Derek, would you please share the information about the book called " the sumerian swindle ". Within the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BIBLES researching podcasters, and bloggers communities. To see what they think about the. " sumerian swindle " narratives storyline.
❤ Attention sheep level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 11 eastren. Negative energy will creep out yr feet tell it's time.
@@raya.p.l5919 can you be specific about what you're actually trying to say? Instead of talking mystical farm animals energy force fields leaving their bodies. Christianity supposedly is here to save people from an eternal hell. What can you explain about the things that we all should be able to know about what you're able to understand about what's happening within the christian movement.
Is this a JOKE? This so called..."scholar Bart D Ehrman".. doesn't know what Jesús came FOR.. or to...FULFILL? Paul is right to say that..WITHOUT CRUCIFIXION, DEAD AND RESURRECTION of JesusChrist..there's NO SALVATION of the SOULS of men. JesusChrist said it so clear on Lk 24:44-47. Because THAT'S what He came to FULFILL. (Matt 5:17/ Hebre. 10:9-14). On the CROSS JesusChrist got rid of the LAW.. that it was against us.. and also He DEFEATED and EXPOSED...the fallen angels who ORDAINED AND ADDED that law (Gal 3 17; 19/ Acts 7:53/ Hebre 2:1-2) ...(Colos 2 14-15/ Ephs 2:14-16). And those angels are NOT..from Jesus but.. are called among many titles as the WATCHERS (Dan 4:17. The POWERS AND PRINCIPALITIES/ Colos. 2:8-10/ Ephes 6:12/ARCHONS..etc). Which were created by the evil god from the old Testament. And on Dan. 7:25.. these angels are called: "The saints of the most High ".. which is this sumerian god called "anu", named of the famous psalm 91:4. That prophecy of Dan. 7:25..was totally FULFILLED by Jesús, because He didn't only change the law of DEATH, like I said it before, HE ABOLISHED IT on the CROSS. And He talked stuff against..this "Prince of the power of the AIR "(Ps. 18 7-11/ Ephes 2:2). Which is also the "power of DARKNESS".. and Jesús DELIVERED US FROM him(Colos 1 13). And REDEEM US from his laws and commandments of DEAD (Gal. 3:13; 4 4-5). Jesus.. called him: "The god of the DEAD "(Mat. 22:32). For the simple reason that... the RESURRECTION had not yet occurred. (Hebre.11)..So here's the reason that SALVATION of the SOULS.. came through the DEAD...and RESURRECTION OF JESUSCHRIST.( Mat. 27:52-53/ Hebre 10:9-14). This also means that this "scholar Bart ".. DOES NOT KNOW WHAT is the GOSPEL OF SALVATION..? Just..as millions.. of religious people. And obviously that he doesn't know either WHAT the ORIGINAL SIN.. IS?? 😄😅🤣🤪😹🤷🙋
Bart is a complete nerd and the foremost expert on the Bible. He is brilliant. He is fluent in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin. A true historian. Mad respect. I’m a revolutionary war and civil war historian and I only needed to learn French because I already was fluent in English. From one historian to another, keep doing exemplary work
Bart, like most, doesn't understand the Bible. To understand it one must be carried along by the Spirit of Love and most are not. It takes a hunger and to love yourself and others as God loves you.
@@kerwinbrown4180 Lmao. That's hilariously ironic, polytheist. The Torah itself literally states it can be understood in its literal form (so there are no excuses). No magical guidence needed, polytheist. No, only that, polytheist, your entire pagan imposter religion is a complete perversion and inversion of the Hebrew Bible it claim to fulfill. There isn't a single concept or word you've understood. Even the greatest, most influential theological minds of Clownianity were biblically illiterate clowns, like yourself, that couldn't even understand the simplest of passages and narratives. There isn't anything you've understood, pagan, and you don't "have" this spirit your filthy blasphemous mouths profess. You can't even spot inconsistencies and contraditions in your own NT, that's how biblically illiterate and spiritually blind you are. You are the opposite of what you claim to be and what you think you are. What you follow is pure undulaterated satanism, and every single word that pours out of your pagan mouths is just lies, blasphemies and endless contraditions (contradictions and ontological impossibilities which you also worship). You don't even know basic Christian theology or history anyway, or even what you worship, because you are almost certain some kind of Neoprotestant or American Evangeliclown; literally the dumbest, must clueless and ignorant branch of your false religion. But tell me, since you think it's "the Bible", who compiled and canonized it for you, polytheist? Who told you it's "the Bible"?
And yet, Ehrman doesn't understand the difference between Old Testament and New. You can be that "smart" and completely miss the point. That's called hiding something in plain sight.
And yet there are Atheists who now are living their best lives, after converting to Catholicism: ua-cam.com/video/dTVjjLnr5Uk/v-deo.html Jennifer Fulwiler ua-cam.com/video/qnqMRgdPd2s/v-deo.html Mark Drogin ua-cam.com/video/spsEoDm0n1w/v-deo.html John Barger ua-cam.com/video/-Qozjv6G4cg/v-deo.html Jennifer Frey ua-cam.com/video/H7smjRm79VM/v-deo.html Scott McDermott ua-cam.com/video/WbYTkYndVmg/v-deo.html John Pridemore ua-cam.com/video/Cjwj6IQ265o/v-deo.html Karen Edminsten ua-cam.com/video/3czEocSLT7w/v-deo.html Atheist Blogger ua-cam.com/video/5DpxdE3MsB0/v-deo.html Marc Lozano NBA Worker Atheist ua-cam.com/video/0Qho1iam4XA/v-deo.html Pat Flynn ua-cam.com/video/MCDRX3Twupw/v-deo.html Zachary King
I remember watching some of the earliest episodes of MythVision, when Derek had a Cohost, and thinking, "this kid (Derek) didn't know enough to bring anything of much value to these discussions". These days I'm amazed by the quality of insights he can bring even to a conversation with Bart Ehrman.
Once I read Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies” a light bulb went off in my head. I realized Luther was an angry, evil, vile man and I wouldn’t be a part of anything he was associated with. Which slowly pulled me away from Christianity and religion entirely.
I’m 70yrs old. Raised a Lutheran though basically quit going to the Lutheran church when I was a around 20yr old. Baptized, confirmation…all that. It only came to my attention in the last year the complete ugliness of Luther. Never once did I hear of such things.
@@Larry30102 Read “The Jews and their lies” and consider how the inflammatory words impacted German thinking, society, and theology in later centuries. Because let’s remember, in the early 20th century Germany, Lutheranism was *the* main German domination. One realizes that the seed the blossomed into such a terrible tree was planted long long ago.
@@JudasMaccabeus1 The sad thing is, these seeds were sown long before Luther. What Luther said was being said by "Church Fathers" like John Chrysostom long before, who at the end of the 4th century was delivering sermon after sermon accusing Jews of being "thieves, hucksters", "lustful, rapacious greedy bandits...inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil whom debauchery and drunkenness have given them the manners of the pig and the lusty goat." That certainly is right up there with Luther!
@@Larry30102I learned about this in my public high school and UC graduate education. It was treated as common knowledge. Go forth and read friend. New things to learn all the time.
Don't hate Luther for something built into Christianity from the times the Gospels were written! Luther was very much in agreement with the doctrine of "Sola Scriptural" from the Roman Church itself.
Who Has confirmation bias here? The people!e that believe what they were told from the womb and who are literally threatened with being rejected by their caregivers, or the people who put away the hate created, And terror fixed thinking of a scared child and learn how the Bible was made, what the original languages said, and want to know what actually happened and what things meant in context? Or do you mean the afraid child that's afraid to upset mommy and daddy, nc mommy ad or.daddy cannot as a human be wrong, bc they will be switched or beaten with a rod to bruising? Who do you mean? People that want knowledge about the Bible, or people who need it to be literally true so they fit into one of 33k sects of Christianity in the USA? Please tell us all who you mean? Are you dedicated to thinking like a child? Or putting away childish things??
Enjoying this so much. I bought Dr. Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus at a used bookstore when I was still pretty much a Bible thumping fundamentalist. I read it and found it fascinating, and a few years later when I suffered a life-shattering faith crisis, I listened to many of his lectures on UA-cam. I wanted to hear from someone who came out of the same camp I was in for 30+ years. It's been 10 years or so now, and I'm still trying to figure it all out. Materialism isn't the way, it seems. Consciousness is a real thing, and independent of the human mind. But I also do NOT believe that the way things are spelled out in the Bible and taught by Christian preachers over the generations is true, either. Thanks for this interview. Enjoying it immensely.
This was fantastic. The questions were stellar and brought out the best in Bart as an off the cuff teacher drawing spontaneously on his deep knowledge and lifetime of scholarship. It's hard to rank the Mythvision episodes I've most enjoyed or from which I've learned the most, but this one is in the top 5 at least, maybe top 2 or 3. Thanks to Dr. Ehrman, to Derek, and to the anonymous supporter who made this possible.
@@JoeCool820 Your reason of why you respect Bart one would probably guess? yet being a Christian why would you respect something that God calls Blasphemy. Could you Collaborate a little Bro? Joe Cool is known well and you caught it before anyone else out of millions on the Internet and that's Cool also.👍
@@chadtyrone Bart Ehrman once said: "Within three hundred years Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the Trinity. Early Christianity is nothing if not remarkable." According to Bart Ehrman the accomplishments in Jesus' life were not only special they were remarkable! A far cry from someone who's as delusional as you and @Barryb383 !😂
44:20-44:34 Because “Luke”and “Matthew” have macro disagreements. “Luke” completely changes the meaning of “Matthew’s” parable of the talents in his parable of the minas. That demonstrates “Luke” was willing to be loose with “Matthew” specifically.
Jesus never wrote anything and God The Father has never made an appearance. It is up to us to fill in the void with fantastic stories and argue over the details.
I see those gears turning in Derek's head. Be nice to Bart and get that epic Carrier debate one day. "Oh what's this? I scheduled you both for the same time? I'm such a scatter brain. Welp, guess we'll have to do a debate."
Won't help much Derek's attempts to build a place where serious historical scholarship takes place to engage in a very obvious 'stunt'. Price's shockingly bad effort against Ehrman has sunk any future debates I think for the foreseeable future.
He did a debate years ago with Robert Price. It's on UA-cam if you haven't seen it and are interested. I have to say though... Price was not a very entertaining debater at all. It was hard not to be on Bart's side just based on Price being so boring that when he's done you realize you weren't even paying attention to most of it.
There would be no debate ... They are from different paradigms ... At best we'd have parallel play. The grand debate that will never happen is Bart and Bishop Barron...that would be hoot.
@@nothanks6549 I watched that debate and paid attention to what Robert had to say. But he was so woefully unprepared that Bart was able to commit fallacy after fallacy and get away with it, and win. Which he did.
I often thought when I was young that Paul was condescending in his language and was perplexed as to why it is mostly his works that make up the new testament. I then was educated some thanks to the internet and some radio, such that I do believe now that Christianity as an institution is Roman in nature and was probably used as a means to wrangle the people.. Thank Enki for all the tablets and archeology.. Also Thoth, our great teacher.
Bart has a nice hair cut ,no tie ,glasses no glasses always a laugh but dead on when it comes to his work .articulates things well reaches the stupid all the way to those well educated .well balanced.
Agreed. Had my fill of over the top (trying to be perfect) public images. Bart is one of few now who are who they are and lead with their integrity and experience.
@@Reinhard_Schneider well, the accademic approach is the best to figure out the truth of anything in this world including history and religion but at same time it doesn't mean that he is right all the time!
@@radwanabu-issa4350 not when the acadamics are christians, ex christians and work at christian universities then there is a lot of bias. Ehrman actually believes that the gospels are 4 independent sources and that John didn't know the other gospels. Incredible....
Dr Bart Ehrman has really helped me over the last 3 years. I've learned so much and been able to confirm my longtime agnostic/athiest inclinations. Mythvision is a great show and much appreciated.
I'm related to Albert Schweitzer on my "mom's" side.... Her dad, Dan Schweitzer used to say that "if evolution were true than George Washington would have taken a picture of a fish turning into a bird, and no such photo exists" ....🤷
41:42-41:52 i would say it comes down to creative differences between “Matthew” and “Luke” and that both their genealogies aren’t literal/factual. “Luke” is probably going “I can go further than this. Let me do one.”
I gather some folk can struggle... My local library holds most of his popular books. I'm sure you could even get hold of the scholarly ones at local university library. Enjoy the course.
Before reading Bart I had no idea that the gospels were at best second-hand hearsay accounts written by multiple authors, and that they all contradicted each other on what Jesus said on the cross and on the witness accounts to his imagined resurrection. Those are just simple facts about the NT and there are other hisroric facts that undermine the NT story. I've read others who take on the same problems with thorough and impartial scholarship.
In church when they encourage you to read the Bible they generally mean pick out a few verses that have meaning to you. If you do that it is easy to keep the faith. If you read the Bible front to back it becomes more difficult to picture it as a guide to how to live. Same with the story of the Budda. Instead of caring for his wife and child he decided to leave to become "enlightened". Any bum can (and does) that.
@@danieleyre8913 oh, Dr Erhman tripped me and threw in a "many scholars" line. I wonder how many scholars can one fit on a pin head? And if a scholar can get through the eye of a needle with an apologetic text? These are the big questions ...
These questions! Good Lord, every Ancient Middle-Eastern PhD student on the planet (there aren’t that many of them) are coming up with these extremely esoteric questions; and Bart hits ‘em out of the park.
Bogs are good at preserving because they have such low oxygenation. Same thing protects anything sealed. Oxygen "rusts" everything essentially, even organic material.
Yeah, Bart’s explanation of why stable humidity creates a good environment for preservation was literally and figuratively hand-wavy. It sounded like he was repeating a conclusion he overheard somebody else make. The lack of oxygen in bogs would explain a lot.
@@dingdongism Stable environments do help preservation, I know that as a comic book collector, but the best stable environment is one dry, cold and low in oxygen. Dry basements have preserved some important comic book collections.
@@jabbrewoki Not to harp on this, but it seems like a huge part of this question concerns the material in question being preserved. If we're talking ancient manuscripts, I simply don't believe a stable humid environment would encourage preservation, any more than an environment with fluctuating humidity would. I'd be open to correction on this for sure, but as a stand alone comment Bart's assertion about environmental stability being the most important seems incomplete at best.
@@dingdongism I'm obviously not an expert, but I'll say what I think; The instability, in humidity or temperature, expand and contract the material. When this expansion and contraction happens thousands of times over long periods of time, it essentially creates cracks or tears, breaking the material apart. Humidity is always bad because water is almost always bad, but I guess stable humidity would be better than fluctuating humidity, but it would need to be in a sterile environment, because most humidity brings life, mold and bacteria, but bigger stuff as well, that is really bad for organic material of any kind, parchment, papyrus, etc. I do know for comic books, one wants dry, cold, dark, stable.
Why? It not taken seriously by anyone in academic biblical scholarship. For goodness sake the two images (the supposed front and back) don't match (one side its10 cm taller than the other) and the image is nothing like what you would have got from laying a piece of cloth on top of body. Its obviously a fake and there even a Church document from the Middle Ages saying its fake. When I was a practising Catholic 20 years ago I thought it was fake then, its only the tragically gullible think any of the 'pro' Shroud crowd have any points.
It's great hear more from Bart Ehrman. I've been reading his books for years. Mythvision is a great source for the discussion of belief for theist and atheist alike.
The only direct source says those authors gave up their lives & livelihoods to go around, in poverty, to help others. (Did they accept or accept donations? Probably. Is that all they did? Nope-well not according to the only direct source.) But I hear ya, what do sources & evidence & balanced analysis have to do with the internet?
@@billweekley4077Do I really need to? You gave the impression of having an ample supply of God-given intellect & I'm confident you can puzzle it out for yourself. (Clue: "Seek and ye shall find.") Peace.
Wow Ehrman agrees that Q is superfluous... wow... but then he had to add another hypothesis that is baseless to make it still come back... ah well... conjecture is the name of the game in making fairy tales appear to be not so fabulous.
Δεσποσύνη (Desposyne) is a rarely used word for a respected woman of noble birth, usually with some political power or clout. Same Greek root as "despot" and "δέσποινα" (Despoina), the latter often used to address the virgin Mary in prayers (Παναγία Δέσποινα) and a fairly popular girl's name in Greece. If prof. Ehrman hasn't heard it, origin likely post-new testament, medieval or later. Never heard it referrin to a cult or religious conviction of any kind.
I have been an atheist all my life, maybe because of Star Trek Original series, but it was only after I got in contact with Phd Erhman that I could really understand and substantiate my claims when debating others, including some pastors that were completely obliterated by, not explanations but simple questions I learned by listening to professor Ehrman.
We poorest common class of peoples. Owe these hardworking religious scholars , far more than we will ever be able to fully repay. We can honor their memories, by taking the time out of our lives to teach their discoveries for free. To the other poorest classes of peasants, that are intellectually uneducated, and emotionally religiously enslaved.
@@user-lj9zq4dr5t yes it is. Please explain to us what you have personally suffered through to help teach, or benefit the less fortunate poor people in this world. If you haven't. Then please stop trying to distract us from being able to appreciate the people that really are trying to benefit the less fortunate poor people. If I'm wrong. Please explain how. That way I'll be better informed in being able to form my own thoughts, and opinions.
The Jerusalem Apostles could not have thought Jesus was a sacrifice for sins because they still practiced Temple sacrifice and so did Paul (at least according to Acts). I don't think it's possible to know what the Jerusalem Apostles thought but there is no reason to project Pauline soteriology onto them, at least not without some actual evidence.
This is actually a good point. And it was quite eye opening when I found this little tidbit in the New Testament, the fact that these apostles continued to bring sacrifices to the Temple after Jesus's supposed "sacrifice on the Cross." Um, why would they be doing that if Jesus was the final sacrifice, once and for all???
Exactly. Acts 15 is also contradicted by Galatians 2. Paul never mentioned the 4 commandments, even contradicts them or rejects them (food laws) and he even says Peter wanted Gentiles to keep the law and that James, Peter and John or Barnabas were against him. The people in the letter to the Galatians also followed another Gospel according to Paul and continued to keep the law. Paul says the apostles didn't live in the truth of his gospel. There was a major split in Antioch according the most scholars. That's why we have Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Today all.follow Paul
@@britaom3299 I wonder if the deification of Jesus happened after the temple was destroyed by the Romans. In other words Jesus became a replacement for the temple.
@@Justin_Beaver564 it was earlier because of Paul. Galatians was written in the year 50 or so. But after the temple was destroyed and Romans won the war, the apostles were not more alive and couldnt defend their doctrine anymore. Thats when the gospels were written and Pauline Christianity claimed apostolic authority
25:00 this reminds me of a question that I keep forgetting to ask. If Paul had the view that Christians don’t need to be circumcised (or *shouldn’t* be), and Paul’s Christianity seems to have “won,” then why do so many Christians circumcise their infants today? Or is that just a regional trend? I honestly have no idea, insight is appreciated!
In 1870, the influential orthopedic surgeon Lewis Sayre, a founder of the American Medical Association, introduced circumcision in the United States as a purported cure for several cases of young boys presenting with paralysis and other significant gross motor problems. He thought the procedure ameliorated such problems based on the then prominent "reflex neurosis" theory of disease, with the understanding that a tight foreskin inflamed the nerves and caused systemic problems. The use of circumcision to promote good health also fit in with the germ theory of disease, which saw validation during the same time period: the foreskin was seen as harboring infection-causing smegma. Sayre published works on the subject and promoted it energetically in speeches. Although later discredited, many contemporary physicians believed it could cure, reduce, or otherwise prevent a wide-ranging array of perceived medical problems and social ills, including that of epilepsy, hernia, headache, masturbation, clubfoot, alcoholism and gout. Its popularity spread with publications such as Peter Charles Remondino's History of Circumcision. By the late 19th century, circumcision had become a common medical procedure throughout a majority of the core Anglophonic world-Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom-as well as the Union of South Africa. In the United Kingdom and United States, it was universally recommended.
Just say kNOw to an unnecessary, involuntary to all the prospective "patients", i.e. very young baby boys, and almost always harmful surgical procedure that was and still is done to be a unique mark of religious and tribal identity, that apparently originated as a *voluntary adult practice* by some Egyptian priests.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Oh wow. So a crackpot theory borne out of ignorance … started it all. And it’s still going. Something about wool, and eyes… my head hurts. Thank you greatly for the very thorough explanation!
@@erink3289 Not a problem at all. But I wanted to clear up that it was started for good reasons rather than just as a crackpot theory. It was the British physician Jonathan Hutchinson who published his findings in 1855 that, among his venereal disease patients, Jews had a lower prevalence of syphilis. And with those findings, he went on to advocate for circumcision for the rest of his year. Earned himself a knighthood and made it a common practice in his field. So, it would be more accurate to say it was a legitimate medical practice that was taken and used as a cure-all by unscrupulous medical doctors and crackpots who rode off it's popularity.
Bart Ehrman's objections to dispensing with the "Q" source can all be answered with highly plausible explanations. For example, he argues that both Matthew and Luke follow Mark's ordering of events, but Luke does not follow Matthew's ordering of material in the non-Markan sections, and that this cannot be explained if Luke had access to Matthew. However, the internal evidence in Luke suggests that Luke was aware of Markan priority and of Matthew's reliance on Mark, and that he considered Mark to be more authoritative than Matthew, and that he even went so far as to correct Matthew in several respects so as to provide a more reasonable narrative in the non-Markan sections. There is evidence that Luke deliberately broke up Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, for example, given that in Matthew it is extremely lengthy, and it would be unlikely for anyone to have delivered such a lengthy discourse-or for anyone who was listening to have remembered the entire thing as one single discourse. Luke clearly saw the Sermon on the Mount as a poor literary construction, and for narrative and structural purposes, he broke it up into smaller pieces and distributed the pieces throughout the gospel. Ehrman also cites the differences in the Nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke. It can be demonstrated that Luke was in fact rejecting elements in Matthew's Nativity narrative for their sheer implausibility, and replacing them with what he thought would be something more plausible. It is obvious from Luke's introduction of ostensibly historical events into the narrative (such as the misplaced census) that his purpose was to make the account sound as realistic as possible, and he therefore gets rid of the unrealistic, "magical" elements in the Matthean account of the Nativity, such as the Visit of the Magi and the Slaughter of the Innocents. Along the same lines, it can be shown that Luke rejected Matthew's artificial genealogy with its 14-generation scheme, and he created an alternative genealogy that traced Jesus' ancestry all the way back to Adam, rather than merely to David. For Matthew, who was writing for a primarily Jewish audience, the numerology and the tracing back to Abraham were exactly what would have appealed to Jewish readers. Luke was obviously writing for a Gentile audience, and his creative editing of Matthew was influenced by his understanding of what would appeal to the Graeco-Roman mind. Something similar can be demonstrated for Luke's treatment of Matthew's embellishments of Mark's account of the Resurrection. There is a clear effort on the part of Luke to "correct" Matthew's excesses-for example, his rejection of Matthew's fanciful story about the conspiracy hatched between the chief priests and the Roman soldiers who were commissioned to guard the tomb, a conspiracy which involved accusing the disciples of stealing the dead body of Jesus. There are plenty of other such rejections in Luke's account of the Resurrection, and substitutions with something more rational and more appealing to the non-Jewish mind. Ehrman's principle of opting for the "simplest" solution to the Synoptic Problem is perhaps ill-advised in this case. Even if we were to accept the principle of the "simplest" solution, we would have to ask: In what way is it simpler to posit a hypothetical source than to demonstrate from within the text itself that Luke was editing and correcting Matthew for his own purposes-something he did not need to do with Mark because Mark is a more bare-bones account, more straightforward, and also written for a Gentile audience (therefore already written with that mode of thinking built in).
I just kinda expect this sort of thing from Ehrman now. No willingness to revisit his shibboleths. I'll admit it's a bit disappointing that MacDonald still buys Q though.
Exactly what I was just thinking while Bart was saying that. This solution is is way simpler than a missing text that says who knows what and both writers somehow coincidentally had access to.
0:56 I have a guess, I watch and follow a lot of biblical scholars, a lot of them are charismatic and nice (most are formal and scholarly, pretty normal) but Bart is actually funny and humorous, like he's laughing and joking every time, it even contrasts sometimes when he's talking to other scholars 😅 I appreciate that a lot!! 😂
6:49-6:57 Hey, I just recently did some research on them. They’re from the 4th century and they detail the disputes between athanasius and Arius (Simon Magnus) in the narrative framework of paul, peter, and clement in rome. The homilies date to slightly before the council of nicaea. The recognitions date from the council of nicaea to the council of “constantinople.” They’re important for 4th century christianity. They’re not important on any macro level. Edit: Simon Magnus can also be representative of Paul.
Love Dr Ehrman but I was stunned and disappointed when he said Paul said “ yeah I don’t want you participating in demon worship so don’t eat the meat” Paul actually had a very interesting and extremely nuanced take on that particular subject. I am baffled. That Ehrman said what he said.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y .....That would be the One that created me, the same One that keeps your heart beating while you spit in His face . Mental illness is a terrible thing......isn't it ?
Bart doesnt believe he waisted 12 years going to colleges, universities etc just to realize he is just a time plus chance accidental blob with no purpose. Then...he still dies in the end with no hope...
While i like these videos of Ehrman, what I like better is to read physical copies of his books and others of recent scholars in the same field. Years ago i was able to buy and read two of his books, "Forged" and "Misquoting Jesus", but then could not afford to buy more, which were not in my local library or available to borrow from other library systems. My library system used to have a program that let you request that they buy books not in their system, then, if funds were available, they would do so and mail you the book. I used that system to get a couple of other books including "Jesus Never Existed" by Kenneth Humphreys (with which of course Ehrman would vehemently disagree!), then, just as I feared, the funds ran out! I would like to team up with would-be readers with the same problem so that we can buy such hard-to-get books and make them more affordable and accessible.
The Desposyni from the Greek word desposunos meaning “of or belonging to the master or lord” was, at that time, a name reserved for Jesus’ blood relatives.
Desposyni. 29:00 mark, the word refers to the blood descendants of the Jesus family....i.e. the grandson of Jude, etc. They survived for a few centuries then disappeared. They migrated from Jerusalem to Pella (Jordan Valley) shortly after the death of James (the bro of Jesus) and just before the fall of Jerusalem. They carried on the traditions of the Nazarenes/Ebionites. I'm highly surprised Bart never heard of them.
42:10 My answer to this concern (that Matthew and Luke have different genealogies and birth narratives) is that the author of the replicant gospel was intentionally trying to alter the teaching and supplant the teaching of the other. I'm also curious why people assume Matthew came first, I actually had a feeling it was meant to be the "final" Church-approved synoptic gospel which is why it was placed first in the canon. It contains a much longer Sermon on the Mount (elevated from the smaller Plain) which is central to the Church teaching... it has more Trinitarian elements, more "fulfillment of prophecy", more respect for the Law (than Paul), a more antisemitic Passion narrative, etc.
My reading and study tells me Tabor is closer to the truth. No "well-known archeologist" who didn't make the discovery, would want to believe in physical evidence. Modern Pauline adherents want to believe in the physical resurrection, so Jesus couldn't have an ossuary. Dr. Tabor's quote of statistics, that there were probably a lot of people named Jesus whose father was named Joseph, or mother Mary, but a Jesus with parents Joseph and Mary, and wife Mary (signified as a teacher), brothers Judus and Josey, and finally, if the missing ossuary is indeed the one of James later recovered, increases the odds of authenticity increase to such a significant degree that a duplication of names in a single family is less believable than that this IS the tomb of THE Jesus.
Goodacre's hypothesis does not eliminate Q. He claims it does, but I forced him to admit in an argument on his old blog that it does not (I am sure he would not describe the exchange that way). All it means is that only Matthew would have access to Q. Matthew, unless he wrote them as fiction, would still need a source to get the sayings. His final response was to insist that if only Matthew saw Q, then its not Q, since Q is by definition a source used by Matthew and Luke. In his mind, then, Q does not exist, but I hope you can see what kind of special pleading he is engaged in.
in a wrestling Match?...Jesus said : Love your Neighbors for it is the Second Greatest Law...But Jesus NEVER said that We should Adopt, or Believe what our Neighbors say even how Sweet & Intellectual they may Sound..so that We will not be DECEIVED!.
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Sign up For Bart Ehrman's new course Paul & Jesus: The Great Divide
mythvisionpodcast.com/jesusvspaul
Derek, would you please share the information about the book called " the sumerian swindle ". Within the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BIBLES researching podcasters, and bloggers communities. To see what they think about the. " sumerian swindle " narratives storyline.
Paul teaching polluted by pagan roman
❤ Attention sheep level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 11 eastren. Negative energy will creep out yr feet tell it's time.
@@raya.p.l5919 can you be specific about what you're actually trying to say? Instead of talking mystical farm animals energy force fields leaving their bodies. Christianity supposedly is here to save people from an eternal hell. What can you explain about the things that we all should be able to know about what you're able to understand about what's happening within the christian movement.
Is this a JOKE?
This so called..."scholar Bart D Ehrman".. doesn't know what Jesús came FOR.. or to...FULFILL?
Paul is right to say that..WITHOUT CRUCIFIXION, DEAD AND RESURRECTION of JesusChrist..there's NO SALVATION of the SOULS of men.
JesusChrist said it so clear on Lk 24:44-47.
Because THAT'S what He came to FULFILL. (Matt 5:17/ Hebre. 10:9-14).
On the CROSS JesusChrist got rid of the LAW.. that it was against us.. and also He DEFEATED and EXPOSED...the fallen angels who ORDAINED AND ADDED that law (Gal 3 17; 19/ Acts 7:53/ Hebre 2:1-2) ...(Colos 2 14-15/ Ephs 2:14-16).
And those angels are NOT..from Jesus but.. are called among many titles as the WATCHERS (Dan 4:17. The POWERS AND PRINCIPALITIES/ Colos. 2:8-10/ Ephes 6:12/ARCHONS..etc). Which were created by the evil god from the old Testament.
And on Dan. 7:25.. these angels are called:
"The saints of the most High ".. which is this sumerian god called "anu", named of the famous psalm 91:4.
That prophecy of Dan. 7:25..was totally FULFILLED by Jesús, because He didn't only change the law of DEATH, like I said it before, HE ABOLISHED IT on the CROSS.
And He talked stuff against..this "Prince of the power of the AIR "(Ps. 18 7-11/ Ephes 2:2).
Which is also the "power of DARKNESS".. and Jesús DELIVERED US FROM him(Colos 1 13).
And REDEEM US from his laws and commandments of DEAD (Gal. 3:13; 4 4-5).
Jesus.. called him:
"The god of the DEAD "(Mat. 22:32).
For the simple reason that... the RESURRECTION had not yet occurred. (Hebre.11)..So here's the reason that SALVATION of the SOULS.. came through the DEAD...and RESURRECTION OF JESUSCHRIST.( Mat. 27:52-53/ Hebre 10:9-14).
This also means that this "scholar Bart ".. DOES NOT KNOW WHAT is the GOSPEL OF SALVATION..?
Just..as millions.. of religious people.
And obviously that he doesn't know either WHAT the ORIGINAL SIN..
IS?? 😄😅🤣🤪😹🤷🙋
Bart is a complete nerd and the foremost expert on the Bible. He is brilliant. He is fluent in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin. A true historian. Mad respect. I’m a revolutionary war and civil war historian and I only needed to learn French because I already was fluent in English. From one historian to another, keep doing exemplary work
Bart, like most, doesn't understand the Bible. To understand it one must be carried along by the Spirit of Love and most are not. It takes a hunger and to love yourself and others as God loves you.
@@kerwinbrown4180 Lmao. That's hilariously ironic, polytheist. The Torah itself literally states it can be understood in its literal form (so there are no excuses). No magical guidence needed, polytheist. No, only that, polytheist, your entire pagan imposter religion is a complete perversion and inversion of the Hebrew Bible it claim to fulfill. There isn't a single concept or word you've understood. Even the greatest, most influential theological minds of Clownianity were biblically illiterate clowns, like yourself, that couldn't even understand the simplest of passages and narratives. There isn't anything you've understood, pagan, and you don't "have" this spirit your filthy blasphemous mouths profess. You can't even spot inconsistencies and contraditions in your own NT, that's how biblically illiterate and spiritually blind you are. You are the opposite of what you claim to be and what you think you are. What you follow is pure undulaterated satanism, and every single word that pours out of your pagan mouths is just lies, blasphemies and endless contraditions (contradictions and ontological impossibilities which you also worship). You don't even know basic Christian theology or history anyway, or even what you worship, because you are almost certain some kind of Neoprotestant or American Evangeliclown; literally the dumbest, must clueless and ignorant branch of your false religion. But tell me, since you think it's "the Bible", who compiled and canonized it for you, polytheist? Who told you it's "the Bible"?
The foremost *popular* expert, he mainly synthesizes the data for a popular audience.
@@jakejerrison5181this is true but Bart is also an excellent scholar
And yet, Ehrman doesn't understand the difference between Old Testament and New. You can be that "smart" and completely miss the point. That's called hiding something in plain sight.
Bart saved me from continuing to waste my life on religion, he helped me free my mind with the rigor of his investigation. Thank you
Bart your Lord and Saviour.
Philosophy will bring you right back or at least a state of uncertainty where life is much more enjoyable
So what are you going to invest your life in now ? Relationships fail, money flies away, we all invest in something
@@sikeajaxInvest in things that at least are grounded in reality
And yet there are Atheists who now are living their best lives, after converting to Catholicism:
ua-cam.com/video/dTVjjLnr5Uk/v-deo.html Jennifer Fulwiler
ua-cam.com/video/qnqMRgdPd2s/v-deo.html Mark Drogin
ua-cam.com/video/spsEoDm0n1w/v-deo.html John Barger
ua-cam.com/video/-Qozjv6G4cg/v-deo.html Jennifer Frey
ua-cam.com/video/H7smjRm79VM/v-deo.html Scott McDermott
ua-cam.com/video/WbYTkYndVmg/v-deo.html John Pridemore
ua-cam.com/video/Cjwj6IQ265o/v-deo.html Karen Edminsten
ua-cam.com/video/3czEocSLT7w/v-deo.html Atheist Blogger
ua-cam.com/video/5DpxdE3MsB0/v-deo.html Marc Lozano NBA Worker Atheist
ua-cam.com/video/0Qho1iam4XA/v-deo.html Pat Flynn
ua-cam.com/video/MCDRX3Twupw/v-deo.html Zachary King
I remember watching some of the earliest episodes of MythVision, when Derek had a Cohost, and thinking, "this kid (Derek) didn't know enough to bring anything of much value to these discussions". These days I'm amazed by the quality of insights he can bring even to a conversation with Bart Ehrman.
It kinda shows you what the ability to learn on the job and develop their own person style and gain knowledge in their own time can do for someone
I agree. He learned so much! So awesome to see 😊
Derek is a force to be reckoned with.
I’ve loved watching him give himself such a great education over time. Very gratifying.
He’s essentially done a PhD without being in an official program.
Once I read Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies” a light bulb went off in my head.
I realized Luther was an angry, evil, vile man and I wouldn’t be a part of anything he was associated with. Which slowly pulled me away from Christianity and religion entirely.
I’m 70yrs old. Raised a Lutheran though basically quit going to the Lutheran church when I was a around 20yr old. Baptized, confirmation…all that. It only came to my attention in the last year the complete ugliness of Luther. Never once did I hear of such things.
@@Larry30102 Read “The Jews and their lies” and consider how the inflammatory words impacted German thinking, society, and theology in later centuries. Because let’s remember, in the early 20th century Germany, Lutheranism was *the* main German domination.
One realizes that the seed the blossomed into such a terrible tree was planted long long ago.
@@JudasMaccabeus1 The sad thing is, these seeds were sown long before Luther. What Luther said was being said by "Church Fathers" like John Chrysostom long before, who at the end of the 4th century was delivering sermon after sermon accusing Jews of being "thieves, hucksters", "lustful, rapacious greedy bandits...inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil whom debauchery and drunkenness have given them the manners of the pig and the lusty goat."
That certainly is right up there with Luther!
@@Larry30102I learned about this in my public high school and UC graduate education. It was treated as common knowledge. Go forth and read friend. New things to learn all the time.
Don't hate Luther for something built into Christianity from the times the Gospels were written! Luther was very much in agreement with the doctrine of "Sola Scriptural" from the Roman Church itself.
Never clicked something so fast. One of my favorite scholars
ua-cam.com/video/dKShBLRixR8/v-deo.html
There seems to me to be something very shady about a world view that is supported by so many writings attributed to people that didn’t write them. 🤔
Bart!! He has helped me so much. He's the best!
Derek has become an excellent host over time and Bart Ehrman is one of my favorite scholars.
Thumbs up if you too can’t get enough of Bart
It is thumbs down from me.
It's Bart, Forrest and Erika for me. 🤩
Why cause he helps. Your confirmation bias?
Who Has confirmation bias here? The people!e that believe what they were told from the womb and who are literally threatened with being rejected by their caregivers, or the
people who put away the hate created, And terror fixed thinking of a scared child and learn how the Bible was made, what the original languages said, and want to know what actually happened and what things meant in context? Or do you mean the afraid child that's afraid to upset mommy and daddy, nc mommy ad or.daddy cannot as a human be wrong, bc they will be switched or beaten with a rod to bruising? Who do you mean? People that want knowledge about the Bible, or people who need it to be literally true so they fit into one of 33k sects of Christianity in the USA? Please tell us all who you mean? Are you dedicated to thinking like a child? Or putting away childish things??
@@chadtyrone why, because he loves you? Because he’s for you ? I can’t possibly see a reason why? Even if it’s not true it should be!
Enjoying this so much. I bought Dr. Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus at a used bookstore when I was still pretty much a Bible thumping fundamentalist. I read it and found it fascinating, and a few years later when I suffered a life-shattering faith crisis, I listened to many of his lectures on UA-cam. I wanted to hear from someone who came out of the same camp I was in for 30+ years.
It's been 10 years or so now, and I'm still trying to figure it all out. Materialism isn't the way, it seems. Consciousness is a real thing, and independent of the human mind. But I also do NOT believe that the way things are spelled out in the Bible and taught by Christian preachers over the generations is true, either. Thanks for this interview. Enjoying it immensely.
I’m experiencing a similar journey! I’m so thankful for Bart, such amazing insight and depth to the real stuff!!!
Agree with materialism and consciousness. You may also like the talks and writings of late Jiddu Krishnamurti. Search and read his quotes and bio too.
So glad you had him on again. Thank you to the anonymous patron!!
ua-cam.com/video/dKShBLRixR8/v-deo.html
This was fantastic. The questions were stellar and brought out the best in Bart as an off the cuff teacher drawing spontaneously on his deep knowledge and lifetime of scholarship. It's hard to rank the Mythvision episodes I've most enjoyed or from which I've learned the most, but this one is in the top 5 at least, maybe top 2 or 3. Thanks to Dr. Ehrman, to Derek, and to the anonymous supporter who made this possible.
I’m a Christian but I highly respect Bart Ehrman thank for bringing him on again
he thinks your guy was nothing special.
that he suffered from delusion..
@@Marabarra134
What are you talking about bro?
@@JoeCool820 Your reason of why you respect Bart one would probably guess? yet being a Christian why would you respect something that God calls Blasphemy. Could you Collaborate a little Bro? Joe Cool is known well and you caught it before anyone else out of millions on the Internet and that's Cool also.👍
Yes, please collaborate 😂
@@chadtyrone
Bart Ehrman once said:
"Within three hundred years
Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the Trinity.
Early Christianity is nothing if not remarkable."
According to Bart Ehrman the accomplishments in Jesus' life were not only special they were remarkable! A far cry from someone who's as delusional as you and @Barryb383 !😂
Love Dr. Bart!!! Always interesting to hear his take on things.
Just signed up for the course. This is my favorite channel and has helped me out of the chains of religion.
44:20-44:34 Because “Luke”and “Matthew” have macro disagreements. “Luke” completely changes the meaning of “Matthew’s” parable of the talents in his parable of the minas. That demonstrates “Luke” was willing to be loose with “Matthew” specifically.
Love listening to Dr. Ehrman
Jesus never wrote anything and God The Father has never made an appearance.
It is up to us to fill in the void with fantastic stories and argue over the details.
I always said if God exist why does he need prophets and religion to get his word out? Because there is no invisible being.
@@MrGeorgewfSo you aren’t annihilated in your hubris.
@@bradleyperry1735
Sorry to disappoint you there is no invisible god.
@@MrGeorgewf Citation needed.
@@bradleyperry1735
None needed
I love Bart's personality. He's such a chill guy and I love listening to him.
Dr. Ehrman is the best! I never miss his videos 👍
Great questions here. This channel is fantastic for those of us not in the field but want to hear from experts.
That is why Quran says old scriptures are corrupted
Now videos doing same objective review of Quran.
I see those gears turning in Derek's head. Be nice to Bart and get that epic Carrier debate one day. "Oh what's this? I scheduled you both for the same time? I'm such a scatter brain. Welp, guess we'll have to do a debate."
Won't help much Derek's attempts to build a place where serious historical scholarship takes place to engage in a very obvious 'stunt'.
Price's shockingly bad effort against Ehrman has sunk any future debates I think for the foreseeable future.
He did a debate years ago with Robert Price. It's on UA-cam if you haven't seen it and are interested. I have to say though... Price was not a very entertaining debater at all. It was hard not to be on Bart's side just based on Price being so boring that when he's done you realize you weren't even paying attention to most of it.
There would be no debate ... They are from different paradigms ... At best we'd have parallel play.
The grand debate that will never happen is Bart and Bishop Barron...that would be hoot.
@@nothanks6549 I watched that debate and paid attention to what Robert had to say. But he was so woefully unprepared that Bart was able to commit fallacy after fallacy and get away with it, and win. Which he did.
I often thought when I was young that Paul was condescending in his language and was perplexed as to why it is mostly his works that make up the new testament. I then was educated some thanks to the internet and some radio, such that I do believe now that Christianity as an institution is Roman in nature and was probably used as a means to wrangle the people.. Thank Enki for all the tablets and archeology.. Also Thoth, our great teacher.
Bart has a nice hair cut ,no tie ,glasses no glasses always a laugh but dead on when it comes to his work .articulates things well reaches the stupid all the way to those well educated .well balanced.
Agreed. Had my fill of over the top (trying to be perfect) public images. Bart is one of few now who are who they are and lead with their integrity and experience.
You guys are having too much fun…love it! As always, great content!
Learning these differences between Paul and Jesus has made so much fall into place, for why I was so confused on my way out.
Bart Ehrmen is a great man!! His book Heaven and Hell is an amazing read... Such a good writer and teacher.. I've learned a lot from his books 🙏
Bart Ehrman has an authentic, simple and accademic approach to complex issues of Christian dogmas and history!
But is he right?
Just his opinions
ua-cam.com/video/dKShBLRixR8/v-deo.html
@@Reinhard_Schneider well, the accademic approach is the best to figure out the truth of anything in this world including history and religion but at same time it doesn't mean that he is right all the time!
@@radwanabu-issa4350 not when the acadamics are christians, ex christians and work at christian universities
then there is a lot of bias.
Ehrman actually believes that the gospels are 4 independent sources and that John didn't know the other gospels.
Incredible....
@@Reinhard_SchneiderIncredible? This kind of trails off like you have a point but haven't stated it clearly.
Dr Bart Ehrman has really helped me over the last 3 years. I've learned so much and been able to confirm my longtime agnostic/athiest inclinations. Mythvision is a great show and much appreciated.
Love Dr Bart Ehrman! ❤
I'm related to Albert Schweitzer on my "mom's" side.... Her dad, Dan Schweitzer used to say that "if evolution were true than George Washington would have taken a picture of a fish turning into a bird, and no such photo exists" ....🤷
At my uni next semester we will be reading some of Bart's books and here I am reading them in advance, cheating a little bit...! love Bart.
It's your loss you definitely did not understand, because of your own shortcomings, now you are lost
41:42-41:52 i would say it comes down to creative differences between “Matthew” and “Luke” and that both their genealogies aren’t literal/factual. “Luke” is probably going “I can go further than this. Let me do one.”
I agree with you. The differences don’t bother me. It’s the fact that Luke is highlighting the episodes as Matthew. He changes it, sure.
His laughter is everything!
Love Bart Ehrman. I'm going to order his course next month when I get my Social Security. Thanks for the discount.
ua-cam.com/video/dKShBLRixR8/v-deo.html
I gather some folk can struggle... My local library holds most of his popular books. I'm sure you could even get hold of the scholarly ones at local university library.
Enjoy the course.
@@russellmiles2861
Yes I hope more who are struggling w/money (incr fast in mult countries) check libraries and used book stores.
was lucky enough to have dinner with him last week. He is passionate and incredibly passionate about the subject. I've learnt a lot from him.
Before reading Bart I had no idea that the gospels were at best second-hand hearsay accounts written by multiple authors, and that they all contradicted each other on what Jesus said on the cross and on the witness accounts to his imagined resurrection. Those are just simple facts about the NT and there are other hisroric facts that undermine the NT story. I've read others who take on the same problems with thorough and impartial scholarship.
my dad was a pastor in Dallas. I left church for islam/monotheism in 2002
In church when they encourage you to read the Bible they generally mean pick out a few verses that have meaning to you. If you do that it is easy to keep the faith. If you read the Bible front to back it becomes more difficult to picture it as a guide to how to live. Same with the story of the Budda. Instead of caring for his wife and child he decided to leave to become "enlightened". Any bum can (and does) that.
The Bart Ehrman interview cycle:
Questioner: ...?
Bart: HAHaHahahaha!
Rinse and repeat.
And the "all scholars" joke
That’s why he is awesome.
@@danieleyre8913 oh, Dr Erhman tripped me and threw in a "many scholars" line.
I wonder how many scholars can one fit on a pin head? And if a scholar can get through the eye of a needle with an apologetic text?
These are the big questions ...
@@russellmiles2861 Talk a lot of twaddle don’t you?
These questions! Good Lord, every Ancient Middle-Eastern PhD student on the planet (there aren’t that many of them) are coming up with these extremely esoteric questions; and Bart hits ‘em out of the park.
Great discussion. Thanks.
Bogs are good at preserving because they have such low oxygenation. Same thing protects anything sealed. Oxygen "rusts" everything essentially, even organic material.
Yeah, Bart’s explanation of why stable humidity creates a good environment for preservation was literally and figuratively hand-wavy. It sounded like he was repeating a conclusion he overheard somebody else make. The lack of oxygen in bogs would explain a lot.
@@dingdongism Stable environments do help preservation, I know that as a comic book collector, but the best stable environment is one dry, cold and low in oxygen. Dry basements have preserved some important comic book collections.
@@jabbrewoki Not to harp on this, but it seems like a huge part of this question concerns the material in question being preserved. If we're talking ancient manuscripts, I simply don't believe a stable humid environment would encourage preservation, any more than an environment with fluctuating humidity would. I'd be open to correction on this for sure, but as a stand alone comment Bart's assertion about environmental stability being the most important seems incomplete at best.
@@dingdongism I'm obviously not an expert, but I'll say what I think; The instability, in humidity or temperature, expand and contract the material. When this expansion and contraction happens thousands of times over long periods of time, it essentially creates cracks or tears, breaking the material apart. Humidity is always bad because water is almost always bad, but I guess stable humidity would be better than fluctuating humidity, but it would need to be in a sterile environment, because most humidity brings life, mold and bacteria, but bigger stuff as well, that is really bad for organic material of any kind, parchment, papyrus, etc. I do know for comic books, one wants dry, cold, dark, stable.
Let me correct that: dry, COOL, dark and stable. If it's too cold I think that's bad for them. If I recall correctly.
It’s the good looks Bart! Honestly it’s the humor and wealth of knowledge.
I feel like Bart Erhman is less condescending and more respectful to Christianity. Maybe that’s why he’s worth watching.
Being condescending doesn’t help any views only takes away from them. He’s intelligent enough to know this.
I wish you would do a show on 'The Shroud of Turin' can you please make that possible, thanks!!!! xxx
Why? It not taken seriously by anyone in academic biblical scholarship. For goodness sake the two images (the supposed front and back) don't match (one side its10 cm taller than the other) and the image is nothing like what you would have got from laying a piece of cloth on top of body. Its obviously a fake and there even a Church document from the Middle Ages saying its fake.
When I was a practising Catholic 20 years ago I thought it was fake then, its only the tragically gullible think any of the 'pro' Shroud crowd have any points.
I second this. Derek, please? 🙏
It's great hear more from Bart Ehrman. I've been reading his books for years. Mythvision is a great source for the discussion of belief for theist and atheist alike.
It continues with the Shekhina who became the female aspects of God who unites with male aspects of God on Shabbat.
Who else simply loves when Bart does his set of quick half laughs?
Not me.
Well i am Thank full and i learn so much... Truth is Truth where ever i got......
Dr. Ehrman is always a win
It’s obvious that the early authors of the New Testament were the Televangelist of there day. Give me your money.
Did they ask for money? Don’t remember reading that
@@ChrisPyle not sure
The only direct source says those authors gave up their lives & livelihoods to go around, in poverty, to help others. (Did they accept or accept donations? Probably. Is that all they did? Nope-well not according to the only direct source.) But I hear ya, what do sources & evidence & balanced analysis have to do with the internet?
@@marcsmirnoff936
Define the direct source you are referring to.
@@billweekley4077Do I really need to? You gave the impression of having an ample supply of God-given intellect & I'm confident you can puzzle it out for yourself. (Clue: "Seek and ye shall find.")
Peace.
Fabulous. I may finally be ready to take a course!
Wow Ehrman agrees that Q is superfluous... wow... but then he had to add another hypothesis that is baseless to make it still come back... ah well... conjecture is the name of the game in making fairy tales appear to be not so fabulous.
Δεσποσύνη (Desposyne) is a rarely used word for a respected woman of noble birth, usually with some political power or clout. Same Greek root as "despot" and "δέσποινα" (Despoina), the latter often used to address the virgin Mary in prayers (Παναγία Δέσποινα) and a fairly popular girl's name in Greece. If prof. Ehrman hasn't heard it, origin likely post-new testament, medieval or later. Never heard it referrin to a cult or religious conviction of any kind.
Couldn’t make the live stream but just watch it, thanks Derek for hosting the master of deconstructions, 💯
Thank you for that superthanks my friend!
Paul was clearly a grifter. Converting and changing his name from Saul and mocking the apostles publicly for his own financial and political gain.
I have been an atheist all my life, maybe because of Star Trek Original series, but it was only after I got in contact with Phd Erhman that I could really understand and substantiate my claims when debating others, including some pastors that were completely obliterated by, not explanations but simple questions I learned by listening to professor Ehrman.
good for you. Jesus himself;f never uttered the name Paul or the term christianity. food for thought. muslim since 2002
We poorest common class of peoples. Owe these hardworking religious scholars , far more than we will ever be able to fully repay. We can honor their memories, by taking the time out of our lives to teach their discoveries for free. To the other poorest classes of peasants, that are intellectually uneducated, and emotionally religiously enslaved.
That's your opinion.
@@user-lj9zq4dr5t yes it is. Please explain to us what you have personally suffered through to help teach, or benefit the less fortunate poor people in this world. If you haven't. Then please stop trying to distract us from being able to appreciate the people that really are trying to benefit the less fortunate poor people. If I'm wrong. Please explain how. That way I'll be better informed in being able to form my own thoughts, and opinions.
17:29 Which is very confusing because Moses is credited with writing about himself and Abraham.
The parable of the Good Samaritan is one example of salvation by one's conduct. No one can carry the cross for another. Period.
The Jerusalem Apostles could not have thought Jesus was a sacrifice for sins because they still practiced Temple sacrifice and so did Paul (at least according to Acts). I don't think it's possible to know what the Jerusalem Apostles thought but there is no reason to project Pauline soteriology onto them, at least not without some actual evidence.
This is actually a good point. And it was quite eye opening when I found this little tidbit in the New Testament, the fact that these apostles continued to bring sacrifices to the Temple after Jesus's supposed "sacrifice on the Cross."
Um, why would they be doing that if Jesus was the final sacrifice, once and for all???
Exactly. Acts 15 is also contradicted by Galatians 2. Paul never mentioned the 4 commandments, even contradicts them or rejects them (food laws) and he even says Peter wanted Gentiles to keep the law and that James, Peter and John or Barnabas were against him. The people in the letter to the Galatians also followed another Gospel according to Paul and continued to keep the law. Paul says the apostles didn't live in the truth of his gospel. There was a major split in Antioch according the most scholars. That's why we have Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Today all.follow Paul
@@britaom3299 I wonder if the deification of Jesus happened after the temple was destroyed by the Romans. In other words Jesus became a replacement for the temple.
@@Justin_Beaver564 it was earlier because of Paul. Galatians was written in the year 50 or so. But after the temple was destroyed and Romans won the war, the apostles were not more alive and couldnt defend their doctrine anymore. Thats when the gospels were written and Pauline Christianity claimed apostolic authority
Wonder how much Bart charges for an appearance like this. I'm sure hes worth it whatever the amount is.
It's Dr Ehrman's eyeframes which are disconcertingly absent for this fan
25:00 this reminds me of a question that I keep forgetting to ask. If Paul had the view that Christians don’t need to be circumcised (or *shouldn’t* be), and Paul’s Christianity seems to have “won,” then why do so many Christians circumcise their infants today? Or is that just a regional trend? I honestly have no idea, insight is appreciated!
In 1870, the influential orthopedic surgeon Lewis Sayre, a founder of the American Medical Association, introduced circumcision in the United States as a purported cure for several cases of young boys presenting with paralysis and other significant gross motor problems. He thought the procedure ameliorated such problems based on the then prominent "reflex neurosis" theory of disease, with the understanding that a tight foreskin inflamed the nerves and caused systemic problems. The use of circumcision to promote good health also fit in with the germ theory of disease, which saw validation during the same time period: the foreskin was seen as harboring infection-causing smegma. Sayre published works on the subject and promoted it energetically in speeches. Although later discredited, many contemporary physicians believed it could cure, reduce, or otherwise prevent a wide-ranging array of perceived medical problems and social ills, including that of epilepsy, hernia, headache, masturbation, clubfoot, alcoholism and gout. Its popularity spread with publications such as Peter Charles Remondino's History of Circumcision. By the late 19th century, circumcision had become a common medical procedure throughout a majority of the core Anglophonic world-Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom-as well as the Union of South Africa. In the United Kingdom and United States, it was universally recommended.
Just say kNOw to an unnecessary, involuntary to all the prospective "patients", i.e. very young baby boys, and almost always harmful surgical procedure that was and still is done to be a unique mark of religious and tribal identity, that apparently originated as a *voluntary adult practice* by some Egyptian priests.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Oh wow. So a crackpot theory borne out of ignorance … started it all. And it’s still going. Something about wool, and eyes… my head hurts.
Thank you greatly for the very thorough explanation!
@@erink3289 Not a problem at all.
But I wanted to clear up that it was started for good reasons rather than just as a crackpot theory.
It was the British physician Jonathan Hutchinson who published his findings in 1855 that, among his venereal disease patients, Jews had a lower prevalence of syphilis. And with those findings, he went on to advocate for circumcision for the rest of his year. Earned himself a knighthood and made it a common practice in his field.
So, it would be more accurate to say it was a legitimate medical practice that was taken and used as a cure-all by unscrupulous medical doctors and crackpots who rode off it's popularity.
This is mostly an American evangelical phenomenon.
I would like to see you & your fellows one day develope a series like, "From Jesus To The Christ" PBS 1990s. But have this series even more objective.
Bart Ehrman's objections to dispensing with the "Q" source can all be answered with highly plausible explanations. For example, he argues that both Matthew and Luke follow Mark's ordering of events, but Luke does not follow Matthew's ordering of material in the non-Markan sections, and that this cannot be explained if Luke had access to Matthew. However, the internal evidence in Luke suggests that Luke was aware of Markan priority and of Matthew's reliance on Mark, and that he considered Mark to be more authoritative than Matthew, and that he even went so far as to correct Matthew in several respects so as to provide a more reasonable narrative in the non-Markan sections. There is evidence that Luke deliberately broke up Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, for example, given that in Matthew it is extremely lengthy, and it would be unlikely for anyone to have delivered such a lengthy discourse-or for anyone who was listening to have remembered the entire thing as one single discourse. Luke clearly saw the Sermon on the Mount as a poor literary construction, and for narrative and structural purposes, he broke it up into smaller pieces and distributed the pieces throughout the gospel.
Ehrman also cites the differences in the Nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke. It can be demonstrated that Luke was in fact rejecting elements in Matthew's Nativity narrative for their sheer implausibility, and replacing them with what he thought would be something more plausible. It is obvious from Luke's introduction of ostensibly historical events into the narrative (such as the misplaced census) that his purpose was to make the account sound as realistic as possible, and he therefore gets rid of the unrealistic, "magical" elements in the Matthean account of the Nativity, such as the Visit of the Magi and the Slaughter of the Innocents. Along the same lines, it can be shown that Luke rejected Matthew's artificial genealogy with its 14-generation scheme, and he created an alternative genealogy that traced Jesus' ancestry all the way back to Adam, rather than merely to David. For Matthew, who was writing for a primarily Jewish audience, the numerology and the tracing back to Abraham were exactly what would have appealed to Jewish readers. Luke was obviously writing for a Gentile audience, and his creative editing of Matthew was influenced by his understanding of what would appeal to the Graeco-Roman mind.
Something similar can be demonstrated for Luke's treatment of Matthew's embellishments of Mark's account of the Resurrection. There is a clear effort on the part of Luke to "correct" Matthew's excesses-for example, his rejection of Matthew's fanciful story about the conspiracy hatched between the chief priests and the Roman soldiers who were commissioned to guard the tomb, a conspiracy which involved accusing the disciples of stealing the dead body of Jesus. There are plenty of other such rejections in Luke's account of the Resurrection, and substitutions with something more rational and more appealing to the non-Jewish mind.
Ehrman's principle of opting for the "simplest" solution to the Synoptic Problem is perhaps ill-advised in this case. Even if we were to accept the principle of the "simplest" solution, we would have to ask: In what way is it simpler to posit a hypothetical source than to demonstrate from within the text itself that Luke was editing and correcting Matthew for his own purposes-something he did not need to do with Mark because Mark is a more bare-bones account, more straightforward, and also written for a Gentile audience (therefore already written with that mode of thinking built in).
I just kinda expect this sort of thing from Ehrman now. No willingness to revisit his shibboleths.
I'll admit it's a bit disappointing that MacDonald still buys Q though.
Exactly what I was just thinking while Bart was saying that. This solution is is way simpler than a missing text that says who knows what and both writers somehow coincidentally had access to.
I find it amusing, brought up as a Catholic, that the Bible believing fundamentalists have got to understand that fundamentalism is not a good idea.
Top class conversation. Thanks.
0:56 I have a guess, I watch and follow a lot of biblical scholars, a lot of them are charismatic and nice (most are formal and scholarly, pretty normal) but Bart is actually funny and humorous, like he's laughing and joking every time, it even contrasts sometimes when he's talking to other scholars 😅 I appreciate that a lot!! 😂
6:49-6:57 Hey, I just recently did some research on them. They’re from the 4th century and they detail the disputes between athanasius and Arius (Simon Magnus) in the narrative framework of paul, peter, and clement in rome. The homilies date to slightly before the council of nicaea. The recognitions date from the council of nicaea to the council of “constantinople.” They’re important for 4th century christianity. They’re not important on any macro level.
Edit: Simon Magnus can also be representative of Paul.
Love Dr Ehrman but I was stunned and disappointed when he said Paul said “ yeah I don’t want you participating in demon worship so don’t eat the meat”
Paul actually had a very interesting and extremely nuanced take on that particular subject. I am baffled. That Ehrman said what he said.
Catholic: pray to Jesus’s mom!
Protestant: pray to Jesus!
Jesus: pray to the Father.
Deuteronomy 6:4
Yahweh: has anybody seen my wife?
@@rainbowkrampus She is probably chilling with the ent wifes...
@@lillia5333 Now there's a mystery worth solving.
Did the siege and fall of Byzantium make greek-written manuscripts available to Erasmus, Wycliffe and others?
Derek, post on your old channel. Those videos helped me so much. There are people out there that need you
I always said if God exist why does he need prophets and religion to get his word out? Because there is no invisible being.
Dale Allison’s “The Jesus Tradition in Q” is the best source to learn about Q, hands down
I’m still waiting for this mysterious Q to show up…
@@bradleyperry1735 He already did. Watch "Star Trek: The Next Generation".
Thanks for sharing 🙏🏾
Does Jesus even know there is a thing called the Bible?
Yes, I agree.....he is "challenged" mentally.....poor thing.
Do you have anything to add to the conversation other than pathetic insults?
If Dr Ehrman is challenged then who dresses and feeds you and changes your diapers?
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y .....That would be the One that created me, the same One that keeps your heart beating
while you spit in His face . Mental illness is a terrible thing......isn't it ?
@@TheWhyisthatso the 1 that only exists in the void between your ears then
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y .....The maggots don't care what we "believe" or not.......ummmmm good .
Bart doesnt believe he waisted 12 years going to colleges, universities etc just to realize he is just a time plus chance accidental blob with no purpose. Then...he still dies in the end with no hope...
Yeah, love Bart's personality!
While i like these videos of Ehrman, what I like better is to read physical copies of his books and others of recent scholars in the same field. Years ago i was able to buy and read two of his books, "Forged" and "Misquoting Jesus", but then could not afford to buy more, which were not in my local library or available to borrow from other library systems. My library system used to have a program that let you request that they buy books not in their system, then, if funds were available, they would do so and mail you the book. I used that system to get a couple of other books including "Jesus Never Existed" by Kenneth Humphreys (with which of course Ehrman would vehemently disagree!), then, just as I feared, the funds ran out! I would like to team up with would-be readers with the same problem so that we can buy such hard-to-get books and make them more affordable and accessible.
Bart is shaking my faith!
The Desposyni from the Greek word desposunos meaning “of or belonging to the master or lord” was, at that time, a name reserved for Jesus’ blood relatives.
Desposyni. 29:00 mark, the word refers to the blood descendants of the Jesus family....i.e. the grandson of Jude, etc. They survived for a few centuries then disappeared. They migrated from Jerusalem to Pella (Jordan Valley) shortly after the death of James (the bro of Jesus) and just before the fall of Jerusalem. They carried on the traditions of the Nazarenes/Ebionites. I'm highly surprised Bart never heard of them.
bart ehrman is the rockstar of biblical scholarship and textual criticism!
👏🙂
Yay Dr Bart and Derek.
Very interesting and exciting Video
The truth of this mystery age of Gentile grace was lost from the moment Paul and his co-workers in the gospel died off!
do the "all scholars agree" joke, please Dr Erhman, please ... without blinking twice
It’s definitely your stunning good looks Dr. Erman!!! ❤❤❤
10:02-10:06 i believe the first instance of trying to reconcile Paul and Peter was the acts of peter and paul dated to around 500 CE.
Derek thank you for all the content. I am a fan of the channel. I am wondering when you are going to dive into the world of Hinduism?
"I think it's my stunning good looks." Then turn off the filter, Bart. xD
42:10 My answer to this concern (that Matthew and Luke have different genealogies and birth narratives) is that the author of the replicant gospel was intentionally trying to alter the teaching and supplant the teaching of the other. I'm also curious why people assume Matthew came first, I actually had a feeling it was meant to be the "final" Church-approved synoptic gospel which is why it was placed first in the canon. It contains a much longer Sermon on the Mount (elevated from the smaller Plain) which is central to the Church teaching... it has more Trinitarian elements, more "fulfillment of prophecy", more respect for the Law (than Paul), a more antisemitic Passion narrative, etc.
My reading and study tells me Tabor is closer to the truth. No "well-known archeologist" who didn't make the discovery, would want to believe in physical evidence. Modern Pauline adherents want to believe in the physical resurrection, so Jesus couldn't have an ossuary. Dr. Tabor's quote of statistics, that there were probably a lot of people named Jesus whose father was named Joseph, or mother Mary, but a Jesus with parents Joseph and Mary, and wife Mary (signified as a teacher), brothers Judus and Josey, and finally, if the missing ossuary is indeed the one of James later recovered, increases the odds of authenticity increase to such a significant degree that a duplication of names in a single family is less believable than that this IS the tomb of THE Jesus.
Goodacre's hypothesis does not eliminate Q. He claims it does, but I forced him to admit in an argument on his old blog that it does not (I am sure he would not describe the exchange that way). All it means is that only Matthew would have access to Q. Matthew, unless he wrote them as fiction, would still need a source to get the sayings. His final response was to insist that if only Matthew saw Q, then its not Q, since Q is by definition a source used by Matthew and Luke. In his mind, then, Q does not exist, but I hope you can see what kind of special pleading he is engaged in.
in a wrestling Match?...Jesus said : Love your Neighbors for it is the Second Greatest Law...But Jesus NEVER said that We should Adopt, or Believe what our Neighbors say even how Sweet & Intellectual they may Sound..so that We will not be DECEIVED!.
*20:50** you know what would survive? gold plates.* maybe the occasional magick seeing stone or two. _JC
I find the ideas tumbling through this video fascinating.