How Jesus became God - Ehrman vs Gathercole P1

PART 1 of 2 PARTS
On March 29th, 2014, Bart D. Ehrman and Simon J. Gathercole are invited as radio guests by moderator Justin Brierley on radio show "Unbelievable," a weekly program on UK Premier Christian Radio. They debate Bart's explosive book 'How Jesus Became God' claims that the early church turned Jesus into the son of God, but Jesus himself never believed it nor did his first followers. Cambridge scholar Simon Gathercole has contributed to a response book 'How God Became Jesus' (released at the same time) and, in the first of two shows, debates with Ehrman about whether the Gospels present a human or divine character. Brought to you in association with www.reasons.org.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/?p=7141
Christian radio show "Unbelievable" hosted by Justin Brierley: www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Before his current position as Senior Lecturer in New Testament Studies, Fitzwilliam College, Dr. Simon J. Gathercole studied in the Universities of Cambridge and Durham, as well as for short periods at the University of Tübingen and the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York. He taught in the University of Aberdeen for seven years.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman, Simon Gathercole, and Justin Brierley. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman, Simon Gathercole, and Justin Brierley is strictly prohibited.

[@corduroy99]

10:10 that's when the discussion really begins ... (you're welcome)

[@mugdays]

Looking forward to part 2!

[@MikeWilliams-uh8ii]

I actually think that both gentleman made very reasonable arguments. However, something that Dr. Ehrman has pointed out in others of his works (and he alluded to it here although he didn't explicitly say it) is that you almost have to start off believing that all of the gospels and Pauline epistles are saying the same thing in order to read them as saying the same thing. If you read each gospel on it's own or even compare any of the gospels to the epistles of Paul, you will see that they are very different and that the authors of each are saying very different things. Ehrman alludes to this when he talks about "mashing the [gospels] up" in order to figure out what they are trying to say. The fact is that each of the gospels is saying something different. It's only when you read them with the belief that they are saying the same thing that you "think" that they are saying the same thing. Gathercole certainly appears to be starting from the premise that they are all saying the same thing, because he tends to just gloss over the parts where there appear to be discrepancies. While I think he made a good argument for his position, Gathercole kept having to say things like "it's implied" or "it's understood that...". However, it's not stated directly. Ehrman's position is that if someone believes he/she is actually God, wouldn't he/she actually say that at some point in their lifetime? Why would he/she hem and haw and imply and allude to their divinity? Why not just say "I am God". I also found Ehrman's final comments interesting in that part of the discussion depends on "in what way is Jesus divine?" He states that different people took this divinity to mean different things. My final comment would be to say that we are having this discussion in the context of having a holy anthology, namely the Bible, that has been complete and intact for over a thousand years. However, the people in the early church did not have the Bible. They had a copy of the gospel that came to be attributed to Mark. Or they had a copy of the gospel that came to be attributed to Luke. So, these early Christians weren't reading all of the gospels and "mashing them together". They had one or two books. So the fact that each book is different is profoundly important to understand that what is known as the orthodox christianity of today did not represent the beliefs of all early christians. Gathercole's claim that the orthodox beliefs of today were a "natural" progression from the early texts glosses over the many other beliefs that over the years were declared heresy because they conflicted with the orthodox view. Great debate!

[@castrokobe24]

I think, in the same way, you could make the argument that Ehrman is reading the gospels with a preconceived bias as well. Everyone has a presupposition going into the gospels, and most people will gloss over the discrepancies, as you said, to confirm their belief. Nothing, besides a personal experience, can truly transform a person. Good debate.

[@jopi9059]

Ehrman was once a christian, and although he didn't become agnostic over the issue of Jesus, he looks at the words of the bible for what they ACTUALLY SAY, not what he WANTS them to mean, because that is all you can do since no one actually knows who wrote the gospels or what they actually meant. People forget this fact that we WE were not there, so you can't act like you know everything simply by interpreting the bible how you want. I was a christian for 23 years myself, so I know how the fundamentalist mind works. I have been gone from the church for 5 years now and I now know waaaaaay more than any christian I have come in contact with since I left the faith. This is because in the church you are basically taught not to question the bible or it's words and so rarely do any Christians actually read or study the bible with an unbiased mind. It's simply brainwashing. I am currently reading this book and am still learning even more about the christian faith and the parallels between it and earlier religions as well. I would encourage you all to read it with an open mind if you truly believe the bible is the truth.

[@castrokobe24]

jo pi Lol, no one analyzes scripture objectively. He has just as much preconceived bias as the next person.

[@jopi9059]

Yeah, especially Christians! Bart has been on both sides of the debate, many Christians NEVER look at the bible objectively, actually most don't unless they are a scholar. He looks at it in a critical way. If it were truly the words of god, he would not have allowed humans who supposedly screwed everything up in the first place, to be responsible for carrying them and keeping them perfect until the end of the earth. That's just crazy. Not to mention so many passages that are contradictive and probelematic. Like how Jesus says that the people standing in front of him would not die before the coming of the kingdom of god in Mark 9:1 (And mark being the first and earliest gospel, should be the most accurate) So now what? He was wrong about that, so now we should worship him? Please! And there are MANY more problems, too many to name. Use your brain people.

[@castrokobe24]

jo pi And what about atheists who were brought to God in the same way? Testimony alone will not get you anywhere.

[@5T4RSCREAM233]

I mean... Jesus calls himself the morning star also in Revelation... does that literally mean he was the morning star? The Latin Vulgate for Lucifer is morning star also (son of the morning) ... so Jesus is Lucifer. :)

[@Inca85]

Gathercole is hard to listen to.. It's like he starts talking and then his voice disappears down a well.. and then suddenly to appear again loud and clear!

[@greglogan7706]

I do appreciate Bart's comments on mark and adoptionism this is certainly the earliest view of the Sun ship of God in in conjunction with the Roman understanding of adoption this is certainly an awesome position to be in as ultimately all those who are in Christ are in the same position

[@jayd4ever]

very nice good to learn both sides most only look at one side

[@babyyoda6453]

In my experience the more people are committed the more ignorant they tend to be about their faith. Ignorance is the really enemy and the people who are against the idea of bringing more light on these issues like the church authorities and all that whose interest is not served are bothered about this new revelations.

[@havock89]

The divinity of Jesus wasn't developed in early councils like Nicea, it was formalized, having been challenged publicly. Huge difference.

[@havock89]

ChristReigns7 You are agreeing with me. I am saying that the divinity of Christ was NOT developed in a church council. I was however explaining that what the church held to and believed from the very beginning was on occasion publicly defended by formulizing that dogma in a church council.

[@reformedcatholic457]

havock89 oops sorry lol

[@havock89]

ChristReigns7 Hahaha, no problem. May God bless you and your family for defending the faith. Pax et bonum.

[@reformedcatholic457]

havock89 Thanks mate lol, it was a test :P . That is my goal in defending the faith I know what we believe to be true.God bless you too and your family.

[@karlos6628]

you know what you are talking about

[@Hastein45]

Very good debate.

[@ThoseWhoStayUofM]

@ 33:48, the correct answer is this... tl;dr It makes perfect sense for the authors of the gospels to withhold information about the divinity of Jesus respective to the intended audience. The common element of all of these stories about what Jesus claims to be, is that when Jesus claims to have divine authority, when Jesus claims to be the messiah (Son of Man), and later when Jesus claims to be God incarnate (In John, which I agree with Ehrman - he does), the political ramifications of such claims are tremendous. In every circumstance, the initial emotional reaction of the people was to see Jesus as an enemy for saying such things. So if you were authoring a gospel that you wanted people to read, accept, and adopt into their own unique world view, it makes perfect sense for Mark (the earliest version) to tread very lightly on the subject that is met with the most vitriol of reactions. It makes perfect sense for Luke and Matthew (the later of the synoptics) to push the point of Jesus' divinity a bit further, as people are more open to such claims. It makes perfect sense for John (the latest of the four gospels) to push the envelope even further, to disclose even more. The fact that Jesus' divinity appears like a progression over time has nothing to do with what the authors actually believed. There are countless examples (such as the birthplace, time, and early childhood of Jesus) where the gospels make seemingly incoherent claims about Jesus to account for the intended audience. My question is this. Isn't possible for the author of John to have had the original M, L, Q, and Mark sources? Isn't it possible for the author of Mark, Luke, and Matthew to have withheld information specifically regarding the exact nature of the divinity of Jesus (1) because it is not important to the purpose of the Bible, i.e. salvation of human souls (all the gospels agree that Jesus is the messiah who is responsible for our salvation), and (2) the true nature of Jesus' divinity was in conflict with the emotionally invested pre-existing beliefs of first century Jews?

[@lamaddussa]

seriously, religious beliefs may be variously comforting or horrifying, but they are clearly irrational and implausible. it is difficult to believe that an adult without real psychological problems could persist in such beliefs...

[@gda295]

Listen, if I can poison my chosen people in the wilderness, have them sacrifice their children, I can get to the odd atheist [and especially Brierley ]

[@mdleavitt]

It's seriously comforting to read comments from people who believe that their lives are completely pointless with absolutely zero meaning. It's difficult to believe that an adult without real psychological problems could persist in such beliefs....

[@lamaddussa]

Michael D. Leavitt there is no shortage of "meaning" intrinsic to life. dreaming up fantasy mythologies in order to create a fantasy meaning, may be a natural tendency for many, but it's preposterous, irrational, and unintelligent.

[@mdleavitt]

But ultimately we're all dead so where's the meaning? Why is a belief in God more preposterous, irrational, and unintelligent than the atheist philosophy that the Nazis and Mother Theresa are the same, morally? That seems pretty unintelligent to me.

[@Awurabena1]

Isn't that a mystery that theism will not die out? Never will.

[@RB-CB_ML812]

Here's my uneducated opinion about the trinity concept- I think it's totally fine to consider yourself 3 persons in 1 essence for example: I'm a father, son, and a husband in my human essence. The problem with the church doctrine of "trinity" is they're saying that god is his own father, his own son, and his own holy spirit. How can I be my own father, son, and husband and still be one essence if I applied that logic to myself? Can I be a husband if Im a wife? I think nonsense is a better word than "mystery" here

[@danielmylestierney7770]

+Rondell Brown Dodging the God moniker John 17: 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[a]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be set aside- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

[@AlecRozsa]

+Rondell Brown What you just described is modalism. Not the actually doctrine of the trinity that won out over modalism. Watch Ehrman's presentation on his channel on 'How Jesus Became God' and you'll see that people have already tried to use that explanation but it ended up being declared a heresy. It doesn't make the trinity and more credible, but instead shows how people have intended to explain it and failed.

[@samuelarthur887]

The trinity is like three modes of concurrent existence = God is Father (Originator), Son (Extension), Holy Spirit (Being with us)

[@billyoumans1784]

It is wonderful to hear such a tolerant and respectful discussion, in this age of bitter religious differences. At a certain point disagreement about scripture becomes pointless. It’s very hard to pin down a precise theology from what is in scripture, and the Nicene Creed was an attempt to force an end to such disputes. No matter about doctrine, we all believe in our own conception of God. Even hard core fundamentalists have different images in their heads when they refer to certain words of scripture. My image of ‘Jesus’ can’t possibly be the same as your image of ‘Jesus’. So we are not talking about the same thing anyway. My personal belief right now? Everyone pre-existed. Everyone is divine. The small self will perish, the divine self is united with God, and Jesus has given one powerful and excellent way of realizing this; but it is by no means the only way.

[@5T4RSCREAM233]

If you added a touch of actual esoteric knowledge to this it would make it much more interesting. It seems as though we are arguing back and forth on literal terms when there are deeper allegorical meanings here. I do find it amusing though. I know you guys must be familiar other ancient texts that can help you put the meanings together accurately.

[@eduardomanalili9541]

Philippians 2:6 New International Version (NIV) "Who, being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage"

[@TylerWardhaha]

It strikes me funny, that a man who believes that Peter could preform miracles and could speak in many languages simultaneously , would try to formulate an argument based on reason and logic, and wouldn't just assume Peter could write high level Greek miraculously. I mean, that makes pretty reasonable sense if Peter could do miracles.

[@TylerWardhaha]

You can't argue that a book with miracles in it is historically reliable, and then not believe in miracles.

[@mypos5]

Thanks Mr. Ehrman!

[@chriskenney4377]

This is all interesting, but it doesn't address the fact that the argument is based upon either acceptance of historical doctrine, or rejection of historical doctrine. We need a wider amount of thinking on this.

[@Sokka909]

Bart Ehrman you make so much sense

[@ariefhidajat109]

How can you change your own holly book ?

[@omarmirza9957]

This is a good discussion: just as one person seems to have come up with a decisive point, the other replies with what seems like an equally decisive counter-point.

[@philhmp4231]

I wish Gathercole would get a grip on his erratic volume control and stop modulating it from loud to barely audible.

[@dionsanchez6097]

Ehrman's point that Mark follows Greek and Romans sources in saying that God adopts Jesus is a good one, but it does not explain the whole story. Mark was speaking about Jesus' humanity when he spoke of being adopting by God, not his pre-incarnate state that John speaks of. Hence, Ehrman's view does not refute Gathercole's view.

[@MixtapeKilla2004]

Right On!

[@davewilcock9446]

I would like to see if we can

[@atomac23]

it paradox al ready soon as christian guy is debating and trying to prove that god is god,for whom he believes is Jesus.And then he quote John where Jesus says Father is greater then I. Me and Father are one.It n is either massage in this or contradiction.

[@mubarizmahmood7482]

The host is very good

[@kazakhseven]

Bart Ehrman really backs it up with proofs from the Bible.

[@castrokobe24]

That was a very civil debate.

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

That's nice if you're not in a hurry. Religion around the world is getting extremely dangerous and critical..Moderates that don't read or understand the danger give their tasid endorsement to the crazy nut cases out to get Weapons of Mass Destruction. The "better than thou" passive aggressive chess game is not waking people up. I'm dosing off listening to this.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Joseph Nordenbrock That was a ridiculous comment. Listen, religion is not the problem in all cases. People are. Anything can be used for evil given the circumstances. Money could be used to save lives, or take it. Guns could be used to save lives or take it. The list goes on. I believe you are bringing up painting "religion" in too broad a brush-which even THAT can be dangerous.

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

xchampx I don't think you understand how even moderate belief in a supernatural god idea gives tasid endorsement to the out of control fundamentalists that can't wait to bring on the rapture as written proficy would have it. Ignorance with massively destructive power will ultimately make it hard for large life forms to survive abrupt climate changes on this planet.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Joseph Nordenbrock What's so dangerous? If anything is dangeous is the liberal right waging war for the murder of innocent unborn babies; the largest genocide in history. While Fundamentalists may be wacky in their own right, they are hardly 'dangerous'. You can say the same for extreme Islam or atheist communist countries like North Korea. It's ignorant statements like yours that get people in the mentality of US vs THEM, which should never be an approach.

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

xchampx You seem to assume everyone living in North Korea think the same way and no one there wishes to escape. North Korea has a very religious flavor to their doctrines of praising their dead leader. I look at your statement as very uninformed and ignorant. Your imaginary all controlling god must also murder all babies that never make it full term alive. You can't get away with claiming both moral lanes on a two way street and I'm not buying what you're trying to sell me. I don't call grey the new black or dirty white. I think for myself what is humane or unfair.

[@L0nn13_c0]

I really appreciate Bart Ehrman. As a Christian, he has shown me the Gospels are narratives, and not the inerrant word of God. The authors do not claim this, and I have really have no idea why people try to defend this position. When you accept this basic truth, you can leave dogma behind and move forward w/ faith in Christ. The bible, particularly the OT, are filled with contradictions and silliness (preventing the rape of an angel by allowing the rape of your daughter, being held captive in a whale, infanticide, genocide, etc etc.). Christ walked the Earth. Whether you believe he is divine is up to the individual. I believe He is, Bart does not. Live and let live.

[@manne8575]

How can you call yourself a "Christian" while saying such things? I am baffled.

[@ahmadrashid970]

Aida Rashid: I'd love to see Dr. Bart going against Jay Smith !!! Please someone get a debate between these going !

[@nageyebelieday7158]

I don't think such a debate will ever take place. Mr Jay Smith is only on street level. His main strategy is to win an argument by shouting loudly, with little or no regard for any evidence brought before him. Hence very well below the league of Mr Ehrman.

[@redlightspellsdanger7177]

Nageye Belieday excellent observation

[@patricialauriello3805]

While I find Professor Ehrman's statements well thought out interesting I would love for him to debate a Catholic theologian. There are many points Ehman misses. Jesus was told by his Mother to do something at Canna. If he didn't believe to be divine why would she ask him. Pilot's wife was afraid of Jesus. Did that have any effect on Pilot's treatment of Jesus. Many questions waiting to be answered

[@georgepenton808]

Bart Ehrman is fond of saying that only the gospel of John portrays Jesus as God, but in all four gospels the apostles are referring to Jesus as "Lord", a word the Jews reserved for God. Jesus did nothing to discourage this.

[@obiwan5003]

**The jews didn't use that word. "Lord" is an English word, and through all of the changings, removals/additions (even though the Bible itself says not to add or remove from it) and translating through languages - The meanings changed. The word 'Lord' itself has been used even up until now to refer to a leader, monarch etc as a sign of respect, admiration, and position...'Lord of the castle', 'Lord of this or that land etc* *If Jesus thought he was God why didn't he tell people to just simply worship him?* *Why didn't any of the previous prophets tell the people that God is 3, but he's also one, or three in one. Surely they would have to convey that to the people. But no, the only thing they EVER have said is that God is One, not three in one. NO PROPHET in the old testament spoke of a trinity, or God being 3 in 1. It's only ever stated by them that God is one. The trinity itself wasn't developed until hundreds of years later, where a group of humans decided to invent the doctrine themselves. And the word Trinity itself isn't even in the Bible* *If Jesus was God why did he need to pray to God (or himself actually if that's the case)?...... And also why would he be questioning himself (or the second God) when he's on the cross saying "My God why have you forsaken me?!" If God knew that he came to save God's creation from himself, then why would he question himself (or the other God) when he should already know why God sent himself there?!*

[@danajordan5567]

Jesus himself never claimed to be god but rather the son of God. John 20:17 says do not hold me for I have not ascended to my Father, to my god and Your God.

[@kameelfarag1981]

+Christopher Hall sorry for your using an savory language, but kindly read my note above, and gently respond.

[@gls600]

The author of John likely used numerous sources, one of which clearly saw Jesus and God as one.

[@johnfreitas9450]

+gls600 Jesus referes to Jesus and God refers to what The Trinity or Father please clarify

[@gda295]

Numbers 31 vv 13-18

[@susandidary9646]

Adam was before Abraham, but it doesn’t mean that Adam is God or son of God .

[@vejeke]

Actually now we know that Adam and Eve never existed and it was just a myth. That is not how humans came to be.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

ah yes, the talking snake incident where Eve, a woman made out of a rib of man , himself made out of dust, has a lucid conversation with a serpent that has neither vocal cords to speak nor ears to hear the replies. That all seems legit. What language did they speak in BTW?

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

That was an interesting segment. Unfortunately I thought there were some references that were left out that could have been brought up from Dr. Simon Gathercole that teach Jesus' divinity. For example, Mark 1:1-3 is a direct quote from Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 to the old testaments prophesy of God COMING and (which is spoken of Jesus). This shows a pre-existence. Secondly Mark 14:62 Jesus not only calls himself the "I AM" but referrs to himself as the Son of man "Coming on the clouds of heaven" which is quoted from Daniel 7:13 of the divine Son of man. You see the High priest understood this by his reaction in the following verse.

[@jopi9059]

No one knows who wrote the beginning verses of mark or any of mark for that matter, so whether that is true is up for debate. But mark is the earliest gospel as pointed out. But nowhere does Jesus claim he is the son of god in mark, which is odd since it was the first gospel written, seems that would have been the most important thing to mention. Also in the earliest bible discovered their is no mention in mark of a virgin birth or resurrection. The story ends after Jesus dies. Also in case you missed it, in Mark 14:62 Jesus is not calling himself 'I AM', he is answering the chief priests question on whether he is this Christ, son of the blessed one. And then Jesus says yes and talks about another being that will be sitting at the right hand of power. He is not talking about himself, he says "and he shall see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." You have to look at Jesus' life in context. He was a Jew, and the Jews didn't believe Jesus was their savior, they believed a figure called 'the son of man' would come to earth and overthrow the kingdom and set up a good kingdom of god. Has nothing to do with Jesus. And Jesus is simply relaying this message here. Enoch was named the 'son of man' in the Jewish texts and I believe in Hebrews. Jesus nor his disciples view Jesus as son of god in the earliest book mark. And the only book where Jesus says he is the son of god is john, which I said was the latest gospel. So 1 out of 4 have Jesus calling himself divine, therefore it most likely was added and can't be held as truth. By the way all of this info I learned through Bart. He is a very smart, knowledgeable person and I would recommend you read his book to learn much more in depth on Jesus actual life.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

jo pi Thanks for your thoughts. I find it interesting How you think that the gospel of Mark doesn't teach he is the Son of God. Did you even read Mark 14:61? 61. But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" He says " I AM" right after. They ask him if he is the son of God. I don't know what you see (or don't for that matter). Secondly in Mark 14:62 Jesus describes himself as the divine "Son of Man" being as depicted in Daniel 7:13-14. “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,a coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Sovereign power? Worship? Glory? Authority? I don't know what other divine characteristics you are looking for... Lastly, the gospel of Mark does depict him as being the Son of God. The opening statement of Mark 1:1 presents it and the in Mark 15:39 the centurion calls him the Son of God. 39. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" Some Jewish interpretations have interpreted the text to be about a human collectively (i.e., the people of God who are “personalized as the Messiah”). “But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.”- Daniel 7:18 “And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.- Daniel 7:28 In Dan 7: 13-14: This text seems to reveal that God is bringing a figure with a status over angelic millions in a heavenly court scene. The figure will be given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations, and men of every language will worship him. He is given a kingdom by the Ancient of days, so he must be interpreted as an individual, namely a king. vs 14: "there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” to; serve (deity). It is used in the sense of "pay reverence to deity" in Dan.3:12,14,17,18,28; 6:(16)17,(20)21;7:14,27 “There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." (Dan 3:12 ESV) Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, "Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? (Dan 3:14 ESV) “The act of coming in the clouds suggests a theophany of [YHVH] himself. If Dan 7:13 does not refer to a divine being, then it is the only exception out of about seventy passages in the Old Testament.”--D. Boyrian, The Jewish Gospels (New York: The New Press, 2012), 39.

[@jopi9059]

Not a problem, I enjoy talking about the subject because I find it interesting and there is so much taken out of context by the church. So again I will say you have to read the bible in context and without preassumed ideas, which I know is hard for christians to do, because it is already ingrained in your brains. But as I said, Jesus was a Jew and the jews believed different things but they also believed in ONE god and that there was a Son Of Man who would come back and set up god's kingdom. But nowhere prior to jesus does it giveJesus name as being this son of man. And as I believe I said in my last post, the first line of Mark was written by whomever wrote mark, who was not an eye witness, but someone living 20+ years later and writing what they believed to be the truth in their own opinion or what they had heard as the story got passed down through the years. Not to mention in the Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest bible known to be discovered and written during the 4th century, Mark 1:1 does not mention at the beginning that Jesus is the son of god. Verse 1:1-2 simply reads "(1)The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, (2) As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way" So from a historical perspective you must read the earliest writings and texts to get as close to the original messageas possible, which would be Mark in the Sinai Bible. Jesus even calls himself a prophet in Mark 6, not son of god. Son of god is a powerful title and would be much more influential that Jesus calling himself a prophet. It seems he should have used the phrase "son of god" much more if he truly was and wanted to gain more followers, but he doesn't. Although in genesis it talks about the "sons of god" coming to earth and having sexual relations with women they found appealing and the women had offspring called "Nephilim". So I don't necessarily think " son of god" always or ever is exclusive to one single person, it is a phrase you have to research and understand how it was used throughout history. And with a monotheistic religion, how can you have so many gods? God is god, Jesus can't be god too. And often angels are referred to gods as well. And yes I read Mark 14:61, where does it say Jesus is the SON OF GOD? Nowhere that I saw, it says "Son of the Blessed one", not son of god. How could god be blessed? He is the one who does all the blessing right? Of course with a presupposition you may BELIEVE the blessed one is god, but that really wouldn't make sense. And right after that Jesus talks about the Son of Man in the third person in the next verse: "And Jesus said: I am; and you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Why wouldn't he have just said "You shall see ME coming in the clouds of heaven"? After all if what he is really admitting to is that he is the son of god, then it wouldn't matter that he tells them that he will be coming back, because he has already admitted who he was. But what scholars believe is that Jesus is preaching the apocalyptic message of many of the jews at the time and what he really gets arrested and crucified for is for claiming that he is going to be the new king of israel, and this is reinforced when he tells his disciples that they would each be leaders of one of the 12 tribes of Israel, with himself obviously being the overall king. After all the only way to become king is by overthrowing the current king through a rebellion, so he must gain support to achieve this mission. It is lear that Jesus thought he would be appointed the new king of Israel when the son of man came back and sets up the good kingdom, because in Mark 9:1 he tells the people he is speaking to that some of them standing in front of him would not taste of death before the kingdom of god comes. He had a sense of urgency about his message, as if it would happen at any time. And obviously he was wrong about that since we are still here. This isn't in the text, maybe because it was taken out, since it has been proven with some of the earliest texts, that there are many places that have been marked out or erased and written overover in the bible. I believe the Sinai Bible is said to have 48,000 differences when compared to the KJV bible. And also the charge leveled against him was placed above the cross at his crucifixion, " King of the Jews". Another thing to note is that burials were not allowed in Roman practice, they left the bodies to decompose to make an example out of them to others. So why would they have made an exception for Jesus? And why would Josephus of Arimathea ask to have the body to be buried? After all he was on the Sanhedrin council, which found jesus guilty in the first place, so why would he then feel the need to bury jesus. And say he was buried, in Mark the story of jesus is much different. The last verses of mark in the Sinai Bible go like this: 5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you. 8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid. So in the earliest text there was no resurrection and the women told NO ONE. So how did anyone know? And the centurion calling jesus son of god could mean different things. In Luke the centurion simply says he was a righteous man. In roman and greek religion, humans could become gods through great works and being an especially good person. Appollonius of Tyana was also crucified for claiming to be son of god and king and was crucified for it, quite the parallel story to Jesus. In order to get the truth out of the Bible you MUST be skeptical of it since it was written by eye witness accounts, but by people living 20+ years after the events, and you MUST read the texts for what they SAY, not what tradition says. Sorry this was so long, but it is a complicated subject and I have learned most of this from Bart, so the main thing I could tell you is READ HIS BOOK, "How Jesus Became God", because I can't possibly explain everything in a post on here, nor do I have the time. Also you should check out the new discovery of a piece of scripture found where Jesus is quoted saying, " My wife....". We are missing too much from the bible to conclude what christian tradition says.

[@MII1212able]

Hell xchampx, I remorsefully as you to read what Jesus (PBUH) and what God said about himself and you will clearly see that Jesus cannot be GOD. Jesus is NOT GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! John 5:37 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. Mathew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Jesus (PBUH) Born of Virgin Mary, made his mother impure for 40 days, and YES, HE WAS circumcised on the 8th day; Job 25:4-6 4. How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5. Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm? Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” Peter: Acts 2:22 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: What did Jesus himself say? John 14:28 "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Mathew 7:21-23 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Mathew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Mark 12:29-30 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. John 12:49-50 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 5:30-37 30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. 31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. 35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time…. John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" John 8:42 "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." John 7:28 "Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not." Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. WHAT DID JESUES (PBUH) DO? Mark 14:35-36 35. And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell to the ground and {began} to pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by. 36. And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." WHAT DID GOD SAY ABOUT HIMSLEF? Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:8 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 45: 22 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Deuteronomy 4:35 35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Deuteronomy 4:39 39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there isnone else. Exodus 3:20 20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Jews in Jesus’ day would quote the Old Testament in different ways to make a point. Here’s a brief review. First, there was the literal approach - taking a text in its most straightforward sense. For example, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 in Mark 12:29: “Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God. …” The New Testament interprets this passage just as it was used in its original context. Jews also used a second -pesher (or “this is that”). In Matthew 15:7,8, Jesus chastised religious leaders who honor God with their lips, but whose hearts are far from Him. He cited Isaiah 29:13, declaring that Isaiah prophesied about these leaders. Clearly, Isaiah did not prophesy predictively regarding Jesus’ opponents; rather he spoke of his own contemporaries. Jesus is saying that the situation in which Isaiah found himself parallels or is comparable to/identical with Jesus’ circumstances. We call a third approach midrash - discovering a thought or idea not seen on the surface of the text. This method sought to go beyond the literal sense of the text to the spirit of the text. This approach begins with a passage or phrase, extends its meaning, and draws out its implications. For example, Hebrews 3 and 4 elaborates on the word rest found in Joshua and Psalm 95 to stress our rest in Christ and the ultimate rest that is to come. A fourth approach is allegory (“that person/situation represents this person/situation”). New Testament writers, who were very sane and sober in their handling of the Old Testament, rarely used this fanciful method.13 In Galatians 4, Paul stepped out of character when dealing with the Judaizers, who claimed that circumcision and food laws were boundary markers for God’s people. To beat them at their own game, Paul used the Judaizers’ favorite allegory, but he said Hagar represented the Mosaic Law while Sarah symbolized the divine promise to Abraham.

[@misaelsantos9856]

If Jesus was the God, who did he pray to? Who did resurrect him or save him out of death? Proverbs 30:4 has and interesting question. "Who has ascended up into heaven.......What is his name and the name of his son?" To whom this verse refer to? To me? If Jesus is the God, what is the name of Jesus' son.

[@StephenHolland]

Ehrman is very selective in his quotes of Scripture. What of Mark 2v5, & 7? The supposed earliest Gospel. 'Son thy sins be forgiven thee...Who can forgive sins but God only?...'

[@bme7491]

Stephen Holland the pope can.

[@myjizzureye]

Bit disappointed. Not once did Bart say "Eat my shorts".

[@truthhitman7473]

No, but he is known for saying " a copy of the copy of the copy." 😆🤣😂

[@jackwilmoresongs]

Why should we refuse to appreciate Matthew and Luke sometimes through the eyes of John? What is the crime. In reading the gradual revelation of God in Genesis believers will sometimes view LATTER explanations of God as a helpful lense to understand earlier passages. With God become a man, what is the "Thou Shalt Not ..." law that we cannot do so with this all-inclusive and extensively rich Son of God?

[@AutumnExplore]

Stories told and re-told and re-told, then written down and re-written down...is the way to apotheosis. Folk Tales plus the passage of time...

[@373right]

Bible became version and version means major and/or minor changes from previous book. King James Version is 5th major changed bible version. And version is not origin words but manipulated with some changes. The bible have more than 60 different versions. King James Version printed with little change in different new names like Authorized(King James) Version (AKJV), New King James Version (NKJV), King James 2000 bible etc.. What was wrong in "King James Version" that necessity arrived to make new versions in different name? Reply is only; to make money and people are blind in their belief, they do not want to understand truth of Bart Ehrman and other Christian and Muslim scholars who explains bible with correct meaning. Watch on youtube Ahmed Deedat vs Jimmy Swagart, Br. Imran vs Samuel Green etc.

[@jdgarnant]

Ehrman conveniently moves from the Markan text (2:1-12, II Matthew 9:1-8, Luke 5:17-26) which clearly has Jesus claiming to forgive sins, God's realm, accused of blasphemy and then Jesus self-identifies as "the" son of man.... which Ehrman denies any relevance, but Caiaphas seems to understand and accuses Jesus of blasphemy... I'll take Caiaphas' 1st c understanding of 2nd Temple theology over ol Barty's.

[@Phi1618033]

The fact that, in 2014, we're still arguing whether Jesus is God or not just blows my mind. Anyone who takes an honest, sober look at the evidence should come away doubting not only that Jesus was God, but that there even is a God in the first place. And as far as the historical Jesus is concerned, I'm with Ehrman. Jesus was likely a Jewish apocalypic preacher (one of many) from Galilee who was executed by the Romans for sedition, and his most loyal followers then deified him posthumously. I would also contend that there is ever so small a kernal of the historical man Jesus still in the synoptics, if you sieve out the legend, myth, rumor, propaganda and theological rationalizing from the later editors. As for the Gospel of John, it's probably a total fabrication, with no connection to the actual historical Jesus at all.

[@ianrwood21]

Well said - I think you have summarised things very well

[@ianrwood21]

+Ryan Matzke Cos his followers came to believe that he was resurrected and they were inspired by Pagan beliefs in a man/god. Deification of people was actually common in the Jewish and Pagan traditions. Read Ehrman's book on the deification of Jesus. I can't be arsed to summarise the whole thing for you if you cannot be bothered to read it. Christianity rose up for among other reasons cos of Paul's brilliant evangelising - this shouldn't be underestimated Cos of the vagaries of history Cos of the deification of Jesus Cos and this is most important, the emerging Christianity was not a threat to the Roman state as it was very conservative. Jesus is claimed to say that you should owe unto Caesar what is Caesar's - that is do not rock the boat. Paul, one of the earliest evangelist was very conservative - slaves should obey their masters. Most other apocalyticists were radicals who threatened the Roman State. Read Paul for yourself, he is very clear that Christians should not challenge Roman authority and here he is consistent with Jesus himself. From the get go Christianity attempted to accomodate itself to the Roman State.

[@Vedioviswritingservice]

No one is asking you to believe anything.

[@SonerInan2]

if you have jesus saying "my father is greater than I " "my father is greater than all" how can you say that both jesus and the father and holy spirit are all gods and distinct from each other and are equal and eternal in power but not 3 gods, they are one god?? even the most highly educated scholars say that this concept is a mystery. jesus never himself says with his own words that "i have come to die for the sins of humanity and if you believe this only then you'll be saved".. he never said "i am god" or " myself, the father and the holy spirit are all gods and equal in power and eternal".. because if your salvation and your ticket to heaven was held on this belief, jesus should of said these rhings in clear cut statements. jesus says " why do you call me good, theres only one thats good and thats my father" he says " i can of my own self do nothing"

[@kameelfarag1981]

Without elaborating on acceptable logical answer, suffice to say that you are right God is a mystery, otherwise he will not be God.

[@Vedioviswritingservice]

One God, three person or three persona's. You can be a Husband, Father, teacher all at the same time. The Father can generally be thought to carry more authority. I am comfortable with Jesus being a lesser God then the Father. After all, he did take on a human nature and that is a liability no matter how you look at it. No where does it say that once his mission was completed was he able to discard his human nature either. Thus it remains with him. Bart's contention is that God is impotent and never intervenes. I wonder, if I was to show him a real preternatural event, something that he could see with own eyes, if that would convince him or not. When you witness something such as you, never again will you deny there is no God or at least that there is a spiritual realm that exists beyond our senses.

[@AstariahJW]

@@Vedioviswritingservice another false reasoning that people make up to prove there false pagan bielief, God is not a mystery, Satan wants people confused on who God is, how can almighty God be a son, begotten, firstborn when he always existed , he has no beggining and no end and he can not die which means that he would have a end if he died

[@redlightspellsdanger7177]

Cyric London utter bullshit you spouteth

[@thereisonlyone6357]

@@AstariahJW Correct, billions of people have been fooled by Paul.

[@Matiyahu]

Bart makes the odd claim that Judaism held a notion that 'anyone who was taken up into heaven become divine.' You will not find this anywhere in the OT or 2nd Temple literature. Was Elijah ever thought to be divine? Were the messianic sons of God (Solomon, etc.) thought of as divine? Absolutely not. To argue that any notion of divinity would naturally arise amongst 1st century Jews simply as the result of the resurrection is nonsense, especially since the resurrection widely expected. Rather, the early declaration of Christ's divinity amongst the apostles must also point backward to demonstrations and claims which particularly evince divinity. For example, although God raising Jesus from the dead could signal the eschaton, Jesus' claim to have the power to forgive sins is only reserved for God alone. The latter action clearly indicates a claim to divinity. The only way to understand early Christology is to understand that such instances were received as both a claim to and demonstration of divinity. Second point: Bart asks 'how did the Gospel writers think Jesus was divine' as opposed to 'whether the Gospel writers thought Jesus was divine.' However, what concept of divinity would a 1st century Jew have except that of YHVH? That is, for a 1st century Jew, the only divinity is the divinity of God (who is pre-existent). There were no gradations of divinity within Judaism. Only God Almighty was divine. So, if Jesus was thought to be divine within a Jewish thought-world, He would necessarily be regarded as the One God. Bart appears to attempt to import Greco-Roman notions of divinity into the Synoptics and, thus, a 1st-century Jewish perspective.

[@stuartc9149]

1) Even priests in the temple had the power of forgiveness. So nothing special inferred there 2) See Paula Fredrikson "All people in the ancient world believed in all gods" - it was integral to the ancient view of the world and divinity. To see modern monotheism there is an anachronism

[@Camerinus]

So, the questions "How Jesus became God?" and "How God became Jesus?" are more about what Paul and (especially) the Gospel writers *believed*, rather than about whether he *actually* was God. Dr. Gathercole certainly provided no evidence that Jesus actually was God or divine in any way. Of course, I'm sure there's more substance in the book. Not to say that he could convince me of any supernatural claim, and especially not with the highly unreliable and poor evidence of the Gospels.

[@jcr65566]

+Camerinus Jesus on his own is not God Because Jesus is the third part of God. Who is Father, Son, Holy spirit The father on his own is not God The holy spirit on it own is not God. Only when there together are they God. This is why Jesus is the Son of God. So if Jesus said he was not God he is telling the truth Only together with the father and the holy spirit Dos God exist Even the demons that were in people that Jesus come across said he was the son of God But It is interested to see what the enemies of Jesus Christ, the demons, thought and said about him. It’s generally not a good rule of thumb to get your theology from demons, but in this case it is fascinating because what they say repeats what the rest of the Bible proclaims about who Jesus Christ is and what his life, death, and resurrection mean for us. The demons in the Gospels have better teachings about Jesus than some preachers with their weak doctrines of Christ!“What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"- Matthew 8:29 "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-the Holy One of God."- Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34 "You are the Son of God."- Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.- Luke 4:41 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me."- Luke 8:28, Mark 5:7

[@Camerinus]

jcr65566 Thanks for your reply. As a historian, however, I don't accept the Gospels as reliable historical documents. Those texts, like all texts, were written down by ordinary men who had their own beliefs and agenda. 2000 years ago, people believed in demons, miracles, magic, etc. Now, thanks to the scientific approach, the more educated a person is, the least likely he/she is to believe such things. As prof. Ehrman points out in his books and several debates, to really understand what the Gospels are you have to understand the social, cultural, and even literary context in which they belong. For example, studying the rise of messianism in the Hellenistic period would show you that Jesus is not as exceptional as he may seem. The fact that there are four Gospels in the library called the Bible is odd, to say the least. Why those four out of dozens of gospels, especially that two of them, Matthew and Luke, are "embellishments" over Mark? By the way, it is interesting that you don't site John, whose Gospel contradicts the first three with regard to the divine nature of Jesus. And how arbitrary is the selection of 27 NT books? Well, 2 Peter, to take but one example, has been demonstrated to be a forgery. All these facts should show you that the selection of materials to create the NT was arbitrary and had nothing divine to it; it is, actually, exactly what one would expect of Bronze/Iron Age men. Now the doctrine of the Trinity which you describe in your email, where is it to be found in the Bible? If I'm not mistaken, this is an after-the-fact doctrine to try to make sense of it all. It is not to be found in the NT itself. Thanks for reading this.

[@Camerinus]

+Camerinus The above comment is in reply to +jcr65566's comment: Jesus on his own is not God Because Jesus is the third part of God. Who is Father, Son, Holy spirit The father on his own is not God The holy spirit on it own is not God. Only when there together are they God. This is why Jesus is the Son of God. So if Jesus said he was not God he is telling the truth Only together with the father and the holy spirit Dos God exist Even the demons that were in people that Jesus come across said he was the son of God But It is interested to see what the enemies of Jesus Christ, the demons, thought and said about him. It’s generally not a good rule of thumb to get your theology from demons, but in this case it is fascinating because what they say repeats what the rest of the Bible proclaims about who Jesus Christ is and what his life, death, and resurrection mean for us. The demons in the Gospels have better teachings about Jesus than some preachers with their weak doctrines of Christ!“What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"- Matthew 8:29 "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-the Holy One of God."- Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34 "You are the Son of God."- Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.- Luke 4:41 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me."- Luke 8:28, Mark 5:7

[@cindyisa10]

+Camerinus You say: "As a historian, however, I don't accept the Gospels as reliable historical documents. Those texts, like all texts, were written down by ordinary men who had their own beliefs and agenda. 2000 years ago, people believed in demons, miracles, magic, etc. Now, thanks to the scientific approach, the more educated a person is, the least likely he/she is to believe such things." Why you don't accept the Gospels as reliable historical documents? Why would the author of Acts go to obsessively painstaking detail to get cities, ports, weather patterns correct if this information came from unreliable sources? Why would he go to this trouble on minor details yet gloss over, change, or embellish Jesus’ details? The fact that he was so correct about so many details makes me think his intentions were nothing but honest. One would normally assume he paid the same attention to detail to the eyewitnesses' stories. This kind of detail could never come from the oral tradition. I’d say Luke (author of Acts) is one of the most trustworthy credible sources in the ancient world. For example, Luke displays an incredible and impressive array of knowledge in the 2nd half of Acts of local places, names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events. Given you're a historian, you should be familiar with Colin Hemer. Consider that he lists 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. Keep in mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts. Here’s the 1st 25 items of Hemer’s 84 that Luke accurately records: 1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5) 2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13) 3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6) 4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6) 5. the correct language spoken in Lystra-Lycaonian (14:6) 6. two gods known to be so associated-Zeus and Hermes (14:12) 7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14.25) 8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1; cf 15:41) 9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8) 10. the place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samathrace (16:11) 11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12) 12. the right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13) 13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14) 14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22) 15. the proper locations (Amphiboles and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1) 16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1) 17. the proper term (“politarchs” used of the magistrates there (17:6) 18. the correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summer sailing (17:14-15) 19. the abundant presence of images in Athens (17:17) 20. The reference to a synagogue in Athens (17:16) 21: the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17) 22: the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (spermologos, 17:18) as well as for the court (Areios pages, 17:19) 23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21) 24. an alter to an “unknown god” (17:23) 25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32) amazon(.)com/Setting-Hellenistic-Wissenschaftliche-Untersuchungen-Testament/dp/3161454510 The fact that Luke's details are so astonishing accurate makes me think we can definitely gain reliable information from such documents. Would you still disagree?

[@jcr65566]

Camerinus Every one of the disciples of Jesus were not poor man. Though they did come from working class family. All it seems have had an education in both Hebrew and Greek In those days every man had to pay taxes. if they could not pay taxes they were ether imprisoned until they could pay the tax Or later beaten or stoned to death. then the family would have to pay the tax. Even the very cripple who could not work Were not exempt.from paying tax. For the disciples of Jesus to spend three years of there life with him And not have an in come And still have to pay taxes They must have been very well off . Most of the new testament Gospels were made up of notes and letters to churches from the apostles. The notes were most written by the the disciples of Jesus in the three years that they followed him around. They all differ because there just notes written down from the disciples different perspectives of Jesus God is the combination of Father, Son, Holy ghost, When the Gospels were were written down the disciples did not know that Jesus was the son of God. They thought of him only as a profit of God In one of the Gospels it is said he did not revel him self to them this was to protect them For the disciples had also to be very careful what they wrote down For these notes if found on them would get them killed. Jesus know this that why he use terms like Jesus gave Peter a three-fold command to “feed my sheep” in John 21:15-17. Each time Jesus said, “Feed my sheep,” it was in response to Peter’s three-fold declaration of love for Jesus. The setting was one of the last of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to His disciples on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus prepared a breakfast of fish and bread for them, and then commissioned Peter with the task of feeding His sheep and tending His lambs.Jesus was speaking in code to protect his disciples.

[@julio14335]

How Jesus became God or how God became Jesus____How Buddha became God or how God became Buddha. How a human became God or how God became a human. I think Christians and Buddists needs to do debates as to who`s Man-God idea is right.

[@matcomb7501]

Simon, please do a course on how to... public speak. Going loud then soft, is very frustrating to listen to. Also pace of speech is best spoken at one speed.

[@jopi9059]

I find it kind of interesting that the Sinai Bible isn't brought up more often than it is. It's the oldest bible found with the new testament completely intact. As scholarship says, Mark is the oldest and first gospel written in the bible. And in the Sinai Bible in Mark, there is no mention at all of a virgin birth, wise men, or star of bethlehem. And at the end of Mark, there is no resurrection of jesus and no women or disciples seeing jesus after he died, just a young man (young man, not angel) who tells the women that jesus has risen. After being told, it says that the women were frightened and fled and told NO ONE. This account was written 20-30 years after his death as it is, and then more was added later in matt. and luke which was written even later, 10-20 years after mark. I would think that this information would have been of the utmost importance to include if you are trying to convince people that jesus was the son of god, and if it actually happened. But I guess someone just remembered suddenly 30-40 years after Jesus died, "oh yeh i forgot he was a virgin baby, and was risen from the dead. Write that down!" Along with the fact that the Sinai Bible was found to have been scratched out and rewritten in many places and has something like 27,000 differences compared to the current KJV bible. It should be clear to anyone with a logical brain that the bible has been forged and rewritten many times. Not to mention, as Bart has explained several times, there were no printing presses back then, so the books of the bible had to be rewritten thousands of times and many people weren't highly literate, so oral traditions were used to pass down the legend of jesus, so it's no wonder there are so many differences and additions since the earliest manuscripts. Just use your brains people and think critically, you wouldn't believe a lot of what your government tells you, but you're willing to believe a book in which the author is unknown and contains tons of things that could never be verified. Why exactly?

[@Awurabena1]

I believe Scripture. You on the other hand are entitled to your opinion. I choose not to be entitled by yours. But you are free to think and stick with what you think and believe and what data you have to stake your position but so am I!

[@jopi9059]

Then why does Jesus tell the people in mark 9:1 that the people standing in front of him would not taste of death before the kingdom of god came? If jesus was speaking of himself he would have said I will come back, or if he was divine he would have known that the kingdom of god would NOT return before these people died. Obviously jesus was wrong there, but you still believe him? And once again mark was the FIRST and earliest gospel we have and so whoever wrote it had the information more fresh on their memory than the other gospels. The other gospels came at least 10-20 years later.

[@jopi9059]

And by the way I just quoted scripture, the same scripture you just said you believe. But in reality, you don't know scripture as well as you think, and you haven't looked at the bible in a critical way or you would see how many problems there are.

[@Awurabena1]

1 Corinthians 8:2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much.

[@jopi9059]

And apparently you don't have any answers for me. I'm currently reading Bart's book and he makes the best explanation of how Jesus' life actually went based on scripture and factual evidence. I would encourage you to read it, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. A lot of things will make sense when you read it.

[@StephenHolland]

One of the closest disciples to Jesus was John. And John claimed He was God.

[@truthhitman7473]

TELL THE TRUTH AND STOP BEATING AROUND THE BUSH !

[@sailingship2361]

The really radical and perhaps subversive thing that Jesus said is that we are all children of God, are all divine and perhaps in a certain sense all God. In relating to how he, us, that is people are God… that is in what sense is one God, perhaps the following is an explanative analogy: - One can say of one’s self that they are in the air, that the air is in them and that they and the air are one. If one thinks of all of existence as being energy… that is all tactile and non-tactile existence, both air/space and form/material is energy, (this by the way has been scientifically proven, i.e. that everything is energy) Then one can say of one’s self that energy is in them, that they are in energy and that the energy and themselves are one. Likewise if one thinks of God as being all energy, then one can say that God is in us, we are in God and God and ourselves are one. - This does not say that one, or people are as big as ALL of God, but still the analogy applies. As far as the statement that in the beginning one was with and one with God at the dawn of all existence and creation … This too can pertain to all of us.

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

That was an interesting, if completely meaningless bit of new age woo, full of vague descriptions, fundamental misunderstandings of what the scientific concept "energy" actually means, and a lot of specious arguments. I take it you've read the Nag Hammadi or A Course in Miracles?

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

That was an interesting, if completely meaningless bit of new age woo, full of vague descriptions, fundamental misunderstandings of what the scientific concept "energy" actually means, and a lot of specious arguments. I take it you've read the Nag Hammadi or A Course in Miracles?

[@aoflex]

Change 'Jesus' to 'Vishnu' or 'Hercules' or 'Joseph Smith' and this debate couldn't be done without persistent laughing. Why is it that the laughing stops and sincere mythological dialectic begins when it's concentrated on this specific mammal?

[@mdleavitt]

Not sure why an ape like aoflex is listening to this right now? It's refreshing to see people on youtube who think there is no difference, morally, between Mother Theresa and a mass murderer like Mao. This is why "this specific mammal" causes a "stop in laughing." It takes the divine to have morality.

[@Awurabena1]

Perhaps you need to go back and check out that the more CHRISTIANS are persecuted the more the faith spreads. Try it. There is God!

[@aoflex]

キリストは主である What I wrote doesn't reflect anything Ehrman may or may not believe. I included Joseph Smith in that list too, and if you were honest you wouldn't have been able to write that sentence. What Jesus, Vishnu, Hercules, and Joseph Smith have in common is that they are central figures in certain religious beliefs, some of which are purely mythology, while others are clearly mythology built atop actual historical figures.

[@Awurabena1]

Do not speak for me. You come from an ape. Good for you. I don't. Speak only for yourself or you are a self obsessed nihilist. Never speak for me. Thank you.

[@aoflex]

Awurabena1 "Do not speak for me. You come from an ape. Good for you. I don't. Speak only for yourself or you are a self obsessed nihilist. Never speak for me. Thank you." This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Thousands of generations ago your and my ancestors were ape-like. Thousands of generations before that were our mammalian shrew-like ancestors. Keep going back and you'll find common ancestry in the oceans and with bacteria. These are facts that are borne out of DNA, fossil, and geographical evidence for evolution. It doesn't matter if you choose to believe which facts are true or not, science is true whether or not you believe in it.

[@jackwilmoresongs]

The early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead because He came to live within them in a form in which He could do so. After His resurrection He in fact trained the disciples over a period of some days to learn to live by His invisible presence. And CONVINCED them that it was so. Showing such in John's gospel is obvious. But the synoptics speak also - " ... And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20b); "For where there are two or three gathered together into My name THERE AM I IN THEIR MIDST." (Matt. 18:20); Luke in Acts speaks of THIS LIFE which the disciples now lived. "Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of THIS LIFE." (Acts 5:20). What Life? The life of Christ in resurrection living IN the disciples as the Spirit. "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45).

[@Awurabena1]

Jesus Himself when here on earth was called all kinds of things including a demon. This is no different?

[@Awurabena1]

In your mind because you are perishing.

[@Awurabena1]

Who are those? No I don't. Only in Jesus Christ.

[@Awurabena1]

Why I ever said I wasn't going to die? Please! Jesus makes me look forward to dying.

[@Awurabena1]

Whom I worship is none of your business. I choose to worship JESUS Christ why is it your business?

[@SleepyGuzman]

Jesus actually existed, theres proof of him. N nobody is forced to christianity. They tried forcing christians to deny christ.

[@greglogan7706]

It is unfortunate that Bart is not grasping the basic literary devices used the book of John to understand that Jesus never claimed to be God in the book of John. Nor did Bart bring up what is arguably the earliest post apostolic Christology which does NOT assert that Jesus is in any sense divine or God but simply that he is a man and even a natural born man (which is the more natural understanding of the New Testament as a whole).

[@werak.8595]

Could You give a link or reference to something that would describe these literary devices?

[@briankaz8786]

It was the Romans. They had to have the greatest god. It wouldn't be right for a Roman to have a messiah, it had to be the highest god of gods. Even emperors were considered gods, how would it be possible to get people to believe in a messiah? They needed a god to gain followers. This is what we are warned of in Revelation.

[@susandidary9646]

Jesus is one of the five greatest prophet of God . If say that Jesus is God , cause a lots questions and problems, such as : God that creates the universe: 1- why God need a woman to give him birth to come to the world ? If we get right definition of God , we never say that Jesus was God or God came in human body. Right definition of God is: Quran says: God is God , God is not he or she, God has no parents or child, God was before everything and will be after everything, everyone needs God , God doesn’t need anything or anyone.

[@nickg491]

Jesus, like John, have come from the desert. They were both Essenes who studied and lived in the desert, and "they came" from the desert. Essenes usually stayed out of the cities, but John and Jesus must have seen the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, and decided to come and preach against them. They were very strict, ascetic Jews like the prophets of old.

[@reformedcatholic457]

There is a reference by Pliny the younger mentioning the Christians of roughly 110 AD worshiping Jesus as a god. But the New Testament documents goes even earlier back with early Christian creeds and hymns date back to Jesus Himself that declare His deity, these Scriptures are Romans 1:3-4, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians 11:23, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-18, 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 Timothy 2:8, all these verses are hymns and creeds were sung and recited by the early Christians and are predated before Paul wrote his letters. so we know that these basic teachings were not made up but they go back to the disciples.

[@TorianTammas]

Were does Pliny say Jesus? Pliny the younger says this group was lead by two woman. Paul tells us that woman have to shup up in church. So how can they be leaders? So clearly Paul speaks of something totally different. Were does Pliny speak about a Jesus of Nazareth? Christ is a title not a name and the emperor Hadrian wrotee in a letter that "christians" worshiped a god named Serapis.

[@reformedcatholic457]

TorianTammas Unless you have someone else at the time was known as Christ, was popular and was worshiped as a god, no one else matches these descriptions other then Jesus. But scholars/historians say it is a reference to the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

[@TorianTammas]

ChristisRisen Proof your claim to me show me your sources were is says so. Unless then it is just an empty claim without any evidence.

[@reformedcatholic457]

TorianTammas The proof is the text of Pliny, it is a well known fact either you take it or leave it. You're argument is quite poor, you reject it as a reference to Christ, but you can't find anyone who is popular that fits the criteria as Jesus. It is clear it is referring to Jesus. Easy to reject a passage when you no nothing about it. I ask you a simple question, who else was known as "Christ" and was worshiped as God? If you can't find anyone then the passage is referring to Christ. But another fact is that Jesus was worshiped as God from the beginning.

[@georgecherian6520]

All the religions are made by human beings based on stories told in Bible, Bhagavad Gita or Quran. These are just stories. If you want to believe in them do it. But are just stories.

[@XfaladroxX]

Wow look at this smart gentleman here! No one ever notices that they are stories! It's not about the stories you simpleton, it's about what they teach. You don't need to accept Christ to see that his teachings were positive and that everyone should try to listen a bit.

[@Mane0666]

i wonder why an indian, asian, aborigine, or barbaric viking wasnt born the son of god? why doesnt any of their myths of creation and gods didnt last? in death did they make it to the father without going thru the son if they were never introduced?

[@LughSummerson]

But there were Indians, Asians, Aborigines and Vikings who were the sons of gods if you give credence to mythology. You may as well ask whether Christians can get to Valhalla without dying valiantly in combat.

[@Mane0666]

I know I know, but which one is right?

[@LughSummerson]

Mane Flemming Why limit your search for truth to ancient tales? New stories are being written all the time. My money is on Cthulhu being the one that's right.

[@Mane0666]

hahahahahahahahahahaha

[@exilfromsanity]

The flying Spaghetti Monster.

[@MasterOfSparks]

The TruthSurge channel gives excellent evidence that the earliest gospel known as "Mark" was a work of complete fiction derived from Homer's Odyssey. Not only does "Mark" follow the same general story outline but even some of the phrases seem to be taken directly from Homer. Check it out @ kzbin.info/www/bejne/apuyq3aDrp6Ya6c

[@hoopoe3093]

"Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. He and his mother ate food daily. See how they have distorted the truth! It is not befitting for Allah to take a son! How can He has a son when He has no consort!? Desist from saying Trinity! Oh Children of Israel, I am the prophet sent to you and to give you glad news of a prophet to come after me name Ahmad." QURAN

[@JaketheBakedSsnake]

It's difficult to listen to each case with an unbiased ear

[@adgut-gar5186]

The problem is not God but the religions and their fanatic clerics: If God exists and created this marvelous universe, He must be almighty, wise, full of goodness and justice. He would be much greater than the "holy books" of all religions (plagued with errors, contradictions and absurdities), and would be identifying the innocent and the guilty of the suffering and the destruction of the Earth (clerics included). Being good is simply: not to damage oneself, nor others, nor nature (the gods of all religions would agree with this). And, if God exists, He´ll punish the bad, not to the good (believing or not in Him), because otherwise He would be a vain, irrational, intolerant and unjust God. But if that magnificent God exists, one wonders: would he sends natural disasters (earthquakes, eruptions, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.) in which so many innocent people died or become helpless? The answer would be that, as with diseases and accidents, this is their way of telling us that we must be prepared, as individuals and as a society, to live with nature, we must know it very well to avoid and fight diseases, prevent accidents, and to foresee and act in natural disasters. We must, in addition, be good people at all times, thus always will be ready for the departing time. For all this, we see that to live a good happy life, without prejudice or fear, it is enough to be good, strive to learn scientifically the real world, and build just and humanitarian societies that take advantage of and respect nature. ABOUT THE MODERN WORLD Modern world is ruled by the great oligarchies, represented in all countries by: businessmen, merchants, politicians, clerics, and army. They and their servers, defenders, sycophants, and apprentices, keep half of humanity in misery on behalf of their insane privileges, and they are corrupting and devastating the whole planet ¡but, they blame the rest of us, academics and scientists included! “Do not dream of the vanity of becoming rich, because you will increase the poor”: Pythagoras, 6th century B.C. Actually these five castes and their henchmen, have only two option: change their behavior trying to repair the destruction and suffering they are causing, or pray for God does not exist, because, if He exists, surely He is engaged in preparing for them precious luxury suites in Hell!, and they will stay there, eating what they loved the most: money, diamonds, gold and oil, for the rest of eternity! ("Money can´t buy the heaven": Martin Luther, 1517). As Pythagoras calculated, if there exist poor people, it is because there exist rich people, so: 1) What is the right price of goods and services?: “The cost of production plus the salary of the fabricant which allows him and his family to live honestly well; more would be a robbery” 2) What is the right salary for a worker?: “That which allows him and his family to live honestly well; less would be a robbery” Claude Proudhon, 1810. Fabricant. What would happen if all businessmen of the world would apply these two Proudhon´s rules?: ¡It wouldn’t exist inflation, depression, speculation, market cracks, collapses, wars, wealth and poverty! SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? As you may see: a) Gods of religions do not bless the wealthy (clerics included). b) The origin of the world inequality is simple, and easy to calculate, as Pythagoras and Proudhon did it. c) It is not necessary a violent social revolution (causing more destruction and suffering), but educate people to know the real world, and create good laws to allow a better distribution of wealth and to respect nature. Surely this proposal is too weak for people who directly suffer oppression but, given our history and the tremendous damage that has been caused to nature, if we do not act with caution, the world is going to collapse (ecologically, economically, or by a world war), and we´ll suffer for it much more. Don´t you think?

[@badlatvianskepticman5101]

Either God can do nothing to stop bad things, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely. The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion. Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.

[@jerubaal3333]

In the world in which any king was declared a son of god or a god, would be strange that someone so powerfull like Jesus not to be called god. Even in jewish, monotheistic culture man like judges were called gods. Jews were wainting for the Messiah, whose beginings were from before the world begun, whose name was Emanuel (God with us), or El Gibor (God Mighty), who were suppose to be even the Name of God! Tomas called Jesus"the God and the Lord", and it was written by John befor end of 1 cent. All it means that christians even when they were just messianic jews called Messiah the"Son of God" which meant God revealed. Look into letter to the Hebrews.

[@melonangie]

Omg, is this what Simon does for living? He's not very good at it. 48:00

[@Awurabena1]

The Bible itself has quite a few apostates like Bart Ehrman so he is nothing exceptional. A cloud without rain.

[@Awurabena1]

God is against slavery. So mankind chooses to practice slavery God never did it. We humans do these crazy things.

[@purami14]

mPky1 Or better yet.........stone your women. (father's doorsteps etc.)..................but don't eat shellfish.........................

[@Brammy007a]

Facts are a hard thing to swallow for Bible literalists..... just deal with it..... take the Bible for life lessons if you want, but to believe all the supernatural nonsense is childish. You should have given up your belief in god (or gods) at about the same time you gave up believing in Santa.

[@jrhunter007]

Funny how the Bible has that effect on people! Good thing for Christians that so few among them have actually read the damned thing.

[@kameelfarag1981]

Bart is wrong again, Mark starts his gospel that Jesus is the Son of God, that was before citing Jesus earthly genealogy, and before he meets John the Baptist, even in Luke Jesus was thought to be the son of God while in the womb when Mary visited her sister Elizabeth. who said "why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me"

[@karenlewis4142]

+Kameel Farag The word "Lord" is not the word "God (YHWY)". Lord is Lord. Jesus was half human. He was flesh. Flesh can not enter the kingdom of heaven. 1 Timothy 2:5 KJV For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;....A God can not reproduce with humans, nor can a God bleed, nor can a God die. YHWY the Father experienced humanity by joining his consciousness with the man. Jesus (Yahshua). YHWY spoke through the man Jesus. We have no idea what the other half of Jesus's DNA was. He could have been a hybrid human for all we know. The Father always tried to destroy hybrid humans before and after the flood. He called them abominations. God wanted Jesus to be the ONLY hybrid human. Jesus was and is the Lamb of YHWH. The ultimate sacrifice. The rescuer. The Saviour. The mediator. The way, the truth and the life. There is only one way to make it to heaven: To Love our Creator YHWH with all our heart, believing the testimony of Jesus, and keeping the Ten Commandments. If Jesus was a God. Why did he have to pray?

[@dionsanchez3131]

+Karen Lewis You ignore John...the word became flesh...this implies a prior existence. Further, you ignore the doctrine of the hypostatic union...2 natures in one person...this solves any issue you have with your human logic. Jesus' prayed for two reasons: 1. He was the supreme example of how to worship and relate with the Father. 2. He was on earth as human and divine...The church has always taught he was truly man. As a man why wouldn't he pray? Hybrid?

[@juannifer32]

+Dion Sanchez John introduces this in his Gospel but on whose authority who gave John these evidences Genesis doesn't even introduce Jesus to exist in the beginning so where does John get his information for this ? And if Jesus is human and divine why doesn't he know the hour? And if the Father is in heaven while Jesus is on earth and he is also God isn't that two gods and when you bring the Holy Spirit into the mix that's three gods that make one that's still three. When you read the New Testament there is evidence that Jesus is just a servant of God and some verses that suggest he may be god but it's not point blank said look Jesus is God worship him. So how do you know which way to go there are evidences both ways so me personally I would go back to the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likeness of male or female. 23. Take heed unto yourselves lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God which he made with you and make you a graven image or the likeness of anything which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. 24. For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire even a Jealous God. 30. When thou art in tribulationand all these things are come upon thee even in the latter days if thou to the Lord thy God and shalt be obedient unto his voice 31.(For the Lord thy God is a Merciful God)he will not forsake thee neither destroy thee nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. 35. Unto thee it was shewed that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God there is none else beside him. 39. Know therefore this day and consider it in thine heart that the Lord he is God in heaven above and upon earth beneath there is none else. 40. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes and his commandments which I command thee this day that it may go well with thee and with thy children after thee and that thou mayest proling thy days upon the earth which the Lord thy God giveth thee for ever. Why would God say for ever knowing that He is going to come in the flesh to die for the sins of the world through Jesus so why hold the people to the commandments and for ever then in the New Testament Paul says we are no longer under the law who is Paul to make this decision he never even met Jesus?

[@ThundersSeven]

The Son's Name was never "Jesus" or "Hesus" --- the English noun “Jesus” is called a "transliteration" of the Greek word "Iesous" G2424 -- if you look up this Strong’s Concordance Greek word G2424, it will clearly state from the original Hebrew word YaHUShA = Strong’s H3091 which is the proper masculine noun and it means YaHUaH (is) Saviour (in that day)! [still to happen] We are Commanded not to add or take from The Word of YaHUaH and woe to them who did so. It is a historical fact that the English letter/sound "J" is modern and approx. 500 years old. The English letter/sound "J" is not found at all in the 1611 edition of the King Iacob ("James") Bible where the true Son's Name YaHUShA is rendered as "Iesvs" in the Latin. As it is written, the One Hebrew Name given under all the Heavens by which any man may be saved (in that day) from before the face of the coming evil one is #YaHUShA! Woe to those who "replaced" it way beyond recognition. And we are Commanded not to worship any graven images. The Heavenly Father's Hallowed Name is also called "The Tetragrammaton" which in Greek means "the four letters" referring to YHUH (some say YHWH) Like the English letter "J" being modern the letter/sound "W" is also modern English for double U. Like the English letter/sound "J" -- the English "W" sound is not found in Paleo Hebrew and it is also a modern edition to the English Alphabet for the sound double "u" or "oo" as we still observe, even today, when we say the name Benjamin Netanyahu. As it is written, the Son YaHUShA came in the Name of the Heavenly Father which is YaHUaH the Hebrew noun/word H3068 has been "replaced" almost 7000 times with "the LORD" and "GOD" - both terms relating to the Adversary! An enemy has done this. H3068 YaHUaH's Name means (He) who is, was, will be in all three tenses, The Almighty; Who is The Creator of the Heavens, Earth, Sea and everything in them. No where did the Son YaHUShA (The Word of YaHUaH made flesh) ever teach anyone to worship a graven image of Him or His mother; ONLY the Heavenly Father and if you want to be saved in that day from before the face of the coming evil one; then keep and do #TheCommandments which are good for a thousand generations, just as YaHUShA did and taught. Including the 4th Commandment concerning #TheShabbat Sadly, almost a third of mankind currently choose to worship a graven image of the sun god of the Heathen, born on December 25, who has a popular image to this very day. For the past 500 years or so, many of YaHUaH's people have called this graven image of Jupiter/Zeus/Iove their “lord” and “saviour” and worshipped it; calling a very similar image of the sun-god of the Heathen "Jesus" in English and “Hesus” in Spanish. They do this vanity on the 1st day of the week which is the venerable day of the sun god commonly known as "Sunday" whilst facing Eastwards (most churches are built to have the assembly face Eastwards) towards the rising sun; in one of her buildings! Mystery Babylon the Great controls ALL the man-made-up "religions" of the world at a certain level. Wickedness in high places. It is written, “Come out from her my people, lest you will suffer Her plagues....” Repent with a sincere heart back to YaHUaH of hosts and The One Torah (Instruction, Teaching, "Law") and be immersed in the Name of the Heavenly Father #YaHUaH and His Son #YaHUShA for the redemption of sin; and then go on forth and sin no more. If you read the Scriptures for yourself you will learn that a man cannot die for another man's sins; and human sacrifice is an abomination to YaHUaH of hosts! It is written, the whole world is deceived by the wicked one. And so it appears it is...

[@tenmanX]

LOL!

[@kymuddy]

Answer these Questions to help me believe Jesus is God There is plenty of proof that Jesus is our BROTHER that we are a joint heir with him. If your Jesus Is God do you think you are going to become God Almighty With Him as a joint heir? The Word say's that all his Glory and Authority was Given to Jesus by his Father and that one day he will give it up, then What? Is that the end of your Trinity? Why does Every Epistle start with A greeting from God the Father and From The Lord Jesus Christ? Yes Jesus is Lord because God his Father made Him Lord. And then what about Paul totally neglecting a greeting from your third god the Holy Spirit, Your third God was totally left out! Why did the Father give him a place of honor beside His Throne if he is God? Wouldn't he climb back inside the Father and sit on the real throne. Why did the Father say he Was Greater than the Angels If he was God no one would have to say that? Why Did his Father have To name Him if he always Existed. My bible says he was given a greater name then the angels. Why does The Word Of God that you claim to believe say he was the first BORN of all CREATION? That puts him in the category of being part of creation and being born. Why does Jesus plainly say 6 times or more that his God is HIS Father? Heb. 1:8 God calls Jesus a God but in the same breath He says Your God has poured the oil of Gladness on you more than any one else. Yes Jesus has a God! Why does It say That Jesus was the only Begotten Son? Begotten means procreated, Born or created. Why does Jesus Say we are his Brothers? Do you think that God Almighty is your Brother also? Because of The Devilish Power of the Catholic Church you have had the False Doctrine of the Trinity shoved down your throat. And because you don’t know the word you believed it. You know they killed 50 million Christians in some of the most horrible ways that did not believe in the trinity if you can’t answer these questions then you better reevaluate your beliefs. Those guys were willing to die rather than accept the lie that you accept without question.

[@GusBloke]

I listened to the debate, 2 full hours (both parts) ... the English bloke made me ashame I am British, he was led to the slaughter like a jesus. why did he chose to debate this LORD?

[@Johnf85]

Believers love to believe. It didn't take much due diligence before the emotions kicked in and made them soooooo positive Allah is God, or Jesus, or Krishna, or Joseph Smith or whatever. These people spend more time researching interest rates for a home loan, which has a 30 year consequence, than researching the right religion of which screwing up has consequences lasting an eternity if you can get yourself to actually believe in hell. People in India think they got the right God and people in America think they did. What a surprise. Human beings don't thinks it's a suspicious coincidence that geography and belief go hand in hand. Thinking your evidence for your God is the best, and geography goes hand in hand. It's so weak minded. So ridiculous to say because I can't get myself to believe in the talking snake and original sin I just want to not be held accountable to a creator. Dude I don't want to be held accountable to my lender if I can't afford these monthly payments.

[@Johnf85]

+Ryan Matzke false Christianity spread because emperor konstantine adopted it as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity is not the only religion that has permeated other countries. Islam is the fastest growing religion. Everything you've said is false. Why can't religious folks appreciate facts and evidence? You have to step outside you little bubble to know what is true.

[@ianrwood21]

+El Jay Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of Rome.

[@darkmath100]

My problem with Ehrman's argument is if Jesus didn't claim to be divine then why was he crucified? Jesus had committed no sin besides turning over the money changers tables in the Temple. Was that a capital offense? No it wasn't. Jesus would have been flogged or banished to the desert or some other less severe punishment. It's hard to imagine he would have been killed for that.

[@ianrwood21]

Jesus was crucified as 'King of the Jews'. Now that was a capital offence as only the Romans could make a Jewish King.

[@darkmath100]

ianrwood21 Yes but Pilot was ambivalent towards Jesus. He even suggested letting him go. Only the objections of the Pharisees and Sadduces put Jesus on the cross. And that makes sense to me. They, not the Romans, had the problem with Jesus. To the Romans Jesus was a laughing stock.

[@ianrwood21]

darkmath100 This just doesn't make sense - if Jesus was nothing but a laughing stock to the Romans then they wouldn't have crucified him.

[@darkmath100]

ianrwood21 "if Jesus was nothing but a laughing stock to the Romans then they wouldn't have crucified him".....I agree. But Jesus wasn't tried in a Roman court of law. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish court of law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

[@darkmath100]

Oners82 Jesus wasn't tried in a Roman court of law. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was a Jewish court of law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

[@johannesvangend2598]

The original reads, Joh 1:1, “To a beginning was the Word, and the Word was nigh unto the God, and a God was the Word.” One must bear in mind that by the time of Act 6:7-, “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith,” things changed dramatically. The ‘converted’ priests soon introduced new teachings, Act 15:1-, “And certain ones who came down from Judea taught the brothers, saying, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ Therefore dissension and not a little disputation occurring by Paul and Barnabas, they appointed Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question…” After Stephen’s stoning the believers were ‘scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.’ One thing they knew was Stephen saw the Son of the man standing on the right hand of the God, Act 7:56, “And he said, ‘Behold, I see Heaven opened and the Son of the Man standing on the right hand of the God. Of importance is that the translators omitted the definite article before ‘man’ and before ‘God’. Why? Consider Rom 8:3, “For the impossible thing of the law in which it was weak because of the flesh, the God, sending the Son of his own in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh…” The law’s sacrifices for the forgiveness’ of sins were weak. They could, at best, only ‘purify the flesh’ but unable to purge ones conscience as is written, Heb 9:13-, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ (who having an eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to the God) purge your conscience from dead works to serve a living God? “And because of this, of a new covenant He is mediator, that, death having come, for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, for where a covenant is, the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary…” Translators ignore the articles as given in the original text in order to support the ‘Trinity’ teachings introduced by the teachings if the ‘converted’ priests who believed ‘God is one’. Of course the God is an ‘Individual’ Him being the most high God and so also is the resurrected Jesus an ‘Individual’ having been resurrected by God the Father as is written, Act 13:32-, “And we preach the gospel to you, the promise made to the fathers, this the God has fulfilled to us their children, raising up Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son, this day I have begotten You.’ “And that He raised Him up from death, no more to return to corruption, He spoke in this way: ‘I will give you the holy promises of David..." Also the Baptist proclaimed that Jesus was to be that Lamb, Joh 1:29, “The next day John sees Jesus coming to him and says, Behold the Lamb of the God who takes away the sin of the world!” Now, Jesus did not just ‘appear’ on the scene. No, there were over 300 prophecies in the OT concerning Jesus’ first advent. Peter W Stoner, in his book, ‘Science Speaks’ explains the chances that these prophecies could be fulfilled were they not ‘inspired’. See: sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Christ_of_Prophecy.html The chapter ends with, "Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world." Likewise, there are many ‘prophecies’ concerning Jesus’ second event and they, too, will be fulfilled. An important one is the parable of ‘the good seed and the darnel’, Mat 13:29-, “But He said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the darnel you also root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. And in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the darnel and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my granary.”’” Paul further writes, 2Th 2:-3-, “Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition,” and, 2Ti 4:3-, “For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear. And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.” And, so it is with hundreds of English Bible translations and thousands of different denominations. If only Prof. Bart and Dr. Simon had kept to the original text there would have been no debate. Jesus had prior existence, Psa 2:1-, “Why do the nations rage and the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against the Jehovah and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands in two and cast away their cords from us. “The One dwelling in the heavens shall laugh; the Jehovah shall mock at them. Then He shall speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His wrath. ‘Yea, I have set My King on My holy hill, on Zion.’ “[Then declares that King] ‘I will declare the decree of a Jehovah. He has said to Me, “You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”’ “And now be wise, O kings; be instructed, O judges of the earth. Serve the Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling! Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled in but a little time. Blessed are all who put their trust in Him.” Phi 2:5- according the original, “And think ye so in yourselves, as also in Christ Jesus who, existing in a form of a God, did not consider it robbery the to have equal qualities to a God, instead voluntarily He gave up everything taking on an appearance of a servant, in likeness of men becoming; and having been found in fashion of a man He humbled Himself, becoming obedient until death, even a death of a cross.” And John writes, according to the original, Joh 1:1-, “To a beginning was the Word, and the Word was nigh unto the God, and a God was the Word. The same was then near unto the God. All things were made through Him; and without Him was not anything made that hath become. He was the source of life; and to that life, was the yearning of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not… “And, the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of Him, a glory as of an only born of a father, full of favour and of truthness.” Moreover, Luke 1:26, according to the original, reads, “During Elizabeth’s sixth month of pregnancy, The God sent the angel Gabriel to a virgin girl who lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee. She was engaged to marry a man named Joseph from the family of David. Her name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, ‘Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. “But when she saw him, she was greatly perplexed by his saying, and she wondered what sort of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, ‘Fear not, Mary, for you have found favour from the God. And behold, you shall conceive in womb and bring forth a Son and you shall call his name JESUS. He will be great, and a most wonderful Son will He be called; and a Lord, the God shall give Him the throne of His father David. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.’ “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’ And the angel answered and said to her, ‘A holy Spirit shall come upon you, and a power, beyond compare, shall overshadow you; therefore, the holy One developing will be called, a Son of God [a Son beyond compare]. “And behold, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for she who was called barren. For with the God nothing shall be impossible. “Then Mary said, ‘Behold the maidservant of a Lord! May it be to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.” The ‘Word’ laid down his Deity and that holy Spirit entered Mary’s womb and was given ‘flesh and bones’. So, even if the translators erred in translating why did Prof. Bart and Dr. Simon not pick it up?

[@ianrwood21]

+Johannes van Gend crap

[@Awurabena1]

Bart has every right to say whom JESUS is. Does it matter. Not one weakly bit. He is entitled and so is everyone to their own opinion of who JESUS Christ is. JESUS IS STILL LORD. GOD! Matthew 16:13-16 Peter’s Declaration about Jesus 13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” 15Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” INDEED JESUS WE DO NOT LEARN WHO YOU ARE FROM ANY HUMAN BEING INCLUDING BART APOSTATE ERHMAN THAT'S MY SCHOLARLY OPINION. Matthew 16:17 17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.

[@MII1212able]

Hello Awurabena1, Respectfully, I say you can believe Jesus is God all you want, but read what Jesus said bout himself and what GOD said about Himself. Jesus is NOT GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! John 5:37 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. Mathew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Jesus (PBUH) Born of Virgin Mary, made his mother impure for 40 days, and YES, HE WAS circumcised on the 8th day; Job 25:4-6 4. How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? 5. Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. 6. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm? Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” Peter: Acts 2:22 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: What did Jesus himself say? John 14:28 "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Mathew 7:21-23 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Mathew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Mark 12:29-30 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. John 12:49-50 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 5:30-37 30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. 31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. 35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time…. John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" John 8:42 "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." John 7:28 "Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not." Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." John 17:3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. WHAT DID JESUES (PBUH) DO? Mark 14:35-36 35. And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell to the ground and {began} to pray that if it were possible, the hour might pass Him by. 36. And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." WHAT DID GOD SAY ABOUT HIMSLEF? Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:8 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 45: 22 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Deuteronomy 4:35 35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Deuteronomy 4:39 39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there isnone else. Exodus 3:20 20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

[@travislr85]

cool story bro

[@JimOverbeckgenius]

Jesus didn't become God. God became incarnate as Jesus Christ.

[@KenadoCC]

Ignatius of Antioch learned from his teacher Apostle John that Jesus actually is the eternal God. So, this is not an invention of men, but what Apostle John learned from Jesus himself, and then taught to his disciples.

[@kameelfarag1981]

Bart is missing and unfortunately Simon did not bring it up, that Jesus says about his pre-existence, in Luke 10 " I watched Satan falling like lightening" surely this was the fall before the creation of the world. The second point that Mark starts his gospel with the assumption of Jesus not as the son of Mary or by his earthly genealogy but" The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God", and God who is not triune cannot be a God. This is more logical, and is revealed in the first chapter of Genesis, as we see Him as the creator and his spirit hovering on the face of the waters, and in the creating man in His image, which we learn from the New Testament to be in Romans " to be conformed to the image of His son. This is more proof without the addition of John's gospel, and Paul the true Christology understood this very well.

[@thelittlemrs]

Yes and John 8, Before Abraham was, I Am. just started to listen so maybe he does mention this? still does indicate that Yeshuas life started as the Virgin birth in Betlehem

[@hankwilliams9560]

Judaism was not the religion of Jesus, nor was it the religion of David, nor of Saul nor of Jacob and nor of Moses. These people all had the religion of Moses, with the Five Books of Moses as their only bible. That was the case from Sinai to about 500AD, when the books of Judaism, their Talmud, was completed. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all rebelled against the religion of Moses, the 'chosen' religion for Israel for all eternity. All 3 rebel religions continue to deny the religion of Moses. If you would like a name for the religion of Moses, they were Hebrews, not Jews or anything else.

[@thuscomeguerriero]

Interesting take

[@4memotivation]

Hank Williams keep lying to yourself

[@edwardsiders2444]

believe this or not its makes no difference . when i turned 12 yrs old i heard a voice in the heaven a voice that said this is my son whom i am well pleased i look up above my head . i also saw three white doves flying also above my head . during this experence i also heard angels singing. further up in the heavens

[@myopenmind527]

Neuroscience can explain your subjective experience... It is not proof of god.

[@Awurabena1]

Jesus Christ the hidden treasure in plain sight. Glad JESUS Christ is the hidden mystery in this world. The blind will never see Him until they admit they are blind. That is His take. John 9:35-39 Spiritual Blindness 35When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and asked, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?c” 36The man answered, “Who is he, sir? I want to believe in him.” 37“You have seen him,” Jesus said, “and he is speaking to you!” 38“Yes, Lord, I believe!” the man said. And he worshiped Jesus. 39Then Jesus told him,d “I entered this world to render judgment-to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.”

[@johnnysprocketz]

A grown man debating a young pup.

[@ro.m.6432]

Many parts of the bible claim, that Jesus is the son of god. If those parts are wrong, how could others be right? However there are already in the old Testament people, who are called to be sons of god. Also Moses is called in the bible to be god, just that Jesus called even more to be god. And so every person can be god, if he is good enough at being so.

[@nicholasdedless4881]

Ro. M. Moses is never called God in the bible.

[@ro.m.6432]

Nicholas Dedless Here you can read the verse, I mean: And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Exodus (7:1)

[@OurHumbleLife]

Nicholas Dedless, Yes, Moses was made an elohim by God.

[@TruthBeTold7]

Jesus was always viewed as God.

[@TruthBeTold7]

Read, "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus," by Hertado.

[@cjunk351]

Jesus never claimed to be god and the Jewish people saw his claims as being as claims only god could make. So what!!!! im an atheist and I often speak up and suppose better knowledge than that found in the bible, and I get accused of 'thinking myself to be god'. And yet I never claim to be god. Good one christians for shooting yourself in the foot yet again.

[@randypacchioli2933]

Jesus calls Himself YWHW in John 8:58.

[@williamgeorgepeter2969]

Randy Pacchioli In the discussion Bart mention John 8:58 to say that he's God but it was developed in Johnanine gospel, not in the synoptic gospels and argue that How Jesus became God, but Bart does not understand what Jesus really said in John 8:58, For example: Jesus said to Jews that Before Abraham was, I am. The jews who took stones to cast on him saying that you are not even 50 years old., Jews thought that he's simply son of Mary and Joseph but actually his words having root from the Holy Spirit as God that existed eternity past and knows everything and rest of the story has been said in synoptic gospels and that there is no difference between among the four gospels. Like John 8:58, there is similar sayings of Jesus in regard to Jesus and his disciples in Mathew 16:28 and Mark 9:1, in which Jesus said that some disciple shall not die until they see the return of Jesus and the same has been speculated in John last chapter as it speaks about LIFESPAN of some disciples. This sayings of Jesus has not been understood by Bart and the so called scholars as well. The Holy Spirit was made available in the world since 1st century exclusively for Christian believers but only SOME shall receive HS into their physical body just prior to the return of Jesus, probably 21st century and these SOME fulfil the word of Jesus in Mathew 16:28 and Mark 9:1. Though these SOME may be 40 or 50 years old but their age has to be calculated since the day of the arrival of HS and that they can be called 2014 years old., Like Jesus who claimed Before Abraham was, I am., similarly these SOME in 21st century can also claim that Before 2000 years, we are. Thus there is no difference to prove Jesus is God in all four gospels. What is applicable then in Jesus is also applicable to Some in 21st century who is his witnesses as the ones who witnessed as eye witness of What Jesus spoke and done in 1st century. Shoot a question to Bart, What is his understanding on Mathew 16:28 and Mark 9:1? he shall not have answers, perhaps he might have wrong understanding. Bart is NOT a bible scholar but a misunderstanding scholar.

[@randypacchioli2933]

Horn Toot You and I did not exist before our birth. Your view is unbiblical. Christ is God Himself incarnate. He is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

[@sgma4m]

The title "How Jesus became God" caused confusion and misleading … b/c when people talk about "the true Jesus in the Bible", then by the Bible, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God himself. Did you guys speculate another Jesus in other books? Note that after the Jews waited for the coming of the Messiah as promised, and other people in the other earth corners also wondered how to realize the true God existence, finally people do not have to speculate any more about one mystical or imaginary creator … after God from heaven presented himself as the Man Jesus Christ for his personal salvation on earth as promised in the OT Bible!!!

[@BibleTumper]

Jesus didn't become a god,Jesus was, and is God,the everlasting God of eternity pass,present,and future.The Alpha and the Omega,the beginning and the end. He is the originator of all spirits in earth, and in the heavens,the Lord of host,the almighty.

[@BibleTumper]

danieljliversLXXXIX I have. These types,and anti types are,but only precursors to the original Alpha and Omega of scripture. The incite of the human genius, and imagination are far reaching,but limited in scope and focus, because of sinful depravity.They worship the creature,animals,the gods/fallen angels,the Nephilim, and mere man, rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Before the fall of Satan,he knew of these titles that were only contributed God himself. The Lord of Host(armies),the King of Glory,the Most High...ect. Through Satan's subtlety,he began to influence man kind into the worship of the fallen angels,men,and the Nephilim of Gen.6,and things that creep on the earth. There were tampering with the human and animal gene pool, creating monsters that roamed this planet, until God sent the flood a destroyed the old world,and gave man kind a new start through Noah and his family.

[@BibleTumper]

I could write you a book,but it would be rude to write all that I wish to write on this topic,but thank you for your comment.

[@greglogan7706]

The massive failure of Simons in this particular discussion is his notion of Paul's so called "high Christology well paul did have a high Christology he had Jesus as a man a man who was exalted by God and understanding that properly he also understood that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection which he specifically States at least twice he has no notion of the Virgin birth and so the only other option would be to have it at his baptism which does make a lot of sense since that is Jesus was actually anointed by the spirit of God presumably. Unfortunately Bart did not call Simon on this at all

[@Adrian-yf1zg]

Simons responses are quite poor. Really bad for someone with his background

[@samuelarthur887]

Bart's analysis is too simplistic. First century Jews would have understood the synoptic sayings, never mindJohn, as claims to divinity unequivocally

[@SkMoho-ji1zv]

What Ehrman is Saying now after a passage of time Study and Research, We Muslims Know this truth from 1450 years Ago.....That's the greatness of Muslims on Earth. Al Quraan is the Only Touchstone of Muslim to Accuare Such kind of Knowledge what Human beings don't know yet.... Thus, The Quraan is the "Living Miracle from Our Creator on Earth"

[@lamaddussa]

it was difficult to hear everything that the theist had to say because he kept descending into inaudible mumbling. perhaps a "freudian" indication of the weakness of his beliefs?

[@greglogan7706]

Simon completely misunderstand Jesus "coming" statements and this is so painful to hear people who claim to be scholars and miss the most basic easily understood concepts because they simply didn't bother to do the least bit of word study on the matter very sad In this instance at least Bart managed to do a little homework and followed the text

[@norzilahaziz6695]

Jesus was made god after Nicea Council meet. You (the council) made him god then...

[@denissutherland3653]

Revelation 16 : 13 " Then I saw three unclean spirits that looked like frogs. They were coming out of the mouth of the dragon,the mouth of the beast, and the mouth of the false prophet."

[@bme7491]

Denis Sutherland And then whoever wrote that took another toke.