Bible Professor Savagely Grades My Fringe Hypothesis (feat. Bart Ehrman)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 бер 2022
- World renowned Bible Scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman, tears apart the "no resurrection" hypothesis that I've put forth in several videos. This is the one Dr Andrew Loke calls "fringe". How will it withstand the scrutiny?
SIGN-UP - Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona Resurrection Debate
www.tinyurl.com/BartDebate
How Christianity (Probably) Began... No Resurrection Required
• How Christianity (Prob...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
I'm an ex-Mormon so Paulogia's notion that just few people having (or claiming) visionary experiences could birth a successful religion has always rang as quite probable to me.
It shocked me how accurate the South Park spoof on Mormonism was, as far as I can tell as a total outsider. I assumed they were playing up the visions and interpretations being so far fetched, but I followed up a while later and found out the real history was honestly not that far off?
My Mormon friend was always very open and honest, a very nice guy overall, so it seemed a little less wierd before I really bothered to research
500 people making claims to death isn't so probable.
@@MonfangHowlett there aren't 500 people making that claim. There's a single claim that 500 people made that claim.
@@radiofreeutah5328 Do you have evidence to the contrary?
@@MonfangHowlett don't need it. The claim is (i) definitionally hearsay, and (ii) remarkably vague, failing to affirmatively identify any of the 500.
One thing I adore about Paulogia is that unlike the Christian apologists, he is willing to be wrong.
He is humble like the Bible tells the so called Christian’s to be 😂
It takes guts to have a professor like Dr. Ehrman review your work publicly like this, and I will say this is one of my favorite Paulogia videos ever (and I think I have watched every single one). Great job!
Wow, thank you!
Mmmm, well, I have a feeling that Paulogia read some of Ehrman's works before and after.
Also, my respect for Ehrman as a scholar is quite limited.
@@Paulogia "savagely"? lol. He laughed you out of the park!
@@scambammer6102 I can't work out whether this is an amusing reference to Dr Ehrman's tendency to laugh or whether you are making a serious point. Do you think Dr Ehrman rejected Paulogia's thesis wholesale?
"I don't know why people just don't think about reality sometimes!" -- Bart Ehrman
I may have this printed on a t-shirt
Escapism and Fantasy is beloved by many, and most do not like to ruin the fantasy with rigorous criticism (which is required to reveal difficult/complex reality in an ultimately more simple to understand way).
I'd take one as well.
That's because human (or other) beings have no way to state what objective reality is. To make a statement about reality, we have to rely on two things: 1. Our sensory information, and 2. our brains processing said information. We know very well that both are highly unreliable. What we call reality is just another form of mass hallucination.
To clarify: I'm not referring to the specific context he used the phrase in, that's absolutely right. I'm talking about the phrase as a general statement.
@Mr. Zafner Make sure to get @Paulogia to draw Cartoon Bart on the shirt.
I'm so glad Dr. Ehrman made a point to address the asinine credulity of the people who claim that the existence of eyewitnesses would guarantee that only true claims would survive and circulate. I've never understood how people could say that with a straight face, as if untrue stories, exaggerations, and fabrications don't get spread around even today in the information age.
They don't believe half of what they say.
@@LukeSumIpsePatremTe right? 😅 But they sure as shit hope we do!
I always thought that was lame that apologists said that too. Especially the 500 in I Cor 15. You might hear an apologist say, “Paul talks about the 500 who saw Jesus risen as if to say, if you don’t believe me, you could ask them!” So lame. Lol
@@ChrisHuntley That 500 is such an obvious pulled out of someone's arse number it's mind-boggling that anyone falls for it.
while I don't understand how.... you've got people who will claim Trump is a saint who never lies.... If you can believe that, you can believe anything. Or pretend to.
Just got done watching @AronRa and what do ya know, Paulogia decides to grace me with his presence! It's a good day, good day indeed 🙂
Yes indeed 👍
What a pointless comment
@@Josh-mh3kl
Talking about pointless comments 😂
Oh my god yes
@@Josh-mh3kl You’re right! How astute and self aware of you to notice, as you’re typing, that your comment would be pointless. Congratulations!
The part where Bart sounds off about evangelical scholars not knowing the literature on memory is worth clipping and saving for the ages. Basically: Dear evangelicals, your token scholars don’t know what they’re talking about.
I'm definitely reading Bart's book on that topic
Yes. The very fact that people like Licona (who seems a nice fellow) and Habermas (not so much) are called ‘historians’ by other apologists is telling. They are never cited, other than in an adversarial fashion, by classicists or non-Theist scholars. They both do things like including unprovenaced ‘supernatural’ claims in their net of ‘evidence’ for positions on the NT. That is apologist or sectarian exposition, not scholarly research.
@@davethebrahman9870 them holding up the whole criteria of embarrasment as if It's an active proof is so mind numbing
@@unknowndane4754 that would be criterion of embarrassment and it is a valid literary critical technique
@@scambammer6102 That might be, but the way I have seen apologists present it is wholely unconvincing to me; "Why didn't the Romans ever mention Jeusus directly? Oh clearly because they wanted to cover up their mistake"
12:06 Yes! This is what I've been talking about for a while - I don't care how intensely the early apostles believed, that doesn't mean they're correct. There are innumerable people who claim to have experienced things today but we don't believe them. Why should we believe Peter or Paul?
Because BIBLE.
But seriously.. yes, that's really it.
The funny thing is that they cannot even get a consistent story about what Paul actually saw, yet it's basically their only remaining evidence that unlike the empty tomb or martyrdom for faith isn't refuted yet.. because it's unfalsifiable. You are simply told to explain what why and how someone else you have no access to FELT and if you cannot therefore the resurrection did happen. 🤔
Because apparently nobody dies for a lie. Please ignore the black and white fallacy. In case of suicide bombing insert special pleading here. I don't know how anybody is able to find this no-martyrdom-for-a-lie narrative convincing. It's fairly wide spread though. I've listened to it in my mothers tongue as well, even outside of youtube that is.
Personal experience really is the basis for all religion huh? :d
@@biedl86 No offence to your mother, but it's such a closed minded thing to say...right off the bat it means the martyrs of the *other* religions...they...well...just don't exist, I suppose? It falls apart instantly under the slightest scrutiny and I don't even have to get my big book of 'A billion reasons people did a billion stupid things, which resulted in their death.' out! Which is handy, because that's one hefty tome!
This shows quite a bit of intellectual integrity, Paulogia. Well done!
Except for a couple of fringe details that don't impact the central hypothesis at all, one of the world's leading experts believes that Paulogia's hypothesis is entirely plausible. This is significant.
I'm glad to know Paul is also a Life of Brian fan! Pure comedy gold.
I wasn't before I deconverted.
Jehovah
@@Paulogia Were you aware of it before you deconverted?
@@David34981 I was. Considered it blasphemous.
@@Paulogia I get that. I was a fan before my deconversion, but I was never particularly conservative/evangelical. I was raised in a non-denominational church with a much more compatibilist mentality. I always thought you were taking yourself way too seriously if you couldn't laugh at yourself. 😂🤣
Here is how to explain the origin of belief in a dying and rising Messiah in the first century without a resurrection actually taking place. All you need to do is combine the empirically observed phenomenon of cognitive dissonance with the specific historical circumstances and beliefs of first century apocalyptic Jews.
Step 1: The tradition found in 4Q521 tells us the time of the Messiah will coincide with "wondrous deeds," one of which was raising the dead. This tradition ends up being quoted in Lk. 7: 22 and Mt. 11: 2-5 so we know the Jesus sect had this expectation.
Step 2: Jesus was a Messianic figure who preached and predicted the Resurrection. Apologists cannot deny this since their own Scripture says so. This shows that the idea would have been implanted in his followers minds.
Step 3: Both Jesus and his followers believed they were living in the end of times which is exactly when the Resurrection was thought to take place. This is supported by the gospels themselves, Paul's letters and other apocalyptic literature that we can compare the gospels to.
Step 4: Jesus was suddenly executed.
Step 5: Enter cognitive dissonance (which has been empirically observed in other religious groups), plus a little bit of theological innovation and a biased reading of the Old Testament looking for an answer and voila! It was "foretold" all along - 1 Cor 15: 3-4, Rom. 16: 25-26! Thus, we can now see how the Jesus sect applied their already anticipated belief in the Resurrection to Jesus and he became the "firstfruits" of it - 1 Cor 15: 20.
Step 6: Soon some of his followers claimed to have visions or spiritual experiences of Jesus which is supported by the fact that Paul calls his experience a "revelation" (Gal. 1: 16) and a "vision from heaven" (Acts 26: 19) which he does not distinguish in nature from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15: 5-8. This provides a proof that physical experiences on earth with a resurrected body were not required in order to believe a person had been resurrected.
Steps 5 and 6 may be interchangeable. If the imminent anticipation of the end times Resurrection was already part of Jesus and his followers background beliefs then it's no wonder some came to the belief Jesus had been resurrected just a "tad bit early." It's straightforward logic - expecting the Resurrection to occur any day now -> Jesus was preaching the Resurrection -> Jesus suddenly dies -> Jesus must have been resurrected!
Apologists who maintain that the followers of Jesus would have abandoned the movement should check out other examples where religious/apocalyptic groups have their expectations falsified but then somehow reinterpret the events and update their beliefs in order keep on believing. See Festinger's book "When Prophecy Fails" as well as the origin of the Seventh Day Adventists (The Millerites), Sabbatai Sevi, and the Lubavitch.
I couldn't agree with you more.
_When Prophecy Fails_ should be required reading for people who think the circumstances of early Christianity were special. Heck, Dorthey Martin even had her own Paul of Tarsus by the name of Bertha Blacksky.
The more I see about the origins of Christianity the more it seems like it was a cult (like modern day branch Davidians,Heaven's Gate, or Scientology) that existed at just the right time where it could gain a foothold in it's society and eventually be seen as a legitimate religion.
Religion=Cult + Time + Legitimacy
The difference between a cult and a religion is with a cult the founder knows it’s bullshit. In a religion that guy’s been dead along time. -George Carlin
This is great Paul! Bart is amazing and it's great to hear him commenting on your hypothesis. Can't wait to see his debate with Licona.
You got Lyingkunt surname wrong Pal.
7:20..Bart is being very dishonest here ...as we have both several written literally sources and from archeological evidence of exactly what happens to Crucifixion victims in Judea....and a rotting on the Cross, devouring by dogs, and Garbage pit burial; are not among them...we found a Tombs...Why not Ask Flat Barney Rubble where his "burial Pit, just outside of Town is? ... I know he is just a typical demi-ignorant intent atheist/enthusiast...But Ehrman knows better....
Bart's right abot "Jesus Before the Gospels". It's definitely among his most interesting and - dare I say - damning written works. I've listened through it several times, and would like to do so again if I could find my copy. Its much unlike his other works in that it contains a scholar's survey of the nature of human memory as a backdrop to the ideas presented.
Going to read that ASAP.
@@michaeljames4509 You really should, it's fascinating.
The phrase is "mano a mano", hand to hand. Mano y mano makes the nonsensical hand-and-hand.
I have to say, it's a brave and unconventional cartoonist, that draws pictures of people with 5 fingers AND 5 toes.
I have to say, I don't think I've ever seen that before.
Good on them.
Dr. Ehrman - I've read, "Jesus Before the Gospels", and thought it was fantastic!
Paulogia, this was one of the best 'with Bart' videos! You guys did a great job explaining how things could have happened, and the probabilities, given the times and peoples. 👍🥰💖✌
The Peter, Paul and Mary reference slayed!
^_^
Ooooh - new Paulogia content!
Hope you're well, Paul 😊
I already got my tickets and am looking forward to it!
Also admire how willing you are to put your work through such scrutiny
I don't think Jesus was a real person. I have seen Ehrman argue that Jesus was real, but none of his points holds water (or wine). None.
Even if Jesus was a real person, he was just an ordinary human who died and never rose again. It's a win win situation for a non believer.
I don't know to what extent you've really heard his arguments, but if you've heard a good bit of them, I suppose that would mean you believe some first(?) century Jews(?) decided to make up a very unmessianic untriumphant messianic figure and they kept trying to justify his humiliating death which they also made up instead of just putting him in heaven like Elijah or making him wander the earth?
Is it really that much harder to believe there was once a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and messiah claimant whose name is rendered Ἰησοῦς in Greek, who managed the very feasible and historically recurring feat of being crucified by the Romans?
You might be mixing up Bart's personal beliefs concerning Jesus and the evidence and arguments concerning the actual circumstances of his life, which are by their very nature much less convincing.
(I'm asking you this but this isn't to say I fully disregard the possibility that you're perfectly familiar with the arguments for his existence and you just won't accept them. That is certainly possible and you wouldn't be alone in that.)
Finding Ehrman's arguments unconvincing (like I do) does not support "I don't think Jesus was a real person." It supports "I don't know."
I really love this format where you have a respected scholar critique the points of your video.
Enjoy the BE guest spots! Thanks for keeping up amazing work.
This was fantastic. I’m impressed with how well you did. It takes a lot of effort and time to create these videos. Much appreciated!! Well done Paulogia!!
I'm very appreciative of your willingness to uphold both sides of an argument in the search for truth. The past few weeks I've spent binging these videos has definitely given me food for thought as I explore my own faith leanings. Keep at it!
Absolutely loved watching and listening!
Thnaks Paul, it is always a pleasure to watch your videos. I always learn something new.
I don’t think people, even Dr Ehrman, sufficently examine the enormous incentive Peter and James had to continue the ‘Jesus movement’ and to see it expand. The alternative was to go back to Galilee, have people mock them for their gullibility or worse, and to return to hard manual labour.
Interestingly, a similar reason for the trajectories of people like William Lane Craig.
@@don_5283 Do you really think Craig is in it for profit? He strikes me as seeperate to believe, rather than motivated by self-interest.
@@davethebrahman9870 I think given the alternative of facing public mockery for his gullibility and/or deceit and having to figure out how to make a real living, one can be powerfully motivated to be desperate to believe. Of course, that's not the only possible reason there. It just struck me as a likely explanation, for him as well as for many others of his ilk.
@@don_5283 Certainly possible. I think it is much more likely in the case of Habermas. He gets extremely flustered and testy when questioned, which at least indicates a degree of doubt as to the rightness of his position. He also carefully constructs his case so that it it takes attention away from the weakness of his evidence; this seems very intentional rather than mistaken. Craig’s arguments, by contrast, are rarely evidence-based; but they lay out philosophical propositions that can take a fair bit of work to undermine; whereas any competent historian can knock down Habermas or Licona in a quarter of an hour.
@@davethebrahman9870 Both of those are fine examples as well. Habermas just looked awful talking to PineCreek in particular.
It would be great to see Paul make a follow up video where he incorporates some of Dr Ehrman's feedback and updates his hypothesis regarding the start of Christianity.
Excellent work, Paul, thank you for this.
Great video. Your efforts are appreciated.
I am surprised that there is not more skepticism about Paul's story. His only claim to apostlehood, as far as I can see, is that Jesus appeared to him but why would Jesus appear to somebody who never heard him and was not a follower? As I read it, it was because he was persecuting Christians. I have serious doubts that he persecuted Christians. I have heard people ask why somebody would lie when their interests would not be served. What about the flip side where somebody's interests are vitally served by the lie? If not for the persecution, why would God pick out Paul? As a bonus, it allowed him to say, "I didn't believe it, either. In fact, I actually persecuted Christians but then Jesus appeared to me." I don't think any hallucinations are necessary. A sufficient capacity for holding convenient beliefs would suffice. Modern Christians have such a capacity in large measure Maybe that trait goes way back.
Not to mention that it could just as easily have been ‘Paul’ seeing Peter’s group and, like most good con artists, repackaging it and selling it to the mass market. And since he became so prominent, the original group didn't dare try to out him from fear of splitting the church.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Paul took up collections in his churches for the saints in Jerusalem. Franchise operations? Hush money? Corrupt televangelist long before television? I am sure they didn't think of it that way. They would have had a rationalization.
who said there isn't skepticism about Paul's story? But skepticism =/= rote dismissal. There are a lot of mundane facts in Paul that are just as reliable as most historical texts. When he says he went to Jerusalem and met Peter and James, there's no particular reason to doubt it. If anything the incident is underplayed. There's no reason he would invent a disagreement with other church leaders about the treatment of gentiles, and his emotional reaction to that dispute looks authentic. Somehow Christianity spread throughout the Mediterranean. If it wasn't Paul, it was people like him, doing much the same stuff he describes.
@@scambammer6102 From what I read of his post, he isn't discounting that Paul existed or the entire story is fake. He's simply expressing skepticism of his origin story in Acts.
Something I as well have.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Well yeah Acts is fan fiction.
What most amazes me about the upcoming Ehrman / Licona debate, is that there is apparently enough evidence for the rexurrection to fill seven hours of discussion.
Seriously. The entirety of the evidence boils down to "Anonymous author claims that an unnamed source related to him a story about other unnamed individuals who supposedly witnessed a risen Jesus".
That is literally as good as it gets: third-hand hearsay.
@@drlegendre Paul isn't anonymous. That's the source. The gospel accounts are worthless. They are just repeating remote hearsay.
@@scambammer6102 Paul never witnessed a risen Jesus in the flesh. He had a "vision", what we might call a theophany, that he took to be Jesus.
@@drlegendre I discount Paul’s “vision” but he also went to Jerusalem and met (and argued with) other church leaders. That’s what makes him a source, and he isn’t anonymous.
I really loved this video. Not just the contents but also the concept. Downloading Bart’s book on Audible now!
Damn Paulagia! You did great! Congrats. 😁
Love it, great job as always Paul, and I always appreciate hearing from Dr. Ehrman. The clarifications were interesting and valuable. I'm a former Christian whose family and community just can't accept in their hearts that I'm no longer one, so channels like yours that respectfully address important topics and offer relevant discourse are truly inspiring and helpful in my journey. I've been off the wagon for the better part of a decade now, maybe even a little longer, and it's still a struggle to have conversations about religion or my lack thereof with many people close to me. Anyway, keep up the great work
Imagine what a world it would be if such great minds did not have to expend their talents on clearly fantastical notions? /smh
Awesome job!!! Another banger by Paulogia
Such a great idea! Intellectual honesty FTW!
I'm one of those who think that a handful of core disciples, like Peter, Mary, and James, made up the resurrection to keep their congregation.
I think it became a badge of honor to have seen the risen Jesus, and even a requirement to be considered a "true disciple". So many claimed to have seen Jesus.
Makes sense, kind of how some pentecostal churches right now require speaking in tongues as proof of the having received the holy ghost, aka, being saved.
Actually, not many people claimed to have seen Jesus. We only have firsthand eyewitness testimony from Paul.
@@elainejohnson6955 It's my hypothesis for Paul's claim about 500 witnesses. Even though I think it's an exaggeration, I'm sure plenty claimed to have seen the risen Jesus just to belong
You're one of those who thinks you know what happened huh? Just like this video, your comment is pure speculation. Countless Harvard Historians of Greek language agree that it makes a lot of sense that the biblical accounts from the dead sea scrolls are accurate accounts and make sense. Marianne Meye Thompson is one of the women who translated KJV into NIV and acceptable team I suppose. You can see her say some interesting things about scriptures on the veritas forum.
@@peacepipe6695 What!?
I wrote "I'm one of those who think", as in it's a hypothesis I happen to find plausible. Noone knows what happened. We're all speculating. I'm just casting my vote for this hypothesis.
Afaik, the dead sea scrolls contain nothing about Jesus or the early christians so thy are irrelevant to this.
That was fun. Glad your hypothesis stood up so well, as I've always found it quite plausible
was there a controversial part?
This is one of my favorite Paulogia videos and watching it critiqued and largely endorsed by the great Bart Ehrman made for an excellent lunch break view!!
Amazing work Paul
Great work.
Can't help but pay attention to someone who is willing to put their work to the test in public.
Absolutely brilliant video Paul, I thoroughly enjoyed Bart's analysis of your prior video. The good news being you seem to have passed with flying colours.
Always good to see another paulogia video.
Hope you enjoyed it!
@@Paulogia how could I not, you're honest search for the truth, the ability to refine your position on new information, your dedication to your craft and mostly your honourable conduct when it comes to friend and foe alike is admirable, I've learnt a lot from you and hope to learn more.
Wow. This was really good. I appreciate that Paulogia was willing to be told he was wrong by the professor that did actually correct him, a bit, on some things. I still want to know the final grade, though :)
Very cool. Well done Paul.
I vote the debate should be known as "The council of Barcona".
👍🏼😃
Did anyone else thing at about @11:50 "Ha ha! He paused his own video while he was blinking..."
I love these guys. Very useful insights, from a lot of thought and study.
Amazing episode 👏 ❤️
Nice to see you here
So Bart Erhman and Mike Licona will debate the "resurrection" for 7 hours or so ? What's next, how many, and what animals did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on ? I know these guys have to make a living, but angels, dancing and pinheads keep springing into my mind. Nice video Paul, you are evidently an honest interlocutor !
for me the debate is over. All the existing "evidence" has already been presented and it is pathetic IMHO.
For a God that wanted to save people he sure did not leave much of a calling card!
Yeah exactly! I don’t watch atheist programs that much because it’s so settled in my mind it feels like I’m wasting time watching reruns.
Off topic, and I’ve said before, but I love Paulogia shows the Blood and Thunder prophet (played by Terry Gilliam) and even used a drawing in his video. It’s one of my favorite scenes from Life of Brian.
Now, if you’ll excuse me…I need to go find my hammer which I had just placed it somewhere the night before.
The Art of Memory by Frances Yates details the Classical Greek technique for memory, which was part of the Classical Greek education, and if you have watched Sherlock, you’ll know it as the memory palace. You construct a memory palace in your mind and then place the things you want to remember in various locations of the palace so you can visualize all of them and recall them at will. It was used by politicians to remember speeches and lawyers to remember their cases. Ancient architecture was often designed specifically to act as a memory palace for Greeks and Romans.
The book details how early medieval Christianity tried to destroy any reference to the mnemonic technique by making the forming images in your head a sin. Creating novel and compelling images is the whole point of the mnemonic.
It’s a fascinating book which explains how the memory palace was kept alive in secret through the Middle Ages by people like Giordano Bruno (the church burned him at the stake for postulating that the heavens were filled with an infinite number of suns around which an infinite number of planets orbited), and even William Shakespeare, as the globe theatre was purportedly designed to be used as a memory palace. The only surviving partial account of the technique from antiquity is found in Rhetorica ad Herennium by Cicero (though it’s undoubtedly not written by Cicero) which is a book of rhetoric.
Instead of a memory palace, the Greeks originally used the constellations of the zodiac as stations to put memories, and not just the monthly constellations but a constellation for every day of the 360 day year of the ancient world. Which is why there are 360 degrees in a circle.
The technique was “discovered” by Simonides of Ceos, who stepped out of a banquet to get some fresh air and the temple hosting the banquet collapsed crushing everyone beyond recognition.
Simonides was able to walk through the temple banquet in his mind and identify everyone based on his internal picture of the scene before the collapse.
The book is not for everyone. It is dense and academic, and expects you to understand passages in Latin and Greek, which when I read it before the internet and google translate was a lot more daunting than today. But it is worthwhile if you are interested in the history, but you will not be instructed how to do the mnemonic, just directed to Rhetorica ad Herennium to read for yourself.
I love that you let a scholar critique your video. I would love to see this with other scholars.
ME: Hey Dr. Ehrman, what you think about the last Spider-Man movie?
BH: Well, I wrote a book about that, ...
05:06 "I *think* he [Jesus] decided..." - Appreciate you doing this video. I respect Dr. Ehrman for all the work he has done and have read (parts) of his undergrad textbook and some others of his books. Still, as times goes on I have a growing question about Ehrman, as if he's afraid to face the ultimate hard-core rejection of some his beliefs.
The sentence of Ehrman's that I time-stamped is an example. Dr. Ehrman _wants_ to believe certain things about a historical Jesus, but if I'm going to be the persistent skeptic I have to ask that if we are going to reject the miracles of the gospels, which non-Christian historians do, why are we going to accept the _premises_ of the events that are written to explain (by the gospel authors) those miracles??
Critics of the NT have come a long way in two hundred years (since German scholars really started to take apart the miracle stories.) As I write this today, my conclusion is that the gospel (as in the book of Mark and then copied in the books of Matthew and Luke) are more fantasy than anything else. Sure, there are some facts of the day, but the story or stories embedded are clearly intended to make converts (and two the gospels explicitly say that is why they were written.)
So Dr. Ehrman can "think" about this or that scene in the gospels and try to rationalize how such a scene _could_ have happened in reality, but I wonder if I had a time machine (and could go back and observe) if I would see anything like what Ehrman thinks happened truly did occur.
Which gospels say they were explicitly written to convert and where? I need this badly for my discussions with Christians. As a non-believer, I try to get the believer's to start thinking critically about the Bible.
As to your conclusion: " if we are going to reject the miracles of the gospels, which non-Christian historians do, why are we going to accept the premises of the events that are written to explain (by the gospel authors) those miracles??"
I think you can think different about it. Let's take a televangelist today. You hear about miracles, scandals, that he is visiting here or there, that he said this or that.
What do you think is true (of all that)?
It is easy to believe most of the MUNDANE information (where he was, what he said etc.), but when it comes to the miraculous stuff .. not so much!
Of course, you can choose to believe that people who lie about SOME things, cannot tell the truth about ANYTHING. That's fine (but not necessary)
Conclusion: people tend to AMPLIFY stories, not make them up out of whole cloth when they pass them off as true (in my experience)
Obviously there's no hard evidence. But if the guy got crucified, he caught Rome's attention. There's nothing particularly implausible about it being due to a commotion in Jerusalem. Rome was primarily concerned with keeping the peace in its major urban centers. And we know an early church formed in Jerusalem shortly after his death.
@@busylivingnotdying This is fair but you're assuming direct transmission from a first hand source rather than the game of telephone that is oral traditions.
We don't really have a way of saying what is or isn't a popular insertion meant to be more convincing/entertaining/relatable/whatever.
@@soonerarrow The beginning of Luke, and the end of John.
This is GREAT! How cool and humbling to let THE Bible professor critique your work. This kind of openness and honesty is rarely seen. Theists, take note.
This is an excellent format. Loved this. Thanks. (I do, however, feel like a shuttle cock being knocked back and forth between Ehrman and Carrier.)
I really enjoy the historical aspects of religion. And Dr. Bart is so fun and engaging! 🥰
The main response that apologists would make about "lying" is that no one would be willing to suffer or die for a lie. Putting aside the fact that the martyrdom accounts are dubious, this is just not true. if some people believe that a certain lie would bring about a greater good, some people absolutely would be willing to suffer and die for a lie that leads to a greater good.
Your of course assuming that if they turned around and said they made it up it would magically get them off the punishment, if your gonna get executed regardless ...
@@LiEnby But it might have. The Romans were often willing to let recanters off.
@@scambammer6102 source
@@LiEnby numerous. Bart Ehrman for one. Most martyr accounts include an offer to recant. You really don't know this?
I would love to see him critique other videos of yours.
Nicely played sir.
I appreciate the book recommendation. I haven't read Jesus before the Gospels, but I just got it on audible, so I know how I'll be spending the rest of my week!
So wait. Jesus would have gotten furious at people for making a buck off of religion? The very idol of christianity got mad at what most christian apologists and some preachers (cough YEC cough) do every time they speak???? The hypocrisy! The irony! Oh its too much!
Jesus was just mad cause he didn't have a table
Hey Paul, can you put out the long version of this? It's obviously cut down for UA-cam, but I would love to hear the entire thing. THIS is really interesting and a great idea for your channel. At a minimum to show how fair you are when it comes to this.
Great video, thanks!
The funny thing for me is... I think the idea of a non-miraculous spread of Christianity is actually more interesting than the miracles. There's a lot of fascinating things going on there. With the Jewish Revolt and Messiah movements in the populace, this rural groundswell movement, the establishment of the first proto-creeds of Christianity across the Levant, Nile Delta, Asia Minor, and Greece. It's honestly kind of a shame that interesting things like that, which could better our understanding of humanity and where we come from culturally, just gets bogged down in general over the talk of miracles and magic more than the interesting context and people involved.
Oh, definitely.
Watching the interpersonal relationships and conflicts between the many competing sects of early Christianity is much more exciting to me than the generic gospel stories as they are taught.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Says you. Speak for yourself guy.
@@peacepipe6695 I am. Which is why I'm saying anything at all.
@@Lobsterwithinternet careful with those pinchers
I love whenever you have Dr. Ehrman on. I have read most of his books. I am a history major and my dream is to attend UNC Chapel Hill.
My favorite content creator on UA-cam + my favorite former christian New Testament expert = another great video.
Thanks Bart Herman for reviewing one of my favorite videos on the rise of Christianity! Well done both of you!
Love debates.
Love Bart.
Respect Mike but rarely agree with him so this gonna be good.
Come on Paul 19:20 needs a "for the Bible tells me so" jingle, how could you miss that?
Yea this video really helped me alot; thanks !
Oh man, those anecdotal stories and the idea of fact-checking is great. I want that as a clip!
The whole crucifixion and resurrection plot, makes no strategic sense at all, both from Roman perspective and from a God that wants to show-off his power in conquering (at least his own) death.
From the Roman side, if they'd have feared that the disciples (not a band of viking mercenaries) could steal the body, then do not take it down, do not give the body to a conspirator, do not let conspirators to prepare the body for burial, do not let them hide the body in a hole where you cannot see it!
Rather, put some spikes around and let it rot on the cross for a month!
From the "divine revelation" perspective, you do not want the most significant magical event in history, to be witnessed by cold hard stones!
You too would want witnesses, you could even have used the Emperor (before the edict of Thessalonica), inviting him to the front row, to be the first convert after you raise!
...Instead, it is all concealed and mysterious, just like every other concocted supernatural claim.
It really isn't a mystery. Dead people do not come back to life, period. Using that as a starting premise helps a lot.
Bart is a Bible Scholar, NOT a historian! He is qualified to discuss the contents of the Bible, not historical facts!
In particular, he's a textual scholar. He's qualified on the TEXT of the Bible not the CONTENT of the text. That's called higher or historical criticism.
@@dharmadefender3932 Bart does not seem to know the difference.
uh...he is a historian. His degree isn't history, but so what? You think nobody learns anything after college?
I love the way that it's still miraculous that the religious belief survived, no miracles required, kinda like all things when it comes down to it..
20:42 That was a great set up and a great delivery.
This was an excellent critique. It seems that only a few words need changing.
The Peter, Paul & Mary reference made me laugh (not an easy thing to do).
As far as grading is concerned I’ll give you an A- at worst.
the best part was the magic dragon
i would really love to know if bart or paul would ever be willing to host a webinar and have different people write an essay (to show how educated on the subject they are before wasting yalls time) to have an open discussion about christianity and the history vs the religion of the thing. I myself find it very very interesting that we get small things from the bible that help us feel like we are in those time periods, but i enjoy all religious texts for that reason. While i may not enjoy or agree with christians, to all out say everything they do is wrong, is exactly how they treated me as a young man. The cycle must end and the internet luckily gives us wayward souls a place of our own, We will end the cycle my friends.
Just signed up for the debate, thanks.
excellent. see you there.
Liked and Subscribed!
Keep up the great work fam
welcome!
Speaking of what is/isn’t plausible, I don’t see any of those first few minutes regarding J coming to Jerusalem, what he saw, how he felt, what he did at all plausible. In ~30 yrs he’s never before encountered money changing hands at church? This big temple visit was somehow shocking to him, being raised in the faith and seeing it every day (though perhaps on a smaller scale)? And then he “causes a ruckus”. How big would this ruckus need to have been to arouse the ire of the higher ups? Sure nothing short of “shutting down” the temple would be sufficient? The church brass certainly has come across malcontents any number of times.
I’m just not hearing any reason that J or his experiences should have been unique or special or noteworthy, to the degree that he should be singled out. It seems far more likely that this is a story of decades of corruption resulting in a saviour myth being written down, years and decades after some minor seed event, like the crucifixion of one insignificant player
yep this sounds like a more plausible scenario to me. Anyway the gospel writers knew nothing about it. They are just making stories out of urban legends.
That's a debate I would watch - two reasonable, respectful people who are experts in their field using actual scholarly evidence to support their ideas. No feelings as evidence, no gish galloping, just two people who have come to different conclusions based on the same evidence.
Well, you've just described the ideal debate. Now if only people could actually live up to this ideal, that would be great.
anybody arguing that resurrection is a real thing is nuts.
Love that you’re fact checking yourself 💯
To be fair there were also cameras at rockies fight . I mean i was just lookin’ at it.
Regarding Saul and Jesus:
The Third Man effect happens to people under extended exhaustive physical stress. People on expeditions, incl. Reinhold Messner, speak about that.
The people are walking along, and someone walks along with them. Somehow they take that presence for granted. This person speaks with them, encourages them, they might even talk with them. But when, for some other reason, they turn and look in the direction where this person would be, no one is there.
I can easily imagine that on this long walk to Damascus something like that happened to Saul.
It would explain guardian angels, Jesus meeting Satan in the desert, even Moses and the talking burning bush.
My boss told us when he was in the Himalaya, some 6000 meters high, he has the memory that on the summit they met a sherpa with his yak and talked with him. He knows that this is total nonsense, but he said the memory is as vivid as the rest of the tour - where he said due to the lack of oxygen at that height you were anyhow in some strange state of constant daydreaming.
Mr Ehrman seems to be a cool guy.
It would be really interesting if you did this again with Mark Carrier.
A; and a great refresher A+
Excuse my ignorance but I don't understand why is the resurrection considered to be an argument for the thruth of Christianity? If Jesus rose from the dead where is he now? Oh, in heaven with his dad. Ok so where would he be if he was just to die on the cross, some different place? If not then what's the whole point, I just don't get it. What is there to debate?
I would expect the son of God to rise from the dead and spend these last 2000 years to personally meet with anyone who needs him. You could still choose to reject him because of all the evil or whatever but he would have a purpose instead being this bullshit Santa without the presents dude in the sky.
you will get the presents when you are roasting over a pit dude s/
I've always given Mr Ens an A+. Bart might be my favorite professor of all time. Why don't we edit your video "How Christianity Probably Began" and create another iteration which future entities can be teased about. Will the videos have date stamps so future watchers can know which came first? Who was this Bart Irmin, some itinerant professor who taught the children of rich people about God? Who was this Paul Ens, aka Paulogia, who got his ideas from Star Wars? I hope in two thousand years people will look back and wonder who the Jesus was that Paul and Bart were talking about.l
Bart great courses lectures are phenomenal
damn now i really want to read that book on memory.
This is a very satisfying review given that instinctively i trusted you above the religious making arguments in the opposite direction. As a non religious person i was worried this was gonna turn out to be a horrible confirmation bias
I love Bart. He is an excellent teacher and debater.
I have a criticism, however. IMO he retrojects the gospel stories into earlier history and the Pauline epistles.
I doubt that it is intentional, but it is evident. And it is not good historigraphical evaluation to do so.
...Ehrman also lied through his teeth about no Archeological evidence of what happens to Crucifixiton Victims...when the real truth is we have way too much for his current lame position..
He is not totally free from his religious upbringing. He takes the gospels way too seriously.
@@scambammer6102 ...No actually ...just the opposite ... the gospels are History...in fact some of the best history we have from the 1st century is from them.....Bart and every real historian, are very well aware of all that ...that is, except for a handful of academically unemployable internet wing nuts...like "flat Fred Flintstone" here- Polly-ogia the cartoon HAThEist ...he's "all theories" and not a stick of actual evidence...
my God ...but you atheists are a gullible bunch...
What Ehrman is not free from...are wide-eyed Hatheist speculations... based on Zero historical evidence...he takes those too seriously ...
For instance ...Oh where?... oh where? are all of Ehrman's (and Polly-olgias) Mass garbage dump graves ???...(to be fair actually Bart frankly admits repeatedly that "he really doesn't know"- ...unfortunately enthusiastic HAThEists, like yourself and Polly -golia...just gloss right by that stunning admission....
...in the meantime there is a mountain of actual evidence...in the 4 gospels and far beyond ...including ankle bones from two crucifixion victims...both crucifixion victims received decent burials ...one ankle with nail was found over 50 years ago in a bone ossuary in a tomb in Jerusalem...
the other victim discovered a few years ago, also received decent single burial in Italy ...
See.. that is real what evidence looks like (and it agrees with the gospels)...
..as for pathetic secular doubts...they are not- "Evidence" at all..other than clear historical evidence of the general level of gullibility among postmoderne' skeptics...
While I am always interested to hear what Bart has to say, it's getting so whenever I see him showing up on half a dozen different youtube channels I wonder what it is he's flogging this week. Prior to his promotional campaign last year I think I'd seen him guest on one, maybe two shows over several years. Now he's on every channel I watch for a week and then disappears again. It would feel like less of a cheap shill if he showed up occasionally when he wasn't selling something.
Having said that, I was very keen to see his opinion on Paul's theories, which have always seemed pretty solid to me.
A cheap shill? He donates his proceeds to organisations that combat homelessness and poverty. Furthermore, he's raising awareness and reaching a far wider audience. If you don't like it well, too bad.
@@proculusjulius7035 Oh don't get your panties in a bunch. I just said it would be nice if he occasionally showed up when he wasn't selling something.
You rock!!!!!
Jolly good show .