And the "Christ" was not a last name joke. It is very unlikely Christian students do not know something so basic. And yes, the pop quiz introduction tiresome.
@@raysalmon6566 What do you consider simple,that Erhman complicates? A couple of examples of your belief in your statement may help me understand. Thank you. 👍🏽🕉️
Fascinating stuff. I just love that Bart teaches biblical scholarship to fundamentalist kids in the Bible Belt. Something's gone right with the world, how did that happen?
A smart fundamentalist kid studied the Bible, saw through it, and wasn't too afraid to change his worldview to match the evidence. Bart, that is. Matt Dillahunty, too. And another ex-fundie kid whose name escapes me at the moment - a youtuber, one of the smarter ones. I love it when people manage to break free of their indoctrination because they simply learn too much and can't keep lying to themselves even though their lives would be easier if they did. Those cases always impress me. (I had a much easier time of it, myself.)
@@susiepittman601 Christians in America seem obsessed with “belief.” In Judaism you never hear much about “belief” of the Hebrew Bible. The vast majority of Jews regards the “Old Testament” as “sacred myth” combined with actually history and folk history. They don’t take it literally and no Jews make a fuss about it. But Christians in America are hellbent on insisting everything be taken literally. It’s really strange.
Ehrman’s part of a tradition of textual scholarship that is hundreds of years old and ever since the beginning the early Christians have wanted to get their texts in order. It’s fortunate that Islam has no such tradition, otherwise all the errs and discrepancies of the Quran would be clear as day.
An excellent lecture by a true scholar and expert on the topic. One must marvel at Prof. Ehrman's encyclopedic knowledge of many aspects of the subject discussed. This video provides a truly important insight into the lecture topic by a broadly knowledgeable scholar.
marysueeasteregg actually Ehrman has stated that he is both an agnostic and an atheist. He just prefers to emphasize the agnostic part because he is a historian and is more interested in knowledge than beliefs.
@@marysueeasteregg agnosticism holds the view that the existence of God/Gods, is unknown or unknowable an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in God or religion, in a way agnostics are also atheists but not the truly hardcore disbelievers.
In an earlier speech Bart Ehrman gave where he mentioned his pop quiz, he said that he hasn't yet had to buy anyone dinner. It took a while for him to buy a dinner.
Jeez, you Muslims really got a hard on for Dr. Ehrman! Instead of reaffirming your views, do as Dr. Ehrman and try to challenge your own beliefs. If you have the truth, critical thinking and research will lead you to truth. If you come to a different answer, admit you were wrong and move on.
Sosa Q No, only right you prove them wrong with actual facts. But of course you can't because secular Islam believers are incapable of critical thinking and thorough reasoning.
I will be focussing most of my time in listerning to every lecture and debate of Professor Ehrman. Hes knowledge about the Bible and Christianity is awaresome.- Worth listerning :)-
Julio Kosters Well, the problem with Ehrman is that he has adopted some of the irrational presuppositions of the field of Biblical Studies, such as the idea that there must be a historical core to the gospels and that you can extract it mostly by comparing the gospels to each other. That methodological flaw makes Ehrman's conclusions dubious at times.
Gnomefro If the Gospels claims to be from God there should be no contradictions. Thats why not only Ehrman but we all must compare em and see how God can give two contradictory reports about the same events.You can call him or the rest of those whom you say have preupposition but the fact is Ehrman is perfectly right in doing so..
Julio Kosters Your creator is the same who created everyone and everything. As longa as we accept our creator and obey his commandments. Thank him for what He has given us. Don't take partner with him. I feel that you are on the right path. Hope to see on the day that is going to happen on the right side and everyone will know what he or she has done. We hope and pray to be forgiven.
I've often wondered how I would have scored on Dr. Ehrman's 11-question preliminary quiz when I was a college freshman. Dr. Ehrman himself was in the fifth grade at the time, but I still wonder.
Dr.Ehrman, as always, delivers excellent lectures on the Bible, its history and its Gnostic rivals. However, I would be delighted if he were to deliver a lecture on Church history, more specifically, the Eastern Orthodox contribution to Christianity. It is painfully obvious that all the BIG NAMES in biblical scholarship never mention (at least in great detail) the Eastern palace of Christendom. I have been IMMENSELY curious by the silent treatment this subject receives.
It seems that Christianity is full of "fan fiction". People wrote stories about characters in the Bible and over time they became part of the historic record of Christianity. It reminds me of Star Wars, where later movies are developing the early life of Hans Solo, for example. People have a desire to flesh out the details with their own imagination. Even now, people write fictional books about Jesus and Biblical characters. The difference now is that we do not pretend such books are fact.
@@mistercarlberg Even the main LDS Church has been more forthcoming about the fan-fiction nature of the BoM and the BoA. In recent years I've noticed Mormon missionaries will openly admit that their scripture is problematic and try to emphasize this weird combination of NT adherence and a New-Age take on the Adam-God doctrine to draw in listeners. They no longer try to argue antiquity or the truth of Mormon mythology but instead represent their theological variations like ascension to godhood and Kolob in a more modern sci-fi kind of way. I really like where they're going with this new approach.
That's because Muhammad got his information from the same Christian sources that Bart's talking about i.e. non-canonical popular myths current when Muhammad was living.
@@dirkcampbell... **Well Muhammad couldn't read or write so He didn't 'write'/compose the Quran. I think it's important for people to do some research on the Quran before speaking on what they assume it's origins are. And the best way is to get that information from an expert on it who's from the religion. Now if one chooses to disagree with what that person says then fine, at least they went to the proper source(s). But trying to get that information from someone from another religion is like having a back problem, but going to see a foot specialist - Instead of going to see a back specialist* 🤷🏾♂️
Obi Wan Perhaps YOU should STUDY ISLAM and be clear before you speak. Mohammed took from Judaism and Christianity to COMPOSE ISLAM. Mohammed had an ASSISTANT who WROTE DOWN WHAT MOHAMMED DICTATED. RESEARCH IT.
My question Dr. Ehrman is what is the origin of the legend that Jesus rose on the third day? I learnt that in Jewish cultures, a day is made up of the night and the morning. So if Christ was crucified on Friday, Friday night and Saturday morning would be one day, and Saturday night and Sunday morning will be two days. Also, the stories merely say some people went there on Sunday morning and did not see him. What if he "rose" on Midnight Friday, or any time on Saturday?
If 97% of people calling themselves "Christians", don't have any idea what a "Christian" is? Shouldn't we be calling them something else? Since they aren't "Christians"? Or, possibly the ignorant "majority" should win? And we should "rename" the "minority" of real Christians? ...just call them something else? Until the whole process "repeats" again?
I feel the opposite way...I used to be a fundamentalist and by studying and listening to lectures not only by Ehrman but by people with a wide variety of views, I'm still a Christian, but no longer fundamentalist, and I actually think it's better this way. When you strip away all the Church's influence over the basic truths it is much more valuable to me as a faith.
The bible teaches us; "Put not your trust in nobles nor in the son of man to whom no salvation belongs" ( PSM 146:3) We can all teach ourselves by personal study and meditation not rely on others ideas.
The old man Joseph (the carpenter) can be equated to Osiris-Ptah (the architect) who fashioned everything from a potters wheel. I think the tracing back to Adam probably refers to the same as Adamas (cosmic and gnostic)
Deuteronomy 24:16 says about serious sins: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." 1 • Ezekiel 18, verses 1-32 is a much longer passage that repeats the same teaching for all sins. Verse 20 says: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
But the harrowing of hell is in the NT in 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:19-20 Ephesians 4:9. This was hardly a new idea when the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus embellished it. Perhaps more oral than written since the references to it are scarce, but there nonetheless.
It is wrong to think that his observation about being forsaken is because others left his presence for he knew where God was to be found for "the kingdom of God is within" and that is where God is to be found. The best question is how does Jesus know that God had forsaken him?
Congrats you Greeks, not only you invented philosophy and democracy but you also invented one of the biggest religion in the history that later indirectly highly influenced another one of the biggest religion in the history.
That story about what happened to Jesus when we was dead (went to sheol to deliver the dead people) I vaguely remember it is in the New Testament. It is in some letters of Peter and also of Paul.
It's in Paul and there's a form of it in Jude. Paul seems to think Jesus is some kind of archangel like what is depicted in The Ascension of Isaiah. Jude borrows a lot of pre-Christian apocalyptic themes like in Enoch and depicts a Jesus who would raise the saints from hell.
Prof W.F Albright one of the worlds leading experts on bible manuscripts said once that ' The differences in most bible manuscripts are very small and do not detract from its overall message'. Mr Ehrman may lay great store on diffences but what we have is a wonderful message of Christ. Even Ghandi said that if all the people of the world sat down and agreed to follow the sermon on the mount ( Matt5-7) "we would solve all the problems of the world, even though I am a hindu!"
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1.Cor. 1: 19-21
About literacy and the writers of the Gospels: If Matthew was a tax collector, then he might have been literate; Luke was supposed to be a physician, so he also must have been literate.
The authors of the gospels were highly educated greek writers. Mark was written 4 decades after Jesus died. Mathew and Luke were written 5 decades after Jesus died. John was written 6 decades after Jesus died. Please remember also, the normal life span back then was 40-45 years. The authors are anonymous, no one knows who wrote them. The church gave these names to anonymous people (in my opinion to deceive people). Mathew the tax collector did not write any gospel. He was long dead. Clergy are taught this information in seminary school. Clergy are afraid to tell you. This information is undisputed in Universities. You could always read Bart's book 'Jesus, Interruped' to learn many many facts you are unaware of.
@@MikeJw-je4xk Look none of that matters as Ehrman stated Jesus followers saw what they believed to be the risen Christ, you can either believe in the resurrection or not that's really all Christianity hinges on as Paul states numerous times in his writings.
@ Mohammed Ali - You make a very odd point. Ehrman here is discussing legends of Mary not his own views - Are you saying that the Koran has the same relevance as fictions about Mary?
That's because Muhammad got his information from the same Christian sources that Bart's talking about i.e. non-canonical popular myths current when Muhammad was living.
@@dirkcampbell... **Well Muhammad couldn't read or write so He didn't 'write'/compose the Quran. I think it's important for people to do some research on the Quran before speaking on what they assume it's origins are. And the best way is to get that information from an expert on it who's from the religion. Now if one chooses to disagree with what that person says then fine, at least they went to the proper source(s). But trying to get that information from someone from another religion is like having a back problem, but going to see a foot specialist - Instead of going to see a back specialist* 🤷🏾♂️
@@obiwan5003 HAving a belief in something is not the same as being an expert on those beliefs. Basic epistemological distinction that completely goes over your head.....
Aramaic is the original language of the NewTestament, it is the language of Jesus and His disciples. Greek Texts are only translations because they exhibit a lot of variants in wordings around 300,000-400,000 of variants among the existing Greek Texts. Whereas when you look to the existing Peshitta Aramaic Texts they exhibit a high degree of uniformity, almost if not zero, very few variants in readings and this characteristics reflects the clear evidence that it is the original language of the New Testament.
On the last words of Jesus, there is one interesting parallel that shows up in and out of the Bible. Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani in the world's first language (Maya-Naga) reportedly meant "I am fainting, I am fainting, Darkness is overcoming me." This, according to a great writer on the End Times, Chan Thomas. The parallel in the Bible is in Mark 15. Jesus is crucified in the third hour ... and the darkness runs in Matthew 27 from the sixth to the ninth hour. In astronomical terms, these would be this year (when the New Ahau is anticipated with Amos 9:13) at the entrance to Taurus around mid-May. Well the ancients celebrated the Creation in Nissanu, so our problem might really pop up in April (noted by Passover and Easter). So we will see when the "Bull" gets it in Crux (a superflare leading to pole shift). But the Darkness (the meteor storm from hell) would begin three months later.
Whoa bro! He doesn't slam his blessed students. The relays a true story of the pop quiz and gives a few examples of the answers he got. Not a slam. Just a fact. Would you rather he lied to you and said they all got 11 out of 11 questions? You need to detach from your ego and quit with the defensive snarkiness
He's interesting to listen to but his glaring errors regarding the genealogies were off putting.Why repeat errors that have been solved already? For those who want to know more , do a google search using the names Nehemia Gordon and/or Michael Rood ,plus include the term 'Jesus genealogy' I'm pretty sure those guys didnt solve this issue.I think they built on earlier work of others?In any case doing a search using their names will bring up solid info on the subject.
Why are there hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none of them match each other or the original Koine Greek papyrus or the original Hebrew Tanakh?
Because Jesus himself never wrote anything at all. Which seems very odd, to be honest. Why would Jesus come down to Earth and never take any effort to preserve his words? All we are reading from in the New Testament, come from people who are making CLAIMS that this is "supposedly" what Jesus said.
Why do you say that Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison is not in the New Testament? Because it is. "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit, in which He also went and preached to the spirits in prison, who disobeyed long ago" 1 Timothy 3.18-20
I think the Catholic church failed to distinguish between hADES and "hell" (a word not found in scripture denoting a place of torment). [1Pe 3:18-20 NKJV] (18) For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, (19) by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, (20) who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. [Eph 4:8-10 NKJV] (8) Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men." (9) (Now this, "He ascended"--what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
Did Jesus ever mention Adam or that he was sent to be a sacrifice for original sin? The reason I ask is that the whole purpose for Jesus's crucifixion was to absolve humanity from the original sin of Adam and Eve so why didn't Jesus, or did he, mention that that was his reason for coming to Earth?
Because Jesus never wrote down anything he said. People today are debating on "what Jesus said" from people who claimed to remember what Jesus said. Nobody had any recording device at the time. How could anyone recall verbatim what Jesus actually said more than 70 years after he died?
@Bart Ehrman I understand the point you make about the gospels being written by educated people who were Greek speakers, but I can also see that someone could make the argument that the gospels may have been dictated scripts from the accounts of illiterate disciples of Jesus.
If Jesus had the power to raise Lazarus from the dead, why didn't he write the Gospels himself so all of these issues we are having now could have been prevented in the first place? Jesus could have told the authors of the Gospels not to write them down on papyrus because they will degrade into dust. Where are the original manuscripts? They are all gone! Why would Jesus come down to Earth to give a message to mankind, and never made sure everything he said would be written on a permanent medium that would last for thousands of years?
I thought there is New Testament support for the "harrowing of Hell" in 1 Peter 3: *For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 1 Peter **3:18**-20*
Insulting? He gives them an 11 question test on a topic they think they know a lot about. A topic which also happens to be the subject of the class he's teaching - New Testament scholarship. In what world is that insulting? Are you a muslim or something? They tend to feel insulted all the time.
You have many questions...teacher.. YESHUA was Son of GOD and Mary..and her lineage is from King David through Nathan and Panthera: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus GOD made all things mysterious and "questionable" in order to confuse the seed that is not of HIS Kingdom.
For Romans of high class the penalty was suicide, because Roman were Stoics, and preferred to take off their life rather than being killed at random (decapitation and nailing of the head on the door post is in historical instances). What we know for sure, is that a Roman citizen could have not be tortured under interrogation. The crux where too far fetched for ever a plebeo. In the provinces people were taken as slaves, but those who where not, could not be treated as slaves. My take is that if the Romans would have perceived Jesus as a threat, he would have been treated like Caio Gracco. Killed, period, using the fastest way to achieve the goal. I have no example in Roman history of people crucified that were not slaves. Slaves were crucified all the time. For one day, for multiple days, but crucifixion was not meant as a death penalty
The Romans crucified for insurrection wether slave or revolters (Josephus called rebels/revolters, robbers) that's why Jesus was crucified. Because by calling himself "Messiah, or King of the Jews" he's rebelling against Rome who also placed Herod on his throne as a puppet king of the Jews..so it was looked at as the same as a slave rebelling.. so crucifixion..
You're joking right? Crucifixion kills you. That's the death penalty. They also crucified criminals they deemed "bandits" and any traitors who threatened the overthrow of Roman rule. Thus the sign hung over Jesus head: Jesus, King of theJews. Do you not remember the crucifixion story of how they crowned him with thorns and dressed him up like a king? He was killed for treason
One of the last sayings of Jesus on the cross, depending on which Gospel you read, was "eloi eloi lama sabachthani" translated as 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me'. - Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 (quoting Psalms 22:1) Aramaic is a similar language to Arabic and the line would be "Ilahi, Ilahi, liama terek'tni?" In Arabic. 'ilahi' is the possesive form of "Allah". 'Allah' is the Arabic word where 'Al' means "the" and 'ilah' means "God" --- however, unlike English, God here denotes neither a masculine or feminine deity.
good answer about why two robbers were crucified, but incomplete. I am surprised that the dear Bart becomes so blurred when it comes to secular history. No Roman citizen could have been tortured, even unthinkable, crucified. True, criminal law was flexible in the colonies, but not in Rome. And he already conceded the paramount issue here. Crucifixion was the pillory for slaves. I do not want to lecture people here, but I can tell exactly from where the tools were used, and how the standard procedure was going by. Crucifixion was a death penalty in the case of Spartacus and his followers, a slave who really peed beside the bucket. Jesus Christ was not a slave. He was not a Roman citizen, but not a slave. He would have been disposed otherwise. The crux was exclusively for disobedient slaves. I understand that if Jesus would have been a Roman citizen, he would have had assassins running after him, and Romans preferred suicide, rather than being stabbed. If Pilat was after him, he would have had Jesus stabbed. Or decapitated, if the threat was so pungent. But, from the Gospels, it seems that Pilat had nothing against that guy. Can we believe that Pilat gave any authority to subjected people? Pilat could have had, but probably he would have washed his hands (it is a metaphor) and let the subjects chose the punishment. Stoning...
Maurizio Bocchetta Look: It's actually quite SIMPLE. Both Jesus and his pal Lazarus (who supposedly was dead for four days) took the identical "date rape" type drug, a powerful hypnotic (toxic rhododendron honey mixed with wine) that mimics death. Educated Jerusalem Jews (his SECRET disciples, John 19:38-40) SAVED Jesus by slipping him this drug on the cross at the proper time. Because the Roman soldiers thought him already dead, they neglected to smash his thigh bones with their heavy wooden clubs, John 19:33, and that's what SAVED HIS LIFE. The other two men died from internal bleeding, which cause either: 1) heart attack, 2) pulmonary embolism, or 3) a fatal stroke. Note that Jesus later visited some friends (at night--Jerusalem had no good street lights, so he'd not be recognized) and even ate "fish and chips" with them (Luke 24:39-42). He said he was NOT "a ghost", as they thought. Let's be honest now and admit that these IRON AGE people had no medical instruments of any value, and they constantly confused life and death (e.g., Acts 20:9-1, Eutychus dozed off, fell out a second story window and was knocked unconscious--but he wasn't really DEAD. However, Paul was credited with raising him "from the dead". The same bullshit is repeated with Peter supposedly raising on old woman "from the dead" (Acts 9:36-43). All this BS is merely ancient IRON AGE ammunition intended to prop up Paul's "resurrection cult" (now known as "Christianity"). It is all a patent LIE, and if you still don;t believe me, just compare two bible verses where the word "ASLEEP" has two opposite meaning in JESUS' OWN MOUTH! (Mark 5:39-41 vs. John 11:11-13). The John verse was inserted t make sure you believed the cult's LIE that Lazarus was actually dead for four days (he was not, as any physician today can tell you). The truth often hurts, but there it is, STARING YOU IN THE FACE. Do you want to continue believing a humongous LIE? Also note Matthew 12:39-41. Was Jonah really DEAD inside the belly of the big fish? Of course not! (It's just a bullshit folklore story, anyway, intended to inspire someone, but gullible Jesus believed it and quoted it). If Jonah was not dea inside the fish' belly, then NEITHER WAS JESUS DEAD inside the "belly of the earth" (the tomb--get it, reverend?)...
Another gnostic, conspiracy theorist... I hope you went through this intellectual enterprise in the same spirit of the Monty Pitons. The whole thing is just junk, you can find the patterns you want, because scriptures contradict themselves all over the place, and are mostly generic in nature... Like fortune tellers...
Crucifixion was NOT used exclusively on slaves. " In the siege that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Josephus says that the Roman soldiers crucified Jewish captives before the walls of Jerusalem and out of anger and hatred amused themselves by nailing them in different positions." (Wikipedia entry on crucifixion) "The practice became especially popular in the Roman-occupied Holy Land. In 4 B.C., the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century A.D., according to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus. 'Christ was crucified on the pretext that he instigated rebellion against Rome, on a par with zealots and other political activists,' the authors wrote in the report." (online LiveScience article "Jesus Wasn't the Only Man to Be Crucified. Here's the History Behind This Brutal Practice. by Laura Geggel April 19, 2019) As far as Pilate (and by extension, the Romans) not having anything against Jesus: remember, the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written under Roman rule, much of it during a period of Roman persecution of Christians. It is widely speculated that the one or more of the Gospels were written to white-wash as much as possible the Romans' hand in Jesus' executution, and put the blame as much as possible on the Jews. This is especially evident, if I remember correctly, in the Gospel of John, the last of the gospels to be written.
You're not as clever as you think you are. We have tons of historical accounts of Romans crucifying people who weren't slaves. Christians in Rome in the first three centuries spring to mind, but Josephus also tells us about loads of crucifixions of rebels in Gallilee even before Jesus' death. Julius Cesar himself had the pirates who kidnapped him crucified when they were captured.
“If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned ...
@Oners82 Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, raised from the dead... and yet Jesus never took the time or effort to write the Gospels himself. Why?
I've listened to most of the videos you have here on UA-cam. I noticed you yell at Christians as if they were Children; when you talk to secular people, you hold a normal tone of voice.
ConstantCompanion Russian Christians are just like American Christians: they go to church to hear the same brainwashing over and over again. Tell kids the same pathetic lies over and over again and they'll be carbon copies of their stupid parents (who never asked if that little rosary in their right hand was a lie).
You know? I understand your point of view..and I appreciate it..for more reasons than you would probably care to hear--here..but.folks..even if you think that they are so misguided they walk funny..deserve respect. They're not "stupid". Is it possible maybe..they know something you don't? I DO listen to you. It gives good..healthy perspective that helps me but..even so..you must..respect those who disagree with you..in the same manner..you should get respect..from them. Thank you SO much for sharing what you know. I AM listening but..respect..must come first. With warmest regards, Charlotte Groth Rio Linda, CA
+ConstantCompanion I've found wisdom in the strangest of places from the strangest of people, so I have to agree with you that we must respect everyone.
+ConstantCompanion I get what you're saying here, but I think it has more to do with the event/situation. If it's a debate, he tends to be more animated and emotional. If he's at a scholarly gathering, it's a different kind of atmosphere, different kind of tone. (I think I'd probably be more animated if 99% of the room viewed me as an agent of Satan rather than a learned scholar.)
I don't think he is insulting his students, I feel like he is just pointing out that most people who think they know a lot of what's in the bible, well they don't.
go to about 7:06 for the end of the "pop quiz" he begins just about every lecture with.
And dinner at the armadillo grill lol
I love that story! :)
When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it’
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), Irish author
And the "Christ" was not a last name joke. It is very unlikely Christian students do not know something so basic. And yes, the pop quiz introduction tiresome.
@@AmitKumar-qz2us Does Wilde cite examples of the supposed harm?
People need to know the truth. Thank you sir.
People refuse the truth.
I've watched and listened to his lectures many times over...it's both informative and soothing. Love this.
I like Erhman's delivery and cadence, he has a way of making a complicated subject easily understandable to the average person.
No Erhman makes a very simple subject comlicated.
Cuz he was a god damn preacher 😂
@@raysalmon6566 Because they're not simple. But he could definitely make them waaaay more complicated he weren't speaking to regular people
@@raysalmon6566
Really?
@@raysalmon6566 What do you consider simple,that Erhman complicates? A couple of examples of your belief in your statement may help me understand. Thank you. 👍🏽🕉️
"Jesus Christ, born to Joseph and Mary Christ"... i lost it!!!
Thanks Dr. Ehrman, a pleasure to hear you speak at such length on a fascinating topic.
Fascinating stuff. I just love that Bart teaches biblical scholarship to fundamentalist kids in the Bible Belt. Something's gone right with the world, how did that happen?
Dirk Campbell Don’t you mean lies? Try watching his debate with Dr. Michael Brown.
@@stevepolanco9887 lies?? I've watched the debate. I understand that you are afraid of reality and I honestly pity you.
A smart fundamentalist kid studied the Bible, saw through it, and wasn't too afraid to change his worldview to match the evidence. Bart, that is. Matt Dillahunty, too. And another ex-fundie kid whose name escapes me at the moment - a youtuber, one of the smarter ones.
I love it when people manage to break free of their indoctrination because they simply learn too much and can't keep lying to themselves even though their lives would be easier if they did. Those cases always impress me. (I had a much easier time of it, myself.)
@@susiepittman601 Christians in America seem obsessed with “belief.” In Judaism you never hear much about “belief” of the Hebrew Bible. The vast majority of Jews regards the “Old Testament” as “sacred myth” combined with actually history and folk history. They don’t take it literally and no Jews make a fuss about it. But Christians in America are hellbent on insisting everything be taken literally. It’s really strange.
“There no faster way to becoming an atheist than by reading the Bible” 😂
Excellent work. Iam muslim and love watching your lectures
Ehrman’s part of a tradition of textual scholarship that is hundreds of years old and ever since the beginning the early Christians have wanted to get their texts in order. It’s fortunate that Islam has no such tradition, otherwise all the errs and discrepancies of the Quran would be clear as day.
I just love listening to Dr. Ehrman's talks on UA-cam. And I love that last story about the woman whose daughter failed his class!
Brilliant final question/story. Room for everyone.
I don't agree with everything he conveys, but Dr. Ehrman is BRILLIANT!! I have learned a lot from him...
I love listening to Dr. Ehrman’s lectures.
More i listen to this man more i respect him. He is very honest and brave to defy powerful church
I like listening to Bart's videos. Learning what the real truth is is important to me.
The brilliant Dr. Ehrman throws so much light on complex biblical issues, and always objectively, backed up with facts.
An excellent lecture by a true scholar and expert on the topic. One must marvel at Prof. Ehrman's encyclopedic knowledge of many aspects of the subject discussed. This video provides a truly important insight into the lecture topic by a broadly knowledgeable scholar.
This mans knoweledge his sincerity and authority on the NewT never ceases to amaze me....Take a bow SIR
That last story just spooked me out...Good on him for being honest about it even tho hes a skeptic!
Dr. Ehrman, I have enjoyed and learned from your books, and I very much appreciated this talk.
Excellent lecture. Worth spending the time watching...unlike other...
When a Atheist knows more about your beliefs then you do . Dr Bart
Ehrman is an agnostic, not an atheist.
@@marysueeasteregg he says he's agnostic but he also says he doesn't believe in a god or an afterlife so rlly he's an atheist.
GOD, HELL,HAVEN ,,..ALL MADE IN HUMAN BRAIN
marysueeasteregg actually Ehrman has stated that he is both an agnostic and an atheist. He just prefers to emphasize the agnostic part because he is a historian and is more interested in knowledge than beliefs.
@@marysueeasteregg agnosticism holds the view that the existence of God/Gods, is unknown or unknowable
an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in God or religion, in a way agnostics are also atheists but not the
truly hardcore disbelievers.
Ehrman lectures are my addiction.
One of Bart's best. His discussion of literacy. E.g. who ever composed were wealthy.
Ehrman really likes to speak the words "Eli Eli lemi sabactani." He does it often. He shares this worlds with Jesus in his own life.
In an earlier speech Bart Ehrman gave where he mentioned his pop quiz, he said that he hasn't yet had to buy anyone dinner. It took a while for him to buy a dinner.
Actually he said he bought 1 dinner. It takes as long as the time it takes for him to give his next pop quiz along with their results.
Jeez, you Muslims really got a hard on for Dr. Ehrman! Instead of reaffirming your views, do as Dr. Ehrman and try to challenge your own beliefs. If you have the truth, critical thinking and research will lead you to truth. If you come to a different answer, admit you were wrong and move on.
Christians are bitching and preaching their bullock in videos made by rookie so called scholars. Only right we do the same!
Sosa Q No, only right you prove them wrong with actual facts. But of course you can't because secular Islam believers are incapable of critical thinking and thorough reasoning.
Well said.Agreed
Muslims made sure to avoid the mistakes of Jews and Christians to forge the holy scripture.
Eratosthenes TBF, who _doesn’t_ got a hard on for Dr Ehrman? I mean, come on… the floppy tan jacket alone! 😍
(😉)
Thank you so much for a very informative video
I will be focussing most of my time in listerning to every lecture and debate of Professor Ehrman. Hes knowledge about the Bible and Christianity is awaresome.-
Worth listerning :)-
Julio Kosters Well, the problem with Ehrman is that he has adopted some of the irrational presuppositions of the field of Biblical Studies, such as the idea that there must be a historical core to the gospels and that you can extract it mostly by comparing the gospels to each other. That methodological flaw makes Ehrman's conclusions dubious at times.
Gnomefro
If the Gospels claims to be from God there should be no contradictions. Thats why not only Ehrman but we all must compare em and see how God can give two contradictory reports about the same events.You can call him or the rest of those whom you say have preupposition but the fact is Ehrman is perfectly right in doing so..
*****
Knowing my Creator is sufficient for me.
Julio Kosters Your creator is the same who created everyone and everything. As longa as we accept our creator and obey his commandments. Thank him for what He has given us. Don't take partner with him. I feel that you are on the right path. Hope to see on the day that is going to happen on the right side and everyone will know what he or she has done. We hope and pray to be forgiven.
Go Bart go. Keep doing the Bart man :D Really appreciate what you have studied and how you present it.
I've often wondered how I would have scored on Dr. Ehrman's 11-question preliminary quiz when I was a college freshman. Dr. Ehrman himself was in the fifth grade at the time, but I still wonder.
Dr.Ehrman, as always, delivers excellent lectures on the Bible, its history and its Gnostic rivals. However, I would be delighted if he were to deliver a lecture on Church history, more specifically, the Eastern Orthodox contribution to Christianity. It is painfully obvious that all the BIG NAMES in biblical scholarship never mention (at least in great detail) the Eastern palace of Christendom. I have been IMMENSELY curious by the silent treatment this subject receives.
An entertaining and informative lecture. Thanks for the upload.
The answer to the last question is thought provoking!
It seems that Christianity is full of "fan fiction". People wrote stories about characters in the Bible and over time they became part of the historic record of Christianity. It reminds me of Star Wars, where later movies are developing the early life of Hans Solo, for example. People have a desire to flesh out the details with their own imagination. Even now, people write fictional books about Jesus and Biblical characters. The difference now is that we do not pretend such books are fact.
Oh really? Mormonism is perhaps the fastest growing religion! Cuckoo is just part of the human experience; it never grows old.
@@mistercarlberg Even the main LDS Church has been more forthcoming about the fan-fiction nature of the BoM and the BoA. In recent years I've noticed Mormon missionaries will openly admit that their scripture is problematic and try to emphasize this weird combination of NT adherence and a New-Age take on the Adam-God doctrine to draw in listeners. They no longer try to argue antiquity or the truth of Mormon mythology but instead represent their theological variations like ascension to godhood and Kolob in a more modern sci-fi kind of way. I really like where they're going with this new approach.
I think that's a pretty apt description of how many of the New Testament books came to be.
Great lecture !
That last story was awesome, I never heard it before.
Thank you for a great lecture Dr Ehrman
When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it’
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), Irish author
You mean the mason?
Dr Ehrman's narrative of birth of Mary is very close represention Quranic version of how Mary was born.
R.i.p. :(
It may be, but they are both built on fairy tales.
That's because Muhammad got his information from the same Christian sources that Bart's talking about i.e. non-canonical popular myths current when Muhammad was living.
@@dirkcampbell... **Well Muhammad couldn't read or write so He didn't 'write'/compose the Quran. I think it's important for people to do some research on the Quran before speaking on what they assume it's origins are. And the best way is to get that information from an expert on it who's from the religion. Now if one chooses to disagree with what that person says then fine, at least they went to the proper source(s). But trying to get that information from someone from another religion is like having a back problem, but going to see a foot specialist - Instead of going to see a back specialist* 🤷🏾♂️
Obi Wan Perhaps YOU should STUDY ISLAM and be clear before you speak.
Mohammed took from Judaism and Christianity to COMPOSE ISLAM.
Mohammed had an ASSISTANT who WROTE DOWN WHAT MOHAMMED DICTATED.
RESEARCH IT.
Loved this!!
My question Dr. Ehrman is what is the origin of the legend that Jesus rose on the third day? I learnt that in Jewish cultures, a day is made up of the night and the morning. So if Christ was crucified on Friday, Friday night and Saturday morning would be one day, and Saturday night and Sunday morning will be two days. Also, the stories merely say some people went there on Sunday morning and did not see him. What if he "rose" on Midnight Friday, or any time on Saturday?
...and great ending , too
great scholarly work...
After you study Bart's teachings you will renounce Christianity so don't listen if you want to stay in The Matrix
late reminder, I already did.
If 97% of people calling themselves "Christians", don't have any idea what a "Christian" is? Shouldn't we be calling them something else? Since they aren't "Christians"? Or, possibly the ignorant "majority" should win? And we should "rename" the "minority" of real Christians? ...just call them something else? Until the whole process "repeats" again?
Agreed,
I'm listening to Bart's teachings and I'm still a Christian.😁
I feel the opposite way...I used to be a fundamentalist and by studying and listening to lectures not only by Ehrman but by people with a wide variety of views, I'm still a Christian, but no longer fundamentalist, and I actually think it's better this way. When you strip away all the Church's influence over the basic truths it is much more valuable to me as a faith.
The bible teaches us; "Put not your trust in nobles nor in the son of man to whom no salvation belongs" ( PSM 146:3) We can all teach ourselves by personal study and meditation not rely on others ideas.
Grrat informative video i enjoyed it thanks u r legend
The old man Joseph (the carpenter) can be equated to Osiris-Ptah (the architect) who fashioned everything from a potters wheel. I think the tracing back to Adam probably refers to the same as Adamas (cosmic and gnostic)
No need to overthink and complicate this but thanks
Deuteronomy 24:16 says about serious sins: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." 1
• Ezekiel 18, verses 1-32 is a much longer passage that repeats the same teaching for all sins. Verse 20 says: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
'Medieval portrayal of a green punching bag' 😂😂
I wonder, what is the first attestation of this quiz story that he always tell.
GREAT
But the harrowing of hell is in the NT in 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:19-20 Ephesians 4:9. This was hardly a new idea when the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus embellished it. Perhaps more oral than written since the references to it are scarce, but there nonetheless.
It is wrong to think that his observation about being forsaken is because others left his presence for he knew where God was to be found for "the kingdom of God is within" and that is where God is to be found. The best question is how does Jesus know that God had forsaken him?
Congrats you Greeks, not only you invented philosophy and democracy but you also invented one of the biggest religion in the history that later indirectly highly influenced another one of the biggest religion in the history.
That story about what happened to Jesus when we was dead (went to sheol to deliver the dead people) I vaguely remember it is in the New Testament. It is in some letters of Peter and also of Paul.
Its not.
It's in Paul and there's a form of it in Jude. Paul seems to think Jesus is some kind of archangel like what is depicted in The Ascension of Isaiah. Jude borrows a lot of pre-Christian apocalyptic themes like in Enoch and depicts a Jesus who would raise the saints from hell.
Prof W.F Albright one of the worlds leading experts on bible manuscripts said once that ' The differences in most bible manuscripts are very small and do not detract from its overall message'. Mr Ehrman may lay great store on diffences but what we have is a wonderful message of Christ. Even Ghandi said that if all the people of the world sat down and agreed to follow the sermon on the mount ( Matt5-7) "we would solve all the problems of the world, even though I am a hindu!"
This made me stronger in my faith Islam. Thank you Bart! Your work is incredible.
Boy are you missing the point. I don't think the Koran will hold up to scrutiny any better. Probably worse.
You should thank Jesus too
You've probably chosen a wrong channel to challenge your faith, better find one on debunking Qur'an
just scrutinize your scripture and we'll see how strong your faith can get
Your religion is even worse, with your ignorant pedophile prophet
That story at the end proves miracles do happen :D
Alien!!
Yes!!! Thank you!!!! 1Nation4Life
Cool shirt, Bart!
But the new testament records that Luke was a Physician, and he authored both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.
Wrong. You Christians never know you're own bible.
Not correct sir
How good is this guy? Listen to his answer on "crucifixion as appropriate punishment under Roman law"...knows his shit!
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1.Cor. 1: 19-21
About literacy and the writers of the Gospels: If Matthew was a tax collector, then he might have been literate; Luke was supposed to be a physician, so he also must have been literate.
The authors of the gospels were highly educated greek writers. Mark was written 4 decades after Jesus died. Mathew and Luke were written 5 decades after Jesus died. John was written 6 decades after Jesus died. Please remember also, the normal life span back then was 40-45 years. The authors are anonymous, no one knows who wrote them. The church gave these names to anonymous people (in my opinion to deceive people). Mathew the tax collector did not write any gospel. He was long dead. Clergy are taught this information in seminary school. Clergy are afraid to tell you. This information is undisputed in Universities.
You could always read Bart's book 'Jesus, Interruped' to learn many many facts you are unaware of.
@@MikeJw-je4xk Look none of that matters as Ehrman stated Jesus followers saw what they believed to be the risen Christ, you can either believe in the resurrection or not that's really all Christianity hinges on as Paul states numerous times in his writings.
@@MikeJw-je4xk "Average" life span was lower. "Normal" life span was pretty much the same as now: "threescore and ten".
duh. as far as writers of the gospels go weren't they literate, they wouldn't be writing gospels
it is the disciples who wouldn't be literate
@ Mohammed Ali - You make a very odd point. Ehrman here is discussing legends of Mary not his own views - Are you saying that the Koran has the same relevance as fictions about Mary?
This a lier let him go and teach talmud am a muslim mary was pure lady and Jesus was born miraclously
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter according to astrotheologists.
astrotheologists? People who believe stars are gods?
Astrology combined with theology?
This professor gets close to the Koranic view about Jesus peace be upon him although he knows nothing about Islam.
Amazing
That's because Muhammad got his information from the same Christian sources that Bart's talking about i.e. non-canonical popular myths current when Muhammad was living.
@@dirkcampbell... **Well Muhammad couldn't read or write so He didn't 'write'/compose the Quran. I think it's important for people to do some research on the Quran before speaking on what they assume it's origins are. And the best way is to get that information from an expert on it who's from the religion. Now if one chooses to disagree with what that person says then fine, at least they went to the proper source(s). But trying to get that information from someone from another religion is like having a back problem, but going to see a foot specialist - Instead of going to see a back specialist* 🤷🏾♂️
@@obiwan5003 i think Mohamad's followers wrote what he said and what they observed.
@@obiwan5003 HAving a belief in something is not the same as being an expert on those beliefs. Basic epistemological distinction that completely goes over your head.....
Aramaic is the original language of the NewTestament, it is the language of Jesus and His disciples. Greek Texts are only translations because they exhibit a lot of variants in wordings around 300,000-400,000 of variants among the existing Greek Texts. Whereas when you look to the existing Peshitta Aramaic Texts they exhibit a high degree of uniformity, almost if not zero, very few variants in readings and this characteristics reflects the clear evidence that it is the original language of the New Testament.
Uniformity would denote more recent writings which haven't had time to be copied enough for variance
On the last words of Jesus, there is one interesting parallel that shows up in and out of the Bible. Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani in the world's first language (Maya-Naga) reportedly meant "I am fainting, I am fainting, Darkness is overcoming me." This, according to a great writer on the End Times, Chan Thomas. The parallel in the Bible is in Mark 15. Jesus is crucified in the third hour ... and the darkness runs in Matthew 27 from the sixth to the ninth hour. In astronomical terms, these would be this year (when the New Ahau is anticipated with Amos 9:13) at the entrance to Taurus around mid-May. Well the ancients celebrated the Creation in Nissanu, so our problem might really pop up in April (noted by Passover and Easter). So we will see when the "Bull" gets it in Crux (a superflare leading to pole shift). But the Darkness (the meteor storm from hell) would begin three months later.
What does this exactly mean?
Starts every lecture by slamming his damn students
I refuse to discus religion with anyone that hasn't read the bible so yes I can see where he is coming from.
lmao throws em under the bus hard
I think he is trying to cushion the fact for his audience that many of them also share the widespread ignorance of the bible.
Whoa bro! He doesn't slam his blessed students. The relays a true story of the pop quiz and gives a few examples of the answers he got. Not a slam. Just a fact. Would you rather he lied to you and said they all got 11 out of 11 questions? You need to detach from your ego and quit with the defensive snarkiness
He's interesting to listen to but his glaring errors regarding the genealogies were off putting.Why repeat errors that have been solved already?
For those who want to know more , do a google search using the names Nehemia Gordon and/or Michael Rood ,plus include the term 'Jesus genealogy'
I'm pretty sure those guys didnt solve this issue.I think they built on earlier work of others?In any case doing a search using their names will bring up solid info on the subject.
Why are there hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none of them match each other or the original Koine Greek papyrus or the original Hebrew Tanakh?
Because Jesus himself never wrote anything at all. Which seems very odd, to be honest. Why would Jesus come down to Earth and never take any effort to preserve his words? All we are reading from in the New Testament, come from people who are making CLAIMS that this is "supposedly" what Jesus said.
Wow.. ..i wonder how my christian brain would have responded to this lecture when it first came out.
Why do you say that Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison is not in the New Testament? Because it is. "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit, in which He also went and preached to the spirits in prison, who disobeyed long ago" 1 Timothy 3.18-20
porque bill colocou este vídeo em inglish o que entendo disso gente?
Bill?
48:12 This comes from a 17th century bible? Not really?
I think the Catholic church failed to distinguish between hADES and "hell" (a word not found in scripture denoting a place of torment).
[1Pe 3:18-20 NKJV] (18) For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, (19) by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, (20) who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
[Eph 4:8-10 NKJV] (8) Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men." (9) (Now this, "He ascended"--what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
Did Jesus ever mention Adam or that he was sent to be a sacrifice for original sin? The reason I ask is that the whole purpose for Jesus's crucifixion was to absolve humanity from the original sin of Adam and Eve so why didn't Jesus, or did he, mention that that was his reason for coming to Earth?
Because Jesus never wrote down anything he said. People today are debating on "what Jesus said" from people who claimed to remember what Jesus said. Nobody had any recording device at the time. How could anyone recall verbatim what Jesus actually said more than 70 years after he died?
@Bart Ehrman I understand the point you make about the gospels being written by educated people who were Greek speakers, but I can also see that someone could make the argument that the gospels may have been dictated scripts from the accounts of illiterate disciples of Jesus.
The gospels were written HUNDREDS of years after Jesus' disciples died.
If Jesus had the power to raise Lazarus from the dead, why didn't he write the Gospels himself so all of these issues we are having now could have been prevented in the first place?
Jesus could have told the authors of the Gospels not to write them down on papyrus because they will degrade into dust. Where are the original manuscripts? They are all gone! Why would Jesus come down to Earth to give a message to mankind, and never made sure everything he said would be written on a permanent medium that would last for thousands of years?
I thought there is New Testament support for the "harrowing of Hell" in 1 Peter 3:
*For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 1 Peter **3:18**-20*
Why does Ehrman start off each lecture by insulting his class students?
It a lesson for his audience -- who are equally clueless, especially if they are believers.
Insulting? He gives them an 11 question test on a topic they think they know a lot about. A topic which also happens to be the subject of the class he's teaching - New Testament scholarship. In what world is that insulting? Are you a muslim or something? They tend to feel insulted all the time.
2:20
You have many questions...teacher..
YESHUA was Son of GOD and Mary..and her lineage is from King David through Nathan and Panthera: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
GOD made all things mysterious and "questionable" in order to confuse the seed that is not of HIS Kingdom.
Does he ever comment on the ancient alien theory?
For Romans of high class the penalty was suicide, because Roman were Stoics, and preferred to take off their life rather than being killed at random (decapitation and nailing of the head on the door post is in historical instances). What we know for sure, is that a Roman citizen could have not be tortured under interrogation. The crux where too far fetched for ever a plebeo. In the provinces people were taken as slaves, but those who where not, could not be treated as slaves. My take is that if the Romans would have perceived Jesus as a threat, he would have been treated like Caio Gracco. Killed, period, using the fastest way to achieve the goal. I have no example in Roman history of people crucified that were not slaves. Slaves were crucified all the time. For one day, for multiple days, but crucifixion was not meant as a death penalty
The Romans crucified for insurrection wether slave or revolters (Josephus called rebels/revolters, robbers) that's why Jesus was crucified. Because by calling himself "Messiah, or King of the Jews" he's rebelling against Rome who also placed Herod on his throne as a puppet king of the Jews..so it was looked at as the same as a slave rebelling.. so crucifixion..
You're joking right? Crucifixion kills you. That's the death penalty. They also crucified criminals they deemed "bandits" and any traitors who threatened the overthrow of Roman rule. Thus the sign hung over Jesus head: Jesus, King of theJews. Do you not remember the crucifixion story of how they crowned him with thorns and dressed him up like a king? He was killed for treason
The origin of Matthew was Aramaic.
Great, can you show us the manuscript?
Why is it not possible for Jesus to have descended from both of David's sons? All it would take is two distant cousins marrying.
Great talk. Horrible camera operator.
One of the last sayings of Jesus on the cross, depending on which Gospel you read, was "eloi eloi lama sabachthani" translated as 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me'.
- Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 (quoting Psalms 22:1)
Aramaic is a similar language to Arabic and the line would be "Ilahi, Ilahi, liama terek'tni?" In Arabic. 'ilahi' is the possesive form of "Allah". 'Allah' is the Arabic word where 'Al' means "the" and 'ilah' means "God" --- however, unlike English, God here denotes neither a masculine or feminine deity.
Gospel of Saint Barnabas is the most accurate
good answer about why two robbers were crucified, but incomplete. I am surprised that the dear Bart becomes so blurred when it comes to secular history. No Roman citizen could have been tortured, even unthinkable, crucified. True, criminal law was flexible in the colonies, but not in Rome. And he already conceded the paramount issue here. Crucifixion was the pillory for slaves. I do not want to lecture people here, but I can tell exactly from where the tools were used, and how the standard procedure was going by. Crucifixion was a death penalty in the case of Spartacus and his followers, a slave who really peed beside the bucket. Jesus Christ was not a slave. He was not a Roman citizen, but not a slave. He would have been disposed otherwise. The crux was exclusively for disobedient slaves. I understand that if Jesus would have been a Roman citizen, he would have had assassins running after him, and Romans preferred suicide, rather than being stabbed. If Pilat was after him, he would have had Jesus stabbed. Or decapitated, if the threat was so pungent. But, from the Gospels, it seems that Pilat had nothing against that guy. Can we believe that Pilat gave any authority to subjected people? Pilat could have had, but probably he would have washed his hands (it is a metaphor) and let the subjects chose the punishment. Stoning...
Maurizio Bocchetta Look: It's actually quite SIMPLE. Both Jesus and his pal Lazarus (who supposedly was dead for four days) took the identical "date rape" type drug, a powerful hypnotic (toxic rhododendron honey mixed with wine) that mimics death. Educated Jerusalem Jews (his SECRET disciples, John 19:38-40) SAVED Jesus by slipping him this drug on the cross at the proper time. Because the Roman soldiers thought him already dead, they neglected to smash his thigh bones with their heavy wooden clubs, John 19:33, and that's what SAVED HIS LIFE. The other two men died from internal bleeding, which cause either: 1) heart attack, 2) pulmonary embolism, or 3) a fatal stroke. Note that Jesus later visited some friends (at night--Jerusalem had no good street lights, so he'd not be recognized) and even ate "fish and chips" with them (Luke 24:39-42). He said he was NOT "a ghost", as they thought.
Let's be honest now and admit that these IRON AGE people had no medical instruments of any value, and they constantly confused life and death (e.g., Acts 20:9-1, Eutychus dozed off, fell out a second story window and was knocked unconscious--but he wasn't really DEAD. However, Paul was credited with raising him "from the dead". The same bullshit is repeated with Peter supposedly raising on old woman "from the dead" (Acts 9:36-43). All this BS is merely ancient IRON AGE ammunition intended to prop up Paul's "resurrection cult" (now known as "Christianity"). It is all a patent LIE, and if you still don;t believe me, just compare two bible verses where the word "ASLEEP" has two opposite meaning in JESUS' OWN MOUTH! (Mark 5:39-41 vs. John 11:11-13). The John verse was inserted t make sure you believed the cult's LIE that Lazarus was actually dead for four days (he was not, as any physician today can tell you). The truth often hurts, but there it is, STARING YOU IN THE FACE. Do you want to continue believing a humongous LIE?
Also note Matthew 12:39-41. Was Jonah really DEAD inside the belly of the big fish? Of course not! (It's just a bullshit folklore story, anyway, intended to inspire someone, but gullible Jesus believed it and quoted it). If Jonah was not dea inside the fish' belly, then NEITHER WAS JESUS DEAD inside the "belly of the earth" (the tomb--get it, reverend?)...
Another gnostic, conspiracy theorist... I hope you went through this intellectual enterprise in the same spirit of the Monty Pitons. The whole thing is just junk, you can find the patterns you want, because scriptures contradict themselves all over the place, and are mostly generic in nature... Like fortune tellers...
Crucifixion was NOT used exclusively on slaves. " In the siege that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Josephus says that the Roman soldiers crucified Jewish captives before the walls of Jerusalem and out of anger and hatred amused themselves by nailing them in different positions." (Wikipedia entry on crucifixion)
"The practice became especially popular in the Roman-occupied Holy Land. In 4 B.C., the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century A.D., according to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus. 'Christ was crucified on the pretext that he instigated rebellion against Rome, on a par with zealots and other political activists,' the authors wrote in the report." (online LiveScience article "Jesus Wasn't the Only Man to Be Crucified. Here's the History Behind This Brutal Practice.
by Laura Geggel April 19, 2019)
As far as Pilate (and by extension, the Romans) not having anything against Jesus: remember, the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written under Roman rule, much of it during a period of Roman persecution of Christians. It is widely speculated that the one or more of the Gospels were written to white-wash as much as possible the Romans' hand in Jesus' executution, and put the blame as much as possible on the Jews. This is especially evident, if I remember correctly, in the Gospel of John, the last of the gospels to be written.
You're not as clever as you think you are. We have tons of historical accounts of Romans crucifying people who weren't slaves. Christians in Rome in the first three centuries spring to mind, but Josephus also tells us about loads of crucifixions of rebels in Gallilee even before Jesus' death. Julius Cesar himself had the pirates who kidnapped him crucified when they were captured.
The prophets foretold of a Savior. After Jesus death, He went to SHEOL to preach to all those in God's Underground PRISON , and set them free.
Thanks,
Wonder if his hands was tied, could he speak ?
“If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned ...
I assume this is a deprecation of Dr. Ehrman. If so, can you support it?
Mark -14:50,51,52 :) hehehehe
That Jesus was male has never (afaik) been disputed. He was born of a virgin, so he had no Y chromosome.
@Oners82 Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, raised from the dead... and yet Jesus never took the time or effort to write the Gospels himself. Why?
why chistian still dont understand, the proof is really clear
This dude's vocal frying all over the place.
I've listened to most of the videos you have here on UA-cam. I noticed you yell at Christians as if they were Children; when you talk to secular people, you hold a normal tone of voice.
ConstantCompanion Russian Christians are just like American Christians: they go to church to hear the same brainwashing over and over again. Tell kids the same pathetic lies over and over again and they'll be carbon copies of their stupid parents (who never asked if that little rosary in their right hand was a lie).
You know? I understand your point of view..and I appreciate it..for more reasons than you would probably care to hear--here..but.folks..even if you think that they are so misguided they walk funny..deserve respect. They're not "stupid". Is it possible maybe..they know something you don't? I DO listen to you. It gives good..healthy perspective that helps me but..even so..you must..respect those who disagree with you..in the same manner..you should get respect..from them.
Thank you SO much for sharing what you know. I AM listening but..respect..must come first.
With warmest regards,
Charlotte Groth
Rio Linda, CA
+ConstantCompanion
I've found wisdom in the strangest of places from the strangest of people, so I have to agree with you that we must respect everyone.
+ConstantCompanion I get what you're saying here, but I think it has more to do with the event/situation. If it's a debate, he tends to be more animated and emotional. If he's at a scholarly gathering, it's a different kind of atmosphere, different kind of tone. (I think I'd probably be more animated if 99% of the room viewed me as an agent of Satan rather than a learned scholar.)
+ConstantCompanion Hmm. Wonder if there's a reason for that?
Let's see.......Jesus goes to hell and preaches salvation to all the tortured and suffering souls?
Well that's a captive audience......
If Jesus ever went to Hell, he would be handing out ice water.
Why does Ehrman have to start off so many of his lectures with insults toward his university students?
Because it's fun.
If truth is an insult your problem is obvious.
I don't think he is insulting his students, I feel like he is just pointing out that most people who think they know a lot of what's in the bible, well they don't.
Because if he insults transgenders, gays or muslims,he will get killed
So Mary was home schooled. Interesting.
Well, temple schooled actually, according to that legend.