Remember the whole virgin birth story starts off from intentional mistranslations!!! Myth!!!!but I understand Bart wants to sell Christian Based books and has to continue the charade?????
Bart erman needs to watch the Star Wars video.... by Paulogia... Or discuss the comic book Analogies of a real New York in the spider man world. I think hes a bit too close minded to consider that it all might be just a myth
Also I don't think they are historical books as they are poticial ... if he doesn't want to say they're just flat out only religious books. They are written to persuade not to discuss recorded acts.
@@PeterFortuna "they are written to persuade"... yes indeed and in fact they say so explicitly in the books... they are pure peddling and hawking propaganda for a cultist myth.
@@germanboy14 heuh ? granddad and grandson, realy ? ? no ; it's all in the family, it's all made up including the differences they are keen to sliver about. but it isn't true, just more astounding rubbish from NT and MV
Bart Ehrman has such a logical approach to his writings and even his "off the top of his head" responses are so logical and quick witted. Hard not to love the guy! Thanks for this wonderful interview!
Loving your work brother. Thank you for all the amazing content you're putting out. It's honest, real, rigorous. passionate work like this that the world desperately needs. Thank you.
I am a Christian and I loved this video. It gives me hope that we can have reasonable and sober discussions about these questions. Thanks for making this!
Christianity starts off with intentional lies,and misinterpretations -virgin birth" that's not in the original Isaiah story.. Bart's just wants to sell christian-based books so he's got to continue the charade
I don't always agree with Bart, but there's no denying his deep knowledge and his easily understood explanations. Love this interview! Everyone should sign up for Bart's blog if you can!
he is assuming a lot without much proof. but those scholars always do. they sound like they know a lot. but do they really? i see it as an opinion. not as the truth...
@ClaimClam They aren't so much falsehoods as they are simple disagreements. For example, Bart doesn't grant that the Gospels directly parallel aspects of the Homeric myths. I agree more with Dennis Macdonald and think that they do. Bart also dismisses the Mar Saba letter. I'm more in James Tabor's camp on that one. Still, I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Bart says. The disagreements are relatively minor.
@@Marabarra134 When looking at history that far in the past, there is not Capital T Truth. It's finding and looking at the available evidence and coming to conclusions based on that. There’s never going to be 100% accuracy in scholarship or in historical analysis, but you can get pretty close with the evidence we do have.
‘Lost Christianities’ was the book by Dr E that truly illustrated to me the impossibility of basing a religion on a 2000 year game of ‘telephone’, with a massively complicated history of borrowings from former and later belief systems, as it continued to evolve into the directions that humans needed Christianity to go, to suppor and legitimize their regimes. Pure , fascinating human silliness
I don't think that the radiant products of the Jesus movement are necessarily delusional. I think the problem of creating a religion lies in what you exclude and bury and why you are excluding it and burying it, but also what you embellish and why you are embellishing We can take for instance Anat in the Israelite religion. Anat was a goddess from the middle euphrates that had a higher status in early Judges that gives buried in Jahudite inscription and yet Anat is the wife of Yahweh in Elephantine Egypt. How does a goddess like Anat get to Egypt if not through Israel (ancient canaan to the exilic period). The jahudite version of early israelite history tries to bury canaanite elohim by confuscation of terms and relationships. The reason they do this is because they need to push the Yahweh of the 9th or 10th century BCE into the 11th to 15th century bce and in order for them to do that the gods of their heros need to mover aside so Yahweh can get the credit for their peity. The work done by the Yacobian jesus followers needs to be pushed aside so that credit can be given to Paul and his 'Christ' followers for all the successors, because otherwise we would need to give credit to Ananus ben Ananus, The sicari and Zealots, Vespasian and Titus for essentially wiping the Jewish jesus followers out allowing the greco-roman jesus followers to move in and take control. This creates a strong bias in the literature towards Marks more literary framework that is a backbone of the most important part of the gospels, the passion narrative. Once the authors accept marks ending as a framework, then adding birth narratives are just normal aspects of that kind of god-genesis framework.
You’re missing the point entirely. Impossible? Those are the perfect circumstances for basing a religion. Perhaps your expectations of religion are different than mine.
Logos Idea in Christianity is very coherent if there was a basic understanding of the original philosophy. But in the modern era it is very difficult because, philosophy itself marginalized idealism, Gottfried Leibniz was perhaps the last Christian Neo-Platonist, and Kant a secular idealist. In the British tradition idealism was mostly rejected during the enlightenment and the modern logical positivism also rejects secular idealism. The issue is many early Christians were obviously not material reductionist AT ALL. The Platonist tradition was one of the strongest influences on early Christianity. And Plato did not believe in an anthropomorphic literalist God, only a transcendent one, that is imminent via the Logos, to believe otherwise would be idolatry. Some of the earliest Christian writers were Platonist and Pythagorean, Philo (who was not a Christian) was called the Pythagorean and was referenced by the Christians. What is the basic idea? There is more to the world than the material appearance. A deeper understanding can be gained by attaining virtues which are manifestation of the Logos like reason and ethics. Jesus is the right Logos, ethical philosopher, just as Socrates demonstrated the Logos of reason, and the writer of the Psalms poetic aesthetic Logos. (Reference Justin Martyr) We can find the virtues within as the Logos is eternal (innate) and Jesus is the guide to an ethical and spiritual way of being in the world, the kingdom of eternity heaven is right in front of us, we must wake up to see and experience it. This idea was in the work of Justin, Origen, St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus, acquinas, Erasmus all the way to Paul Tillich and those that preserve the Logos theology. A reverent attitude to truth and love of others and “God” the experience of existence and the deeper dimensions of life.
There is a major difference between telephone and scripture from that time. There is only one author in the Bible that didn't have to follow the witness under death rule from the time, that is Paul.
As a moslem, I feel I am a true follower of the real historical Jesus (peace be upon him), which is completely different from the Pauline Christianity that Paul preached. Paul has completely corrupted Jesus’s teachings and brought about a new religion . After reverting to Islam, I love Jesus and his mother Virgin Mary more than ever before, when I read the Quran, I learn about the true Jesus and Mary (peace be upon them). I urge you to read the Quran. Jesus has been mentioned 25 times in the Quran, Mary was mentioned 34 times in the Quran. Islam is unique in that it is very simple to understand, and answers all difficult questions. The Quran is the word of God that has never been altered, and preserved from the day it was revealed to prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). Can you Imagine that there is only one version of Quran in the whole world, that is read by 1.7 billion moslems around the world, no 2 versions. Compare that to the plethora of gospels that contradict each other, that were written by anonymous people, 40-70 years after Jesus, in a different language (greek), in places fat away from the land of Jesus, by people who never met him, and who did not speak his language, several generations after.
B. Ehrman is an inspiring scholar. I‘m atheist (of course;) but very much interested in religion, especially the christian religion. Ehrman is one of the best sources you can find in these days.
😂 No he's not. The only thing he's doing is parroting stuff he read when he himself was at university in the 70's. He's basically quoting a handful of German scholars (I know because I am German and had to read that stuff myself when studying theology). That's were his knowledge ends. I never heard one single original thought out of his mouth. Let alone anything that contradicts the handful of theories he constantly repeats. That's not scholarship at all.
@@MrSeedi76 Even if you're correct--which I doubt--about the originality of Bart's scholarship, he obviously has a very deep knowledge of the New Testament, and his perspective as an atheist enables him to see and communicate relationships between early Christian texts that Christian scholars either don't see or don't communicate effectively to a broad audience.
trouble is as your an atheist you clearly havent even read scripture nor are you versed in its meaning and doctrines, then tell me how can YOU even suggest you "know" anything? If you want to pull something apart, ie even reverse engineer it you have to at least understand how it works! what an idiot!
@@parsonj39 He might have a very deep knowledge of the New Testament and he can deliver a plausible story to a broad audience as a historian. Yet you need to remember there is a clear limit to his plausible historical account- it can't be THE one conclusive story. If he is a true scholar his needs keep his balance. His historical account can't be proven and its probabilites of being true couldn't be measured. He needs to focus on that point when he communicate with lay persons.
@@ThinkTwice2222 No, it’s like if you went to the young Earth creationist museum and learned about physics. You didn’t really learn about physics, you learned about the egregiously wrong Biblical teaching of physics.
Bart continually raises for me many issues around definitions of what really is "Christianity". More and more it seems that the only thing that defines it is that there is a central belief in Jesus as being some kind of special messenger sent by God. But apart from that it is a huge mess of ideas, claims and traditions that is an impossible maze to navigate.
He made a very crucial point that is missed by virtually all Christians. We can't really say whether ANY of the followers of Jesus in the first generation actually considered themselves to have left Judaism to form a new religion. Right up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and before that the death of James, the vast majority of the followers of Jesus still considered themselves to be practicing a form of Judaism, not Christianity.
Well Paul is pretty early. The didache. Potentially Mark. And you can sort of work your way up from there. Exegete the earliest stuff first as best you can then work your way through the timeline doing the same. Then make an educated guess. The New Testament, if you consider it early enough and potentially reliable enough to be worth the study, is a good picture of early Christian thinking by virtue of the fact that its early Christian documents. (I understand that Christianity was not one unified whole, but this is the best we can do). For the record I think the message of the New Testament, and it's really not hard to see, is that Jesus is a human being, potentially born of a virgin/miracle of God, he taught God will soon fix the world through him then he suffered died was resurrected, and instructed his disciples to carry on his message of thay God will fix the world soon through him, start living like it and prepare. When it comes to the nuance if how to live like it and prepare this is where the potential Paul vs Jesus argument comes into play. Nothing about the Lutheran nonsense about "faith vs works" but rather "faith vs works *of the law* [of Moses])" To say it as simply and dumbed down as possible, if you think Jesus taught all must become Jews, that is to say to completely follow every single law of the law of Moses then Paul was certainly at odds with Jesus. However if you think Jesus did not teach that one must follow every single law of the law of Moses then Paul was not at odds with Jesus teaching. The compilation of writings that form the New Testament, whether someone thinks they accurately reflects their 1st copies or not, certainly favor the 2nd option. That Jesus's teachings were compatible with not being a Jew, ie he did not make a teaching that people MUST be circumcised like the author of Genesis and then Moses later did. The idea in the New Testament is that Jesus had his own teaching, some of which was similar to Moses, some of which was different and that Paul understood this first before even the disciples and fought for that idea. His main concerns were that no Gentile thought they had to get Mosaically circumcised, observe certain Mosaic dietary restriction, or observe certain Mosaic days of the year as religiously special. That is really what the issue is, would Jesus have agreed or disagreed with Paul on those 3 things...
agreed yes. it's not even clear that he really existed. the scholars think that they can extract truth from the gospels. they can't, they are assuming things without proof.
Of course, before Constantine, there were many, many different gnostic groups. Constantine forced a more united, one church. Basically, the remaining gnostic groups were declared heretics. Then, came the east/west divide in to Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic church, and then, of course the reformation, which, eventually led to the many many "denominations" of today. So what we see today is not much different from what it was like before Constantine, or is it?
@@ji8044 I doubt anybody who read the Bible misses this. This is as plain as ABC, but the question is, so what? I don't see the Paul vs Jesus issue here, Paul was as Jewish as possible, a Pharisee of Pharisees. Show me the issue in this please?
Love the topic and love Dr. Ehrman's insights on this. As a Christian, I dove into the words of Jesus and was astonished at how much at odds his thinking is with Paul's letters.
@@mickeydecurious What would Christianity be without Paul? It probably wouldn't even exist anymore since it wasn't succeeding as a sect of Judaism. If it did, it would probably be a Jewish sect where "the messiah" had already come, but Orthodox jewish law were still followed.
@@travis1240 Technically Jewish Orthodox laws were supposed to be followed, that was the whole message of Jesus was to come back to the true living God of Israel, and prepare yourself for the end; the teachings and everything got turned on its head once Paul opened up his mouth in the gentiles started giving him Money🤔 Then let's not even talk about the Roman Catholic Church getting a hold of it and getting in bed with the Roman government in order to force this belief unto others, sound familiar 🤔 Let's face it they've been beating society with that book of fables for over two thousand years now! When will it end, when will society as a whole stand up and say enough with your schizophrenic hateful blood cult🤔 Maybe after every one of the gen x, we die out? When most the congregation of these churches die? When will enough of this hateful cult be held accountable for their sins against Humanity for the last thousands of years 😔 When will woman start getting common sense and stay as far away from this religion as we can get?!
This refutes Christianity because it makes Jesus and his death or resurrection useless. You don't need him, just keep the commandments for eternal life.
I started listening to Bart Ehrman while driving in my car. I would go to the library and check his audio out from the Great Courses selection. He was integral in my understanding some of the more harder biblical texts and scriptures in the Bible. He was also integral in my understanding of it and how I further deconstructed religion from my life after turning away from the church six years earlier. This led me to read other things not just relating to Christianity itself, but the falling away from it such as Freedom From Religion, Black Atheists, then over to Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hichens, Carl Sagan, and so on. And I have never looked back. Taking this deeper dive helped me to know even more than the Christians of said religion in my life and around me. Once, I knew and learned what I did, I couldn't unlearn it to save many of my relationships as some of my family, friends, and the church turned their backs on me as I asked questions that they couldn't answer, didn't want to answer, or couldn't continue to lie about. I was armed and it served me well and my deconstruction was permanent. And I have passed it down to my own offspring. If they want to believe, that's fine. But no one was indoctrinating them unless they were of age...16-18 years old. Guess what, it never happened because it couldn't be done. They're critical thinkers and aren't swayed by groupthink when it comes to religions of any kind or conspiracy theories running rampart on the internet.
This is a great topic! Great questions and thinking on this topic. I think what is needed is the Jewishness of Jesus & Paul and tapping into “rabbinical sources” to help parse through Jesus’ teachings. I am finding that most authors have one part but not the other. Thank you for this podcast because what Bart brings up are really fundamental issues that rarely get talked about.♥️
True. I can't remember which of Nietzsche's books it comes from (Twilight of the Idols, maybe?), but I recall him saying that if Jesus had a religion, it died on the cross. Nietzsche expressed it more dramatically, but that was the essence, the implication being that Paul's religion was quite different from Jesus's.
Nietzsche had not the slightest understanding of Christianity. He decried his own parody of it without addressing the faith itself. If Ehrman follows his steps, they are mistaken from the beginning. Ehrman never understood Christianity because his entire point has always been to prove that Christ is a fictional character. It’s his dogma.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Ehrman is a professor and researcher. He was a devout Christian for most his life. His extensive research is the basis for everything he says/writes regarding Christianity. He never "sharpened his sword" and attacked Christianity, even though, to you, he has.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972When researching Nietzsche's upbringing your claims are very surprising. You should go look it up and see his relationship with Christianity. It was probably more intense than yours.
When I read the Gospels, I think about the audience and what was the writers aim. Then they make more sense. When I read the letters of Paul, I realize that he was writing for persuasion and control.
@@scottgrohs5940lol prophet Muhammad was illiterate and didn’t write the Quran the Quran is the literal word of God unlike the gospels and Book of Mormon
I came to the conclusion that Christian churches had very little to do with Jesus a very long time ago. I guess it started when I compared what they taught us about Jesus in Sunday School, to what Christians have actually been doing for hundreds of years. Fifty years later my opinion has not changed.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
@@micahhenley589 Or I could just declare with total conviction, that Paul invented the whole story based on a hallucination. Of somebody he never met. Then went on to supress the real teachings of Jesus being spread by his close followers. All because Paul thought that they were being a bit too "Jewish". Stating your extreme position contributes nothing to the conversation. When I never even mentioned Paul.
@@corringhamdepot4434 You are correct that Paul wanted to stomp out the teachings of Jesus. Acts 8:3 says he arrested and imprisoned many followers of Jesus and he even approved the murder of Stephen(Acts 7:58). As we can see, Paul was a bloody violent man and could technically be called a religious terrorist. His destiny is the lake of fire and burning sulfur. But then in Acts chapter 9 we read something amazing. God would personally confront this violent man. But instead of showing wrath to Paul, God would show him mercy and grace. And Paul would be used mightily by Jesus Christ. The Lord said "Go! This man is My chosen instrument to proclaim My name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." Acts 9:15 "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10
@@micahhenley589 You appear to have a reading comprehension problem? Or are you just deliberately misunderstanding my comments, so you can trot out bible quotes that are not relevant to what I said.
actually, the Catholic church claims to be the first, organized Christian church and they also claim to be created by Jesus So, unfortunately, your conclusions would be incorrect Jesus was considered the Christ and would be included in all Christ-ian lore However, Christianity comes from Pagan beliefs so, you would see similarities there and do
Im a christian from Indonesia , i love watching bart erhman and derek , its an eye opening discussion and we can discuss about many things friendly God bless u guys
muslim sudah dari dulu bilang bahwa kristen itu sebenarnya lebih tepat dibilang paulen. Kalo dibandingin dalam sejarah paul itu mirip musailamah al-kazzab yang ngaku ngaku rosul setelah nabi Muhammad SAW meninggal. Yang parahnya lagi paul itu ga pernah bertemu langsung dengan Isa AS tapi ngaku ngaku sebagai muridnya (apostle) karena mengaku bertemu secara imaginer dengn Isa AS. Untungnya kalo di muslim itu musailamah al-kazzab berhasil dibunuh sama khalifah Abu Bakar sedangkan paul berjaya.
@@leonkennedy9754 serius itu yang lu tanyain? Udah bosen dijawab beberapa kali tetep aja ini yang dikeularin. Salahnya apa? saat 6 tahun itu tunagannya sedannkan kawinnya pas Aisha menstruasi pertama (dalam hadits 9 tahun). Salahnya dmn?
Prof. Ehrman is knowledgeable and able to parse out the differences in a way easy to understand. I learn so much. The idea that faith saves versus it is works that save has always been a divisive issue. I have difficulty reconciling the two. I'm going to read what others comment. Excellent interview.
I’ve been saying Christianity was the religion about Jesus and not of Jesus for the longest. Good to see an actual historian of the Bible saying the same thing.
muslims believe that Jesus's message was changed and God sent another prophet to bring back what Jesus originally preached. the human jesus, the early christians, the early jews and muslims actually have more in common religiously. they all prayed to God the father one God. Paul is different from all these because he started the trinity, die for our sins etc. The muslim could be exposing Paul as well
@@richlasma Thank you for this information but I am fully aware of what Muslims believe as well as the teachings of Paul. I can also confirm that the character Jesus’s message was changed by Paul so there is no need to believe it is. Islam is and has been exposed as well for not being the best religion mainly due to the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) marriage to a 6 year old girl after being chosen by Allah to be it’s messenger. I know both religions are flawed, but I respect those that still believe in them regardless of my knowledge of their flaws.
You are wrong. Ask yourself how old virgin Mary was when she Miraculously conceived Jesus? it's only then that you can understand Prophet Muhammad S.A.W and his marriage to Aisha because Islam grew off a Semitic socio-cultural environment just like Jesus' Judea @@iam604
Wow! That was a good interview with Prof. Ehrman! I've heard hundreds of interviews and watched hundreds of UA-cam videos of Dr. Ehrman, and I have to say, this was one of the best ones I've ever heard. You asked all the right questions. As a former Christian myself, I love learning about Christian history. Such an endlessly fascinating topic! As an atheist, I don't believe it religiously tho, it's just something that's interesting to me, no doubt due to my past as Christian.
You can't be a former Christian. A true Christian knows the truth. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. Matthew 22:37-38. You have never loved God with all your heart, soul and mind!
@@SuperMurrayBros do you think I haven't heard this before? I used to say these things myself, when I was a Christian. But, I know that nothing I say will change your mind. But yes, I absolutely was a Christian.
I dunno. When I was a believer I took it all to mean that Jesus was telling you what you must do as a person alone to meet the requirements, to live a holy life, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven... but ultimately it meant that it was impossible to do, something that is sketched out for us in Matthew 19... "25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” That passage hits hard, it's apparent that Jesus is making clear the meaning of his teachings. Jesus spent all that time talking about what needed to be done and then he said it was impossible for man alone. Jesus said that his death shall be a "ransom for many" Matthew 20:28, John 3:14-15: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." , Matthew 26:28: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.". So, I don't think Paul's concepts of salvation are completely alien to the rest of the early church. Of course you have the matter of who actually wrote what and was it was actually what was said, were there elements of theology being injected to suit certain points of view, etc. etc., but going from the New Testament that we have today, I don't think Paul was making things up on his own. Also, Jesus did open things up for interpretation when he indicated that he used parables to hide the true meaning and that only his true followers would understand them... So if Jesus didn't say them plainly, but he entrusted the understanding to his disciples/apostles/church, I think the leap of reason isn't really that far from what he said himself.
It is impossible without the help of the Holy Spirit. "All sufficient merit shining like the sun A fortune I inherent, by no work I have done My righteousness I forfeit at my Savior's cross Where all sufficient merit did what I could not. "In love, He condescended, the eternal now in time A life without a blemish, the Maker made to die The law could never save us, our lawlessness had won Until the pure and spotless Lamb had finally come." lyrics by Shane&Shane.
Just because Paul had heard of Christianity--or at least followers (as they saw it) of Jesus--before converting to support and promote it doesn't mean that he didn't largely shape what THEREAFTER was orthodox Christianity.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
Since Paul did not walk with Jesus how can he say what Jesus said. Since there is not a single written book that Jesus himself wrote it becomes second hand and Paul made it his personal interpretation of what the early church understood. If Peter was suppose to be the rock of the church then how did he loose that status to Paul.
Well we really don’t know because Paul’s letters are the earliest source material. The Gospels are like a history of Jesus written later. Paul’s writings are first hand and the Gospels are second hand info.
@@MarcP5267This isn’t the patent office that favors a the first to file. The Gospels were written after Paul, but they are based on oral histories that preceded Paul.
But the Lord Jesus said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
Jesus' teaching was that following the Law perfectly was required. Then, he showed all people including the religious leaders that it was impossible for them to follow the Law perfectly. His purpose was to demonstrate that all people need repentance and God's mercy, both the 'sinners' and the 'righteous' of his day. All of them needed the 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'
@@Lobsterwithinternet Not at all. It is directly what is written in the words of the scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers, first and early second century sources. No interpretation required.
@@stephenbailey9969 But was Jesus in talking about the Law thinking more of legalistic moral principles or actual dictates? In other words, what was Jesus on about: the spirit of the Law or the letter of the Law?
@@paulthomas281 The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:20-48. Jesus was pointing to the Father as the ideal of righteousness. "You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." This is so as man was created to exist in the image of God. Man chose to follow a different path. That standard is far beyond simply the letter of the Mosaic Law. The Law was just a tutor, as Paul would later say, pointing to the living perfection that is Christ. Jesus reminded people about this standard in his series of "You heard that it was said...But I tell you..." passages. Jesus didn't come to reform religion. He came to bring new existence. But that is not the kind of Messiah that people expected. Many of the people in his day were unprepared to admit they were broken and in need of healing. Just like many people today. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem and can't fix it yourself.
As an elderly Roman Catholic, these discussions are of immense interest and critical importance. Vatican II called for the renewal of the Catholic Christian faith, "...that we may be found more faithful to the gospel of Christ." (Opening Message to Humanity). Pope Paul VI defines that renewal as the process of identifying the contributions made to the faith by the various generations from the beginning, comparing those additions to the person and expectations of Jesus and courageously and effectively correcting any incongruence. That was in '64 in an encyclical called Eclesiam Suam. We are in the third generation since that call and definition, and still no renewal. We have endured a crisis of vocations in the 60s and 70's.... a crisis of faith among the laity in the 80s and 90's... and now, according to our Bishop, the Church itself is in crisis... all with not a whisper of the work of renewal being seriously undertaken... it continues to be all about the preservation of the faith and not the renewal of faith called for so long ago!!! I am certain that this failure is the source of the mushrooming crisies we are experiencing. I thank God for the work being done by those involved in the historical critical biblical scholarship in the past and especially today, with the marvellous efforts being made to spread the process and findings beyond the halls of academia on UA-cam. Whether approaching from a position of faith or all the way to the mythesysts, the contributions being made to common understanding of the nature of the contributions made to the faith historically in the first 100 years, particularly by the various factions in those first four generations, provides the very foundation required for the mechanics of the renewal to finally take place... and I am excited about this. Already, there is sufficient evidence to think that the persons and ministries of Jesus and Paul, as portrayed in the four gospels/Acts narrative of faith history, are literary constructs of the James community in Jerusalem and the next generation of Helenized Christian apologists trying to substantiate the secondary gospel of Christ. The original and authentic gospel of the Sacred Way was subverted by the efforts of both the James community and later Christians. If the renewal of faith is to be truly accomplished, It appears to me that we will have to pare back the elements and structures of Christianity, a faith about Jesus... in order to reveal the faith of Jesus and the content of his gospel of the Sacred or Holy Way spoken of by Isaiah. This will allow for a renewal that will go beyond an increased faithfulness to the gospel of Christ to an actual faith in the only gospel Jesus and Paul actually preached, the good news of Yahweh's Sacred Way.
It is interesting because I think it is very important to understand the context what is happening and how it relates to each other story. It good to have some insight into what happened during this period.
The idea that Paul created a new religion ignores the fact that he was accepted by the early Christian leaders, including Peter, James, and John. In Galatians 2:9, Paul describes how these leaders gave him the "right hand of fellowship," indicating their acceptance of his mission to the Gentiles...
...Don't make the mistake of thinking that All 11 of the surviving 'disciples' were 'Actively Preaching' the teachings & predictions of the Pre-Crucifixion Jesus who ASSURED them "...Ah'l Be Bach..." in just a few Years at most: "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." -- Matt. 10:23 The 'Nazarene Movement' was likely struggling just 5- or 6 years-on, because just TWO of the original Apostles who actually knew Jesus -- Peter, (John?) -- and just one sibling,"the One whom Jesus Loved", his brother James were still Active & Committed to 'Spreading the Good News' their full-time jobs -- the other 9 having evidently 'Snapped-Out of" their Messianic Fervor & returned to their former lives --- because nothing is recorded of them 'preaching' from town-to-town as they awaited their now-Disgraced Master. It is into this vacuum that Saul/Paul barges-in, full of stories of His (differing) accounts of a 'Higher-Realm Audience' with "Jesus in a Glorified Form"; it strains my credulity that those who had known Jesus intimately should accept this "brash Upstart's Claims", since -- never having glimpled the man even from a distance--he wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a 'Perp Line-Up'. Saul/Paul Raced to the front of their meager 'PARADE' -- and started acting like HE had organized it.
I understand how you could interpret Matthew 10:23 to mean what you thought. To understand the way Jesus seems to have meant it- you must understand where the term “the son of man” comes from. In Daniel 7:13-14 he has a vision of the four beasts and one like a son of man comes and is given dominion/authority over all nations. With that in context, Jesus says in Matthew 10 that the son of man will come- meaning someone will come and be given full authority over all nations. Then later in Matthew 28:18 Jesus says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” fulfilling the prophecy in Daniel 7 AND in Jesus’s prophecy in Matthew 10.
I actually do believe Paul created Christianity because it revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus, while Jesus taught his disciples to worship the one true God. He didn’t make it about himself. Bart nailed it right on the head 💯
Agreed, Jesus teaching was still Torah-oriented, norhing to do with him as a God. Jesus told his followers to respect the chair of Moses (the Law), which nullifies every Christians beliefs since they think the new testament supercedes the old testament. Jesus was a Torah-Tenach thumper, not a bible thumper.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
@@micahhenley589 While he may have stopped killing people, it's arguable that (assuming this theory is correct) that his teachings may have led to millennia of killing. Perhaps a few hundred were saved from him in his lifetime, but you can easily argue that millions have perished as a result of his teachings.
@@mattallred Jesus said many people will wrongfully kill others in His name. In John 16:2 Jesus said "In fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." They're murderers because they do not know the Son or the Father. Jesus said anyone who loves Him will keep His commandments. The Son of God is on a mission to save people from every tribe, language, and nation and that's one of the things that makes Jesus so unique. He's saving people from all over the globe. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45
Perhaps intelligent. But not well researched. A friend of mines PhD in archaeology was Rome in the Christian period. He got access to the Vatican records of the Roman govt at the time. The Romans called the "Christians" Nazarenes. Until fifty years after the heysuss crusifiction when they realised it had spread out of control cause they'd been martyring too many of them, and wrote them off as "just another oriental mystery cult." They were matriarchal pot smoking mushroom gobbling tree hugging free love hippies led by Mary Magdalene. Into Soma Gnosis. (mystical revelation through magic mushroom goblins) Paul was fifteen years old when they Crusified Mary's Boyfriend. 60 years later, Pauls drunken cavorting with groupies and living off the embellished tales of the good ol daze were wearing thin and he was broke. He took the offer of a paid job to help the Roman Govt write the New Testament, to avoid being a warm up snack for the lions in the arena for unpaid debts. It's Roman-Paulinnanity. NOT Christianity. 😂
Looking at the purpose of what Jesus came to do and reading the book of Isiah, i dont think Paul contradicted Jesus. Jesus mission was not to teach about his death. But he came to fulfil scriptures which were pointing to him. Paul didnt write Isiah but his writings totally agrees with that scripture about the purpose of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I would agree with this statement in general. But probably not in the way you might. I think one of the uniting ideas of early Christianity was a rejection of idolatry. The temple became a form of idolatry. And their was an anti-idolatry movement among the Greeks as well. So my interpretation is all of these different strands of early Christianity were really different ways people were addressing the idolatry problem to come to a deeper truth. This was the same issue Isaiah was dealing with.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
@@DrazenPerkovic-p8j original Christianity was a religion of Jesus, basically Judaism. Today's Christianity is a religion about Jesus based on Paul's false understanding.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice say to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 'Who are You, Lord?’ I asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 'But get up and stand on your feet. For I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen from Me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by faith in Me.’…
That is what Paul claimed but we can't verify his account. Especially the "kick against the goads" part which is borrowed from a Greek philosopher and not something Jesus said. Is it not also possible that Satan came to Paul disguised as Jesus??
Derek and Bart, I've just realized that I came to the same conclusions as Dr. Ehrman did on how to read a text. I've always tried to read everything around the text in question, and to learn the language, culture (food and dress), daily habits, etc. I've always been much more interested in Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Kant-Hegel-Schoepenhauer-Nietzsche, and the 20th century existentialists. than the bible. Of course I needed to know the development of christianity. I enjoy all the insights into the ancient world and now a personal insight about how I go about doing things. Hugs from Jim Oaxaca Mexico
This is crucial in understanding the New Testament I believe. The church may or may not have a part to play on interpretation, but a full ear must be given to everything all sorts of critical scholarship is saying.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!!
For those who understand German, I can strongly recommend the latest book by Johannes Fried: "Jesus oder Paulus - Der Ursprung des Christentums im Konflikt". A very precise analysis and very enlightening...
@@mralchemist3976 Johannes Fried shows 1) how a crucifixion like Jesus experienced was medically survivable considering the pleural effusion (pierced the side with the lance). This method is used today in accidents involving catheters. 2) how numerous Christian communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee did not know death with resurrection until the third or fourth century. There is also no mention of it in the first Christian written documents such as the Gospel of Thomas (found in the desert sands of Nag Hammadi in 1945) or the Logia Collection Q, the source of the Gospel of Markion (AD 150). 3) how the Hellenized Paul, with his Pauline christology (death, resurrection, redemption of all mankind, etc.) was at odds with the disciples in Jerusalem, such as James the Brother of the Lord. They had a Jewish-Hebrew idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who was finally supposed to liberate Israel from foreign rule. This split in views can be seen very well in the NT and is very well documented in the book. 4) how Paul addressed an international audience with Greek texts and thereby spread much further and ultimately caught on. Fried wonders how much Paul's Christianity actually has to do with the Naozorean Jesus. This is just a very rough summary of what the book is about. Of course, you have to read it yourself to check the very many details it contains. To Fried's credit, he's a historian, not a theologian. His main area is the Middle Ages. So he was able to approach his book without bias, prejudice or religious reservations and simply look at what actually exists and what doesn't. I leave the matter of surviving the crucifixion as a theoretically and "technically" possible option. Jesus hung "only" for six hours and not for the usual 2-3 days. In addition, there is the pleural effusion, which causes someone to lose consciousness and thus to apparent death. Oh well... What gives me the most food for thought is the very finely worked out contrast between the Jewish idea of the Messiah and the Pauline christology by a strongly hellenized, highly intelligent and also linguistically well-versed ex-Pharisee who apparently knew little or nothing about the Nazarene Jesus and who, however, made the pre-birthly existing Son of God and Savior of all mankind. As we know from history, after Caesarism had turned into Papacy in order to continue to survive and rule, the newly established Catholic Church (Catholic = general) came into being and all "heretical" congregations, christians or now " dissidents" were brutally persecuted and wiped out, leaving only the Roman Catholic version as the only correct one. In this respect, the question arises as to how much the books of the NT were colored Pauline or Roman Catholic so that "it is correct". Perhaps this great leap from the Jewish Nazarene to the hellenized Paul with his mighty christology is also "willed by God", as it were a new revelation of how God's way should now continue. I think everyone has to find that out and decide for himself.
The BIG Problem here IS, Not understanding What Jesus was Doing! Jesus CAME to fulfill the Law and the Prophecies. Matt. 5:17. Jesus was living under the Law, and that was SO He could fulfill the Law. Paul was living AFTER Jesus had fulfilled the Law! These both were 2 separate and distinct times. When you realize this, it puts a different light on the whole thing!
This is great. This is an incredible topic that I've always thought a lot about. The Ebionites (or sometimes referred to as the Nazarenes) who were the descendants of the original Jewish sect of Christianity, were eventually viewed as heretics of the Catholic Church because their views differed considerably from that of the Roman Catholic Church. The idea that the views and beliefs of Jesus and his disciples might have been significantly altered when introduced to Roman culture has always been a source of fascination for me.
There is an intersting article written by Sean Anyhony about "Sayf ibn Umar´s account of Paul and the corruption of Christianity". It´s based on a late and completely forged tradition of the 8th century. But it shows that stories were circulating about how early Christians split in 3 or 4 groups, each of them with their own "christology".
Just as one might expect an all-powerful all-seeing god to allow to happen to his glorious revelation! Along with having original manuscripts and first gen copies written in languages that would largely need to be reconstructed after nearly going extinct for a few centuries, and then permitting them to be lost of course, along with the first generation copies. So many things that could only have been made possible by an all-powerful all-seeing god!
It’s refreshing to hear from scholars on reasons to rejecting mimetic criticism, which in the case for Bart, the gospels resemble biographies of ancient literature
@@innocentodinkemere4597 isn’t mimetic criticism comparing the gospels to Greek literature like homer and concluding that the depictions in the gospels are more mythical? Bart Ehrman rejects such depictions in the video and also in another shorts from myth vision where he explicitly states he rejects the comparison of the gospels to Greek epics. But here he provides an explanation that it’s because he sees more similarities with the gospels and ancient biographies of Greco Roman literature. And thus they depict the life of Jesus
If you read biographies of the time, they are almost all myths, first of all because they come from oral stories, so and so said so, the author will just put it in there without any other evidence. They just don't really care about "truth" in the modern sense. If there is a rumor someone prayed and it created rain, they will put it in, which is an example from Marcus Aurelius' biography. It's only a problem for us, not for them, so if they used mimetism, it's totally normal, and does not make it any more "myth" than any biography of the time. In other words, there wasn't really any biography in the modern sense in those days. Even a thousand years later, an historian would complain all other historians didn't care about the truth and were just propagating stories without checking. So there were no history either. For us, they are all stories, maybe with grains of truth, or not. In other words, both can be correct. What's not correct is to assume biographies are true and myths are false. They are the same in that regard.
@@OneLine122 yup I agree that biographies can be not exactly 100 percent factual whether there can be distortions and they can come via mythic portrayals at times. I think Erhman does agree with such depictions in the video. But some scholars like Richard miller would propose that the gospels were entirely fictional stories created to express a certain belief for eg. What happened to Jesus didn’t have any essence of biographical truth but instead are crafted fictions to express various beliefs about Jesus
Paul references Jesus' words in Romans 6. Jesus' words are in John 8:34. Both are about being a servant of sin. Paul uses different words to express the same idea elsewhere as does Jesus.
28:15 Paul in fact states that if you are not seeking honor and glory and good deeds you will not inherit eternal life (Romans 2.5-10). So he is teaching similarly to Jesus on those points as well. The Teaching, Casting out of Demons, Healing of the sick, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension are altogether the Kingdom coming near, as Jesus started preaching after John the Baptist. That is why Paul could continue the preach the Kingdom of God is at hand while focusing on the latter events. It is still the same Gospel and requires the same love and good works in order to be saved, as fruit of the persuasion in Jesus. Paul teaches in Galatians 5.19-21 that if you are doing the works of the flesh, sins, you will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. That is right in line with Jesus' teachings, and Peter, John, and the author of Hebrews. In addition, Paul states emphatically to the Corinthians, "Awake to righteousness and DO NOT SIN! For some are without the knowledge of God. I say this to shame you." So with regards to the requirement to stop sinning and do what is right, Paul is right on board with the other New Testament teachers. including Jesus.
For those who may not know, there is a solid group of believers that recognizes the separation between Jesus and Paul, and explains it perfectly right from Scripture. Jesus was clearly a "minister of the circumcision" (Rom. 15:8) and Paul was clearly given a new "dispensation of the grace of God" that created a completely different Gospel. The truth of this is in plain sight in the scriptures, but has been buried for centuries under Catholic and pseudo-catholic (protestant) doctrine. Check out the "right division" approach to the Scriptures. You'll be glad you did.
8:08 I read that the current scholarly consensus is that there was no separate Jewish or Christian identity between the different sects, but that all factions believed that they were joining the true Israelite Judaic religion.
The differencies between the author of the Lettres and between the many authors of the various Gospels, writing from a completely different context, makes it acceptable to question whether both parties could understand each other.
Hey guys, I wrote the following in response to a different video on this subject. It was written for a different crowd and different circumstances so please understand it as such. If I were to add anything to the Bart Ehrman crowd it eould probably be that while my own background is Jewish, I have been in similar circumstances to you who is reading this right now and would have watched this video for the same reasons. Bart is incredible. It is unfortunate that some many people have a one-sided view of him as *opposing* religion rather than as *loving* religion (with reservations). That is unfortunately the price of public acclaim and success -- not because it is a *deserved* price but because we humans are jealous by nature (see the summarizing Closing One of the 10 Commandments). Being as I am calling for a religious revolution in the coming comment I would love to confer with Bart on the subject. I'm no God nor one-and-only son thereof (except of course from my own inner perspective as we are all the one and only God/His Son from our truest inner perspective). Just a super duper imperfect dude who thinks he'd enjoy making the world a little better place for all of us, bith as individuals and as loving-and-beloved members of Adamkind. Comment on Paul here ( ↕️ ) This is a very complicated subject of course. Personally I wouldn't judge Paul too harshly because his intentions were good (and perhaps his outcomes too? 🤷♂️) but he's the sort of person we've all met in our lives, "the bully who repents". Listen, I'm not perfect either. Hell, I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't either (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not). So far be it from me to think I can condemn anyone, most especially someone whose world and life is so far from my own and who tried to pull off something pretty amazing and whose words God chose to have greater influence upon humanity than almost anyone else's... My comments are presented from the dispassionate perspective I am uniquely capable of presenting due to the unique life I live. There are no ultimate "good guys" or "bad guys" in my world, except within the living context of their influence at the moment. Thus, I have discussed St. Paul aka Shaul of Tarshish. As for Paul the apostle who lives on the page in that which is know in Christian circles as "The Book" and whether we want that right now or not.... I can't say. There's no question whatsoever that the pitch of "just believe" and you're automatically better than those who don't - oh, and are thereby saved from eternal damnation in hell, unlike all those Jews over there who killed the literal one and only Son of God.... -- well that's absolutely terrible pernicious shit. At least here on Earth in the year 2023 and looking forward. Horrible, horrible stuff... At least in the public square. I have no doubt that this level of extremism does good for some people AND FURTHERMORE that it is so entangled in the warp and woof of many good communities full of good people that tearing it out is both damaging and immoral. All we ask of those individuals and communities is tolerance of our opinions. If they give us that we will be gentle with theirs when we communicate with them. We will speak the truth nas we see it but will endeavor our human best not to condemn their interpretations as evil or as heresy. But when we aren't addressing them in person or speaking ABOUT them AS PEOPLE, we will say the truth, that much of the supernatural element prevalent in the various historical Christianities is indeed both evil (by their fruits ye can known them) and heretical to the mission and intent of The 5 Books of the Torah and to all of the accepted sacred writ later appended to it. But I don't know if we can pin all of this on the writings of and about Paul in the canonized writings. Historically? Sure. He is the one who gave the traditional jewish prophetic works of Yehoshua to people who not only locked the cultural familiarity to understand them correctly, but couldn't even read or understand them in their original language. Then again, had it not been for Shaul, who knows if the doings and sayings of Yehoshua would ever have reached us today --- never mind as the foundation text for the religious background of most of the Earth's inhabitants. Thus Shaul. If you want to hear more and teach more, please visit my channel and ydydy.substack.com/ Let us bless each other and ourselves all together 🥰
Not being able to imagine you're wrong, is not a good trait for a scholar: And: "Unless Matthew made it up, it must have come from somewhere, so therefore it comes from somewhere". Well, no he could have made it up.
There is a middle ground - it comes from somewhere, just not from Jesus. Like from stories in the OT or from pagan myths. Many people feel the Lion King is based on Hamlet, neither of which is true.
Yes, Gospels were all made up from ealier religion Its more than likely that Mathew never existed either. A Gospel is a God Spell (Go-spel) and the bible is a "Book of Spells" Jesus never existed as a real person
@@je-freenorman7787 I agree with your first part but from what I can find on the etymology of "gospel," the first part is from "good" (the second "o" got dropped) and the second part is from another meaning of "spell," a story. I thought the second part was also related to "spiel" but apparently not.) I was always told gospel meant good news. Not that any of this relates to the validity of these stories - back to yes, all made up.
The fact that Paul was a persecutor of those believing in Jesus at that time and then all of a sudden became a solid believer to the extent that he abandoned his old way of life including his high rank, wealth and social status only shows that he really found some truth in it big time. He was really sure about it that he became willing to even risk his own life for it so many times. Think of it, changing your beliefs is one thing but risking your life for that belief is another thing. it's not only one or twice he almost died during his ministry but instead of stopping he even became more aggressive in his teaching even when he was in jail. his actions clearly shows that he's into something way better and more important than his own life. it's like a reward where getting that reward and dying is better than living a good long life with no reward. he was convinced 100% with the promise of resurrection and that's why in one of his letter he said that if the resurrection isn't real then it would be better if they'll just eat and get drunk and enjoy life like what most people were commonly doing. There's no question that Jesus existed and even non biblical historian like Josephus who lives in the 1st century wrote about him (even though his non-believer) cause he was sure that there's really someone named Jesus that was crucified by the romans. Now whether it's true or not that he resurrected from the dead, the only evidence we have is the bible and the fact that no other plausible reason as to why his body was missing in the tomb. if only his body didn't became missing then we probably won't even heard the word Christianity at all today cause that missing body or the resurrection of Him that's the main foundation of Christianity. it was the reason why Paul and other apostles were willing to sacrifice their own life just to fulfill their mission of preaching the gospel. if this was just some traditions with no basis then why after more than 2000 years there's still people that believes in it. even roman emperor like constantine knew that he doesn't have chance to discredit the facts and would end up in his empire being divided if he will go against it so he decided that the best option for him is to take it in and became christian himself so that the whole empire can be united again.
A lot of people that had a lot of priviligies, changed to protected the persecuted trough story. Only christians think that what happened to Paul is a one time event in history, and is not.
@@jgphilosophy9963 honestly, i came to that idea before, i thought that maybe there's no tomb and the resurrection and even the crucifixion were just made up stories by Jesus's primary apostles in order for their newly found religion to gain more popularity and therefore more members. but then i realized that if that's the case then who did Paul saw on his way to Damascus? Does it mean Paul was also lying in all of his writings? And why did he shifted from being enemy to becoming a solid believer? I can't think of any possible advantage Paul can get for doing that. Even if let say there's no Paul that existed and let say his story was also made up by Jesus's primary apostle (although it's a bit hard for that kind of lies to succeed especially when they're lying to people who were also alive during that time, it would only need skeptical follower and the whole newly found religion will be gone right there and then. And to think that those primary apostles of Jesus would make up stories to gain popularity doesn't add up to the whole narrative because as we all know they all suffered a lot, enemies hunt them down and tortured them but they don't care and still push through their missions to spread what they knew at witnessed from this Jesus. Honestly, if i lived during those time and an apostle will approach me to become one of them, i might not accept knowing their situations, how dangerous it would be to be a member, underground meetings etc. And if I'm an apostle and I know that everything was all made up stories then i wouldn't risk my life knowing that i'm not going to be resurrected at all. Making up stories is bad but other people do especially if it will benefit them like making them famous or to gain respect and other possitive effects, but not to be wanted by many and get killed. Like i said, i will only do those kind of stupid looking things (like leaving my family and friends, my hometown just to end up hiding and running and risking my life) if i am really sure of the reward. Resurrection was something unheard of that time so unless I myself saw the proof that Jesus really died and then i saw him again alive and kicking then there's no way i will join in spreading the news. It's not something like putting large amount of my money on the line where i can maybe try my luck for a good reward and if it's not real then just accept that i got scammed, it's life that's at risks here and there will be no chance to recover if everything failed. I don't think the apostles were that stupid to go to different places to make more followers even if let say they'll get paid for doing it, the risk is too high for someone to accept that kind of mission. The thing is, while they were spreading the news, they were also hearing news of their fellow apostles being killed one after another in different places, but instead of losing members, it's complete opposite cause Christianity is growing even more. There's only one thing left to try here, 'what if there's no Apostles?' Then even the word Christianity won't be existing today. It won't even be reaching Emperor Constantine's time which was only couple hundred years after the time the apostles started on their deadly journey to go around the world. If only the apostles were lazy or got scared for their lives, maybe even Constantine wouldn't known that Christianity exists. But history tells us (not the bible) how much Christianity affects the biggest empire at that time. Constantine didn't just heard about it, it's bugging him to the point that he got really scared that his kingdom was in danger and his only option is to join them. And historians were not lying cause there's the Roman Catholic Church that Constantine founded to reunite his Roman Empire at tbat time. Don't trust the bible but at least believe the historians and believe Constantine that he wasn't just being stupid that he built his Roman church without ordering deep investigation to make sure that the Jesus that those Christians were talking about was a real person..There's only couple hundred years difference and he's an emperor so he would for sure know the truth. None of us living today saw George Washington in person to prove his existence, everything we knew about him was just passed down to us generation after generation either verbal or thru writings starting from those who witnessed his presence did 500yrs ago, and yet none of us ever doubt that he's a real person otherwise we won't even be interested in his lifestory at all. Constantine and Jesus is way closer than Washington to us now and he probably heard about Jesus mostly from the texts that matthew, mark, luke, and john wrote unless there's other written records existing that time that never reached us today, but most likely if he ordered some researching about Jesus it would be the writings of those 4 that will be presented to him, not as a gospel or anything religious but as a written history that would explain to him wbo Jesus really was. Right there and then he would kmow if the characters including Pontius Pilate really existed in their records. He won't subject himself into being a Christian without first knowing who Christ is because it his entire empire that he will convert into believing in Jesus and not just him alone..I hope you get my point here bro, I'm not imposing any religjon here as even I myself doesn’t have one. It's logical reasoning that I am using and not faith or any beliefs. :)
@harmar4181 I'm sure there were stories about the empty Tomb floating around, but you're Pre- Supposing that Paul's vision was true. It is a common phenomenon that people see well known dead figures and religious figures in visions. The more likely scenario is that Paul had a vision similar to the visions people of all religions can have.
@@jgphilosophy9963 your idea that Jesus had no tomb at all and that what Paul saw was just a vision, does that mean you didn't believed that Jesus died or that there's no Jesus at all? i will respect whatever your belief is, i just want to know..thanks
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!!
Did Paul decide what he accepted as the correct teaching and told others to get their act together? To me Paul’s teachings challenge other Christian’s beliefs and that of other teachers. He pushed his interpretation and teaching.
Christians are followers of Paul (and Peter) and his (Paul's) gospel. Paul never met Jesus, unless you take his word for his encounter. Paul openly murdered the followers of Christ. He had very little association with the apostles or their teachings. In his own words. Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that was preached by me, that is not according to man; 1:12 for NEITHER RECEIVED I IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT THROUGH A REVELATION OF CHRIST. Romans 3:7 for if the truth of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16... I am crafty, and caught you all by trickery Acts 12:23 and behold the hand of the LORD is upon thee, and thou SHALT BE BLIND, not seeing the sun for a season. Here, Paul is causing harm to an enemy, through "prayer" that would be considered black magic. Peter has similar accounts of causing harm to other enemies. Jesus said to love your enemies, and turn the other cheek. Jesus also healed the blind, while Paul caused a guy to go blind. Acts 20:9 and a young man... who sat in a window... as Paul discoursed...fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead 20:10 but Paul went down, and fell upon him and embracing him said: be not troubled; for his life is in him. 20:12 and they broughtthe young man alive. (WOW, somebody by Paul, "fell" out of a window, died, then was presumably brought back to life by Paul. A convenient "miracle") Acts 22:3... being a zealot for God, as all of you are this day, Acts 22:24 I persecuted this way even to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women Acts 20:26 I solemnly affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all. 1 Corinthians 9:20 I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law, NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER LAW, that I might gain these under law. 9:21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. 9:22 to the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: TO ALL I BECAME ALL THINGS, THAT BY ALL MEANS, I might save some. 20:23 AND ALL THINGS I DO FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL. Romans 3:7 for if the "truth" of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged a sinner? 2 Corinthians 12:16 NEVERTHELESS, I AM CRAFTY, AND CAUGHT YOU ALL BY TRICKERY The guy is admittedly a murderer, liar, deceiver, telling people what they want to hear, causing harm to others, clean of the blood of any wrong doing, while preaching to everyone that are going to reap what they sow. Claiming his gospel is inspired by God, and not by those who were personally with Christ on a daily basis.
Jesus also said as Paul did that He had to die for us to live… “Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 NKJV Only through Christ’s death and resurrection is the verse above possible to do.
Jesus to Paul: Hey man, I was a jew throughout my life, I'm not God Sorry. Paul: Oh, No I didn't establish Christianity, but Marison did. Marcion: Shut up stupids, I created your characters, you have no right to interfere.
Marcion didn't create anything, he was called a heretic by the majority of Christians during his time who knew of Paul and Jesus long before him. You can also look up the first century writing of Clement in wich he mentions Paul and some Apostles and Jesus, before Marcion.
@@DrazenPerkovic-p8j Smoke doesn't come without fire. My point is, the characters are chosen by the compiler of the book. Every story and character is influenced by real incidents and happenings only, but stories are always dramatized. There could be a real Jesus and a real Paul but no real miracle ever happens
@@freethinker3054 your so free your brain fell out and you lost your mind : LOL 😆 . Prove no miracles happened : you obviously can't: and the Pharasees didn't even say that as they saw the miracles and heard from hostile eye witnesses of Lazarus Resurrection. They said Jesus just did them by the Power of Satan. U living 2,000 years removed are clueless.
@@freethinker3054 exactly!!!! remember the whole Jesus character , starts off from the intentional mistranslated, Virgin birth, in Isaiah in the original story..
@@3wolfsdown702 There is no original story brother. In deep roots, stories are taken from surrounding cultures and made their own in at least 3-4 hundred years. The best example from India, A 100years ago mad beggar named Sai now a famous God. They even created books and added his miracle stories. Irony, he was illiterate, arrogant, mad, and stupid. He has millions of followers.
The fundamental mistake that Bart and others make is in assuming that Paul's teaching vis a vis the teaching of Jesus is represented entirely by the letters. Paul also gave lectures and no doubt some people took notes. Paul was also a miracle worker and no doubt stories circulated about these events. Putting this all together we have in Paul a template for a life of Jesus and that is what we find in Matthew.
Of course is about his letters. We have no record of this lectures you are mentioning. So we can basically invent anything about them. Historians work with evidence, a thing christianity is lacking. But is great that you have to admit that Paul letters is a complete different theology from Jesus, so much that you have to use un-recorded lectures and miracles to try to aproximate one to another.
@@sonofcronos7831 we do have a record of the oral teaching of Paul. It's called the gospel according to Matthew. Also read the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It's a record of the way Paul used to speak to the believers in the churches.
But Christ also spoke about his death and resurrection. - "I am the resurrection and the life" - "just as moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness the son of man would be lifted up" - " Blessed are those who haven't seen and yet have believed"
Paul says, "believe MY Gospel," which is totally different from Jesus' Gospel in the Red Letters in the four Gospel books. Paul's chronology of his conversion (3 versions of it) don't add up.
Again, if you learn the language properly with etymology you might learn and be Able? to understand that a gospel is a god spell. and the bible is basically, a book of spells
You see, any real magician knows that believers are the target So , they need believers to follow them Right? lol HA ah ah ah Religion, is the biggest scam in the world and government is the slavery that results from it
@@je-freenorman7787 Oh good lord, to think that people like you are out there in society. Gospel is a Middle English substitute for a Koine greek word that means “good news”. Nothing to do with “casting a spell”, that is absurd! The English language did not exist when these books were written let alone did the word “spell” mean something cast by wizards.
In the fundamentalist Church of Christ, the Gospel Jesus was the emotional component, love, praise, and worship of whom was expressed in most of the hymns and gospel songs. Paul's Epistles dominated theological and administrative aspects of the church that almost all the sermons focused on.
@@je-freenorman7787 I didn't say "the Gospel of Jesus". 🙄 I said "The Gospel Jesus". By that i meant the character "Jesus" in the four gospels of the New Testament.
I like the definition by Bart. Christianity is a religion about Jesus not by Jesus. It all happened due to this man called Paul who invented a divine Jesus to market his religion to the Roman Gentiles whereas Jesus was an ordinary messiah to the Children of Israel. By projecting a human Jesus to divinity he paved the way for gnosticism and Catholicism
It's interesting that Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism combine the teachings of Jesus and Paul. There are Orthodox holy pictures of Paul and Peter embracing. And many Catholic churches in America today are named "St. Peter and Paul". When the Gospel is read in these denominations' churches, the people stand. When Paul's epistles are read,the congregation remains seated. Paul is regarded as vital. But Jesus' words supercede.
I have no problem understanding that the origin points of all the various theisms are set on human stages. That much is self evident, but knowing what we know about the human mind and it's ability to manufacture meaning and graft fanciful, supernatural associations onto events, dashed hopes, traumas, expectations, etc. is what makes me dismiss them all. Again, if there is, in fact a God who wants humanity to know Him, Her, or It, and It posesses the attributes ascribed to It, (i.e., omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolance) I'm confident it is capable making itself known to ALL in a clear and compelling way. If not, it's all a speculation filled circle jerk.
Your ignorance is overwhelming as God used mankind to write His Story: God didn't dictate a book 4 angels to bring down . It's an ancient text that needs to be understood in its own Context : not your understanding from the 21st century. Staying ignorant isn't going to help you improve your understanding C. jerk.
Well-pointed. Genuine God who desires humanity to know Him would not have allowed us to doubt His divinity or place His historicity surrounding him in the center of controversy just AS it has been the case with Jesus and Christianity up until the PRESENT DAY.
These guys know jack. Don't get fooled. I am gonna tell you right now that I would have a field day with these 2. And after I finished, you would be converted and welcomed to true peace from a loving God. Peace to you muslim.
@@markhodges5138 I'm willing to come to your faith if you can prove to me from your Bible that your faith is not against the preaching and practice of Jesus of the Bible.
@@truthdoesntcomeeasy743 the Bible states that we need to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV). This means we need to realise that while the Bible is written to us, not all of it is written for us. Jesus is the Messiah to the Jews, but he is Lord and Saviour to those in the Body of Christ under the current dispensation of Grace. During the Law of Moses, people needed faith and works for salvation but under the current dispensation, we are saved by our faith alone in what Christ accomplished (his "workmanship") on the Cross. Christ came to fulfill the Law and start a new Covenant with man. This doesn't mean that the 10 commandments are invalid but that the Law is now written on our hearts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 10 (KJV) 16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;" 17 "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." 18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." 19 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," 20 "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" 21 "And having an high priest over the house of God;" Ephesians 2 (KJV) 8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" 9 "Not of works, lest any man should boast." 10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
if a man who used to hate Jesus, and used to oppress the followers of Jesus, and then, suddenly, he claimed that Jesus appeared to him, and told him to go and preach by his name, and claimed things that Jesus never said, while he was on earth, and he changed a lot of things in the teachings of Jesus do you think that it is logic to follow that man?
I grew up Catholic…love this because this sums up all the arguments I had growing up with Protestants about Faith vs Works…say what you will about the Catholic Church but at least our core beliefs are more in line with the actual namesake of the religion in direct contrast with the Paulestants
I also grew up Catholic . at every Mass they actually read from the gospels where Jesus is speaking. I went to a Protestant church with my wife for a long time and I was amazed how little they read from the actual words of Jesus. I came to the conclusion that the only thing they were concerned with was John 3:16. Actually doing what Jesus taught you to do was obviously too difficult.
@@aleonyohan6745 I was recommended a Catholic Mass livestream recently here on UA-cam. I am not Catholic, but I listened in and found them to be quoting Paul just as frequently as the Gospels. Besides that, I think a speck of fecal matter in a cake ruins in the whole thing.
Paulestant? But the catholic church considers Paul one the their founders. Is Paul a enemy of the catholic church? Interesting how christianity has such divisions.
To take it back a step, Conan Doyle based Holmes on his mentor, Dr. Joseph Bell, who was a real person, great at making deductions from minimum evidence but was a medical doctor, not a criminal detective. So Doyle did use actual elements, but still Holmes was fictional.
@@johnnehrich9601... so there was a guy who was clever and Doyle made a clever character in his fictive tales... does that make the tales historical and biographical? Which is what the claim about the Gospels is
Using your argument, any historical writing should be considered fictional because some authors base fictional stories around real people. Which is of course nonsense.
@@PC-vg8vn ... based on your illogic any fictional writing is historical because they used real stuff in the fictive story... which is of course codswallop.
The vast majority of Evangelicals should be called Paulians rather than Christians. They focus almost exclusively on Paul's teachings, policies and rules, and virtually ignore those of Jesus.
Wow, how much more distorted can you get, I pray that you open your eyes Mr Ehrman( that is, your spiritual eyes ) before you meet your maker (so to speak), because once you do, it will be too late !!!
derek ,you sound is as clear as a bell, best i've heard ,thanks .bart's not as good .love the way bart really focuses on what you're saying . you can see his big brain fully coming on line .
@@je-freenorman7787 Because the Gentiles defeated them, destroyed their temple and expelled them into the diaspora. Then there is their previous exclusivity. Now that's four obvious reasons. Do you need more?
Paul never knew Jesus so there is no base for any agreement between a historic Jesus and Paul. You can also ask: did the post conversion (essenic) Paul and Paul of the letters have the same religion.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Paul was Titus,Titus crucified Jesus Lucifer along with 2 million Zionists, they wouldn't stop sacrificing to their God Yahweh, Jesus just means saviour in Greek, Titus called all rebellious leaders Jesus, Mary was what the Romans called all rebellious women, Magdala was a town near Galilee, Titus was the Christ.
@@davidjanbaz7728 You are right: i know nothing! But i doubt very much that there was a crucifi(ct|x)ion during the passah in jerusalem. What is however clear to me is, that the ca 14-17 year period of Pauls silence and the contents starting with 1Thes needs some explanation. The letter Paul is a novelty.
@@iwilldi no doubt of that crucifixion durant pessah is crossreliable with grec and jew source. And speaking about silence tell us about why you have ko source to confirm any polemic about cruxifixion (until islam… very late and very far)
And this: 3. Jesus' "Golden Rule" corresponded with Jewish and Biblical sentiments that were much older than Eastern versions. Who ripped off who? In Jesus day, the negative form of the "Golden Rule" was well known in rabbinic writings and teachings. Typically attributed to Hillel the Elder (110-10 BC), (6) it's likely that Jesus would have been aware of it. Jesus, Hillel, and other Jewish teachers got this idea from Leviticus 19:18 which states, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The book of Leviticus was written in the 1400's BC, making it almost 1,000 years older than its Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, or Confucianist counterparts.
I tried to watch, but it's too painful. Watch his face expression at 3:17 when he asks Derek: "Are they experts?. I'd rather El-hrman do a course on methodology so that he can explain why his criteria are historically, scientifically valid.
@@bmbrod34 My comment was too vague and you got me wrong, sorry. I was pointing at Ehrman typical dismissive attitude towards people who he considers are not prepared to deal with certain topics. He usually resorts to ad hominem responses so that he doesn't have to deal with the evidence. Yes, some amateur youtubers consider themselves more educated than they are. They should take a degree in Ancient History, for example, because this is the way you really get to know a discipline: the hard way. However, I think Derek is more honest and his effort to bring in so many different scholars has to be praised. He's grown in knowledge and his work as a host has also improved through the years.
and if the Bible says, that Adam and Eve, were the first 2 humans then would everyone be a descendant of them? HA Ya right and why are people today, following the words of other people from 2000 years ago that say, they followed another man that was only 33 years old when he died and left no writings of his own in any language and there are no pictures of him ?
oh and Hebrew is Semitic and so is Arabic and Aramaic whoch would make Islam Semitic also Semtic refers to a group of languages and the semites who were supposed to be Biblical descendants of Noah / Shem also where caucasian come from They were also supposed to be Aryans
It's really very simple, Jesus (not His real name) was a Jew therefore His religion was Jewish, but so many people who claim to be Christian also hate Jews so they don't want to acknowledge this fact. There is no doubt that 'the brand' of Christianity we have in either the Catholic or Orthodox churches today appear to be based upon Paul's and the church's own 'holy fathers' ideas rather than Jesus.
If youre interested in history and you don’t have a background in acedemia or history, the thing you’d benefit from the most is taking a course or reading as much as you can about historiography or history of history. Whenever I see an an academic talking to a keen amateur this is always happening, with the questioner getting bogged down in ‘HOW do we know anything?’ etc. Scholarship is not like faith and it’s not like ‘science’ in the way it’s been presented to the public by popular science authors. You either have to learn this and save yourself years of time or just move on. There’s no point in this musing on the nature of knowledge from a non academic perspective.
@@chighinestorr1086 People would’ve complained if the original commenter (OC) had written a lengthy essay on epistemology and historiography. What the OC is trying to say (without a lot of words) is that this is not the forum for that discussion (as I understand the OC). You can debate the premise or not; you can complain that the OC did a poor job making their point (which I personally would agree with). You can ask the OC for clarification. But to dismiss out of hand that the OC is saying “absolutely nothing” says more about the state of your knowledge (and manners) than that of the OC
@@sbmcgonagle9671 firstly, I did an excellent job at ‘making my point’. You failed to understand it, which is a separate issue, but it was quite clear. There is no ‘epistemological’ conversation between a scholar and a lay person which would in any way be of any benefit to anybody. The salient point is that historians methods are easy to understand. Not that they’re easy to do well, but they don’t require extensive conversation. Save the cod philosophy for...I don’t know, a philosophy seminar. It’s advisable to read a little about historiography, and upon doing that either accept the validity of history as a discipline or don’t. There’s an incredible opportunity here to ask a renowned scholar anything you want, and it’s just wasted on questions a competent high school teacher could answer, that aren’t even especially pertinent to his area of expertise.
@@chighinestorr1086 I’m sorry if that came across as patronising. I’m in favor of the idea of the amateur historian, because I do think it can be a field that allows for that. But you do need to know a little of what it is historians do, and to accept its validity. If you don’t you just get stuck in conspiracy theory land. What you don’t need to be doing is musing and philosophising. I suppose there’s not a polite way to say this but it’s better being said than not.
@@sbmcgonagle9671 I know you think you're pretty smart and all but you've ALSO join the line of long-winded and substantially uninspiring blabbermouths.
Jesus clearly taught that he had to die and be resurrected and that if he did not go back to heaven the Holy Spirit could not come and guide us into all TRUTH. Jesus is the Truth and He said if I be lifted up . I will draw all men to me .
I am so glad i believe,accept and live my life in a coherent, reasonable, logical and most of all a loving religion. Attacked from all angles but it still remains the only course for the whole world and for all time.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
Not exactly. There were multiple strands of early Christianity. The proto-orthodoxy rejected Paul as well, but then Paul was reincorporated perhaps to unite the church. In the Middle Ages the Bogomils and Cathars claimed they were the followers of an earlier Christianity of Paul at it originated in Turkey, so it very well may have been a Paul tradition, but the Catholic Church persecuted them. The followers of Paul wanted to reject the Old Testament all together.
Sign up For Bart Ehrman's new course Paul & Jesus: The Great Divide
mythvisionpodcast.com/jesusvspaul
Definitely signing up for this
Remember the whole virgin birth story starts off from intentional mistranslations!!! Myth!!!!but I understand Bart wants to sell Christian Based books and has to continue the charade?????
Bart erman needs to watch the Star Wars video.... by Paulogia...
Or discuss the comic book Analogies of a real New York in the spider man world.
I think hes a bit too close minded to consider that it all might be just a myth
Also I don't think they are historical books as they are poticial ... if he doesn't want to say they're just flat out only religious books.
They are written to persuade not to discuss recorded acts.
@@PeterFortuna "they are written to persuade"... yes indeed and in fact they say so explicitly in the books... they are pure peddling and hawking propaganda for a cultist myth.
Bart is finally taking the gloves off and going to the core of the problem with Christianity. People are more focused on Paul's words than Jesus'.
This argument sounds more like mercantilist scholarly mumbo jumbo, I don't see it in the Bible, show me please
That's not Christianity, it's core Protestantism that overemphasizes Paul.
@@RomanPaganChurch Support your arguments with the Bible
@@innocentodinkemere4597 read the other comments. Paul and Jesus had fundamental differences
@@germanboy14
heuh ? granddad and grandson, realy ? ? no ; it's all in the family, it's all made up including the differences they are keen to sliver about. but it isn't true, just more astounding rubbish from NT and MV
Bart Ehrman has such a logical approach to his writings and even his "off the top of his head" responses are so logical and quick witted. Hard not to love the guy! Thanks for this wonderful interview!
Wow you find logic in his narratives??? Amazing...
Loving your work brother. Thank you for all the amazing content you're putting out. It's honest, real, rigorous. passionate work like this that the world desperately needs. Thank you.
I am a Christian and I loved this video. It gives me hope that we can have reasonable and sober discussions about these questions. Thanks for making this!
The more I study the NT the more I see flaws in it
@@Isaac5123 No , your just buying his reinterpretations of the N.T.
Christianity starts off with intentional lies,and misinterpretations -virgin birth" that's not in the original Isaiah story..
Bart's just wants to sell christian-based books so he's got to continue the charade
@@3wolfsdown702 Amen
@@ardalla535cope harder 😂
I don't always agree with Bart, but there's no denying his deep knowledge and his easily understood explanations. Love this interview! Everyone should sign up for Bart's blog if you can!
what are his falsehoods?
he is assuming a lot without much proof.
but those scholars always do.
they sound like they know a lot. but do they really?
i see it as an opinion. not as the truth...
@ClaimClam They aren't so much falsehoods as they are simple disagreements. For example, Bart doesn't grant that the Gospels directly parallel aspects of the Homeric myths. I agree more with Dennis Macdonald and think that they do. Bart also dismisses the Mar Saba letter. I'm more in James Tabor's camp on that one. Still, I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Bart says. The disagreements are relatively minor.
@@J_Z913 great elaboration!
@@Marabarra134 When looking at history that far in the past, there is not Capital T Truth.
It's finding and looking at the available evidence and coming to conclusions based on that. There’s never going to be 100% accuracy in scholarship or in historical analysis, but you can get pretty close with the evidence we do have.
‘Lost Christianities’ was the book by Dr E that truly illustrated to me the impossibility of basing a religion on a 2000 year game of ‘telephone’, with a massively complicated history of borrowings from former and later belief systems, as it continued to evolve into the directions that humans needed Christianity to go, to suppor and legitimize their regimes. Pure , fascinating human silliness
I don't think that the radiant products of the Jesus movement are necessarily delusional. I think the problem of creating a religion lies in what you exclude and bury and why you are excluding it and burying it, but also what you embellish and why you are embellishing
We can take for instance Anat in the Israelite religion. Anat was a goddess from the middle euphrates that had a higher status in early Judges that gives buried in Jahudite inscription and yet Anat is the wife of Yahweh in Elephantine Egypt. How does a goddess like Anat get to Egypt if not through Israel (ancient canaan to the exilic period). The jahudite version of early israelite history tries to bury canaanite elohim by confuscation of terms and relationships. The reason they do this is because they need to push the Yahweh of the 9th or 10th century BCE into the 11th to 15th century bce and in order for them to do that the gods of their heros need to mover aside so Yahweh can get the credit for their peity.
The work done by the Yacobian jesus followers needs to be pushed aside so that credit can be given to Paul and his 'Christ' followers for all the successors, because otherwise we would need to give credit to Ananus ben Ananus, The sicari and Zealots, Vespasian and Titus for essentially wiping the Jewish jesus followers out allowing the greco-roman jesus followers to move in and take control. This creates a strong bias in the literature towards Marks more literary framework that is a backbone of the most important part of the gospels, the passion narrative. Once the authors accept marks ending as a framework, then adding birth narratives are just normal aspects of that kind of god-genesis framework.
Clearly it isn’t impossible at all.
You’re missing the point entirely. Impossible? Those are the perfect circumstances for basing a religion. Perhaps your expectations of religion are different than mine.
Logos Idea in Christianity is very coherent if there was a basic understanding of the original philosophy.
But in the modern era it is very difficult because, philosophy itself marginalized idealism, Gottfried Leibniz was perhaps the last Christian Neo-Platonist, and Kant a secular idealist. In the British tradition idealism was mostly rejected during the enlightenment and the modern logical positivism also rejects secular idealism.
The issue is many early Christians were obviously not material reductionist AT ALL. The Platonist tradition was one of the strongest influences on early Christianity. And Plato did not believe in an anthropomorphic literalist God, only a transcendent one, that is imminent via the Logos, to believe otherwise would be idolatry.
Some of the earliest Christian writers were Platonist and Pythagorean, Philo (who was not a Christian) was called the Pythagorean and was referenced by the Christians.
What is the basic idea? There is more to the world than the material appearance. A deeper understanding can be gained by attaining virtues which are manifestation of the Logos like reason and ethics. Jesus is the right Logos, ethical philosopher, just as Socrates demonstrated the Logos of reason, and the writer of the Psalms poetic aesthetic Logos. (Reference Justin Martyr)
We can find the virtues within as the Logos is eternal (innate) and Jesus is the guide to an ethical and spiritual way of being in the world, the kingdom of eternity heaven is right in front of us, we must wake up to see and experience it.
This idea was in the work of Justin, Origen, St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus, acquinas, Erasmus all the way to Paul Tillich and those that preserve the Logos theology.
A reverent attitude to truth and love of others and “God” the experience of existence and the deeper dimensions of life.
There is a major difference between telephone and scripture from that time. There is only one author in the Bible that didn't have to follow the witness under death rule from the time, that is Paul.
As a moslem, I feel I am a true follower of the real historical Jesus (peace be upon him), which is completely different from the Pauline Christianity that Paul preached. Paul has completely corrupted Jesus’s teachings and brought about a new religion . After reverting to Islam, I love Jesus and his mother Virgin Mary more than ever before, when I read the Quran, I learn about the true Jesus and Mary (peace be upon them).
I urge you to read the Quran.
Jesus has been mentioned 25 times in the Quran, Mary was mentioned 34 times in the Quran. Islam is unique in that it is very simple to understand, and answers all difficult questions.
The Quran is the word of God that has never been altered, and preserved from the day it was revealed to prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). Can you Imagine that there is only one version of Quran in the whole world, that is read by 1.7 billion moslems around the world, no 2 versions.
Compare that to the plethora of gospels that contradict each other, that were written by anonymous people, 40-70 years after Jesus, in a different language (greek), in places fat away from the land of Jesus, by people who never met him, and who did not speak his language, several generations after.
B. Ehrman is an inspiring scholar. I‘m atheist (of course;) but very much interested in religion, especially the christian religion. Ehrman is one of the best sources you can find in these days.
😂 No he's not. The only thing he's doing is parroting stuff he read when he himself was at university in the 70's. He's basically quoting a handful of German scholars (I know because I am German and had to read that stuff myself when studying theology). That's were his knowledge ends. I never heard one single original thought out of his mouth. Let alone anything that contradicts the handful of theories he constantly repeats. That's not scholarship at all.
@@MrSeedi76 Even if you're correct--which I doubt--about the originality of Bart's scholarship, he obviously has a very deep knowledge of the New Testament, and his perspective as an atheist enables him to see and communicate relationships between early Christian texts that Christian scholars either don't see or don't communicate effectively to a broad audience.
@@parsonj39 Totally agreed.
trouble is as your an atheist you clearly havent even read scripture nor are you versed in its meaning and doctrines, then tell me how can YOU even suggest you "know" anything? If you want to pull something apart, ie even reverse engineer it you have to at least understand how it works! what an idiot!
@@parsonj39 He might have a very deep knowledge of the New Testament and he can deliver a plausible story to a broad audience as a historian. Yet you need to remember there is a clear limit to his plausible historical account- it can't be THE one conclusive story. If he is a true scholar his needs keep his balance. His historical account can't be proven and its probabilites of being true couldn't be measured. He needs to focus on that point when he communicate with lay persons.
Christianity needs to be renamed as "Paulism". Paul is responsible for the jesus that we know today.
Yupp
But, Jesus is responsible for THE WAY I love
That's like if you went to college you didn't major in physics you majored in Harvard
Yup, came to this conclusion 30 years ago.
@@ThinkTwice2222 No, it’s like if you went to the young Earth creationist museum and learned about physics. You didn’t really learn about physics, you learned about the egregiously wrong Biblical teaching of physics.
Congrats Derek: you've hit your silver plaque mark, well deserved
Bart continually raises for me many issues around definitions of what really is "Christianity". More and more it seems that the only thing that defines it is that there is a central belief in Jesus as being some kind of special messenger sent by God. But apart from that it is a huge mess of ideas, claims and traditions that is an impossible maze to navigate.
He made a very crucial point that is missed by virtually all Christians. We can't really say whether ANY of the followers of Jesus in the first generation actually considered themselves to have left Judaism to form a new religion. Right up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and before that the death of James, the vast majority of the followers of Jesus still considered themselves to be practicing a form of Judaism, not Christianity.
Well Paul is pretty early. The didache. Potentially Mark. And you can sort of work your way up from there. Exegete the earliest stuff first as best you can then work your way through the timeline doing the same. Then make an educated guess.
The New Testament, if you consider it early enough and potentially reliable enough to be worth the study, is a good picture of early Christian thinking by virtue of the fact that its early Christian documents. (I understand that Christianity was not one unified whole, but this is the best we can do).
For the record I think the message of the New Testament, and it's really not hard to see, is that Jesus is a human being, potentially born of a virgin/miracle of God, he taught God will soon fix the world through him then he suffered died was resurrected, and instructed his disciples to carry on his message of thay God will fix the world soon through him, start living like it and prepare.
When it comes to the nuance if how to live like it and prepare this is where the potential Paul vs Jesus argument comes into play.
Nothing about the Lutheran nonsense about "faith vs works" but rather "faith vs works *of the law* [of Moses])" To say it as simply and dumbed down as possible, if you think Jesus taught all must become Jews, that is to say to completely follow every single law of the law of Moses then Paul was certainly at odds with Jesus. However if you think Jesus did not teach that one must follow every single law of the law of Moses then Paul was not at odds with Jesus teaching.
The compilation of writings that form the New Testament, whether someone thinks they accurately reflects their 1st copies or not, certainly favor the 2nd option. That Jesus's teachings were compatible with not being a Jew, ie he did not make a teaching that people MUST be circumcised like the author of Genesis and then Moses later did.
The idea in the New Testament is that Jesus had his own teaching, some of which was similar to Moses, some of which was different and that Paul understood this first before even the disciples and fought for that idea. His main concerns were that no Gentile thought they had to get Mosaically circumcised, observe certain Mosaic dietary restriction, or observe certain Mosaic days of the year as religiously special.
That is really what the issue is, would Jesus have agreed or disagreed with Paul on those 3 things...
agreed yes. it's not even clear that he really existed.
the scholars think that they can extract truth from the gospels.
they can't, they are assuming things without proof.
Of course, before Constantine, there were many, many different gnostic groups.
Constantine forced a more united, one church. Basically, the remaining gnostic groups were declared heretics. Then, came the east/west divide in to Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic church, and then, of course the reformation, which, eventually led to the many many "denominations" of today. So what we see today is not much different from what it was like before Constantine, or is it?
@@ji8044 I doubt anybody who read the Bible misses this. This is as plain as ABC, but the question is, so what? I don't see the Paul vs Jesus issue here, Paul was as Jewish as possible, a Pharisee of Pharisees. Show me the issue in this please?
Love the topic and love Dr. Ehrman's insights on this. As a Christian, I dove into the words of Jesus and was astonished at how much at odds his thinking is with Paul's letters.
That's why you don't pay attention to Paul's letters you throw them out or your burn them, but you don't give any credit to them🤔
@@mickeydecurious What would Christianity be without Paul? It probably wouldn't even exist anymore since it wasn't succeeding as a sect of Judaism. If it did, it would probably be a Jewish sect where "the messiah" had already come, but Orthodox jewish law were still followed.
@@travis1240
Technically Jewish Orthodox laws were supposed to be followed, that was the whole message of Jesus was to come back to the true living God of Israel, and prepare yourself for the end; the teachings and everything got turned on its head once Paul opened up his mouth in the gentiles started giving him Money🤔
Then let's not even talk about the Roman Catholic Church getting a hold of it and getting in bed with the Roman government in order to force this belief unto others, sound familiar 🤔
Let's face it they've been beating society with that book of fables for over two thousand years now! When will it end, when will society as a whole stand up and say enough with your schizophrenic hateful blood cult🤔 Maybe after every one of the gen x, we die out? When most the congregation of these churches die? When will enough of this hateful cult be held accountable for their sins against Humanity for the last thousands of years 😔 When will woman start getting common sense and stay as far away from this religion as we can get?!
This refutes Christianity because it makes Jesus and his death or resurrection useless. You don't need him, just keep the commandments for eternal life.
@@mickeydecurious Burning texts, now thats proper christian.
Aaaah! One of my very favourite biblical scholars. Awesome, great educator and thinker.
I started listening to Bart Ehrman while driving in my car. I would go to the library and check his audio out from the Great Courses selection. He was integral in my understanding some of the more harder biblical texts and scriptures in the Bible. He was also integral in my understanding of it and how I further deconstructed religion from my life after turning away from the church six years earlier. This led me to read other things not just relating to Christianity itself, but the falling away from it such as Freedom From Religion, Black Atheists, then over to Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hichens, Carl Sagan, and so on. And I have never looked back. Taking this deeper dive helped me to know even more than the Christians of said religion in my life and around me. Once, I knew and learned what I did, I couldn't unlearn it to save many of my relationships as some of my family, friends, and the church turned their backs on me as I asked questions that they couldn't answer, didn't want to answer, or couldn't continue to lie about. I was armed and it served me well and my deconstruction was permanent. And I have passed it down to my own offspring. If they want to believe, that's fine. But no one was indoctrinating them unless they were of age...16-18 years old. Guess what, it never happened because it couldn't be done. They're critical thinkers and aren't swayed by groupthink when it comes to religions of any kind or conspiracy theories running rampart on the internet.
This is a great topic! Great questions and thinking on this topic. I think what is needed is the Jewishness of Jesus & Paul and tapping into “rabbinical sources” to help parse through Jesus’ teachings.
I am finding that most authors have one part but not the other.
Thank you for this podcast because what Bart brings up are really fundamental issues that rarely get talked about.♥️
It's really remarkable how Nietzsche already anticipated all of this and wrote that Paul has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
True. I can't remember which of Nietzsche's books it comes from (Twilight of the Idols, maybe?), but I recall him saying that if Jesus had a religion, it died on the cross. Nietzsche expressed it more dramatically, but that was the essence, the implication being that Paul's religion was quite different from Jesus's.
Nietzsche had not the slightest understanding of Christianity. He decried his own parody of it without addressing the faith itself. If Ehrman follows his steps, they are mistaken from the beginning. Ehrman never understood Christianity because his entire point has always been to prove that Christ is a fictional character. It’s his dogma.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Ehrman is a professor and researcher. He was a devout Christian for most his life. His extensive research is the basis for everything he says/writes regarding Christianity. He never "sharpened his sword" and attacked Christianity, even though, to you, he has.
@@cecileroy557 Ehrman debunks the low-grade evangelicalism of his youth. He’s got nothing to offer an intelligent traditional Christian who reads.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972When researching Nietzsche's upbringing your claims are very surprising. You should go look it up and see his relationship with Christianity. It was probably more intense than yours.
When I read the Gospels, I think about the audience and what was the writers aim. Then they make more sense. When I read the letters of Paul, I realize that he was writing for persuasion and control.
Persuasion yes. Control? Not really, it wasn’t a power trip, and he was much less strict than the followers of James who were strict with Mosaic law.
@@matthewkopp2391isn’t the point of persuasion to have a form of “control” on someone.
The power to suggest something
Sort of like Mohammed and his Quran or Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon.
@@Dovahkiin0117i mean the gospels also “persuade” into their own theology technically
@@scottgrohs5940lol prophet Muhammad was illiterate and didn’t write the Quran the Quran is the literal word of God unlike the gospels and Book of Mormon
I came to the conclusion that Christian churches had very little to do with Jesus a very long time ago. I guess it started when I compared what they taught us about Jesus in Sunday School, to what Christians have actually been doing for hundreds of years. Fifty years later my opinion has not changed.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
@@micahhenley589 Or I could just declare with total conviction, that Paul invented the whole story based on a hallucination. Of somebody he never met. Then went on to supress the real teachings of Jesus being spread by his close followers. All because Paul thought that they were being a bit too "Jewish". Stating your extreme position contributes nothing to the conversation. When I never even mentioned Paul.
@@corringhamdepot4434 You are correct that Paul wanted to stomp out the teachings of Jesus. Acts 8:3 says he arrested and imprisoned many followers of Jesus and he even approved the murder of Stephen(Acts 7:58). As we can see, Paul was a bloody violent man and could technically be called a religious terrorist. His destiny is the lake of fire and burning sulfur.
But then in Acts chapter 9 we read something amazing. God would personally confront this violent man. But instead of showing wrath to Paul, God would show him mercy and grace. And Paul would be used mightily by Jesus Christ. The Lord said "Go! This man is My chosen instrument to proclaim My name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." Acts 9:15
"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10
@@micahhenley589 You appear to have a reading comprehension problem? Or are you just deliberately misunderstanding my comments, so you can trot out bible quotes that are not relevant to what I said.
actually, the Catholic church claims to be the first, organized Christian church and they also claim to be created by Jesus
So, unfortunately, your conclusions would be incorrect
Jesus was considered the Christ
and would be included in all Christ-ian lore
However,
Christianity comes from Pagan beliefs so, you would see similarities there
and do
Im a christian from Indonesia , i love watching bart erhman and derek , its an eye opening discussion and we can discuss about many things friendly God bless u guys
So u know that u follow paul not Jesus
@@mralchemist3976 classic bro u know what it still better to follow paul then pedohpilia prophet
muslim sudah dari dulu bilang bahwa kristen itu sebenarnya lebih tepat dibilang paulen. Kalo dibandingin dalam sejarah paul itu mirip musailamah al-kazzab yang ngaku ngaku rosul setelah nabi Muhammad SAW meninggal. Yang parahnya lagi paul itu ga pernah bertemu langsung dengan Isa AS tapi ngaku ngaku sebagai muridnya (apostle) karena mengaku bertemu secara imaginer dengn Isa AS. Untungnya kalo di muslim itu musailamah al-kazzab berhasil dibunuh sama khalifah Abu Bakar sedangkan paul berjaya.
@@UnnamedLexicon hem kenapa ya muhamad kawinin aisha d umur 6 thn halo?
@@leonkennedy9754 serius itu yang lu tanyain? Udah bosen dijawab beberapa kali tetep aja ini yang dikeularin. Salahnya apa? saat 6 tahun itu tunagannya sedannkan kawinnya pas Aisha menstruasi pertama (dalam hadits 9 tahun). Salahnya dmn?
Prof. Ehrman is knowledgeable and able to parse out the differences in a way easy to understand. I learn so much.
The idea that faith saves versus it is works that save has always been a divisive issue. I have difficulty reconciling the two. I'm going to read what others comment. Excellent interview.
Great interview with Prof. Ehrman.. Everyone can learn from this scholar.
Thanks!
I’ve been saying Christianity was the religion about Jesus and not of Jesus for the longest. Good to see an actual historian of the Bible saying the same thing.
muslims believe that Jesus's message was changed and God sent another prophet to bring back what Jesus originally preached. the human jesus, the early christians, the early jews and muslims actually have more in common religiously. they all prayed to God the father one God. Paul is different from all these because he started the trinity, die for our sins etc. The muslim could be exposing Paul as well
@@richlasma Thank you for this information but I am fully aware of what Muslims believe as well as the teachings of Paul. I can also confirm that the character Jesus’s message was changed by Paul so there is no need to believe it is. Islam is and has been exposed as well for not being the best religion mainly due to the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) marriage to a 6 year old girl after being chosen by Allah to be it’s messenger. I know both religions are flawed, but I respect those that still believe in them regardless of my knowledge of their flaws.
You are wrong. Ask yourself how old virgin Mary was when she Miraculously conceived Jesus? it's only then that you can understand Prophet Muhammad S.A.W and his marriage to Aisha because Islam grew off a Semitic socio-cultural environment just like Jesus' Judea
@@iam604
You summed up Christianity perfectly. it's mind boggling your not a believer. Always enjoy your lectures.
Ive felt for a long time that people stop following Jesus and actually follow Paul's teachings.
Wow! That was a good interview with Prof. Ehrman! I've heard hundreds of interviews and watched hundreds of UA-cam videos of Dr. Ehrman, and I have to say, this was one of the best ones I've ever heard. You asked all the right questions. As a former Christian myself, I love learning about Christian history. Such an endlessly fascinating topic! As an atheist, I don't believe it religiously tho, it's just something that's interesting to me, no doubt due to my past as Christian.
You can't be a former Christian. A true Christian knows the truth. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. Matthew 22:37-38. You have never loved God with all your heart, soul and mind!
@@SuperMurrayBros do you think I haven't heard this before? I used to say these things myself, when I was a Christian. But, I know that nothing I say will change your mind. But yes, I absolutely was a Christian.
what was the second best?
@@ABARANOWSKISKI No you weren't. Ya see, many people watch sports and know all the rules to play. But very few actually suit up and take the field.
@@ABARANOWSKISKI Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. John 9:41
I dunno. When I was a believer I took it all to mean that Jesus was telling you what you must do as a person alone to meet the requirements, to live a holy life, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven... but ultimately it meant that it was impossible to do, something that is sketched out for us in Matthew 19... "25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” That passage hits hard, it's apparent that Jesus is making clear the meaning of his teachings. Jesus spent all that time talking about what needed to be done and then he said it was impossible for man alone. Jesus said that his death shall be a "ransom for many" Matthew 20:28, John 3:14-15: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." , Matthew 26:28: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.". So, I don't think Paul's concepts of salvation are completely alien to the rest of the early church. Of course you have the matter of who actually wrote what and was it was actually what was said, were there elements of theology being injected to suit certain points of view, etc. etc., but going from the New Testament that we have today, I don't think Paul was making things up on his own. Also, Jesus did open things up for interpretation when he indicated that he used parables to hide the true meaning and that only his true followers would understand them... So if Jesus didn't say them plainly, but he entrusted the understanding to his disciples/apostles/church, I think the leap of reason isn't really that far from what he said himself.
They taught the same thing. Salvation comes from the Jews, ie Jesus.
You should come back to the Church.
It is impossible without the help of the Holy Spirit.
"All sufficient merit shining like the sun
A fortune I inherent, by no work I have done
My righteousness I forfeit at my Savior's cross
Where all sufficient merit did what I could not.
"In love, He condescended, the eternal now in time
A life without a blemish, the Maker made to die
The law could never save us, our lawlessness had won
Until the pure and spotless Lamb had finally come."
lyrics by Shane&Shane.
@@joandark2so true, these people think it's all about head knowledge. No spirit of God whatsoever
@@surfshop7552 Had they known the Word of God, they'd have known how the Word divides between the soul and the spirit.
Just because Paul had heard of Christianity--or at least followers (as they saw it) of Jesus--before converting to support and promote it doesn't mean that he didn't largely shape what THEREAFTER was orthodox Christianity.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
Obviously. That's exactly Ehrman's position.
No one is disputing that
You need to warn that this comment is a spoiler.
That religion's name should not be Christianity, but Paulism.
Since Paul did not walk with Jesus how can he say what Jesus said. Since there is not a single written book that Jesus himself wrote it becomes second hand and Paul made it his personal interpretation of what the early church understood. If Peter was suppose to be the rock of the church then how did he loose that status to Paul.
I am so glad you are doing these videos. Keep up the good work.
Great discussion.
Always love these talks with bart
I've been teaching about how Paul and Jesus contradicted one another for over a decade.
Well we really don’t know because Paul’s letters are the earliest source material. The Gospels are like a history of Jesus written later. Paul’s writings are first hand and the Gospels are second hand info.
@@MarcP5267the gospels werevwritten much earlier than is commonly taught, by at least 25 years, so...........
@@MarcP5267This isn’t the patent office that favors a the first to file. The Gospels were written after Paul, but they are based on oral histories that preceded Paul.
Let's cook...I see no conflict and I have been studying it for over decade.
But the Lord Jesus said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,
and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
Jesus' teaching was that following the Law perfectly was required. Then, he showed all people including the religious leaders that it was impossible for them to follow the Law perfectly. His purpose was to demonstrate that all people need repentance and God's mercy, both the 'sinners' and the 'righteous' of his day. All of them needed the 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'
Problem is you're taking a modern reading and interpretation and applying it to the past.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Not at all. It is directly what is written in the words of the scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers, first and early second century sources. No interpretation required.
@@stephenbailey9969 But was Jesus in talking about the Law thinking more of legalistic moral principles or actual dictates? In other words, what was Jesus on about: the spirit of the Law or the letter of the Law?
@@paulthomas281 The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:20-48. Jesus was pointing to the Father as the ideal of righteousness. "You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." This is so as man was created to exist in the image of God. Man chose to follow a different path. That standard is far beyond simply the letter of the Mosaic Law. The Law was just a tutor, as Paul would later say, pointing to the living perfection that is Christ.
Jesus reminded people about this standard in his series of "You heard that it was said...But I tell you..." passages.
Jesus didn't come to reform religion. He came to bring new existence. But that is not the kind of Messiah that people expected. Many of the people in his day were unprepared to admit they were broken and in need of healing.
Just like many people today.
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem and can't fix it yourself.
Now, that's just messed up
As an elderly Roman Catholic, these discussions are of immense interest and critical importance. Vatican II called for the renewal of the Catholic Christian faith, "...that we may be found more faithful to the gospel of Christ." (Opening Message to Humanity). Pope Paul VI defines that renewal as the process of identifying the contributions made to the faith by the various generations from the beginning, comparing those additions to the person and expectations of Jesus and courageously and effectively correcting any incongruence. That was in '64 in an encyclical called Eclesiam Suam.
We are in the third generation since that call and definition, and still no renewal. We have endured a crisis of vocations in the 60s and 70's.... a crisis of faith among the laity in the 80s and 90's... and now, according to our Bishop, the Church itself is in crisis... all with not a whisper of the work of renewal being seriously undertaken... it continues to be all about the preservation of the faith and not the renewal of faith called for so long ago!!!
I am certain that this failure is the source of the mushrooming crisies we are experiencing. I thank God for the work being done by those involved in the historical critical biblical scholarship in the past and especially today, with the marvellous efforts being made to spread the process and findings beyond the halls of academia on UA-cam.
Whether approaching from a position of faith or all the way to the mythesysts, the contributions being made to common understanding of the nature of the contributions made to the faith historically in the first 100 years, particularly by the various factions in those first four generations, provides the very foundation required for the mechanics of the renewal to finally take place... and I am excited about this.
Already, there is sufficient evidence to think that the persons and ministries of Jesus and Paul, as portrayed in the four gospels/Acts narrative of faith history, are literary constructs of the James community in Jerusalem and the next generation of Helenized Christian apologists trying to substantiate the secondary gospel of Christ.
The original and authentic gospel of the Sacred Way was subverted by the efforts of both the James community and later Christians.
If the renewal of faith is to be truly accomplished, It appears to me that we will have to pare back the elements and structures of Christianity, a faith about Jesus... in order to reveal the faith of Jesus and the content of his gospel of the Sacred or Holy Way spoken of by Isaiah. This will allow for a renewal that will go beyond an increased faithfulness to the gospel of Christ to an actual faith in the only gospel Jesus and Paul actually preached, the good news of Yahweh's Sacred Way.
It is interesting because I think it is very important to understand the context what is happening and how it relates to each other story. It good to have some insight into what happened during this period.
The idea that Paul created a new religion ignores the fact that he was accepted by the early Christian leaders, including Peter, James, and John. In Galatians 2:9, Paul describes how these leaders gave him the "right hand of fellowship," indicating their acceptance of his mission to the Gentiles...
finally someone with a minimum of sense and knowledge about the history of Christianity.
...Don't make the mistake of thinking that All 11 of the surviving 'disciples' were 'Actively Preaching' the teachings & predictions of the Pre-Crucifixion Jesus who ASSURED them "...Ah'l Be Bach..." in just a few Years at most:
"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." -- Matt. 10:23
The 'Nazarene Movement' was likely struggling just 5- or 6 years-on, because just TWO of the original Apostles who actually knew Jesus -- Peter, (John?) -- and just one sibling,"the One whom Jesus Loved", his brother James were still Active & Committed to 'Spreading the Good News' their full-time jobs -- the other 9 having evidently 'Snapped-Out of" their Messianic Fervor & returned to their former lives --- because nothing is recorded of them 'preaching' from town-to-town as they awaited their now-Disgraced Master.
It is into this vacuum that Saul/Paul barges-in, full of stories of His (differing) accounts of a 'Higher-Realm Audience' with "Jesus in a Glorified Form"; it strains my credulity that those who had known Jesus intimately should accept this "brash Upstart's Claims", since -- never having glimpled the man even from a distance--he wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a 'Perp Line-Up'.
Saul/Paul Raced to the front of their meager 'PARADE' -- and started acting like HE had organized it.
I understand how you could interpret Matthew 10:23 to mean what you thought.
To understand the way Jesus seems to have meant it- you must understand where the term “the son of man” comes from. In Daniel 7:13-14 he has a vision of the four beasts and one like a son of man comes and is given dominion/authority over all nations.
With that in context, Jesus says in Matthew 10 that the son of man will come- meaning someone will come and be given full authority over all nations.
Then later in Matthew 28:18 Jesus says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” fulfilling the prophecy in Daniel 7 AND in Jesus’s prophecy in Matthew 10.
I would study more, because they were not friends!!
@@masterblaster2978 explain you’re reasoning? I’m in the dark as to how they weren’t “friends”
I actually do believe Paul created Christianity because it revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus, while Jesus taught his disciples to worship the one true God. He didn’t make it about himself. Bart nailed it right on the head 💯
Agreed, Jesus teaching was still Torah-oriented, norhing to do with him as a God. Jesus told his followers to respect the chair of Moses (the Law), which nullifies every Christians beliefs since they think the new testament supercedes the old testament. Jesus was a Torah-Tenach thumper, not a bible thumper.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
@@micahhenley589 While he may have stopped killing people, it's arguable that (assuming this theory is correct) that his teachings may have led to millennia of killing. Perhaps a few hundred were saved from him in his lifetime, but you can easily argue that millions have perished as a result of his teachings.
@@mattallred Jesus said many people will wrongfully kill others in His name. In John 16:2 Jesus said "In fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." They're murderers because they do not know the Son or the Father. Jesus said anyone who loves Him will keep His commandments.
The Son of God is on a mission to save people from every tribe, language, and nation and that's one of the things that makes Jesus so unique. He's saving people from all over the globe. "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45
Ebionites is what they were called
Two highly intelligent men. Thank you for this inspiring discussion.
Perhaps intelligent. But not well researched.
A friend of mines PhD in archaeology was Rome in the Christian period.
He got access to the Vatican records of the Roman govt at the time.
The Romans called the "Christians" Nazarenes. Until fifty years after the heysuss crusifiction when they realised it had spread out of control cause they'd been martyring too many of them, and wrote them off as "just another oriental mystery cult."
They were matriarchal pot smoking mushroom gobbling tree hugging free love hippies led by Mary Magdalene.
Into Soma Gnosis.
(mystical revelation through magic mushroom goblins)
Paul was fifteen years old when they Crusified Mary's Boyfriend.
60 years later, Pauls drunken cavorting with groupies and living off the embellished tales of the good ol daze were wearing thin and he was broke.
He took the offer of a paid job to help the Roman Govt write the New Testament, to avoid being a warm up snack for the lions in the arena for unpaid debts.
It's Roman-Paulinnanity.
NOT Christianity. 😂
Bart is the intelligent man. I don't think the other guy's toxic skepticism is intelligent at all
Looking at the purpose of what Jesus came to do and reading the book of Isiah, i dont think Paul contradicted Jesus.
Jesus mission was not to teach about his death. But he came to fulfil scriptures which were pointing to him. Paul didnt write Isiah but his writings totally agrees with that scripture about the purpose of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Absolutely correct.
I would agree with this statement in general. But probably not in the way you might.
I think one of the uniting ideas of early Christianity was a rejection of idolatry. The temple became a form of idolatry. And their was an anti-idolatry movement among the Greeks as well.
So my interpretation is all of these different strands of early Christianity were really different ways people were addressing the idolatry problem to come to a deeper truth.
This was the same issue Isaiah was dealing with.
We need a friendly debate/discussion between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Richard Miller!
Dr. ehrman you are a true legend. I have been deeply moved in fascinated with your work. Keep it going as much as you can.
A legend? Why..
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
@@Reinhard_Schneider Go look up his scholarship and read his work.
are all legends, true?
In his own mind and ignorant people on scriptures like you.
Christianity =
Paul’s Religion
No, Christianity started with Jesus, it means Followers of Messiah.
@@DrazenPerkovic-p8j Jesus never created Christianity. He never created a religion. Christianity was created after he died
@@DrazenPerkovic-p8j original Christianity was a religion of Jesus, basically Judaism. Today's Christianity is a religion about Jesus based on Paul's false understanding.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!
@@RonaldMcDonalds-or5md That's your opinion I don't see any difference between Judaism and Christianity.
We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice say to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
'Who are You, Lord?’ I asked.
‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied.
'But get up and stand on your feet. For I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen from Me and what I will show you.
I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by faith in Me.’…
That is what Paul claimed but we can't verify his account. Especially the "kick against the goads" part which is borrowed from a Greek philosopher and not something Jesus said. Is it not also possible that Satan came to Paul disguised as Jesus??
Derek and Bart, I've just realized that I came to the same conclusions as Dr. Ehrman did on how to read a text. I've always tried to read everything around the text in question, and to learn the language, culture (food and dress), daily habits, etc. I've always been much more interested in Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Kant-Hegel-Schoepenhauer-Nietzsche, and the 20th century existentialists. than the bible. Of course I needed to know the development of christianity. I enjoy all the insights into the ancient world and now a personal insight about how I go about doing things. Hugs from Jim Oaxaca Mexico
This is crucial in understanding the New Testament I believe. The church may or may not have a part to play on interpretation, but a full ear must be given to everything all sorts of critical scholarship is saying.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!!
For those who understand German, I can strongly recommend the latest book by Johannes Fried: "Jesus oder Paulus - Der Ursprung des Christentums im Konflikt". A very precise analysis and very enlightening...
Ja, danke dafür!!
Can u gave some recap like movies recapped
@@mralchemist3976 Johannes Fried shows
1) how a crucifixion like Jesus experienced was medically survivable considering the pleural effusion (pierced the side with the lance). This method is used today in accidents involving catheters.
2) how numerous Christian communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee did not know death with resurrection until the third or fourth century. There is also no mention of it in the first Christian written documents such as the Gospel of Thomas (found in the desert sands of Nag Hammadi in 1945) or the Logia Collection Q, the source of the Gospel of Markion (AD 150).
3) how the Hellenized Paul, with his Pauline christology (death, resurrection, redemption of all mankind, etc.) was at odds with the disciples in Jerusalem, such as James the Brother of the Lord. They had a Jewish-Hebrew idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who was finally supposed to liberate Israel from foreign rule. This split in views can be seen very well in the NT and is very well documented in the book.
4) how Paul addressed an international audience with Greek texts and thereby spread much further and ultimately caught on. Fried wonders how much Paul's Christianity actually has to do with the Naozorean Jesus.
This is just a very rough summary of what the book is about. Of course, you have to read it yourself to check the very many details it contains. To Fried's credit, he's a historian, not a theologian. His main area is the Middle Ages. So he was able to approach his book without bias, prejudice or religious reservations and simply look at what actually exists and what doesn't.
I leave the matter of surviving the crucifixion as a theoretically and "technically" possible option. Jesus hung "only" for six hours and not for the usual 2-3 days. In addition, there is the pleural effusion, which causes someone to lose consciousness and thus to apparent death. Oh well...
What gives me the most food for thought is the very finely worked out contrast between the Jewish idea of the Messiah and the Pauline christology by a strongly hellenized, highly intelligent and also linguistically well-versed ex-Pharisee who apparently knew little or nothing about the Nazarene Jesus and who, however, made the pre-birthly existing Son of God and Savior of all mankind.
As we know from history, after Caesarism had turned into Papacy in order to continue to survive and rule, the newly established Catholic Church (Catholic = general) came into being and all "heretical" congregations, christians or now " dissidents" were brutally persecuted and wiped out, leaving only the Roman Catholic version as the only correct one. In this respect, the question arises as to how much the books of the NT were colored Pauline or Roman Catholic so that "it is correct". Perhaps this great leap from the Jewish Nazarene to the hellenized Paul with his mighty christology is also "willed by God", as it were a new revelation of how God's way should now continue. I think everyone has to find that out and decide for himself.
The BIG Problem here IS, Not understanding What Jesus was Doing! Jesus CAME to fulfill the Law and the Prophecies. Matt. 5:17. Jesus was living under the Law, and that was SO He could fulfill the Law. Paul was living AFTER Jesus had fulfilled the Law! These both were 2 separate and distinct times. When you realize this, it puts a different light on the whole thing!
No pun intended… but you nailed it!
"not one iota of the law or prophecy will be forgotten"
This is great. This is an incredible topic that I've always thought a lot about. The Ebionites (or sometimes referred to as the Nazarenes) who were the descendants of the original Jewish sect of Christianity, were eventually viewed as heretics of the Catholic Church because their views differed considerably from that of the Roman Catholic Church. The idea that the views and beliefs of Jesus and his disciples might have been significantly altered when introduced to Roman culture has always been a source of fascination for me.
Bart is GeniUs in talking.. A logical man with great power of knowledge...
Blind man, you don't know how to see truth.
Just like Jesus says he wasn’t god but the apostles do…..
There is an intersting article written by Sean Anyhony about "Sayf ibn Umar´s account of Paul and the corruption of Christianity". It´s based on a late and completely forged tradition of the 8th century. But it shows that stories were circulating about how early Christians split in 3 or 4 groups, each of them with their own "christology".
Just as one might expect an all-powerful all-seeing god to allow to happen to his glorious revelation! Along with having original manuscripts and first gen copies written in languages that would largely need to be reconstructed after nearly going extinct for a few centuries, and then permitting them to be lost of course, along with the first generation copies. So many things that could only have been made possible by an all-powerful all-seeing god!
Christianity comes from Judaism
So does Islam
They are considered monotheistic, Abrahamic cults
It’s refreshing to hear from scholars on reasons to rejecting mimetic criticism, which in the case for Bart, the gospels resemble biographies of ancient literature
Yhis is not really what Bart E said you know
@@innocentodinkemere4597 isn’t mimetic criticism comparing the gospels to Greek literature like homer and concluding that the depictions in the gospels are more mythical? Bart Ehrman rejects such depictions in the video and also in another shorts from myth vision where he explicitly states he rejects the comparison of the gospels to Greek epics.
But here he provides an explanation that it’s because he sees more similarities with the gospels and ancient biographies of Greco Roman literature. And thus they depict the life of Jesus
@@CuteChonkies Sorry, misunderstood you. You are right here
If you read biographies of the time, they are almost all myths, first of all because they come from oral stories, so and so said so, the author will just put it in there without any other evidence. They just don't really care about "truth" in the modern sense. If there is a rumor someone prayed and it created rain, they will put it in, which is an example from Marcus Aurelius' biography.
It's only a problem for us, not for them, so if they used mimetism, it's totally normal, and does not make it any more "myth" than any biography of the time. In other words, there wasn't really any biography in the modern sense in those days. Even a thousand years later, an historian would complain all other historians didn't care about the truth and were just propagating stories without checking. So there were no history either. For us, they are all stories, maybe with grains of truth, or not.
In other words, both can be correct. What's not correct is to assume biographies are true and myths are false. They are the same in that regard.
@@OneLine122 yup I agree that biographies can be not exactly 100 percent factual whether there can be distortions and they can come via mythic portrayals at times. I think Erhman does agree with such depictions in the video.
But some scholars like Richard miller would propose that the gospels were entirely fictional stories created to express a certain belief for eg. What happened to Jesus didn’t have any essence of biographical truth but instead are crafted fictions to express various beliefs about Jesus
Paul references Jesus' words in Romans 6. Jesus' words are in John 8:34. Both are about being a servant of sin. Paul uses different words to express the same idea elsewhere as does Jesus.
28:15 Paul in fact states that if you are not seeking honor and glory and good deeds you will not inherit eternal life (Romans 2.5-10). So he is teaching similarly to Jesus on those points as well. The Teaching, Casting out of Demons, Healing of the sick, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension are altogether the Kingdom coming near, as Jesus started preaching after John the Baptist. That is why Paul could continue the preach the Kingdom of God is at hand while focusing on the latter events. It is still the same Gospel and requires the same love and good works in order to be saved, as fruit of the persuasion in Jesus. Paul teaches in Galatians 5.19-21 that if you are doing the works of the flesh, sins, you will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. That is right in line with Jesus' teachings, and Peter, John, and the author of Hebrews. In addition, Paul states emphatically to the Corinthians, "Awake to righteousness and DO NOT SIN! For some are without the knowledge of God. I say this to shame you." So with regards to the requirement to stop sinning and do what is right, Paul is right on board with the other New Testament teachers. including Jesus.
For those who may not know, there is a solid group of believers that recognizes the separation between Jesus and Paul, and explains it perfectly right from Scripture. Jesus was clearly a "minister of the circumcision" (Rom. 15:8) and Paul was clearly given a new "dispensation of the grace of God" that created a completely different Gospel. The truth of this is in plain sight in the scriptures, but has been buried for centuries under Catholic and pseudo-catholic (protestant) doctrine. Check out the "right division" approach to the Scriptures. You'll be glad you did.
Amen, Paul has the rest of the story that these fellows have not discovered.
8:08 I read that the current scholarly consensus is that there was no separate Jewish or Christian identity between the different sects, but that all factions believed that they were joining the true Israelite Judaic religion.
... the separation happened some time after the Nicene Council.
Religion is religion
Even Judaism comes from earlier religion
humans may however, track bloodlines
Great podcast as always!
The differencies between the author of the Lettres and between the many authors of the various Gospels, writing from a completely different context, makes it acceptable to question whether both parties could understand each other.
Hey guys, I wrote the following in response to a different video on this subject. It was written for a different crowd and different circumstances so please understand it as such.
If I were to add anything to the Bart Ehrman crowd it eould probably be that while my own background is Jewish, I have been in similar circumstances to you who is reading this right now and would have watched this video for the same reasons. Bart is incredible. It is unfortunate that some many people have a one-sided view of him as *opposing* religion rather than as *loving* religion (with reservations).
That is unfortunately the price of public acclaim and success -- not because it is a *deserved* price but because we humans are jealous by nature (see the summarizing Closing One of the 10 Commandments).
Being as I am calling for a religious revolution in the coming comment I would love to confer with Bart on the subject. I'm no God nor one-and-only son thereof (except of course from my own inner perspective as we are all the one and only God/His Son from our truest inner perspective). Just a super duper imperfect dude who thinks he'd enjoy making the world a little better place for all of us, bith as individuals and as loving-and-beloved members of Adamkind.
Comment on Paul here ( ↕️ )
This is a very complicated subject of course.
Personally I wouldn't judge Paul too harshly because his intentions were good (and perhaps his outcomes too? 🤷♂️) but he's the sort of person we've all met in our lives, "the bully who repents".
Listen, I'm not perfect either. Hell, I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't either (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not). So far be it from me to think I can condemn anyone, most especially someone whose world and life is so far from my own and who tried to pull off something pretty amazing and whose words God chose to have greater influence upon humanity than almost anyone else's...
My comments are presented from the dispassionate perspective I am uniquely capable of presenting due to the unique life I live. There are no ultimate "good guys" or "bad guys" in my world, except within the living context of their influence at the moment.
Thus, I have discussed St. Paul aka Shaul of Tarshish.
As for Paul the apostle who lives on the page in that which is know in Christian circles as "The Book" and whether we want that right now or not....
I can't say.
There's no question whatsoever that the pitch of "just believe" and you're automatically better than those who don't - oh, and are thereby saved from eternal damnation in hell, unlike all those Jews over there who killed the literal one and only Son of God.... -- well that's absolutely terrible pernicious shit. At least here on Earth in the year 2023 and looking forward.
Horrible, horrible stuff...
At least in the public square.
I have no doubt that this level of extremism does good for some people AND FURTHERMORE that it is so entangled in the warp and woof of many good communities full of good people that tearing it out is both damaging and immoral.
All we ask of those individuals and communities is tolerance of our opinions. If they give us that we will be gentle with theirs when we communicate with them. We will speak the truth nas we see it but will endeavor our human best not to condemn their interpretations as evil or as heresy.
But when we aren't addressing them in person or speaking ABOUT them AS PEOPLE, we will say the truth, that much of the supernatural element prevalent in the various historical Christianities is indeed both evil (by their fruits ye can known them) and heretical to the mission and intent of The 5 Books of the Torah and to all of the accepted sacred writ later appended to it.
But I don't know if we can pin all of this on the writings of and about Paul in the canonized writings.
Historically? Sure. He is the one who gave the traditional jewish prophetic works of Yehoshua to people who not only locked the cultural familiarity to understand them correctly, but couldn't even read or understand them in their original language.
Then again, had it not been for Shaul, who knows if the doings and sayings of Yehoshua would ever have reached us today --- never mind as the foundation text for the religious background of most of the Earth's inhabitants.
Thus Shaul.
If you want to hear more and teach more, please visit my channel and
ydydy.substack.com/
Let us bless each other and ourselves all together 🥰
Not being able to imagine you're wrong, is not a good trait for a scholar:
And: "Unless Matthew made it up, it must have come from somewhere, so therefore it comes from somewhere". Well, no he could have made it up.
Whoever wrote Matthew made it up copied Mark and added more lies and that is evolution of the gospels.
Bingo!
There is a middle ground - it comes from somewhere, just not from Jesus. Like from stories in the OT or from pagan myths. Many people feel the Lion King is based on Hamlet, neither of which is true.
Yes, Gospels were all made up from ealier religion
Its more than likely that Mathew never existed either.
A Gospel is a God Spell (Go-spel) and the bible is a "Book of Spells"
Jesus never existed as a real person
@@je-freenorman7787 I agree with your first part but from what I can find on the etymology of "gospel," the first part is from "good" (the second "o" got dropped) and the second part is from another meaning of "spell," a story. I thought the second part was also related to "spiel" but apparently not.) I was always told gospel meant good news. Not that any of this relates to the validity of these stories - back to yes, all made up.
The fact that Paul was a persecutor of those believing in Jesus at that time and then all of a sudden became a solid believer to the extent that he abandoned his old way of life including his high rank, wealth and social status only shows that he really found some truth in it big time. He was really sure about it that he became willing to even risk his own life for it so many times. Think of it, changing your beliefs is one thing but risking your life for that belief is another thing. it's not only one or twice he almost died during his ministry but instead of stopping he even became more aggressive in his teaching even when he was in jail. his actions clearly shows that he's into something way better and more important than his own life. it's like a reward where getting that reward and dying is better than living a good long life with no reward. he was convinced 100% with the promise of resurrection and that's why in one of his letter he said that if the resurrection isn't real then it would be better if they'll just eat and get drunk and enjoy life like what most people were commonly doing. There's no question that Jesus existed and even non biblical historian like Josephus who lives in the 1st century wrote about him (even though his non-believer) cause he was sure that there's really someone named Jesus that was crucified by the romans. Now whether it's true or not that he resurrected from the dead, the only evidence we have is the bible and the fact that no other plausible reason as to why his body was missing in the tomb. if only his body didn't became missing then we probably won't even heard the word Christianity at all today cause that missing body or the resurrection of Him that's the main foundation of Christianity. it was the reason why Paul and other apostles were willing to sacrifice their own life just to fulfill their mission of preaching the gospel. if this was just some traditions with no basis then why after more than 2000 years there's still people that believes in it. even roman emperor like constantine knew that he doesn't have chance to discredit the facts and would end up in his empire being divided if he will go against it so he decided that the best option for him is to take it in and became christian himself so that the whole empire can be united again.
A lot of people that had a lot of priviligies, changed to protected the persecuted trough story. Only christians think that what happened to Paul is a one time event in history, and is not.
There are a few things you brought up in that post, but I'll start by saying that it's unlikely Jesus would have had a Tomb at all.
@@jgphilosophy9963 honestly, i came to that idea before, i thought that maybe there's no tomb and the resurrection and even the crucifixion were just made up stories by Jesus's primary apostles in order for their newly found religion to gain more popularity and therefore more members. but then i realized that if that's the case then who did Paul saw on his way to Damascus? Does it mean Paul was also lying in all of his writings? And why did he shifted from being enemy to becoming a solid believer? I can't think of any possible advantage Paul can get for doing that. Even if let say there's no Paul that existed and let say his story was also made up by Jesus's primary apostle (although it's a bit hard for that kind of lies to succeed especially when they're lying to people who were also alive during that time, it would only need skeptical follower and the whole newly found religion will be gone right there and then. And to think that those primary apostles of Jesus would make up stories to gain popularity doesn't add up to the whole narrative because as we all know they all suffered a lot, enemies hunt them down and tortured them but they don't care and still push through their missions to spread what they knew at witnessed from this Jesus. Honestly, if i lived during those time and an apostle will approach me to become one of them, i might not accept knowing their situations, how dangerous it would be to be a member, underground meetings etc. And if I'm an apostle and I know that everything was all made up stories then i wouldn't risk my life knowing that i'm not going to be resurrected at all. Making up stories is bad but other people do especially if it will benefit them like making them famous or to gain respect and other possitive effects, but not to be wanted by many and get killed. Like i said, i will only do those kind of stupid looking things (like leaving my family and friends, my hometown just to end up hiding and running and risking my life) if i am really sure of the reward. Resurrection was something unheard of that time so unless I myself saw the proof that Jesus really died and then i saw him again alive and kicking then there's no way i will join in spreading the news. It's not something like putting large amount of my money on the line where i can maybe try my luck for a good reward and if it's not real then just accept that i got scammed, it's life that's at risks here and there will be no chance to recover if everything failed. I don't think the apostles were that stupid to go to different places to make more followers even if let say they'll get paid for doing it, the risk is too high for someone to accept that kind of mission. The thing is, while they were spreading the news, they were also hearing news of their fellow apostles being killed one after another in different places, but instead of losing members, it's complete opposite cause Christianity is growing even more. There's only one thing left to try here, 'what if there's no Apostles?' Then even the word Christianity won't be existing today. It won't even be reaching Emperor Constantine's time which was only couple hundred years after the time the apostles started on their deadly journey to go around the world. If only the apostles were lazy or got scared for their lives, maybe even Constantine wouldn't known that Christianity exists. But history tells us (not the bible) how much Christianity affects the biggest empire at that time. Constantine didn't just heard about it, it's bugging him to the point that he got really scared that his kingdom was in danger and his only option is to join them. And historians were not lying cause there's the Roman Catholic Church that Constantine founded to reunite his Roman Empire at tbat time. Don't trust the bible but at least believe the historians and believe Constantine that he wasn't just being stupid that he built his Roman church without ordering deep investigation to make sure that the Jesus that those Christians were talking about was a real person..There's only couple hundred years difference and he's an emperor so he would for sure know the truth. None of us living today saw George Washington in person to prove his existence, everything we knew about him was just passed down to us generation after generation either verbal or thru writings starting from those who witnessed his presence did 500yrs ago, and yet none of us ever doubt that he's a real person otherwise we won't even be interested in his lifestory at all. Constantine and Jesus is way closer than Washington to us now and he probably heard about Jesus mostly from the texts that matthew, mark, luke, and john wrote unless there's other written records existing that time that never reached us today, but most likely if he ordered some researching about Jesus it would be the writings of those 4 that will be presented to him, not as a gospel or anything religious but as a written history that would explain to him wbo Jesus really was. Right there and then he would kmow if the characters including Pontius Pilate really existed in their records. He won't subject himself into being a Christian without first knowing who Christ is because it his entire empire that he will convert into believing in Jesus and not just him alone..I hope you get my point here bro, I'm not imposing any religjon here as even I myself doesn’t have one. It's logical reasoning that I am using and not faith or any beliefs. :)
@harmar4181 I'm sure there were stories about the empty Tomb floating around, but you're Pre- Supposing that Paul's vision was true. It is a common phenomenon that people see well known dead figures and religious figures in visions. The more likely scenario is that Paul had a vision similar to the visions people of all religions can have.
@@jgphilosophy9963 your idea that Jesus had no tomb at all and that what Paul saw was just a vision, does that mean you didn't believed that Jesus died or that there's no Jesus at all? i will respect whatever your belief is, i just want to know..thanks
Has Dr. Ehrman ever commented on Dr. Dennis MacDonald's work? I would be interested to know his thoughts.
he wouldn't take them very seriously.
Bart in stuck in a rut.
he so desperately wants Jesus to be historical.
Saul of Tarsus is a LIAR! Thus, his Father is the Devil! Stop letting some man teach you what your Bible says. It's YOUR Bible, Read it! Stop believing, PHD... Must be smarter than me! This guy with a PHD just lied to you! He said The Apostle Matthew wrote stories he heard about. Liar! He walked with Jesus and experienced the stories 1st hand. He was one of the 12 apostles. Read ACTs chapter 1. It clearly states the process of becoming the 12th Apostle. While 2 men were deemed worthy, only 1 was selected, because there are 12 Apostles, not 13. An example of Saul(paul) being a Liar. Next read Revelation chapter 2. Revelation was given to Jesus from God. Jesus told an angel to tell John to write it. Once Jesus ascended to The Father he didn't even come back to John to tell him Revelation, he sent an angel. Yet another example of Saul(paul) being a liar. In Revelation 2 God who gave Revelation to Jesus you'll see where Saul(paul) is called a Liar by God himself! And commends the church of Ephesus for finding him to be a false apostle and a liar. The Gospels are often referred to the "synoptic gospels" they are synoptic because they are the truth about experiences and occurrences with Jesus. The Truth doesn't change even with different authors. Meanwhile, Saul as the sole author, his story own story on the road to Damascus changes 3 times. Go into the court of law or an interrogation room and have your story change 3 times... you'll be quickly called a Liar! Do Not buy this guy's course! He is a Liar like Saul(paul), his hyperventilating fake laugh should be enough for you to understand, he is a joke. Read Your Bible! Listen to your Bible! An amazing tool is listening to the dramatized version of the Gospels. God Bless those who truly seek the truth. Seek Jesus, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life!!
@@Marabarra134 Bart Ehrman just knows it's in his best interests to support the historical Jesus concept and repudiate mythicists.
@@deewesthill1213 i agree brother
@@Marabarra134 thanks!
Did Paul decide what he accepted as the correct teaching and told others to get their act together? To me Paul’s teachings challenge other Christian’s beliefs and that of other teachers. He pushed his interpretation and teaching.
Christians are followers of Paul (and Peter) and his (Paul's) gospel. Paul never met Jesus, unless you take his word for his encounter. Paul openly murdered the followers of Christ. He had very little association with the apostles or their teachings.
In his own words.
Galatians 1:11
But I make known to you, brethren, the gospel that was preached by me, that is not according to man;
1:12 for NEITHER RECEIVED I IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT THROUGH A REVELATION OF CHRIST.
Romans 3:7 for if the truth of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner?
2 Corinthians 12:16... I am crafty, and caught you all by trickery
Acts 12:23 and behold the hand of the LORD is upon thee, and thou SHALT BE BLIND, not seeing the sun for a season.
Here, Paul is causing harm to an enemy, through "prayer" that would be considered black magic. Peter has similar accounts of causing harm to other enemies.
Jesus said to love your enemies, and turn the other cheek.
Jesus also healed the blind, while Paul caused a guy to go blind.
Acts 20:9 and a young man... who sat in a window... as Paul discoursed...fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead
20:10 but Paul went down, and fell upon him and embracing him said: be not troubled; for his life is in him.
20:12 and they broughtthe young man alive.
(WOW, somebody by Paul, "fell" out of a window, died, then was presumably brought back to life by Paul. A convenient "miracle")
Acts 22:3... being a zealot for God, as all of you are this day,
Acts 22:24 I persecuted this way even to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women
Acts 20:26 I solemnly affirm to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all.
1 Corinthians 9:20 I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law, NOT BEING MYSELF UNDER LAW, that I might gain these under law.
9:21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law.
9:22 to the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: TO ALL I BECAME ALL THINGS, THAT BY ALL MEANS, I might save some.
20:23 AND ALL THINGS I DO FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL.
Romans 3:7 for if the "truth" of God has, THROUGH MY LIE, become more abundant for his glory, why am I still judged a sinner?
2 Corinthians 12:16 NEVERTHELESS, I AM CRAFTY, AND CAUGHT YOU ALL BY TRICKERY
The guy is admittedly a murderer, liar, deceiver, telling people what they want to hear, causing harm to others, clean of the blood of any wrong doing, while preaching to everyone that are going to reap what they sow. Claiming his gospel is inspired by God, and not by those who were personally with Christ on a daily basis.
This host loves the sound of his voice. Let Bart speak man! He's the guest, isn't he!??
Great program 👍
Jesus also said as Paul did that He had to die for us to live…
“Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5 NKJV
Only through Christ’s death and resurrection is the verse above possible to do.
Jesus to Paul: Hey man, I was a jew throughout my life, I'm not God Sorry.
Paul: Oh, No I didn't establish Christianity, but Marison did.
Marcion: Shut up stupids, I created your characters, you have no right to interfere.
Marcion didn't create anything, he was called a heretic by the majority of Christians during his time who knew of Paul and Jesus long before him. You can also look up the first century writing of Clement in wich he mentions Paul and some Apostles and Jesus, before Marcion.
@@DrazenPerkovic-p8j Smoke doesn't come without fire. My point is, the characters are chosen by the compiler of the book. Every story and character is influenced by real incidents and happenings only, but stories are always dramatized.
There could be a real Jesus and a real Paul but no real miracle ever happens
@@freethinker3054 your so free your brain fell out and you lost your mind : LOL 😆 .
Prove no miracles happened : you obviously can't: and the Pharasees didn't even say that as they saw the miracles and heard from hostile eye witnesses of Lazarus Resurrection.
They said Jesus just did them by the Power of Satan.
U living 2,000 years removed are clueless.
@@freethinker3054 exactly!!!! remember the whole Jesus character , starts off from the intentional mistranslated, Virgin birth, in Isaiah in the original story..
@@3wolfsdown702 There is no original story brother. In deep roots, stories are taken from surrounding cultures and made their own in at least 3-4 hundred years.
The best example from India, A 100years ago mad beggar named Sai now a famous God. They even created books and added his miracle stories. Irony, he was illiterate, arrogant, mad, and stupid. He has millions of followers.
The fundamental mistake that Bart and others make is in assuming that Paul's teaching vis a vis the teaching of Jesus is represented entirely by the letters. Paul also gave lectures and no doubt some people took notes. Paul was also a miracle worker and no doubt stories circulated about these events. Putting this all together we have in Paul a template for a life of Jesus and that is what we find in Matthew.
Jesus said in the gospels that there would be people who heal the sick, give to the poor, etc. and he would say “depart from me for I never knew you”
Of course is about his letters. We have no record of this lectures you are mentioning. So we can basically invent anything about them. Historians work with evidence, a thing christianity is lacking.
But is great that you have to admit that Paul letters is a complete different theology from Jesus, so much that you have to use un-recorded lectures and miracles to try to aproximate one to another.
@@sonofcronos7831 we do have a record of the oral teaching of Paul. It's called the gospel according to Matthew. Also read the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It's a record of the way Paul used to speak to the believers in the churches.
@@Kinsmen77Paul in Galatians chapter one makes that very point. "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel..."
But Christ also spoke about his death and resurrection.
- "I am the resurrection and the life"
- "just as moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness the son of man would be lifted up"
- " Blessed are those who haven't seen and yet have believed"
Paul says, "believe MY Gospel," which is totally different from Jesus' Gospel in the Red Letters in the four Gospel books. Paul's chronology of his conversion (3 versions of it) don't add up.
Again, if you learn the language properly with etymology
you might learn and be Able? to understand that a gospel is a god spell.
and the bible is basically, a book of spells
You see, any real magician knows that believers are the target
So , they need believers to follow them
Right?
lol
HA ah ah ah
Religion, is the biggest scam in the world
and government is the slavery that results from it
They know not, what they do
When Paul uses the word “gospel” he means his good news. That’s not the same meaning as the books about Jesus.
@@je-freenorman7787 Oh good lord, to think that people like you are out there in society.
Gospel is a Middle English substitute for a Koine greek word that means “good news”. Nothing to do with “casting a spell”, that is absurd! The English language did not exist when these books were written let alone did the word “spell” mean something cast by wizards.
In the fundamentalist Church of Christ, the Gospel Jesus was the emotional component, love, praise, and worship of whom was expressed in most of the hymns and gospel songs. Paul's Epistles dominated theological and administrative aspects of the church that almost all the sermons focused on.
There is no gospel of Jesus
Not included and never made.
What makes you think there is a gospel of Jesus?
@@je-freenorman7787 I didn't say "the Gospel of Jesus". 🙄 I said "The Gospel Jesus". By that i meant the character "Jesus" in the four gospels of the New Testament.
@@deewesthill1213 Oh so , the belief of Jesus. Not the god spell itself
@@je-freenorman7787 Yes. Jesus got the songs while Paul got the sermons and the running of the church.
@@deewesthill1213 uh no, Jesus was not a person and was never alive. I'm not going to get into the apostles
I have several of Bart Ehrman's books. He has opened my eyes to so much & he continues to do so!
A sucker is born every minute
@@halwentz554...especially in religious families.
I like the definition by Bart.
Christianity is a religion about Jesus not by Jesus.
It all happened due to this man called Paul who invented a divine Jesus to market his religion to the Roman Gentiles whereas Jesus was an ordinary messiah to the Children of Israel. By projecting a human Jesus to divinity he paved the way for gnosticism and Catholicism
It's interesting that Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism combine the teachings of Jesus and Paul.
There are Orthodox holy pictures of Paul and Peter embracing. And many Catholic churches in America today are named "St. Peter and Paul".
When the Gospel is read in these denominations' churches, the people stand. When Paul's epistles are read,the congregation remains seated.
Paul is regarded as vital. But Jesus' words supercede.
Are Spiderman books who took their stuff out Spiderman comics, biographies of Peter Parker because they based their stuff on Spiderman comics??
I have no problem understanding that the origin points of all the various theisms are set on human stages. That much is self evident, but knowing what we know about the human mind and it's ability to manufacture meaning and graft fanciful, supernatural associations onto events, dashed hopes, traumas, expectations, etc. is what makes me dismiss them all.
Again, if there is, in fact a God who wants humanity to know Him, Her, or It, and It posesses the attributes ascribed to It, (i.e., omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolance) I'm confident it is capable making itself known to ALL in a clear and compelling way. If not, it's all a speculation filled circle jerk.
Your ignorance is overwhelming as God used mankind to write His Story: God didn't dictate a book 4 angels to bring down .
It's an ancient text that needs to be understood in its own Context : not your understanding from the 21st century.
Staying ignorant isn't going to help you improve your understanding C. jerk.
Well-pointed. Genuine God who desires humanity to know Him would not have allowed us to doubt His divinity or place His historicity surrounding him in the center of controversy just AS it has been the case with Jesus and Christianity up until the PRESENT DAY.
There is always and only 1 truth
We may always give thanks to something
what is "it"?
as a Muslim this is just wonderful to hear! christians need to wake up to this!
These guys know jack. Don't get fooled. I am gonna tell you right now that I would have a field day with these 2. And after I finished, you would be converted and welcomed to true peace from a loving God. Peace to you muslim.
@@markhodges5138 I'm willing to come to your faith if you can prove to me from your Bible that your faith is not against the preaching and practice of Jesus of the Bible.
@@truthdoesntcomeeasy743 the Bible states that we need to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).
This means we need to realise that while the Bible is written to us, not all of it is written for us.
Jesus is the Messiah to the Jews, but he is Lord and Saviour to those in the Body of Christ under the current dispensation of Grace.
During the Law of Moses, people needed faith and works for salvation but under the current dispensation, we are saved by our faith alone in what Christ accomplished (his "workmanship") on the Cross.
Christ came to fulfill the Law and start a new Covenant with man. This doesn't mean that the 10 commandments are invalid but that the Law is now written on our hearts through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 10 (KJV)
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"
17 "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."
18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."
19 "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,"
20 "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;"
21 "And having an high priest over the house of God;"
Ephesians 2 (KJV)
8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"
9 "Not of works, lest any man should boast."
10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
We’re led by the Holy Spirit and we know Paul didn’t contradict Jesus.
It’s your Muhammed who contradicted Jesus.
@@edward1412 if you say so Edward. may Allah/God Almighty guide you! 🤲🏻 ameen.
if a man who used to hate Jesus, and used to oppress the followers of Jesus, and then, suddenly, he claimed that Jesus appeared to him, and told him to go and preach by his name, and claimed things that Jesus never said, while he was on earth, and he changed a lot of things in the teachings of Jesus do you think that it is logic to follow that man?
I grew up Catholic…love this because this sums up all the arguments I had growing up with Protestants about Faith vs Works…say what you will about the Catholic Church but at least our core beliefs are more in line with the actual namesake of the religion in direct contrast with the Paulestants
I also grew up Catholic . at every Mass they actually read from the gospels where Jesus is speaking. I went to a Protestant church with my wife for a long time and I was amazed how little they read from the actual words of Jesus. I came to the conclusion that the only thing they were concerned with was John 3:16. Actually doing what Jesus taught you to do was obviously too difficult.
@@aleonyohan6745 I was recommended a Catholic Mass livestream recently here on UA-cam. I am not Catholic, but I listened in and found them to be quoting Paul just as frequently as the Gospels. Besides that, I think a speck of fecal matter in a cake ruins in the whole thing.
Paulestant? But the catholic church considers Paul one the their founders. Is Paul a enemy of the catholic church? Interesting how christianity has such divisions.
I think his glasses ascended!
Are Sherlock Holmes movies biographical because they based their scripts on the books of Sherlock Holmes as chronicled by Dr. Watson??
To take it back a step, Conan Doyle based Holmes on his mentor, Dr. Joseph Bell, who was a real person, great at making deductions from minimum evidence but was a medical doctor, not a criminal detective. So Doyle did use actual elements, but still Holmes was fictional.
@@johnnehrich9601... so there was a guy who was clever and Doyle made a clever character in his fictive tales... does that make the tales historical and biographical? Which is what the claim about the Gospels is
Using your argument, any historical writing should be considered fictional because some authors base fictional stories around real people. Which is of course nonsense.
Movies are never real
they are just gospels (godspells) on the Silver Screen
for your screening
@@PC-vg8vn ... based on your illogic any fictional writing is historical because they used real stuff in the fictive story... which is of course codswallop.
The vast majority of Evangelicals should be called Paulians rather than Christians. They focus almost exclusively on Paul's teachings, policies and rules, and virtually ignore those of Jesus.
Wow, how much more distorted can you get, I pray that you open your eyes Mr Ehrman( that is, your spiritual eyes ) before you meet your maker (so to speak), because once you do, it will be too late !!!
derek ,you sound is as clear as a bell, best i've heard ,thanks .bart's not as good .love the way bart really focuses on what you're saying . you can see his big brain fully coming on line .
Has anyone here read the Urantia book and what it says. It sort of agrees with what you are saying.
That's perfect: and why this is just bunk as the Urantia book from Dr.Michael S.Heiser's video on it.
wait a second?
so you read the book, then it says something?
Books dont talk
HA ah ah ah
It is probable that they didn't want the Gentiles converting to Judaism after the Gentiles defeated their revolt and destroyed their temple.
why is that probable?
@@je-freenorman7787 Because the Gentiles defeated them, destroyed their temple and expelled them into the diaspora. Then there is their previous exclusivity. Now that's four obvious reasons. Do you need more?
Paul never knew Jesus so there is no base for any agreement between a historic Jesus and Paul.
You can also ask: did the post conversion (essenic) Paul and Paul of the letters have the same religion.
You don't really know that as Paul was part of the Jewish rulers that questioned Jesus before His Crucifixion.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Paul was Titus,Titus crucified Jesus Lucifer along with 2 million Zionists, they wouldn't stop sacrificing to their God Yahweh, Jesus just means saviour in Greek, Titus called all rebellious leaders Jesus, Mary was what the Romans called all rebellious women, Magdala was a town near Galilee, Titus was the Christ.
@@davidjanbaz7728
You are right: i know nothing!
But i doubt very much that there was a crucifi(ct|x)ion during the passah in jerusalem.
What is however clear to me is, that the ca 14-17 year period of Pauls silence and the contents starting with 1Thes needs some explanation. The letter Paul is a novelty.
@@iwilldi no doubt of that crucifixion durant pessah is crossreliable with grec and jew source. And speaking about silence tell us about why you have ko source to confirm any polemic about cruxifixion (until islam… very late and very far)
The kicker for me was that nowhere in the Bible did Jesus ever say "write a book" or "start a religion". Jesus was a Jew. He already had a religion.
And this: 3. Jesus' "Golden Rule" corresponded with Jewish and Biblical sentiments that were much older than Eastern versions.
Who ripped off who? In Jesus day, the negative form of the "Golden Rule" was well known in rabbinic writings and teachings. Typically attributed to Hillel the Elder (110-10 BC), (6) it's likely that Jesus would have been aware of it. Jesus, Hillel, and other Jewish teachers got this idea from Leviticus 19:18 which states, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The book of Leviticus was written in the 1400's BC, making it almost 1,000 years older than its Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, or Confucianist counterparts.
I tried to watch, but it's too painful. Watch his face expression at 3:17 when he asks Derek: "Are they experts?. I'd rather El-hrman do a course on methodology so that he can explain why his criteria are historically, scientifically valid.
Yes, this was particularly embarrassing for Derek. He thinks he’s a lot more educated than he is, I wish he had done more homework.
@@bmbrod34 My comment was too vague and you got me wrong, sorry. I was pointing at Ehrman typical dismissive attitude towards people who he considers are not prepared to deal with certain topics. He usually resorts to ad hominem responses so that he doesn't have to deal with the evidence.
Yes, some amateur youtubers consider themselves more educated than they are. They should take a degree in Ancient History, for example, because this is the way you really get to know a discipline: the hard way.
However, I think Derek is more honest and his effort to bring in so many different scholars has to be praised. He's grown in knowledge and his work as a host has also improved through the years.
06:25 how is Bart different from the Evangelical theologians? He's harmonizing things same as they.
So Christianity's main doctrines are based on Paul's teachings, not Jesus...?
About sums it up.
No, they come from the Hebrew scripture
Christianity is a
"Monotheistic, ABRAHAMIC cult
they are based off Abraham
and if the Bible says, that Adam and Eve, were the first 2 humans
then would everyone be a descendant of them?
HA Ya right
and why are people today, following the words of other people
from 2000 years ago
that say, they followed another man
that was only 33 years old when he died
and left no writings of his own in any language
and there are no pictures of him
?
oh and Hebrew is Semitic
and so is Arabic
and Aramaic
whoch would make Islam Semitic also
Semtic refers to a group of languages
and the semites
who were supposed to be Biblical descendants of Noah / Shem
also where caucasian come from
They were also supposed to be Aryans
Arrius Calpurnius Piso vs Josephus. That is a more interesting question to ponder.
It's really very simple, Jesus (not His real name) was a Jew therefore His religion was Jewish, but so many people who claim to be Christian also hate Jews so they don't want to acknowledge this fact. There is no doubt that 'the brand' of Christianity we have in either the Catholic or Orthodox churches today appear to be based upon Paul's and the church's own 'holy fathers' ideas rather than Jesus.
If youre interested in history and you don’t have a background in acedemia or history, the thing you’d benefit from the most is taking a course or reading as much as you can about historiography or history of history. Whenever I see an an academic talking to a keen amateur this is always happening, with the questioner getting bogged down in ‘HOW do we know anything?’ etc. Scholarship is not like faith and it’s not like ‘science’ in the way it’s been presented to the public by popular science authors. You either have to learn this and save yourself years of time or just move on. There’s no point in this musing on the nature of knowledge from a non academic perspective.
You said absolutely NOTHING!
@@chighinestorr1086 People would’ve complained if the original commenter (OC) had written a lengthy essay on epistemology and historiography. What the OC is trying to say (without a lot of words) is that this is not the forum for that discussion (as I understand the OC).
You can debate the premise or not; you can complain that the OC did a poor job making their point (which I personally would agree with). You can ask the OC for clarification. But to dismiss out of hand that the OC is saying “absolutely nothing” says more about the state of your knowledge (and manners) than that of the OC
@@sbmcgonagle9671 firstly, I did an excellent job at ‘making my point’. You failed to understand it, which is a separate issue, but it was quite clear. There is no ‘epistemological’ conversation between a scholar and a lay person which would in any way be of any benefit to anybody. The salient point is that historians methods are easy to understand. Not that they’re easy to do well, but they don’t require extensive conversation. Save the cod philosophy for...I don’t know, a philosophy seminar. It’s advisable to read a little about historiography, and upon doing that either accept the validity of history as a discipline or don’t. There’s an incredible opportunity here to ask a renowned scholar anything you want, and it’s just wasted on questions a competent high school teacher could answer, that aren’t even especially pertinent to his area of expertise.
@@chighinestorr1086 I’m sorry if that came across as patronising. I’m in favor of the idea of the amateur historian, because I do think it can be a field that allows for that. But you do need to know a little of what it is historians do, and to accept its validity. If you don’t you just get stuck in conspiracy theory land. What you don’t need to be doing is musing and philosophising. I suppose there’s not a polite way to say this but it’s better being said than not.
@@sbmcgonagle9671 I know you think you're pretty smart and all but you've ALSO join the line of long-winded and substantially uninspiring blabbermouths.
Jesus clearly taught that he had to die and be resurrected and that if he did not go back to heaven the Holy Spirit could not come and guide us into all TRUTH. Jesus is the Truth and He said if I be lifted up . I will draw all men to me .
Paul made up a new religion not Jesus.
More than 2 Billions people following Paul thinking they are following Christ , feel bad for them
@@TheWanderer1219 2 billion people worshipping Satan thinking they are worshiping Allah, I really feel bad for them.
I am so glad i believe,accept and live my life in a coherent, reasonable, logical and most of all a loving religion. Attacked from all angles but it still remains the only course for the whole world and for all time.
Basically Pauls version won out ?
Pretty much.
Mostly because it was fast and easy to do.
Not to mention it didn't require you to be circumcised.
Paul's entire life was built around Jesus Christ and His teachings. Paul, once a murderous blasphemer, was saved by the mercy of Christ. Thus all of the credit goes to the Son of Man.
Not exactly. There were multiple strands of early Christianity. The proto-orthodoxy rejected Paul as well, but then Paul was reincorporated perhaps to unite the church.
In the Middle Ages the Bogomils and Cathars claimed they were the followers of an earlier Christianity of Paul at it originated in Turkey, so it very well may have been a Paul tradition, but the Catholic Church persecuted them.
The followers of Paul wanted to reject the Old Testament all together.