I don't know if you will read this or not. If you do, great. I was a student of yours in the 90s at Chapel Hill. You held office hours at the bar. You gave us a text that was not published but you were working on then printed and clamped with a plastic spine. I took two of your classes in lieu of more western civ classes. You gave me a lot of snarky remarks both at your office hours and when I recommended the second class I took with you to a few of my peers and then again at office hours with them. All that said, your classes and books allowed me to break out of a lot of narrow minded thinking that I grew up with in Gastonia, NC and become a much more successful and mindful person. I thank you for it. I appreciate your work and your scholarship. Thank you.
I know people believe that they have the right to talk down to you and say "you don't know anything" when they themselves hold beliefs that aren't based on fact plus if your in the process of education who really has the right to come and tell you anything without evidence. It's either be kind or mimic christ or you be a hypocrite and show that you clearly don't believe in the religion or atheistic position you hold. The difference between I and them is I'm not trying to convert anyone.
Bart Ehrman was the one who opened my eyes. I hated finding out I was lied to by my parents, & everyone else. It is said "you will know the truth when you hear it".....and he knows the truth. It took me many years of serious study to find my way out of the lies....and now I feel free.
relax a little, Harry. Your parents did not LIE to you, I'm sure. They, themselves were misled & thought their foisting off their religion on you was in your best interests. They believed in a living god & believed you must too, to save your soul.
That story is fake af, no one would accuse his parents of "lying" to them about it, not only was it obviously not a deliberate fabrication, but it's still entirely possible you're going to burn in Hell forever. Now go tell your parents you love them and thank them for feeding your stupid ass.
ok so then my question is how in the world could a fundamentalist Christian couple intentionally have a child risking creating a being that might suffer FOREVER starting at the end of this vale of tears
@glen First of all, let me state that this thread is corrupt ( by that I mean, replies are not showing up), so I am not doing any lengthy dialogue on YT where only one person can read it. You can go to MY comment on this page if you want (because it isn't a year old... which I suspect is the reason, the thread being "dead". Although, this happens every Ehrman page so maybe he has some strange censorships on the page or something I don't know) The first point is the notable one, that Christians marry to avoid fornication. Kids are a product of the sexual union. For some people sex is apparently a necessity and obviously, we don't abort like the atheists do with their children. Other than that, in fact Jesus and Paul extol abstinence. So in Christianity the idea of refrain is definitely there. And if they're born in a Christian family they don't possess a problem, Jesus saves it's not as if it is difficult. There isn't any legitimate reason to grow up and "leave". Most honest atheists admit it was just to do whichever sin. So them being brought up in the Truth is already preferable than any offspring of the Godless (if they make it out alive).
Mr tee , you should get out more. While there are a few who get out of Christianity bc of too many restraints, the outcome of which you arrogantly label as sin, a huge number of us got out when we discovered that the Bible and it's promises are demonstrably the stuff of myth. Also, the Church is chalk full of sin. You can always find a congregation who will welcome you no matter your lifestyle. Y'all have gay bishops and divorced televangelists, swindlers and dirty politicians. One need not denounce faith to do what he wants.
Bart Ehrman has actually brought me closer to the true man that was Christ. He never meant to, which is exactly why he has. Bart has truly changed my spiritual life. Thank you sir.
I have heard Dr Ehrman call himself an agnostic a number of times, sometimes quite emphatically denying that he is an atheist. It is refreshing to finally hear him acknowledge that many people, including him are BOTH. Welcome to the club, Bart.
How do _you_ define agnostic? Both terms, atheist _and_ agnostic seem, at least to me, more ill-defined and or flat out incorrectly defined, than they have been since the word agnostic was coined. Addendum: I wrote the above comment before watching the vid. Glad to see (I've just been watching about 5 minutes) that Mr. Ehrman is attempting to clear the matter up. For as long as I can remember It's driven me nuts how many people seem to think that an agnostic is some sort of lukewarm atheist.
Mr. Ehrman is IMO a man of character. As a former Evangelical Christian of 40 years and bible study teacher; the greatest gift I gave myself was not only reading my bible and asking the hard questions- but going the extra mile of learning how to take words back to culture, history, and their root. I think fear was my greatest enemy- what would happen to my beliefs, how family and friends would treat me, and of course- hell. Once I decided that the Father was greater teacher- I am now happier than ever. SOUL still in tact and free from religious and doctrine boundaries.
WOW...I guess you didn`t have the holy spirit in you in the first place. An Evangelical Christian for 40 years??!! What could a spiritually dead person teach people about Christ? You probably did more harm than good.
Bwahahaha ok cognitive dissonance buddy LOL. What a sad and stupid tale, fall over right at the end. Ezekiel explains you are completely screwed regardless if in the unlikely event you accomplished anything good in your time as "Christian". You knew the Truth if you have read it, no excuse for you.
Julia walker- why so harsh? Why so judgmental? I never did get why people, who claim to be purveyors of the Christian faith, dump love and kindness in favor of thrashing another person - whom they JUDGE to not measure up. Bravo to those who are willing to ask the tough questions in favor of developing a deeper love and understanding of their faith.
Excellent as usual. As to Atheist/Agnostic groups playing a role in society, the best argument I have heard : I don't play golf, yet I don't gather with other people who don't play golf. (NDT) So you don't have groups of non-believers gathering every Friday/Saturday/Sunday, most of them don't have enough in common to bring them together on a regular basis.
Very interesting! This is the first that I heard you state that Paul and Jesus had differing religions and that Paul was a misogynist. Happy to hear it. Another issue Christians ignore. "...pursue the truth, no matter where it takes you..." Exactly 💕
Paul was the opposite of a misogynist. He emancipated women. Read what he says in Ephesians 5 for example. Totally against the cultural norm for a husband to love his wife (in the biblical sense of love).
No one would need to tell you Paul was a misogynist. All you have to do is read his letters in the bible. I remember going to Mass every Sunday as a child and I knew it even then. He's a real jerk about women.
Most religions tell us that "Things may be bad now but, see it through to the end of YOUR life and then, you will get your reward." Have you ever noticed that you get your reward AFTER you die? Why not collect YOUR reward whilst your ALIVE ! Religion is a false promise and it NEVER brings a lasting peace. Indeed, many wars have been fought over the belief that "MY God, is greater than YOUR god . . . . . " Religion IS DIVISIVE as it points out OUR DIFFERENCES instead of telling us what values WE have in OUR common humanity. Drop your MENTAL CHAINS OF SLAVERY that get even tighter and suppress you INSTEAD OF SETTING YOU FREE ! Peace and love to ALL 💖💖💖
I liked Barts closing statement regarding how best to tackle hard core Christians in trying to debate them, I think he's right, to come at the argument all guns blazing and belittling them doesn't work, it only serves in them digging their heels in even further. You can have some good discussions I've found if you use a more softly softly approach and being pleasant with them, in all likeyhood they won't change their view, but they *will* go away with something to think about. That seed of doubt will have been planted.
***** my friend. You can believe anything you wish, you are more than welcome to hold any view you wish, I am absolutely open to anyone having any opinion they wish. Where have I said anything otherwise???
not really there's no doubt in my mind that jesus is God. i hear bart and i understand his ppint of view and i repect it. i admire him. but i do disagree with him on some things
To put Agnostic and Atheist in a sentence I will apply what I read from a quote by Bertrand Russell: "I am an Agnostic in a philosophical circle and an Atheist in general public ".
If you’re going to believe or accept something you should know that why , and even if you don’t accept something you should know again, why ! Trusting yourself
Enjoy Bart's work, how ever doubt Constantine converted to Christianity (perhaps death bed if at all). Why: Constantine was a politician, undestood the utility of religion and put that insight to use. He was planning a war, did what he needed to do to win his war. Thoughts any one?
Ehrman talks about how secularists/atheists should step to the forefront of the fight against the problems of the world. This movement has existed, but has unfortunately much diminished due to the onset of agressive repression of that movement. Namely the communist/socialist/anarchist movement. Before the Stalinist counter-revolution this was the most outspoken and most prolific secular movement that sought to combat the problems of the world. So perhaps it's time to build this movement once again. Learn from the mistakes of the past and forge ahead to a secular and socialist world. The old creed still stands: Workers of the world, Unite!
great stuff, I wish every fundie would watch this vid........ I can relate to his agnostic/atheist dichotomy. I am agostic about a lot of things and subjects and totally atheistic about others........
@@joelsacrafamilia9833 I really want to see a debate between Dr.Bart Ehrman and Dr.Richard Carrier.I have a deep appreciation for both scholars and learned tremendously from both.
Oddly I spoke to my husband about this very thing (the pope has no business here) today and he felt indifferent, perhaps, because of his Lutheran background. Or, perhaps, his non-argumentative nature. But I know in my heart that this is not right being a 3rd generation Atheist. I totally back the FFRF!
Bart mentions something(50mins in) which I really, really disagree with. Why do we have to give the religious something to believe in when they leave their religious beliefs behind? Why not let them become what they want to be...
so what are the implications of political and economical reasons in wars ! the christian conquest of the two Americas where for gold ,spices , and fish , the same can be said for the ARABE oil by France , and England and it s goes on .
Great lecture! I'll probably pick up that new book! The reason Bart thinks he hasn't heard of the secular first responders is that many of them happen to be all kinds of secular countries. Secularists in the US actually would be poorly served trying to emulate the religious. Rather, they should lobby towards getting rid of charity in the US and instead solving certain problems together as a society though the government. That would be things like poverty, drug addiction etc. In the more secular parts of Europe, there simply is not much room for religious organizations to channel capital through themselves under the excuse that they are helping the homeless, because the problem largely does not exist anymore. One can say a lot about the inefficiency of government, but it is fantastic for these jobs because the government has a vested interest in turning junkies into taxpayers. Religions on the other hand, have a vested interest in doing absolutely nothing about such problems, while living high off donations, so that the problems will still be there to be milked for donations at a future time. In any case, there's a lot to be said for using the government for these things, especially if one wants to reduce the money flow through the religious machinery.
I love Bart Ehrman. We need more people like him, regardless what they profess their beliefs to be. Bart is one of the people who i have to thank for setting me on the most amazing journey of my life, finding God. Thanks to some of his lectures i started searching for the truth and at the same time finding out why do i believe what i believe. Year and a half after that journey begun i can say that i love God and Jesus more than ever. I call myself a Gnostic Christian, because i know that God and Jesus exist. I don't just believe it i know it and that's the reason why i can't just call myself a Christian because that according to Bart ( and i agree with his definition of agnosticism and atheism) would be professing my faith/believe only. However, my faith goes beyond that. I know that God and Jesus exist. My dream is to get a chance to speak to Bart about his agnosticism and atheism. I know that he is honest when he says what his goals are and that he doesn't wish to convert anyone. I can see, hear, and feel in my spirit his honesty and passion for the truth. I can feel in my spirit his love for God. No one can devote so much time and so much of themselves to studing something if they don't love it. I know that God is calling him and speaking to him, he just has to come to understand everything He is telling him.
+mimi mimz you are entitled to believe what you like, that is faith. However, there are Muslims who believe in Allah with as much belief as you have for Jesus . You faith is your faith, but please don't assert you have evidence or proof, because you clearly don't.
You remind me of my daughter, when she was five years old and she asked me if Santa Claus was real. I could only say to her smiling little face "He is if you want him to be."... Self delusion is the best delusion of all. Enjoy your delusions while you can!
@John MacArthur that might be your way of understanding, but it is not concurrent with reality. Theism refers to belief in a god, gnostic refers to knowledge. The prefix "a" means without. Bart explains this adequately in the first quarter of the video.
You are loved by the Creator of Heaven and Earth and He calls you into a personal restored relationship with Him, through His Son and by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life” Come to Him all who are heavy laden, burdened by life's problems, depressed and anxious, worried and conflicted, and He will give you rest. Call on His Name, the Name of Jesus, the One who has forgiven and redeemed you by His death on the Cross. “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”(John 3:16)
UA-cam comments in a nutshell: Ehrmann is right, when he is argueing against the idea of godly inspiration the bible. But when he says atheist are not smarter than christians, just because they are atheists and that believe/unbelieve has nothing to do with intelligence, he is "pandering to his past". What?!
Thanks for the talk doc, very informative. And there was something that made me wonder, you mentioned Dale Martin, and I love his lectures on the new testament, could you not somehow arrange that he would also teach for The Great Courses? That would be great, and I´m sure, I´m not alone with that opinion... Just and idea...
I am, much to my surprise, an agnostic. I just don't *know.* I am also a 'protheist'. I reject most of the Bible as anything more than allegory. That came about through study of the Bible from a historical, contextual and literary perspective. However, there is still much for me to learn from the words written therein. I was raised in an ultraconservative fundamentalist church and was forced to read/memorize scripture. The angry, hate-filled and hypocritical words and actions of the congregants as well as all those horrific OT tales made me believe the Judeo-Christian God to be evil, hateful and heinous-a monster. By the age of 16 I rejected what I knew. I spent the next 9 years church shopping. I didn't find any version of God I could live with. Coming into NA, I was given permission to choose a God of my own understanding. No matter how hard I think and meditate on the subject, I am unable to accept that this universe, this world and all life on it came about by blind chance. The complexity of a single cell is deep enough that I would judge the chance of one developing by chance on par with winning the Powerball lottery. Multi-celled organisms? Multi-systemed organisms? *Billions* of multi-systemed organisms? Winning *EVERY* lottery in the U.S. every week for 100+ years! But that's just me. Anyway… I made a list of what qualifications *my* God(dess) would require. Then I went looking and settled on Wicca where I worshipped a nonspecific Goddess. Did that for 22 wonderful years then made a slow return to Christianity via a tortuous route. But I pretty much study *one thing* in the Bible-the teachings of Jesus. From the words spoken by him. Not Paul's, Peter's, James's nor anyone else's interpretations thereof. Speaking words about Jesus to people has no meaning unless my life and actions are doing the speaking. If anyone wonders why there is something different about the way I live and *asks* me about it, I will answer their questions. I have said since I was 13 years of age that the 1st Amendment guarantees not just *FREEDOM OF RELIGION* but freedom *FROM* religion! I never knew there was any sort of organization in support of that tenate. I do not think it should be possible for the religious beliefs and teachings of any group to be legislated into practice for all citizens. If one believes it his or her duty to convert others to Christianity then they need to accept that forcing others to live your beliefs will ultimately turn people away from God, as will browbeating people with anger, screaming and threats. I don't believe that God wants, needs or requires a SWAT team!
The mythesists are fascinating. I do not think of them as conspiratorial. Skeptasists, yes. Bart does have a few questionable motivations for rejecting the notion that the New Testament Jesus was entirely fabricated. One motivation is that he has written a book that says that Jesus did exist. Another motivation is that his wife is still a Christian. I do not find Bart's argument that the "Jesus" did exist convincing. The impression that I have is that Paul and James may not have existed either. I'm fascinated by the subject, and would like to know more about the argument that "Paul" is a reliable witness of the existence of "Jesus".
I totally disagree. The Constitution ONLY guarantees that religious freedom is guaranteed in private. There is NOTHING that says we as a society need to allow people to proselytize their religion in the commons onto others. All religions need to pay taxes and NOT get a free ride on secular society. Do whatever the hell you want behind closed doors, but on the street, you are not free to push your religion on others.
***** Are you yourself, by commenting on a relatively public forum, "pushing" your beliefs (religion) on others, by demanding that others not speak on their beliefs in public? The US Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment, makes no distinction in regards to "public" or "private" expression of religion. If you believe it does, you have completely misread the Constitution. Likewise, on a public street, someone speaking on their faith is not "push"ing religion on someone. I have never seen anyone chained down being "forced" to listen. You have the freedom to walk away.
I have the right to public spaces free from the religious claptrap of individual "beliefs." You want to do hocus pocus, feel free to do it and blabber about it in private. Religion also steals public money by getting tax-free non-profit status. Therefore they get usage of public accommodations, police, fire, water, etc without paying taxes. Oh how nice. Religion also gets Federal Holidays off. Another unconstitutional use of taxpayer money. Religions should be treated like Magicians, entertainment and be taxed as such. It is YOU who has to re-read the Constitution. If the framers wished for this country to be a religious one, they would have left off the "ir" in the Declaration of Independence under: "...their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" They could have just used "The Creator" to show how they were all on board with the stupid train of religion. But they didn't. They were men of the ENLIGHTENMENT. Why do you think it is called the ENLIGHTENMENT anyway???
"I have the right to public spaces free from the religious claptrap of individual "beliefs." That is not freedom when you suppress the right of others to express themselves. That is totalitarianism, to silence those who you disagree with. "You want to do hocus pocus, feel free to do it and blabber about it in private." I never said I want to do "hocus pocus". "Religion also steals public money by getting tax-free non-profit status." Being tax exempt is not the same a taking money from the public. Churches do not take money from the government, they just do not give it to the Government. You have a very wrong concept of what tax exemption means. Also, I have no problem with taking tax exempt status away from churches, but that is the system that is in place for non-profit organizations. If you don't like it, that is your choice, and you do have the right to petition the government legally to change the law. "Therefore they get usage of public accommodations, police, fire, water, etc without paying taxes" You are mistaken on this. Our church most certainly pays for water and sewer services. And there are no regular police and fire services that churches use, as if being a drain on their budgets. "Religions should be treated like Magicians, entertainment and be taxed as such." Some "Religions" are like Magicians, but Christianity is not a religion. Nor is it "entertainment". If you believe that, you know little to nothing about Christianity. "Their Creator" and "The Creator" is virtually the same thing. There is only one God. I would argue if they had any enlightment, it was because they were trusting in God, not their own wisdom. Enlightenment does not come in denial of God.
There is no gawd. There is no right to proselytize delusions onto the public. Of course houses of worship use services. The peace of knowing that if the building catches on fire and the fire dept will come to your aid is a benefit and has associated costs. All religion is nothing but charlatans. They make you believe in something that defies your sensibilities. They remove your innate desire to question the world around you. They are the antithesis of human experience. They are deadening to the spirit of humans and humanity. Religions need to be expunged from the human consciousness. Glad to see that you say christianity is NOT a religion. I agree, now can we get it removed as a tax exempt entity already. Religion spreads hopelessness in human's ability to deal with and interface with the world around them. Religion makes people stupid by the reliance on the supernatural for explanation of physical things/happenings. We are better than religions. We do not need religions. Religions need us. "God" did not create man, man created god. Monotheism is nothing more than the older multi-theism religions, with only less gods. So, in effect all we need to do, as we have wittled the need to believe in many gods is to just go that last step and give up the desire to be lazy, and no longer rely on that last human created god to explain that which we can explain ourselves.
You're right there is no "gawd". I never claimed there was a "gawd". I never claimed to nor do I proclaim "delusions" in public. The rest of your post is just Straw Man fallacies and false premises.
Kyle Butt - the debate was freely available on the UA-cam GBN channel, but eventually they decided to take the video down and make some money out of it. Not worth buying imho.. but I have to agree that Butt was indeed articulate and astonishingly well prepared for virtually every argument set forth by prof Ehrman.
In "Mark's" account when asked by the high priest if he was the Christ, Jesus answers from Daniel 7. Which appears to be a claim that he will/should be worshipped/served. If this is the case, then it maybe its not just John's gospel making these sorts of claims.
Specifically Mark 14:61-62 ... "Are you the Christ," he said, "the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am, " said Jesus, "and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds if heaven." Quoting Daniel 7:13. The reaction of the chief priest tells you that everyone understood Jesus's words to be a claim of divinity. So from Mark we have a divine claim about Jesus from Jesus himself. Oversight by Erhman, or duplicity?
another probability maybe its true that the followers of Jesus had seen him because actually he never never been crucified or killed and different stories we found in the gospels about his death proves it, because simply they don't have too much data about his death .
Strange that having dismissed the gospels as 95% fiction, he remains so strongly resistant to the idea that the whole thing is fiction, which is just a polite and respectful way of saying it's just a fairytale (if you take it as a story) or a pack of lies (if you're daft enough to actually believe any of it). At the very least if he's convinced there's a kernel of truth behind the myth, he should spell out exactly what he thinks really happened. Once you edit out the miracles and the mostly pre-existing sayings etc., what have you left? Seems to me, he still has a few more steps to take on his journey to the truth :-)
Good lecture, topically. Bart's oratory style could really use some "UH" polishing, though. I highly recommend for him to join Toastmasters Intl. to sharpen his speechmaking skills.
Maybe. But overall he conveyed the point clearly and concisely and kept my attention reasonably well. There are many worse orators out there who will positively put you to sleep regardless of topic. At least with this one I felt pretty engaged that someone was putting into clear words thoughts that had rolled around in my head for a long time.
Religions satisfy many human needs and atheism won't be able to satisfy all of these human needs particularly the desire for eternal life. Religions will probably continue to be more popular than atheism and religious fantasies obviously makes lots of people very happy, both rich and poor.
Some serious questions. Have u ever considered the sons of man being those out of covenant with God and the daughters of God are those in covenant? I don’t believe in fallen angels or divine beings. 2. Is there proof besides the bible of Jesus existence. Joe Atwill believes he was made up. Josephus’ writings can’t be trusted. The Romans played a significant role in recounting history! 3. Is the Bible truth or just a fictional book that shows one how to reach spiritual understanding? I believe God is a force that keeps everything together. I also believe in a dark force that’s within anyone if we allow it to come to fruition. I don’t believe in a Satan because the bible proves it.
I don't understand how someone of your learning fails to fully investigate John 8:58 and pass on Trinitarian BS without it... Jesus says *Ego Eimi* but in the Septuagint it does not say that when God tells Moses tell them *I AM* has sent you... rather God tells Moses *I am that I am* which is *Ego Eimi Ho On* - literally *I am the Eternal ONE* and when God restates to Moses tell them *I AM* he is not using Ego Eimi but *HO ON* = *THE ETERNAL* which is restated again: God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, JEHOVAH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.(EX 3:15)
Bart, in his speech simply manipulating various scriptures and other myths through the sixth sense which is sometime represented both good and evil, however it is his right to articulate his thoughts. We Christians disagree, the reason is he is fully depend upon the historical documents, not strive for a "Spiritual document" that's the only source available authentic, for example Bart mentioned John 8:58 in which Jesus claims that before Abraham was, I am. His physical age having root from the Holy Spirit that exist in the past and he knew everything and this facility is also made available for anyone who diligently search the truth, so as to arrive a convincing confirmation ultimately. For example in Mathew 16:28 Jesus Says that "Assuredly" or " verily verily " that means it is 200% true and will come to pass, there are some standing here they will not taste death until they see the return of the son of man. Is it that they are some who never die? Why Jesus says such word of puzzle? There will be a time after 2000 years probably 21st century there are some might receive the reception of the Holy Spirit into their physical body as the climax of the study of the Holy Bible and those some knew about the past probably 1st century events because of the HS that exist since 1st century and repeat what exactly Jesus has demonstrated in view of the whole world and prove that everything that the holy bible says are true. In his study of the Bible Bart never link these two scriptures John 8:58 & Mathew 16:28 and pondered and there are still Christians like former Bart never ponder these scriptures and in darkness but that does not mean all those Christians were same, some out of those billion Christians can appear and clarify all these hidden truths and explore to the world. "Faith or belief is a system process in an individual mind that can achieve a place wherein further faith/belief is not necessary" Bart and people like him failed to achieve a place in their process system and arrived to the wrong destination in which he does not know answers for many things, he is truly Agnostic by his education anyone can arrive the same wrong destination. www.wgpeter.com
And what the bible doesn't say. There's no mention of abortion in the bible yet, virtually all anti-abortion activists do so from a religious viewpoint.
Well said. I knew of EXACTLY TWO anti-abortion people, one was an ex-girlfriend & the other a colleague. Both were animal rights vegans like me. But they were obviously not antinatalists. They were too stupid to comprehend the value of PREVENTING SENTIENT DEATH. They looked ONLY at the killing part.
Another interesting question is "How did god become Jesus?" That is, how did the concept of Jaweh become the concept of Jesus. In the hebrew writings god is king and saviour. He is the housebuilder. Jesus is also a king and a saviour and a carpenter. He is also, like god, riding on a donkey. And he raises the "dead" - that is, he raises the exiled israelites after the Babylonian captivity. Top down - from god to Jesus - the question puts a new perspective on everything. For example, it gets clearer that there is no free agent called Jesus walking about in Palestine at that time. There is only scolarly ideas about what Jaweh could and couldn´t do and what he could become or couldn´t become.
I Believe it’s rhetoric to assert the existence of the biblical Jesus when the only source is Josephus....to imply the existence from Paul writings is troubling....since the so-called Paul is questionable to say the least .... I find it fascinating how similar Josephus and Paul appears...that’s why I research these things for myself.... because if you strip away the supernatural from the life of Jesus....what’s left...?
Not only have there been mass hallucinations which have been received as religious experiences, but they've been within the memories of people who are still living -- for instance, appearances by Mary at Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe & many other places throughout the world.
18:40 " if ..... [then] we wouldn't have had the renaisance, reformation and modernity AS WE KNOW IT. " So what? Civilization would have gone through these phases some other way/ways. Ehrman's hypothesis here is interesting but silly It is interesting that Ehrman is agnostic about gods but not about the historicity of Jesus. Would that have been to difficult for religious sub-consciousness to handle? I am more convinced by Richard Carrier that J.C. probably was just a conglomerate of earlier messianic fictional characters. Carrier began as an historian not a theologian.
+Daily McHugher I agree completely. It is as though he feels the need to pander to either his past, or his audience for some reason. He's a great scholar, but on some things he leaves me unconvinced and questioning his motivations for some of his conclusions. And WHY does he constantly eschew the term atheist???
all these stages that came after dark middle ages were basically trigged in opposition to christianity and church, it looks like a spring to me that they were pushing down but eventually it fired up rapidly compare with non-christian mesoamerica for example.
right atheists only consider archeological facts and historical evidence, hell you xtians cant even figure out when your make believe jesus was born or when he died, your bible is plagiarized from every cult that went before it.. you really believe your bible is the unerrant word of a god... I feel sorry for your delusion, no wonder why you voted for pos dt
The Chinese were already an advanced civilisation, with science and technology and cosmology. They even documented a super nova and created the first earthquake detector.
@@rationalmartian He gave a perfectly clear explanation of his preference for the term agnostic over atheist. He said he is both, but as an academic who deals in knowledge rather than belief, he prefers the term that refers to knowledge (agnostic) rather than the term that refers to belief (atheist). Also, when he refers to fundamentalists, he includes fundamentalist atheists as a category. That leads me to believe that he wants to avoid being mistaken for or misrepresented as an atheist fundamentalist, so he doesn't call himself an atheist for that reason as well.
If strong atheism is this: "I do not believe that any god or gods exist", then does it mean that strong atheism should lead to a social movement? Let's take a parallel: "I do not believe that any rational number exist that equals the square root of 2". Does that mean that I have a new and fundamental view of mathematics? No, it simply means that there is one thing I do not believe in. That's all.
Khurram Aziz It all depends on what "exist" means. Imaginary gods exist (just like imaginary numbers). They just don't solve real problems, like imaginary numbers do. And gods, such as the King of Thailand exist for sure. Concerning the King of Thailand, my question is not if he is real or not, it is whether he posseses the properties that his believers attribute to him. Hope that clarifies it.
The problem with the argument that one should just let religions be and not disturb them as long as they don't impose their views on government etc is..that children (who has no choice) are born into these families,, and a child should have the human right to grow up un-indoctrinated untill they are old enough to decide what bs they want to believe. Until such time..I oppose religions.
Pilleta is right. "than I" is a reduction of the clause "than I am." But maybe Erhman wanted to avoid making a claim of divinity. Not a grammar Nazi here, but I do happen to teach it. That said, usage is king, and as no misunderstanding is created by using "me" here, even legit grammar Nazis normally let it slide. But if we posit a wife that delights in showing up her husband, she would totally respond that way.
i don't agree with the neutral stance on religion unless people are imposing their religion on you. what about some of the negative values and social abuses that religious people impose upon their children. that matters too. of course, many religious people have positive values, too, so it's a mixed bag. but I believe that we need to think critically about all social systems and belief systems and to critique those that are abusive, and sometimes to get people to face up to the abusive teachings, they need to face up to the fact that the beliefs systems which contain those teachings are delusional, they don't express the wishes of any deity, but rather they are products of the human mind... it would also be interesting to hear a more serious definition from you of fundamentalism... agreed that non religious people need to develop social institutions, but, actually there are non-religious social institutions: governments.
Of course it's all speculation, but I'm not sure The Christian church, and the Abrahamic faiths, though, surprisingly, not including Islam so much as Judaism (read your Maimonides) as a whole, didn't _retard_ the arrival of _a_ renaissance. That is to say, the reintegration of Greek/Athenian (particularly Stoicism) thought in Europe and Asia Minor/Near Eastern culture. Prior to its being driven toward fundamentalism, by, at least _partially_ as a result of Christian aggression from Western Europe, there was a _sizable_ chunk of Islamic culture that was quite liberal intellectually. Liberal in a way that Western Europe wouldn't arrive at for three to nearly five centuries ie willing to examine rather than supress other schools of thought; at least that which did not directly pertain to religious nonsense, ie "natural philosophy," mathematics etc.
John 10 is actually a denial of being THE ONE TRUE GOD... if you read it correctly, Jesus makes a confusing statement that makes the Jews THINK he is claiming to be GOD but when they come at him he points out that if ANYONE is claiming godhood it is they who are seating themselves on God's judgment seat and condemning him to death... when he never claimed to be more than God's *SON* so if they thought that he was worthy of death, it was really them and they should stone themselves! Jesus does this a lot but if he were actually claiming Godhood, why did he dance away from it... if he really were God he lied to save his human skin.
At the end of the day Bart is not a true scholarly theologian; he is a textural critic; big difference. There are many things that escape Bart. Good entertainer; no discernment.
Great talk, as always, Professor Ehrman! Euhemerism (yu-hee-mǝ-rism) is where we claim that real live human beings later became to be worshiped as Gods. We can reject that theory for sure. By now we need to accept that all these "Gods" including Jesus were MYTH. And the Buddha, and the Hindu God Krishna too. Combined, we have probably three billion people who love these deities. But as a scholar (I forgot who) said, one thing Biblical scholars never never do is state that Jesus was a mythical God. Anyone who so attempted got fired. And respectfully Sir, I know that you know this but are reluctant to say so for this reason.
Beginning @ 17:50 this is the gospel truth. The first believers in Jesus were all Jews both Hebrew speaking Judaians and Greek speaking diasporic Jews. Christianity was similar to Essenism or Pharisaism or Sadducaism. It was a sectarian view of Judaism and how the Laws related to the Jews that’s why the Law was constantly spoken of in the New Testament writings. That sectarian form of Judaism was taken over by non Jews, that is the truth and it formed into an entirely different religion apart from its foundation of Judaism who did keep sabbath and other traditions.
I don't know if you will read this or not. If you do, great.
I was a student of yours in the 90s at Chapel Hill. You held office hours at the bar. You gave us a text that was not published but you were working on then printed and clamped with a plastic spine.
I took two of your classes in lieu of more western civ classes. You gave me a lot of snarky remarks both at your office hours and when I recommended the second class I took with you to a few of my peers and then again at office hours with them.
All that said, your classes and books allowed me to break out of a lot of narrow minded thinking that I grew up with in Gastonia, NC and become a much more successful and mindful person. I thank you for it. I appreciate your work and your scholarship.
Thank you.
"People are converted by love, not Hate."
Bart D. Ehrman
A quote to be remembered by future generation.
people are also converted by fear
@@flatoutt1 Yes, but it is far from being fair or human.
I know people believe that they have the right to talk down to you and say "you don't know anything" when they themselves hold beliefs that aren't based on fact plus if your in the process of education who really has the right to come and tell you anything without evidence. It's either be kind or mimic christ or you be a hypocrite and show that you clearly don't believe in the religion or atheistic position you hold. The difference between I and them is I'm not trying to convert anyone.
I want Doutzen Kroes to convert me.
Bart Ehrman was the one who opened my eyes. I hated finding out I was lied to by my parents, & everyone else. It is said "you will know the truth when you hear it".....and he knows the truth. It took me many years of serious study to find my way out of the lies....and now I feel free.
relax a little, Harry. Your parents did not LIE to you, I'm sure. They, themselves were misled & thought their foisting off their religion on you was in your best interests. They believed in a living god & believed you must too, to save your soul.
That story is fake af, no one would accuse his parents of "lying" to them about it, not only was it obviously not a deliberate fabrication, but it's still entirely possible you're going to burn in Hell forever. Now go tell your parents you love them and thank them for feeding your stupid ass.
ok so then my question is how in the world could a fundamentalist Christian couple intentionally have a child risking creating a being that might suffer FOREVER starting at the end of this vale of tears
@glen First of all, let me state that this thread is corrupt ( by that I mean, replies are not showing up), so I am not doing any lengthy dialogue on YT where only one person can read it. You can go to MY comment on this page if you want (because it isn't a year old... which I suspect is the reason, the thread being "dead". Although, this happens every Ehrman page so maybe he has some strange censorships on the page or something I don't know)
The first point is the notable one, that Christians marry to avoid fornication. Kids are a product of the sexual union. For some people sex is apparently a necessity and obviously, we don't abort like the atheists do with their children.
Other than that, in fact Jesus and Paul extol abstinence. So in Christianity the idea of refrain is definitely there.
And if they're born in a Christian family they don't possess a problem, Jesus saves it's not as if it is difficult. There isn't any legitimate reason to grow up and "leave". Most honest atheists admit it was just to do whichever sin. So them being brought up in the Truth is already preferable than any offspring of the Godless (if they make it out alive).
Mr tee , you should get out more. While there are a few who get out of Christianity bc of too many restraints, the outcome of which you arrogantly label as sin, a huge number of us got out when we discovered that the Bible and it's promises are demonstrably the stuff of myth. Also, the Church is chalk full of sin. You can always find a congregation who will welcome you no matter your lifestyle. Y'all have gay bishops and divorced televangelists, swindlers and dirty politicians. One need not denounce faith to do what he wants.
Bart Ehrman has actually brought me closer to the true man that was Christ. He never meant to, which is exactly why he has. Bart has truly changed my spiritual life. Thank you sir.
You mean Jesus the failed end times preacher that had stories made up about him after his death by gospel writers who never met him?
Ehrman is a true scholar and a gentleman who can be trusted.
I've recently experienced a personal renaissance regarding atheism and I forgot about Dan Barker until i came upon this video. He is great.
I have heard Dr Ehrman call himself an agnostic a number of times, sometimes quite emphatically denying that he is an atheist. It is refreshing to finally hear him acknowledge that many people, including him are BOTH.
Welcome to the club, Bart.
Thank you for helping people come out of false beliefs
How do _you_ define agnostic? Both terms, atheist _and_ agnostic seem, at least to me, more ill-defined and or flat out incorrectly defined, than they have been since the word agnostic was coined.
Addendum:
I wrote the above comment before watching the vid. Glad to see (I've just been watching about 5 minutes) that Mr. Ehrman is attempting to clear the matter up. For as long as I can remember It's driven me nuts how many people seem to think that an agnostic is some sort of lukewarm atheist.
Thanks to Bart D. Ehrman for this exercise in critical thinking.
Old arguments I heard 30 years ago
Mr. Ehrman is IMO a man of character. As a former Evangelical Christian of 40 years and bible study teacher; the greatest gift I gave myself was not only reading my bible and asking the hard questions- but going the extra mile of learning how to take words back to culture, history, and their root. I think fear was my greatest enemy- what would happen to my beliefs, how family and friends would treat me, and of course- hell. Once I decided that the Father was greater teacher- I am now happier than ever. SOUL still in tact and free from religious and doctrine boundaries.
WOW...I guess you didn`t have the holy spirit in you in the first place. An Evangelical Christian for 40 years??!! What could a spiritually dead person teach people about Christ? You probably did more harm than good.
Took 40 years to read the Bible?
Mr tee That response is a bit reflective of Cognitive Dissonance. No where did I say I spent 40 years reading the bible.
Bwahahaha ok cognitive dissonance buddy LOL. What a sad and stupid tale, fall over right at the end. Ezekiel explains you are completely screwed regardless if in the unlikely event you accomplished anything good in your time as "Christian". You knew the Truth if you have read it, no excuse for you.
Julia walker- why so harsh? Why so judgmental? I never did get why people, who claim to be purveyors of the Christian faith, dump love and kindness in favor of thrashing another person - whom they JUDGE to not measure up. Bravo to those who are willing to ask the tough questions in favor of developing a deeper love and understanding of their faith.
Brilliant. We need more scholars, and scriptural literacy.
Your brilliant speech are never tired.👌
love this guy... he says everything i am thinking. very well said sir.
Excellent as usual.
As to Atheist/Agnostic groups playing a role in society, the best argument I have heard :
I don't play golf, yet I don't gather with other people who don't play golf. (NDT)
So you don't have groups of non-believers gathering every Friday/Saturday/Sunday, most of them don't have enough in common to bring them together on a regular basis.
62% of Americans belong to a church congregation as of 2015 and this number goes down every year. Why would non-believers need to meet?
Very interesting!
This is the first that I heard you state that Paul and Jesus had differing religions and that Paul was a misogynist. Happy to hear it. Another issue Christians ignore.
"...pursue the truth, no matter where it takes you..." Exactly 💕
Paul was the opposite of a misogynist. He emancipated women. Read what he says in Ephesians 5 for example. Totally against the cultural norm for a husband to love his wife (in the biblical sense of love).
No one would need to tell you Paul was a misogynist. All you have to do is read his letters in the bible. I remember going to Mass every Sunday as a child and I knew it even then. He's a real jerk about women.
It takes courage to speak out as he does.
+KidsandKarma
True and one should have a good background .of the subject.
Courage? Christians INVITE him to talk at their churches and schools... What's he supposed to be afraid of exactly?
it takes courage to make a comfortable living off of Dissing Christ.
Most religions tell us that "Things may be bad now but, see it through to the end of YOUR life and then, you will get your reward." Have you ever noticed that you get your reward AFTER you die? Why not collect YOUR reward whilst your ALIVE ! Religion is a false promise and it NEVER brings a lasting peace. Indeed, many wars have been fought over the belief that "MY God, is greater than YOUR god . . . . . "
Religion IS DIVISIVE as it points out OUR DIFFERENCES instead of telling us what values WE have in OUR common humanity. Drop your MENTAL CHAINS OF SLAVERY that get even tighter and suppress you INSTEAD OF SETTING YOU FREE !
Peace and love to ALL 💖💖💖
I liked Barts closing statement regarding how best to tackle hard core Christians in trying to debate them, I think he's right, to come at the argument all guns blazing and belittling them doesn't work, it only serves in them digging their heels in even further. You can have some good discussions I've found if you use a more softly softly approach and being pleasant with them, in all likeyhood they won't change their view, but they *will* go away with something to think about. That seed of doubt will have been planted.
***** control someone?, communist? how so ?
Hitchens Argumentum about as many as you've convinced using the hard ball approach.
***** my friend. You can believe anything you wish, you are more than welcome to hold any view you wish, I am absolutely open to anyone having any opinion they wish. Where have I said anything otherwise???
not really there's no doubt in my mind that jesus is God. i hear bart and i understand his ppint of view and i repect it. i admire him. but i do disagree with him on some things
Thanks Bart. I had my questions long ago and many doubts.
Tremendous. I highly recommend people watch this...well worth the hour of your life.
Spread the word!
im a christian and i admire Bart.
What a phenomenal lecture. Bravo Dr. Ehrman!
To put Agnostic and Atheist in a sentence I will apply what I read from a quote by Bertrand Russell: "I am an Agnostic in a philosophical circle and an Atheist in general public ".
Thank you, Bart. Great talk.
Thank you Ehrman for making me read the Bible and LOVING IT!
If you’re going to believe or accept something you should know that why , and even if you don’t accept something you should know again, why ! Trusting yourself
i read & absorbed the Bible, mentally turning over in my mind constantly.
Enjoy Bart's work, how ever doubt Constantine converted to Christianity (perhaps death bed if at all). Why: Constantine was a politician, undestood the utility of religion and put that insight to use. He was planning a war, did what he needed to do to win his war. Thoughts any one?
His motivations are unknown to me, personally. But it's virtually certain that he did convert...why he converted? I'm not sure.
As far as hallucinations go, the Romans used aminita muscaria and atropa belladonna. Keep that in mind.
There were evidence in some Hebrew temple sites from way back that they used foods (?) that had hallucinogenic properties.
@@dwendt44 Syrian Rue and acacia, for example.
an outstanding video. but the best parts start at 42:45.
Who else tried to wipe the nail on the wall off of your screen for the first 10 min of watching?
Great video Bart.
Thanks for the truth.
Wow, Dr Ehrman you are quite incredible in your understanding of the illegitimacy of the Christian belief of God/Jesus.
No,he's mainly a mixed up intellectual,who doesn't really know what he believes, this he admitted.
great stuff as always Bart. Time you wore a different jacket though.
Ehrman talks about how secularists/atheists should step to the forefront of the fight against the problems of the world.
This movement has existed, but has unfortunately much diminished due to the onset of agressive repression of that movement. Namely the communist/socialist/anarchist movement. Before the Stalinist counter-revolution this was the most outspoken and most prolific secular movement that sought to combat the problems of the world.
So perhaps it's time to build this movement once again. Learn from the mistakes of the past and forge ahead to a secular and socialist world.
The old creed still stands: Workers of the world, Unite!
Yeah yeah and he also was probably secretly a reptilian shapeshifter. Whatever marx or was not, his analysis of capitalism still stands solid.
And Giuseppe was a Catholic, so, what's your point?
great stuff, I wish every fundie would watch this vid........ I can relate to his agnostic/atheist dichotomy. I am agostic about a lot of things and subjects and totally atheistic about others........
If I had to take a religion course, he would be my preferred teacher.
+rationalguy
I will join you.
The Trinity reminds me of the Trikaya concept In Mahayana Buddhism . Though in the context of the Mahayana it makes sense
I am so stupid , so simple, that I can not accept that one can be three. And it’s so simple it’s ridiculous.
Bart vs Carrier 2019...make it happen
@Pretzel Boggins nope, bart believes jesus existed carrier does not
@@joelsacrafamilia9833 I really want to see a debate between Dr.Bart Ehrman and Dr.Richard Carrier.I have a deep appreciation for both scholars and learned tremendously from both.
Love Carrier but he disgraced himself in his petty blog posts and petty lawsuits. He and Bart have debated btw.
Y’all know that Robert Price and Bart debated this subject, yeah?
Oddly I spoke to my husband about this very thing (the pope has no business here) today and he felt indifferent, perhaps, because of his Lutheran background. Or, perhaps, his non-argumentative nature. But I know in my heart that this is not right being a 3rd generation Atheist. I totally back the FFRF!
@blindtoby Why would you not believe him? Do you disbelieve Christians who claim to be believers? I woukd bet you do not.
Bart mentions something(50mins in) which I really, really disagree with. Why do we have to give the religious something to believe in when they leave their religious beliefs behind? Why not let them become what they want to be...
Bart is pandering.
so what are the implications of political and economical reasons in wars ! the christian conquest of the two Americas where for gold ,spices , and fish , the same can be said for the ARABE oil by France , and England and it s goes on .
AND?
The problem with mass hallucination is that they are now caught on camara.
And there are a lot of them.
God is running out of places to hide
I'd love to be shown an example
Wonderful talk!
congratulation Dr. Bart Ehram worth all top rewards, thank you for tour valuable input to make people literate and think.
Excellent
"religion was created when the first conman met the first fool "M.Twain
we simply do not know who/what/where god(s) are/aren't....
Yet Samual Clemens was very devot. Attended his familiy church requently, gave considerable money to the church - but clearly did not abide fools
Great lecture! I'll probably pick up that new book!
The reason Bart thinks he hasn't heard of the secular first responders is that many of them happen to be all kinds of secular countries. Secularists in the US actually would be poorly served trying to emulate the religious. Rather, they should lobby towards getting rid of charity in the US and instead solving certain problems together as a society though the government. That would be things like poverty, drug addiction etc. In the more secular parts of Europe, there simply is not much room for religious organizations to channel capital through themselves under the excuse that they are helping the homeless, because the problem largely does not exist anymore.
One can say a lot about the inefficiency of government, but it is fantastic for these jobs because the government has a vested interest in turning junkies into taxpayers. Religions on the other hand, have a vested interest in doing absolutely nothing about such problems, while living high off donations, so that the problems will still be there to be milked for donations at a future time.
In any case, there's a lot to be said for using the government for these things, especially if one wants to reduce the money flow through the religious machinery.
I love Bart Ehrman. We need more people like him, regardless what they profess their beliefs to be. Bart is one of the people who i have to thank for setting me on the most amazing journey of my life, finding God. Thanks to some of his lectures i started searching for the truth and at the same time finding out why do i believe what i believe. Year and a half after that journey begun i can say that i love God and Jesus more than ever. I call myself a Gnostic Christian, because i know that God and Jesus exist. I don't just believe it i know it and that's the reason why i can't just call myself a Christian because that according to Bart ( and i agree with his definition of agnosticism and atheism) would be professing my faith/believe only. However, my faith goes beyond that. I know that God and Jesus exist.
My dream is to get a chance to speak to Bart about his agnosticism and atheism. I know that he is honest when he says what his goals are and that he doesn't wish to convert anyone. I can see, hear, and feel in my spirit his honesty and passion for the truth. I can feel in my spirit his love for God. No one can devote so much time and so much of themselves to studing something if they don't love it. I know that God is calling him and speaking to him, he just has to come to understand everything He is telling him.
+Thomas Bird
How much time do you have! ?
Nice dodge. How much time we have depends on how much you write. At least in part.
+mimi mimz it will be all personal experience and unprovable assertions. there are no facts. 0
+mimi mimz you are entitled to believe what you like, that is faith. However, there are Muslims who believe in Allah with as much belief as you have for Jesus . You faith is your faith, but please don't assert you have evidence or proof, because you clearly don't.
You remind me of my daughter, when she was five years old and she asked me if Santa Claus was real. I could only say to her smiling little face "He is if you want him to be."...
Self delusion is the best delusion of all. Enjoy your delusions while you can!
Bart Ehrman's experience with atheists and agnostics sounds almost identical to what I have seen.
@John MacArthur that might be your way of understanding, but it is not concurrent with reality. Theism refers to belief in a god, gnostic refers to knowledge. The prefix "a" means without. Bart explains this adequately in the first quarter of the video.
Did anyone knows the name of the book that he states is only for scholars?
You are loved by the Creator of Heaven and Earth and He calls you into a personal restored relationship with Him, through His Son and by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus says, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life” Come to Him all who are heavy laden, burdened by life's problems, depressed and anxious, worried and conflicted, and He will give you rest. Call on His Name, the Name of Jesus, the One who has forgiven and redeemed you by His death on the Cross. “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”(John 3:16)
If Jesus ever existed.
Assuming you believe in the Bible, of course.
UA-cam comments in a nutshell: Ehrmann is right, when he is argueing against the idea of godly inspiration the bible.
But when he says atheist are not smarter than christians, just because they are atheists and that believe/unbelieve has nothing to do with intelligence, he is "pandering to his past".
What?!
Thanks for the talk doc, very informative. And there was something that made me wonder, you mentioned Dale Martin, and I love his lectures on the new testament, could you not somehow arrange that he would also teach for The Great Courses? That would be great, and I´m sure, I´m not alone with that opinion... Just and idea...
Is that award modeled after Matt Dillahunty?
Baaywhhaaa
.....
Poor Matt 🥺
I am, much to my surprise, an agnostic. I just don't *know.* I am also a 'protheist'. I reject most of the Bible as anything more than allegory. That came about through study of the Bible from a historical, contextual and literary perspective. However, there is still much for me to learn from the words written therein.
I was raised in an ultraconservative fundamentalist church and was forced to read/memorize scripture. The angry, hate-filled and hypocritical words and actions of the congregants as well as all those horrific OT tales made me believe the Judeo-Christian God to be evil, hateful and heinous-a monster. By the age of 16 I rejected what I knew. I spent the next 9 years church shopping. I didn't find any version of God I could live with.
Coming into NA, I was given permission to choose a God of my own understanding. No matter how hard I think and meditate on the subject, I am unable to accept that this universe, this world and all life on it came about by blind chance. The complexity of a single cell is deep enough that I would judge the chance of one developing by chance on par with winning the Powerball lottery. Multi-celled organisms? Multi-systemed organisms? *Billions* of multi-systemed organisms? Winning *EVERY* lottery in the U.S. every week for 100+ years! But that's just me. Anyway…
I made a list of what qualifications *my* God(dess) would require. Then I went looking and settled on Wicca where I worshipped a nonspecific Goddess. Did that for 22 wonderful years then made a slow return to Christianity via a tortuous route. But I pretty much study *one thing* in the Bible-the teachings of Jesus. From the words spoken by him. Not Paul's, Peter's, James's nor anyone else's interpretations thereof. Speaking words about Jesus to people has no meaning unless my life and actions are doing the speaking. If anyone wonders why there is something different about the way I live and *asks* me about it, I will answer their questions.
I have said since I was 13 years of age that the 1st Amendment guarantees not just *FREEDOM OF RELIGION* but freedom *FROM* religion! I never knew there was any sort of organization in support of that tenate. I do not think it should be possible for the religious beliefs and teachings of any group to be legislated into practice for all citizens. If one believes it his or her duty to convert others to Christianity then they need to accept that forcing others to live your beliefs will ultimately turn people away from God, as will browbeating people with anger, screaming and threats. I don't believe that God wants, needs or requires a SWAT team!
He is very accurate about the history. But still I dont agree about Some of his theories or hypothesis
ok.
Brilliant!!!
The mythesists are fascinating. I do not think of them as conspiratorial. Skeptasists, yes. Bart does have a few questionable motivations for rejecting the notion that the New Testament Jesus was entirely fabricated. One motivation is that he has written a book that says that Jesus did exist. Another motivation is that his wife is still a Christian. I do not find Bart's argument that the "Jesus" did exist convincing. The impression that I have is that Paul and James may not have existed either. I'm fascinated by the subject, and would like to know more about the argument that "Paul" is a reliable witness of the existence of "Jesus".
I totally disagree. The Constitution ONLY guarantees that religious freedom is guaranteed in private. There is NOTHING that says we as a society need to allow people to proselytize their religion in the commons onto others. All religions need to pay taxes and NOT get a free ride on secular society. Do whatever the hell you want behind closed doors, but on the street, you are not free to push your religion on others.
***** Are you yourself, by commenting on a relatively public forum, "pushing" your beliefs (religion) on others, by demanding that others not speak on their beliefs in public?
The US Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment, makes no distinction in regards to "public" or "private" expression of religion. If you believe it does, you have completely misread the Constitution.
Likewise, on a public street, someone speaking on their faith is not "push"ing religion on someone. I have never seen anyone chained down being "forced" to listen. You have the freedom to walk away.
I have the right to public spaces free from the religious claptrap of individual "beliefs." You want to do hocus pocus, feel free to do it and blabber about it in private.
Religion also steals public money by getting tax-free non-profit status. Therefore they get usage of public accommodations, police, fire, water, etc without paying taxes. Oh how nice. Religion also gets Federal Holidays off. Another unconstitutional use of taxpayer money. Religions should be treated like Magicians, entertainment and be taxed as such.
It is YOU who has to re-read the Constitution. If the framers wished for this country to be a religious one, they would have left off the "ir" in the Declaration of Independence under: "...their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
They could have just used "The Creator" to show how they were all on board with the stupid train of religion. But they didn't. They were men of the ENLIGHTENMENT. Why do you think it is called the ENLIGHTENMENT anyway???
"I have the right to public spaces free from the religious claptrap of individual "beliefs."
That is not freedom when you suppress the right of others to express themselves. That is totalitarianism, to silence those who you disagree with.
"You want to do hocus pocus, feel free to do it and blabber about it in private."
I never said I want to do "hocus pocus".
"Religion also steals public money by getting tax-free non-profit status."
Being tax exempt is not the same a taking money from the public. Churches do not take money from the government, they just do not give it to the Government. You have a very wrong concept of what tax exemption means. Also, I have no problem with taking tax exempt status away from churches, but that is the system that is in place for non-profit organizations. If you don't like it, that is your choice, and you do have the right to petition the government legally to change the law.
"Therefore they get usage of public accommodations, police, fire, water, etc without paying taxes"
You are mistaken on this. Our church most certainly pays for water and sewer services. And there are no regular police and fire services that churches use, as if being a drain on their budgets.
"Religions should be treated like Magicians, entertainment and be taxed as such."
Some "Religions" are like Magicians, but Christianity is not a religion. Nor is it "entertainment". If you believe that, you know little to nothing about Christianity.
"Their Creator" and "The Creator" is virtually the same thing. There is only one God.
I would argue if they had any enlightment, it was because they were trusting in God, not their own wisdom. Enlightenment does not come in denial of God.
There is no gawd.
There is no right to proselytize delusions onto the public. Of course houses of worship use services. The peace of knowing that if the building catches on fire and the fire dept will come to your aid is a benefit and has associated costs.
All religion is nothing but charlatans. They make you believe in something that defies your sensibilities. They remove your innate desire to question the world around you. They are the antithesis of human experience. They are deadening to the spirit of humans and humanity. Religions need to be expunged from the human consciousness.
Glad to see that you say christianity is NOT a religion. I agree, now can we get it removed as a tax exempt entity already.
Religion spreads hopelessness in human's ability to deal with and interface with the world around them. Religion makes people stupid by the reliance on the supernatural for explanation of physical things/happenings. We are better than religions. We do not need religions. Religions need us.
"God" did not create man, man created god.
Monotheism is nothing more than the older multi-theism religions, with only less gods. So, in effect all we need to do, as we have wittled the need to believe in many gods is to just go that last step and give up the desire to be lazy, and no longer rely on that last human created god to explain that which we can explain ourselves.
You're right there is no "gawd". I never claimed there was a "gawd".
I never claimed to nor do I proclaim "delusions" in public.
The rest of your post is just Straw Man fallacies and false premises.
I wonder who he debated from Northern Alabama?
He debated Kyle Butt at the University of North Alabama in Florence. I was there with my son. We were very much in the minority,
Thanks for the reply on that. Will try look it up.
Kyle Butt - the debate was freely available on the UA-cam GBN channel, but eventually they decided to take the video down and make some money out of it. Not worth buying imho.. but I have to agree that Butt was indeed articulate and astonishingly well prepared for virtually every argument set forth by prof Ehrman.
In "Mark's" account when asked by the high priest if he was the Christ, Jesus answers from Daniel 7. Which appears to be a claim that he will/should be worshipped/served. If this is the case, then it maybe its not just John's gospel making these sorts of claims.
Specifically Mark 14:61-62 ... "Are you the Christ," he said, "the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am, " said Jesus, "and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds if heaven." Quoting Daniel 7:13. The reaction of the chief priest tells you that everyone understood Jesus's words to be a claim of divinity. So from Mark we have a divine claim about Jesus from Jesus himself. Oversight by Erhman, or duplicity?
Religion or fantasy, you can only be free from one.
Did anyone else think it would be cool to get one of his textbooks? If it was on sale used I'd totally pick it up.
Faith seems to be a suspension of reality based on fear. Belief is a concept we hold on to in order to identify ourselves. Both are illusions.
True faith is actually the absence of fear, it is exceeding rare.
so you have faith that you wont crash your car because your scared that it will crash? thats what you sound like
another probability maybe its true that the followers of Jesus had seen him because actually he never never been crucified or killed and different stories we found in the gospels about his death proves it, because simply they don't have too much data about his death .
Professor Ehrman, what are these contemporary sources that claim that Jesus existed?
Admits when he was a preacher he was ignorant of what the bible really taught - that says it all!!
Strange that having dismissed the gospels as 95% fiction, he remains so strongly resistant to the idea that the whole thing is fiction, which is just a polite and respectful way of saying it's just a fairytale (if you take it as a story) or a pack of lies (if you're daft enough to actually believe any of it). At the very least if he's convinced there's a kernel of truth behind the myth, he should spell out exactly what he thinks really happened. Once you edit out the miracles and the mostly pre-existing sayings etc., what have you left? Seems to me, he still has a few more steps to take on his journey to the truth :-)
Ehrman assumes the jesus existed. I have no reason to.
Good lecture, topically. Bart's oratory style could really use some "UH" polishing, though. I highly recommend for him to join Toastmasters Intl. to sharpen his speechmaking skills.
Maybe. But overall he conveyed the point clearly and concisely and kept my attention reasonably well.
There are many worse orators out there who will positively put you to sleep regardless of topic. At least with this one I felt pretty engaged that someone was putting into clear words thoughts that had rolled around in my head for a long time.
Religions satisfy many human needs and atheism won't be able to satisfy all of these human needs particularly the desire for eternal life. Religions will probably continue to be more popular than atheism and religious fantasies obviously makes lots of people very happy, both rich and poor.
Is one an atheist if one believes that God is a Principle?
Yes. Or no. Or both. Write a dissertation on one or all three and travel the world speaking to people with more time than they know what to do with.
Your "question" is nonsensical.
Some serious questions.
Have u ever considered the sons of man being those out of covenant with God and the daughters of God are those in covenant? I don’t believe in fallen angels or divine beings.
2. Is there proof besides the bible of Jesus existence. Joe Atwill believes he was made up. Josephus’ writings can’t be trusted. The Romans played a significant role in recounting history!
3. Is the Bible truth or just a fictional book that shows one how to reach spiritual understanding?
I believe God is a force that keeps everything together. I also believe in a dark force that’s within anyone if we allow it to come to fruition. I don’t believe in a Satan because the bible proves it.
You sound like you have foundation for ANY of the things you believe.
6000 Professors of Biblical Literature in the USA? Presumably a small minority from accredited Universities and engaged in supervising Ph.D. students.
I don't understand how someone of your learning fails to fully investigate John 8:58 and pass on Trinitarian BS without it... Jesus says *Ego Eimi* but in the Septuagint it does not say that when God tells Moses tell them *I AM* has sent you... rather God tells Moses *I am that I am* which is *Ego Eimi Ho On* - literally *I am the Eternal ONE* and when God restates to Moses tell them *I AM* he is not using Ego Eimi but *HO ON* = *THE ETERNAL* which is restated again: God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, JEHOVAH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.(EX 3:15)
Bart, in his speech simply manipulating various scriptures and other myths through the sixth sense which is sometime represented both good and evil, however it is his right to articulate his thoughts. We Christians disagree, the reason is he is fully depend upon the historical documents, not strive for a "Spiritual document" that's the only source available authentic, for example Bart mentioned John 8:58 in which Jesus claims that before Abraham was, I am. His physical age having root from the Holy Spirit that exist in the past and he knew everything and this facility is also made available for anyone who diligently search the truth, so as to arrive a convincing confirmation ultimately.
For example in Mathew 16:28 Jesus Says that "Assuredly" or " verily verily " that means it is 200% true and will come to pass, there are some standing here they will not taste death until they see the return of the son of man.
Is it that they are some who never die? Why Jesus says such word of puzzle?
There will be a time after 2000 years probably 21st century there are some might receive the reception of the Holy Spirit into their physical body as the climax of the study of the Holy Bible and those some knew about the past probably 1st century events because of the HS that exist since 1st century and repeat what exactly Jesus has demonstrated in view of the whole world and prove that everything that the holy bible says are true.
In his study of the Bible Bart never link these two scriptures John 8:58 & Mathew 16:28 and pondered and there are still Christians like former Bart never ponder these scriptures and in darkness but that does not mean all those Christians were same, some out of those billion Christians can appear and clarify all these hidden truths and explore to the world.
"Faith or belief is a system process in an individual mind that can achieve a place wherein further faith/belief is not necessary"
Bart and people like him failed to achieve a place in their process system and arrived to the wrong destination in which he does not know answers for many things, he is truly Agnostic by his education anyone can arrive the same wrong destination.
www.wgpeter.com
And what the bible doesn't say. There's no mention of abortion in the bible yet, virtually all anti-abortion activists do so from a religious viewpoint.
Well said. I knew of EXACTLY TWO anti-abortion people, one was an ex-girlfriend & the other a colleague.
Both were animal rights vegans like me. But they were obviously not antinatalists. They were too stupid to comprehend the value of PREVENTING SENTIENT DEATH. They looked ONLY at the killing part.
Another interesting question is "How did god become Jesus?" That is, how did the concept of Jaweh become the concept of Jesus. In the hebrew writings god is king and saviour. He is the housebuilder. Jesus is also a king and a saviour and a carpenter. He is also, like god, riding on a donkey. And he raises the "dead" - that is, he raises the exiled israelites after the Babylonian captivity. Top down - from god to Jesus - the question puts a new perspective on everything. For example, it gets clearer that there is no free agent called Jesus walking about in Palestine at that time. There is only scolarly ideas about what Jaweh could and couldn´t do and what he could become or couldn´t become.
I Believe it’s rhetoric to assert the existence of the biblical Jesus when the only source is Josephus....to imply the existence from Paul writings is troubling....since the so-called Paul is questionable to say the least .... I find it fascinating how similar Josephus and Paul appears...that’s why I research these things for myself.... because if you strip away the supernatural from the life of Jesus....what’s left...?
J is not the only source. Did you forget Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? And Paul. So 6 souces
Not only have there been mass hallucinations which have been received as religious experiences, but they've been within the memories of people who are still living -- for instance, appearances by Mary at Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe & many other places throughout the world.
18:40 " if ..... [then] we wouldn't have had the renaisance, reformation and modernity AS WE KNOW IT. "
So what? Civilization would have gone through these phases some other way/ways.
Ehrman's hypothesis here is interesting but silly
It is interesting that Ehrman is agnostic about gods but not about the historicity of Jesus.
Would that have been to difficult for religious sub-consciousness to handle?
I am more convinced by Richard Carrier that J.C. probably was just a conglomerate of earlier messianic fictional characters.
Carrier began as an historian not a theologian.
+Daily McHugher
I agree completely. It is as though he feels the need to pander to either his past, or his audience for some reason.
He's a great scholar, but on some things he leaves me unconvinced and questioning his motivations for some of his conclusions.
And WHY does he constantly eschew the term atheist???
all these stages that came after dark middle ages were basically trigged in opposition to christianity and church, it looks like a spring to me that they were pushing down but eventually it fired up rapidly
compare with non-christian mesoamerica for example.
right atheists only consider archeological facts and historical evidence, hell you xtians cant even figure out when your make believe jesus was born or when he died, your bible is plagiarized from every cult that went before it.. you really believe your bible is the unerrant word of a god... I feel sorry for your delusion, no wonder why you voted for pos dt
The Chinese were already an advanced civilisation, with science and technology and cosmology. They even documented a super nova and created the first earthquake detector.
@@rationalmartian He gave a perfectly clear explanation of his preference for the term agnostic over atheist. He said he is both, but as an academic who deals in knowledge rather than belief, he prefers the term that refers to knowledge (agnostic) rather than the term that refers to belief (atheist). Also, when he refers to fundamentalists, he includes fundamentalist atheists as a category. That leads me to believe that he wants to avoid being mistaken for or misrepresented as an atheist fundamentalist, so he doesn't call himself an atheist for that reason as well.
If strong atheism is this: "I do not believe that any god or gods exist", then does it mean that strong atheism should lead to a social movement? Let's take a parallel: "I do not believe that any rational number exist that equals the square root of 2". Does that mean that I have a new and fundamental view of mathematics? No, it simply means that there is one thing I do not believe in. That's all.
What about I am certain God doesn't exist because neither does the square root of minus one lol
Khurram Aziz
It all depends on what "exist" means. Imaginary gods exist (just like imaginary numbers). They just don't solve real problems, like imaginary numbers do. And gods, such as the King of Thailand exist for sure. Concerning the King of Thailand, my question is not if he is real or not, it is whether he posseses the properties that his believers attribute to him.
Hope that clarifies it.
The problem with the argument that one should just let religions be and not disturb them as long as they don't impose their views on government etc is..that children (who has no choice) are born into these families,, and a child should have the human right to grow up un-indoctrinated untill they are old enough to decide what bs they want to believe. Until such time..I oppose religions.
freedom from religion **** foundation? Is there a censored word in the middle of their name? :P
Bart: "My wife Sarah is smarter than me"
Sarah: "You mean 'my wife Sarah is smarter than I' "
grammer nazi
I is subject, me is object. Bart is correct.
I think "than" is considered a preposition. Bart is right.
Pilleta is right. "than I" is a reduction of the clause "than I am." But maybe Erhman wanted to avoid making a claim of divinity. Not a grammar Nazi here, but I do happen to teach it. That said, usage is king, and as no misunderstanding is created by using "me" here, even legit grammar Nazis normally let it slide. But if we posit a wife that delights in showing up her husband, she would totally respond that way.
Bart is right. Accusative after preposition
i don't agree with the neutral stance on religion unless people are imposing their religion on you. what about some of the negative values and social abuses that religious people impose upon their children. that matters too. of course, many religious people have positive values, too, so it's a mixed bag. but I believe that we need to think critically about all social systems and belief systems and to critique those that are abusive, and sometimes to get people to face up to the abusive teachings, they need to face up to the fact that the beliefs systems which contain those teachings are delusional, they don't express the wishes of any deity, but rather they are products of the human mind... it would also be interesting to hear a more serious definition from you of fundamentalism... agreed that non religious people need to develop social institutions, but, actually there are non-religious social institutions: governments.
Of course it's all speculation, but I'm not sure The Christian church, and the Abrahamic faiths, though, surprisingly, not including Islam so much as Judaism (read your Maimonides) as a whole, didn't _retard_ the arrival of _a_ renaissance. That is to say, the reintegration of Greek/Athenian (particularly Stoicism) thought in Europe and Asia Minor/Near Eastern culture.
Prior to its being driven toward fundamentalism, by, at least _partially_ as a result of Christian aggression from Western Europe, there was a _sizable_ chunk of Islamic culture that was quite liberal intellectually. Liberal in a way that Western Europe wouldn't arrive at for three to nearly five centuries ie willing to examine rather than supress other schools of thought; at least that which did not directly pertain to religious nonsense, ie "natural philosophy," mathematics etc.
yes I agee, you sholud free from False religion
Bart is a high conversion than hitchens, I've enjoyed it. Some of the ramblings are concerning
John 10 is actually a denial of being THE ONE TRUE GOD... if you read it correctly, Jesus makes a confusing statement that makes the Jews THINK he is claiming to be GOD but when they come at him he points out that if ANYONE is claiming godhood it is they who are seating themselves on God's judgment seat and condemning him to death... when he never claimed to be more than God's *SON* so if they thought that he was worthy of death, it was really them and they should stone themselves! Jesus does this a lot but if he were actually claiming Godhood, why did he dance away from it... if he really were God he lied to save his human skin.
I like Your definition of an Atheist and Agnostic. I lean towards Agnosticism but believe it’s more likely than not that there is a higher something.
Jesus did not use the word “evangelical” so I don’t think evangelicals are followers of Christ. Afterall, sola scriptura!
At the end of the day Bart is not a true scholarly theologian; he is a textural critic; big difference. There are many things that escape Bart. Good entertainer; no discernment.
Sunyata I concur.
+Sunyata
Yes
Great talk, as always, Professor Ehrman! Euhemerism (yu-hee-mǝ-rism) is where we claim that real live human beings later became to be worshiped as Gods. We can reject that theory for sure. By now we need to accept that all these "Gods" including Jesus were MYTH. And the Buddha, and the Hindu God Krishna too. Combined, we have probably three billion people who love these deities. But as a scholar (I forgot who) said, one thing Biblical scholars never never do is state that Jesus was a mythical God. Anyone who so attempted got fired. And respectfully Sir, I know that you know this but are reluctant to say so for this reason.
Just because he was a hypocrite doesn't mean all preachers are...
First, he wasn't a preacher and second you don't know what a hypocrite is.
Though I am on your side, if you do some background checking into Bart Ehrman you will find out that he was a preacher at one point.
Beginning @ 17:50 this is the gospel truth. The first believers in Jesus were all Jews both Hebrew speaking Judaians and Greek speaking diasporic Jews. Christianity was similar to Essenism or Pharisaism or Sadducaism. It was a sectarian view of Judaism and how the Laws related to the Jews that’s why the Law was constantly spoken of in the New Testament writings. That sectarian form of Judaism was taken over by non Jews, that is the truth and it formed into an entirely different religion apart from its foundation of Judaism who did keep sabbath and other traditions.
Gandhi said it would be a good idea when ask about western civilization.
Why should we listen to you you teach something you don't believe, how do we know you believe what you tell us
It's Israelite mythology.
IT SEEMS AT 53:14 LIKE OL' RICHIE BOY (CARRIER) GONS WANNA A SHOWDOWN WITH BARTY NOW