Did Jesus Even Claim to be God? Bart Ehrman Says No...
Get Bart Ehrman's course, "Did Jesus Call Himself God?": www.bartehrman.com/godman
View all of Bart Ehrman's courses: www.bartehrman.com/alex
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Bart Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. (Wikipedia)
- LINKS
View all of Bart Ehrman's courses: www.bartehrman.com/alex
Buy the book, "How Jesus Became God": amzn.to/3Jm5oKt
View Bart Ehrman's other books: amzn.to/3p7WObj
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
1:09 What can we definitely know about Jesus?
6:04 Did Jesus think the world was about to end?
12:50 Did Jesus claim he was God?
30:00 Did Jesus contradict trinitarianism?
32:39 Did John make up Jesus' divinity?
35:41 Are the birth narratives forged?
42:08 Mistakes and mistranslations in the New Testament
1:01:03 Responding to William Lane Craig on the resurrection
1:26:25 Who did Jesus claim to be?
1:29:40 Outro
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
"scholar" lol. World's most famous perfidious nonchristian subverter. One glance at his photos tells us why.
@@VeritasEtAequitas So you have these super powers that let's you know all about a person based on the way they look?
@@barkatthemoonlunatic1715 Don't be so reductive. It's disingenuous. Tell me what you eat, and I'll tell you what you are. Anyone can tell a great deal from a glance at Ehrman if they know history, but I can't even explain it here or my comments will just be deleted. Can't say why for the same reason. You should be able to piece that together at least. Suffice it to say that he has vested interior motives many are aware of.
@@VeritasEtAequitas Thanks for making perfects sense. Keep eating those mushrooms.
@@barkatthemoonlunatic1715 He's a rabid anti-Christian. From a group that is historically such, whether each individual is secular or not. What's difficult to understand? Do I need to get out my crayons? I'm kind of afraid you'll just try to eat them.
Thanks to Bart Erhman for pointing out that people don't have to be lying and instead just be mistaken. It always bothers me when people say if it's not true, then the witnesses were lying. It's a silly binary.
Thoughts on the dramatic change in action after the apostles claim to have witnessed the risen Jesus? Peter goes from cowardly denying Jesus prior to His death to boldly preaching His resurrection, even to the point of a gruesome death.
@@TonyB2 the lack of historicity for the apostles' deaths is mentioned late in the vid. Perhaps you should listen to the whole vid before commenting?
@@jesan733 Ehrmann was straw-manning the evidence. The point is NOT whether or not the disciples died, but that THEY WERE WILLING TO SUFFER, EVEN IF THAT LEADS TO DEATH. That's what shows they were convinced and were not making this up. Whether or not they die through that persecution is immaterial. Their willingness to go through it is what explais their conviction. Ehrmann cannot argue the early disciples were not persecuted, so he resorts to a straw man of saying we cannot be sure they actually died in persecution. Secondly, Ehrmann did not even argue that they did not die; he only pleaded agnosticism claiming we cannot know the truth because the stories were embellished (e.g. milk coming out of the heads of the disciples). But is that not the very job of a historian, to flesh out the truth from embellishments? Ehrman is sitting here claiming to flesh out the truth about Christ from the "embellishments of Christianity". So why can't he also strip off the embellishments of the deaths of the disciples and tell us what actually happened?
@@hubertagamasu6283 You are desperately grasping. Even if there were accurate accounts of the lives and deaths of the apostles, and even if they were convinced that their cause was just and true; it still does not lead to any evidence. "that THEY WERE WILLING TO SUFFER, EVEN IF THAT LEADS TO DEATH" In your words, islamic martyrdom and hindus setting themselves on fire, somehow proves that all their gods are real. I don't see how that follows, or how it that is even remotely coherent or rational. If I am willing to die for ghosts, it does not mean ghosts are real; more likely is that I am suffering from a condition or a stroke and require immediate treatment. History is buried and muddied through time; Ehrmann adresses that not everything can be known or fully transparant; nor does it need to be in the context of folk-tales. And that is already more intellectually honest than anything that ever came out of any church. Bible humpers are pathetic.
@@hubertagamasu6283 From what I understand we only have church traditions from many centuries later saying what became of the disciples. For Bart to lean towards there being insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion seems to be a fair position to hold. We have no clear evidence as to what happened to most of the disciples, they mostly drop off the radar after the NT. If we can confirm some were executed, that doesn't mean that it was for the crime of blasphemy, or that there was any possibility that they could have been saved by renouncing their faith. Even if you can somehow show that they died due to their beliefs and stuck to those beliefs when they could have been saved, then as you say that would only show they were convinced of their beliefs but not that those beliefs were true. We know of plenty of Muslims who will die for their beliefs, but we would both agree those beliefs are false regardless of how convinced they are.
It's enjoyable to listen to a civilized discussion, with no fake drama. This was an hour well spent.
Their is nothing civilised about religious rhetoric.
@@ossiedunstan4419 Then you should like this discussion all the more, for it destroys a great deal of religious rhetoric.
Amen! 😊
Psalm 1:1 How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers! 2 Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction, and he meditates on it day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted beside flowing streams that bears its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. 4 The wicked are not like this; instead, they are like chaff that the wind blows away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand up in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.
2 PETER 3:3-13 Above all, you must understand that in the last days SCOFFERS will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “WHERE IS THIS COMING” He promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a DAY IS LIKE A THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS ARE LIKE A DAY. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the DAY OF THE LORD WILL COME LIKE A THIEF. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
I like Bart he’s very down to earth. And good challenging questions for him Alex. Great interview very informative
Bart he’s very down to hell
@@ViralChristianity there's that word people throw around. Earth? Hell? Aren't they the same really? It's semantics at this point. Hell is a Latin word that literally means, "to conceal or to cover." e.g. to bury the dead, as in the abode of the dead, i.e. where you put the bodies. Earth is sometimes referred to as an abyss or a sea, in a sense. As above so below. The waters above from the waters below. Because, either things go into the ground or in the future come out of it. Hades is a Greek word that literally means the same as the Latin, as in the state or "abode" of the dead. So, yeah earth is in a literal sense is just dirt you use to bury people with. If you ask a Jewish person about it they'll tell you yeah dead and buried, the concept of a Christian "hell" has no meaning to them. So, yeah Mr. Ehrman is very down to earth, someone is practical, realistic, and unpretentious. In your sense lol we'll all be there soon enough. You can't buy your stairway to heaven, as in a sale of indulgence; you can't “buy your way to heaven” through good deeds as an extra precaution to achieve salvation. You can't supplicate the "LORD" with prayer. And regardless of good or bad, rich or poor, young or old; all our paths come to the same end, 'the sun shines on both the just and the unjust.' And from the earth I was taken and to the earth I will return. 'All that is born, all that is created, all the elements of nature [...] All that is composed will decompose; everything returns to its roots; matter returns to the origins of matter.' Hell ain't bad place to be, to quote AC/DC. But, any day above ground is a good day lol.
@@ViralChristianity Really? Because he was saved at one point. Of course, there is no hell, unless God invented it sometime between the OT and the NT.
He is a jerkoff Out of context ... But if he spoke in context He would be absolutely wrong
39:41 Alex's mic has morphed into an enormous Phoenician beard.
"A claim isn't evidence. Evidence is when you try to substantiate a claim." "Historians don't make exceptions on religious grounds " Perfect. This is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. This is very applicable to the current rebirth of the alien/UAP craze.
Im so glad to see others recognize this similarity
I’m so glad that there is not an ongoing government coverup to suppress evidence.
I’m so glad that there is not an ongoing government coverup to suppress evidence.
Yes I picked up on that. A claim is not evidence.
Yes that is true. BUT, miraculous claims and "alien" claims have ANOTHER thing in common: Occam's Razor does not apply! Why? We have NO background information on alien life, so ALL descriptions of it would be "unreasonable" and "unlikely" (also if it happened to be correct). As to miracles: Yes, they are HIGHLY suspect. BUT If "God showed up at a birthday party" (to put it that way) and someone told scientists about it later, the truth of the story would be as unlikely as a lie would be (we simply have no method for evaluating it as truthful OR false... other than saying it is unlikely and not properly scrutinized)
I appreciate so much how genuinely you seek to understand and fairly represent views opposed to yours. I’m a Christian and have adored this channel for the last several years I have been a fan. These are incredibly compelling objections to Christianity. Keep up the good work!
how can you adore this as a christian when this guy all he does is oppose christianity.
Do you think the Gospel’s are not consistent like Ehrman says in this video? As a Christian?
@@jakeschwartz2514yes but most Christians hate to admit it because it would mean they have been lied to their whole life.
Same here. I love Alex and Bart 🙏
I do not understand these kinds of comments. Why are you still Christian after watching all of these podcasts? I‘m seriously curious, because these are some hard-hitting arguments, that are very hard to argue against. So what‘s your objection to for example the historicity of Jesus Christ‘s resurrection?
I absolutely love this conversation and it merits at least a second listen The pertinent questions framed so simply and precisely and the crystal clear logic of Bart’s answers make hit such an informed and informative conversation. These two are wonderful and I can’t praise them enough. Two smart, honest scholars elucidating these issues so t gf at we too can see as clearly as possible. So helpful and so easy to follow.
Back in university, I took a course about the beliefs of the early church. The central question was about the consistency of their beliefs. Did they stay the same or do we see a change in what they believed? At the time, I remember looking at Bart Ehrman's views and not finding them too compelling. That probably had a lot to do with my current faith at the time and the biases of my Orthodox professor. He did give a nice balance of views on each topic we discussed in all our classes and provided a lot of opportunity for genuine discussion and disagreement, but his own passion for the topics was also impossible to ignore. Listening to this podcast now years later when my certainty in my faith has been completely shattered and rendered me entirely agnostic, I'm surprised how much I want to believe in the divinity of Jesus. I have my fair share of criticisms over what Christians claim to believe and their contradictions with reality or the way they live, but the incarnation was the most wonderful idea to me. When in contrast with Islam, I find a God who took on the human experience and shared in literal communion with us to be far more compelling than a God who is too far above us to be disgraced in such a manner. I have come to think a less fundamental view of the Bible is the only proper reading of it. People who see the God of the Old Testament as a a depiction of God's people wrestling with their understanding that becomes more and more clear and then revealed fully in The Word, that is Christ made sense....though no understanding of the Bible or Christianity has fulfilled the part of me that wonders why. Why are there so many disagreements from people genuinely seeking after Truth, not just in Christianity but in general? And with the same certainty I once had in personal experiences and beliefs, others are certain with experiences and beliefs that contradict my own. How can these disagreements be reconciled except to say God only wants some people to know Truth? But then how can you truly know that you have found it? I dont think it's possible for me to ever be sure again, but I think more and more, I am finding myself comfortable in what Dustin Kensrue of the band Thrice called "The Grey," and learning how to live with doubt in a world that demands you to be certain and so binary. It is facinating to me that people call it a relationship and yet so much of it is stories and second and third and fourthhand accounts of God. How much of God do you have to get right to be having a relationship with him? How much do you have to get right to even be "allowed" to communicate with him?
I was not expecting to see a Dustin quote in the comments. What a legend
Super well thought out post. Thank you¡
Super well thought out post. Thank you!
Sounds like you need to start listening to Joel Osteen to recharge your faith batteries and be filled with the HOPE that "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Nicene Creed).😇
Do you want a God who shares your human experience? really? Should he share animals their experience as well? This is not God at all, you’re such a joke you don’t even understand the idea of god
Hearing this interview right after having listened to your recent interview with Peter Hitchens, I can’t help but notice a difference between how two guests respond differently to your inquiries/pushback. I recall that your channel has focused on Peter Hitchens at least twice, the first time being his theological debate. And I recall that, during that debate, he opened by stating his doubt that the opposing speakers were taking the topic seriously. So naturally I immediately noticed when, during your interview with him, he quipped at the very start, “so far, so good”, as if he expected to be disappointed by your viewpoints.
It’s amazing what you learn about Christianity outside of the church.
Nothing amazing about a man who appeals to early sources one moment and throws them under the bus the other moment. I agree ,though that it's the laziness of the church in engaging Ehrman on his confused theology that has given him such boldness to be spewing nonsense.
@@hubertagamasu6283 "such boldness to be spewing nonsense." Can you name some examples that you regard as nonsense?
@@pineapplepenumbra Read Mark 14:61-63 and ask yourself whom the Son of Man is, according to Christ. If you think Jesus is calling himself the Son of man (which Ehrman denies), then you understand Ehrman's intellectual dishonesty and nonsense.
@@hubertagamasu6283 Firstly, no one was there, so how would you know what was said? Secondly, it's a bit ambiguous, how is the "Son of Man" defined? Remember, there's a lot of bollocks talked about the bible, such as who Lucifer is, who the serpent in the garden was, etc. 60 "Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 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?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
@@hubertagamasu6283 You're speaking about intellectual dishonesty, but you believe a man died and rose from the dead, even though it has never happened before or since in the history of the world. THIS is intellectual dishonesty, and it's why you must accept that your beliefs are FAITH. Please learn the meaning of words and terms before you use them to try and look smart.
This was so needed. Alex I'm so grateful you did this for us all. Thanks!
Love that these two connected - been following both for years.
Thank you both for the informative content. I think this was an excellent interview/conversation. Alex had some great questions and respectfully challenged some of Dr. Ehrman's positions, but made sure to give Bart time to speak and thoroughly explain why he holds the views that he does. Keep up the great work!
Agree
@matthewcoenen6957 - I think he is sometimes taking a 'devil's advocate' position.
Liberal = Trash people Drugs = OK Single parents = OK Prostitution and abortion = OK but when the social life start reflecting the consequence for that choice like Theft, car jacking, Robbery, Street Violence, HIV, drugs, Drunker. This prick blame Christianity, they blame Judaism. hahahahahaha. no wonder hell is real. place for the P R I C K/
agreed
Let me explain this out to the jews, christians, and muslims so that all of you have clarity and understand. Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is the very first human soul to exist. This is why the christians overcompensate Jesus and why the muslims undercompensate whom jesus truly is. Does this mean jesus is any less important or meaningless? This is a question only you can answer, for that answer lies within each and every one of you. He was not born of a virgin birth. He is of the line of judah. In fact, if you wish to know something of interest about your savior, let me explain how he returns. He returns the same as he did the first time, a man no different from you. He was born a pauper, a bastard son of a roman soldier. Yes, the jews are correct. This is who your king is. Once again, the jews will call his mother a prostitute for bearing three sons from three different fathers. The only thing is one of these fathers is a Roman soldier, of the line of judah. So yes, the jews are correct, and yet incorrect. Hopefully, this brings some clarity to all. Happy New years everyone, and buckle up because things are about to get interesting!
Impressive. Very nice. Let's see Paul Allen saying no.
😂❤
His timbre tone... It's perfect. The subtle voice cracking...
@@BLVGamingYtimber and timbre are different words. For Christ's sake
The,guy who owns Microsoft
@@danielduvana American psycho
I really enjoy Bart Ehrman but I'd like to add a little bit to the discussion. The reason the gospels exhonerate Pilate is because Pilate represents Rome and the Christians want to show the Romans that they don't blame them, they blame the priestly heirarchy of the Jews for their Messiah's death.. They didn't want to become an anti-Rome cult in Rome's eyes. You can also see this in 'The Epistle of Paul to the Romans' in which you find verses that say that you must not oppose your leader because he was selected by Jehovah. Not something you see in any of his other letters. Another possible reason for the strange story of the godly impregnation of Mary is that Jesus is named 'the son of god' in many passages and the term 'son of god' is a common colloquialism for a king or messiah of Israel (Psalms 2) - see both David and Soloman. This went from a colloquialism to literal as the pagans tried to understand the whole 'son of god' thing.
facial hair on point in this vid, alex. great content too ~
I really admire the ability of Alex to steel man an argument. He is truly putting his all into defending the resurrection claims, almost seems like he believes at times and might potentially annoy his own guest with his push back. And on the other hand yeah... I really dislike the opposite, when people like william lane craig strawman scholars and historians by saying that they overwhelmingly agree with some historical "fact" they absolutely do not agree with. I've seen christians argue that pretty much everything that appears in the gospel is historical fact aside from resurrection, and at that point when you accept the whole narrative arround it as fact, then believing the few missing pieces as correct doesn't seem so far fetched.
Great back and forth conversation. One of the best interviews with Dr. Ehrman! Good work Alex!
Are you christian? May i ask you if jesus is God or just a prophet ( Q from a muslim, no intention for hate )
@@moestv8011 ONLY GOD CAN DO GODS WORK,THATS WHY GOD CAME AS JESUS,AND WAS BORN FROM A VIRGIN,WE ALL KNOW ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A VIRGIN TO HAVE A CHILD,THIS WAS THE MIRACLE,JESUS WAS BORN FROM NOTHING NO FATHER,NO SEXUALL RELATION,NO DNA,AND JESUS NEVER HAD A MOTHER,MARY WAS JUST A VESSEL,AS GOD DOES NOT HAVE PARENTS,JESUS ALL READY EXISTED B4 MARY,JESUS IS GOD,THINK ABOUT IT,HOW CAN MARY BE THE MOTHER OF GOD,SHE HAD NO ONE TO FERTALISE HER EGGS,IT WAS A MIRACLE BIRTH...
that was a very interesting discussion. i might have to take Ehrman up on his challenge to read the birth accounts in Matthew & Luke, and compare the 2 against each other
We need more discussions with Ehrman!
Like a hole in the head.
This is gold man! thank you so much both of you!
I could seriously listen to Ehrman talk to hours. His voice is so peaceful and reassuring. And also he speaks straight up facts.
His laugh is psychodic!
Lucky for you actually can 😄! His channel is an absolute treasure trove of information.
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
@@xaviervelascosuarez didn't you say this on a Different Thread? Word for word? As for ''Picking and Choosing" what to believe in the Gospels... Isn't that what Christianity has done for Millennia?
@@rustyk4645 I am half convinced Xavier is a bot. He just copy and pastes the same incoherent crap everywhere without ever engaging about it. I dont think he understands his own words.
Really enjoyed this one. Bart has a new fan. Love the scholarly treatment of the gospels and the surrounding evidence for the claims within.
I just subscribed after hearing your discussion with Bart Ehmran about Christmass.
You did not know about Christmas being a lie
As a Christian, I really appreciate this episode and I enjoyed every second of this conversation. It was very informative. I heard that Bart Ehrman was one of the best biblical scholars and hearing him talk on this episode blew my mind! I also loved the way in which Alex hosted this interview. He asked the right questions!
You are blind spiritually.
﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
J. Vernon Mcgee a southern Baptist pastor with PhD in theology could teach you way more about the Bible amd scripture that's accurate and not garbage. If anyone claims Jesus Chris is not God.. thier preaching another gospel can may as well be accursed by God.
@@user-ce4rb3db6o ﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
@@user-ce4rb3db6o ﴿وَلَقَد أَخَذَ اللَّهُ ميثاقَ بَني إِسرائيلَ وَبَعَثنا مِنهُمُ اثنَي عَشَرَ نَقيبًا وَقالَ اللَّهُ إِنّي مَعَكُم لَئِن أَقَمتُمُ الصَّلاةَ وَآتَيتُمُ الزَّكاةَ وَآمَنتُم بِرُسُلي وَعَزَّرتُموهُم وَأَقرَضتُمُ اللَّهَ قَرضًا حَسَنًا لَأُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنكُم سَيِّئَاتِكُم وَلَأُدخِلَنَّكُم جَنّاتٍ تَجري مِن تَحتِهَا الأَنهارُ فَمَن كَفَرَ بَعدَ ذلِكَ مِنكُم فَقَد ضَلَّ سَواءَ السَّبيلِ﴾ [المائدة: 12] (12) And Allāh had already taken a covenant from the Children of Israel, and We delegated from among them twelve leaders. And Allāh said, "I am with you. If you establish prayer and give zakāh and believe in My messengers and support them and loan Allāh a goodly loan,[247] I will surely remove from you your misdeeds and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow. But whoever of you disbelieves after that has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way." [247]- By spending in the cause of Allāh, seeking His reward. - English Translation
Great job Alex. I love your new content and look forward to every episode!
﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
@@zaidzaid7455 Do you crazy zealot types really think that trolling in comments is actually doing anything? It's not even relative to my comment! I'm seriously laughing here.
Both Bart Ehrman and Alex have nothing better to do so they create these utube rubbish for views/money ! who even cares if you do believe or don't believe in God !! Because billions do believe and have faith in God ! Stop disrespecting and mocking religious people - CLOWNS 🤡
Great interview
Great informative video.
I've watched a lot of Bart Ehrman interviews and podcasts and I think the interviewer in this instance is one of the best. Pointed and thoughtful questions and able to keep up with Bart's intellect.
I agree. One exception was the discussion of the group(s) of witnesses who saw Jesus after he died. Bart gave his answers. First, he quesitoned the empty tomb, since crucified criminals at that time were generally left for dead on the cross, food for scavengers. (Also, Jesus simply was not of the right class to be buried in a tomb.) Second, he noted that we do not have the accounts of these witnesses. We have the account of someone who didn't know these witnesses, who lived far away, and who used a different language. There are problems with all those things when assessing the reliability of a historical record. That was Bart's response, essentially. Well, Alex kept repeating his question, particularly on the second point. He really wanted to know how Bart could deny the resurrection if groups of people saw him. All Bart could do is explain, once again, calmly, that we do not have eyewitness accounts. We have the account of someone relaying hearsay, hearsay generated during the aftermath of an event occuring long ago, faraway, by people who spoke another language. End of story. THE CLAIM OF A RESURRECTION RESTS ENTIRELY ON HEARSAY. Which, frankly, is the bedrock of most of the Bible and Judaism and Chrisitanity in general. Hearsay.
Bart is an anti Christ I read the comments And I do Not want to hear further. If He died He will go to Hell. Too bad too late for Him He is sure a Proud person. The down fall of a person Is his pride same as the down fall For Angel Lucifer. Old and Not wise. Also Will Jesus deciples died for lies ? Will you died for lies ??? Jesus is the Son of God He is the way, the truth No one comes to the Father Except through Him. The risen Lord Jesus is seated at The Right hand of the Father And will judge the living and the dead. Laugh now when you still can. I got was sick and cannot get up from my bed. Daily I prayed to Jesus Christ and was heal without surgery. Even the Doctor have No answer For my healing. There is a God. And Jesus is my healer.
Could it be you like Bart because you don’t want to believe in God ?
@izzytoons if it helps, Alex isn't repeating those questions because he himself believes Jesus was resurrected. His usual interview style is to play devils advocate, or more accurately the theists advocate. So he's parroting arguments people like William Lane Craig make to substantiate the Bible, and allowing Bart to refute those arguments at each available angle. It did get a bit repetitive though, I agree.
Dear Alex, I follow you on YT for quite a time. And I learned SO MUCH!!! from you. It changed my life, tbh. And I highly highly respect Dr. Ehrman. I've read almost all of his books, and they changed my life too. Through both of you I began to learn about critical thinking. So here, the two wonderful people who inspired me the most, are discussing. So great! Best wishes and a giant thank you from Germany!
You should read this VERY short publication “Misquoting Gieschen Originally published in Concordia Theological Quarterly” It is of a scholar that Dr. Ehrman cited 3 times to support a radical viewpoint. The scholar believes that Dr. Ehrman might have deliberately misappropriated his studies and quotations. There are many more like this. These aren’t scholars of equal caliber, these are scholars that Dr. Ehrman relies upon to make his points. If you want more I will provide more.
@@mrbungle2627 thank you for that advice. I will try to inform myself. And yes, I would be grateful for more.
@@mrbungle2627 I have no idea what on earth, hell and heaven there is that Dr. Ehrman would have to rely on to bring forward a "radicale" viewpoint of anything.
@@adrianseanheidmann4559 I don’t think you’re aware that scholars constantly cite other scholars to support their positions. But considering most KZhead sycophants guzzle cum without even considering how the academic world works, I’m not surprised.
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
Hello ! request/suggestion (?) : downloadable (searchable) transcripts for your videos ??? I found this video to be very good/informative/useful. I would love to be able to quickly search for items appropriate for subsequent conversations on certain portions/history etc. ...Mr Ehrman mentnioned a roman historian I had not heard of ... he mentioned historical "mass hallucination" example etc
Roman historian Livy recorded people seeing Romulus after his death.
Thank you ! for your reply.@@amber40494
Thank you !@@amber40494
I don’t think you’ll be able to find a downloadable transcript. Someone HAS time stamped the video to different sections which can be helpful for searching. There are various websites that where you can convert you to to mp3 or mp4 to download but you will need to check those with a good antivirus because half of them will just give your computer a virus instead of the download
If you add a transcript generator to your browser via an add-on, it will generate a transcript on all videos for you :) The one I use is KZhead Summary with ChatGPT. It's available for Chrome. Hope this helps!
48:40 the word is not merely “young woman.” It is more accurately “maiden,” which does in fact have connotations of virginity (especially in ancient Jewish contexts).
At 10:10-ish: Really appreciated the distinction between interpreting something's original meaning and re-interpreting what it might mean to you personally in a modern context.
Omg the beef between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig is PALPABLE. Would love to see them debate today!
It would be a destruction again.
One is a scholar, the other an apologist. It wouldn't feel like an ideological debate since Bart Ehrman would correct WLC when his perspective contradicts or fails to comport with the data and would likely nod "okay 👍🏽" to all else.
@@RashidMBey Bart is a textual critic. Don't get it twisted. Wlc has published way more philosophical and historical papers. I understand your bias but don't look foolish making easily debunked claims.
@@jwatson181 that is incorrect. Bart has more formal training in historical practices than textual criticism. WLC depends on strawmanning and misrepresentation to portray Ehrman as being unaware of historical methods
@Agryphos my friend. This is established fact. Bart makes insane claimed in popular literature and interviews that he walks back in his academic papers. Are you claiming the majority of Barts experience is not textual criticism? Where did he publish philosophical models for historical epistemology? Lol don't make things up
Thanks to both of you. Great discussion. Are there similar discussions for Islam or Judiasm.
Phenomenal interview 👏 thank you both
This is one of Ehrman's best podcasts. Much credit is owed to Alex O'Conner, too, for facilitating the discussion better than most podcast hosts are capable of. Alex has a knack for steering the discussion by saying the right thing at the right time. I have never listened to Alex, before. But I am subscribing to his KZhead channel since he is such an effective podcast host. Alex is as good of interviewer as Larry King was.
Alex is a typical unresponsible being in America. if someone want be a drug addict he approve single parent OK OK OK. LOL like a Democrat. but if a thing start affecting his life theft car jacking robbery street violence. he BLAME THE JEWS, BLAME CHRISTIAN. trash liberal all the same bastard people. talk nonsense but NOT want take responsible.
I didn't watch a lot of Larry King but given that he didn't know what he was talking about most of the time (famously didn't do any research on the guests), that seems like an unnecessarily low bar.
@@MattHabermehl he so deep like the sea. but unfortunately that sea will be no more LOL Revelation 21:1 All Things Made New Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. satan will lose GOD will in triumph Halelujah! Woke liberal at the brink their last gasp
@@MattHabermehl Larry King was among the most awarded, recognized, longest running, successful interviewers of all time. This is true regardless of personal opinions, including yours.
Even the host in this video knows more than Bart about the deity of Jesus. Listening Bart is a waste of time and money. He leads people in a cult of Satanic fractures. Because according to the Bible if you are believing first Jesus is God, then you are seeing it while getting equipped for it. If you choose not to believe first, God never force you the equipment and the Bible through down your throat. You have free will, and very beginning if you are not willing to believe, then you will keep getting same result and you just keep banging your head to a death end’s wall. There’s no way out.
I honestly find this view of the Bible so much more interesting than how Christian pastors/apologists often treat it. From what I've seen, they often just seem to pick whatever verse applies best, or even use verses from different authors without considering the implications. By taking the approach Ehrman takes, contrasting different gospels with each other and considering what the authors knew and meant, I feel like you actually learn way more about the actual meaning of the bible, instead of projecting your own meaning on it.
The fan fiction stories are a ventriloquism dummy for the preacher.
Ehrman is biased towards atheism.
You may be comparing apples with oranges, preachers are not scholars.
Preachers are often well taught though. Most churches require a study of theology, which is the combination of philosophy, history, textual research methods, learning proper exegesis etc. They take what they learn from scholars and use that information to learn about the Bible. So yes, they take into account what Bart says here. It's just that what Bart says is not really convincing.
@@Jarige2 Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Whatever you want to think about what is written in the Gospels I think it's important to know they were written 40 - 50 years after Jesus death by people who didn't even speak hebrew and who were not eyewitnesses of what happened. that's something the vast majority of christians (even educated people) doesn't know. To be exact in the Gospel it isn't written the women found the tomb empty it's written they found a man (in a version) or two men (in another version) in it who told them Jesus wasn't there anymore and they saw Jesus again not immediately but days after that event which I think it's quite strange.
40 or 50 years leaves plenty of time for eyewitnesses to be alive. The apostle Peter affirms that he was an eyewitness to Jesus's life and death: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables [myths] when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16) Cf.. 1John:1-2f That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. ..
Can you have Richard Carrier on next? That would be so incredibly lovely.
I have had this in my watch later for months and I am so glad I finally got around to it.
Thanks for the content!
He forgave sins (only G-d can do that) clsimed to predate Abraham, cast out demons in his own name (did not cite a greater authority-non needed) and said He was Lord of the sabbath. He said he was one with the Father, prophesied his death and resurrection. He commanded his followers to baptize people in His name. That’s just for starters. He wasn’t into talking. Talk is cheap. Antihero can SAY they are God…he did the works that only God can do.
Indeed, some papers written by later followers said that. So it must be true.
@@vejeke The NT manuscripts were written very soon after the events they claim to describe - even Bart believes that. There simply wasn't time to cobble together all these legends and stories. Many of the people in them were still alive, so others could have easily discredited the "stories" if they were true. Legends and myths take a long time to develop, and they took even longer in old days, when communication was far slower and there was no printing, photography, or photocopying.
Thank u for stating truth here. Of course, ONLY GOD can forgive sins, mine or yours . Of course Jesus said he is God.all you have to do is read the 4 gospels. Believers believe the Word of God doubters sadly will be without. The Word, that is. The Word that was made flesh and dwell among us. And we beheld His glory as of the only begotten son of God. As many as received Him( Jesus) to them gave He the power to become sons of God. He really meant it. I really meant it and became a son of God.
@@wejpasadena140 years afterwards is not “very soon after”
40:29 and it could be that one author thought it relevant to include the timeline of Mary going to Jerusalem for purification then returning to Nazareth while the other did not.
I have to say that watching this through now is my second attempt at getting through it. I've been a reader of Bart for several years and, having learned his mind on many of these issue, when trying to watch this video before thought the conversation was overly contentious... another interview by someone who didn't really grasp his views. Since then I've familiarized myself with Alex's views and style and have discovered that I was quite wrong. I find this conversation invigorating and honest, two intelligent people taking each other to task, each from their own perspective, but not in a contentious way. Great work by both parties, each who are bringing with them their own audience who agree with each other on many key points, but have as rigorous conversation that highlights the nuances that different perspectives bring.
One day I will find the words and they will be simple J.Kerouac
Why do we care if this man lived? Made up life lessons. Humans figure out how to live without a God
Man, I wish we have honest scholar like Bart Ehrman for Islam and the Qur'an.
Well it makes you think. They paid 2 million to a guy to find contradictions in Quran. None were found.
@@englishteacher360 Interesting, if true. I always thought there might be more Christians if the Church fathers had simply hired a good editor.
@@izzytoons 😂😂
Bahahaha. Utter nonsense.
1:23:45 "It will never happen" - Just for the records: the physical laws don't say the creme can never "unmix". An unmixed distribution of particles is very improbable because there are far more other possibilities of how the particles distribute in a cup of coffee, yet it is possible, if we only have a very very very very very vast number of coffee cups.
I was dying when he said this because it is not the second law and also it is “possible” for the cream to separate. Just statistically highly improbable. The number of micro states just is way less like you say. Thank you!!
James Tabor in a recent Easter week series shows that in the book of John it states that in the place of the crucifiction there was a garden and near the garden was a newly dug tomb tgat had not yet been used. And due to the soon coming beginning of the Passover Joseph wrapped tge body in linen and placed him in this nearby tomb as a matter of convenience. James makes the case that this wouldn't have been the permanent resting place but a temporary safe spot for the body until the 2 days of sabbath had passed. This being the situation, Joseph would have likely returned for the body early Sunday morning as soon as he would have been legally permitted, rather than wait until 12 hours later at sun rise. This would have led to an empty tomb when the ladies arrived much later at sun up.
Very informative conversation. Thank you for both of you!
I simply adore doctor Ehrman, he is so polite when he cuts through the shite
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
Well put @xaviervelascosuarez. The more I listen to Dr. Ehrman, the more it seems like he just doesn't want the Christian narrative to be true. That's his prerogative of course, but let's call a spade a spade.
Ok for the Trinity thing, he was explaining the different viewpoints early Christians had on the relationships between the father, son, and Holy Spirit and how there can there be 3 in one. The view that each person is a separate being was rejected as a heresy as he said in the interview and the Trinitarian model with the Son being of the same substance as the father and Holy Spirit won out. He himself is not saying the trinity has three separate beings or that that’s what the Bible teaches… only that is a debate that happened after the writing of the New Testament. As for Jesus’s trial, both can be true. The Sanhedrin wanted him to be put to death because he claimed he was God, but he was ultimately executed for secular/political reasons under Pontius Pilate. Pilate didn’t ask “are you the Son of God” and then put him to death. He asked him “are you the king of the Jews”. That’s a political statement, not a theological one, and Jesus was not on trial before Pilate for a theological claim. Bart’s view is that some parts of the Gospels are historically reliable and some aren’t. That’s an internally consistent view because he gives reasons for why he thinks some parts are more reliable than others. He’s not ignoring the Sanhedrin trial, his point is, that the Jew’s theological problem with Jesus was not the ultimate reason why Pilate sentenced him to death. He’s not ignoring one part of the gospel.
Ehrman is an over educated imbecile. All he proves is that intelligence and education are not inextricable. It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God. Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when he said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy. He didn't say the precise words but he did, unequivocally, make the claim.
@@xaviervelascosuarezIf you had listened for just 10 more seconds, you would have caught Ehrman’s explanation. That’s too bad.
Surprised that the Gospel of Thomas is cited as a key source for interpretation, but no mention of the preterist perspective on Jesus's words about the end of the age. Would love to see an interview with a preterist such as Gary DeMar or Doug Wilson to round out this discussion.
1:19:07 In regards to Bart's opinion that, "a lot of atheists have this binary: that if it didn't happen then somebody's lying about it, and that's just crazy" I'd like to point out that merriam-webster defines a "lie" in 2 ways: 1) "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue *with intent to deceive* " and 2) "an untrue or inaccurate statement that *may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer* ." Please note that according to the second definition any untrue statement is a lie, regardless of if the one peddling it believes it or not. So according to the second definition, it really is that binary: either Jesus was god, or people lied that Jesus was god, and they may or may not have believed it but that doesn't affect whether or not it's a lie.
Thanks for setting this up! IDK how Alex stays so composed all the time - amazing. I researched the legends of the apostle's puported deaths once. It was really hard to find the information on them. Not even sure I got good sources. At any rate, pretty sure the accounts were far later than the events. One was killed if I remember for stifling a ruler's sexual life (similar to the story of John the Baptist). Another basically volunteered to be put to death even though they could have left the area without recanting! But again, not sure of my sources
Thank you for asking challenging questions even to guests with whom you mostly agree. Makes for a much deeper conversation.
He's actually more comfortable challenging people like Ehrman with whom he agrees than he is with Christians who take the opposite viewpoint to his. He's tended to bend over backwards a little too much in those interview, probably for fear of offending them. I think with more maturity and experience he'll get better at the more adversarial interviews. Striking a balance between challenging a viewpoint and not upsetting your guest is not always easy.
@@EnglishMike A conversation becomes a whole different beast when trying to honestly and intellectually engage with what boils down to a religious, lying apologist weasle. I like these open and civil conversations instead of two pricks trying to fling sharp words across a stage. The latter can be fun at times, naturally, I just don't see how this variant would be detrimental or "lesser" to any topic discussed.
@@JEDUBBELLE Asking challenging questions doesn't require you to be a prick about it. He could have easily pushed guests like Bishop Robert Barron to defend their position through some follow up questions without being an a-hole about it.
About the bit at around 1:15:00, it's interesting that Ehrman seemingly agrees to accept the 'post-resurrection group appearances' at face value when he's already described the two principles that would most historically explain them: 1) the gospel writers are taking from oral tradition within their respective communities and 2) stories naturally evolve over time as they are retold and transmitted. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assert that the post-resurrection group appearances, if they indeed did happen, were something more similar to visions, and, through oral tradition, became more and more physical and concrete until they were written down by the gospel writers as touching Jesus' hands and eating with him? Though of course, the fact that Paul was writing about a full 500 witnesses ~50 years before the gospel writers does throw a bit of a wrench in the hypothesis, but the fact that he gives no corroborating information or further details suggests that even _that_ was an oral tradition passed around in his community, right? Just overall, there's no reason we should take these writings at face value, and any historian knows this. Though, I do think Ehrman's alternative argument (where one must apply equivalent skepticism across all belief systems and miracle claims) is also pretty strong in refuting the 'uniqueness' of Christianity's resurrection miracle. I'm also curious as to why Ehrman believes none of the gospel writers knew Hebrew. It kinda came out of the blue and I haven't seen this view expanded anywhere. It is true that they exclusively quote from the LXX and mediate their understandings of scripture through it, but isn't it generally argued that Hebrew was not yet a dead language in Palestine at this time period? I've seen it asserted that Hebrew and Aramaic were both of similar importance and usage, and Palestine was bilingual. As a result, is it not plausible that even the Greek-speaking gospel writers would have most likely known Hebrew as well, even if they chose to read and write in Greek to perhaps cater to their Gentile audience (such that quoting from the LXX would have made it easier for Gentile Christian communities to study and corroborate scripture)? Or perhaps do we have information on where the gospels were written, and Ehrman believes the gospels originated from communities outside of Palestine, say for example Antioch, Ephesus, or Alexandria, where Hebrew would have been drowned out by the lingua franca. Perhaps in that way it is reasonable to assert that the gospel writers didn't know Hebrew despite being quite knowledgable or Judaism, or being Jewish themselves.
1:11:42 The most revealing segment in the whole talk. Not about the apostles, but about Bart himself.
I appreciate that Alex is trying to advocate for Christian reasoning for the sake of argument in the latter part of the interview, but I'm confused as to what is compelling about reasoning that the gospel stories are true by first assuming the gospel stories are true - begging the question. Nor do I understand the repeated suggestion that a story saying something quite unusual makes the story somehow more plausible or credible. So much time was spent on these ideas. (Maybe showing the weakness of this reasoning was exactly the point. I don't know.)
Yeah I though he was just steel-manning but this part got weird especially the circular reasoning part lol
Hes a historian and he has to see it from the ancients point of view .
What a brilliant interview flow! Alex you're doing so great with the questions! Thanks for this!
I can't believe Alex is so young. At his age I was proper dumb 🤣
One could interpret "Son of Man" as a generic term representing humanity or the sons of mankind rather than a specific title for Jesus. Jesus often used this common expression to emphasize his shared humanity with all people which is in alignment with his teachings, to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In many occasions he expressed the oneness between humanity and God. In this view, "Son of Man" could be seen as a metaphorical way for Jesus to highlight his solidarity with the human condition, emphasizing that he, as a representative of humanity, experiences the struggles, joys, and challenges that come with being human. It would suggest that Jesus, by using this term, is emphasizing the universal human experience of being divinity incarnate rather than claiming a unique and exclusive identity for himself. This would create a reasonable example for humanity to follow, rather than somehow believing we are to walk in the footsteps of a supernatural entity of enormous power to call upon legions of angels with the snap of a finger. It also aligns with what he said after each person experienced miraculous healing in his presence, namely that it was their own faith that healed them. Even before his crucifixion he prayed that his followers would realize that they were one, just as he is one with the Father. (John 17:21) Even Paul, who seemingly contradicted Jesus’ teachings on occasion agreed on the fundamental principle that everything is one with God. “For from him and through him and for him are all things.” (Romans 11:36) Science is now coming to the similar conclusions with studies in quantum physics, that everything in the universe is interconnected through quantum entanglement. This is not a new idea, as the Hindus realized that all is one with Brahma, and the separation that we experience is a sensory illusion as individuated forms of the one.
This was a brilliant discussion!
the discussion and topics were excellent. The reasons and justifications given by Bart Ehrman of course are terrific. My goal is to someday meet Dr. Bart Ehrman.
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels he much distrusts when they say that he had previously condemned to death by the Sanhedrin previously for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
@@xaviervelascosuarez the doctrine of the Trinity is 3 persons in one Being. They all have different names, thus the Person but are of one essence, thus the Being
You need scholars other than Ehrman to go off. I'm not recommending not listening to him. Actually I'd keep him just so later you can always have a reminder of what a good bukksjitter looks like.
I loved this, so informative.
What doesnt make sense is how would Greek authors understand the jewish religion and culture so well that they only get a few mistranslated words in the septiuagent . Surely there would be utter chaos in the new testament since it was written in greek. For them to tie the old testament prophesies to the new testament being non Hebrew learnered..im just not convinced by Mr Ehrmans cases and conclusions. He pretty much summed up christs divinity as rumours or stories (started by HEBREW people) , that the authors(who were greek) just caught wind of and wrote . Hes also wrong about our earliest pauline manuscript which is an epistil as far back as 48AD he said the oldest manuscript was from 1st century 70 years after the crucifixion which is false as even the earliest synoptic gospel writings were found 42AD- 55AD (being the gospel of Matthew and Mark ). How would he miss these?
I caught all of that, too.
Thank you for this interview! I love Bart Ehrman, I'm a huge fan of his. I've read almost all his books. They changed my life. Bart is like a logic machine!
Logic, but no reason. So he makes arguments which are internally logically correct, but are unreasonable in demonstrable reality.
Are you christian? May i ask you if jesus is God or just a prophet ( Q from a muslim, no intention for hate )
@@moestv8011 I'm a non-believer.
@@ABARANOWSKISKI YOUR A NON BELIEVER YET THINK BART IS GOOD,LMFAO,YOU SHOULD BE A MUSLIM
@@moestv8011 YOU CAN ANSWER IF JESUS WAS GOD BY THE QURAN,BY USING THE LOGIC,NOW CAN GOD DIE,NO,GOD CANT DIE,CAN HUMANS DIE,YES,SO,IS JESUS DEAD,NO (ALLAH)CLAIMED TO SAVE HIM AND TOOK HIM TO JENAH,SO HE STILL LIVES,SO JESUS MUST BE GOD,AS HES HUMAN AND NOT DEAD,BUT JESUS DID DIE,AS HE WAS BORN OF HUMAN FLESH,PROVING GOD CAN DIE,AND GOD CAN BE BORN,ALL OF WHICH,MUSLIMS DENY ,BUT SAY ALLAH CAN DO SANY THING HE WILLS,BUT ALLAH CAN NOT DIE OR BE BORN.....NOW WHY WOULD ALLAH CREATE JESUS FROM A WOMAN,WHEN HE CREATED ADAM FROM CLAY,THINK ABOUT IT....ALSO GOD CAN BECOME A HUMAN,BUT NO HUMAN CAN BE GOD,HENCE JESUS WAS HUMAN FOR 33YRS TILL HE DIED,THEN ROSE TYO BE GOD AGAIN...NOW CAN YOU SHOW PROOF OF ALLAH B4R THE QURAN ???
Beautiful, respectful conversation and very interesting. As an atheist/agnostic I very much enjoy this kind of conversation. You dont have to come to the same conclusion to enjoy speaking and having fun with someone on a topic.
@daniele.3361please explain
@@daniele.3361 like?
Of course there are. In the Bible.@@daniele.3361
Question: Couldn't the "prophets" Matthew is referring to when he say: " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene," hint at an UNKNOWN prophet? According to Dr. Dan McClellan (if I remember correctly), we don't KNOW what Scriptures the Jews had and revered in the time of Jesus. Of course we do know SOME OF THEM, but there might have been others we are unaware of. Couldn't the quote from Matthew 2:23 be from such an unknown source?
I'm always a little surprised at how many people don't Google "virgin birth." If they did they wouldn't think that a virgin birth is some kind of miracle.
Thank goodness! I’m a Christian and I’m so tired of people telling me I can’t be a Christian unless I accept Jesus as God. He said he was the son of God.
You are correct!
Son as the way I may have or you maybe have a son? U do know without the divinity of Christ and thr trinity the whole of Christianity falls apart right ?. Those are beautifully blended aspects of paganism which is the trinity, Christmas, Santa etc u have emperor Augustine to blame around 300 CE or paul around 50ce a guy who wrote most of the New Testament but never met Jesus even him never dared with the trinity business came must later 300 CE council of nacea turkey emperor Augustine!!!
@@MohamedAli-uu1qf dogma. I think Christianity has changed since Jesus time. I have no idea about the holy trinity because that is a religious ritual and Jesus never crossed himself. The Nicene Creed established Jesus as God which to me was a political decision. God is omnipotent and not confined to a person. Let’s concentrate on what Jesus did. He healed. He loved. He tried to improve humanity. He was the way shower. And he showed we can do it too without snakes and laying hands on people.
I agree. The Nicean Creed was a political decision.
Are you from a modern Christian group ?
This has been my favorite interview with Bart, and I've heard many previous hours. Fantastic.
A debate about whether harry potter is a muggle or not.
Like two bald men fighting over a comb. It simply isn't worth the effort!
These comments are better reserved for Alex postulating that something can come out of nothing in the Craig interview.
Excellent discussion with an eminent , intelligent expert on the Bible. Congratulations to Alex for being factual and avoiding extreme (foolish) utterings as he did on other interviews (Dawkins). Alex at his best.
The point about Jesus saying your sins are forgiven and giving his disciples the authority to forgive sins was something I had never considered in that way.
Most of the people believing Jesus is/was GOD are not aware of such facts. That said, Jesus being the literal son of GOD does not take away from the importance of His role; _...you will die in your sins; _*_for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins"_* - John 8.24 The He of course, being the prophesied Messiah and Son of GOD sent to earth to redeem us
@@smalltimer4370 Ehrman specifically set John aside. Remember, John ignored most of the Jesus stories and focused on symbols. He also came later, after many of the stories had percolated longer. John definitely had a different agenda. He was there to elevate Jesus to Godhood.
@@izzytoons Having read no such thing in John, leads me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about - ie, godhood is not a term or even a defined position in scripture - YHWH's absolute nature is never presented as attainable, or even shared for that matter, in-that there is no such concept presented anywhere in scripture. If anything, the scriptures state the opposite, in that everything about GOD, is absolute and unique to Him alone.
The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14), and we know that God is omniscient. So it seems strange that Jesus would say that He did not know when He would return. When the Son of God became a man, He remained fully God, but He also took on a true human nature. Jesus retained all the attributes of divinity, yet, as a man, He voluntarily restricted their use. This was part of the “self-emptying” or self-renunciation spoken of in Philippians 2:6-8. When Christ entered our world, He laid aside the privileges that had been His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a servant.
@@ThreePersonsInOne It's quite interesting that NONE of what you believe about Jesus comes from the preaching and practice of Jesus of the Bible. If I were in your position, I'd think very seriously and honestly about this matter. No wonder you couldn't quote Jesus to back up your belief about Jesus. In fact, your belief about Jesus is the exact opposite of what Jesus preached and practiced.
Fantastic interview. Alex put aside his personal beliefs to challenge, to the best of his ability, the claims put before him.
30:30 Alex, just so you are aware, that isn’t quite an accurate depiction of Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism does say that if you see the Son you see the Father, because all energies of the Son are energies of the Father. This is outlined in the Athanasian Creed. Properly understood, the verse gives no problems for Trinitarianism as defined in traditional Christianity
41:02 Bart seems to be taking his idea of the narrative more from the Christmas Carol “Little Drummer Boy” than from Matthew. The gospel account never describes the Wise Men as having gotten to Bethlehem immediately or even speedily. Bart is simply inserting an assumption that it happened quickly into the narrative when it is not actually in the text.
One of the best interviews of Bart! Thanks to Alex for being a great interviewer, and Bart for sharing from his awesome knowledge base.
﴿مَا المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ إِلّا رَسولٌ قَد خَلَت مِن قَبلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدّيقَةٌ كانا يَأكُلانِ الطَّعامَ انظُر كَيفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الآياتِ ثُمَّ انظُر أَنّى يُؤفَكونَ﴾ [المائدة: 75] (75) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food.[277] Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. [277]- They were in need of sustenance, proving that they were creations of Allāh, not divine beings. - English Translation
Both Bart Ehrman and Alex have nothing better to do so they create these utube rubbish for views/money ! who even cares if you do believe or don't believe in God !! Because billions do believe and have faith in God ! Stop disrespecting and mocking religious people - CLOWNS 🤡
I like Ehrman but Alex is a smug .....
@@john.premosehe's 24 let him go
@@zaidzaid7455 Prophecy that stated Jesus is man and God. Isaiah 49:, "Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people from far; The LORD hath called me frim the womb; frim the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name." [Written around 700 years befor the birth of the Christ Messiah]. "Behold the days come, saith thr Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jeremiah 23:5-6. Jeremiah in 626 to 586 BC. "Awake, O sword against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord, smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand upon the little ones." Zeckariah 13:7. Matthew 26:31. Zechariah was written in 520-518 BC. [Before Christ] PS In order to arrive at the truth you mudt stoobreadung lying bibles. They are blasphemous words of men. Written for financial gain and to bring doubt to God's word. The POWER is in God's word. Hebrews 4:12.
thank you so much for this interview with bart ehrman, very helpful in understanding the problem of the new testament texts
I was in the high school I remember me and my friend got together spread rumor purposely small town about 20,000 people who spread the rumor after a week somebody started telling us the rumors that was spread but the story is changed when it got back to us, yes, rumor can spread like a wildfire. I agree with professor.
I'm not religious or atheist, but I find this discussion to be delightful and fascinating. Thank you guys for filling my head with lots of new thoughts, and answers to old questions.
I'm still absolutely lost on the trinity thing.
@LionNotWolf I'm not sure what you just "explained", but it sure wasn't "what is the Trinity?" I'm just curious. I don't buy into any religion. There might be some entity that could be called "God", but religious stories are stupid caricatures. I don't believe any human ever "knew" God, and could accurately describe what IT is.... much less what it wants us humans to do. I think all the people who claim to know god are either insane, stupid, tripping on something, or had alien encounters.
I'm not 100% sure of what I did last week, let alone 20 years ago. Comparing shared experiences of the past with my family members there's always disagreements on details, behavior, chronology. Sometimes I remember things wrong or post-rationalise past actions to analyse and/or explain my present self even if back then perhaps it didn't play a big role or meant anything even taking into account that it may have meant and played a different role I remember today because I never shared what I felt with anyone or that I felt anything at all. So even if it's first hand testimony/account I'm taking it with a grain of salt.
We have fan fiction stories about an Aramaic speaking dead jewish preacher. The fan fiction is produced by koine greek speakers decades later that promoted a heathen dead human turned a god with some Jewish elements.
I recently attended my 20 year high school reunion and it was a great example of this because all of a sudden you have people correcting or adding to the memories you’ve had for all this time.
@@RodrigoCastroCh same thing will happen to say, Scientology, as it did to Christianity. A hundred years from now scientological gospels will get popular citing first hand accounts of old people who witnessed Tom Cruise on the filming set of "Mission Impossible 20+" doing all his stunts at age 93. Clearly he was blessed by Xenu (or whatever) and it wasn't just a realistic cyborg AI and CGI or lookalike. And those witnesses knew it was the real flesh and bones Tom because they were doing the catering during the production and while setting up for lunch Tom just showed up out of nowhere, took a fistful of mixed nuts from a bowl and told them with a big smile on his face: "I love what you're doing here. Nuts. Great protein source. Good for the muscles. Healthy living. I love your food." And then he shouted a few WOOOOs and YEEAAAAHs on his way to his private trailer.
If one believes in a God, and that gods interact with humans, I can't think of a better more comprehensive explanation of a worldview that humans have devised for understanding things, than the Bible
But… you positively know the origin of life or what happened with the dinosaurs supposedly 65 million years ago without anyone being there. People certainly make up narratives and science does the same. Believe what you want.
Thanks for this excellent session Alex!
I love Alex's new beard. He looks really grown up.
Joscha Bach. Did you ever contact him for an interview? It would be legendary
One of the best conversations with Dr. Ehrman, I have watched. Great work, Alex! I recommend all of Dr. Ehrman's books to everybody; you should read them. I even have his university textbook "The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction" His last book "Armageddon" is excellent, and it explains many of our current problems with Christian fundamentalists. I only have a comment on what Dr. Ehrman says at the end, which is how Scholars, Academics, and Scientists think about people in general. They believe people are basically good and then don't have ill intentions. Our reality is that there are a lot of people with various degrees of sociopathy in the world, and many of them are drawn to positions of power, political and religious. This is true now and more so in the first century CE. They have no problem with lying. Of course, I can't say everybody is lying, but there is a good probability that somebody is.
Having grown up around a covert narcissist psychopath father who basically ran a small morphing spiritual cult-like group-yeah. exactly. He taught love and acceptance and all feel good cleansing spirituality YET was the most violently abusive controlling person to his kids. I think I’m the only person who ever realized and saw the whole psychopathy of my Dad. My mom was snowed by his personality. He didn’t abuse her and she was ok to not protect us. Sometimes she triggered him purposefully to get us to not “bother” her. He tried to actually murder me multiple times. His eyes went dark like a psycho-killer! I don’t trust anyone much -especially around religion. I know a few are sincere but most at the top are NOT! We like to assume people are kind and well meaning if WE ARE! But it is NOT true. People lie and manipulate as easy as they breathe.
One of the best interviews! You're asking the right questions Alex.
Are you christian? May i ask you if jesus is God or just a prophet ( Q from a muslim, no intention for hate )
@@moestv8011 Hi there. No, I'm not a christian anymore. According to Christianity Jesus was God incarnate and he now sits at the right hand of God and has been given the divine Name above all names. Jesus is called God the son.
@@ReligieVrij so beacuse its confusing you left christianity? Did I understood you correctly?
@@moestv8011 Oh hell no. It's not that simple. My christian faith was everything to me, my whole life. I had it all figured out, but it's that I became sceptical about biblical claims in light of history, myth and religion in general. It's too much to discuss here.
I love how some people didn't watch the video and just debate without knowing what's topic.
This just keeps going and I love it
Legendary interview! And yeah jesus as a prophet(i.e messiah) is more convincing than him claiming to be god.. Watch till the very end.. You both discuss on almost all the topics that i wanted to understand big time.. So big thanks for this high quality content.. keep the good work coming!❤
Most historians agree that Jesus existed, died, and was crucified. As for the resurrection, everyone wants to see in order to believe, but Jesus clearly said "Blessed are those who believe without having seen".🙌
Early Church knew all of these things and preserved all of it for future generations and they still knew and belived and went to their death willingly becuse they knew Jesus was God. Then this guys comes along 2000 years later…😂🤦♂️ naaw bro
That is because you are a Muslim. you are just like Christians seeing what you want to .
Jesus was not a prophet, and did not claim one-sided like Muhammad did, Jesus is Lord and SAVIOR
@@ensenqui "Blessed are those who believe without having seen". Translation - "Trust me Bro".
Your guests are top notch. Hope you keep it up, Alex. And thx for doing these! Liked/upvoted (and now commented)
To say that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the three persons are three separate "beings" is an astonishing rookie error for a scholar of Ehrman's fame. Any Catholic who goes to mass on Sundays, weekly recites in the Creed (formulated in Nicaea ad 325, and tweaked in Constantinople ad 381): "I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (...) *One in being with the Father* ...." I also had a high regard for Bart Ehrman, but this interview was highly disappointing, not only for the above mentioned reason, but also because of his rabid skepticism that comes across as very much ad hoc. For example, he affirms that Jesus was condemned to death by Pilates for calling himself the King of the Jews, which he can only know from the Gospels, but he distrusts them when they say that the Sanhedrin had previously condemned him to death for calling himself God. Seems very convenient to pick and choose _from the same source_ whatever best fits his narrative.
@@xaviervelascosuarez Hilariously stupid comment. It is Christians who pick and choose what they want from the same source. Saying homosexual activity is a sin, which the bible does indeed say is a sin, but it also says you must execute them, but how many Christians want to execute homosexuals? Are you picking and choosing here? The most damning however is that Jesus is VERY CLEAR that rich people DO NOT go to the kingdom of heaven, and yet look at all the rich Christians...
@@kylecampbell1532 Starting a comment with an insult is a clear sign that one has nothing clever to say. Nevertheless, in this case, you referred to one of the most valid criticisms of Christianity: Christians' disconnection between faith and actions. However, my comment is related to teachings, and not to how people live them. And I grant that, since the Protestant Reformation, Christians have grown used to interpret the teachings in the Gospels whichever way they please, because the Reformers turned the Bible into a Constitution without a Supreme Court. If Christ is truly God, he would have known that he was dealing with simple mortals who, without an authoritative and final interpreter, would end up interpreting the Bible into the smithereens of a thousand denominations.
@@xaviervelascosuarez Being a Christian means you believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour, even if they are a good person who lives a good life, goes to hell and that they deserve it. This belief is far worse than any insult I could throw at you. The Christian belief of hell and who goes/deserves it is sadistic and fucked up beyond all recognition. I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that you imply I have nothing clever to say and then go on to say my criticism is one of the most valid. You might want to read over your own comments before you post them, in case you keep saying hilariously stupid things.
1:13:00 Paul doesn’t merely say there is a story that 500 people saw Jesus. He says 500 people saw Jesus, names several of witnesses, says some of the 500 have died but that most are still living. That is a falsifiable claim for his audience. The Corinthians could go verify that claim relatively easily. Bart is understating Paul’s claim here. So Paul did substantiate his claim. He named witnesses that were still alive and could give testimony.
Jesus asked a lot of questions. Query was one of His favorite teaching tools. One of the questions Jesus put to the disciples was “Who do you say that I am?” (Luke 9:20). This question drew out a response that is instructive to all of us. The context of Jesus’ question “Who do you say that I am?” is important: “Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, ‘Who do the crowds say I am?’ “They replied, ‘Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.’ “‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’ “Peter answered, ‘God’s Messiah’” (Luke 9:18-20). Parallel accounts are found in Matthew 16 and Mark 8. Matthew relates that Peter did more than just identify Jesus as the Christ; he also proclaimed Jesus’ divine nature: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Jesus’ question “Who do you say I am?” was not a sign of ignorance; He knew all things, including what was on the disciples’ minds. The question was also not motivated by some type of self-conceit or vanity; Jesus did not preen, and He had no desire to fish for compliments. Rather, His question was aimed at provoking the disciples to consider their level of faith. The immediate results of His question make it clear why He asked them what He did. Jesus began the conversation by asking a related question: “Who do the crowds say I am?” (Luke 9:18). In response, the disciples related the various things they had heard: the opinions included several personages come back to life, pointing to the fact that the crowds viewed Jesus as someone special. But the crowds’ guesses were all wrong. So Jesus directs the question to the disciples themselves: “Who do you say that I am?” In other words, are you following the crowd? Are you sticking with the conventional wisdom about Me? Or do you have another, more insightful answer? What do you really think? Peter then speaks up. In answer to the question, Peter affirms his belief that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah and, more than that, the Son of God. By this time, the disciples had seen many miracles, including the raising of a widow’s son in Nain, the calming of a storm, the casting out of many demons from a man in the Gerasenes, and the feeding of 5,000. The disciples knew that Jesus was more than a prophet; He was absolutely unique; He was, in fact, God in the flesh. In response to Peter’s declaration, Jesus expresses the blessedness of his faith: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). God, in His grace, had opened the disciples’ eyes to see Jesus for who He truly was. So Jesus asks the question “Who do you say that I am?” and He receives the correct (divinely inspired) response from Peter. This marks a turning point in Jesus’ teaching ministry with His disciples. Starting then, the Lord gives His disciples additional information, as shocking as it was for them to hear: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” (Matthew 16:21). Jesus had refrained from telling His disciples about His death and resurrection until they had reached an important milestone: namely, that their faith had grown to the extent that they could express their conviction that Jesus was the Son of God. How the disciples handled the additional information of Jesus’ death would depend on who they believed Jesus to be. Knowing that He is the Son of God, they should be able to trust Him-even to the point of accepting His death (and resurrection) without being shaken. Unfortunately, the disciples had a hard time processing what Jesus was now telling them, as evidenced in Peter’s response (Matthew 16:22-23). Even having faith in Jesus as the divine Son of God, the disciples were thrown into confusion at the prediction of Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Mark 9:32). Jesus’ question “Who do you say that I am?” is a good example of one of His teaching methods. Asking a question demands engagement, promotes thinking, and draws out a considered response. Jesus’ question and subsequent teaching also illustrate the progressive nature of God’s revelation and our need for growing in faith. Throughout history, God has revealed His message gradually, starting in Genesis and continuing through the close of the canon. He did not reveal any more than mankind needed or was capable of receiving at any given time. Also, Jesus’ delay in introducing the subject of His death and resurrection suggests that the disciples’ faith needed to mature to the point that they could hear and understand. All of us are called to grow in our faith. There is always more to know of Christ. “Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity” (Hebrews 6:1). There is your answer God and son and Holy Spirit are one
Bart Ehrman is one of my favorites to listen to. He has devoted his life to studying the Bible and Christianity. Who better to dispute some of the common narratives/misconceptions (as in "Misquoting Jesus). To me, he is a funny, and likeable guy.
It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God. Jesus made another statement claiming to be God when he said, “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). The Jews, upon hearing Him, clearly understood that He was claiming preexistence and, more than that, to be Yahweh, the great “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. On this occasion, too, they tried to stone Him for blasphemy. He didn't say the precise words but he did, unequivocally, make the claim. Ehrman is an example of an over-educated imbecile. He actually believes there is evidence of Jesus' existence as a person. Just don't ask him what and where that 'evidence' is.
As was mentioned in this video Jesus divinity was written about in John but not explicitly in the synoptic gospels and only if you use a few parts to say it was inferred. How does saying this or believing that it’s fairly probable that Jesus existed make Ehrman an imbecile? Ehrman has said many times why he accepts that Jesus existed as far as I can discern and accepts that the writings in the bible and apocrypha are enough evidence for him to accept that this is fairly likely. Some people claim that there is more evidence for Jesus having existed than many other historical figures like Alexander the Great existing because of the books/letters in the New Testament and the limited documentary evidence for the likes of Alexander. Then again nobody believes Alexander is divine now or says you have to believe in him to have eternal life here or in heaven and we have supporting evidence like cities named after Alexander, mentions in Achaemenid documents, coins etc, It’s like someone believing that Homer may have existed. It doesn’t really matter very much to anyone if Homer is mythical or not unlike someone that people claim was/is a god and judges everyone.
@@williamhutton2126 Bill, I cannot address circular arguments, but I don't think it helps a Christian when one defaults to ad hominem attacks...at that point one has lost the argument
@@stevedriscoll2539 Well, simpleton, you clearly don't know how to identify either a circular argument nor a Christian nor seem to know what an ad hominem even means in terms of logic, so it stands to reason you're unequipped to address any of those things. For one, I'm not a Christian so the passive/aggressive attempt at shaming fell flat. Second, I'm directly quoting the bible, the ONLY source on the planet that exists that contains Jesus as any sort of historical figure. Third, ad hominems are very specific in logic. Insults are not ad hominems. Ad Homs require three things in unison to be fallacious (and therefore notable): 1 A valid argument from an interlocutor 2 An extraneous or irrelevant fact about one's interlocutor 3 To dismiss 1 SOLELY based on 2. Since I specifically addressed the core problem of Ehrman's fatuous argument, it was clearly not an ad hominem. And since Ehrman's own arguments was necessarily contained within the same literary device as I used to counter his, it is not circular to point out the evidence contained within that device he either intentionally or inadvertently overlooked, duncecap. And one doesn't 'lose' an argument because an argument may be laced with name calling nor even fallacies, dullard. That's not how any of this works. It's best you take a basic philosophy class or familiarize yourself with what it takes to be a logician before embarrassing yourself further.
@@murph8411 Oh, you're addressing me. I see. Normally one replies specifically to the person they wish to address so that their name appears in blue and sends them a message that you were, in fact, attempting to contact a specific person. _"As was mentioned in this video Jesus divinity was written about in John but not explicitly in the synoptic gospels and only if you use a few parts to say it was inferred."_ - let's just knock out this first thing to disabuse the simpletons that they know what they're talking about. ALL the synoptic gospels make claims of Jesus' divinity. John is just the one that proves Ehrman wrong about his claim that Jesus did not claim he was divine. In Mark: 1. Mark 1:1 2. Mark 1:11 3. Mark 1:24 etc Luke 24:52 Matthew 21:13 Just a few examples. _"Ehrman has said many times why he accepts that Jesus existed as far as I can discern and accepts that the writings in the bible and apocrypha are enough evidence for him to accept that this is fairly likely"_ - And that's the problem. Jesus never existed. The only place you find Jesus in a historical context, is the wholly inaccurate bible. The bible is 100% not remotely evidence of Jesus' existence. And since that is the only place where that fictional character is contained, it is not a source for one's historicity. Claiming it does, makes one an imbecile. That's like saying Harry Potter books contained Harry Potter and therefore SOMEONE named Harry Potter must have existed as the historical inspiration for Harry Potter. See how that is dumb? _"Some people claim that there is more evidence for Jesus having existed than many other historical figures like Alexander the Great existing because of the books/letters in the New Testament and the limited documentary evidence for the likes of Alexander."_ Ask those people for the evidence of those claims. You'll find your hand and mind just as empty as when you asked. I'll skip the analog nonsense at the end because you've already done enough damage to your attempt at adult discourse for one comment.
Great conversation! I love the little detail of having Ehrman's Heaven and Hell on the bookshelf between them.
and Richard Dawkins
Yet he believes in nothing
@@doneestoner9945Dawkins will find the truth one day....and Stephen Meyer will be chuckling.....lol
With a open mind, and heart, ask the Creator to show one the truth, as one reads in the Bible, especially focusing on reading the Gospel of John, Mark, Luke, and the books of Acts, Roman's, Ephesians, first, and re-reading those books, 2-3 times over...one can glean mostly all one needs to know of what Jesus says about Himself, actually, in just reading John, over a few times, prayerfully, early on in one's pursuit of researching the truth of Jesus Christ.
It's John though that gives us one of Jesus' most clear rejections of the idea that he is completely God though - John 20:17
Ehrman is the only person who doesn't make my eyes glaze over when they talk about Jeezus.
Then you don’t know the true Jesus!
@@piratessalyx7871But Ehrman does :)
I have said to my Christian friends that whether Jesus was God or not, whether he was resurrected from the dead or not, whether he would come again or not, and whether he was the Messiah or not does not matter to me. What matters to me is what he taught, especially "love one another."
How does his resurrection not matter? Has anyone else ever been resurrected?
Have you researched other traditions? Many have..maybe not amplified by political power, but there have been records. In China, they have actual records of mortals ascending into the sky in front of thousands of people, and those mortals did not even die in the first place. So, spare me of the provincial view of Jesus' resurrection. Also, why so fearful of death so much so that you need someone to return from the dead to tell you it's OK to move on?
@@reaganlecroy7773when Jesus was supposedly resurrected the bible said that all the dead people crept out of their graves and were walking in the streets of Jerusalem. Go figure 😅
@@reaganlecroy7773Yes tons of them Gercukes became a god after his death. Ceasar and most roman emperors became God's after there death. It was a pretty common troupe to be a god in life or after your life.
@nedsnatos: exactly. Yet so many Christians fail to do that. In fact, they go out of their way to find people to hate.
With no wtiter of the Bible having lived in Jesus' time, HOW is it the Bible is filled with his sayings, quotes?
Well done. Thanks.