Contradictions in the New Testament - Professor Bart D. Ehrman

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Please consider joining MythVision Patreon to help me in continuing doing this work! 💯 www.patreon.com/mythvision -💥Get early access to 100's of videos not made public -💥Ask questions for scholars I interview and potentially have a video recording from the scholars -💥Private message me

[@bdubb5390]

Psalm 118:8. Trust no man. Only God. That simple.

[@jeb6314]

A couple of years ago a Mormon friend explained that, when Jesus says that "this generation shall not pass away before the coming of the Son Of Man' and "some of you still standing.......", that there are still people alive from Jesus' crowd; i.e., there are ~ 2000 year old people somewhere on earth. I learned in Mormon seminary in high school (I was raised Mormon but am currently atheist) that the Mormons -not to be outdone -have a tale of The Three Nephites who are also ~ 2000 years old anxiously waiting for the Second Coming.

[@unicyclist97]

Great achievement acquiring an interview with Ehrman. He's such a busy guy that it's a milestone for your hard work with this channel.

[@EssJay]

Totally Agree.. Congrats Derek 👍👍

[@gabrielplattes6253]

Derek took three showers after, I heard it through the grapevine... The things one does to make a channel successful, kudos to him!

[@johnnysprocketz]

money talks

[@ranilodicen4460]

@James Barlow Yes! This things are known in the biblical scholarly world for almost 200 yrs.. yet i wonder why it doesnt reach the pews

[@ranilodicen4460]

@James Barlow Yup! I just came to know about this things by reading and listening to biblical scholars like ehrman. it was never taught in sunday schools and you never hear these things from a pastor who most surely know these things

[@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar]

BART EHRMAN is such a plentiful fountain of useful & factual information. WOW! I love this!

[@geraldpolmateer3255]

How did you evaluate that?

[@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar]

@@geraldpolmateer3255 I read many of his publications & compared his conclusions with the conclusions agreed upon by the consensus of scholars in various fields of historical studies. I also study evidence while also evaluating observations & most of the time information from Prof. Ehrman is consistent, logical, & reasonably accurate with reality.

[@geraldpolmateer3255]

@@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar When I studied physics in the first course I took we were presented with the difference between precise and accurate. All of the clocks in a building can be precisely set at the same time and all could be inaccurate. Ehrman should know about historical research, if he has studied research methods. Historical events are one time events and cannot be proven by the scientific method. For something to be science/experimental research it must be repeatable. In fact they cannot be proven than other by historical research. If you have read his works and have no way of evaluating what he writes, then he would seem consistent. Let me give an example. I taught at the university in a professional program that was one of the top programs in the U.S. We would laugh at some of the consensus among textbooks written by those who did not have any professional experience. They were consistent but consistently had errors. Consensus can be a dangerous way to do research because if each of the "scholars" all read each others books then they will all agree. That is the reason why you should read books what disagree and listen to debates among some of the best. View the video in which he debates Dan Wallace kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYOrm415gLd8q5Y Take a look at kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKSWZplvaLyHq9k

[@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar]

@@geraldpolmateer3255 it sounds like you did a google search on what "consensus" means. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how consensus scholarship works & I'm not convinced you're aware of how peer review works either. Falsifiability is imperative for ALL claims, whether scientific or historical. It's the method for arriving at the claim, assertion, or conclusion that can be repeated - not necessarily the past event itself. LOL R U seriously recommending the debate where Dan Wallace falsely speaks about the "earliest dated Mark manuscript"? That turned out to not be so early at all, by 1 or 2 CENTURIES! (Papyrus 137).

[@geraldpolmateer3255]

​@@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar When did you study textual criticism and the Coherence Based Genealogical Method?

[@peterhetherington914]

As an Englishman I was taken aback to hear Bart say “bollocks”, I was extremely amused.

[@paulrichards6894]

did he say his wife was english??..i am sure he did

[@heisenberg69]

@@paulrichards6894 He did. She is. That's why Bart is on the radio show Unbelievable a lot, since they frequently go to UK to visit her family.

[@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo]

Bart's wife Sarah a Shakespeare scholar. I heard him say somewhere that the Shakespeare fakes are as bad as fake bible books

[@dyawr]

@@anarchorepublican5954 Can I ask you a question? What does Mythicism refer to (here)?

[@dyawr]

@@anarchorepublican5954 So mythicism about Christianity, is saying Jesus never existed? That he's a myth?

[@thescoobymike]

The irony of McLatchie misquoting Ehrman and effectively proving Ehrman's whole point

[@Magar6]

Poor McLatchie, he is beyond rediculous at this point. He won't abandon his Christianity though, it doesn't seem like facts mean anything to the man. He prefers his fantasies and his imaginary friend.

[@isaacpowell1408]

I do go to church and since listening to your channel I notice most church services have nothing to do with Historicity of Jesus we actually use the bible as allegory. Then we eat and talk about each other😉

[@paulrichards6894]

is everything in the bible that we now know is not true called allegory by your church...i thought people just ignored science??

[@outlawJosieFox]

I am an atheist but I have friends who are Christian. They do not deny science and they see the bible stories as purely allegorical. The problem is with the American Christian Evangelical movement (and I include JWs, Mormons and others ), which is extremist religious dogma spouted by rich auld white men parading around as pastors for profit.

[@paulrichards6894]

@@outlawJosieFox steven furtick a preacher though admittedly is young is worth 55 million dollars

[@carlwebstern5065]

Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the narrative of what was reported to suit their view and position. He dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the empty tomb report which in due course takes away the reported resurrection of Jesus. He says his not out to do this, but that's what it does. He just says in his opinion the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave, because in other cases that's what happened. However, in the case of Jesus that's not what was reported and for reasons given. He removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Because of his personal opinion, which are the very essence of the Christian faith and the divinity of Jesus. It's also hypocritical of him because he'll use reported events that suit his narrative and others that don't fit his theories. He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in an unknown grave, and there is nothing anywhere reported that this occurred, other than Jesus is placed in a tomb. Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities. If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could have easily put an end to Jesus as the messiah. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. Simply would have exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and lay the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished. The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart just thinks that's what happened because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God, it also fits into how Muslims and others simply dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh. There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Paul’s declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to base that view at all, just unsupported opinion. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, and it’s ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on the reported events. Also Bart makes scripturally wrong assumptions for example when he mentioned the Ten Commandments - “though shall have no other gods ". He claims of pre-supposed other gods in existence. Yes, there were Mythical Pagan Gods like "sun gods" and all sorts. Ancient Egyptian deities are the gods and goddesses worshipped in ancient Egypt, and there are many of them. Those other pagan gods did not appear in the flesh and present miraculous miracles like Jesus did before real people. The command was given to praise the ONE and only TRUE God of the bible. Not pagan sun gods. And in time, this same God of the commandments revealed himself in the flesh in Jesus, that's the difference between God of the bible and the pagan gods (no other gods), mentioned in the Ten Commandments. God that gave the commandments to Moses is the same God in Christ Jesus. All other pagan gods from that time have fallen, except the God of the bible. And that rule still stands today with other made up Gods currently circulating. So even though Bart says his intention is not to disprove God of the bible, he does so indirectly, whether intentionally or not. And so does this by changing parts of the biblical narrative with no support to suit his theories. So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view.

[@paulrichards6894]

@@carlwebstern5065 you don't prove the bible by using the bible

[@rochesterjohnny7555]

Don't always agree but always enjoy listening to Dr Ehrman, can't wait to watch this one

[@Mr_Rob_otto]

A great interviewer asks the questions and lets the subject speak without interrupting. You’ve accomplished that.

[@mistyhaney5565]

I love that you informed him about what was being said about him by the apologist and gave him the opportunity to address it.

[@nerd-core7679]

I love the part where Dr. Erham is asked to "Blink twice if he is secretly a Mythicist" and he opens his eyes even more widely. 🤣 He has a great sense of humor.

[@CrazySchram666]

He fuckin blinked twice and kept doing it 🤔 Bart Ehrman is crypto mythicist confirmed 😎

[@joew8438]

He did blink twice though! /blink /blink

[@jonnyw82]

Noah gets blackout drunk and then his son sees him naked so Noah curses him. That’s incredible.

[@voxpopuli348]

His daughters get raped.

[@ivetterodríguez-j4k]

I'm pretty sure Ham made fun of him but I'm not sure what the point was besides family drama. I mean, family drama is most of Genesis.

[@BanAaron]

@@ivetterodríguez-j4k It is riffing on the Adam and Eve narrative where they realise they're naked and cover themselves IMO

[@23ADJ93]

I’ve watched a lot of content with Dr. Ehrman, he looks like he had more fun doing this interview than most of the content I’ve seen him do interview wise

[@scholarvid1842]

Next time he will pay to show up.

[@kingofdetroit358]

N I have watched a lot of content about lela star, Luna star and Rachel Starr

[@magnabosco210]

You’re such an informed and excellent interviewer, Derek. A great discussion many people should hear.

[@vejeke]

I think you're going to like this. "In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast ... 'To physics and metaphysics.' Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy-truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.

[@JogoShugh]

I gotta agree with you on that Anthony. It's not just that he is informed, but Derek has a genuine interest and passion for learning.

[@streetsdisciple0014]

He’s amazing

[@theunclejezusshow8260]

One of my top 3 live streams📖🧙‍♂️📓

[@spider-man9118]

ayo we have various types of evidence, for biblical events, if anyone is interested

[@unicyclist97]

I've bought all of Ehrman's great courses on Audible. I've listened to all except one so far 🙂 He's a brilliant teacher and orator.

[@yacouvbanou6886]

Hi @Joël, please where did you buy those courses? I am really interested. Thanks

[@ftumschk]

@@yacouvbanou6886 Audible.com - I have them too, and they're excellent. Audible has not only his "The Great Courses" lectures (of which there are many!) but also several of his audiobooks.

[@yacouvbanou6886]

@@ftumschk thanks very appreciate

[@unicyclist97]

Fantastic job of keeping the conversation flowing while fitting so many questions in.

[@MichaelYoder1961]

Great interview! Bart is so personable, articulate and has a fun sense of humour. He makes very complex aspects of the Bible easy to understand for non-scholars. Great get, Derek! Let's hope you can make this happen again sometime

[@ronarkom1611]

I love Bart's work, but I think his assertion then American slavery had everything to do with race is ignorant of history. Africa was a cheap source of slave labor, and racial views were imported after in order to justify it not the reason.

[@CSHorn]

Thanks!

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Thank you very much fir that superthanks

[@katieward4515]

@@MythVisionPodcast you are the best podcast I have listened to ❤❤❤

[@TheHunterGracchus]

The thing that perplexes me about mythicism is that I've never heard anyone put forward a clear hypothesis of who created the myth, how, and why. All I've heard is nonsense like "Roman mind control."

[@livinia296]

Paul of tarsus. He introduced the trinity from mythology. Look up mithras the sun God.

[@ghistecyk8733]

Man, not sure if Bart Ehrman knew that doing a Mythvision interview was this much work. Great stuff.

[@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar]

MYTHVISION is one of the BEST content channels available! Amazing knowledge resource here! Thank you MythVision. I hope this channel continues to grow & popularize :)

[@livinia296]

Try blogging theology on youtube. Even better.

[@shriggs55]

This is one of my favorite videos that you've put out,although I like a lot of what Dr.Bob has to say.I'm not settled on the whole"mithysist"thing,but I tend to think that the jury is gonna be out, on the right or wrong of the subject for a long time,so I tend to agree with Bart on that.But I like his style of delivery.He seems to have the knack of being able to break things down into the language of the common people and make it palatable for us non-scholars.I learn a lot from listening to him.

[@CreatureWillis]

The breadth of opinion is the greatest asset of this channel. Keep going!

[@ppineault]

Bart Ehrman is amazing. He's not only a scholar with few equals, a big part of his magic and talent is that he phrases and explains things which even the most simple lay person can understand and relate to. I also very much admire the fact that (like me), he really has no interest in destroying or belittling someone's faith structure, he's just interested in the facts (and is superlative at seeing the weaknesses in apologists arguments and expertly poking holes through them.) I've watched many hours of his lectures and debates and could happily watch hours more.

[@danlee9293]

"he phrases and explains things which even the most simple lay person can understand and relate to" I think it is because he uses simple criteria for his narratives. It's simple and shallow with no depth whatsoever. If you actually read his books you would easily find contradictions and logical errors. Just people do not read critically and only takes in what they want to see and hear. One serious error he makes is that he think his narrative is absolutely plausible while some other narratives are implausible. I would agree if he had enough evidence but he only has limited materials that he claims forged or manipulated in the first place. He would be a great scholar if he stayed as a historian but he is turning his belief system into some form of proven truth. That doesn't seem right and that is where he fails.

[@INTOTOMIASMA]

Great to see this exchange between a great teacher and an eager student. Excellent job handling the tech and keeping up an intense pace while keeping the depth.

[@wj74]

I predict that when Ehrman is retired he will conclude his own findings that Jesus never existed. Till then, he has a career to protect. Thank you Derek for your hustle and please keep “fighting the good fight”.

[@lunarmodule6419]

Bart says Jesus was just a cult leader who was executed and thrown in a common ground burial. What more do you need from him?!

[@historicalbiblicalresearch8440]

I believe his family are still Christian and he has a prestigious post in a religious college so he has to step carefully to saybthe least.

[@lunarmodule6419]

@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 He says Jesus was just another cult leader and was put in a common ground burial. What's careful about that? I mean...

[@lunarmodule6419]

@marshallferron Bart says: there was a guy, the guy was an ordinary guy, a cult leader (crook or crazy), the guy was put on a cross, then his body was dumpted in a common burial ground. So not myth based, but really not the messiah either.

[@justinhooper2481]

I don't think he'll ever think it let alone admit it. Do you not see the contempt and condescension he had for Carrier and Price? He talks of them as some amateurish fringe players who have some kind of axe to grind and want a seat at the big boy's table where he's the elder statesman. He refuses to even take the subject of historicity seriously when most of what he espouses supports the fact that there is serious reason for doubt. Talk about cognitive dissonance?! The guy's a legend but his ego clouds his scientific impartiality which is kind of sad and weird given his talent.

[@EssJay]

Oh man.. My favorite scholar at all times.. The Legend 👑

[@agl1138]

Great to hear Dr Ehrman calling something 'bollocks'. This is one of the more polite British swear words

[@ryanbland556]

So happy this happened. The Mythvision family has longed for it. Derek, you are the true Messiah. Thank you 😊

[@invisiblegorilla8631]

Derek, the Lambert of God.

[@holyfoolaid3528]

I heard he deconverted from puriah to messiah.

[@invisiblegorilla8631]

@Skydaddy Myth-Busters I wish I had come up with it myself, but alas, the Lambert of God was the first to coin the phrase.

[@spider-man9118]

don't mock God, people Also, we have various types of evidence for biblical events, if anyone is interested

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

Derek you mentioned a few months ago on a video you had been watching Bart Erhman's content, so that made me click on one, then another and ever since iv'e not stopped i'm many tens of hours in watching over and over, absolutely love it. I'm so glad of the information he puts out.

[@MrMemyselfandi415]

This was hands down one of the best if not THE BEST dissection of the new testament and apologetics I've ever seen. You're extremely bright, well worded, and genuinely likable. Just a home run. Subbed and will be coming back. Thanks.

[@JoseChung21]

Derek this is the greatest most comprehensive interview of Dr. Ehrman I have EVER SEEN!!! Your preparation for this podcast was AMAZING - excellent!! No wasting of time - right to the wood!! You ROCK BRO!

[@mistyhaney5565]

THANK YOU! I love this so much. I've learned so much from Dr. Ehrman, in fact the last gift my sister gave me before her unexpected death was a book of Dr Ehrman's translations of ancient texts. I'm sure some of your viewers weren't familiar with some concepts he covered, but I am very thankful to be given the opportunity to hear him speak on some of these concepts.

[@dohpam1ne]

This was pretty awkward sometimes, I can see the pain on Bart's face when random weird fan ideas and apologists criticizing Bart's work are brought up.

[@ngmui430]

he aslo laughs about it

[@FindleyOcean]

Love Ehrman. I think he should at least have an open discussion with Carrier.

[@jasoncook7378]

I have everything Ehrman has written. Big fan. Thank you for this.

[@GorgeousRoddyChrome]

@tom todd good one!!! 😆

[@rodneysettle8106]

@tom todd you left one ridiculous belief to go to another silly belief.

[@carlwebstern5065]

Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the narrative of what was reported to suit their view and position. He dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the empty tomb report which in due course takes away the reported resurrection of Jesus. He says his not out to do this, but that's what it does. He just says in his opinion the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave, because in other cases that's what happened. However, in the case of Jesus that's not what was reported and for reasons given. He removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Because of his personal opinion of no tomb burial. It's also hypocritical of him because he'll use reported events that suit his narrative and others that don't fit his theories. He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in an unknown grave, and there is nothing anywhere reported that this occurred, other than Jesus was placed in a tomb. Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities. If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could have easily put an end to Jesus as the messiah. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. They could of simply have exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and lay the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished. The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart chooses to believe Jesus was buried in a grave because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God. Its also what Muslims and others do that dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims to suit there narrative. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh. There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Paul’s declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to support that view at all, just unsupported opinions. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, and it’s ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on the reported events and there are others. Also Bart makes scripturally wrong assumptions for example when he speaks of the Ten Commandments - “though shall have no other gods ". He claims of pre-supposed other gods in existence. Yes, there were Mythical Pagan Gods like "sun gods" and all sorts. Ancient Egyptian deities are the gods and goddesses worshipped in ancient Egypt, and there are many of them. Those other pagan gods did not appear in the flesh and present miraculous miracles like Jesus did before real people. So the commandment was given to praise the ONE and only TRUE God of the bible. Not pagan sun gods etc. And in time, this same God of the commandments revealed himself in the flesh in Jesus, that's the difference between God of the bible and the pagan gods (no other gods) mentioned in the Ten Commandments. People had created so many gods, it even progressed to the point many of those gods were at war with each other. So the commandment was given ONE GOD without any confusion. The ONE GOD that gave those commandments to Moses is the same GOD in Christ Jesus. All other pagan gods from that time have fallen, except the God of the bible. And that rule still stands today with other made up gods currently circulating. So even though Bart says his intention is not to disprove God of the bible, he does so indirectly, whether intentionally or not. And so does this by changing parts of the biblical narrative with no support to suit his theories. So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view.

[@carlwebstern5065]

@tom todd The quran says that Jesus was a prophet just as you say. The quran also says that a prophet can not lie, because they are sent by God, otherwise if they did lie then that would prove they were not of God and are a false prophet. Jesus said that he was God in the flesh and came down from heaven, he also said he was the son of God. Jesus also said that he is the only messiah and anyone who comes after him should not be believed. So if Jesus is a prophet from God, and the quran says he is a prophet and he must be believed. Then how can you say Jesus was just a prophet ? He said he was "GOD" in the flesh ! He said he came to earth from "Heaven". So if the quran says Jesus was just a man and prophet, that means the quran is contradicting itself. Because its says YOU MUST believe what prophets from God say. But with Jesus who came 750 years before Mohammad, you don't believe the words he said that he was GOD in the flesh. Instead you chose to believe Mohammad who was born 750 years after Jesus, claiming he was just a prophet. So according to the quran, because Jesus was a prophet from God born 750 years before Mohammod was born, you must believe Jesus is God, otherwise you go against the teachings of the quran.

[@carlwebstern5065]

@tom todd The problem with Muslims and like many others, is they don't understand what the Trinity is. It's not 3 separate gods, the Trinity is still one God. Christians believe in one God not three. Here's a site I came across called - www.doesgodexistandbeyond.com - if you read it all, it will help you understand why Jesus is God in the flesh. There's also a topic on manuscript history which explains and shows earlier manuscripts before the 16th century, and why those verses of Jesus claiming his divinity as God on earth, are actually what he said. As I said, your information comes 750 years after Jesus, that's why you have a different story to what really happened.

[@ethanstiles948]

So excited to see Bart on MythVision, loving seeing the podcast continue to grow and getting to hear these conversations

[@hschut777]

I think it's so nice bart ask so people know what you talking about? This is so nice! Greetings from the Netherlands 🇳🇱

[@sharingforimprovement155]

I tried to point the "Who went to his tomb" thing to my fundamentalist friends and he argued basically putting them together into one gospel that they all went, but that some were omitted from others. He never understood the point that the all knowing God 'told' 'Mark' something different happened in the other gospels. It's so sad trying to change their mind

[@tsemayekekema2918]

Read up my most recent explanation in the comment section

[@JohnnyLang-dw8ll]

The tomb thing is easily explained

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

this stuff was "EVERYTHING". To Both of you, at different periods in your lives. But obviously the common and complicated experience of finding it necessary to first question the entire ideological package and then step further and further away from it, has left you with a strong bond. I find the evidence of that bond inspiring.

[@scapegoatiscariot2767]

Bart Erman was my first experience with a person voicing the problems with the Bible, that I had asked pastors about for years. He remains that breath of fresh air he was in that first video I ever saw. May know God bless him, ever. Science blessed, Bart. 🌛🤘🤣🌜

[@thonaureate4200]

You mad man! You did it!!

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Thank you bro!!!!

[@thorin68]

Derek starting to bring in the heavy hitters, well done my man and great show.

[@scholarvid1842]

@50:33, "since the colt had never ridden the mother donkey was there for moral support". Sure, equines have always been known for their empathy and emotional intelligence!!! Thanks McLatchie for another precious moment.

[@unicyclist97]

I agree that mythicism isn't about attacking Christianity. The ambiguity and weakness of the sources does that anyway.

[@scottmcloughlin4371]

Compared to the clarity and strength of all the other great works also imperfectly copied by hand by monks over millennia? I still read Aristotle and Plato and don't worry much about mistakes monks might have made patiently copying such great works by hand. Orthodox Christians are not beholden to sola fide and sola scriptura heresies in the first place. Ponder that.

[@thekingbelow]

@@scottmcloughlin4371 Aristotle and Plato don't directly compare to supernatural, mythologized beings like Jesus, who is more analogous to Hercules.

[@MGHarris]

Good ol' Bart. 'Lots of evidence' for historicity and 'all the cool kids are historicists'. The two rock solid academic arguments for historicity!

[@13lacle]

@@MGHarris I wish these historicists would just give one solid source or what logic they are using instead of that they all agree. So far all the sources that I have been told about don't hold up well to scrutiny(Josphus, Tacitus etc). I think the real answer is that we don't (can't) know. I still give ~70% chance that of part of the amalgamation of characters (Moses, Elisha etc.) was based on a real person. But that leaves a healthy 30% chance that it is complete mythical characters (like Moses).

[@atheistechoes9594]

The fact that the word christianity isn't even in the bible should raise a few eyebrows

[@src3360]

Shhh..... dont tell them lol Let them linger and simmer in ridicullusness stew lol

[@tangerinetangerine4400]

Overwhelming evidence? Where? Otherwise a great interview. It's great to see all these intelligent and passionate people with diverse views.

[@SpiderDiscord]

@Meighan Dacey I agree with you. I enjoy most of Ehrman's work bot I do think that he has a blidn spot on this area (most of us have). I like your argument with the docetists - good point.

[@JeffPenaify]

@Meighan Dacey the evidence we have actually leans more towards a physical Jesus than him being a myth, Jesus being a complete fabrication and not a historical figure is far less likely than him being an actual person who amassed a following and was executed by Pilate.

[@scottbignell]

@Meighan Dacey said: "1) the gospels are myth; put another way, they are the claim, NOT the proof. So they can't be used as historical documents" No, the CLAIM is that there was a Historical Jesus as an explaination for the origin of Christianity - i.e. that there was an actual 1st century Jew named Jesus who started a movement, who was executed, and whose followers emerged into what we now identify as Christianity. The Gospels can be used as evidence to support this claim. The Historical Jesus is not necessarily synonymous with the Christ of Christian faith. Ehrman doesn't say the Gospels alone "prove" that there was a Historical Jesus. They are one piece of a larger puzzle. Meighan said: "2) does the fact that Moses' story is told full in Exodus qualify as evidence for the existence of a historical Moses??" Exodus could well be used as evidence for the existence of a Historical Moses. You're confusing "evidence" with "proof", I believe. Evidence is merely the artifacts that one brings to the table to support one's claim. Meighan said: "3) what about the fact that there were people living AT THE TIME (or shortly after, much closer to the source than Dr Ehrman is) who were Docetists?! Where they "kooks" too??" It is debatable whether Docetists existed during the time of Jesus. And Docetists didn't dispute the existence of a Historical Jesus. They believed there was a guy whom (hypothetically) a video camera could have captured. Docetists disputed the claim that Jesus was truly flesh and bone, believing instead that he was some kind of phantasm. Docetism is not the same as Mythicism.

[@Lleanlleawrg]

@Meighan Dacey Yeah.. I mean, I'm just a layperson as well, but I think he drew some remarkably strange parallels here. I don't readily accept that the evidence for a historical Jesus is strong at all. If you applied the same standard of evidence to a modern claim, you'd never take it very seriously, I suspect. Using the new testament as a source is a problem given the obvious bias in those books, the fact that they're written by anonymous authors for the most part, much later, and seem to be copies of one another. You have sources like Paul, but he isn't what I'd call a credible source given his hallucinations about Jesus. He did claim to meet some of the original disciples of Jesus, like James for example. Maybe he did, and maybe they claimed to have really met Jesus, or even been his brother. Definitely possible. But we have people today who lie about even quite mundane things to try to impress people, so I'm honestly not sure why that'd be a good source, and why we would trust the people he talked to, even if we did trust him - the incredibly guilt ridden sudden convert who hallucinates divine visitations. The first extra-biblical source I know of that people tend to lean on to support a historical Jesus, is Josephus, but he was not an eye witness, or necessarily talked to eye witnesses. He makes a couple of off-hand remarks about Jesus, and we know that at least one of the two remarks he makes is obviously a forgery, at least in part. How can we be certain he even mentioned Jesus at all, and how do we know his information is any better than that of Paul, or James or any of the disciples - whom I don't really trust either. Put another way: Should I believe the alien known as J-Rod exists, because Dan Burisch says he does, and says he's met him - and we know Dan Burisch exists? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Yet somehow, because these are ancient accounts, we suddenly have to say it's a dead certainty that Jesus existed, even though the evidence is about as strong for Jesus as it is for J-Rod. Maybe Bart thinks it's unreasonable skepticism to not blindly trust the word of random 1st century cultists, but I don't think it's very convincing. Sorry, not sorry. The evidence boils down to unsubstantiated rumors from untrustworthy people. Now, maybe there was a historical Jesus. I'm not saying there wasn't. I'm saying I don't think the evidence is strong enough to say there definitely was. If ancient history scholars claim it is so strong, then convince me it's more than just random rumors. I'd want archaeological evidence - verifiable artifacts - ideally his remains. Failing that, I could settle for a "yeah he probably existed" if we had some roman or jewish or otherwise either neutral or hostile sources that make a note of him from when he was alive. It's often said we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for any other figure from ancient history - to which I say: Go tell that to tut ankh amun's corpse. We can go look at it if you like.

[@OviValentinosWorld]

oh i sooo recommend to all you guys the works of Richard Carrier.

[@chrismcdonaghsignwriting1568]

Marvelous effort getting this interview together.

[@HumblyQuestioning]

You are the right interviewer for Ehrman. I've seen a ton and this was amazing (and Ehrman got pumped up - WOW). Thank you!

[@unicyclist97]

"The evidence is so overwhelming"... but I'll never show you what that evidence is in peer review.

[@paulrichards6894]

dont think there is any evidence for jesus.....outside the bible.....jesus may have existed but there is plenty of doubt

[@brianalmeida1964]

Wonder how much his "job" influences his opinion on mythicism. As for the "overwhelming" evidence he has never presented any and he seems to use it to end discussion.

[@MichaelAntonFischer]

Yeah, this guy just made the best arguments for mythicism

[@tangerinetangerine4400]

@@paulrichards6894 at this point and with what sources are available (the bible) it's like proving the story of Adam and Eve. No one is arguing against the existence of "some couple hanging out in a garden", many of those existed. But that's not what historicity means. Not to me anyway.

[@thomaspayne7617]

For what I have gathered is that the main points were: 1. Paul met with people who met Jesus, and possibly his brother James. 2. James being the brother is corroborated by Josephus. To me, this is not overwhelming evidence, especially given the timeline of the written records. But, this is a common criterion for historians to accept someone was real in history. This makes sense giving that all you need is a person to spread rumors around, observed in cargo cults (a naval officer), Mormons (J smith), Scientology (L Ron Hubbard), etc. So yeah a crazy guy named Jesus who had a mini cult, and stories around him exaggerated. Caveat: I still think mythicist have a good argument, and it saddened me that Erhman laughed it off.

[@kawahxue8332]

it is very exciting have the chance to meet professor Ehrman in MYTHVISION channel. i read many Dr.Erhman 's book including lost THE christianities.

[@dupersuper1000]

I’ve been waiting so long for this conversation!

[@HarlanHarvey76]

Great interview! Awesome producing! Love Dr. Ehrman. I have watched EVERYTHING he appears in on KZbin (lectures multiple times each) and of course his books are must read literature for anyone interested in the New Testament.

[@jamesdownard1510]

@28:00 Southern US slavery laws often appealed to the Exodus 21 slavery rules. The most comprehensive defense of biblical slavery pre-Civil War was Rev. Thornton Stringfellow of Virginia, who compiled all the relevant scriptural texts (it's available online).

[@solomonlee4503]

I stumbled upon this informative channel. And addicted to know more about the bible story. Also started to read Voltaire which Dr. Ehrman had mentioned.

[@inquisitive.lurker]

Brilliant! Thanks for acquiring time with Dr. Ehrman

[@boxerfencer]

Can't wait!

[@rhonwenstephens8539]

I've said this before but worth reiterating. I wasn't sure about this channel when I found but the different voices and opinions you have make it a brilliant find. That said I've been a fan of Dr Ehrman for sometime and as always it was fascinating/interesting experience listening to him speak.

[@CrossoverManiac]

29:56 - Appeal to ridicule Also known as the "do this or you're a dork and all of the cool kids will laugh at you" argument from middle school.

[@Cometkazie]

Poor show. There was a time restraint, and, rather than cut down on the number of questions asked, the producers decided to ask all the questions they had and didn't afford Bart the opportunity to adequately answer them. This was a poor decision and ruined the show for me. I don't know what the producers were thinking about.

[@nickross6364]

the evidence for historisity is no way comparable to the evidence for evolution. him saying that is wrong.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@Dharma Defender he’s saying there’s a ton of evidence for both haha

[@Iamwrongbut]

@Dharma Defender I think “any” is misleading. You might think the evidence for Jesus is poor, but there is some. You may view the gospels as terrible history, but it’s still a piece of evidence even if it sucks.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@Dharma Defender if you think they aren’t evidence at all then you just have an unrealistic standard for what “evidence” is. Historians do not use that standard

[@Iamwrongbut]

@Dharma Defender ask a historian, I am not sure of their exact definition.

[@Rockyandmom]

I could not agree more with your statement.. when I heard him say that,all I could hear in my head was his own voice saying we have no documentation for Jesus in the first century,nor the second century.. and he continued on like that... He’s probably thinking that if xtian apologists get wind of this, at least they can’t use it...as they would be the last ones to lend support for evolution..

[@dmckenzie9281]

Thanks Derek! One of you best shows ever. I really enjoyed it.

[@amateuroverlord8007]

Excited to hear this. Dr. Erhman’s position on historicity annoys me, as it seems like he takes a conclusion contrary to where the evidence of his work points. But I really respect him, and he’s a great speaker.

[@JogoShugh]

Can you elaborate on what you mean? To be fair, he describes concensus position. Are you saying his own work points toward mythicism? I thought about that when listening to How Jesus Became God, honestly. For a moment it really sounded like he was channeling Richard Carrier when he was discussing angels and the work of another scholar whose name I forget.

[@amateuroverlord8007]

@@JogoShugh yes that is what it means. At the end of the day the only real evidence we have for a Jesus on earth is the Gospel, and they come later than the writings of Paul. Erhman’s work details how unreliable the Gospels are. It doesn’t prove the mythicist position by any means, but in context of the works of people like Carrier, Price, Fitzgerald it certainly makes the likelihood of Jesus existing seem less likely. Erhman talks about Jesus as if it perfectly clear he existed and I just don’t think that’s true.

[@pheresy1367]

@@amateuroverlord8007 I was taken aback upon hearing Dr. Ehrman's wholesale condemnation of mythicism. He didn't present ANY argument based on evidence (or lack thereof). He only stated how "unpopular" you will be upon joining the mythicist club, and "why would anyone want to be so unpopular?" thus implying that only an idiot would want to become THAT unpopular. It was only an "appeal to authority", and an "appeal to popularity", which are both logical fallacies. To me, it says MORE about his own adherence to the historicist position. I was hoping for something more convincing... I'm always waiting for something more convincing. :P ... still waiting.

[@amateuroverlord8007]

@@pheresy1367 Erhman was a very conservative fundamentalist and it took him years of study and critical thinking to let it go. I wouldn’t be surprised if in 15-20 years when he’s retired and no longer publishing books that he finally admits to himself the conclusion that his body of work points to.

[@pheresy1367]

@@amateuroverlord8007 :) Yes, and I deeply admire him for what he contributes, and how far he has come.

[@nullpointerworks4036]

Dr. Bart Ehrman is such a great guy, seeing the frustration on his face at 45:57 is just painful.

[@robertbaher3454]

You did an amazing job interviewing Dr. Ehrman. Well done!

[@pascal784]

good job! what we need next is a debate between Ehrman and Carrier

[@faarsight]

Ehrman refuses to debate Carrier and I doubt he'll change his mind anytime soon. Debates aren't that interesting anyway, it's better when you can just have a discussion with both sides remaining respectful.

[@peterconway6584]

Derek, you are the Jerry Springer of the religious field. Congratulations!

[@keithshowell6688]

It would have been great to have also interviewed Alvin Boyd Kuhn and John Shelby Spong before their passing...with a side of Joseph Campbell (Hero With A Thousand Faces). Great channel! Thanks MythVision

[@uhh222]

Ah yes the famous “People Are Laughing At You” argument for the historical Jesus. And the argument from MSNBC. Very convincing and serious historical arguments.

[@pheresy1367]

Exactly! Thank you.

[@SeverusLonginus]

Tip for host. When a speaker says, “Does everyone know what X is?”, PLEASE let the speaker answer the question even if everyone listening does know what it means. The speaker’s description of X is very helpful.

[@geraldbrienza4474]

Bart is great. He still insists that haysus was an historical figure even though all of his work makes that seem highly unlikely.

[@rochesterjohnny7555]

He claims so much evidence for historicity? All I heard of is one line in Josephus about James the Brother of Christ

[@geraldbrienza4474]

@@rochesterjohnny7555 and “Christ” is a title, not a name. Many people were given that title in those days. Bart also mentions Paul’s letters, but from what I’ve read, there’s not not much indication of a terrestrial Jesus there. As Price says “there may have been a historical Jesus, but there isn’t any longer.

[@ronnielong6587]

It turns me away when he bashes mythicist. It makes him sound mad and unscholarly.

[@brandonguzman2757]

@@ronnielong6587 - derek, who i thought agreed with that POV at least some, did not challenge his guest. Did he cave?

[@faarsight]

@@brandonguzman2757 No point in challenging him on it. Better to pursue more fruitful lines of questions.

[@TheoJansn]

33:35 That made me laugh! Wonderful channel, Derek. Just discovered it so a long set of interviews to go. I'll check out the best way I can support.

[@mathewsimpson2227]

Absolutely so cool you got to talk to Bart. I am a big supporter of his blog and charity.

[@MrWylis]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I absolutely love Dr Ehrman.

[@thomaspayne7617]

Thanks for giving your time Dr. Erhman. I think its wonderful when expert shares their knowledge.

[@PauldeSwardt]

Master Class!

[@greyback4718]

Just finished, and it is great, It's obvious that you both enjoyed it, thanks for great interview

[@personalitysculpture1215]

Thank you for this discussion. I was baptized Catholic and the more I learn about The Bible the more I am convinced Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus. I am clear that it is the being who incarnated as Jesus, is the one I wish to listen to.

[@bleirdo_dude]

Here's two simple multiple choice questions for people that say Jesus certainly existed have trouble answering that logically follows in context of what Paul the Apostle wrote. 1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? Note: Jesus empties his powers by taking on flesh being a slave to the elemental spirits (Gal. 4:8-9). Philippians 2:7-8 NRSV "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." YLT "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross," A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan 2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they were made known that killing him would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities); Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NRSV "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." YLT "And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan Taking these verses all together; We have Jesus not taking equality with the Father, but lowered himsellf taking on a flesh disguise, and ventured where it is a crime punishable by death for being a human. In this same place of being found in human form whoever it is would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them. Whoever it is does not want the gift of immortality for mankind from the Creator. Who best describes killing humans on site, and not wanting eternal life for them? Jews/Romans: Did they go around enforcing death sentences for the crime of looking like a flesh & blood human? If they were made known with no doubt, and whatever misconceptions they had were corrected of the plan of the Highest God? Would they be for their own destruction, or for their own immortality (a gift from an all loving God)? Satan: Would Satan attack flesh? Would Satan be against humans gaining a chance at immortality? Paul (earliest extant Xtian writings) is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-18, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-8). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan for mankind's salvation (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin & rules over you). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 all together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land. Remember that a physical flesh ressurection is not Pauline; 1 Cor. 15:50bc "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." Zechariah 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zechariah 6:11-13 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Joshua 10:22-27 "22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Philo: ON ABRAHAM "XLI These things, then, are what are contained in the plain words of the scriptures. But as many as are able to contemplate the facts related in them in their incorporeal and naked state, living rather in the soul than in the body, will say that of the nine kings (Gen.14:1-2) the four are the powers of the four passions which exist within us, the passion of pleasure, of desire, of fear, and of grief; and that the other five kings are the outward senses, being equal in number, the sense of sight, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and of touch. For these in some degree are sovereigns and rulers, having acquired a certain power over us, but not all to an equal extent; for the five are subordinate to the four, and are compelled to pay them taxes and tribute, such as are appointed by nature. For it is from the things which we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch, that pleasures, and pains, and fears, and desires arise; as there is no one of the passions which has any power to exist of itself, if it were not supplied by the materials furnished by the outward senses." Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, ...purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." Philo: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III "(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the Divine Word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them."

[@holyfoolaid3528]

Hey,Derek! Where do you get the time to do all this work you do with your channel? I swear,you must be the hardest working guy in this format on KZbin.Maybe Suris comes close to the output you produce-but I'm not sure.Anyhow,you impress the hell out of me!

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Thank you! 😊

[@falsosprofetashunter4182]

​@@MythVisionPodcast Only Words of Mouth .. Not a single Evidence .. I do challenge anyone to show me one single contradiction on the Bible ..

[@ivetterodríguez-j4k]

​@@falsosprofetashunter4182Jesus being the supposed Messiah of the Jews and making a point that the Kingdom of God is near and telling his apostles that they should be vigilant as it would happen in their lifetime. Jesus dying for anyone isn't Messianic prophecy, not his interesting parables, and the miracles mean nothing if he didn't bring the whole earth to worship God when he was alive the first time. That's believed in Judaism. That all will understand and turn to God and not over thousands of years of conversion either.

[@falsosprofetashunter4182]

@@ivetterodríguez-j4k After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:11‭-‬12

[@WeesloYT]

@@falsosprofetashunter4182that doesn’t talk about the messiah. Read it in its full context.

[@topdogred]

Somehow Derek needs to work in the word prederist in every conversation. “Welcome to Starbucks, sir. What’s the name for your order?” “Former Full Prederist, please.”

[@nandinibandhini]

Well done on the illustrations! Kuddos to Steven Nelson.

[@lyndon633]

Romans 16:17-18 New King James Version (NKJV) Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

[@peopleovertech]

This was incredible!! This was also VERY frightening! At 16:14 in, with the question on what happened when the "son of god" didn't return and then when Jesus didn't return based on the book When Prophecy Fails. In America anyway, this is repeating itself! When an unnamed former president didn't get reinstated by Jan 6, then not by Jan 20, now the date is August. What's happening, a cognitive dissonance and you would think the group would get smaller, it's not, it's getting bigger!!

[@gylnnteichmann4985]

Don't venture into politics.Stayon the subject matter.

[@henrybarrick7205]

​@@gylnnteichmann4985Comment police

[@josiechapman2375]

Thank you for this! I’ve just started the video. I love Bart Erhman. He is such a rational, learned NT scholar.

[@nerd-core7679]

Fantastic interview! 👏 I really enjoy Dr. Erhman's Books & Lecture videos. His new "Heaven & Hell" book is also a super intriguing read!

[@c.retana-holguin8318]

In every video Derek has done with Dr. Ehrman, one senses the extraordinary respect this host has for this brilliant scholar. It's like watching a disciple of Socrates sit at his feet and hear the wise philosopher dispel, dissipate, and scatter wisdom.

[@kofw72]

Don’t be a mythicist, “they’ll” make fun of you. How much ridicule did Thomas Thompson endure before his views on Moses became mainstream scholarship? Edit: To be clear, I don’t believe Jesus as myth will ever be mainstream. I am historicity agnostic myself. However, the point stands that ridicule is not sufficient reason to never question the consensus.

[@JamieStapletonplus]

Why is why Ehrman has never ridiculed that position and debated it more than once, with quite clear reasons. I personally an atheist, am convinced a man called Jesus existed. I have not seen a compelling story it is a myth.

[@kofw72]

@@JamieStapletonplus I’m perfectly fine with a semantic challenge here, but when he says “crazy”, “bullocks” and compares mythicists to evolution deniers…I consider that ridicule. His one debate with Price was picking some low hanging fruit IMO. I’ve read Did Jesus Exist and How Jesus Became God, Ehrman never truly interacts with the best version of the arguments, which is what good critical thinking entails we do. I’m otherwise a fan of Ehrman’s work, but I wonder if he has some blinders on with this subject. The evidence is poor either way. The argument pretty much rests on the authentic letters of Paul. Mix in a whole load of speculation, and Paul can get you to lean historicist or mythicist. There just isn’t a smoking gun, and I think both sides of the argument would do well to speak in terms of probability rather than certainty. My two cents.

[@PBAmygdala2021]

@@kofw72 well said!

[@frmrchristian303]

What a great milestone for your channel! Very awesome episode!

[@ITBAE86trueno]

You’re coming up bro, keep going.👍

[@thecanaanite]

Yo congratulations on 100k subs Derek. Well deserved, you are doing Gods work 😂

[@name_christian]

Fun fellow. He eventually will end up in the myth camp. But ridiculing proponents of the myth theory without giving a slightest hint of evidence or rebuttal is not a good trait at all.

[@oliverford5367]

He's addressed it loads of times. The myth theory has been suggested since the late 1800s, and has never been very popular because it's less plausible than any historical Jesus theory.

[@name_christian]

@@oliverford5367 I totally get that there is a probability that there was a historical Jesus. But it would be nice to see a discussion regarding the evidence or lack there of. It is never explicit about certain points. „There were Christians at the time, so there had to be a Christ in the flesh“ is no valid starting point.

[@oliverford5367]

@@name_christian Either way, Christianity as we know it existed. So it had to come into being one way or the other. The myth theory is less plausible than the historical preacher that legends built up around theory.

[@name_christian]

@@oliverford5367 I totally get your viewpoint. But I tend to disagree. Since there is no surviving evidence regarding a historical Jesus, the probability swings in favor of mythicism. See Moroni for example, completely made up, spawned a sizable religion. Humans are susceptible to extraordinary fairy tales, whether true or not.

[@oliverford5367]

@@name_christian The comparison is not to Moroni but to a purely mythical Joseph Smith. That is harder to believe than the historical Smith. If there had been newspapers 2000 years ago, there'd be better evidence for Jesus and lots of other preachers. But there's limited evidence because writing was expensive back then. If some Mormons believed that Smith being shot in prison was him paying the price for our sins, it's easier to believe that they are trying to understand a real event than that they made up Smith from nothing, made up him being imprisoned and shot in prison from scratch.

[@GaryFerrao]

About time. Gonna be interesting

[@donaldgoodell7675]

The Morton Smith photographs of the c. 1725 Greek shorthand transcript of a late 2nd century letter of Clement of Alexandria to Theodoros ref the ‘Carpocratian Gnostic Heresy’ with the snippet from a putatively ‘lost’ portion from our 2nd Greek Canonical Council approv’d Gospel (‘according to Mark’ whoever he was...) seems authentic to me on two fronts - comparative lack of hapax legoumena in the Greek style of Clement of Alexandria & also a lack of hapax & the presence of very hard-to-fake expressions (‘style of Utterance’) using the same ‘pure Markan baby-Greek’ including his own peculiar syntax, Aramaisms, distinct vocabulary, word order, sentence length & Weltanschauung (= theological world-view) -taken together these all point to the photstats of Morton Smith in 1958 being authentic later shorthand representations of an originally longer version of ‘Canonical Mark’ than the familiar shorter version to-day’s ‘Christians’ read in their bibles; The young man ‘wearing a chiton tunic over his naked’ explains what the same soon-to-be-left-stark-naked young man was up to in the cave of Gayith Shemaneh (=Gethsemene) during the arrest of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (BCE 12-36 CE) for arm’d sedition (& rioting) by the Jerusalem Temple Police on the night of the arrest ‘during the Insurrection’ (presumably because of the approaching 2-Jubilee (See 11Q Melkizedek) 100-year anniversary of the Roman occupation beginning in 63 BCE... The young man is not nam’d in the Canonical gospel of ‘Mark’ nor is he nam’d in the purported letter of Clement -it begins with a familiar Markan pericope ‘setting’ for a narrative story -a woman ‘whose brother had died comes to ho Iesous saying ‘Son of David, have mercy upon me...’ whereupon ‘ho Iesous’ (being ‘anger’d/full of compassion’ the Aramaic is virtually interchangeable) follows her to the tomb from whence a voice is heard (unlike the 4th Gospel’s Eleazar Raising pericope (‘according to Yohananon’ whoever he was...) where it is ‘ho Iesous’ who does all the shouting... ‘Then Iesous looking upon the young man loved him and he began begging Iesous that he might be with him...’ The Carpocratian Gnostics may well have taken that last part interpreted homosexually but the same phrase is used with the Torah story of Moses in Exodus (‘who chose 12 men -one per tribe -to be with him’) i.e. as a sort of ‘advisory council’ and/or male bodyguards... Then the Clement letter ‘quoting the story’ from ‘longer-secret Mark’ goes on to say ‘after 6 days he presents himself to ‘ho Iesous’ wearing only a linen chiton covering his naked’ (the same phrase is us’d in the strangely fragmented story in Canonical ‘Mark’ at 14:51)-apparently the young man was undergoing some kind of baptism after his six-day catechism ? At any rate any ‘forgerer’ would have had to know how to ‘fake’ early 18th century Greek shorthand & also have to ‘fake’ Clement of Alexandria’s lofty 2nd century Koine Greek Style without undue hapax & ALSO be able convincingly to ‘fake’ the baby Greek of Canonical Mark (without giveaway hapax) at the same time - forgive me Bart - but Ocam’s razor seems to be apropos here - would a reputable scholar like Dr Morton Smith go to such lengths to forge such a subtle document that if prov’d would jeopordise a 30-year scholarly career? To me, the likelihood of the Mar Saba Monastery finding in the back pages of some 17th century book of Ignatius of Antioch sermons being a forgery from Smith made from whole cloth is very slim indeed (whether any early 18th century monk who wrote in Greek shorthand was a forgerer however is quite another question altogether since we know nothing about him (or her!) We only have to look at the smooth Koine Greek of the overt forgeries of the 2nd century to ‘Canonical Mark’ past 16:8 which ends in the middle of a sentence (cf Codex Sinaiticus) viz. ‘ephobounto gar’ = ‘the (Women) were afraid because-) to see how obvious forgeries added to ‘baby Greek Mark’ seen by comparison ... Modern bibles should just print the naked chiton man story (and the sentence about ‘ho Iesous’ refusing to allow his own family through the Protective Cordon around the ‘Good Rebbe’ in brackets - and to say it might be an original early-lost fragment of ‘Mark’ IMHO -

[@donaldgoodell7675]

@@HistoryandReviews - Actually not quite - my degree is : D.C. Goodell, M.A. Hons. Theol. (Dunelm) from the University of Durham in England - I studied under Drs C.K. Barrett, John Rogerson & Anthony Gelston back in the late 1970s - I am roughly Bart’s age...come to think of it !

[@tsemayekekema2918]

Interesting

[@barnsweb52]

Have to love Dr. Ehrmans' honesty to point out Bible contradictions! Many thanks for his courage to tell what he has noted!

[@janusatthegate6201]

You know that if religious did not believe that the compilation of fables came from god, people would not care that different writers said different things, as is normal. Ultimately, it is a silly pursuit.

[@carlovanelli1694]

You're doing an impressive job with this channel. Wish you nothing but success!

[@michaelbedford8017]

The curtains were torn in ancient greek times, hence: 'Euripedes curtains, you menda dese curtains!'.

[@gravitywaves2796]

Ha! What a terrible dad joke. I approve.

[@ftumschk]

... "Eumenides curtains", surely :)

[@jeremyjohnson9585]

Sounds like Jar Jar Binks...

[@scottmcloughlin4371]

Sola fide and sola scriptura setup America's protestants for a needless fall. I recall tidbits from an interview with an Orthodox bishop: "Scripture is not an eye witness account" and "It's our book. We'll do what we want with it." That's the right discernment. Bart Ehrman is a rock star. But the more we know of Hagia Graphe the stronger my own conviction becomes. We'd have no history at all if not for monks copying works by hand letter by letter. I'd never be so irreverent as to fault them for any errors.

[@Vina_Ravyn]

I think the good Dr Ehrman has the same bias as anyone else does and quite frankly who cares. He's got the goods. But about myths and such - we should always remember that we do not think the way a mostly oral culture thinks. Most people back then were illiterate. They were writing for their audience (and their bias) and not for us and our own bias. All I'm saying. lol Otherwise great way to start the week keep it up!!!