The Triumph of Christianity (with Dr. Bart Ehrman)

  Рет қаралды 48,540

TheThinkingAtheist

TheThinkingAtheist

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 658
@SkySpiral8
@SkySpiral8 3 жыл бұрын
I appreciate Ehrman's admissions of uncertainty. Intellectual integrity.
@StrykezMan09
@StrykezMan09 6 жыл бұрын
Jesus was just the first "Celebrity". A serious flaw in humanity is our eagerness to promote and idolise charismatic people.
@Pay2winboi
@Pay2winboi 5 жыл бұрын
True
@JohnGeometresMaximos
@JohnGeometresMaximos 4 жыл бұрын
Atheists literally travel half way around the world to visit Lenin's mausoleum and marvel at his mummified corpse.
@drgeorgek
@drgeorgek 4 жыл бұрын
Great point - the first celebrity up go truly viral
@sethflores1680
@sethflores1680 3 жыл бұрын
The serious flaw in humanity is to idolize those that think that they are gods.
@sethflores1680
@sethflores1680 3 жыл бұрын
@@JohnGeometresMaximos yep, and idolize him.
@tim-climber84
@tim-climber84 6 жыл бұрын
I'd like to see Ehrman and Carrier debate. Ehrman seems hand wavy with his points and I'd like to see how Carrier addresses those points in real time
@charlieturk8141
@charlieturk8141 6 жыл бұрын
He won't debate Carrier, because he's too mean...aka correct.
@vonwane
@vonwane 6 жыл бұрын
Here is an interesting article by Carrier on the subject: "Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic": www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10134
@HConstantine
@HConstantine 6 жыл бұрын
Really? you think its more plausible that Paul created Christianity out of the exegesis of an obscure Biblical passage, and there is no need to worry about how, in that case, to explain the existence of Peter and James (and that in Josephus)? You're so over-awed by Bayesian statistics (without understanding) that they seem more powerful to you than evidence?
@ScottyMcYachty
@ScottyMcYachty 6 жыл бұрын
Von Wane Dr. Carrier can get really abrasive and insulting with his arguments. He can be a real jerk. I mean, you can't deny Carrier's knowledge, but Bart deserves just as much respect. The guy knows his stuff.
@vonwane
@vonwane 6 жыл бұрын
Scott Gaines: True, I have not forgotten the Amy Frank/Atheism+ debacle. Seems he was a bit hypocritical. Sometimes egos can cloud the facts concerning the subject in question.
@Imperiused
@Imperiused 6 жыл бұрын
I like Dr. Ehrman. He is a great writer, and his book Misquoting Jesus was an important milestone for me in my journey towards Atheism. But while I do agree that the existence of Jesus is fairly likely, I think Ehrman's dismissal of Mythicists as non-experts with an agenda is unfair. He didn't attempt to address their bigger points at all and just dismisses them out of hand. Definitely makes me keen on siding with Mythicists more.
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
Imperiused He has actually addressed several of the mythicists points on his blog, and in his debate with Price... As far as I know he has never said that Christianity didn't get any inspiration from pagan mythologies - what he, and almost all other university professors in religion, dismiss is the position that there never was a person named Jesus(Yeshua), who was some sort of religious leader and who got executed by Rome! Now personally I'm looking forward to reading his new book, (or if he will touch on the topic in his blog), also to see if he will be touching on whether he consider all similarities with pagan mythologies and the mythological version Jesus got shaped into by the early groups of Christianities, to be completely coincidental or if he think they were inspired. Personally I think it's very likely, after all, that's a pattern we've seen with many other religions....
@humpymcsaddles3696
@humpymcsaddles3696 6 жыл бұрын
i'm still not with the Mythicists but Bart is very heavy handed with the "argument from authority." he doesn't sell his positions very well.
@scottbignell
@scottbignell 6 жыл бұрын
What "bigger points" hasn't he addressed? The overwhelming majority of mythicists are unqualified non-experts with an agenda. There's really only a handful (out of thousands) of scholars who could be considered genuinely qualified mythicists.
@adlerbr12
@adlerbr12 6 жыл бұрын
Dr Richard Carrier knows more about the myth of Jesus then Ehrman ever as and he produces more evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus then Ehrman can produce for the existence of Jesus . I've always said Ehrman is a wolf in sheep's clothing .
@notsoaveragejoe2039
@notsoaveragejoe2039 6 жыл бұрын
Seth Andrews has an awesome speaking voice
@xyshomavazax
@xyshomavazax 6 жыл бұрын
Two of my favorites together at last - I can't wait to get home and watch this!!
@dragonskunkstudio7582
@dragonskunkstudio7582 6 жыл бұрын
Simply put imagine 2000 years from now the question is asked, did L. Ron Hubbard exist? Yes. Believing his existence doesn't make Scientology a truth.
@NieroshaiTheSable
@NieroshaiTheSable 6 жыл бұрын
We have more than hearsay from a cult that didn't form until decades after his supposed death, though. There's no Roman record of the death of Jesus of Nazareth for the crimes of blasphemy or fomenting rebellion, the one historical fact that would separate him from every other Jesus (a common name at the time) involved in the messianic upheaval caused by Roman occupation. We have photos and recordings of Hubbard. Saying Hubbard never existed would be idiotic, saying the ill-recorded origin of a 1st century mystery cult is likely false is just good skepticism.
@dragonskunkstudio7582
@dragonskunkstudio7582 6 жыл бұрын
The point is, does it matter if he existed or not? I'm am comfortable with this unknown and will burn few calories over the subject.
@NieroshaiTheSable
@NieroshaiTheSable 6 жыл бұрын
Not to you, surely. Not to a theoretical world without religion, obviously. But if we're going to argue with theists at all, why is this topic of limits? Of course, this gets into the antitheist vs live-and-let-live atheist debate. It matters to Christians. Question all of their beliefs, fact check everything; otherwise, there's no point debating in the first place.
@catlady9012
@catlady9012 5 жыл бұрын
So true
@mpmh3
@mpmh3 4 жыл бұрын
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
@MilwaukeeAtheists
@MilwaukeeAtheists 6 жыл бұрын
I like Bart. I really do. I've read most of his work and really appreciate the amount of knowledge in his books. But when it comes to the historical Jesus, I just think the arguments are poor. It's fine to disagree and I think it's a valuable discussion to have. But I would like to point out the there are plenty of mythicists that are actual historians. There are also plenty of mythicists that all think Jesus was a myth to varying degrees. Some actually buy into that movie zeitgeist hook, line, and sinker.
@jakekershaw4882
@jakekershaw4882 6 жыл бұрын
Milwaukee Atheists Yeah, and the most frustrating thing is, he shows no curiosity in exploring/debunking mythicism. He trots out these old argumentds and hope it goes away.
@skepticpsychologist5458
@skepticpsychologist5458 6 жыл бұрын
Milwaukee Atheists, I agree with Bart that there is an agenda in the minds of many western atheists in considering Jesus a myth. It's perhaps that dreaded Fallacy of Composition we see so prevalent in humans, and particularly in western societies like America that we fear. Whilst the magical supernatural stuff is nonsense, I can readily accept that there could have been a Jesus person preaching around the years 25-35AD. That he preached Judaism with stoic philosophical ideas popular in that time. And that he was killed for his cult status and blasphemous preaching. These personalities are scattered pervasively throughout history. I can easily imagine a rallying in the months and years after his death, with a pseudo-biographical account of his life and teachings merged with the Torah and various other texts. I can imagine these becoming more grandiose in refinement and answering fans, critics, skeptics and evangelizing to audiences of wider cultures between 45-68AD. Then reaching flashpoint after the destruction of Jerusalem.
@esc952
@esc952 6 жыл бұрын
The thing I have a problem with is his dismissive tone and intellectual arrogance (see the Price debate). He often acts as if he is THE authority and feels no need to prove things. Instead, he just says "it's obvious."
@Dejawolfs
@Dejawolfs 6 жыл бұрын
another possibility is that jesus is a composite character from various people who lived around the time. i find john the baptist quite intriguing in that respect, in that john was killed, an jesus might have been based on john the baptist, and then added to.
@TheLavenderLady
@TheLavenderLady 6 жыл бұрын
@Dejawolfs That's half of my position. I lean toward a mythical Jesus, but also offer that *were* there an itinerant preacher named Jesus running around Judea in the 1st Century CE, he would not recognize himself in the texts purporting to describe him. But, if that is the case, the Jesus of the texts didn't live, either, and we're back to a mythicist position.
@peggysou2
@peggysou2 6 жыл бұрын
Paul said he knew the brother of Jesus. so there! Really?
@juliagulia4197
@juliagulia4197 4 жыл бұрын
Seriously 🤣🙏 sorry sir you did not convince me with that one. So scholarly !
@navarremorgan4821
@navarremorgan4821 6 жыл бұрын
Yaaaaassss. Finally gets to interview Dr. Ehrman.
@mpmh3
@mpmh3 4 жыл бұрын
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
@thinkoutsidethesteeple253
@thinkoutsidethesteeple253 6 жыл бұрын
Another excellent podcast, Seth! Keep opening people's minds.
@coreydonaldson3303
@coreydonaldson3303 6 жыл бұрын
Awesome podcast and very interesting conversation Seth and Bart !
@JohnStopman
@JohnStopman 6 жыл бұрын
I initially misread the title: The _Trump_ of Christianity. That gave me quite the scare :-D
@4urluvjones155
@4urluvjones155 6 жыл бұрын
OMG!! Hahaha! That's funny! How about a book called "The Christianity of Trump"... Any takers??
@JohnStopman
@JohnStopman 6 жыл бұрын
*:-D*
@donnagodfrey1924
@donnagodfrey1924 6 жыл бұрын
I did that too! OMG, shows how Trump has infiltrated our brains! But then, he is the greatest Christian example...........ha ha ha.
@mpmh3
@mpmh3 4 жыл бұрын
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
@JohnStopman
@JohnStopman 4 жыл бұрын
@@mpmh3 Repeating stuff doesn't make it real. At all.
@rajanogray9088
@rajanogray9088 6 жыл бұрын
I would love to see a debate between Ehrman and Carrier.
@rajanogray9088
@rajanogray9088 6 жыл бұрын
zombiesingularity ok, disagreeing with someone's position is one thing, but if you are going to accuse that person of a crime, i want to see evidence. You know, the same thing i want to see when someone says a deity exists.
@zombiesingularity
@zombiesingularity 6 жыл бұрын
Rajano Gray I assumed everyone was familiar with the public accusations against him.
@rajanogray9088
@rajanogray9088 6 жыл бұрын
zombiesingularity ok, i am relatively new to the world of atheist KZbin videos. I have seen many of his talks on youtube and i bought his book "on the historicity of Jesus." I have never heard of these accusations. Could you please provide a link?
@rajanogray9088
@rajanogray9088 6 жыл бұрын
Myles Davidson hmm, it would seem to me (if Ehrman is in the right) that a debate would be the perfect place to set the record straight.
@MrDwicker
@MrDwicker 6 жыл бұрын
As an atheist, I really don't care if Jesus was a real person. He certainly wasn't the son of a man made god that will forgive you of your sins. I also don't believe in ghosts.
@samuelmaresvevoo2088
@samuelmaresvevoo2088 6 жыл бұрын
Dennis Wicker you're so close minded, of course Jesus lived, he was spreading love and truth.
@MrDwicker
@MrDwicker 6 жыл бұрын
I think what you really mean he was spreading BULLSHIT!!!!!
@samuelmaresvevoo2088
@samuelmaresvevoo2088 6 жыл бұрын
Dennis Wicker you will go to hell
@MrDwicker
@MrDwicker 6 жыл бұрын
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. If this is love I'll see you hell.
@samuelmaresvevoo2088
@samuelmaresvevoo2088 6 жыл бұрын
Dennis Wicker I'm sorry
@JustSomeGuy
@JustSomeGuy 6 жыл бұрын
You finally got Ehrman! Nicely done!
@eddieking2976
@eddieking2976 6 жыл бұрын
Ehrman vs Carrier 2018. Make it happen:-)
@ericjohnson6665
@ericjohnson6665 3 жыл бұрын
From paper 195: "195:6.9 The materialistic sociologist of today surveys a community, makes a report thereon, and leaves the people as he found them. Nineteen hundred years ago, unlearned Galileans surveyed Jesus giving his life as a spiritual contribution to man's inner experience and then went out and turned the whole Roman Empire upside down."
@Phi1618033
@Phi1618033 6 жыл бұрын
How long have we all been waiting for this interview?
@johnmacdonald2112
@johnmacdonald2112 6 жыл бұрын
I think the simpler explanation as to why Christianity went from a forbidden religion to the official religion of the Roman empire is that the Roman elite saw how devout the Christians remained under persecution, and figured that this kind of attitude would be wonderful for the general population to have. It’s analogous to the thinking of the legendary second king of Rome Numa Pompilius. Regarding Numa Pompilius, Livy wrote: “And fearing lest relief from anxiety on the score of foreign perils might lead men who had hitherto been held back by fear of their enemies and by military discipline into extravagance and idleness, he (Numa) thought the very first thing to do, as being the most efficacious with a populace which was ignorant and, in those early days, uncivilized, was to imbue them with the fear of Heaven. As he could not instil this into their hearts without inventing some marvellous story, he PRETENDED to have nocturnal meetings with the goddess Egeria, and that hers was the advice which guided him in the establishment of rites most approved by the gods, and in the appointment of special priests for the service of each.” (Livy 1 19).” Plutarch also suggests that Numa played on superstition to give himself an aura of awe and divine allure, in order to cultivate more gentle behaviours among the warlike early Romans, such as honoring the gods, abiding by law, behaving humanely to enemies, and living proper, respectable lives (see Plutarch, “The parallel lives, Numa Pompilius, §VIII”). We also see the elites viewing religion as "useful" with Ptolemy I. Serapis (Σέραπις, Attic/Ionian Greek) or Sarapis (Σάραπις, Doric Greek), was cleverly instituted as a Graeco-Egyptian god. The Cult of Serapis was strategically introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. The elites of the Roman empire may simply have slowly phased in Christianity after seeing how devout the Christians remained under persecution, and thought this would be an excellent attitude/crutch for the masses to have. In fact, Paul may have converted when he made a similar realization when he was persecuting Christians.
@uncleanunicorn4571
@uncleanunicorn4571 6 жыл бұрын
If Ehrman's sources really were good enough to firmly establish an historic Jesus, he wouldn't need to invent hypothetical ones as he does in his book. Early Christians called lots of people 'brother' and 'sister' who were clearly not related. We can't rule out fictive kinship. Also, in Galatians - Paul has no respect for these supposed Brothers of Jesus who supposedly grew up with him, learned from him, shared the bathroom with him, "Who they are means nothing to me." How could you say that about people related to your lord and master? You could if they became Apostles just like Paul did; through hallucination*cough* - revelation, and scripture.
@Pattycake1974
@Pattycake1974 6 жыл бұрын
Here’s where scholars really need to explain what they mean by independent sources. The Gospel authors wrote from different areas of the world as evidenced by their individual dialects. Matthew has the sheep and the goat story, but the other Gospels do not. Why don’t they? Because that particular source most likely wasn’t available to the others. There’s no reason not to include it theologically. Luke states “several” drew up an account, so even he said there were sources floating around. The redacting and copying from others theory is unlikely because of the writers wrote in different geographic locations at different times and show they don’t know each other with their contradictory stories.
@Pattycake1974
@Pattycake1974 6 жыл бұрын
Paul says he stayed with Peter for fifteen days and saw none of the other apostles EXCEPT for James, the Lord’s brother. If James was a spiritual brother then so was Peter. It doesn’t make sense to say he stayed with Peter, the Lord’s brother and saw none of the other apostles except for James, the Lord’s brother. If they’re both spiritual brothers, why point out James at all? Because he wasn’t a spiritual brother, he was a biological brother.
@bumpinugly4985
@bumpinugly4985 6 жыл бұрын
Patty Floyd I think, don't quote me here, but I remember Josephus mentioning a James brother of Jesus in the context of peasant religious leaders. Think so...
@cyberpunk33
@cyberpunk33 6 жыл бұрын
FANTASTIC SETH
@rev.j.rogerallen9328
@rev.j.rogerallen9328 6 жыл бұрын
Ehrman is slowly becoming more historically accurate. He and Andrews both were raised as fundamental ist
@soslothful
@soslothful 2 жыл бұрын
You are implying Dr. Ehrman has erred in the past. Where has he done so?
@oker59
@oker59 6 жыл бұрын
What Paul figured out(and, really, Philo of Alexandria before him), was that midrash made his sungod more legitimate than the other sungods.
@catherine_404
@catherine_404 6 жыл бұрын
Having listened to Dr. Ehrman's lectures I assume this is GOOD even before listening )
@mpmh3
@mpmh3 4 жыл бұрын
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
@jsull81
@jsull81 6 жыл бұрын
Now I'm a Layman so excuse me if I get this wrong but at 25:00 minutes in when Bart says history is about probabilities not certainties or something like that, he seems to be insinuating that science is about certainty which is absolutely false. From my understanding, science acknowledges that they can know nothing for absolute certainty. which is why there is nothing higher in science than a theorem. So it would seem to me that science is about probability as well, no? But I know nothing, so...
@brendarua01
@brendarua01 6 жыл бұрын
You're right J. Dare I say absolutely right?
@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself
@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself 6 жыл бұрын
I don't think he is insinuating that. Science is also based on probabilities. History, as it is done today, tries to be as scientific as possible. History mostly uses written evidence, but also cross references with anthropology, archeology, etc. Either way, the best we can do is look at the evidence available and make probability statements - for history or science.
@ShannonGrover
@ShannonGrover 6 жыл бұрын
Likely it was also just easier to have one god to ask everything from, rather than to ask the god who was in charge of whatever to pray to. Also, Catholics kept more of the old ways of praying to multiple gods. They just made it multiple saints.
@penseforadacaixa8138
@penseforadacaixa8138 6 жыл бұрын
I believe that Jesus existed, because nobody would die for an unreal person. And many people, in early christianity and after, gave their lives because of their fatih.
@anrose8335
@anrose8335 4 жыл бұрын
At 4:51 is Dr. Ehrman's speech seems deliberately edited to sounded garbled in order to obscure at least two important words describing his take on the New Testament. It's as though, in my opinion, some Christian authority wished to censor his take. However one of the words does sound like "contradictions" which makes sense there.
@tinksis57
@tinksis57 6 жыл бұрын
Great discussion Seth.
@TheRhinehart86
@TheRhinehart86 6 жыл бұрын
Funny for him to talk about agendas when the majoroty of bible scholars, including himself, are either Christian and/or employed by Christian organizations. Every time Erhman is asked about mythicism all he has is the brother of the lord thing and the fact that most bible scholars believe he existed. He's never actually adressed any of Richard Carrier's arguments. He's not very convincing.
@HConstantine
@HConstantine 6 жыл бұрын
Erhman is an atheist and is employed by a secular university.
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
TheRhinehart86 Ehrman, (who's an atheist, teaching at a Secular University), hold the same position that the majority of Religious Scholars from any respected University hold, no matter if they are atheists or "believers"! Carrier belongs to a fringe group of mythicist who can't even agree among themselves on what the mythicist position actually is!
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
TheRhinehart86 Oh, and Erhman actually did a debate with Price who's a mythicist as well! And he has touched on the arguments made by the mythicists on his blog....
@Sextus666
@Sextus666 6 жыл бұрын
"all he has is the brother of the lord thing" That is not "all he has". It's just a quick example that he often uses because it's pretty obvious that it makes sense that Jesus existed if he had a brother. Ehrman has actually addressed many of Carrier's arguments and he tackled more of them in his debate with Price. Even Mythicists (including Carrier) had to admit he wiped the floor with Price. As for Carrier's weak arguments on the "brother of the Lord" references, you can find a detailed debunking of them here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
@benjamindover187
@benjamindover187 6 жыл бұрын
Tim O'Neill: Humm,, that doesn't seem to be true. You have already been debunked on other threads here.. What's your agenda? Remember this post? CARRIER: Ehrman falsely claims in his book that there are no hyper-specialized historians of ancient Christianity who doubt the historicity of Jesus. So I named one: Arthur Droge, a sitting professor of early Christianity (previously at UCSD; now at the University of Toronto). And of those who do not meet Ehrman’s irrationally specific criteria but who are certainly qualified, we can now add Kurt Noll, a sitting professor of religion at Brandon University (as I already noted in my review of Is This Not the Carpenter) and Thomas Brodie, a retired professor of biblical studies (as I noted elsewhere). Combined with myself (Richard Carrier) and Robert Price, as fully qualified independent scholars, and Thomas Thompson, a retired professor of some renown, that is more than a handful of well-qualified scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field, who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus. Most recently, Hector Avalos, a sitting professor of religion at Iowa State University, has also declared his agnosticism about historicity as well. And now Raphael Lataster joins the ranks of historicity-doubting experts, with a Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Sydney. That makes eight fully qualified experts on the record, three of them sitting professors, plus two retired professors, and three independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record. We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point, like Philip Davies (professor emeritus of biblical studies at Sheffield University) and Zeba Crook (professor of religious studies at Carleton University).
@ShannonGrover
@ShannonGrover 6 жыл бұрын
Jesus as a man who became a legend? Yes. I agree. It can and does happen.
@spoddie
@spoddie 6 жыл бұрын
28:20 Previously he said that history is not like science, you can't get a consensus from repeated experiments. But then he uses astronomy as an analogy, you want to know about astronomy, you ask an astronomer. Except they largely agree, historians don't. This guy isn't very convincing.
@scottbignell
@scottbignell 6 жыл бұрын
Historians largely agree that there was a Historical Jesus.
@davidfrisken1617
@davidfrisken1617 6 жыл бұрын
+scottbignell. You mean, "Christian Biblical Scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus".
@Musiclover-uo2oi
@Musiclover-uo2oi 5 жыл бұрын
To say we wouldn't have had culture without Christianity is just foolish. There are incredible works of fiction, art, and music that have nothing to do with God. Past artists would have simply painted or written music about nature, love, or scientific advancements, which are all awe inspiring. Plus, all those millions who died in the name of the Christian God would not have been killed. I think his arguments are fallacious.
@ŚmiemWątpić
@ŚmiemWątpić 6 жыл бұрын
Did I mention that I love Bart? ❤️🧡💜💚
@JohnStopman
@JohnStopman 6 жыл бұрын
Honesty and integrity deserves mucho love *^_^*
@myprecious27
@myprecious27 6 жыл бұрын
Yeah, most of his books are great.
@coweatsman
@coweatsman 6 жыл бұрын
I disagree with Bart on the existence of a historical Jesus. It just seems highly unlikely that no historian spoke of Jesus in the time of Jesus if Jesus had existed. Not Philo and not Justus of Tiberias.
@Sextus666
@Sextus666 6 жыл бұрын
Philo wasn't a "historian" and he made no mention of any other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or messianic claimants like Jesus, so the fact he doesn't mention this one tells us zero about whether he existed. Philo also doesn't mention all kinds of other people of the time who we are pretty sure existed, so "not mentioned by Philo" isn't a sufficient criterion. As for Justus, we have no idea how interested he was in peasant preachers like Jesus because his works don't survive, so we can't assess how significant his lack of a mention of Jesus may be. And that leaves ... no historians or other writers working at around the time Jesus would have been active. So I'm afraid your assessment is not based on a solid grasp of the evidence. This is why smart people listen to people like Ehrman and not random nobodies on the internet.
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
coweatsman Why would they have mentioned an at the time completely insignificant religious guy with a small following? Jesus first became "somebody" after he was dead! Much like most artists as my dad used to say....
@davidfrisken1617
@davidfrisken1617 6 жыл бұрын
"Christianity was going to take over the empire" - No, it was a growing religion. It got a privileged position, and the legal right to persecute those who disagreed.
@Chasee445
@Chasee445 6 жыл бұрын
I wish he talked more about the relationship between Paul and James. Did they believe the same kind of Christianity?
@Calgacus7
@Calgacus7 6 жыл бұрын
Bart Ehrman is probobly one of my most favorit biblical historians right now, my second favorit is probobly Francesca Stavrakopoulou, she focuses more on the old testament, like the historical kingdom of Isreal, the story of Genisis, and the Exodus. She has a really good BBC documentary series called "Bible's Buried Secrets." I think you can watch all episodes on KZbin for free.
@davidfrisken1617
@davidfrisken1617 6 жыл бұрын
Jake, that is the wrong title. I know the one you mean and it is 3 episodes.
@Calgacus7
@Calgacus7 6 жыл бұрын
David. That's the title it gives on the BBC website. And its on the three episodes on YT.
@davidfrisken1617
@davidfrisken1617 6 жыл бұрын
You tube is why I thought you were wrong. They are a PBS version, and she is not in them. I think I still have the BBC version recorded from when it was broadcast locally. Same name two docos. The BBC version is on Dailymotion. www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ik5kv Edit: just cjhecked again and I see no BBC on YT - I might be geo blocked. Funny thing is I found yet another doco with the same name from Nat Geo.
@DocZom
@DocZom 6 жыл бұрын
At about the 26:00 mark, Dr. Ehrman talks about the sources available to Paul and the sources available to the Gospel writers. He cannot know this because none of them cited sources. Even assuming for sake of discussion that there were indeed the seven or so sources available, how does he know that the writers knew them? How does he know there was not a single early source that all of them derive from, which is something he denies?
@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084
@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084 10 күн бұрын
when Bart said he went to bible college and wanted to go wherever the evidence led him, wouldn't Christians say ''well that means he thinks he knows better than God, cos he left the faith''? Don't get me wrong, I agree he's done the rational thing, as i'm atheist myself.
@theofulk5636
@theofulk5636 6 жыл бұрын
What Christians should be asked is, what difference is there between Jesus and Zeus? They "came from above", have 12 followers, can come in whatever form they want, can heal, can do wonders of various kinds, etc. Zeus "existed" as in historical certainty, but few would make the leap of Illogicality, "Zeus was therefore a man." Syncretism is the Mystery of 'godliness'
@FalaPedal
@FalaPedal 6 жыл бұрын
Very nice video, it is important to have an open mind otherwise we become fundamentalists too.
@gageblackwood8832
@gageblackwood8832 6 жыл бұрын
"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum."- Thomas Paine
@gageblackwood8832
@gageblackwood8832 6 жыл бұрын
Not Art Vandelay. Thank you for fact checking this. I was not aware that it was attributed to Ellis. I also rechecked and found it attributed to both online by various sources. Quotefancy, Sayquotable, Brainyquote, and azquotes attribute it to Paine. But Izquotes, and ffrf.org and other sites say it was Ellis!
@stevepolanco9887
@stevepolanco9887 4 жыл бұрын
Give me the God of Christmas, the God of love, the God of an innocent child in a manager, who comes to bring salvation and wholeness to the world, the way it was always meant to be.”-Bart Ehrman
@wobblyeyez
@wobblyeyez 6 жыл бұрын
Not one person questions the existence of Napoleon for example, there's more evidence of His(jesus /yeshua ) existence than any other person in history! Our calendar is dated in reference to His existence. Much love x
@emordnilaps
@emordnilaps 2 жыл бұрын
I'm only ten minutes into this, but might I posit that the break between Greek and Roman gods and this new god is a great chasm. The old gods did not tell humans how to act. They only demanded sacrifices and laudations. See the Iliad for examples of how and why the old gods chose to intervene. The new god created rules by which "his" people needed to live, act, and even think (covetousness). The old gods could not have cared less what you did or with whom you did it as long as you gave them the proper sacrifices.
@takispapas9887
@takispapas9887 4 жыл бұрын
I actually think Constantine was more realist. Because of the civil war, and because he killed all his opponents for the throne, he was very little popular in Rome and among the old elite, political and religious. Of course Rome was not the only centre of the empire anymore, which he also saw and wanted to continue. That's one of the main reasons he also founded New Rome, Constantinople. So a new monotheistic religion, which had spread quite a lot through the eastern provinces, seemed like a perfect opportunity, a mean to pursue his ultimate goal: to reunite the empire under his dynasty's rule. By the way that s what we were taught in high school in Greece.
@malvanlondon8683
@malvanlondon8683 6 жыл бұрын
Awesome! It finally happened!
@oker59
@oker59 6 жыл бұрын
I like Derek Murphy's account of how christianity conquered all in his Harry Christ Jesus Potter
@mikev1212
@mikev1212 6 жыл бұрын
It seems to me that the question of whether or not there was a real person or not is not that important but rather that certain events, characteristics, legends, etc. current at that time were all attributed to an individual as being real history. Ehrman mentioned one other such individual, Apollonius of Tyana in his book "How Jesus Became God".
@grisflyt
@grisflyt 6 жыл бұрын
Much of what I write here comes from the excellent BBC Four A History of Christianity documentary. Highly recommended. The success of Christianity isn’t that surprising. The masculine Roman mythologies had little to offer women. Worse yet, the hyper-masculine Norse mythologies, where dying in battle was the only way to get to Asgard. The cowards who were shameless enough to die from natural causes went to Hel. Here comes the feminine religion of Christianity, which promises that the last will be first. A religion that venerates weakness, not strength. Blessed are the poor. (Of course, the women were not aware of the misogyny in the religion. Women in Viking-age Scandinavia had it better before Christianity arrived. Women could own land in the Promised Land of Iceland. That was taken away from them when Christianity arrived.) Another important thing is Heaven and Hell, which makes the cost of not accepting Jesus as your personal savior extremely high. It was the women/mothers who made Christianity a success. They used their homes as make-shift churches. It’s the same today. It’s the grand/mothers who keeps traditions like Christmas and Thanksgiving alive. Equally important was the Christians’ complete disregard for life. The turning point for Christianity came with the Antonine Plague. The other Roman citizens avoided the people who had been contaminated by the plague. It may not actually have been the plague, but the sick were avoided regardless. The Christians were the exception. They did not fear the plague. They did not fear sickness of the flesh. Christians feared only the sickness of the soul. The other Romans saw the Christians care for the sick and their suspicion turned to admiration. Christians in Rome were not persecuted for being Christian. The instructions from the emperor was that officials could only act against the Christians if they caused social unrest. And the Christians certainly did. The Romans did not care what gods you believed in as long as you took part in the Roman “religious” festivities. (There was no distinction between religious and secular festivities. They were Roman.) These things were what made you a Roman. Not taking part in a paranoid empire made you suspicious of being anti-Roman or a subversive. One thing the Christians could not partake in was animal sacrifice. Jesus was the final sacrifice. Any sacrifice after that was sacrilege. Then you have the gathering at people’s homes. “Secret” gatherings like this not only made you suspicious, it was outright illegal. The fire brigades were disbanded in Rome for this very reason. The Romans did not want to kill Roman Christians. As Romans, you had rights. People killed at the Coliseum were foreigners/enemies (POWs) and criminals. These spectacles were about showing Roman superiority. The Christians not only welcomed martyrdom, they sought it out. One Roman official was so fed up by Christians seeking martyrdom that he told them that if they want to die so much, why don’t you head out in the woods and hang yourselves from a tree?
@baghdeda
@baghdeda 2 жыл бұрын
There are alot of contradictions in your comment. - Saying that Romans didn't care about your religion as long as you participate in their religious festivals and give offers to their gods is like saying the Vatican doesn't care in what god you believe as long as you celebrate Christmas and Easter and fast the Lent. - You wrote about Christians complete disregard for life yet you mentioned that unlike Romans, Christians care for the sick. I wonder who has more respect for life the one who cares for the sick or the one who leve them die alone? - About the Colosseum, tens of thousands of Christians were thrown to lions there, do you think that non of them was a Roman citizen? - the fact that Christians of Rome were gathering secretly proves that they were persecuted because of their religion. In other parts of the Roman empire, in the periphery and outside the empire Christians could freely gather in places where everybody has access to. - What the Roman official wrote shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of martyrdom. Committing suicide won't make you a martyr, sacrificing yourself for the sake of others and for the sake of your faith will.
@grisflyt
@grisflyt 2 жыл бұрын
@@baghdeda The point I was trying to make is that the Christians were not persecuted for being Christians, but for not partaking in things that made you a Roman. The Christians drew suspicion for holding meetings in their homes, serving as makeshift churches. The secretive meetings, not the Christian, were the cause of suspicion. Disregard for their own lives, not that of others. As said, the Christians did not fear the sickness of the flesh, only the sickness of the soul. It was an important event because it changed the people's view of the Christians. From one of suspicion to one of admiration. I never said they weren't. It was the fact that they were Romans that was the problem. As Romans you have rights. The Romans would have had no compulsions if the Christians had been non-Romans. The Colosseum was about displaying the superiority of Rome and Romans. It was basically a slaughterhouse. Of course, Christians being portrayed as enemies of Rome could be slaughtered along with foreigners and prisoners of war. The Romans most likely didn't care what Christianity and martyrdom are. And Christianity back then was basically a just a bunch of independent sects. There were all kinds of crazy going on.
@realitychannelwithtomparos8238
@realitychannelwithtomparos8238 6 жыл бұрын
This issue with Jesus is one of the reasons I turned atheist.I just didn't know what to believe anymore.I viewed several Richard Carrier videos which led me become an atheist.
@rev.j.rogerallen9328
@rev.j.rogerallen9328 6 жыл бұрын
Erhman is getting more historically accurate. He still had a number of inaccuracies in his research. The early followers of Jesus were not illiterate. Constantine was an Arian heretic. He was finally baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop. He did favor Christianity but he did not make it the official religion of the empire as Erhman correctly points out. Also, his historical method is getting better.
@JSR703
@JSR703 6 жыл бұрын
I think it not impossible that a MAN Jesus lived, but I do think that the stories about him grew in the telling, so much so that the New Testament has very little to do with his actual life.
@MrDigztheswagking
@MrDigztheswagking 6 жыл бұрын
Jesus the Myth sure he Existed 😂😂
@mpmh3
@mpmh3 4 жыл бұрын
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
@savethehumans910
@savethehumans910 4 жыл бұрын
@Niko Bellic That is irrelevant. Science has no authorities. Facts count. At first sight, I would say that Cerrier has penetrated deeper into the matter and calculated the probability more precisely. And he is much more critical. "Forgery was the norm" Here we say: You don't believe a liar. So the evidence must be very strong to believe anything in the bible.
@MyITRcom
@MyITRcom 6 жыл бұрын
It fits the term cult perfectly by the modern definition as well as he evades.
@clintoncollum838
@clintoncollum838 6 жыл бұрын
Wow, I spoke to Erhman right before he released his book and he admitted that there was no conclusive evidence of Jesus actually existing. He just felt the question was to important not to answer. His evidence is basically, "I accept what Paul said about Jesus existing, even though he never met him, but not what Paul said about his divinity. Does he also believe Paul's claim of the 500 witnesses. Also, to say his sources are biased is an understatement.
@clintoncollum838
@clintoncollum838 6 жыл бұрын
*too
@Pattycake1974
@Pattycake1974 6 жыл бұрын
Why are his sources biased?
@deanbrunson259
@deanbrunson259 6 жыл бұрын
The triumph of the early Christians was inspiring and convincing people that they were so special that they have two lives, rather than just the one... and that salvation and the promised resurrection was at hand. Once the Roman Emperor got the bug, Christianity was off and running. The worst, most far reaching decision, the negative effects of which will continue until the delusion of resurrection is dispelled, was the making of Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.
@welshmanwelshman5633
@welshmanwelshman5633 6 жыл бұрын
prof bart ur a great source of informations
@davidgould9431
@davidgould9431 6 жыл бұрын
26:36 (or thereabouts) "and they didn't have access to Paul". Yeah, right. And how do you know that, exactly?
@BrickworksDK
@BrickworksDK 6 жыл бұрын
You can find plenty of people talking about Harry Potter, does that mean he's a real person? Sorry, but I remain entirely unconvinced by Ehrman's arguments.
@chrisvargas5328
@chrisvargas5328 6 жыл бұрын
Allan Johansen Totally agree👍
@billsugden3734
@billsugden3734 6 жыл бұрын
@Falcon I take your point in principle, but look t some of the Harry Potter fan and analysis sitesand they look like a religion in embryo.
@pig5267
@pig5267 5 жыл бұрын
Allan Johansen everyone knows harry potter is a novel written by rowling, idiot.
@dandurand4423
@dandurand4423 5 жыл бұрын
Only simple or intellectually lazy if not atrified minded people can even begin to "think" that is even a plausible notion. Be like me saying you are a figment of my imagination even though I read something you wrote; you're just an internet anomally or a bot trying to get me to believe you exist as a person. The old testament- which has been proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls to have exceptional fidelity throughout it's texts and MILLENIA and an excellent historical track record- speaks of thing you wouldn't understand because you "believe" youre a soulless hunk of randomly thrown together materials. You "believe" there is no "Spirit" that resides in your flesh; you "believe" yourself to be nothing more than an electro-chemo meatbag that's sole purpose is to acquire goods, services and sex and may the strongest fastest smartest conquer the weak at whatever cost. Because of you're brainwashing and mesmerizement by all things "tech" you will fall under a powerful delusion that AI and "aliens" will save mankind so you can continue the assinine, inane and insane fantasy of a Godless soulless universe. There's an RFIDebit chip/card/password with your, and everyone else's, name on it already. Why would you refuse something that was only mentioned in some Book you refuse to believe or has any basis in reality- though reality is becoming more like the "story" in that Book. Just another thing you don't understand. Unless or until it happens. And then maybe too late..
@dandurand4423
@dandurand4423 5 жыл бұрын
Just as everyone at the time knew Jesus was a real person; that other real persons died telling the world about: and later persons went on to change the official stance of a brutal empire. No sense pointing out the obvious to the obviously pointedly nonsensical. They become dismissive for no reason than the dismissed lack of thought on their part. Tit for tat psychopathy. An issue of narcissism of their ignorance..
@drgeorgek
@drgeorgek 4 жыл бұрын
What.... no mention of the armadillo grill?!? 😂🥳👏😁🤔
@Roedygr
@Roedygr 6 жыл бұрын
There is so very little evidence to consider to determine the historicity of Jesus, what you mainly need is to discover how reliable each piece is. Then it is obvious you would not believe a similar story with similar evidence in a secular setting.
@chrisrigney507
@chrisrigney507 6 жыл бұрын
So who's correct: this guy or all of the other scholars who say he probably didn't?
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
Chris Rigney "All the other scholars who say he probably didn't" Well, it's kind of funny, because it seems like you have a huge misconception about what the majority of religious scholars hold as position on this question.... There's a tiny fringe group of mythicists, who think there never was a person named Jesus(Yeshua), who was some sort of religious leader for a small group of people, and who got executed by the Romans - but almost every religious scholar, from any respected university, atheists as well as "believers", hold the position that this Jesus guy existed! But I understand that if you spend to much time in the echo chamber of KZbin atheism, you might be thinking that people like Carrier or Price represent a greater group of scholars than they actually do! What Erhman is presenting is the census, he is just better at communicating it than most of his colleagues in the field - which is why he's such a popular author....
@thomaspyke2177
@thomaspyke2177 5 жыл бұрын
Ia this the guy Richard Carrier says how he analyzed and considered reliable sources rather flawed?
@Grim_Beard
@Grim_Beard 6 жыл бұрын
As good a scholar as he is, Ehrman makes the school-boy error of treating the claim as the evidence when it comes to the existence of Jesus. For example, around 23:50 where he uses Paul referring to knowing Jesus' brother as evidence that it's "quite obvious" that Jesus existed. Paul's writings are the claim, not the evidence - using Paul as evidence for the existence of Jesus is circular reasoning, and Ehrman should know better.
@scottbignell
@scottbignell 6 жыл бұрын
You're confusing "proof" with "evidence". Paul's writings count as evidence.
@MarchofTyranny
@MarchofTyranny 6 жыл бұрын
Making up a story about knowing Jesus' brother would be a weird thing to fabricate as it would unnecessarily complicate the doctrine around Mary's virginity. If the story of Jesus is made from whole cloth seems odd to invent a brother. It's like the baptism of Jesus. If he never existed why create a story about him being baptised? He's the son of god, why does he need to be baptised? He was born without sin. Even if he really didn't know James, the fact that he felt the need to say he did means that there very well could have been such a person and he wanted to link himself with this individual.
@Grim_Beard
@Grim_Beard 6 жыл бұрын
Aromaki "If he never existed why make up a story about him being baptized?" Is that a serious question? To convince people that he existed. The same way a high-school kid would make up details about his fictional girlfriend who definitely exists but she lives in Canada so his friends can't meet her. The same goes for making up a brother and so on. Once again, Paul's writings are the _claim_ not the evidence. There is no evidence supporting the claim, so there is no reason to accept it. There are also very good reasons to reject it - read Richard Carrier's, Raphael Lataster's, or David Fitzgerald's work, for example.
@scottbignell
@scottbignell 6 жыл бұрын
Paul had serious disagreements with Jesus' brother. Paul was pissed that James sent men to check up on him. Seems unlikely this detail was made up "to convince people that Jesus existed".
@davidfrisken1617
@davidfrisken1617 6 жыл бұрын
+Aromaki. The concept of the virgin birth came many years after Paul. Bart makes a point of how Paul appears unaware of all of the later myths.
@johnwassing7733
@johnwassing7733 6 жыл бұрын
How did christ get into our dating system?
@ericjohnson6665
@ericjohnson6665 3 жыл бұрын
Well, the pitch for a one God, also involved the promise of eternal life, which the pagan religions couldn't offer. Whose story is better than whose? (Personally, I like a Pete Seeger line from his version of Old Time Religion: "We will pray to Aphrodite, she's beautiful though flighty, in her silken see-through nighty, she's good enough for me." - I don't actually pray to her, as the Divine Father is my guy, but I do like her archetype!)
@scooterboy3676
@scooterboy3676 6 жыл бұрын
Argument from authority, "I don't listen to what people have to say if they don't have a degree."
@Pattycake1974
@Pattycake1974 6 жыл бұрын
Scooter Boy He’s saying the person needs to be educated in the subject matter. That’s common sense not a fallacy.
@scooterboy3676
@scooterboy3676 6 жыл бұрын
You don't have to have a degree to be informed on a particular matter. Did Newton have a degree in cosmology?I stand by my statement.
@Pattycake1974
@Pattycake1974 6 жыл бұрын
Scooter Boy Newton was educated and a genius. Most of us are not geniuses. I do understand where you’re coming from though.
@tabularasa0606
@tabularasa0606 6 жыл бұрын
Question: Was there a historical Jesus if the guy that the myths are based upon was named Bart?
@Down-the-Rabbit-Hole-I-Go
@Down-the-Rabbit-Hole-I-Go 6 жыл бұрын
I always enjoy the discussions- especially this one. I have a question I would ike to know how to intelligently discuss. Apparently Paul (Saul) was alive when Jesus was alive- I'd like to hear some thoughts on why Jesus never mentioned Paul to his disciples (especially if his writings and books were to make up most of the New Testament) - Jesus never even visited Paul. This is a HUGE hole I have not heard any theologians comment on- it seems kind of a deal breaker as I mention it to current Christians (I am a former Christian). Thank you.
@fedup2476
@fedup2476 6 жыл бұрын
The only part about this historian is that without the Christian religion he would not have work. So, that means he has to justify his point of view and try to keep religion.
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
Richard Presley The man is an outspoken atheist! I don't think that Christianity suddenly is going to disappear, especially not in the US. At least, through his job, he is trying to open the minds of young Christians who take his class because they think they already know the topic - which they quickly find out that they don't....
@Oswlek
@Oswlek 6 жыл бұрын
Good interview. Ehrman is always an edifying listen. That said, he had one pithy statement that rang alarms in my head, something to the effect of, _"all historians except mythicists think Jesus was a real man."_ First, this is a tautology and would be true even if 80% of historians were mythicists. More important, I couldn't help think that it wasn't long ago when Ehrman's position would have been similarly dismissed as being a fringe minority. I have no doubt that Bart has good reasons to think Jesus was a real man, but he didn't present them well here, IMO.
@Pattycake1974
@Pattycake1974 6 жыл бұрын
Oswlek He wasn’t in a debate here. It’s about his book not mythicism.
@Oswlek
@Oswlek 6 жыл бұрын
Granted, but it's still a surprisingly sloppy line for someone who has is practiced in succinct delivery.
@NieroshaiTheSable
@NieroshaiTheSable 6 жыл бұрын
The argument basically boils down to "Of course we shouldn't believe Jesus was divine just because of hearsay. By the way, members of the Jesus cult claim to have personally known Jesus; this is OBVIOUSLY true."
@brianvance1178
@brianvance1178 6 жыл бұрын
If he knew what he was getting into, I bet money that Constantine wouldn’t have become a christard at all
@nativeatheist6422
@nativeatheist6422 6 жыл бұрын
Valentine Erindros Lol
@productivediscord5624
@productivediscord5624 6 жыл бұрын
How do you know the authors of the gospel didn't share sources when it is unknown who they were. I just googled this to double check myself and the first result for me was (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693) where Dr. Ehrman talks about this very issue. According to my friend Paul( who I just now made up but claims to be a witness to things decades before his birth) it doesn't help to cite someone when you can't tell where they got their information.
@HConstantine
@HConstantine 6 жыл бұрын
There appears to be an LCL and an OCT (less certain) volume on the shelf behind him.
@okaro6595
@okaro6595 6 жыл бұрын
He seems to assume the Gospels are mostly true. The mythicist position is that they are totally fictitious so the fact that Paul started a few years after supposed death of Jesus is not a problem. Lets view Corinthians 1 15: "that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, " At first glance this describes what is written in the Acts. However, he talks Cephas (Peter) and the twelve as they were separate entities. Also according to acts the follower of Judas was not yet selected. Somehow it seems logical that the Acts was written to match this.
@1p6t1gms
@1p6t1gms 6 жыл бұрын
Is that an accurate representation of facial likeness on the book?
@ronjohnson4566
@ronjohnson4566 6 жыл бұрын
because people said they knew Jesus's brother and many were talking about him in just a few years, that convinces mr. ehrman that JC was a real man. ...... That pretty much settles it for me. Joesph Smith did find the golden plates and translated them behind a curtain. All that he said was true because not only did they know is family they actually knew JS. People talked about him and his tablets all the way to Utah and they were on foot. Now that is convincing.
@exzoro8193
@exzoro8193 6 жыл бұрын
This interview again makes the case why "mythicism" is the better explanation.
@Yeiyn343
@Yeiyn343 6 жыл бұрын
You are Ex Sunni? Me too. I was a Muslim convert for 4 years, and left a few months ago.
@exzoro8193
@exzoro8193 6 жыл бұрын
Kendall A Born into a muslim family. Left twenty years ago.
@Yeiyn343
@Yeiyn343 6 жыл бұрын
Wow. That's amazing. I think I spoke to you on another video before. I remember the "20 years" part. Welcome to freedom of the mind. :-)
@dogmahacker8278
@dogmahacker8278 6 жыл бұрын
At the 8:53 mark - That's one of the faults of the Bible that caught my attention while I was still a Christian. The Bible was constantly telling us that other tribes were worshiping dead gods and the argument the Bible would use was that all they worshiped were idols made of wood, therefore they were worshiping dead wood. Even at a young age this caught me as a complete caricature or foolish miss-understanding on the Bibles part of how other cultures functioned or perceived things. No one was worshiping the actual wooden figure stupid. It was a representation or a place holder of a god that existed elsewhere and still felt alive to those people in their daily lives. Kinda like, you know, the Ark of the Covenant. How can the Bible criticize people for bowing to dead objects when for most of the Bible's history Hebrews bowed to a dead box?
@gageblackwood8832
@gageblackwood8832 6 жыл бұрын
Great point! I was taught the same nonsense in Hebrew school. The Jewish scriptures make out the followers of pagan polytheistic religions to be complete morons who don't even realize that wooden and metal statues can't hear them. Yet they were somehow still smart enough to build the pyramids, Parthenon and aqueducts!
@dogmahacker8278
@dogmahacker8278 6 жыл бұрын
It was the Biblical writers that were morons, because they didn't understand that pagans were not actually talking to the wooden and metal statues, they were using them as a medium to their gods, like the Hebrews with the ark of the covenant. Funny how Biblical writers missed the irony. This just shows the knee jerk / unthought / extremely superficial / shoot yourself in the foot responses that religious zealots come up with when they try to quickly demonize everyone who is not them. ""See see, there talking to wood !"" They see things at face value and take it as it appears rather than ask questions. But pagans too also have given quick knee jerk responses to other cultures gods. So it seems to be more an error of strong bias and quick judgment innate in all humans. Further evidence the Bible is written by fallible people. A god would have understood that these pagans were not actually talking to the wooden figure. But instead we get these surface level, juvenile arguments that I wouldn't expect from any well educated person, much less a god.
@davidfrisken1617
@davidfrisken1617 6 жыл бұрын
I suspect the actual Jews and Christians of antiquity were a lot more similar to pagans than we realise. They were way more wacky than we can comprehend. Josephus states the Jewish temple priest wore a headress? modelled on henbane, along with buttons showing the flowers. Henbane in small quantity is a hallucinogenic. It has also been speculated that the anointing oil contained cannabis oil.
@dogmahacker8278
@dogmahacker8278 6 жыл бұрын
Interesting. Also note the whole circumcision thing in Hebrew culture, even today some Jewish priests still suck the blood off the tip of the babies penis. If that's not pagan like behavior then I don't know what is.
@williampan29
@williampan29 Ай бұрын
because Christiniaty and Judaism are special in that they are religion of book. They rely heavily on writings and scriptures. Whilst pagan worshipping don't. Your point stands nonetheless. But what could we be expect from anitique worshipper that has no concept of science.
@Alwaysdoubt100
@Alwaysdoubt100 Жыл бұрын
Is that book translated into Portuguese?.
@Gumikrukon
@Gumikrukon 6 жыл бұрын
I love Bart!!!!
@BroodallyHonest
@BroodallyHonest 6 жыл бұрын
I always confuse Seth for Bart and vice versa.
@teresaamanfu7408
@teresaamanfu7408 3 жыл бұрын
Everything is probable. So? How do you know that the actual man in the story actually existed?
@dandurand4423
@dandurand4423 5 жыл бұрын
Prof Bart, they didn't think, they KNEW He Rose from the dead; they saw it with their own eyes and heard it with their own ears. With that conviction AND the tangible infilling of The Holy Spirit to cause inner change and guidance plus a willingness to die for that truth/reality, they brought the Gospel or "Good News" that fallen creation can be reconciled to Creator. The how's and why's of text become almost irrelavant. People become the living story of the Living Word. How else do 20 some odd lowly peasants and a LAWYER change the face of a brutal empire? How else does TIME itself bow down to The Son Of Man. And you can say "common era" all day long for millenia- it's STILL based on THAT King God-Mans life.
@Owlshadow.
@Owlshadow. 2 жыл бұрын
Good stuff
@r5zoeirabr651
@r5zoeirabr651 4 жыл бұрын
Great video!
@HConstantine
@HConstantine 6 жыл бұрын
Constantine already made paganism illegal, but the laws were not enforced (or very selectively enforced) until Theodosius renewed the legislation. Ehrman must know this, but must feel he needs to simplify.
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
HConstantine He usually simplify in these short interviews... But I think I recall him touching on the topic in one of his lectures regarding early Christianity....
@11thstory
@11thstory 6 жыл бұрын
Good interview, thank you! It is interesting that Paul who wrote before the gospels in a very sophisticated manner doesn't mention any of the details in the life of Jesus. Most religious people, including scholars, interpret Paul through the lens of the gospel story and not as a separate construct. According to Dr. Ehrman, Paul was vigorously persecuting "Christians", a very small sect of unnoticed Jews who were practicing Jewish customs and believed in a Messiah? Paul, a Pharisee, who believed in a resurrection and according to the historian Josephus, a sect that believed souls "are removed into other bodies?" This idea is found in the gospel narrative when Herod asks if Jesus is John the baptist, raised from the dead. I don't think Christian origins are part of some small, illiterate sect of 20 ( Remember in the narrative that Jesus unrolls the scroll and starts to read Isaiah) but a very widespread movement throughout Palestine and perhaps Greece and Egypt. There are really good reasons why this became a Gentile led movement after or during the Jewish War with the Romans.
@StefanTravis
@StefanTravis 6 жыл бұрын
The gospel writers didn't have access to Paul? _That_ is a major point that sailed by unnoticed. What's the evidence?
@bleirdo_dude
@bleirdo_dude 6 жыл бұрын
Does Paul make an appearance in Mark performing miracles of the spirit? Numbers 11:27-29 "27 And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28 And Joshua son of Nun, the assistant of Moses, one of his chosen men, said, "My lord Moses, stop them!" 29 But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit on them!"" Mark 9:38-40 "38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us." Galatians 3:5 "5 Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?" 1 Corinthians 12:3 "3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Let Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit." Romans 8:31 "31 What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us?" Is it more than coincidence? The Gospel named Mark sure looks to be Pauline inspired? 2 Cor 8:9=Mark 10:17-22, 1 Cor 13:2=Mark 11:23, 1 Cor 3:10-11=Mark 12:10-11, Rom 13:7=Mark 12:17, Rom 6:12-14=Mark 9:42-47, 2 Cor 9:6-15=Mark 12:41-44, 2 Cor 11:13-15=Mark 13:21-23, Gal 5:13-15=Mark 12:28-34, 1 Thes 5:4-11=Mark 13:32-37, Phil 3:21=Mark 12:25, 1 Thes 4:16=Mark 14:62, Gal 2:11=Mark 8:33, Gal 4:6=Mark 14:36, 1 Cor 5:6-8=Mark 8:15 The Holy Dopamine Ghost: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpbCk2qhbtCEppI
@bleirdo_dude
@bleirdo_dude 6 жыл бұрын
Check out the link. The Gospel Mark started out as allegory to OT stories, and Pauline theology. The other Gospels are just apologetics for a flesh Jesus. The Holy Ghost is just Dopamine which is related to addiction, and hallucinations. Get more informed.
@bleirdo_dude
@bleirdo_dude 6 жыл бұрын
You need to get more informed all right....
@bleirdo_dude
@bleirdo_dude 6 жыл бұрын
Ok itsasin... If you don't want to hear the good news of the Holy Dopamine Ghost, then that's your loss.
@Beggar42
@Beggar42 6 жыл бұрын
I'll gladly accept Saul/Paul had visions. Let's look at the facts ... Saul, a city boy, travels from Israël/Judea to Damascus. As the crusaders discovered a thousand years later, that's a pretty damn harsh road to travel. So, our city boy, unaccustomed to such conditions, suffers heat stroke and has 'visions'. If someone did that today, they might have 'visions' of Thanos or getting a lapdance from Beyonce or the stay puft marshmallow man or of the marshmellow man getting a lapdance from Thanos.
@lifeonatlantis
@lifeonatlantis 6 жыл бұрын
When it comes to Jesus historicity, I get Ehrman's points - I just think he doesn't engage with the counterpoints, i.e. what Carrier says about "James the brother of the Lord" being ambiguous at best due to statements Paul makes about all Christians being "brothers of the Lord". If he could critique the actual mythicist arguments, I'd be a lot happier - but he doesn't do it, so I'm left favoring mythicism because Carrier actually DOES engage with his critics.
@gerlan1234to
@gerlan1234to 6 жыл бұрын
Hasn't Bart heard how Joseph Smith and then L Ron Hubbard started a religion in relatively recent times which they grew from nothing, christianity took 300 years to get to 30 million (evidence/citation). Constantine was a pragmatist and a pagan he needed something to unite a very disparate multi-cultural empire and he chose a religion he could easily control and manipulate.
@Vhbaske
@Vhbaske 5 жыл бұрын
The thing that establishes the evidences is that we must investigate the period of the desfruction of Jerusalem. Was there a real cut from the past and later the preachings of the gospel returned the issue? If the destruction of Jerusalem interrupted the preaching of the gospel, then there is real doubt that there was really a Jesus.
@alanw505
@alanw505 6 жыл бұрын
For me it's The Triumph Of Science that has unintentionally created more atheists today than the world has ever seen. But I get what Ehrman is trying to say.
@harrygearhart4520
@harrygearhart4520 6 жыл бұрын
And now we are left with one god to whittle down to 0.
@Davspirals
@Davspirals 6 жыл бұрын
Seth,that was weak a interview
@gorillaguerillaDK
@gorillaguerillaDK 6 жыл бұрын
Yeay, I'm a huge fan of Bart Erhman....
@myprecious27
@myprecious27 6 жыл бұрын
His arguments, as far as Jesus's existence is concerned, are simply unconvincing. His strongest argument is the argument from embarrassment - that speaks for itself. The sources he mentions - none of them were contemporary of Jesus, and none of them mention Jesus directly - they only listed what Chirstians believed. And Josephus as a source? That is too much. He says you can doubt everything - but that is philosophical scepticism - an irrational position. We should evaluate the validity of the sources - tesitmonium Flavianum is not a valid source. To paraphrase - he has no good arguments. My guess is that he can sell more books when partially agreeing with Christian agenda.
@HConstantine
@HConstantine 6 жыл бұрын
There is an interpolation in the textus receptus of Josephus, but we have the original text quoted by Origin and other fathers (this distinction is usually ignored by deceptive confidence tricksters like Carrier). That text makes it clear that James is the leader of the Jerusalem Church and is so because he was the brother of Jesus. How can you explain that text absent a historical Jesus?
@giorgiomx
@giorgiomx 6 жыл бұрын
I'm an Atheist and have no problem that a crucified human called Jesus existed 2000 years ago and had some social dramas during his life. And then it was used to assemble the fantastic stories. Where's the problem? The superpower son of a God stuff is just absurd according to what we know how Reality works, but yeah, I see no problem that a non-magical man existed.
@myprecious27
@myprecious27 6 жыл бұрын
HConstantine no, the interpolation appears later in quotes. So we know it must have been added later.
@HConstantine
@HConstantine 6 жыл бұрын
Here is what the manuscript tradition of Josephus has (and bear in mind the mass are more recent than the text of Origen; Eusebius reports this also (about 310): "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." (jud. ant. 18.3.3.) And here is what Origen quoted out of the text of Josephus as it existed about 250: ""the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)" C. Cels. 1.47 The parentheses means that even here Origen may (or may not) have added the "called Christ". But there is no reason to doubt that Josephus reported James' execution (for blasphemy) and that he identified James with the remainder of the quotation. What would be the point of Josephus mentioning that James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, was the brother of Jesus, if Jesus never existed?
@bradleyskene7172
@bradleyskene7172 6 жыл бұрын
Itasasin What do you hope to gain by lying like this?
Ehrman's Cambridge Lecture on Forged
45:52
Bart D. Ehrman
Рет қаралды 169 М.
Let's Vent About American Idiocracy: Call-in Line: 918-528-7244
1:50:06
TheThinkingAtheist
Рет қаралды 11 М.
Triple kill😹
00:18
GG Animation
Рет қаралды 18 МЛН
Human vs Jet Engine
00:19
MrBeast
Рет қаралды 192 МЛН
History Will Not Forget
13:08
TheThinkingAtheist
Рет қаралды 170 М.
Bart Ehrman And Journeys To Heaven And Hell
38:55
What If Project
Рет қаралды 5 М.
Bart Ehrman Freedom From Religion Foundation Lecture
1:06:51
Scott Burdick
Рет қаралды 182 М.
What is Christianity? Ehrman-Harris Podcast
1:48:19
Bart D. Ehrman
Рет қаралды 435 М.
Rabbi Jonathan Romain vs Michael Brown • Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?
1:02:19
Premier Unbelievable?
Рет қаралды 593 М.
The Thinking Atheist Interview: The Triumph of Christianity
35:06
Bart D. Ehrman
Рет қаралды 123 М.
Bart Ehrman: Revelations about Revelation... and more
2:10:20
The Origins Podcast
Рет қаралды 381 М.
Legends, Fictions, and the Manuscripts that Illustrate Christ's Story
1:21:26