Bart Ehrman Freedom From Religion Foundation Lecture

Here's Bart Ehrman's Freedom From Religion Foundation Lecture in Raleigh, NC in 2014. At the end I included a short interview I did with him for the "Openly Secular" Campaign by RDF and FFRF. I only had ten minutes for the interview so didn't have time to discuss his work more broadly, but hope to in the future.
Directed by Scott Burdick, author of “Nihala”
www.amazon.com/Nihala-1-Scott...
www.scottburdick.com

[@pierluigibelcaro9950]

I love Professor Ehrman, not only for his huge knowledge, but also for his always being so sympathetic and exquisitely human 🙂😊 ... he's really a great teacher and a great man 🙂🙂 ...

[@carolinaisabelzamudioalvar407]

"People are converted by love not by hate, they are converted by an attractive alternative, not by vitrial, they are converted by pacient and loving intelligent explanation not by harsh rethoric. " These word finally converted me, you are my hero Dr Ehrman

[@nathanrhodes353]

You got it all right if we all could just wake up to that fact people ask why we need to know these things because you know the truth will set you free

[@notsocrates9529]

Why does the doctor only attack Christianity with such gusto? It is not the only Abrahamic religion. You will never see somebody do this with Judaism, Islam or any of the Vedic religions. I enjoy his lectures and have learned a lot from him, so please do not take it as an attack or criticism. It is just a question and observation. I think the collective wellbeing of society affects each and every one of us.

[@drmorgan2101]

Wish I had been exposed to these teachings 50 yrs ago....life would have been much more bearable.

[@roadracer1584]

I'm very fortunate to have stumbled onto this video. There is a lot of nonsense online but listening to this video is both educational and enlightening.

[@marclawson6144]

Bart, you're my hero! I totally agree: all sectors of society including atheists and agnostics need to prioritize the goal of helping people who are suffering above the goal of spreading dogmatic beliefs.

[@JC_inc]

But atheists & agnostics do help people who are needs. I remember the late Christopher Hitchens, the renowned atheist, once said how he & other atheists help the the Haitians during the earthquake there in 2010.

[@Mansplainer452]

This comment is self defeating bro. Smh😒

[@sanpatch8447]

When I grow up, I want to be like Bart Ehrman.

[@mhmeekk3003]

A psychotic and delusional man?

[@mhmeekk3003]

***** No,

[@adrianjanssens7116]

I am like Bart Ehrman, and proud of it. Just wish it happened way sooner. I am better off in every aspect of my life. A whole layer of BS removed from my life.

[@mojoman2001]

Tenured professor at UNC-CH is a great gig, if you can get it.

[@juanriingen]

Bart Ehrman is a very honest Bible scholar.

[@Xerox-ty7bf]

Excellent speech! Thank you Scott Brudick for this!

[@Alwaysdoubt100]

Bart is fantastic. He is not afraid to speak. That's is fantastic.

[@deborahwashington3001]

This man is excellent! His ideas are so well thought out and his work is wonderful to read.

[@gdynski]

That was a very knowledgeable lecture I must say. It really makes me think deep about my beliefs.

[@atheistexchristian]

Happily subscribed to this channel. Thank you so much for uploading this important lecture.

[@scottbrower9052]

One of your best speeches/presentations ever 👍

[@colerainfan1143]

Thank you, Bart, for another intelligent treatise on such a difficult, controversial topic.

[@demhai4560]

Not only intellectual but also bold!

[@Overonator]

Whoever is the top mythicist should have a freeform discussion without any time limits and structure.

[@ghostriders_1]

vridar.org/other-authors/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/

[@ThereIsNoLord]

The problem is there is no top mythicist. But it is also doesn't matter if Jesus was a real charismatic preacher or not, and his existence can never be disproven, so Ehrman is correct: the question is a waste of time.

[@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi]

“As they let me know,” “not a matter of smarts,” “I don’t attack anyone unless they are fundamentalists, and they deserve it, or are socially dangerous.” Dr. Bart, you have given me an important correction, that people are converted by love. I am passionate for the truth as well, and that is the reason for friction with those who refuse to consider other views.

[@Barentity]

This was fascinating (so much so that I read the book as well). I would be interested to know, is there is a "Bart Ehrman" for Islam or other religions?

[@jasonthedragon73]

@Lu G. Islam means submitting to God. Jesus's first commandment to man, is to submit to God ( Mark 12:29 Ergo, Jesus was indeed a prophet of Islam

[@aminrezqita6558]

There cannot be two truth. Either one is truth and the other false. Clearly Christianity is false as explained by Ehrman.

[@TheJeanette53]

AminRezqi Ta I don’t agree that Ehrman has proved anything. You need to view the Christian scriptures in their entirety to understand the claims of Christ.

[@sufficientmagister9061]

@Barentity Hasan Radwan, he is something sort of similar to Bart Ehrman. Look up his KZbin channel, and read his Facebook posts.

[@allenanderson4911]

Ibn Warraq is a critical-historian who writes about the Koran

[@jrhunter007]

Regarding 44:05 - 45:13, would Bart deny the negative correlation that exists between education, knowledge, intelligence and religiosity? Is it just a coincidence that people with higher levels of education and/or higher IQs have lower levels of religiosity, and that the converse manifests itself also (that a lower IQ and/or a lower level of education results in higher levels of religiosity)? Countless examples, studies and surveys reveal said negative correlation.

[@WallStwizkid]

I don't know if he would, but I would. First of all, the study you're attesting to was an analysis of past studies and the difference was so minimal that it's hardly worth mentioning. Secondly, I suggest reading the latest research on IQ scores which pretty much overwhelmingly show that IQ is not a good predictor of intelligence. Neither is education. But let's forget about that for a moment. There's actually a fairly comprehensive neuroscience of religiosity which explains how human beings became hardwired via evolution for religious beliefs. So becoming educated in the right field could certainly affect a person's beliefs, but the idea that it takes a bright person to be an atheist and a moron to be religious is nonsense. Human beings have been worshiping invisible gods since the Stone Age, which is also when human intelligence peaked (It's been slowly declining since..plenty of research on this topic as well.). So I will agree that being educated on these topics can certainly cause a person to reject religious urges (something we're all prone to), but I do not agree that there's any significant relationship here. There would be a lot of explaining to do in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences have been Christians. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer myself, and I don't wish anybody to be 'in the closet' with their atheism. But I also don't recommend parading around waving a flag of intellectual superiority because of it. Not only does that make one look ridiculous, but it has little basis in fact. It's a claim that any rational person should be skeptical of.

[@ThereIsNoLord]

No, there is surely a correlation. But that doesn't make ever Christian a dummy. Even Hitchens would concede this. But he would say, smart or no, their beliefs are wrong and inexplicable. Our species is not yet that developed.

[@lekhakaananta5864]

@@WallStwizkid I mean...talking about IQ is sort of dodging the spirit of the issue. We're not really interested in debating the merit of IQ as a metric here. If we assume IQ is not a good metric, we are nevertheless still talking about some quality which we describe with the word "intelligence". So however you like to define "intelligence", the question is, is there any correlation between that and religiosity? I think yeah, there clearly is, but the correlation is not strong enough to put all religious people into the "idiot" category, which is basically what Ehrman says. And the related point about how atheists shouldn't wave around a flag of intellectual superiority: This is actually an indicator that is rapidly losing its effectiveness. I would argue that as you go farther back in history, atheism indeed becomes a good indicator of intelligence. Precisely because the environment was so biased to religious thinking that it would take exceptional rationality to break out of that. However as the modern world has made both the merits of irreligion and the flaws of religion more apparent, it lowered the "barrier of entry", so to speak, of the atheist identity. These days, you can find plenty of atheists who are atheists due to reasons other than rational reflection. Some have been raised in secular households and were never exposed to religion enough, and simply learned more things to confirm their atheism simply out of confirmation bias. Some others have been emotionally spurned by religion in some way, and so turned to atheism because it is emotionally appealing. For some, atheism is a political movement that opposes the status quo establishment which happens to be religious! I have met these people, and I think their numbers will only grow with time. The age of religion is fading. How do I judge that atheists like those mentioned above are not as rational as the earlier ones? Because their atheism seem to be coincidental, and their other beliefs betray some degree of irrationality. For example, they might be atheist but believe in political conspiracy theories, or medical pseudoscience, or folk psychology, or uncritical historical misconceptions. The strongest of these are propaganda in the modern culture-wars. You see in 2000's youtube, science-vs-creationism was a popular topic, but these days it's been put to the sidelines of the political Right-vs-Left.

[@heraay]

Bart is a fantastic educator in this field. It is a great experience just listen to his speachees in youtube

[@jooldman5783]

I've just become aware of Professor Ehrman, and am very impressed with his knowledge of the subject and his agnostic materialist approach. This lecture like others I have watched was very enlightening, but what impressed me more was Professor Ehrman's approach to opposition and his attitude towards religion, which is straight out of Classical Marxism. What Lenin says here about religion is almost the same as what Professor Ehrman says at around 48 minutes in. This is what Lenin says...... "Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church." www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm. Now I know that a lot of people will trot out all of the rubbish that's been written about Socialism, Communism, Lenin, The Bolsheviks, Trotsky for obvious reasons as it challenges the domination of a minority ruling elite who own and control all of the resources of society, and for the emancipation of the poor working classes from this domination etc.....Almost the same as some early Christians were attacked in terms of religion. It is recognised by Marxist that Jesus and/or the early Christians represented a revolutionary movement with socialist principles in opposition to the oppression of the Roman Empire at the time. In terms of the Agnostic, Atheist, Sceptical force in the world as opposed to faith communites which he appeals for at 48 minutes in, this is called the International Committee of the Forth International (IFCI), with it's daily publication the wsws.org. Here are links to some other Marxist literature on religion and Christianity.....www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Ludwig_Feurbach_and_the_End_of_German_Classical_Philosop.pdf

[@TylerDurdentyler2020]

Dan Barker is a true master.

[@ow2750]

only christ is the true master... u shalt not be called master...

[@ThereIsNoLord]

@@ow2750 Christer is a master baiter.

[@rabscots910]

"religion is for those afraid to go to hell - spirituality is for those who have already been there."

[@georgepenton808]

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. according to Psalms.

[@pinball1970]

@@georgepenton808 Yes fear, the main driver of religion closely followed by ignorance

[@pinball1970]

@Mark Chase Jesus had a dark side

[@edwarsalazar2808]

@@pinball1970 In the Bible, The fear of the Lord means The respect of the Lord

[@pinball1970]

@@edwarsalazar2808 Yeah I dont like that, respect is earned

[@percy888ferry]

I "love" his circular arguments. Could Ehrman state what sources attest (credibly) to his sources?

[@jprice_]

I started watching from the middle, what was his book that he was repeatedly referring to?

[@jeremyranta2148]

well at the start he said he would spend most of his time talking about his book "how jesus became god?"

[@TheDirtworld]

i didn't know Sunnyvale supervisor Jim Lahey was a prominent atheist. Small world.

[@antiherognome6703]

+TheDirtworld Can't you hear Randy flipping burgers in the back?

[@cubangal1]

don't forget the kitties and bubbles....

[@falcon759]

40:32 - Bart misstates the definition of the Trinity here. He says "three distinct _beings_ " He correctly states it at 40:40 "three _persons_ " Being and person are NOT the same thing. Only the former wouldn't make sense rationally, as it would violate the law of non-contradiction. But the latter does not. That doesn't mean it's easy to understand, but neither is it irrational.

[@UnimatrixOne]

_Trinity_ is against everything the Bible and Jesus teach!

[@falcon759]

@@UnimatrixOne You believe Jesus is God, right? So when Jesus prayed, was He talking to Hiimself? Of course not! He was talking to the Father, a separate _person_ (not separate being/God) of the trinity.

[@UnimatrixOne]

@@falcon759 That is not what I believe. And you are right, and exactly what I always said! God is the father, Jesus is the son God made and the Holy Spirit is the power of God. Two persons, one power. So says the Bible.

[@falcon759]

@@UnimatrixOne No, that's all wrong. The Son was not "made"/created. He has existed eternally along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a person, not just "a power". John 14:16-17 "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you."

[@UnimatrixOne]

@@falcon759 NOPE 1. John is not a trustworthy source, 2. a force can also be a "helper", it does not have to be a person. There are enough other sources in the Bible that describe the Holy Spirit as God's power. 3. God was there first and he created Jesus and THEN the angels and then the solar system. Jesus had a beginning, God didn't.

[@familyfriendlylives]

Bart married to a Christian. Tough road that one! I do not envy that at all. My respect has increased tremendously and I wouldn't have thought that possible. Thank you!

[@luisalbertocarrillobacab9896]

I love it thank you professor

[@kenthomas856]

Many intelligent people believe in the supernatural aspect of the christian religion. As Bart says, they are not idiots, but they are suffering from a delusion devoid of reason and logic.

[@seanchaney3086]

Bart Ehrman doesn't even give exegesis of te Scriptures he studies.

[@ingridlooze3839]

The wisdom of this world is foolishness unto God,

[@Alwaysdoubt100]

Ingrid Looze who said that? The same guy who asked Abraham to kill his own son to prove he loves god? That was wise.

[@williancamaraporteladefran1791]

ken thomas Do you prove it?

[@williancamaraporteladefran1791]

ken thomas You're just an idiotic internet atheist.

[@Tony-if3tl]

Mr. Ehrman is spot on when concluding that atheism is merely a belief, not an empirically based conclusion. As always, his opinions are interesting and informative. Also illuminating was how ill informed many of the audience of the Freedom From Religion Foundation were as evidenced by their post-lecture questions.

[@CyeOutsider]

+Anthony Ciuni Depends. I think it is an empirically based conclusion. If you simply say I don't believe in god because there is no real evidence for the existence of god, then you are basing that on the lack of empirical evidence for gods existence. Its a belief founded on a real lack of credible evidence

[@nedthumberland]

A visionary indeed.

[@paulkennedy6060]

I got you beat, Bart Ehrman. I’m the director of Music and Liturgy at a Catholic parish-and an agnostic.

[@rrickarr]

How does that get him beat???????

[@LambrettaFunk]

Ehrman says at one point that most scholars on this subject are Christian (which they are) and then later, on the historicity of Jesus, argues that one of the reasons to believe Jesus existed was because most scholars believed he did. Anyone else see a major flaw in that argument? (lol).

[@mhmeekk3003]

LOL. The flaw is that the vast majority of Scholars are Christian, when in reality, only around 55% are Christian. Jesus deniers are the shallowest of the shallow.

[@RiosnoGHL]

Whenever I hear Bart Ehrman say that something is theological or part of theology, I get the feeling he actually means that it is or was made up by Christians. He just doesn't want to phrase it like that.

[@scarlett-o8446]

+RiosnoGHL Yeah...he'll also say, "it's not historical". He's kind.

[@Observer-a11]

+RiosnoGHL Spot on. I think so too. There may be a God or there may not be a God. But that God is not as described in any scripture. Let alone the ones that were cobbled up by the ill informed and the manipulative.

[@mhmeekk3003]

+An observer LMAO. Are you on drugs? The Bible describes the true God.

[@bagamer13]

MHM EEKK and how do you know that?

[@juanriingen]

Many of the words of Jesus in the New Testament were put in the lips of Jesus.

[@chriscb]

Does anyone know if the debate Dr. Ehrman refers to (in Northern Alabama, Church of Christ) was between him and Kyle Butt? Ehrman-Butt Debate Suffering & God’s Existence.

[@sheaquintin1695]

I would say most likely but I am also curious

[@DLTNRDG]

HELP, alguien me podria ayudar con la definición que da de "fundamentalismo" en el 16:18. No la entendí bien

[@EzerEben]

No FUN Too much DAMN. demasiada condenación Not enough MENTAL No hay suficiente inteligencia.

[@rsr789]

Wait, wait, wait... they thought the 'jesus' was god because he was raised from the dead... but according to the same book: Lazarus was raised, tons of dead people raised from the dead around Jerusalem, are they also god? I mean if that's the only criteria based on by his followers.

[@shieldsff]

correct, that's not the only criteria....

[@williamgeorgepeter2969]

Jesus is God by his birth,his miracles,his teaching,his death and resurrection, his ascension and his RETURN, Lazarus did not raise from dead by himself but by Jesus and that's the reason he is God and nobody could do such things.

[@agingophelia9812]

William George Peter Prove it.

[@TorianTammas]

+William George Peter Please show me were it says in the old Testament that the Messiah had to walk over water, turn water into wine, feed thousand of people. Please cite chapter and verse. Thank you! This is one of so many fancy claims which are made but never proven.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

If the Bible was divine,why don't we find the origins of DNA,QM and Relativity in Genesis? We find nothing that Ancients couldnt have written...so why believe it is true??

[@tomlewis645]

Hard to believe this is a serious question. Obviously, if Moses had included this information, no one would have had the foggiest idea what he was talking about. ( Moses is from approximately 3500 years ago.)

[@ZinduZatism]

Ehrman is a Legend

[@sanfrois]

Thank you

[@trickbaby8441]

Bart really gets itchy when the mystic Jesus is invoked.

[@tristanwolfe119]

he appears to be quite fundamentalist on this topic, by his own definition of the word.

[@falcon759]

@@tristanwolfe119 So the majority of the scholars of the ancient world are fundamentalists? And @Trick Baby - you perceive what you want, I guess. Seemed like he was pretty confident in his answer - if anything, just a little exasperated that atheists buy into this mythicism.

[@mauriziobocchetta9689]

I profoundly respect Bart, but I can still see how his previous religious beliefs confuse his rational analyses. For instance, he dates Mark's gospel between 60-70 CE. This is obviously incorrect, because Mark mentions that Jerusalem second temple was bulldozed to the ground. We know for sure when Titus bulldozed that temple: 70 CE. This means that Mark's gospel must have been written at best in 71 CE, Luke sometime around 90 CE, and Matthew and John in the second century. Then he gets these ah ah moments that I clearly had when I was 15. Why? Because we needed to study Amphitryon. I got the analogy at age 15, including many others. This is the fallacy of American education: we teach you the forefront of knowledge, but not the basics. So, you end up with Master graduates who have a vague idea on how to go to the moon, but are unable to fasten a nut in their bike to reach the closest newspaper stand...

[@antiherognome6703]

+Maurizio Bocchetta I would put Luke even later than that since the author of Luke is copying from material Josephus wrote in 94AD.

[@mawa89g]

+Maurizio Bocchetta "For instance, he dates Mark's gospel between 60-70 CE. This is obviously incorrect, because Mark mentions that Jerusalem second temple was bulldozed to the ground. We know for sure when Titus bulldozed that temple: 70 CE. This means that Mark's gospel must have been written at best in 71 CE" At least if you (silently) presuppose naturalism and assume that Jesus couldn't possibly have prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. What somewhat begs the question on the whole issue.

[@falcon759]

"Mark mentions that Jerusalem second temple was bulldozed to the ground" I'm guessing the reason you didn't cite chapter and verse is because it simply isn't there. Mark records what Jesus said in Mark 13:2 about the temple being destroyed in the future. Your logic would be like saying any documentary that quoted the words of terrorists from the 90s that they would one day destroy the Twin Towers must have been made after 9/11.

[@swmorgan515]

44:00 Spot on. Too often we mistake intelligence for methodology. Like Francis Bacon explained (paraphrasing). HOW you think and arrive at conclusions is more important that your capacity to do so

[@hanibotros4811]

I discussed the great works of Professor Ehrman in my book " From Egypt I called my son" published on Amazon Kindle August 2018. The book discusses the possibility that the Holy Trip to Egypt was to acquire the knowledge of the Egyptian civilization and how this possibility may reconcile the teaching of Jesus Christ with modern science

[@monsieurlestrange6193]

i disagree with Richard Carrier on a host of issues, but Dr. Ehrman's little jabs at him, while refusing to engage him in debate is embarrassing. but giggle points, where the man can't defend himself is safe, i guess.

[@sp1ke0kill3r]

Brad thanks for totally missing the point and proving literacy and comprehension are vastly different things.

[@monsieurlestrange6193]

You're going to seriously tell me that there aren't little jabs at Carrier? I particularly find Richard Carrier sort of annoying, but to dismiss his opinions is unscholarly... Also, to act like your interpretation of what was said is superior to mine, without giving a reason makes you a dumbass... bye now. Happy Halloween.

[@monsieurlestrange6193]

sp1ke0kill3r ^

[@sp1ke0kill3r]

Brad Alex " but to dismiss his opinions is unscholarly" Well, Brad since neither you (Though maybe posting things on youtube will one day be considered academic bonafides- there's still hope you will amount to something) nor I are scholars, you don't really have a point. Giving reasons, Bradley!? You're doing just fine giving reasons why literacy is a very different thing from comprehension: No ones opinions were dismissed. The only thing I told you was that literacy and comprehension are vastly different things. How you got your treatise on little jabs and, etc proves my point. And Brad there's no interpretation involved. Tell me Brad when someone throws a rock through a window, do you talk about interpreting it as broken.

[@monsieurlestrange6193]

okay, you are obviously, a troll, but here... Dr. Carrier's views that Jesus may have not existed, is an easy interpretation of the reading of New Testament documents... in the same way that we previously saw a majority of scholarship believing that Moses was a real person, until we discovered that Hebrew slavery in Egypt isn't substantiated by the evidence... the silence of contemporaries, and the weird ways Acts plays out, leads many to believe Jesus doesn't exist... my field is engineering, so i do not pretend to be an expert, but history is an interest of mine... so troll someone else from your mom's basement.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

If second hand sources after the fact are enough to establish the historicity of Jesus, then what makes you so sure Hercules doesn't exist?

[@Luke_Meyer]

Because we don't have sources that knew Hercules' brother or sources that personally knew Hercules.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Luke Meyer What external text describes a personal knowledge of Jesus? And why is it better than this text: classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.1.i.html Here is a respected, classical historian who claims knowledge of the son of Hercules. Read the 7th paragraph from the top. Does this prove Hercules exists? Why doesn't this serve as an independent corroboration proving the reality of an original, historic core to the legend?

[@Luke_Meyer]

uncleanunicorn The texts in question are very different. I'll break them down. First, the passage from Paul reads as follows: "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." (Galatians 1:18-19). The passage from Herodotus, however, reads as follows: "There was a certain king of Sardis, Candaules by name, whom the Greeks called Myrsilus. He was a descendant of Alcaeus, son of Hercules. The first king of this dynasty was Agron, son of Ninus, grandson of Belus, and great-grandson of Alcaeus; Candaules, son of Myrsus, was the last." Unlike Paul, Herodotus does not claim to have personally known any of these descendants of Hercules. The other issue that comes up is this: Candaules was a descendant of Alcaeus, son of Hercules, but how distant? We know Agron was the great-grandson of Alcaeus, so he must be more distant than that, and because he's described as the "last" of the dynasty (instead of the immediate successor to Agron), there would be at least one person in between them. This leaves Candaules being, at absolute best, seven generations separated from Hercules: Candaules - someone unnamed - Agron - Ninus - Belus - Alcaeus - Hercules. And we don't know how separated Herodotus is from Candaules. Contrast all that with Paul, who personally spoke with James, the brother of Jesus and also Peter (Cephas). It's a completely different situation entirely. He personally knows and speaks with (and disagrees with and challenges) eyewitnesses who knew Jesus personally. That's what makes our situation with Jesus different from Hercules.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

The 'Brother of the Lord' title is very murky. The same word is used to describe fictive kinship among believers in Phillipians 1:14, and 1 Corinthians 9:5. It could just as easily refer to a title among believers with a certain rank. Also, if we look at Jude, the 1st verse, he is described as a Brother of James, and servant of Jesus Christ. If literal kinship was intended, why not say he was The Brother of Christ? That would give him far more credibility. Also, neither James nor Jude ever give any details of living on Earth with human Jesus growing up. It's a murky issue. Also, Paul never met Jesus personally, and no contemporaries notices Jesus enough to write about him. Paul also has an agenda of getting us to believe in Jesus. As for Herodotus, he never met Hercules, but he is able to place family members in succession, with names and lineages. Herodotus is not trying to convince us to worship Hercules; he's simply reporting the history he knows. He is supported in his belief by Tacitus and Josephus. It's harder to see why the Son of Yahweh has a better case than the Son of Zeus.

[@Luke_Meyer]

uncleanunicorn Philippians 1:14 doesn't say brothers of the Lord specifically, it just says brothers and sisters. I'm glad you brought up 1st Corinth. 9:5, that passage reads as: "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas..." In that passage, Paul indicates that the "brothers of the Lord" are a separate group, that the other apostles aren't included. Historians have an explanation for who they think Paul meant - the actual brothers of Jesus. (By the way, Galatians 1:19 and 1 Corinth. 9:5 are the only passages where Paul mentions "brothers of the Lord", and in both places, it seems he's mentioning literal brothers of Jesus). Jude says he's the brother of James but doesn't say which James. Also, that book may be a forgery written by someone claiming to be Jude who isn't. The same may be the case for James. But the book of James is a wisdom book. It's filled with moral teachings and not intended to be a book about who Jesus was historically. About your statement that "no contemporaries notices Jesus enough to write about him" - there are also thousands of other people living in Palestine during the 1st century who went unnoticed. Unless Jesus was apart of the upper-crust of society (which no one thinks he was), that's not all that bizarre. "As for Herodotus, he never met Hercules, but he is able to place family members in succession, with names and lineages" - yes, but how good were his sources to know that they went back to Hercules? Obviously, Herodotus really did think they went back to Hercules, but as I showed earlier, he's at least 7 generations (possible/likely more) removed from Hercules at that point. That's a long time for information to get changed, forgotten or invented. Another thing to consider, a King would definitely want to say he was a descendant of Hercules. It's not out of the question that one of the Kings invented the notion and it stuck. Last point, about your statement: "Paul also has an agenda of getting us to believe in Jesus." - Here's a question - how do you think Paul knew about Jesus? Paul certainly did not invent Christianity. He tells us in multiple places two things: 1. There were Apostles who came before him. And 2. He persecuted the church before converting. So how did the notion that there was a figure Jesus start? Where and how did the stories originate? Christianity seems to crop up very suddenly around the 30s (going off of the information Paul gives us), and then just a few years after the writings of Paul, some biographies of Jesus place his death during the governorship of Pilate (so between 26 and 36 AD). Paul personally knows important figures who are said to be followers of Jesus (Peter and John), he knows someone (James) whom he refers to as the Lord's brother, and he says some things that give every indication that he thought Jesus was a human (he says he was born of a woman under the law, that he was born in human likeness, found in human form, and mentions a few teachings of his as well as the last supper). Paul is too early, too involved and knows too many of the right people to not know whether or not Jesus really lived as a human, and he gives every indication that he thought he really did live (an Earthly life).

[@mauriziobocchetta9689]

This date is written in stone in the arch of Titus in Rome. Of course, it was a roman date, not 70 CE. But the conversion can be done by anyone. Why a scholar repeats over and over an inaccuracy?

[@marybrown9537]

Mr. Bartman speaks truth on hidden agendas of man!! Shalum

[@bahrangebregziabher3474]

very true from the beggning man have hidden agenda to be above all,without knowing the truth,where he came from,why he came to being and where he is going,why don't they talk why we die? the foolish say there is no God.

[@Phi1618033]

Ehrman is right. The mythicists look foolish. I respect Richard Carrier as a scholar, but when he starts spouting the Jesus myth stuff, I start to question his sanity. The main problem with the Jesus as purely mythical person hypothesis is that it creates far more questions than it answers. For instance, let's take for granted that Jesus the man never existed. Did the apostle Peter exist? If so, are we to accept that Peter completely fabricated Jesus? What reason would we have to assume that Peter made up Jesus as opposed to Jesus having been a real man who Peter knew? And if we instead assume that Peter also never existed, we have to ask the same question. Paul claims to have met Peter personally. Was Paul lying? And if Paul is lying about having met Peter, why? And what if Paul also didn't exist? Who wrote Paul's letters? And if none of Jesus' disciples ever existed, what about the disciples of the disciples, such as Polycarp and Clement? Did they exist or not? At what point do we have a line of non-existent people turning into a line of real existing people? Where is the line drawn?

[@Hercules2345]

No he is not. LOL, here's a video where Bart Ehrman makes a case against a historical Jesus: Bart Ehrman: Gospels not written by eyewitnesses, no Jesus in historical record kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqrMYmiVo9WHoJo The quote is also provided in the information box of the video. "Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement." - Dr. Bart Ehrman www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3110

[@truckcompany]

Hercules2345 "Gospels not written by eyewitnesses, no Jesus in historical record" To others that are confused with this comment. The last part isn't a quote and is a conclusion drawn by the commentator. It's true that Bart (and most biblical historians) agree that the Gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, but Bart never uses this to claim Jesus did not exist.

[@Hercules2345]

truckcompany "last part isn't a quote and is a conclusion drawn by the commentator" Nope, more like a paraphrase to shorten it for a title: "The truth may not be what you were taught, but if it's true, you should believe it, not run from it! As I studied more and more, using my intelligence as an evangelical but also praying about it, I became convinced that the New Testament gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or by people who knew eyewitnesses. The first point to make is the rather obvious one that the gospels don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses. They are all anonymous. The titles in your gospels - the Gospel According to Matthew and so forth - were added by later editors. They were not put there by the original authors. Second point, none of the gospels claims to be written by the person whose name it bears. They don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses, and they don't claim to be written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Those are later traditions that were added to the gospels. These traditions do not start appearing for about 100 years. Some people think that there is an early Church father named Papias who attests to the witness of Mark and Matthew, but in fact there are very solid reasons for thinking that Papias, who lived around the year 120-140, is not referring to OUR Mark or OUR Matthew. The first time anybody refers to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by name is Irenaeus in the year 180. But the unfortunate thing about Jesus is that we have such scanty documentation about his life. Most people don't realize this, but Jesus is never mentioned in any Greek or Roman non-Christian source until 80 years after his death. There is no record of Jesus having lived, in these sources. In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!" - Bart Ehrman

[@truckcompany]

Hercules2345 It's not a paraphrase because we already know Bart believes Jesus existed. All your quotes do not contradict this.

[@Hercules2345]

I guess you don't know what a paraphrase is. Indeed, we know Bart believes in Jesus but, we also know it's not due to a "Jesus in historical record" so yeah, *PARAPHRASE* is spot on and no amount of pretzel conforming can change that fact. "All your quotes do not contradict this." We agree, the quotes support it, which is where the paraphrase came from. Hell-O!

[@jesserochon3103]

If the Bible is simply trying to convince us of its claims, why would it be loaded with things that are very hard to believe? I think the obvious answer is that the writers of the Bible weren't trying to convince anyone of anything. They were simply recording what was apparently true to them at the time… and then the reader can simply accept it or reject it.

[@alancooch]

Jesse Rochon You mean like Jeebus casting out "evil spirits" into a herd of pigs, and the pigs then committing mass suicide? What part of that story seems unbelievable to you, O skeptical one?? ;)

[@jesserochon3103]

The entire thing is unbelievable in nature. Serious?

[@alancooch]

Jesse Rochon I like the story where an angry Jeebus gets mad at a fig tree and curses it b/c figs are out of season ... boy, Jeebus was a dope!

[@jesserochon3103]

Yeah thats pretty remarkable.

[@garyh9740]

Alan Joseph ...or the one where he casts demons out of a person and into a bunch of swine who jump off a cliff to their deaths!Poor swine!Couldnt he have just cast them into rocks or something?Then he later goes to visit hell for three days and does god knows what...couldnt he just shut down the whole torturing souls meth lab?Oh,thats right,then the good church fathers couldnt hold your soul for ransom and fill up their collection plates!Yeah,thats the ticket!

[@mockturtlesuppe]

I love the way Ehrman debunks atheist hokum as readily as Christian hokum. Case in point, the mythicist view of Jesus (which I'm still somewhat agnostic about), as well as the Mithras/Jesus connection. Even though I'm on the other side now, it's hard to break from those habits I learned from religion of accepting a claim on the mere ground that it _feels_ good or it helps my argument.

[@Jonnyvids14]

I have listened to nearly every lecture and interview I could find with Bart. I have joined his blog. I have also read several of his great books. And although I do not share Bart's belief that there is no "God" (Creator, or creators), I find him to be one of the most honest men I have come across, including all the men I listened to while spending 38 years in the Baptist cult. I commend Bart for following his conscience and being an honest man who seeks truth. I wish I could say the same for the hundreds of "Christians" among "my people". One thing I would like to know, but have not yet seen Bart talk about it, is what is his opinion on HOW the "Jews" started their religion. Bart has much to say about Christianity, but I would like to know what he thinks about the religion that started it all - Judaism. What would Bart say about those who believe they were "CHOSEN BY GOD"? Does he think they just fabricated their religious books (liars)? Does he think they were\are delusional? Does he think they are arrogant? What does he think about a people who write about God telling them to MURDER men, women, AND children? And what about how it relates to this day, murdering Palestinian people and taking over their lands in the 1940's, and continuing on with this bloodshed to this day, just because of some ancient delusional beliefs about it being part of "prophecy"? What does Bart think about this? Does anyone know what Bart thinks about these things? Perhaps one of his books sheds light on this? He is one of the few men I have come to appreciate, and trust, regarding the topic of the Christian (Jewish) religion, and would like to hear his thoughts on this.

[@Alwaysdoubt100]

If you start to think that there are other religions in the world, and in everyone of them people believes in different sorts of gods. Maybe you can understand why so many people don't believe there is a god, but they believe that all the gods other people believes have been invented. Acctualy, we don't have answers for every question in the world, and a believe in god is a way people find to invent gods. Jews just invented their god as the Indian in the amazon rainforest invented theirs, there is no difference.

[@mistymoor7114]

@@Alwaysdoubt100 if thete is one god, or Lord, its all the same God !

[@Alwaysdoubt100]

@@mistymoor7114 If there was any good, reality would be different. What existance, or nature, really shows is that we are alone. We strugle to survive every day. Some people are Lucky to have a good Life, others battles It. Some people live a long and healthy life, others not even feel the sunshine. I dont think there is a god who can see so much suffering in the World and Just watches It.

[@erastuskuria3968]

I will follow the one who called me out with a voice telling to stop sinning and get saved and caused me to experience a power I never new existed. I didn't know where i was going after this life.No one can make me deny what I know and experience. Its like deny snow is white.Those who this have a right to be so. To me the bible is like a ore that bears gold inside.The spirit brings out what the mind of God is in the written word.

[@foodforthought8308]

Amen! I am also a believer in Christ! And there's nothing in this talk that convinces me otherwise

[@1978Traveller]

Amen I'm a Christian and a bart ehrman listener, because I understand where hes coming from, I've had faith problems in my Christian walk, however unlike mr ehrman I've found the Lord is always faithful and is defenetly real.

[@juliaabadi6812]

Then you don't know the bible very well. It is a highly immoral book, written by men who knew nothing in order to keep other men who don't know anything under human control.

[@juliaabadi6812]

@@foodforthought8308 Nothing worse than a closed mind. There is no talking to stupid.

[@foodforthought8308]

@@juliaabadi6812 I agree that a closed mind is a dangerous thing. I've studied the Tanach and New Testament cover to cover. I find these ancient writings to be incredibly complex, beautiful, and spiritually enlightening. I've also read the Jewish intertestamental books which I have also enjoyed immensely. I don't have all the answers, and I wrestle with many things. However, I have been exposed to Biblical scholarship throughout my life. I enjoy self studying different religions, philosophies, and history. But this has led me to further confidence that Jesus (Yeshua) is in fact the real deal. I believe I understand to a large extent where Bart Erhman is coming from. I actually enjoyed hearing him speak here. Frankly, while we may agree on many points, I don't find his arguments to be very strong.

[@FunTimeGhz]

Most if not all of those people,gave up on religion and God as soon as they found out that the bible is actually not the word of God. I would love to see and hear them when they stand before their Creator and He asks them "were you not aware of My final revelation,The Quran,that I guaranteed its protection ?" What would their excuse be ( seeing that almost 2 billions of people have believed in it to be God 's word), we were busy?

[@bleirdo_dude]

Giving up delusion and becoming part of reality is a good thing.

[@FunTimeGhz]

Delusional people think they are part of reality as well.

[@agingophelia9812]

Funtime hz If 2 billion people believe something that is just not true, that doesn't make it true.

[@wmthewyld]

Aging Ophelia When evidence says what 2 billion people believe is true, then it true. When a fringe group of people refuse to accept that evidence, that's delusion.

[@hdoak1]

I have just discovered your work. I am impressed. I am wondering why that when Christians decide they can no longer believe what the church is teaching they have to become atheist? There are other views of God, the station of Christ, the inclusion of all Faiths into the theology of human development such as the teaching found in the Baha'i Faith.

[@worthdoss8043]

Most people couldn't even tell you what amendment to the constitution freedom of religion is in. There is one hell of a lot to it.

[@bayreuth79]

Bart D. Ehrman's argument _presupposes_ naturalism. In other words it is not the conclusion of an argument but the foundation of his other claims. He presupposes that "visions" of deceased loved ones _must_ be hallucinations. Excuse me! but how does Mr Ehrman _know_ this? It works like this: (1) Naturalism is his metaphysical belief; (2) therefore all phenomena has to be explained within that worldview; (3) therefore appearances of deceased people _must_ be hallucinations. But (1) is highly questionable. Therefore Mr. Ehrman's argument proceeds from questionable premises to even more questionable conclusions. Ehrman's argument works iff ("if & only if") naturalism is true; but this is something we cannot know.

[@CorndogMaker]

It's not prudent to propose a phenomenon, which we do not know is possible, as being a more likely explanation than something that we *do* know is possible and even quite common. It isn't a bias towards naturalism, it's the use of the principle of parsimony. Our Metaphysics needs to follow our physics and it's unjustified to add vacuous 3rd wheels which are unconnected to the rest of a theory.

[@ScottBurdickArt]

+bayreuth79 Your wallet is missing from your apartment while you left someone there with it. You confront them and ask if they stole it. They say it simply vanished in a miraculous flash of light. Will you treat both possibilities equally, or presuppose naturalism?

[@bayreuth79]

It depends on the situation. In your scenario the most likely explanation is that the person is lying in order to steal my wallet; but if thousands of people, including atheists and agnostics, claim to have seen a Marian apparition or the miracle of the sun at Fatima then you need a better explanation than mass hallucination; and that the vision was veridical is at least probable given the eye witness testimony (which in a court of law can convict a person to death). If we ask: why is there something rather than nothing then there is _no_ natural explanation for this, for what we mean here by "something" is every natural phenomena. A all x cannot be explained by x for then you'd need to explain x! So the fact of being is itself a "supernatural" phenomena

[@CorndogMaker]

Occams razor is a very useful too. Claims are not created equal. there are different categories of claims. things we know happen things that happen rarely and things which may or may not be impossible. Claiming you went to Florida on vacation can be believed merely on your good word. Claiming a UFO took you to Florida, should not be believed by anyone. At the onset- The first claim deserves our credulity. The second claim deserves our incredulity. In courts of law, 33% of the people exonerated with DNA evidence, were first convicted due to eyewitness testimony of 2 or more people. Many of them had more than 5 eyewitnesses testify against them. And these eyewitnesses were claiming that real things were happening, not supernatural things. anecdotal testimony is a weak form of evidence because of how prone we know people are to mistakes, delusion, hallucination, group think and wishful thinking. We know that you can even give yourself false memories. No amount of indirect anecdotal testimonial evidence, is enough to justify belief in something that violates the overwhelming weight of all of the laws of physics. why? Because any ad-hoc natural explanation you can dream up, no matter how rare or statistically unlikely, will always be *more* likely than something happening which would commonly be referred to as impossible. That's the principle of parsimony and it informs the prudence of rational thinkers. Anything that would qualify as a God, would clearly understand this limitation to mortal epistemology. Unless he doesn't care about those that understand the nature of evidence. Or his goal is to only have credulous followers.

[@ScottBurdickArt]

+CorndogMaker Well said.

[@HConstantine]

there is no virgin birth in Mithraism--good for Ehrman calling that foolishness out.

[@aljo909]

But he did make the point about god/human couplings. Not unusual in ancient mythologies. e.g. Hercules.

[@jessepelaez874]

@@aljo909 the coupling is only in Mathew and luke not mark or john or even Paul

[@harveywabbit9541]

@@aljo909 Genesis 1.l.....In the Beginning, God (Cronus) separated Heaven (Uranus) and Earth (Gaea) by cutting off the genitals of his daddy. God goes on to marry his sister who is actually his mother.

[@user-tn8oe6eb7u]

Prof.bart has a wide knowledge, but we're told spiritual matters are spiritually descerned

[@allenanderson4911]

For Islam you might try Ibn Warraq, as an analog to Erhman. He uses history and logic to call the infallibly of the Koran into question. He was attached to The Center for Inquiry.

[@malektelemcen]

Not true, there is no IBN warraq in history, you're lying 🤥, I call Erhman to do the same work with Coran, he will be Muslim as thousands do at the end.

[@pondartinc4002]

"Jesus" tomb was found empty because dinosaurs ate him.

[@Chris-zd8cs]

Maybe a miniature big bang destroyed your brain.

[@EzerEben]

@@Chris-zd8cs , or somebody made it up, an EXTREMELY plausible explanation in light of all other religious/mystical stories in existence.

[@drstrangelove09]

I think he has to apply just a bit more critical thinking. He's very close. I have heard that there is no other account of Jesus outside the Bible. I would say then that there is no real evidence for Jesus. And it isn't a matter of proving then that Jesus did not exist. It is simply yet another case of "show me the evidence."

[@sp1ke0kill3r]

WTF are you talking about? It hardly matters what you've heard. M, L, and Q are also sources. the question is whether such sources can be used. They can- as Ehrman effectively shows in DJE.

[@drstrangelove09]

sp1ke0kill3r So you're simply citing other similar documents... You find this to be real evidence? It is not. Whether Ehrman claims this proves something or not is irrelevant. We would need much more proof than having references in other similar books.

[@sp1ke0kill3r]

drstrangelove09 So now similarity is evidence? Why are mythicists so determined to show that they are no more intellectually competent than your average fundie? I didn't make any statement about Ehrman claiming "this proves something" READING IS FUNDAMENTAL Do I need to order you some hooked on Phonics?

[@Luke_Meyer]

drstrangelove09 Tacitus and Josephus both mention Jesus, so there's evidence outside from the New Testament, if that's what you're looking for. And evidence from the New Testament still counts as evidence. These are various documents written by different people, at different times and for different reasons. You can't just bundle them all together and say "There's nothing outside of all this." That evidence is mostly (apart from the parts in Matthew and Luke dependent on Mark) independent evidence.

[@drstrangelove09]

Luke Meyer Tacitus: written ca. AD 116... not exactly a contemporary. Josephus: written around 93-94 AD.

[@treich1234]

31:35 Is it plausible Pontius Pilate granted the burial of Christ as a rebuke to the Jews for forcing his reticent authorization of his crucifixion per joseph of arimathea's entreaty?....any thoughts welcome

[@foodforthought8308]

I don't believe whether or not Jesus was buried in a tomb is honestly not a matter of scholarly debate. All 4 gospels confirm that he was, and the Jews had spread rumors that the disciples somehow stole the body from the tomb. Justin Martyr's debate with the Jew Trypho also reveals this. Bart is forced to adopt a fringe hypothesis in order to avoid facing the uncomfortable reality of the unliklihood of the disciples conspiring to steal Jesus's body serving as a valid explanation for the birth of Christianity.

[@DesGardius-me7gf]

“I don’t consider myself anti-Christian. When I tell people this, I often get a disbelieving response: ‘of course you’re anti-Christian. Just look at all the ways you attack Christianity!’ But I have never seen it this way. In my view, the only thing I attack in my writings (and not even directly) is a fundamentalist and conservative evangelical understanding of Christianity. But to say for that reason that I attack Christianity is like saying that if you don’t like raspberry sherbet, you don’t like any kind of ice cream.” -Bart Ehrman

[@HConstantine]

Congratulations to Ehrman for putting the fraud Carrier in his place.

[@panatronicfreud6484]

I like Bart Ehrman, but I think Carrier makes the better case about the non-existence of Jesus. Even in this video, Ehrman overstates the evidence for the existence of Jesus, relying on arguments Carrier has already tackled. Ehrman finally resorts to an argument from authority, saying experts believe it because they believe it. Academic inertia is not a good argument, especially in biblical scholarship. According to the website below, 75% of scholars accept that Jesus' tomb was found empty after his crucifixion. (Strangely, the survey didn't ask the obvious followup: was the tomb empty because Jesus was actually resurrected.) In any case, that does not inspire great confidence in the state of today's biblical scholarship, at least in my view. www.politelyrejectingjesus.com/blog/do-most-bible-scholars-believe-in-the-empty-tomb

[@sp1ke0kill3r]

***** Do you really think Ehrman is so dull witted that he can't come up with something better than experts believe it because they believe it. Intellectual inertia is not a good counter argument. Ehrman may claim things like all the experts he knows or all experts on the planet.... But that is not quite the same thing as saying experts believe it because they believe it.And don't you think the all the experts on the planet is more polemic than analysis? But citing expert opinion is not an argument from authority. In order for something to be an argument from authority, authority, would have to take the place of proof. Ehrman is not substituting his or any one else's authority for proof.

[@SouthGallaecian]

I would like to add that Carrier agrees with Ehrman in that it is easier to "deconvert" a Christian if one accepts the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

[@nothing2doable]

John Doe I think it's silly when people like you try to deny a consensus amongst scholars in a field that you are not a part of. As an atheist, I personally do not care whether or not there was a real figure in which a myth was based on, or whether there was not. It's still a myth. Carrier is unemployed. He doesn't work for any university because no institution would fund his research. If you want to believe a lone wolf 'scholar' that's unemployed over a majority consensus than that's you. But keep it to yourself. You make Humanists like me and many others look silly. If you can show me at least a few different scholars in relevant fields that are presently employed and respected who support your theory, I would jump over in a heartbeat. It wouldn't take much to convince me, as I have no horse in this race. But bringing up Carrier is getting tiresome.

[@nothing2doable]

Rui Afonso Of course it's easier. How easy would it be to deconvert a Muslim if you insisted Mohammed never existed, among other things that were historically inaccurate? Unlike Ehrman, I AM opposed to religion, but I agree with him that a mythicist view will backfire against us and make us look silly. He just provided a whole list of historical individuals that were deified. I don't see any motivation why anyone would deny something so stupid, unless there's a meme going around our camps.

[@utah133]

Well, he's in the Jesus business, so naturally he'd want Jesus to be real. I like the ideas of his new arch nemisis, Richard Carrier better. Chances are really good that Jesus was always a myth.

[@hermenutic]

I'm a 'believer in the Logos but am not a Christian, however I interpret the Christ Event by means of the gospel of John and the writings of Paul who describes the companionship of the "Spirit" as the fellowship of the mystery. In that way I have solved the problem of human suffering for myself (edit adding a thought) and I am still able to retain a belief in "God" as I understand the idea of God.

[@masonmortar357]

logic n reason are difficult to argue or deny. a studied scholar with an evangelical background even more so..how i wish he is wrong but he is right n im glad.

[@paulokas69]

Bart compared the dispute on the historicity of Jesus with the dispute between Evolution vs Creationism... AS IF...! Evolution is an observable fact. The historicity of Jesus is not an observable fact. Not comparable at all, Bart!

[@nothing2doable]

That's not what he said. He's saying that there's the same consensus among scholars of his field as there are with scholars of that field. He's not talking about scientific evidence. He's talking about an abundance of historical evidence. They are two different things. If you don't value historical evidence just say so. What difference does it make if he existed or not? Christianity is a myth for other reasons, as is Islam (Regardless of Mohammed.). If you have credible evidence supporting your claim I would be interested in taking a look. I'm not a believer, nor will I ever be, but I think it's important we document history as accurately as possible.

[@megag52]

all the experts in both feilds agree on this issue. that jesus existed/evo happened. if you think they r all wrong have good reasons or yr a waste of time

[@nothing2doable]

Sam Dawkins The only problem I have with NT scholars, especially the few of them that aren't believers, is that they're not vocal enough about the mythological aspects of Christianity. They act like it matters that some historical figure existed in light of the fact we know nothing about him, and the detailed accounts about him in the Gospels are all myth, So what's the point in even talking about it? All it does is give Christians the illusion that they have some evidence for their beliefs, but in reality they are myth-believers.

[@megag52]

Jonathan CF yes its amazing that so many of them hold the position that jesus never thought of himself as divine or that the resurrection cant be proven historically yet still seem in bed with christianity. i guess its just the culture

[@nothing2doable]

Sam Dawkins There is no such thing as a 'resurrection'. You can't really 'prove' anything historically, least of all a supernatural event that never happened. You seem to be referencing all the myths I was referring to. Glad you decided to identify yourself as a crackpot Christian.

[@nororncluber6237]

modernitity came DESPITE christianity.

[@BachScholar]

Ehrman says Enoch was a "divine being" which is entirely false. A professor of his stature should know better than this. Enoch was "taken up" by God, but nowhere does it state in the OT that Enoch was a divine being, or having god-like attributes. He was simply a man who was taken up to heaven.

[@aviontodd1167]

Are you speaking of the text in the kjv?

[@TorianTammas]

+BachScholar So how many ordinary other man were taken up to heaven? So Enoch had to be in some way special. By the way did he beam into heaven like in Star Trek with a transporter? Or is Enoch still moving through the universe to sometimes reach heaven beyond the universe?

[@BachScholar]

TorianTammas How should I know, am I God? Why do you assume Christian believers have answers for everything?

[@TorianTammas]

BachScholar Lets start simple, when one claims someone is not something one has to know what this something is. So, what is a divine being? How does a divine being from a human? How does one proof something is a divine being? Can a divine being look like a human? How does a phisical body transcends in a ream of non matter were matter means nothing as god is claimed to be immaterial. If we do not have answers and evidence to this it makes not sense at all to claim that someone isn't something. So we might realize that we like to throw around big word and make claims about is or is not without having the basic evidence. Not to mention in the end it is just a belief without evidence.

[@BachScholar]

TorianTammas I have the right to believe things without evidence. Why the big speech?

[@willowwisp357]

I'm not sure if I'm a mythisist or not. I know the guy described in the Bible is fiction, at a level similar to the book "The Great Gatsby" which isn't a historically accurate account of Max Gerlach or perhaps Rockefeller, it's a fusion of several people, the way they did with all the characters from "Men who stare at goats" when they made the movie. There's some really good evidence for this as well. There's the guy they call the Egyptian that led a band of fighters to clear out Herod's temple who disappeared from history after the fight which took place some time after the Bible claims Jesus was crucified but before 70 ce when the temple was destroyed. The Egyptian had a partner that was ambushed on the Jordan river and beheaded, a very likely inspiration for the fictional John the Baptist. Then there was the Jesus from a couple of hundred years before the fictional Jesus that died and resurrected on some spiritual plane. A little fusion, a bit of exaggeration, some half forgotten verbal tradition and normal human error provided all the rest. So if not thinking A guy named Jesus inspired all this then I'm a mythasist. If the argument is that Jesus is the fusion of several historical and a few mythological figures then I'm not. My intuition tells me that the Egyptian escaped and found some of his supporters after they had heard about the conflict and were convinced he was dead. He assured them that he would return with reinforcements and that's the inspiration for the return of Christ, but his plans didn't turn out well and he died before he could make good on his promise.

[@mazsroy9]

In his interview at the end he contradicts himself. Earlier he stated his family followed him into the faith but later he states he believed Jesus was resurrected because he was raised to believe that.

[@steveravie1506]

An agnostic who's interested in finding 'the truth' is more likely to discover it because they are not limited by preconceived ideas. That said when it comes to spiritual matters 'the truth' is quite subjective since little of it can be properly proved

[@CAnswersTV]

“Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” -Luke 13:23-24 Do you understand the question in the above Scripture? “Lord, are there few that be saved?” Someone came to Jesus and wanted to know if “few” people were saved. It's interesting that the person didn't ask if “many” people were saved. Evidently the person had been listening to Jesus' preaching and became convinced that few people were really saved. When the Bible speaks of being “saved,” it means saved from God's wrath upon Christ-rejecting sinners in Hell (for more on hell see our playlist "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 30 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E & "Eternal Punishment, Part 1" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, Part 2" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607143539). Romans 5:9, “Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” All Christ-rejecters go to Hell if they die in their sins. If a person is “saved,” then they are going to Heaven when they die. Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” We are saved from the eternal consequences of sin, which is punishment in hellfire. To be saved is synonymous with being “born again.” When a person becomes a born-again child of God, they are saved eternally. EVERY human being MUST to be saved (i.e., born again) to enter into Heaven. John 3:3, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” If a person dies in their sins without believing on Jesus as the Savior, the Son of God, they will burn in Hell forever (Revelation 20:11-15).Just as the disciple who asked Jesus the question in Luke 13:23, I myself often wonder how few are truly born again believers. I dare say not many. Let's consider the question again...“Lord, are there few that be saved?” There are over one billion Catholics in the world who errantly believe that the Catholic Church is going to save them. Roman Catholics do not trust Jesus Christ alone; but rather, rely upon manmade traditions and self-righteous works to save them. According to the Word of God, genuine Catholics are hellbound in their sins because they are trusting in self-righteousness (Romans 3:20; 10:3-4; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, see our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 129 videos & counting at kzbin.info/aero/PLFFA8D69D1B914715). There are over one billion Islamic Muslims in the world who deny that Jesus Christ ever died upon a cross for our sins (see our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 67 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PL1C7F68B548009FDD). According to the Bible, they are antichrists and liars on their way to Hell (1st John 2:22-23). There are over 183,000 cults in Japan alone that deny Jesus Christ as the only Savior of the world. Other false religions include Scientology, Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Seventh Day Adventism, Zoroastrianism, Greek Orthodox, Judaism, Jehovah Witness, Mormonism, Freemasonry, and many more (see our KZbin channel CAnswersTV at kzbin.info with over 615 videos covering most of these anti Christian religions in detail). Why do I call them “false religions”? It's simply because they all corrupt the Biblical teaching of salvation, i.e., the gospel (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 48 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PL9931642C7C8FFEAB). Most false religions ADD works to faith. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses DENY the deity of Jesus Christ (i.e., that He is Almighty God) - see our playlists "Dealing with Mormonism, the Religion of Mitt Romney & Utah" with 20 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PL11CD0EE613306BB5 & "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40. Seventh Day Adventists falsely and deceitfully redefine faith to mean works (see our playlist, "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" with 23 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PL5316CC6F66F24283). There are hundreds of millions of followers of Hinduism who deny Jesus as the Savior, the Son of God (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Christ Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 42 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PL69A3047B3497590A). Judaism denies that Jesus is the Messiah. The same Pharisaical Jews who crucified Jesus 2,000 years ago are crucifying Him today. The Campbellite Church of Christ deceitfully speaks of faith in Christ, but also requires water baptism and living the Christian life to be saved. That is works salvation, which is a lie of the Devil (Romans 3:20; Romans 4:5-6, see our playlist "Dealing with "Saved by Works & Baptism", "Church of Christ" with 72 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PLBD55090718DA6D3D). Every Catholic claims not to worship Mary, but the second commandment (Exodus 20:3-5) forbids even bowing to Mary (which every Catholic does, for more on the Roman Catholic installation of the worship of saints, images, & polytheism in church history hear "Perseverance of the Saints & the Worship of Saints (Historical Theology Vol. 1, #17)" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=14101149112 & "The Worship of Images & Civil Authorities (Historical Theology Vol. 1, #18)" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=15101057200). There are hundreds of millions of so-called Charismatic & Pentecostal "Christians" who trade the Word of God for their own wild emotional experiences & replace the Biblical gospel for a gospel of "heath & wealth" despite 1 Timothy 6:10 saying, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" - see our two video series on this: "Blasphemous Charismatic & Pentecostal Mayhem #1: Mad Delusional Experiences Replace Scripture Alone" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZPZaIyprrKZZqs begins one series while "AGONY OF THE PHONY WORD-FAITH TV PREACHERS #1: MIND SCIENCE ORIGINS OF KENNETH HAGIN & HIS DISCIPLES" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKi0ZnWCp753lbc begins another series. Even secular humanism, atheism & agnosticism can be considered faith based religions due to the fact that atheists & humanists have a faith that God does not exist while agnostics are willingly ignorant concerning God (see our playlist "Dealing with "God Hating" Atheists, Agnostics, Know-It-Alls" with 20 videos at kzbin.info/aero/PL640E505B96CD6B39). Many animistic religions exist throughout the world as well which are described in Romans 1:18-32, see our video "FOREIGN MISSIONS FOR CHRIST: PREACHING TO CANNIBALS, WITCH DOCTORS & TRIBAL NATIVES" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3TRdX-vjcZsfpI. All of the religions I have just mentioned account for well over seven eighths of the earth's population or more. Keep in mind, besides all of this, Jesus said, "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). Who are considered "rich people"? It's not just millionaires & world leaders but many lesser wealthy persons who exceed the vast majority of mankind in money & possessions (Luke16:19-31 is a good example of this in the parable of the rich man & Lazarus). See the video "It is Difficult for Americans to Enter Heaven - Tim Conway" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHXaf3qOmM6BebM. Statistics provided in this video show that even the poorest Americans living in the United States have a better net income than most of the world. For instance, according to Forbes magazine, June 1, 2013, the bottom 5% of United States citizens are richer than 68% of people living throughout the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $50,000 a year are richer than 99.69% of the people in the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $20,000 a year are richer than 96% of the people in the rest of the world, U.S. citizens who make $10,000 a year are richer than 84% of the people in the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $100,000 a year are in a category that only 8 out of every 10,000 people achieve in the entire world. Will it be difficult for rich Americans who don't think they're rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Jesus already gave the answer. For more on this hear "Those Whom God Hates He Is Often Pleased To Give Plenty Of Earthly Things To, Edwards" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=427121150346 by the well known theologian Jonathan Edwards who also preached the most famous sermon on North American soil called, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=770213541. If you don't like what I am telling you then get mad at God because He wrote the Bible. If you take the Bible at FACE VALUE, you can only interpret it one way. The best way to interpret the Bible is with the Bible. God said what He meant and meant what He said. Let the Bible speak for itself. Jesus answered the question in Luke 13:24 with the following words...“...for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Most of the people in this world are going straight to Hell when they die because they have not been born again (hear "Few Saved From A Burning Hell" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3514145121). Lies and deception are everywhere! Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses claim to be born-again but they are NOT. You can't get born-again by doing good works, confessing your sins to a priest, getting water baptized, joining a church or keeping the Sabbath Day. Salvation is NOT found in any religion; but rather, in a Person-The Lord Jesus Christ! Most people today have churchianity without Christianity, and they are all going to Hell if they don't repent toward God of their unbelief (for more on this see our video "TRUE BELIEVERS & NON BELIEVERS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF THE REFORMATION: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZDHf2OleJpqiM0). The vast majority of so-called "Evangelical Christians" in the world today do not know what the Biblical gospel is or what "justification by faith alone" is (see our video "SAD STATE OF THE CHURCH: 87% OF EVANGELICAL "CHRISTIANS" DON'T KNOW WHAT GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION IS" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/n56XoK2vlKqciJY. There are only two types of religions in the world: DO and DONE. Either you believe that you have to DO something to go to Heaven; or else you believe that it is DONE, paid for by Jesus' precious blood. Jesus said in Luke 13:24 that “many” will seek to enter into Heaven but will not be able. That is quite startling. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 7:21-23 . . . “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” The reason why these religious people were not allowed into Heaven was because they attempted to enter Heaven through their own self-righteousness. In Matthew 5:20 Jesus spake concerning the religious leaders of His time . . . “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Most of the religious churchgoers in the world today are as lost as can be, still hellbound in their wickedness. They have not done the will of God concerning salvation, which is to BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (John 6:40; Acts 16:30-31). Jesus provides two contrasts in Luke 13:24, the contrast between seeking to enter and striving to enter and the contrast between seeking to enter through the narrow door and seeking to enter by any other means. Let’s now focus on the second contrast. Look at verses 25-27:"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.' 26 "Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; 27 and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.' (Luke 13:25 NAU) Jesus’ statement at the end of 25 and the middle of 27 is translated well in the NIV: “I don't know you or where you come from.” In effect, He is saying, “I don’t know you at all! You may think that you are mine, but I have nothing to do with you - I don’t even know your family, your village” So what does Jesus mean by the narrow door? What is His intended contrast with other methods of entering? Again, let’s begin by considering what the narrow door is not: The narrow door is NOT being in a church, reading the Bible, listening to sermons, looking to others like a Christian. This is clear from verse 26: these evildoers looked just like believers who had been with Jesus. They had listened to His preaching. But He does not know them, and they stand condemned.The narrow door is NOT being prominent in this life. Jesus says in verse 30 that some who are presently first will be last. Prominence now is no guarantee of one’s entering through the narrow door.The narrow door is NOT being a descendant of a great believer. See verse 28. Remember, Jesus is speaking to descendants of Abraham and Jacob. I sometimes like to use the expression, “God has no grandchildren.” Each of us must come to Jesus on our own, not through our parents, our grandparents, or other ancestors. Then what does Jesus mean by the narrow door? Elsewhere, Jesus says He Himself is the door: I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. (John 10:9) In what sense is this door narrow? In two ways. First, the door is narrow in the sense that no one comes to the Father any other way (John 14:6). No religious activities - Christian or non-Christian - bring us into the Kingdom. Sincere beliefs do not bring us in. Good works do not bring us in. Good feelings about our relationship with Christ do not bring us in. Though in our pluralistic society this message is despised, we must preach, teach, and live out this truth: There is only one door, and that narrow door is Jesus. The Lake of Fire is waiting for "many" when they die. Jesus' disciple asked Him if few people are going to Heaven. Jesus replied that many people will attempt, but fail. When the floods came in Noah's day, many people tried to get on the ark, but it was too late once the door was closed. When the bridegroom came in Matthew 25:1-13, the five foolish virgins were left behind because they were gone buying oil at the last moment. Do not likewise make the mistake of delaying salvation, for you will be sorry when it is too late. Few souls are going to Heaven. Jesus said, "Only those who find that strait gate and narrow way that leadeth unto life (Matthew 7:13-15), which is the righteousness of Jesus Christ will make it to heaven. So many churchgoers have religion, but they have never truly been born of the spirit of God, which is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, hear "Why Are So Few People Saved?" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111710103558). Salvation happens when a person acknowledges their guilt of sin unto God in repentance; believing on Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, to be forgiven (this is a supernatural action caused by God in the heart of a repentant sinner in 2 Timothy 2:24-26; see also "SUPERNATURAL BIBLE PROPHECY CONCERNING JESUS THE JEWISH MESSIAH (PART #1)" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoelqqShn9x2ntU). We are SINNERS and Jesus is the wonderful SAVIOR! Acts 10:43, “To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” Salvation is given to those "few" who have been ordained to eternal life by God Himself (Acts 13:48). And who are those "few"? Jesus answers that question in John chapter 6:37,39,44,63 & 65: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." For more on this see our video "The Sovereignty of God Versus Man-Made Religions, Hollywood Movies & Petty Emotionalism" - kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4a0cnWIlJ6afas. Keep in mind that God works with relatively few numbers throughout world history (remember how Elijah thought he was the last prophet of God left in Israel in 1 Kings 19:13-18 & the Lord had to correct Elijah about the number but still the number God told Elijah was small). The God of the Bible has always had His way of operating His plan in this world & it has always been consistently with small numbers (1 Corinthians 1:26-29, "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence." For an excellent message concerning the small numbers God has historically employed please hear the outstanding theologian Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his sermon "Sermon 113 - Three-score and Fifteen Souls" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=99217141430450. We also have a video along these lines called " Biblical Predestination #6: God Only Chooses a FEW for Salvation (Many Called/Few Chosen)" - kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJamlXqwjtiWbZI. See also our video "Strive To Enter - But Many Will Not Be Able To - Greg Van Court - Dayspring Fellowship, Austin, TX" at kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6OVg6FjbNRniKM. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"

[@subversion6066]

So you prove Bart’s major premise better than even he does: namely, ‘your god’ is the ‘right god’ and their god is a false god, or false religion or false faith. Your crushing certainly is the very definition of ignorance. You can only speculate at best that your god has any more validity than the god(s) that are at the center of any other faith. How is anything related to the many alleged ‘proof’ you prefer any more credible than Zenu, the deity and source of Thetans of Scientology? Faith is simply the absence of credible proof. There is zero proof of Jesus’s divinity. There is zero proof for divinity regardless of the god(s) it’s attributed to; it is not possible to provide any proof of a miracle. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but you can never provide objective proof. Your certainty is by definition a delusion. I’d give my life to protect your right to believe anything you want, but I’d make the same sacrifice to restore your rational, objective thinking. You can never have real peace of your sensibility is myth centric. Everything in all the bookish gods is historical fiction. I wish I could free you from such silliness. You an apologist, and that’s fine. The tragic aspect is you don’t know that’s what you are. That’s the only sad part. To be something and not know it has name. And you know quite well what that is, but you choose willful ignorance. Why?

[@RalphEllis]

I cannot believe that someone as scholarly as Ehrman does not know and realise that Saul was not a ‘tent-maker’ but a ‘sukkot-maker’. Someone who made the sukkot tents for the festival of tabernacles. More importantly, we know that Saul was an ambassador of Queen Helena, as Acts says so, and yet Helena was famed for having the largest sukkot in Judaism. But this changes everything, as it appears likely that Saul was working for Queen Helena all along. So this is actually a tale of kings, queens and aristocrats. See the videos by myself, Ralph Ellis. Or my Face.book site ralph ellis 144. Or my Edfu-Books website. Ralph Ellis

[@allenanderson4911]

The problem of suffering broke the spell for Bart. For me it was simply the lack of revelation. Obviously there's no God that cares if I believe in It. Otherwise It would make Itself known to me in an unambiguous manner, and I would not be forced to play guessing games of complex inference, or the game of faith. It would make Itself known to everyone, and there would be no debate on the matter. Its existence would be as controversial as the existence of the moon. That is...if It cared at all about humanity's belief in It. Furthermore, how could a loving God take exception to my lack of belief, given both Its incomprehensible shyness, and my innate limitations?

[@jeromemckenna7102]

I worked with a wonderful young man who was a fundamentalist. I wish he could not so much see the 'truth' as see that truth isn't what he things.

[@sergiocunha3638]

I have a question. If Jesus did not have a decent burial, like prof. Ehrman suggested, than all gospel stories about His 3rd day resurrection are fake or rather invented. If it is so would it not be more clever for their inventors to make them more plusible for apostoles? From gospels we know that apostles were hiding, were scared and what is very unconvinient for early christians ...it was women, or rather one special woman , it is Mary Magdalen, who first talked with resurrected Jesus. If this stories were to be invented that woudl rather show apostles in a bettre way and for sure did not place Mary Magdalen as the first witness of the resurrected Lord. My humble opinion.

[@peterzaiser]

Ehrman quotes the NT, but negates what does not fit into his concept.

[@NotCapitalist]

Hit the nail on the head with agnostic atheism. I think most agnostics and atheists are actually both agnostic and atheist, which makes their perpetual squabble funny :)

[@felixfourcolor]

3:05 When the speech starts 6:11 When the *real* speech starts

[@Anton-fw2wb]

Who is the eye witness of Jesus and Peter?

[@chadgarber]

I listen to a lot of Bart’s debates and I learn a lot from them all. I will say that his theory on how Jesus become God is based on way more I believe faulty speculation. Specifically, the whole thing is based on the Romans not making an exception for Jesus to be taken down from the cross. Just because it was customary for the Romans to leave bodies on the cross doesn’t by any stretch make it likely that they didn’t make an exception in Jesus’ case. The rest of what he says falls apart without that.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

Woe, Mr scholar, you added to the text. It doesn't say the sons of God "looked down" on the daughters of men. It says, "And it came to pass when MEN began to multiply on the face of the Earth that the sons of God saw the daughters of men and that they were beautiful, and chose wives all of which they chose." Nephilim translate as the fallen ones but the text then goes on to say "There were Giants in the earth in those days [when?] At the time the sons did this deed. Also, it mentions the Giants were here before and after the flood. This seems to be supported by the context when the following chapter seems to go on by the starting idea, "THEN men began to call on the name of the LORD". This goes well to suggest Gen 6 was describing where MEN went off course, and then some repented. This theme seems to be picked up in the NT. Using the title for Christians who become children of God. And ALL who call on THE NAME shall be saved. Also, nothing about they, (the sons of God) then "came down". I expect better from a biblical scholar. Just sayin'.....

[@tingnannatinnangmalaman9454]

afterlife is the most important..all our suffering and and hardship will be dealt with there. even the crime that never been punished will be justly judge there..

[@ThereIsNoLord]

They you should you accept suffering gleefully in this veil of tears. Somehow, it is a view that has never gained much popularity.

[@theofulk5636]

Paul's gospel is the earliest--- and was persecuting Jesus beyond recognition from the beginning.

[@Alwaysdoubt100]

The First Lady at the audience made an interesting point, I also can't see any palpable evidence for the historical Jesus, nothing in museums relates to him, we Just have words in books. Bart said he can see evidence, in ancient manuscripts, ancient manuscripts?? I need more than that. Bart could have said that he believes the historical Jesus existed, but the biblical Jesus didn't exist. That's was a good way to put it.

[@mookiemu]

Well done Scott. Good one :) Ricky Mujica

[@JudyChan1]

Thank you for you humour and your good common sense. Thank you that you are willing to admit that Jesus exists, because he does. Thank you that you have the resources and the ability to understand the scriptures. Keep it up.

[@rashedahmed1562]

Have you heard of that famous theologian Michael Servetus ? He was a spanish Christian Tgeologian also known as Miguel Serveto . He was also a physician, cartographer, and Renaissance humanist. He was the first European to correctly describe the function of pulmonary circulation, as discussed in Christianismi Restitutio (1553). He was a polymath versed in many sciences: mathematics, astronomy and meteorology, geography, human anatomy, medicine and pharmacology, as well as jurisprudence, translation, poetry and the scholarly study of the Bible in its original languages.After carefully studying & researching He concluded that the Concept of Trinity is wrong & Jesus was not divine / God . He wrote books on this subject ; (1) Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), ,(2) De Trinitatis Erroribus (On the Errors of the Trinity) ,(3) Dialogorum de Trinitate (Dialogues on the Trinity) and (4) De Iustitia Regni Christi (On the Justice of Christ's Reign). So He started preaching the Oneness of tge God & Jesus being not that one Gid but a Prophet of the God ( Islam) . The Christian Churches did not like it & accused Him of being Heretic & put Him on a drama unfair trial & BURNT HIM ALIVE WHILE PUT HIS BOOKS ARPUND HIM !! The Christian Churches gave a clear message to us ; if anyone expose their FALSE religion than they will do that to us . Tell me , is this love or TERRORISM ??!!

[@truethinker221]

Cuts killing cults what else is knew.

[@36cmbr]

If'n Za-Zu did exist he is the least efficient sentient being ever. On the other hand if he just sent his picture post card with a note, he be the I Am & the greatest speaker of all time. Does he or doesn't he be damned. What did the boy say?

[@PuffyCloud_aka_puffeclaude]

I have three things to say about the resurrection. Elvis, Morrison, Tupac.

[@vxenon67]

You have two sides. Be honest you have already presuppositions to which side you would WANT to believe.

[@sulas548]

Yes there are two sides, but only one side is true. One side involves believing things without evidence and the other side involves believing evidence without faith. " When an honest persons is shown to be wrong they can either stop being wrong or stop being honest."

[@dirkcampbell]

Had an online conversation on the Sam Harris website chat room many years ago in which the other guy talked about 'weak' and 'strong' agnosticism. He said it makes more sense to be an atheist than a strong agnostic because the level of proof required by a strong agnostic is unreasonable, like you won't believe the earth is a sphere until you've gone out into space and seen it and even then you're dubious! A 'weak' agnostic says well anything could be true and doesn't bother to take a position one way or the other. Both are fence-sitters essentially. So an 'agnostic atheist' tries to cover both bets, but I think it really means 'atheist'.

[@skeptic2832]

please provide a list of sources other than the bible that provide evidence of a historical Jesus

[@harveywabbit9541]

Evidence....look up into the sky, he is that big ball of fire.

[@Athenasoteira]

Hi Bart,You have gone half the way now. The next step is to answer this question: How did god become Jesus?Love your research. Regards Athenasoteira

[@wandaru]

Bart Ehrman is a guest speaker here in FFRF where Dan Barker is the host.

[@firesteel01]

It would be fine if it wasn't so unequally applied in practice. Songwriter Jason Boland said it well: "Buddha is legal, and Jesus ain't. The saints are all sinners and the sinners are all saints." An interesting observation from a secular musician.

[@tedgrant2]

I have a 10 year old boy that never learned to speak. I've been told he will probably die before he is 15 years old. Will he go to heaven ?

[@elcangridelanime]

This is the only life we have, Your son can only experience the moments he has now. Stay with him until the end so he can experience love you can share with him.

[@foodforthought8308]

@@elcangridelanime Leo, how do you know this?

[@elcangridelanime]

@@foodforthought8308 I have to experience the death of very close family members and that is how I share their final moments until the end.

[@foodforthought8308]

@@elcangridelanime I am sorry for your losses. That I meant to ask that given the uncertainty of our origin, how are you so certain that the end of this life is truly the end?

[@elcangridelanime]

@@foodforthought8308 That's simple, All life is temporary, embracing life means accepting dead.

[@UnimatrixOne]

32:12 Isn't it so: Joseph of Arimathea paid a huge pile of money to Pilate to get the body of Jesus!?

[@brucemaddox5696]

Could have been...