Christianity is a religion of Paul, not Jesus - listen to Dr Bart Ehrman on this subject

[@cherubin7th]

Did Jesus ever review the letters of Paul and approved them? If not then it is man made.

[@JosephABCD]

By this logic you have to disregard every book. Every book is God inspired, yet written by man. The only books Jesus would have approved would be Old Testament.

[@Jamonpeligroso]

Respectfully, I think this title is at best misleading, and at worst a complete twisting of what even Ehrman is saying in this interview itself. (The editing also does not give me confidence that his responses are even being presented accurately, but let's give the benefit of the doubt and assume the editing is not being deceitful) Ehrman himself says that the understanding of the death and resurrection of the Messiah predated Paul, that the gospels align with Paul's salvation theology, and that Paul's revelation at his conversion was a realization of how Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law and the prophets of the Old Testament. What does this mean? It means that Paul's teaching was not at odds with the other Apostles, nor was it at odds with Jesus's teachings. In order to believe that Paul is somehow corrupting the teaching of Jesus, you would have to also believe that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah and to be God. (Which, admittedly, is the stance that Ehrman seems to take) Christians do not believe Paul's teachings to be scripture merely because they "happened to win out" against other versions of Christianity at the time. We believe it because of a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the other Apostles, such as Peter and James, who had ample opportunity to reject or rebuke Paul's teaching, instead embraced Paul, affirmed his status as a true Apostle, and endorsed his mission of preaching the gospel to the gentiles. If they had found Paul to be contradicting Jesus, or teaching wacky things, they would have rebuked him, just as we see them do with other false teachers throughout the book of Acts. We see, such as in Galatians, that when Paul calls out Peter for hypocrisy, Peter could have opposed Paul and rejected his teachings about the law and the gospel (and would have been motivated to do so). But instead, the Apostles accepted him, as Galatians describes immediately prior. Christians have thought deeply, intensely about these things for centuries, and nothing that Ehrman said in this interview is some world-shaking new take on how we understand Paul and his teachings. Please friends, be on guard against false teaching, and I'd recommend looking into Systematic Theology if you are curious about the foundations of why we believe what we do about scripture, and about Jesus

[@born_again_7]

@@Jamonpeligroso I respect your opinion however the problem I have with Christianity is going with an Apostole who never met Jesus, never spent any time with Jesus or not much time with his disciples yet his teachings won over the teachings of the original disciples because of the education and eloquence of Paul. It was more aligned with the philosophical approach. I am not saying everything Paul is saying it’s a lie, however I fold fast to what God asked us to do which is worship Him only and christian churches worship Jesus only and that the Law was an everlasting covenant and we reject it. Also this could be a test from God whether we truly listen to His words over men words : “You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.” Deuteronomy‬ ‭13‬:‭3‬-‭4‬ ‭ “For thus says the Lord: “To the Gentiles who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant,” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭56‬:‭4‬ ‭

[@Jamonpeligroso]

@born_again_7 You may not say "everything Paul said is a lie", but you clearly believe that the most critical, important claim he ever made was a lie. Paul absolutely, in no uncertain terms, claims directly to have not only met Jesus, not only have had a miraculous encounter with Jesus that completely changed him, but also to have spent 3 years in Arabia learning from the risen Christ. This is his most important claim, one that would have been the central issue the Apostles would have challenged him on, or at the very least would have tested by his fruit. To deny this is, by definition, calling Paul a liar and a deceiver, one who managed to bamboozle the other apostles and make up a story about encountering Jesus so that he could...feel special? This is certainly possible, but to accept that is to also accept that the power of the Holy Spirit failed Peter and James and allowed them to be deceived, to fail to detect bad fruit, and to fail to rebuke false teaching. Jesus himself promised that the Holy Spirit would empower and guide the apostles, so you would very well have to call him a liar and a deceiver as well.

[@born_again_7]

@ Yes that is my point that we believe a man who only had a spiritual encounter with Jesus. How do we know it was really Jesus and not Satan masquerading himself as Jesus? And why Jesus didn’t come to Peter at the same time, to his beloved disciple? Paul met Jesus only in the spirit not in the flesh. I don’t deny his encounter changed him, but his claims and philosophy has become the foundation of Christianity. Have you considered that this was actual deception? We believe a man’s vision over the words of God. The Catholic church is a deception and any law or a doctrine that comes out of that institution I reject, regardless how well educated, thoughtful and with historic knowledge people who came up with those doctrines were. Christianity is one dimensional. Rejecting the words of God in the Torah over the words of men and depriving people from the coded mysteries found in Torah it’s so selfish and arrogant towards God. It’s like telling God: hey we don’t need your words, we prefer someone’s interpretation of the events who wasn’t even there. They went with a man made doctrines and they stick to it. And anyone who opposes them is called heretic. With regards to Peter and James, how do you know that they were actually opposing Paul and rebuking him but that documentation has been hidden from us? You really have to look at things from many different angles and not going with something just because it has been established centuries before. Back then people were uneducated and they didn’t question. Then they took Bibles from them during the dark ages so that no one could question, then Martin Luther opposed Catholic church and now we have people much more advanced in knowledge, critical thinking and resources to be able to start putting dots together.

[@Jamonpeligroso]

​@@born_again_7 Thank you for being forthright about your position, and I'm glad you are asking these questions, and I want to take them seriously. "Have you considered that this was actually deception?" - I think my previous reply should make this obvious. Of course I have considered this, that's precisely what my reply addresses. To accept that it was deception, we have to accept that the Holy Spirit failed to guide and lead the apostles, and that Jesus's promise to them about the Holy Spirit was broken. "It's like telling God: hey we don't need your words, we prefer someone's interpretation of the events who wasn't even there." - Let's not forget that Paul was literally an expert on the Old Testament, one who believed in it with all his heart, to the point of persecuting Christians. He was a Pharisee, a devout Jew, with all the qualifications and training for understanding the Old Testament as well as any Jew in Jesus's day. "How do you know they weren't actually opposing Paul, but that documentation has been hidden from us?" - For this, we can turn to multiple levels of analysis: one being the archaeological and historical evidence of early Christianity, the other being internal analysis of the New Testament writings. The book of Acts records Peter as someone who is not afraid to rebuke false teaching, who is willing to go to the synagogues, risk being stoned to death as Stephen was, and confront the Teachers of the Law with the gospel. Clearly, not someone who would just roll over and accept false teaching. As for the archaeological and historical evidence, if Peter was opposing Paul, the New Testament writings make it clear that Peter and the other apostles were staying in Israel, mainly Jerusalem, to preach the gospel of Jesus. Paul, on the contrary, left them and traveled for many years far away from Israel, and died all the way in Rome. If all the churches Paul established were teaching Pauline theology that Peter and the other apostles opposed, we would expect that the historical record would show geographical differences in the accepted scriptural canon between Jerusalem and these other churches (the churches in Israel would not be using Paul's writings, under direction of the other apostles). We would also not expect the Apostle John to write to the Pauline churches of Ephesus, Laodicea, etc in the book of Revelation and address such churches as part of the Seven Churches that are the Lampstands of God. Even if you reject Revelation as scripture (which is risky), and think it to be another untrustworthy vision, it would still be shocking for John to treat Pauline churches as part of the in-group if they were based on teachings that John, Peter and the other apostles opposed. Instead, we see affirmations across multiple dimensions that Paul was accepted as an apostle, that his teachings were used by churches in Israel and Jerusalem (even when Paul was off on long missionary journeys where he would not have had influence in Jerusalem), that the churches he established were treated as part of the body of Christ, and that his teachings were internally consistent with the Old Testament and the Gospels.

[@timandmonica]

Hi, James. Can you explain how you know that Paul spent 3 years learning directly from Jesus after his encounter on the Damascus road? Thanks!

[@RobertMOdell]

Saul was no Apostle.

[@twoangels3405]

I believe in all the Israelites prophets.

[@kiwihans100]

Christianty in its truest sense is the teachings of JESUS CHRIST. Only these can give us life! "I am the bread of life" Jesus said, "Whoever eats THIS bread will have everlasting life! Paul only was a humble disciple and follower OF Jesus! Mahatma Ghandi told the vicery of India in 1949 "When your People and my people can get together and accept the teachings of Jesus Christ in the 'sermon on the mount' we will not only have solved our problems ( India's partition from Britain...) but the PROBLEMS OF THE WHOLE WORLD, and I am a Hindu & not a Christain!" A famous psychologist once remarked that "The sermon on the mount recorded at Matthew 5-7 contains more wisdom than the sum total of all the advice our profession has ever given people! Have you read it?

[@ryanrestivo4270]

Two years ago I came to the honest belief that Jesus was the Word made Flesh. But soon after rereading the Bible it became apparent that Paul was the False Prophet Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24. I was on a comment section of another video recently, defending this position and that the Law was to be kept. I was going to quote Matthew 5:17-20 to make my point but then saw the word UNTIL.. I never noticed it before. It’s obvious that Jesus was speaking of the temple destruction as the end of the age.. and it’s hard to know what our direction is from Jesus, when you consider we are in the “New Jerusalem”. Sure Paul was active in the years before the destruction, so he was still an Apostate (considered least in the kingdom of heaven for dismissing the law).. but what about now? What if the Gospel of Grace actually does apply to us today? Can you help me understand what is required of us after all had been fulfilled? Do we receive a life after death or have we been left behind?

[@born_again_7]

Thank you for this comment. You are so right! Paul was the false prophet Jesus was warning us about and this is also a test from God to see if we take His words over the words of a man who only had spiritual revelation. God opens our eyes in the right moment to our individual journey, I also didn't see it as obvious before. I even cried to God why He chose such a confusing and contradicting Apostle like Paul…and then it hit me, maybe he was never supposed to be in the NT canon! The gospel of grace is actually Paul's gospel and is fake! I am going to make a video on this. The problem with Christianity is the foundation: taking Apostle Paul as the main teacher and thus confusing the gospel, thinking we are under the new covenant that annuls the law, which is untrue and giving all the worship to Jesus, where Jesus was only pointing us to God! There is only one God who deserves the worship, we were never supposed to worship Jesus as we do and we created idol out of Jesus. Once the foundation is wrong, everything else that comes out of that foundation is wrong. Those people who defend everything about Christianity are obviously so deeply embedded in their teachings that they can't see and won't see it until something hits them. Salvation is very real and it's for those who repent, turn away from sin, from any idols, worship God only and keep the Law. That means leaving religion…

[@johnallen5999]

Why would we take instruction from a man who denies the resurrection? He denies the deity of Christ. Who cares what he thinks about Paul?

[@born_again_7]

@@johnallen5999 I think it’s important to listen to critics because they might point us into something we are not seeing. When you are in a culture or religion, you don’t really see it until you get out of it completely. I am not agreeing with everything Bart says about Christianity however he is New Testament scholar and very knowledgable on those topics so I am interested in listening the criticism of the religion

[@Isaac_L..]

​@born_again_7 I'm a non theist (ex evangelical Christian) and I just wanted to say thanks for considering the critics. Basically every worldview has some downside (the more I study philosphy the more I'm convinced of this), and despite what many Christians say, true intellectual humility isn't accepting everything the Bible, or the Pastor, or even what you think to be the very voice of God at face value while drowning doubts with the fear of hell. True intellectual humility is knowing that many of your current views almost definately are wrong and that valid criticism is what helps you to belive things that are true instead. Many Christians are too scared of criticism as a threat to their beliefs that they completely isolate their mind from any percieved new thought outside the Bible which is really sad to see. Please continue to be a good example to your fellow believers in promoting good critical thinking skills and intellectual humility. I genuinely appreciate it.

[@born_again_7]

@ Thank you so much for this uplifting comment 😊 and taking your time to listen to my video. I agree, there are always two sides of the coin with every ideology, religion etc. and unfortunately people are afraid to explore different points of view. Very often familiarity is keeping them where they are and labeling critics are something negative. But that is the only way to see what you are not seeing. Thank you again 🙏🏼

[@drzaius844]

Who cares what Paul thinks about Jesus? Also, Bart doesn’t “deny” the resurrection, he silly doesn’t think there is enough evidence to support it, historically. That is very different. Your emotionalism shows your bias.

[@johnallen5999]

@drzaius844 the Apostles chosen by Christ Himself (of whom include Paul, mind you) approved of Paul's preaching to the Gentiles. The slightest textual criticism reveals that our Early Church Fathers wholeheartedly embraced Paul's contributions to the Gospel of salvation through faith in Christ alone.

[@edward1412]

Read Acts 15 (the whole chapter) - The Council of Jerusalem. What you have to understand is that, the 613 Mosaic laws were given to ONLY the Israelites/Jews and not the Gentiles. Thus, when Christianity started, it only had Jews and these Jewish Christians kept the Jewish laws (not all the laws though). Some of the 613 laws had become part of culture of the Jews so they still kept these laws when they became Christians. However, when the Gentiles accepted Christianity, some of the Jewish Christians wanted the Gentile Christians to follow the Jewish laws (especially circumcision). These Jewish Christians went around telling the Gentile Christians that, they would not be saved unless they get circumcised. This was what Paul preached against because he preached that although circumcision and the law is good, they don't save but only the Gospel of Jesus does. Paul's argument between the Jewish Christians on if the Gentile Christians had to follow the Jewish law was what led to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Peter, James, Paul and the Jewish Christians were all present. I hope you read it and you would find out what they concluded. God bless you.

[@born_again_7]

@@edward1412 My views are different than modern Christianity, I believe we are still under the old covenant and new covenant is a future promise. Please read Isaiah 53 chapter “Salvation for the Gentiles” and especially “For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant,” ‭‭ My view is that it’s Paul philosophy that we are no longer under the law, not God’s words and I only hold fast to God’s words not men, therefore I only go by the Old Testament and I take the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke John as a beautiful revelation of Jesus. This is my view and perception and I understand many people will disagree with me because people tend to hold on to doctrines out of fear of questioning and disagreeing.

[@Jamonpeligroso]

@@born_again_7 Jesus himself says that his blood is the new covenant. Please be careful dismissing disagreement as blind doctrinal adherence -- as any who have studied systematic theology would tell you, it is not by blind tradition that we reach our conclusions, but by careful study of scripture, history, and archeology

[@awdat]

I have watched several videos with Bart Ehrman. He simply doesn't understand Jesus. Paul understands him much better.

[@robl.scrubb6741]

I own his book “lost Christianities”. If he only understood the Acts of the Apostles and how it covered a long period of time. From 33 AD to at least 50 AD. Think of how much the internet changed from 1995 to today, technology wise. Without Paul being a Roman Citizen, early Christianity would never have spread. Paul was fighting judaizing Christians who wanted to go back to the old law and have gentiles follow their customs. And in the book lost Christianities, Bart Ehrmen even says the gnostic gospels are forgeries. He’s just a college professor trying to stay relevant in the modern era.

[@asadzaid4127]

And did not Yahshua (Jesus) was accused of breaking the law by the Pharisees and Sanhedrin including stoning the adulteress,eating without washing hands, working during the Sabbath among others? Why do you refuse to receive the holy spirit in order to understand Jesus message. Jesus spoke “ I have come to fulfill the law because man is incapable of adhering to it, and took the punishment of it in the failure of man to abide by the law.” For he alone is to the judge men at the end of Days. And so Paul who hated Jesus persecuting Christians became so faithful to Jesus in the end, spreading the gospel to the gentiles. Most of Jesus ministries where in galilee and across the river Jordan and red sea for there swarms gentiles at that time? People will just gain popularity in already famous figures and facts, that never exclude bart herman

[@born_again_7]

@@asadzaid4127 Jesus came to teach how to fulfil the law and showed us the essence of the law, fulfilling it out of love towards God, not like Pharisees did in a legalistic way. His message was not to abandon the law, but understand why the Law was put in the first place. If the law is abolished then there is no reference to what sin is and what morality is. And God was clear that His covenant is everlasting = lasting forever. Yes it’s not to give us a pass to heaven but so that we work on ourselves, better ourselves and learn about God. That is why the law is here. Jesus said follow me and do as I did ans he was fulfilling the law which means we also have to. We will never be able to do it as well as Jesus but it’s not the point. The point is to work on ourselves and keeping holly as God is holly.

[@asadzaid4127]

@ I don’t know why u call yourself born again, and I’m not sure which law are you thinking about. … Jesus speaking in MATTHEW 5:17 “ DO NOT THINK THAT I HAVE COME to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” The Video claims that Paul is not consistent with Jesus. So I am highlighting here that God in his infinite knowledge will not change or abolish the laws which were stated in tha Torah. Because God knew that the law is geared to perfection of an imperfect man, Jesus embodied the law unto him including the punishments correspondingly and died on the cross so that we shall live. And-so he simplified them into “ LOVE GOD WITH ALL HEART, WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND, LOVE YOUR BRETHREN AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF” . and brethren not just between jews but includes the gentiles like you and me. Kindly read carefully my point, addressing the issues revolving around the video.

[@born_again_7]

@ Whether I am born again is between me and God and not for you to judge. The point of the video is that Paul’s teachings were contradicting Old Testament, Jesus’ teachings and Paul even had a conflict with Peter and James who were Jesus’ disciples over his teachings. This subject is not new and has been a reason of many debates over the centuries. Why church went with Paul’s teachings we don’t know. But it is very clear they contradict God’s words in the Old Testament. You isolate verse from Matthew 5:17 as the proof, but what Jesus said after? “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭ The two commandments that Jesus gave us are actually from Torah, I did a video on that, therefore Jesus was teaching out of Torah and encouraging Jews to follow the Torah just like he did. God is asking us to not abolish the law and keep perfecting ourselves through the Law.

[@asadzaid4127]

@@born_again_7 by your statement you failed to distinguish between the old and new covenant. Jew would keep their commandments, indeed. “No eating of pork” and such… You are then a jew? You don’t eat pork? you should agree then to let Jesus to stone the adulterous woman who was presented to Him in John 8:1-11 so he could be consistent with what the torah prescribed… dude we cannot present double standard here. I’ll say it again “Laws always comes with prescribed punishment in failing to do so”. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law so as He says follow me because he is the embodiment of the law. Then simplified them into two ultimate law, love God and love thy neighbor. For if “LOVE” to God and to man is our common denominator we be then prevent from committing sin… and this is what Paul have been teaching. Paul grew up as a Jew and part of the Sanhedrin(if im not mistaken) circulating around killing and persecuting Christians. And you can read the bible in the “acts of the apostles” what event that made a turning point in his life

[@born_again_7]

@@asadzaid4127 My point is that what you believe in is Paul’s philosophy and only Paul’s philosophy that the church subscribed to. They rejected other views and went with Paul’s understanding but with every event there are many different points of view. We can exchange our opinions and I am not trying to change your mind here but I have a different opinion on this topic. In my view we are still under the old covenant and new covenant is a future promise that is why I encourage people to follow the law

[@jungleismasiv4426]

Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all give this reason for his crucifixion. If he never claimed to be the Son of God, why was he crucified? Give a reason from contemporary historical sources.

[@born_again_7]

@@jungleismasiv4426 Jesus was crucified for saying he is the King of Jews: “Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.” Matthew‬ ‭27‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭ “The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas!” Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”” Matthew‬ ‭27‬:‭21‬-‭23‬ “When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭27‬:‭29‬-‭30‬ “and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭27‬:‭40‬-‭43‬ Yes he said he is the Son of God but he was crucified for saying to be the King of Jews which at that time was a threat to their authority. Then people laughed that because he said he was the Son of God he should be saved by God. From the political point of view there was no threat to be the Son of God but there was a threat to claim to be the King.

[@jonaspotter1364]

@@born_again_7 hmm maybe but you are skipping the verses in Matthew 26 ,: 62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Well, aren’t you going to answer these charges? What do you have to say for yourself?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I demand in the name of the living God-tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus replied, “You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand[i] and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[j] 65 Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, “Blasphemy! Why do we need other witnesses? You have all heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your verdict?” “Guilty!” they shouted. “He deserves to die!” So the reason he was crucified was because of his claim to be the Son of God and King of the Jews . Lukes gospel brings similar context. Lukes 66 At daybreak all the elders of the people assembled, including the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. Jesus was led before this high council,[f] 67 and they said, “Tell us, are you the Messiah?” But he replied, “If I tell you, you won’t believe me. 68 And if I ask you a question, you won’t answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated in the place of power at God’s right hand.[g]” 70 They all shouted, “So, are you claiming to be the Son of God?” And he replied, “You say that I am.” 71 “Why do we need other witnesses?” they said. “We ourselves heard him say it.”

[@jasonbarton4521]

@@born_again_7 What you said ; Precise, concise (yet comprehensive) clarification. 100% reality.

[@stevensteven3417]

He was a roman agent.