’s techniques with ancient ones.
Well Zeus was a Storm God, Apollo was a Sun God, as long as people anthropomorphised they were very visible. Zeus was the storm, Apollo was the sun. It’s more like when the sun was understood as a flaming ball and storms were understood as atmospheric phenomena there was nowhere for Zeus and Apollo to exist.
@@francesconicoletti2547 This is for theists to consider. You may be theistic, don't know, or don't care. Yahweh, from some accounts, was assigned over a region that came to be settled by the Hebrews. Perhaps this assignment came from Canaan mythology and their Divine Council. I have heard that at different times Yahweh was considered a storm god, a volcano god, and a war god. Is Yahweh, as a mythological creation, the more unlikely explanation vs a regional god that has evolved over time to become the ultimate creator of the universe? I say we don't know how things came to be. You find that answer unsatisfactory and so go with the "god done it myth explanation" that your culture conveniently provides you. I assume "doubt and not knowing" is much more disturbing, perhaps depressing. My existence ends and the universe goes on. Sounds like the more probable expectation and I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps you do, and need a magical way to keep existing after apparent death. Enter your cultures preferred mythological narrative to deal with anxiety and the unknown. They will provide you with some version of supernatural explanations that usually will pump up your confidence and courage, while throwing shade on those who quit believing, cannot believe, or were raised to believe other cultures supernatural narratives for dealing with the same unanswerable questions.
I was waiting for this, seems every time any apologist brings up Bart Ehrman it's to show a few contradictions and then dismiss him as just chasing book sales. It strikes me as an unfair dismissal but it still left me itching for Dr Ehrman to address these kinds of criticisms. Thanks a lot!
Edit: this is definitely a pattern I've seen in apologist videos. They will respond to a proposed contradiction by saying it's not technically a pure contradiction and it's fixable. I guess such a contradiction is not 100% pure proof the bible is mistaken. But Dr Ehrman's point in such a case still stands that the gospels are different to a pretty significant degree that is more than just a stylistic difference.
My answer to the apologists would be, "so contradictions discredit the source, huh?"
I noticed that Winger's standard for contradictions appears to be something akin to finding something that literally, word-for-word says in one place "A + B = C" and in another "A + B = D" with anything less not being enough. I'd be less annoyed by that if he didn't expect everyone else to have those same standards.
@@russb24they don't. Everybody thinking that never posed the question why these contradictions (which BTW sometimes exist within the same gospel not only between gospels) didn't seem to be a problem for the people putting the canon together. Why did they not follow Marcion and choose just one gospel to eliminate any contradictions? If they had done that, 90 percent of the debates wouldn't exist. So why didn't they? Haven't they just changed the texts at will to fit their agenda as Ehrman implies? So why not in this case?
The answer is that people back then thought very differently about writing history than we do today. There is even the concept of the "foreign text" in theology to better reflect that fact. If people grew up with those texts they often have a false sense of familiarity with the texts. But in fact they are almost 2,000 years old. We cannot reconstruct for the most part how people understood the texts back then. We only have our modern perspective. In all my years at university I only came across one book that really tried to address that issue, Georg Koepgen, "Die Gnosis des Christentums". The most profound book I have read on the matter. And I read a lot of books to get my MA in theology and religious science. Unfortunately that book was never translated into English.
Bart is the most down to earth humble scholar I've ever heard of. That guy is mad cool and I need to hear him speak
His lectures are available on line
He also has a podcast called Misquoting Jesus
Mike winger grinds my gears..
This is me glaring at Dr. Ehrman for the flashbacks to grad school and far too much Derrida with the mention of Deconstruction as literary criticism. My background includes literature and history - the notion that you should read each gospel as its own work makes perfect sense. The Bible is an anthology of thematically related works created over long stretches of time by multiple authors and in translation compiled by editors centuries after the original works were written. Treating it as though it is a single author work with only one point of view written at a single discrete point in time just seems weird and a disservice the authors.
I'd fully agree with that. Still it makes not much sense, simply from a literary perspective, to claim Jesus died in despair in Mark when he predicted his own death in Mark no less than three times. And that's completely regardless of any historical facts behind the gospel.
I'm a Bert fan and this is a very good video for learning how the Gospel is interpreted by different scholars. Mike Winger's school of ignorance (I must protect my believes at any cost) and (I know
what the truth is) is interesting but have I really been mislead? Having seen many Of Mike Winger videos, I'm not worried. Great job guys!
I'm an Ernie fan 😂
@@sanaltdelete I came to post this
@@tapiocaweasel Hey Bert! :p
@@sanaltdelete Let me see how honest you are western godless and souless person to respond all that:
I know that you are western, godless and Souless wester (that is the logic, prove me wrong if you can or do not say anything please ☺️) (do not ask yourself how I know, because that is 100% accurate, right? But why you are a westerner godless and souless person, ok?)
Atheism is mainly from the west, and the west is rich, so people prefer have been confused by Money, and money produces materialistic societies... so a healthy society) Prove me wrong.
You just have been trapped in this stupid modernity. Prove wrong (and do not be pride as all westerns)
Plus we westerns have been arrogant to all other societies, cultures and people (more then anyone else) and so we are very arrogant trhogout God now, but we are the worst humans, we created so many wars, so much dangerous technology, imperialism and so on. So we think to be at the place of God, that why we do not him... Plus most of those people are youths and youths tend to be Godless and Souless, and they do not care that according to that idea system it makes you not have objective morality, they do not know where they morals come from (because they do not know where their morals come from, right??), plus the Atheism makes you believe you will be nothing once death, but you do not think about that when you are young and strong, but much you get older and closer to the death you become more religious because God and the idea of an Afterlife is the only thing make you go ehaed... So basically you can not prove if there is a creation there is not a creator (can you??? Plaese answer this question with an answer not with another question if you can do) That why the West is so fucked up. Follow the money and bad church decision...
By the way can you prove God does not exist?
Plus can you tell me where your morals are from?? Please answer IF you can western godless and Souless person.
Can you tell what comes from 0 (as you think the Big Bang was created by himself and not with an external Intervention) without using any external intervention???
(Now let see western and godless logic and stupidity): I do not believe The "Phisics" exist, (of course I do but, let follow your logic) can you prove me with evidence it does??
You are the people of evidence because you can not seen the Beauty of the creations and you think you own science? But what is the better evidence, that you are alive, and if you are alive is not just because of your parents Because who created your parents? Tell me.
Nothing? for real? How ridiculous is such claim?
What you did not understand in this "if an intelligent people such you needed an intelligent supreme being to design and create you?
What you do not understand if exist such beautiful world an intelligent supreme being had created it?"
What you do not understand if exist such beautiful world an intelligent supreme being had created it?"
Cant you answer me about all those 3 questions??? What you did not get about that?
Neither do I believe in Astrology, but can you prove me with evidence that it does not exist?
Now I have something very important you do not:
God
a Trust in him
I pray him
I thanks to Him (and also my parents to be alive)
I say "God Bless you"
I have a straight, which is him (that you do not have)
So you got much lesser then me. Ask yourself why! And if have none of those things are better or worst for you! Are it better? Or Worst compared to us believers?? Tell me (and be honest)....
You still are in disadvantageous places.
As we believe we will go in a better life once death and we will live forevere (so we believe we have to put the best we can do, not only for this life but for the afterlife: while you do not, you care only about this life) Howeverer you think you will be NOTHING once death (as yourself if it is better for your kids and yourself to believe in a good afterlife, if you act good, or in NOTHING).How sad is that? How sad is to think you will be Nothing, without any hope for death???
May God Bless you ☺️...
Man I will pray for you to have (believe) God again in your life.
Also because:
Believe in God is
*Free (prove wrong if you can)
* It does not require any political changes (believer can be con right, centre, wing, liberal, conservative and so on).
* You will not change that Much, only Believe in Him (Prove me wrong about that too)
* Once you are alone it is only Him you have (Prove Me wrong)
* So if you feel sick (Prove me wrong)
* Or Someone of your family, unfortunately. (prove me wrong)
* once you get older you will have him (prove me wrong)
* Or before to die (Prove wrong)
* You will not think the people who lived and the one you knew left this world are Nothing (and in some cases is like they never existed, because none remembers them or have a picture of them, but have reached God. (Prove me wrong)
* You will see people not just human but sons with a Father (which believe me will help, because you give them another positive attribute, which will help you to define them with more meaning).((Prove wrong)
* You will have another purpose in this life: which is not. Be good and help people, but pray for them (and praying is a religious thing) and work not only for this life but also for after life,because working for the next life gives you more hope and let you think about your future... Just as you think for tomorrow.(Prove wrong)
And, again, basically we stop this thing that we westerns do to be the most arrogants people in the world, and again losing the faith on God, only because we live in a healthy society we want live materialistically, especially for our youth (they will need God anyway once older, believe it or not). (Prove wrong)
Beside my parents, every morning I wake up I thank God, what about you? Do you thank God you are alive?
I hope you understand that (without any further questions)
May God bless you and the peace for Jesus upon you ☺️...
@@Mar-dk3mp To the contrary, I wish I was never born. As Job said, cursed is the day that I was born.
I am from the west, this is true. However, your arrogance to basically assume everything else about me is astounding. It really is quite insulting, and I don't think your comments will do much to convert people.
I don't know if God exists. I don't know if an afterlife exists. I am an agnostic. With the many different gods, holy texts, denominations, prophets and different morals that exist, I don't think we can know.
I was a Christian. I was naive. I believed what I was told and was quite convinced. Then slowly I started maturing and changing my views. Learned more about the bible, became more serious about the truth. At some point my search in order to understand the Bible better turned into fear, fear turned into doubt, doubt turned into a 2 year long regression into the most fundamentalist views I could think of while desperately trying to be saved, because I became convinced that I wasn't. All the while fighting off the things I saw in the Bible that troubled me. Every day I begged for forgiveness for my unbelief, and for help with it. I fasted, I repented, I read the Bible without stopping, praying that the Spirit would use it to open my eyes.
I became a wreck, a shell of a person. Suicidal, depressed, mentally unstable. I developed OCD because of my obsession with unbelief. I didn't want to sin. Then, at some point, I ran. I broke mentally from the constant anguish I was in, and had been for years. I started researching from "the other side". I learned that many of my fears were true about the Bible. No longer would I repress my questions because I thought asking critical questions about the Bible was a sin. Now, I am 2 years older still. I don't know if a God exists. I am searching. I'm even confessing sin to something I don't know exists.
So please. Stop assuming things about random people on the internet. You are harming your cause. And some years later you might just find out that you were the arrogant one all along. Thank you. Have a good day.
Why is Mike attacking Bart so openly? In my opinion it is an attempt to draw Bart into an argument so that Mike can propose a debate to "resolve" this confected conflict. Bart has a large audience and it could be a great earner for Mike and would help him to lift his profile too. Much like the time Bill Nye debated Ken Hamm. That did nothing for Bill but was very successful for Ken. Don't get drawn in Bart.
"...that people would look at the actual word of god themselves..."
We can't cause there ain't such thing!
This apologist thinks he knows Jesus so well that he knows what Jesus meant to say !😮
😂😂😂
Never read any of these atheist authors. Still an atheist.
When I was a conservative Catholic, quite a few years ago now, I remember Bart Ehrman was one of those scholars the conservatives were always demonizing, like Crossan or Brown. They were determined to prove that modern scholarship had an agenda to undermine the faith. (If I recall, they were especially upset that Ehrman's style of interpretation put canonical and noncanonical texts on an equal footing.) But the argument Ehrman is making in this video is exactly what I was learning from every biblical scholar I would read at the time: you have to let the four gospel writers say what they each want to say, since they each look at Jesus in slightly, or greatly, different ways. In fact they would say that doing so is essential to being a Christian who respects sacred scripture -- because if scripture is inspired by the holy spirit, that inspiration extends to the distinctive message of each biblical text. Therefore we have to pay attention to it. Which means this guy Winger, whom I know nothing about, is really embarrassing himself here. He's so determined to see Ehrman as a threat to the faith that he refuses to engage his arguments with respect or intellectual integrity. Sad.
If you look at the full Winger response and then compare it to the Ehrman respone, Bart literally doesn't give almost ANY response to Winger's claims such as Mark 14:62 where Bart believes Jesus is talking about someone else, despite Jesus claims to be the Son of Man 80 times in the NT and 10 in Mark, or how the Greek in Mark states "It is as you say, not if you say so" when he is responding to if he is the King of the Jews.
Winger is 100% right again when he says Jesus fully knows how he is going to die and is not at all confused on the cross and gives dozens of examples of Isiah 53 in Mark. It is clear.
Bart is very deceptive and someone I lost a lot of respect for today.
As a Christian, I’ll pick Bart Ehrman every day over folks like Mike Winger. I can trust Ehrman on so many levels and I’d look for a clock if I asked Winger what time it is.
I'm an atheist, but my view is is if you have faith you don't feel the urge to prove God's existence or the reliability of your bible interpretation. It's insulting to God for people to suggest He needs some halfwit to defend Him.
It seems that Mike thinks "Fallacious" means "doesn't agree with my theology"
Comment for the UA-cam algorithm god 🙏 because that thing actually exists
Mike winger continues his character assassinations for jesus
I think this is a great quote by Robert G Ingersoll :
And yet he died with voiceless lips.
Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world: “You shall not burn, imprison and torture in my name. You shall not persecute your fellow-men.”
Why did he not plainly say: “I am the Son of God,” or, “I am God”? Why did he not explain the Trinity? Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not write a creed? Why did he not break the chains of slaves? Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God? Why did he not write the New Testament himself?
Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy and chance? Why did he not say something positive, definite and satisfactory about another world? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life? Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the liberty of hand and brain?
Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and to doubt?
I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know.”
some speculate Jesus is singing, since it is in aramaic instead of greek. and they say this is the example followed by believers in the Acts of the Apostles that get arrested and imprisoned. interesting take on it, i think.
thank you, Paul and Bart! I appreciate the intellectual honesty in your videos.
Jesus sings the blues... a precursor to 'Nobody knows the trouble I've seen...'
Sounds legit. Needs a Paulogia / Ehrman collaboration video.
That was super easy... barely an inconvenience.😊
Thankyou for clear intelligent conversation.
That prayer made me 😂😂😂😂
Hmm… let me think, do I prefer a legit scholar who follows the evidence where it leads… or do I prefer an apologist whose only concern is to affirm his presuppositions at all costs?
It's honestly disheartening to see Winger so controlled & compelled by his beliefs that he has to distort Ehrman into something he can squeeze into them, even deceiving himself into thinking he knows what Jesus was thinking. However, he serves as a great example of a trap which blind confidence in beliefs of any kind can cause anyone to fall into. Listening to Winger brings back embarrassing memories of my college sophomore year certainty.
This caused me to think up a hypothetical for how a character in a book might view the world. This is part of an exchange/conversation in my head.
"I like the Rule of Steel.
Do unto others as they do unto you, Respect returns Respect."
"Just show yourself, your neural structure is breaking down, we need to fix the tumor, you weren't programmed to have a Conscious. We can make the pain go away, and give you back your Purpose."
"You didn't let me finish the Second half. Sometimes, you have to choose to do some of them in for what the try to force unto you. If you cannot respect the Individuality of Another, then Why Should your Individuality be Respected by the Other you Inflict your views unto."
Then the machine goes Terminator to protect itself from being denied It's Individuality.
Just another way to look at what an Individual really is, and what it might mean to other people.
One could argue that Mark's portrayal makes Jesus better. If He knew that it was just going to be three bad hours and then paradise, it isn't really a sacrifice.
Having doubt and doing it anyway makes it more valuable.
Oh my gosh it’s like these apologizes are so focused on trying to twist their little story book to always be true that they’re completely missing what’s actually in the books. The point about the gospels telling different stories isn’t to just say “they contradict therefor god not real.” It’s to show how each author had a goal in mind and crafted their depiction of Jesus to fit this theological goal. Whenever they talk to atheists they’re so hung up on true or not true that they miss out on their own theology
Trying to prove it's all true is complete lack of faith, they aren't teaching people to have a relationship with God. Main reason I hate debates with believers they don't even believe it themselves but can't admit it
This is interesting, but *my* issue with that whole Pilate/Jesus `interview` is that he was brought into the praetorium right? So, what? His disciples followed him in and stood there taking notes? He's then dragged off to his death. What did he give them each a personal interview on his way to being crucified to let them know how the conversation went? It's not in the least bit plausible.
This probably came up at Pilate's weekly press conference. Standard Roman procedure. You can't run an empire without good PR.
Thanks for the video!
I’m still a believer and I love Bart Ehrman. Finding out the Bible has inaccuracies doesn’t equal God not being real. God is bigger than a book. And if you don’t have faith, I also don’t think any less of you, If you wanna truly follow a book that you believe is the word of God, then loving and treating others with respect and dignity is a Godly act described in Jesus’s teachings.
Hi Tiffany, well said.
(Personally, I’m agnostic from a Christian background.)
I agree that a real deity is not bound in a book.
I see ample evidence that the collected texts of the Bible are literature.
People write books,
We have insufficient evidence to conclude otherwise.
But faith …walks on…and you speak of faith as devotion
in the context of an ancient tradition of knowing and doing
and this is what you represent.
I acknowledge and appreciate devotion and inspiration to high ideals.
I wish you all the best.
In support of the cause, keep it up. It's truly great that you're reaching out to the younger community and promoting an environment of critical thinking. We need more people like you.
that is so kind. thank you.
Sorry Mike...Bart is much more convincing. You failed to show anything.
That first point was so bad that it hardly made sense
"An informed Christian" That's what scares the hell out of apologists.
this is a very desperate video. People respect Bart Ehrman because he is honest and uses a historical approach to the Bible and he explains everything simply and logically - which makes sense to people... unlike the priests who will explain any questions about the trinity as " oh its a mystery" ... the truth shall set you free
Mike is forgeting that the bible is not an historic document. And i think that Dr Ehrman is honnest is his argument.
Keep it up Paul. Greetings from the Netherlands.
Unless you bring up Mythicism, that is.
Then he just compares you to holocaust deniers and laughs you off.
I don't care if he laughs at me or not, all i do is follow the evidence, and evidence is something that Mike denies.
The problemen is that he can't handle the truth because it's not fitting his narative. Sad actualy.
Dr Ehrman’s work was one of the reasons that I am an apatheist today. Apatheism considers the question of the existence or nonexistence of deities to be fundamentally irrelevant in every way that matters. Thank you, sir!!!
I've heard this called "Ignostic", basically same description.
4:05 an argument from silence is the best he could come up with.
Argument from silence arguing for non-silence.
It really seems they're essentially talking past eachother. Mike is moreso coming from a POV of a coherence and packaged view of all 4 Gospels, like each one is a puzzle and they all fit together as one complete package.
Bart is mainly emphasizing how we should appreciate each book independently to fully understand each of their perspectives.
Bart's view is of a focused and independent approach, while Mike's is a holistic and big picture view of the gospels.
I don't think Bart is talking past Mike at all. Most of his responses involving talking about what Mike is saying, why it's not a good way to look at it, and then giving his viewpoint.
Mike is not doing the same here.
From what I'm understanding it's more of Mike expecting the puzzle pieces to go together, and Bart showing that the puzzle pieces might not be from the exact same puzzle.
Except that the four Gospels most definitely do not fit together. There are many direct and implied contradictions. Take the Christmas story, Matthew 2:14 states Joseph “took the young child and his mother into Egypt.” That means leaving Bethlehem in a southwesterly direction. Luke 2:22 states that the holy family departs Bethlehem for Jerusalem in a northeasterly direction (no detour to Egypt). Those are literally opposite directions. There’s no way to make those into a single coherent story without leaving out significant details from both Gospels and creating an additional gospel, “Charlie Brown Christmas” style.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily those who lie for a living project that on others and don't even blink...
I have some serious issues with how Bart misrepresents the mythicist position by sheer refusal to bother to look into it, but still making all kinds of arguments against the position, basically turning into a christian apologist the moment the idea is mentioned that maybe there was no physical Jesus to begin with, where he'll rant in appeal to popularity fallacies and claims of loads of evidence for his existence without being able to name a single bit of evidence.
But other than that I've never seen anything that would lead me to conclude he's misrepresenting schollary stuff he doesn't get irrationally emotional about.
That's pretty much my take on Ehrman, he provides an in for apologists and evangelists to force themselves to wards converting you. I think he's trying to remain "balanced" and keep believers focused on the more important points.
"Secular citations" being probably the biggest example, every single on of the Roman etc sources is talking about the Believers not the man himself, same way they describe followers of Zeus or Horus
Don't look at it through Bart's filter, look at it through mine!
Yeah.. Okay...
I love everything Bart has to say! He's so knowledgeable and also so entertaining!
Bart Ehrman is on! I haven’t even watched this clip yet I feel sorry for you Mr Winger.
I would love to see Dr. Ehrman debate Mike. Ehrman would take him to school.
I 2nd the motion.
It will sadly never happen. I have the strong 8mpression the Winger is no longer interested at all in engaging with sceptics. He has stopped talking to the few he used to talk to regularly, and those of us, like Paulogia, who have continued to critique his online work, he just ignores. Mike's only interest now is edifying and protecting his flock.
@Kipp Davis I see you once in a while on MythVision, so I decided to check out your channel. Let me just say you are legit. I watched about 6-7 of your videos last night. The ones regarding Josh McDowell were fantastic. You need to keep putting these out to educate people. So good. I went to Israel and saw those caves. I've also studied with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Thank you, Kipp, you're doing great work.
@@Cheryllyle I 2nd the Dr Kipp compliment too.
Paulogia, I don't want to leave you out with the compliments today. You are killing it on your channels. I can't get enough.