There is something about Jesus suffering on the cross that has bugged me ever since I was in Middle School in Rome circa 1968/69. For the record, I attended classes in a school located on a hill above the Colosseum in Rome and walking distance from the Roman Forum. I could see both from the windows of my classroom (if I squinted and stood on a desk). Our history classes were very hands-on as far as we were concerned. We could see the roman ruins on our lunch break and I enjoyed my cherry-orange shaved ice in summer while sitting on a toppled Roman column nearby. In religion class we were told that Jesus suffered immensely for our sins. A suffering so indescribable we couldn't even imagine it. No one could imagine it, it was so epic. As kids, few of us experienced pain and suffering and the idea of having nails through our hands (this was before we figured out that wouldn't work without ropes and/or the nail being driven in the wrist) was certainly shocking. Then in history class we studied the Punic Wars (First, the sequel, and the Return of Hannibal. Even back then sequels were a big deal), but we also studied Spartacus revolts. When the Romans finally defeated Spartacus, we were told that they took the rebels and crucified them all along the road from Rome to Naples like signposts. That made me think, so I asked our religion teacher to explain how Jesus' sacrifice and pain compared to that of the revolting slaves. Not only the slaves were crucified, but their buddies were crucified alongside them after a pretty nasty insurgency campaign. Surely, that was at least comparable to Jesus suffering, if not worse. I remember being marched to our (public school) principal for a through dressing down. Him and the priest tag teamed on me and I walked away convinced that adults were a) weird and b) hypocrites. I even made the argument that two other unfortunates were crucified alongside Jesus. What about their suffering? Why was Jesus' suffering more remarkable? Why did he suffer more. Nails are nails. One small aside. I grew up thinking of the Roman soldiers that crucified Jesus as absolute sadist, because our priest/teacher made a really big deal about the soldiers giving Jesus vinegar instead of water, when he was thirsty, only to find out, fifty years later, that water with vinegar was what the Roman legions of the time drunk themselves. They gave him what they had handy. Anyway, I am 7 minutes in on the podcast, so I don't know how Bart is going to approach the topic, but I wanted to recount this little episode from my youth. And my family still wonders why I never had my daughter baptized.
" Jesus never died on the cross. It takes at least forty-eight hours for a person to die on the Jewish cross; and there have been known cases where people have existed almost six days on the cross without dying. Because Jesus was taken down from the cross after only six hours, there is no possibility of his dying on the cross. Itt was a conspiracy between a rich sympathizer of Jesus and Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus as late as possible on Friday -- because on Saturday, Jews stop everything; their Sabbath does not allow any act. By the evening of Friday everything stops. The arrangement was that Jesus would be crucified late in the afternoon, so before sunset he would be brought down. He might have been unconscious because so much blood had flowed out of the body, but he was not dead. Then he would be kept in a cave, and before the Sabbath ended and the Jews hung him again, his body would be stolen by his followers. The tomb was found empty, and Jesus was removed from Judea as quickly as possible. As he again became healthy and healed, he moved to India and he lived a long life -- one hundred and twelve years -- in Kashmir.It is a coincidence, but a beautiful coincidence, that Moses died in Kashmir and Jesus also died in Kashmir I have been to the graves of both. The graves are ample proof, because those are the only two graves that are not pointing towards Mecca. Mohammedans make their graves with the head pointing towards Mecca, so in the whole world all the graves of Mohammedans point towards Mecca, and Kashmir is Mohammedan.These two graves don't point towards Mecca, and the writing on the graves is in Hebrew, which is impossible on a Mohammedan grave -- Hebrew is not their language. The name of Jesus is written exactly as it was pronounced by the Jews, "Joshua." "Jesus" is a Christian conversion of the Jewish name. The grave is certainly of Jesus. A family has been taking care of both the graves -- they are very close together in one place, Pahalgam -- and only one family has been taking care of them down the centuries. They are Jews -- they are still Jews -- and I had to take their help to read to me what is written on the graves.Moses had come to Kashmir to find a tribe of Jews who were lost on the way from Egypt to Jerusalem. When he reached Jerusalem his deep concern was the whole tribe that had got lost somewhere in the desert. When his people were established in Jerusalem, he went in search of the lost tribe, and he found the lost tribe established in Kashmir. Kashmiris are basically Jewish -- later on Mohammedans forcibly converted them -- and Moses lived with them and died there. Jesus also went to Kashmir, because then it was known that Moses had found the lost tribe there. The doors of Judea were closed -- he would be hanged again -- and the only place where he would find the people who speak the same language, the people who have a same kind of mind, where he would not be a foreigner, was Kashmir. So it was natural for him to go to Kashmir.But he had learned his lesson. He had dropped the idea of being the only begotten son of God; otherwise these Jews would crucify him too. He dropped the idea of being a messiah. He lived with his few intimate friends and followers in Pahalgam. Pahalgam is named after Jesus, because he used to call himself "the shepherd" -- Pahalgam means "the town of the shepherd." So it was a small colony of Jesus and his friends, surrounding the grave of their forefather and the founder of Judaic tradition. Jesus remained a Jew to the very end; he never heard about Christianity. But the followers who were left in Judea managed to create the story of resurrection. And there was no way to prove it this way or that. Neither could they produce Jesus -- if he was resurrected then where was he? Nor could the other party prove what had happened. They had put such a big rock on the mouth of the cave that it was impossible for Jesus to have removed it, and there was a Roman soldier on duty twenty-four hours, so there was no possibility of anybody else removing the rock and taking the body.But because Pontius Pilate was from the very beginning against crucifying Jesus.... He could see the man was absolutely innocent. He has some crazy ideas, but they are not criminal. And what harm does it do to somebody? If someone thinks he is the only begotten son of God, let him enjoy it. Why disturb him, and why get disturbed? If somebody thinks he is the messiah and he has brought the message of God... if you want to listen, listen; if you don't want to listen, don't listen. But there is no need to crucify the man. But Jesus learned his lesson -- learned the hard way. In Kashmir he lived very silently with his group, praying, living peacefully, no longer trying to change the world. And Kashmir was so far away from Judea that in Judea the story of resurrection, amongst the followers of Jesus, became significant. So I say a kind of resurrection certainly happened -- it was a conspiracy more than a resurrection. But certainly Jesus did not die on the cross, he did not die in the cave where he was put; he lived long enough".
At least you didn't insinuate that since Jesus is God, he could have turned on his pain inhibitors and acted out his suffering. Hoo boy the words that came out of some people's mouths when I said that.
It is a lot simpler than most would think. The wages of sin is death, God is justice for justice to be fulfilled sins must be accounted for. Jesus being fuly God and fuly man is in a unique position were he can choose to take the punishment due to others on himself. Justice can either be met by the criminal paying for his offenses, or the person that was offended can have mercy and take the punishment on themselves.
You might look at my post above. You were right to smell a rat. This doctrine is corrupt, barbaric and bears no relationship to reality. They made it up because they couldn't figure out why he died this way and they were not theologically adept enough to see the big picture. The teachings OF Jesus are different than the teachings ABOUT Jesus.. Many many people (millions) throughout history have suffered worse than he did. Your daughter most likely will not miss Catholicism or Christianity as it is practiced, unless you find a very progressive church. The religion contradicts itself and is irrational all over the place. Mathew 25:31-46 (Last Judgment-goats and sheep) claims works and deeds will get you into heaven which is blatantly opposite the primal claim that only Jesus' death redeemed sin. I also do not think Jesus said it but it was inserted BEFORE the atonement theology got codified so they left it in. The Catholic church only absolved the Jews of killing him in 2010. Traditionalist Christians are not the brightest bulbs in the Universe. What Christianity did to Jesus is criminal. it's strange in that it brings out either the best or worst in humanity.
Another delightful, entertaining and enlightening episode. Megan, you always do a great job and Bart, you are so humble and thoughtful in your delivery; never demeaning, always sincere and always insightful. Both of your voices are also calm and easy on the ears. Your podcast is a highlight of my week; thank you both for sharing your time with us.
Megan and Bart, you make a fine duo: quite a good brain trust. You are both admirable to me. I am a retired college professor, who as part of my teaching load taught sections of the Old and New Testaments in my world lit classes. To do so legitimately, I had to make some deep dives into biblical sources. Bart I have read most of your popular books and one or two of you scholarly ones. Megan, I have also read your husband's Atheist Guides to the Old Testament. Still, my friends, after all my reading, I remain just a student of the Bible, and that is my purpose for being here today. Thanks for being Just who you are academically.
Megan's questions guiding the discussion are routinely brilliant (in every sense). The combo of these peerless popular scholars (I have never used that term before!) is a source of great pleasure and many smiles for me! Thank you so much
@@nolongerthere _"The combo of these peerless popular scholars"_ One of the two is a flunky/dropout, who has been included on this podcast as _"representation."_
@@majafleur9646 Does she live in Canada? In the U.S. "performers" can take a tax deduction for costumes that cannot reasonably be worn in regular life. Maybe her glasses qualify?
Great question, who makes these rules for blood atonement and sacrifices that even the “creator of the universe” has to adhere by?? And if I have to forgive humans for being assholes on a daily basis, why can’t the all loving God shows the same level of compassion??
The Creator does, and there is nothing in the scriptures that say a blood sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sin, except by the false apostle Paul.
@@dominicdmello7531 Why is there a hell? Because you have a choice to follow God or not. And if you do not, he cannot have you in his presence as he is perfect and no sin can be with him or by him.
@@dirtypickle77 God only forgives if you repent and then turn and obey his commandments. Otherwise, those that don't will be destroyed because God is perfect and he cannot have sin with him.
I very much appreciated Bart Ehrman's insights into forgiveness vs. atonement and the idea that Jesus never taught unconditional forgiveness--there had to be repentance. Wow.
Why on Earth would Jesus (god) make a torture sacrifice of himself to himself so he could forgive us for doing things he knew from the beginning we would do?
The truth is most beleivers dont really think this deeply into it. Its a blind faith thing where they essentially use weak or fake arguments to pretend they have a logical basis for their beleif to explain away the problems. I know; i was one of them.
And for those of us watching, the video jumping is annoying and distracting. This started a couple episodes ago, apparently deliberately for some reason.
This adoration of death, torture and martyrdom must be a psychiatric pathology. I believe Jesus would be horrified to see that people are worshipping his tortured corpse instead of his message. Entering Carholic churches should be R Rated! But they prefer to shame women's bodies - their mother's bodies.
Hence the pleasure in this podcast - as a human endeavor of incredible reach and influence, religion requires understanding if we are to understand humans. I have learned so much from Dr. Ehrman's writings and this great podcast that goes beyond early Christian scholarship!
I haven’t watched the discussion yet, but my theory is that the historical Jesus said nothing about his death on the cross because he didn’t see it coming. He thought he was the messiah and probably the only authentic part of the crucifixion is when he says “God why have you forsaken me?” When you think of it that statement makes no sense in terms of the story because supposedly he knew he would be crucified. All the stuff about the resurrection the empty tomb, etc. were post hoc rationalizations by his followers to explain why the messiah was able to be killed by the Romans
@@nob1130 Ehrman talks about this specific verse in this video. He points out that there is nothing in Psalms to indicate that the person who suffered is the messiah. That was another post hoc rationalization by Christians. It is hardly surprising (much less an example of fulfilling prophecy) that a teacher raised in and preaching his version of the old testament (the historical Jesus) would quote a poem about suffering and feeling forsaken by God from the old testament as he was dying and suffering on the cross.
If God can do whatever he likes with no restrictions then there was no need for any creature to suffer, or make restitution to God. The god model is entirely man made nonsense which I do not believe.
God is Nature. Your understanding, judging by the opinions that you express every week, seem to be quite limited to your supposed disbelief in God. It is a tiny little bubble.
So, if god is everything (nature), how’s that remotely helpful for a discussion? If god is everything, then isn’t god nothing? Doesn’t that make me god? I’m certain you’d reject that last notion. And good job not engaging with the man’s argument. If you’ve read Plato, it might’ve stood out to you as a fair point.
@@sirrevzalot The op stated that the God he continually professes not believe in is supposed to be able to _do whatever he likes with no restrictions._ The argument against his own assertion is that the God he does not believe in chose to do something contrary to what he thinks would be necessary. Someone's personal incredulity cannot be argued against because there is literally nothing to it.
It's not generally believed that God can do whatever he wants: God can't lie, cheat, be unjust, and so on. Ironically, this makes man capable of many things impossible for God.
The idea of dying for sins is nonsense. I think part of this is they were shocked when he was executed and more shocked when he didn't return. How to explain it? Slowly the idea of literalizing the Paschal lamb that was sacrificed to save the Israelites took hold." Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:29). Gregory Riley points out in "One Jesus, Many Christs", that the common thread unifying divergent thoughts about Jesus was the death of the Hellenistic hero. This fits in with Bart's assertion that without the death and resurrection , (which mainly might have been primarily in dream and vision) you have no religion. Or as one might say "If he had died of the flu, would it have had the same impact".
For some reason I am thinking of the concept of the whipping boy. Allegedly, the growing prince could not be struck with a rod or whip. So when he gave an incorrect answer or misbehaved in class another designated schoolboy would be beaten in his place. If the prince got to feel badly about the suffering the whipping boy endured for him, that was a good sign. If the prince was unmoved it was a bad sign for his kingdom, because they would be next.
@@ninatrabona4629 Atonement theory postulates a God whose love is highly conditional. "Because you were sinful (or WORSE, a long ago *ancestor* was sinful, (they actually came up with that) there must be a price exacted to set thing right. Moreover I will incarnate myself as my own son to receive this punishment but the religion will claim this barbarity came from me and worse, if peope don't straighten up and/or don't accept that this incarnation is the savior, then i will send them to everlasting torment? ???????? In what Universe does this even begin to make sense? I can't get into it now but conventional (not mystical) Christianity has no, zero, zip idea of what God is and who Jesus was. One clue. God is not a person or entity in an anthropomorphic way with human emotions or desires. What God is, is way beyond that and this theology bears no relationship to God.
Correct me if I am wrong - The Bartman is saying that the Christian religion had to adapt the doctrine that Jesus had to die for our sins as an afterthought because Jesus had died? Prior to that they would never have thought that their king would have to die, yeah?
@@brothermine2292 it was the most abvious explanation in greek roman mythology where the many greek gods behaved like humans, and did require sacrifices to pay for a debt
>homer1273 : First, "most obvious" doesn't imply "most reasonable." It only implies the first one to be thought up. Second, it's arguable whether it was the most obvious explanation. My understanding is that Greeks, Romans and Jews sacrificed animals and opposed human sacrifice. Third, other possible explanations seem fairly obvious too: to demonstrate by his resurrection that death isn't final or death can be defeated or Jesus was special, or his kingly throne was in heaven and flesh remains on Earth.
Much is made about Jesus’ suffering during the crucifixion, ignoring the fact that thousands of people were crucified and suffered similarly. Millions of people during the course of history have suffered incredible torture, often torture that endured for much more than a day. Millions of people have suffered painful illnesses, died slow deaths of starvation, malnutrition. For some reason Jesus’ one day of suffering is unique while the massive suffering of others is unremarkable. I do not understand this.
He knew people would get angry about their suffering and confusion here on earth so he needed to be the example of how to go through that. He did that in the hardest way possible- he gave his ONLY son to die for ZERO reason- so that we could understand that he loves us and understands what we're going through.
You guess and dream to much, but have no experience to back it, the drama of jesus is that at least notionally what he did was intentional, while your guessed imaginary millions were in and of themselves unremarkable and heir dreamed/guessed/imagined /supposed suffering was or perhaps was accidental and incidental not related to any aim but so much guess work and that form of dreaming that is belief surrounds events that took place long ago(if at all) that it is difficult -if not impossible to filter anything out of the dreaming that is believing which tends to stupefy the reason, but the jesussey(tale of jesus ) is so cunningly contrived that it seems designed so that you will take it as other than a work of art-a species of drama none of which can be verified as if were anything *other_ than* a work of art, but the trick of good art is that is seems as if it were what-is-called real, but it is tale that speaks to different types and levels, just as Hamlet does; you too will suffer and die -there is no avoiding it , but you can dismiss the resurrection nonsense s the impossible nonsense it is; it is not remotely relevant to the drama of christ, the message or thrust if which is, don't ask me chum, I don't have a clue, but it is gripping stuff possibly objective art of some sort. the loons distract themselves from the essence of it by supposing that is anything other that an extremely gripping work of art-but they don't tie themselves in knots over whether not Hamlet existed the themes of Hamlet and the jesussy being effectively identical; no more do you get videos from lunatic literalist hillbilly bigots about " new evidence that Hamlet's father was poisoned through his ear" on fooltube. Either the jesussey speaks directly to some part or level of whatever you are or it does not. it speaks and spoke to a lot of beings whether they understood anything of it or not but the loons got the wrong end the stick and suppose it has something to do with the stupefying weakness and form of dreaming that is belief, which has *fcuk_nothing* to do with belief- faith being subtle psychological skill that has *absolutely_ nothing* to do with belief(but you see any fool can believe) water runs downhill and electricity to earth, or as it says in smother other work of art( Aeniad )puts it: "Aeneas was praying and holding on the altar when the prophetess started to speak: “Blood relation of Gods,noble Trojan, son of Anchis, the way down to Avernus is easy. Day and night black Pluto’s door stands open. But to retrace your steps and get back to upper air, this is the real task and the real undertaking.”
@@saltydog584 What? you may be confused sir. I'm not on the side of some fictional man-god-father complex and the suffering of us supposed only son for the sins of a bunch of A-hole humans who would not appreciate it anyways.
I’ve listened to so many of Barts Great Courses tapes and other podcasts which opened my eyes to basic theology. Thankyou Bart this is easily the most informative lecture on my most problematic aspect of Christianity . As an aside I firmly believe Christianity is an invention of Paul with little regard for the tenets of Jesus.
Love this conversation about the atonement so much. I grew up in the LDS Church where everything it built on Jesus Christ and his atonement. Thinking too much about the atonement and then realizing that there are so many problems with this story, made me leave Christianity. Thank you so much for educating us all and sharing your incredible knowledge of the Bible. I was definitely taught so much from the scriptures with the missing background, like you cited Isaiah. Never noticed all the contradictions throughout the Bible (and Book of Mormon) until really digging into the scriptures. Religions are so man-made 🤪
James Boswell Recently I sent a question to eminent New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman [see link below]. My question: “After stating that Jesus several times predicted for himself a God-willed death, how could the author of Mark have written a Gethsemane scene in which Jesus expressed strong qualms about fulfilling God’s will unless the scene reflects an event that actually happened?” Ehrman responded by stating his firmly held conviction that Jesus never predicted or expected his death, and for that reason Mark’s Gethsemane scene must be a creation of the gospel’s author that cannot be historical, even though it portrays a Jesus who, Ehrman says, “was in deep despair, did not want to die, and could not understand why” he had to die. “I don’t think that indicates that it really happened,” Ehrman insists. “I mean the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane. We are told explicitly that Jesus took Peter, James, and John and left the other disciples behind, and then he left Peter, James, and John and went off by himself and prayed privately. And right after that, he was arrested, they fled, and he was crucified. So where would Mark get the information about what Jesus prayed? There was nobody there! And so I don’t think that’s an indication of historicity.” In response, I must wonder why Ehrman insists that Jesus prayed privately. Mark 14:35-42 clearly states that Jesus asked Peter, James, and John to sit nearby, and then repeatedly urged them to keep watch with him while he prayed. And where does Ehrman find support for his claim that Jesus “could not understand why he must die”? Jesus’ repeated words indicate only that he did not want to die and was asking whether his heavenly “Abba” could possibly find a way to fulfill his will without requiring Jesus’ death (14:36). In that difficult hour, Jesus’ anguished admission that his and his Father’s will were not in complete accord is itself a convincing indication that Mark’s Gethsemane scene really did take place, for it proved troubling to later Christian thinking. And instead of “not understanding” the reason for his death, in Mark 10:45 and 14:24 Jesus foresaw the “many” for whose sake he ultimately yielded to his Abba’s self-denying love. (Note too the “many” in Isaiah 53:11-12.) Startling as it is, Mark’s Gethsemane scene likely rests on historical bedrock. It happened. Link: ruclips.net/video/BFNU5NeWsMk/видео.html. The question appears at minute 46:14. See also Dale C. Allison: “The standard argument … that the disciples could not have heard or observed anything because they were asleep has always struck me as indecisive, even lame… If Jesus and a few disciples really went to Gethsemane, did all but Jesus irresistibly fall into slumber the second they entered the place?” …[Moreover] “the ancients typically prayed not silently but rather out loud.” (Constructing Jesus, 2010, p. 427). Boswell is a retired Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) pastor living in Normal, IL.
Isn't it great when these concepts are finally defined, and you suddenly realise what you've unquestioningly accepted all your life! I too have wondered why Jesus's suffering was that much greater than the millions of humans who've died in terrible and painful ways.
I enjoy listening to these podcasts and appreciate having these insights made available to the general public. In this podcast, if I understand Dr Erman correctly, the view that Jesus had to die for our sins was an outgrowth of ancient religions' (including Judaism's) belief that there had to be a sin sacrifice to atone for sins. I can't speak about other religions but that's not at all reflective of the Torah's teachings. There are many different types of sacrifices in the Torah but only 2 that relate to sin. One is the "Sin Sacrifice" (Korban Hatat) that is for UNINTENTIONAL sins. The other is the "Guilt Sacrifice" (Korban Asham) which is for a sacrifice in which someone expresses their guilt for what they have done -- the caveat being that they cannot have been caught. But in numerous Tanach (Old Testament) verses, God and the prophets teach that true atonement comes ONLY through repentance and that God DOES NOT want our sacrifices as our attempt to atone for our transgressions. • “For I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.” Hoseah 6:6 . • “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good, what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:6-8 • “Sacrifice and burnt offering You have not desired but my ears You have opened, burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.” Psalm 40:7 - 40:6 in a Christian Bible (this psalm is mistranslated in Hebrews 10:5 as “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure| -- that’s NOT the original Hebrew) • Riches will not avail on the day of wrath, but charity will save from death. (Proverbs 11:4) • With loving-kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated, and through fear of the Lord one turns away from evil. (Proverbs 16:6) • Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:3 • “Nevertheless, O king, let my advice be agreeable to you. Redeem your error with charity, and your sin through kindness to the poor, so that there will be an extension to your tranquility.” (Daniel 4:24) • In addition, blood sacrifice was never obligatory for the forgiveness of sin. There is atonement by a cereal offering designed for poor people (Leviticus 5:11-13); atonement by the burning of incense (Numbers 16:46; Hebrew 17:11); atonement by gold (Numbers 31:50).
A fabulous lesson and discussion. I’m not a Bible believer anymore…..just too many problems , so illogical and dark …I love the figure Jesus Christ. Wish He would be real…but no one knows. And I don’t like His words about hell. I hope they were added and that He didn’t say them….the Old Testament makes me ill. I could never accept that image of a supreme being.
Saint Jerome said that even he didn't want to use the Septuagint writing to translate the Hebrew Bible based on all of the words that had been mistranslated on by Symmachus when Symmachus mis-wrote the Septugint
Greece is just Lovely. We tend to visit at least one Island every year. Somehow however this year i got fooled i to Tenerife by my travelling buddy....
The story of the self-announced killing of Jesus as metaphysical atonement contradicts logically and psychologically with the rest of the other threads of stories in the same Gospels, mainly in Mark and Matthew. In Matthew, it is so ludicrous to the point that the priests know better than the disciples of Jesus about his prophecy regarding his own killing and resurrection, and they advise setting guards at the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body, when the disciples themselves do not expect any resurrection.
Misquoting Jesus is always good. Thank you to both Bart and Megan. I'm not a believer, but I can see both sides: why Christians believe Isaiah prophesizes a Messiah and why non-believers don't. I need to watch another 5 videos and read another 5 books on the subject. I'll probably still be confused even though I have a strong opinion. .
I would like to see Prof. Bart have discussions with JEWISH Biblical Scholars such as Rabbi Michael Skobac, Rabbi Tovia Singer and Prof. Amy-Jill Levine.
Possibly my favorite video of Bart's so far. The difference between FORGIVENESS and ATONEMENT is so important in considering what Christianity is, or has become. It seems to be at the core of the difference between Jesus' teachings vs Paul's. To me, practicing forgiveness may actually "succeed" in the goal of religion, to raise conscientiousness and therefor raise consciousness. Something shifts within us with forgiveness; we feel somehow closer to seeing the world with less fear and anger, more love, closer to the whole. It dissipates our egos and eases our sense of separation. Paul's teaching of atonement, on the other hand, is decidedly more externalized of a process. It requires belief in a claim that somebody else did something for you. Therefor you, yourself, don't need to change from within (let go of anger and blame). You only have to "believe" that someone else did the work on your behalf.
Not imminent. But future. Actually 2,000 years into the future. The Revelation is about happenings in the last century up to now. And a bit more in the days ahead.
Indeed, Jesus taught forgiveness conditional on repentance even among ourselves, though this is often overlooked: Luke 17:3-4 says ”…if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Matthew 18:15-17 says “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
How do we deal with a "mistaken" Jesus? James Boswell Biblically, I am opposed neither to “liberal” nor to “conservative” scholarship. I am opposed only to Bible scholarship that is “shallow,” whether it be considered liberal or conservative. For that reason, I must regard as shallow any biblical scholarship which refuses to admit that Jesus, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, and all the authors of the New Testament were expecting the end of the world to arrive within the lifetime of their own generation. Although that did not happen, the scriptural evidence that they were expecting exactly that is overwhelmingly irrefutable, as follows: Evidence for John the Baptist believing that: Luke 3:7,9,16-17. For Jesus: Mark 1:19; 9:1; 13:18,24-27,30; 14:62; Luke 11:50-51. For Paul: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 1 Corinthians 7:29-31; 15:51-52; Romans 13:11. For other New Testament authors: Hebrews 10:37; James 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7,17; Revelation 1:1-3. Recently, some former Bible literalists have begun publishing internet videos wherein they reveal how they came to lose their fundamentalist faith when they realized they could no longer honestly deny scriptural evidence as convincing as that cited above. Compelled to agree with most credible “historical Jesus” scholars that even Jesus had unfulfilled end-of-time expectations, they lost and renounced their faith in him. That is regrettable, for although Jesus himself acknowledged human limitations to his authority, his status, and his knowledge (Mark 10:40; 10:18: 13:32), he reluctantly but obediently came to believe that his Father’s all-encompassing kindness would be made possible only through Jesus’ God-willed death (Mark 14:36; 10:45 and 14:24; see Isaiah 53:11-12). So seen, the limitations in Jesus’ expectations are of negligible importance compared to his amazing inclusivity - for he went to his death believing that everyone on earth, including even those who were about to send him to a Roman cross, would soon be given abundant reasons for rejoicing when it was revealed to all the world that Jesus had become God’s redeeming gift of forgiving love intended for absolutely everyone. As Jesus himself assured the opposing Temple authorities, they - even they! - would see him “sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” to bring God’s wonderful Kingdom to all the earth - thus fulfilling Daniel chapters 2 and 7 and Isaiah 53. That did not happen in their lifetimes, nor has it happened since. Even so, if honest scholarship can deepen our appreciation for this all-inclusive Jesus, any struggles enabling such appreciation should be more than welcome. Boswell is a retired pastor of The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) now living in Normal.
That's an easy one. No. Jesus didn't have to suffer. If God is omnipotent, God makes the rules. He didn't have to make a rule that sin required a sacrifice. The only reason that rule exists in Christianity is because it's a holdover from Judaism. There's no reason an omnipotent god needs anything from anyone.
Sacrifices are not made for God. They are a fine on men for doing sinful things. That is why you had to give up the best of your flock, etc. So that sin costs you something.
@@BrianHartman God did not reap anything from the fine. The point was to cost you something for committing sin so that hopefully you would sin no longer.
As someone from Greece , I am really happy to see that you like our islands , and will even be visiting again... and that you will be talking about New Testament studies with other people, that is such a unique way to enjoy our islands !!!
God created a perfct "good" world and gave his creation FREE WILL. God foresaw where THAT would go and it went the way of the world we see today: FALLEN. So He provided a solution before the *foundation of the world* was laid. 1 Peter 1:19-20, Revelation 13:8. Jesus had to experience such suffering to KNOW the full of spectrum of EVIL. He endured the agonies of the flesh and a slow death to be Resurrected into ETERNAL Life in JOY... Being in Essence GOD He could do that: as our (((Glorious God))) in ACTION He's the Incredible *Love of God* displayed and Fulfilled.
He didn't create this situation for us, we did. Our mother and father Adam and Eve were tricked into biting into the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because of their iniquity. Think of Adam and Eve like being born into wealthy and powerful families in a gated neighborhood with all they could ever want or need- one day Adam and Eve decide to start doing drugs and this cannot be allowed in the gated community so they are kicked out into the slums where the coup starters were banished to. God, like a loving father wants us back but we have to prove we are done with drugs and ready to come back to him to live a sober life with him again.
Bart might try listening to white noise on his headphones in the coffee shops. It is usually the sound of a fan, and RUclips videos are available that last up to 10 hours. White noise will block out the sounds of the coffee shop without itself becoming a distraction. One soon becomes oblivious of it.
Hello Scholars great program. Can you clear up the problem people have. Who is the Christ who came into the world and spoke to God and JESUS who was a Son of God are they the same .🤔
My opinion. Not everyone believes in one God. Different groups believe in other Gods, is there a problem with that I can't say, people believe in something when they don't know it. What ever works for them. 1 Corinthians 2 1-8 . They didn't know who Jesus was if they would have KNOWN we would have never Crucified him that's something to think about.😮
My theory about Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I think he had an eye condition. He had vision problems on the road to Damascus. Also in one of his letters he ends the letter by writing in his own handwriting in big letters. Did he dictate his letters because he could not write smaller letters? As a tent maker he did not need good vision
Bart, there are Christians that don't believe in substitutionary atonement or imputed righteousness, although as you can imagine, this teaching is being heavily rejected by most christian "teachers" as heretical. Would love for you to have a conversation with Sean Griffin from Kingdom in Context on this subject.
Doctor, have you considered the possibility to add Spanish subtitles to your videos? I think it would be great if Latin American people could have access to material like yours.
Well the thing is the Pharisees were not popular according to Josephus . The Roman’s were hated. We know Judaism at that time was diverse. We know Jesus entry was an event. We also know the Pharisees wanted him arrested but never could “for fear of the crowd.” If Jesus wasn’t popular I don’t think Pilote would have seen him. He most likely heard of this preacher who came in on a donkey with many calling him king. He also started a riot in the temple and the Pharisees had to arrest him at night. So Jesus was probably very popular. Reason (if we take the resurrection story out of it) his followers refused to let him die and why Christianity grew so fast. We know Josephus says Jesus, John the Baptist and James were good men . We also know after James was killed many of those in Jerusalem were angry. Meaning the Jerusalem church had grown to be maybe majority . So I think Jesus was far more popular than the Bible tries to say among the Jewish people. Sadly most perished in the Jewish Roman war.
I'm curious how you (anyone here) would respond to someone saying the concept of forgiveness and atonement aren't really that different. This is the argument I would anticipate from Christians. When a debt is being forgiven, wiped clean, someone is still kind of paying for it: the person to whom a debtor owes a debt. Say I pay $10 for someone's meal, they owe me $10, I forgive them their debt; but I still paid $10. If the sin is being forgiven by God, then God as recipient of wrongdoing is still paying for the sin (by enduring it, if that makes sense-by having $10 taken from him through our sin); if the sin is being atoned for, God in Christ is paying for it. Either way someone is enduring the damage of the sin. So if Jesus preaches forgiveness, is it really that different from the teaching of atonement? I know the logic breaks down somewhere, but I can't articulate why I don't think this is the same... Anyone able to explain?
I asked that question in my mind and I decided that it did not matter if there was no suffering, and just the required death. If God could create all this, then God could create anaesthetic and so Jesus did not feel what he had to endure. .. Would that matter to me.. Hell NO. ..
The most significant event in the entire existence happened in 1980 when a guy named Mike was falsely accused and executed by lethal injection in the state of Tennessee. You may not have noticed but that seemingly ordinary event fundamentally changed the nature of reality itself.
Abraham's son was to be sacrificed but spared by Gods intervention. This i believe is the best evidence for a fulfilment in Jesus's death. It was in this way prophesied.
Did Jesus have to Suffer? Kinda mixed on this question since we hardly know anything about the kind of person the historical Jesus was like as for all we know, Christ may have not been as wholesome as he’s made to look in the Bible. However, if there is any truth to the altruistic deeds the historical Jesus did in scripture, then probably not but I feel like he did put himself in that position of being a target by the Roman authority given that he was preaching the end for Roman dominion over the Jews and indirectly implied ascension as a King. So surely he understood the penalty of being viewed as a rebel.
The forgive thing is about the only decent Jesus thing that I can think of good things he brought forth, and I'm sure he's not the first to suggest this. It's not like the Jesus character was offering super genius ideas for the times. Without the supernatural stuff, which is about as silly as it gets for campfire stories, I really don't think we'd have heard of any of this without the sacrifice junk to confuse and exacerbate the story, so that it's was an "ancient box-office hit". Can't seem to dismiss all the murderous advertising campaigns in the centuries since. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
@@HHasan-of2vi original sin doesn’t say we are “bad” but instead says we are born in a fallen state. All of creation needed salvation. Not just babies but the trees, the planets, etc. creation itself Trinity. In order to be love there is a lover, a loved, and a love that is shared. Triune god. Redemption/atonement goes back to original sin. Creation is in a fallen state and needs to be redeemed. Plenty of other reasons not to be a Christian but these aren’t great examples
I recall reading Matthew for the first time. My takeaway was that if we identify Jesus with God, then God is showing us that He does not put us through anything that He would not go through himself. I found this thought salvific, and a neat solution to theodicy. I’m glad this thought was rejected and ridiculed or I would not be the atheist I am today.
Megan doesn't talk about her own upcoming event on Friday May 24, when she and Josh join Paulogia Live 's Toast 2 Toast Podcast. Be there. Will be wild.
Mark 15:28 verse according to what the Codex Vaticanus show's was written way after the time of the crucification because it was never written or found written originally on by the writer of the book of Mark
The Codex Corbeiensis 2 also show's that the genealogy of Jesus wasn't written the correct way that it was written like how it was written on in the gospel of Luke
Saint Jerome today would say, You Christians shouldn't believe what was written on in the Old Testament or the New Testament because of what Symmachus did when he mistranslated Isaiah 7:14 verse and Genesis 24:43 verse by substituting the word neanis with the word ("parthenos,") vigin
I wonder if Jesus is likening the forgiveness he expects God will give us to the Jubilee years of the Old Testament, in which debts were forgiven? Given he expected the apocalypse, that might seem to be a sort of cosmic jubilee.
23:43 - Yep, I spent a lot of time on the atonement of Jesus, and it just doesn't make sense. Jesus died for nothing, it was a historical accident that his followers had to justify after the fact.
Why is it not a subject of debate that a God experienced suffering on the cross? Is not docetism a valid belief. Or the writers of the gospel invented the suffering for theological reasons?
The Orthodox view is that Jesus was not a sacrifice for forgiveness, nor a victim substituted in our place. He did stand in our place, by becoming incarnate, and he died and took the place that we were bound to in death, but he didn't RE-place us. So he became like us in all things but sin, and therefore was not containable by death, and so he created a Passover back to life that is the path for all flesh to the resurrection from the dead. It is a mechanism of destroying the curse of fallen human nature, not of getting our sins forgiven (which God gives upon repentance) nor payment, nor substitution. Ransom, victim, sacrifice are all loaded terms that have subtle meanings and can be used carefully to describe what happened, but it's not a legal proceeding.
The Codex Vaticanus show's that verses throughout the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and also the book of Acts were not written originally on by the New Testament writer's
The gist of forgiveness is the release or letting go of a claim. The gist of atonement is the resulting unity or 'onement'. The gist of 'kippur' is the covering or forgetting of the claim. The key question is actually whether a sacrifice is the necessary prerequisite.
@@brothermine2292 It comes down to your overall worldview when it comes to 'necessity'. My personal view is that God is the author of the universe story, so that the 'necessity' would just be God's artistic vision for what repentance stories look like. In other words, the notion is that the idea of someone else making rules that God must obey is incoherent.
>johndavis5104 : I'm unsure whether you understood my reply, so I'll elaborate. According to Bart, gospel says God forgives people who repent. That implies people who repent do not need to atone... they don't need to sacrifice or have someone else suffer on their behalf. Unless repentance itself is considered a sacrifice of some kind. A corollary of Bart's point is that Jesus' suffering atones only for _unrepentant_ sinners. (People who repent don't benefit from His atonement because they're already forgiven.) In other words, _everyone_ is saved... because Jesus saved everyone who didn't save themselves. Unfortunately, that would imply we can all be as evil & unrepentant as we desire.
@@brothermine2292 We're at cross-purposes here. My point was that God is an author, not a vending machine. Harry Potter CHOSE to destroy the elder wand because that's how J.K. Rowling wrote the story. Our story has all of Romans 3:25, Romans 9:18, and Romans 9:22.
>johndavis5104 : Don't cherry-pick elements of God's story. Don't assume we know the true story... many people have faith in ideas that are false, due to a feeling -- certitude -- that the brain can generate that shuts down reasonable skepticism. And don't forget that a story must be interpreted by its readers, who aren't omniscient, which can result in misinterpretation.
Drop another what if? If Jesus was sentenced to spend the rest of his life at the oar of a Roman galley? Would the Church have an oar instead of a cross? Or would Jesus just disappear into the Roman slave class?
It is irrational that Jesus needs to suffer due to someone else’s sins. It is irrational that people are born in sin due to Adam and Eve’s sins. Christianity must have been made up by scribes or changed from what it actually was.
If it was necessary to kill Jesus for salvation, then why the effort to live according to his teachings when just believing is enough? Why say "forgive them for they know not what they do". Those that believe that he had to die hiding behind the killers: calling them bad whilst supporting the murder in their hearts. Then on the final note, are we saying that one man's death 2000 years ago has atoned for the future sins of future humans up till now.
""Jesus suffering on the cross"" is a debate and this must be understood if one is to understand Christianity. Suffering is a concern for all major religions. They all offer some sort of way to avoid suffering. If one is to believe the ""Lives of the Saints"" then the absence of suffering on the infliction of trauma (torture) is a sign of a saint and it would be no different for Jesus. This is also a sign of a saint in India. The path to God is freedom from suffering, which is central to Christianity.
It is easy to understand if you replace “sin” with the sin of Israel. The punishment is the destruction of the temple To atone for sins, the priest enters the sanctuary once a year to make atonement
21:27 "... No. You don't need to pay anything. And nobody has to pay for you. God will forgive you. He's like a father. And when the child says -- You know, I'm sorry! -- the father forgives him [or her]. The father doesn't have to beat him [or her] now. [...] So, this is the teaching of Jesus with respect to God and then also with respect to how humans ought to relate to each other." 21:54 "So, if Jesus taught that God forgives sins, why does he then have to suffer? ..." 22:05 "... a really big theological problem: Why does God require His Son to die?... That's what the Christian tradition says and it doesn't seem to be what Jesus taught..."
I was struck by Dr Ehrman's reference to the prohibition of wearing clothing made of a mixture of wool and linen as something that obviously no sane human being would pay heed to. Perhaps Dr Ehrman is unaware of the status of this biblical no-no for some presumably sane people today. Whenever I buy a suit or a coat made of wool, I bring it to a textiles expert versed in the halacha (Jewish lifestyle rules and guidance) pertaining to sha'atnez (mixtures of wool and linen). My purchase gets examined and tested and any sha'atnez is removed and the garment is labeled as sha'atnez-free. One man's irrelevancy is another man's Godly command. Living in accordance with God's directions for life is at the core of my faith.
Bart comes for vacations in the Greek islands and gives lectures as a bonus, and the Greek Atheist union has no idea about it. How could that be happening? Are we going to lose him again like Agenors' sons lost Zeus after he kidnapped Europa and island-hopped the Aegean? This is so embarrassing! I can't believe it! We have to get him somewhere, I bet he'll pass from Patmos, we have to set up a guard there...
It blows the mind of Christians when I explain to them that 1st Century Judaism had no concept of a "savior". They keep talking about the messiah, and I have to tell them it's another term they don't understand either.
Reverse engineering from the Christian view, this shouldn’t surprise Christians - the whole point was that the Jews weren’t expecting this kind of ‘messiah’ - so as to reject him and put him to death, thus being the atonement as per Isaiah 53…God has blinded the Jews…As it is written: *Isaiah 6:8-10* Also I (Isaiah) heard the voice of the LORD, saying: “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” And He said, “Go, and *tell this people* : *‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’* *“Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”* Do you see? it was in God’s plan that the messiah be put to death, as it is written: *Zechariah 13:7* “Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, Against the Man who is My Companion,” Says the Lord of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered” Written in the Jewish scriptures.. hundreds of years prior to Christ; it was foretold 🙏🏾
@@ScottyyyB96 If you have free time watch Blogging theology chanel video section please,there you will find some very good academic discussions. Thanks
Ehhhhh second temple Judaism was crazy diverse. Those Jews that considered Enoch , Ezra canon very much believed in a 2 power in heaven and the son of man being this second power. So it depends
@@ScottyyyB96 Isaiah has nothing at all to do with Jesus and neither does Zechariah. In fact if you read Zechariah literally, you're denying the Trinity. You have a Christian idea of the messiah. In Judaism the messiah is a HUMAN king raised up by Yahweh to conquer the earthly enemies of the Israelites before the Judgement Day. Jesus quite possibly believed he was the messiah, but it has nothing to do with dying on a cross for anyone's sins.
We "ground" our children. We lock them in for their own good ...? We do require sacrifice from our children and from each other too! In fact we do that for each other daily why would a heavenly family be any different? I would think Gods Heavenly family would come with great prestige and would require great sacrifices as well.
Seems like he suffered because he was crucified by the Romans. The idea that Jesus had to suffer to “save” humanity seems like an idea created by certain Church leaders. I run from church leaders who claim to know the mind of God and try to dictate what is or is not necessary for God to redeem the world.
I think the first amendment needs to be amended. No one gets to say anymore- I speak FOR god and god wants you to know I am his mouthpiece. So many cult leaders would be stopped in their tracks.
There is something about Jesus suffering on the cross that has bugged me ever since I was in Middle School in Rome circa 1968/69. For the record, I attended classes in a school located on a hill above the Colosseum in Rome and walking distance from the Roman Forum. I could see both from the windows of my classroom (if I squinted and stood on a desk). Our history classes were very hands-on as far as we were concerned. We could see the roman ruins on our lunch break and I enjoyed my cherry-orange shaved ice in summer while sitting on a toppled Roman column nearby.
In religion class we were told that Jesus suffered immensely for our sins. A suffering so indescribable we couldn't even imagine it. No one could imagine it, it was so epic.
As kids, few of us experienced pain and suffering and the idea of having nails through our hands (this was before we figured out that wouldn't work without ropes and/or the nail being driven in the wrist) was certainly shocking.
Then in history class we studied the Punic Wars (First, the sequel, and the Return of Hannibal. Even back then sequels were a big deal), but we also studied Spartacus revolts. When the Romans finally defeated Spartacus, we were told that they took the rebels and crucified them all along the road from Rome to Naples like signposts.
That made me think, so I asked our religion teacher to explain how Jesus' sacrifice and pain compared to that of the revolting slaves. Not only the slaves were crucified, but their buddies were crucified alongside them after a pretty nasty insurgency campaign. Surely, that was at least comparable to Jesus suffering, if not worse.
I remember being marched to our (public school) principal for a through dressing down. Him and the priest tag teamed on me and I walked away convinced that adults were a) weird and b) hypocrites.
I even made the argument that two other unfortunates were crucified alongside Jesus. What about their suffering? Why was Jesus' suffering more remarkable? Why did he suffer more. Nails are nails.
One small aside. I grew up thinking of the Roman soldiers that crucified Jesus as absolute sadist, because our priest/teacher made a really big deal about the soldiers giving Jesus vinegar instead of water, when he was thirsty, only to find out, fifty years later, that water with vinegar was what the Roman legions of the time drunk themselves. They gave him what they had handy.
Anyway, I am 7 minutes in on the podcast, so I don't know how Bart is going to approach the topic, but I wanted to recount this little episode from my youth. And my family still wonders why I never had my daughter baptized.
" Jesus never died on the cross. It takes at least forty-eight hours for a person to die on the Jewish cross; and there have been known cases where people have existed almost six days on the cross without dying. Because Jesus was taken down from the cross after only six hours, there is no possibility of his dying on the cross.
Itt was a conspiracy between a rich sympathizer of Jesus and Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus as late as possible on Friday -- because on Saturday, Jews stop everything; their Sabbath does not allow any act. By the evening of Friday everything stops.
The arrangement was that Jesus would be crucified late in the afternoon, so before sunset he would be brought down. He might have been unconscious because so much blood had flowed out of the body, but he was not dead. Then he would be kept in a cave, and before the Sabbath ended and the Jews hung him again, his body would be stolen by his followers. The tomb was found empty, and Jesus was removed from Judea as quickly as possible. As he again became healthy and healed, he moved to India and he lived a long life -- one hundred and twelve years -- in Kashmir.It is a coincidence, but a beautiful coincidence, that Moses died in Kashmir and Jesus also died in Kashmir
I have been to the graves of both. The graves are ample proof, because those are the only two graves that are not pointing towards Mecca. Mohammedans make their graves with the head pointing towards Mecca, so in the whole world all the graves of Mohammedans point towards Mecca, and Kashmir is Mohammedan.These two graves don't point towards Mecca, and the writing on the graves is in Hebrew, which is impossible on a Mohammedan grave -- Hebrew is not their language. The name of Jesus is written exactly as it was pronounced by the Jews, "Joshua." "Jesus" is a Christian conversion of the Jewish name. The grave is certainly of Jesus.
A family has been taking care of both the graves -- they are very close together in one place, Pahalgam -- and only one family has been taking care of them down the centuries. They are Jews -- they are still Jews -- and I had to take their help to read to me what is written on the graves.Moses had come to Kashmir to find a tribe of Jews who were lost on the way from Egypt to Jerusalem. When he reached Jerusalem his deep concern was the whole tribe that had got lost somewhere in the desert. When his people were established in Jerusalem, he went in search of the lost tribe, and he found the lost tribe established in Kashmir. Kashmiris are basically Jewish -- later on Mohammedans forcibly converted them -- and Moses lived with them and died there. Jesus also went to Kashmir, because then it was known that Moses had found the lost tribe there. The doors of Judea were closed -- he would be hanged again -- and the only place where he would find the people who speak the same language, the people who have a same kind of mind, where he would not be a foreigner, was Kashmir. So it was natural for him to go to Kashmir.But he had learned his lesson. He had dropped the idea of being the only begotten son of God; otherwise these Jews would crucify him too. He dropped the idea of being a messiah. He lived with his few intimate friends and followers in Pahalgam.
Pahalgam is named after Jesus, because he used to call himself "the shepherd" -- Pahalgam means "the town of the shepherd." So it was a small colony of Jesus and his friends, surrounding the grave of their forefather and the founder of Judaic tradition. Jesus remained a Jew to the very end; he never heard about Christianity.
But the followers who were left in Judea managed to create the story of resurrection. And there was no way to prove it this way or that. Neither could they produce Jesus -- if he was resurrected then where was he? Nor could the other party prove what had happened. They had put such a big rock on the mouth of the cave that it was impossible for Jesus to have removed it, and there was a Roman soldier on duty twenty-four hours, so there was no possibility of anybody else removing the rock and taking the body.But because Pontius Pilate was from the very beginning against crucifying Jesus.... He could see the man was absolutely innocent. He has some crazy ideas, but they are not criminal. And what harm does it do to somebody? If someone thinks he is the only begotten son of God, let him enjoy it. Why disturb him, and why get disturbed? If somebody thinks he is the messiah and he has brought the message of God... if you want to listen, listen; if you don't want to listen, don't listen. But there is no need to crucify the man.
But Jesus learned his lesson -- learned the hard way. In Kashmir he lived very silently with his group, praying, living peacefully, no longer trying to change the world. And Kashmir was so far away from Judea that in Judea the story of resurrection, amongst the followers of Jesus, became significant. So I say a kind of resurrection certainly happened -- it was a conspiracy more than a resurrection. But certainly Jesus did not die on the cross, he did not die in the cave where he was put; he lived long enough".
I had the same questions as a kid in Catholic Sunday school and got more or less the same response from the nuns who taught the class.
At least you didn't insinuate that since Jesus is God, he could have turned on his pain inhibitors and acted out his suffering.
Hoo boy the words that came out of some people's mouths when I said that.
It is a lot simpler than most would think. The wages of sin is death, God is justice for justice to be fulfilled sins must be accounted for. Jesus being fuly God and fuly man is in a unique position were he can choose to take the punishment due to others on himself. Justice can either be met by the criminal paying for his offenses, or the person that was offended can have mercy and take the punishment on themselves.
You might look at my post above. You were right to smell a rat. This doctrine is corrupt, barbaric and bears no relationship to reality. They made it up because they couldn't figure out why he died this way and they were not theologically adept enough to see the big picture. The teachings OF Jesus are different than the teachings ABOUT Jesus.. Many many people (millions) throughout history have suffered worse than he did.
Your daughter most likely will not miss Catholicism or Christianity as it is practiced, unless you find a very progressive church. The religion contradicts itself and is irrational all over the place. Mathew 25:31-46 (Last Judgment-goats and sheep) claims works and deeds will get you into heaven which is blatantly opposite the primal claim that only Jesus' death redeemed sin. I also do not think Jesus said it but it was inserted BEFORE the atonement theology got codified so they left it in. The Catholic church only absolved the Jews of killing him in 2010. Traditionalist Christians are not the brightest bulbs in the Universe.
What Christianity did to Jesus is criminal. it's strange in that it brings out either the best or worst in humanity.
Another delightful, entertaining and enlightening episode. Megan, you always do a great job and Bart, you are so humble and thoughtful in your delivery; never demeaning, always sincere and always insightful. Both of your voices are also calm and easy on the ears. Your podcast is a highlight of my week; thank you both for sharing your time with us.
Megan and Bart, you make a fine duo: quite a good brain trust. You are both admirable to me. I am a retired college professor, who as part of my teaching load taught sections of the Old and New Testaments in my world lit classes. To do so legitimately, I had to make some deep dives into biblical sources. Bart I have read most of your popular books and one or two of you scholarly ones. Megan, I have also read your husband's Atheist Guides to the Old Testament. Still, my friends, after all my reading, I remain just a student of the Bible, and that is my purpose for being here today. Thanks for being Just who you are academically.
Megan's questions guiding the discussion are routinely brilliant (in every sense). The combo of these peerless popular scholars (I have never used that term before!) is a source of great pleasure and many smiles for me! Thank you so much
@@nolongerthere _"The combo of these peerless popular scholars"_
One of the two is a flunky/dropout, who has been included on this podcast as _"representation."_
_"Thanks for being Just who you are academically."_
Thank you, for the laugh-out-loud funny joke.
Even if this was not so interesting, informative and intellectually pleasing, I would watch it just for Megan's endless flow of new glasses. 🙂
I hope she doesn't feel pressured or obligated by us to do so, but that she does so only for her own enjoyment and gratification.
I'm convinced she has wonderful vision care and coverage... Here in Canada, we get a discount once every two years.
@@majafleur9646 Does she live in Canada? In the U.S. "performers" can take a tax deduction for costumes that cannot reasonably be worn in regular life. Maybe her glasses qualify?
Someone should finally clue in Bart that the Maz Kanata look is from a long long time ago and a galaxy far far away! haha
I may be the only one here, but I find the glasses and hair a bit distracting.
Always learn something from these videos. Thanks, Bart, Megan, et al.
Great question, who makes these rules for blood atonement and sacrifices that even the “creator of the universe” has to adhere by?? And if I have to forgive humans for being assholes on a daily basis, why can’t the all loving God shows the same level of compassion??
The Creator does, and there is nothing in the scriptures that say a blood sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sin, except by the false apostle Paul.
@@onejohn2.26.That right, the Hebrew scriptures show God forgives freely. Christianity teaches otherwise, the jews know better.
My exact question as a young boy. If God is so good and so merciful, why is there a he'll? I think I asked that as a 9 year old.
@@dominicdmello7531
Why is there a hell? Because you have a choice to follow God or not. And if you do not, he cannot have you in his presence as he is perfect and no sin can be with him or by him.
@@dirtypickle77
God only forgives if you repent and then turn and obey his commandments. Otherwise, those that don't will be destroyed because God is perfect and he cannot have sin with him.
I very much appreciated Bart Ehrman's insights into forgiveness vs. atonement and the idea that Jesus never taught unconditional forgiveness--there had to be repentance. Wow.
Any chance of an episode of the Book of Daniel? It's often (mis)used by endtime preachers.
Why on Earth would Jesus (god) make a torture sacrifice of himself to himself so he could forgive us for doing things he knew from the beginning we would do?
Yeah! He could've just cut the middle man and not give us life! 🤣🤣🤣 atheists will never understand with their material idealism.
The truth is most beleivers dont really think this deeply into it. Its a blind faith thing where they essentially use weak or fake arguments to pretend they have a logical basis for their beleif to explain away the problems. I know; i was one of them.
Oh for goodness' sake it's only a *story*
@@vhawk1951kl ... No sh*t, Sherlock.
The Terran System is the rage of the quadrant.
This is precisely the reason why I left the religion. It shocked me more people don’t discuss it but they just accept it as a fact of life.
It's MJ Tuesday, baby!
Just a word to your techs - don't hard pan narration and music on opposite sides. That is painful for listeners on headphones.
And for those of us watching, the video jumping is annoying and distracting. This started a couple episodes ago, apparently deliberately for some reason.
26:47 That's more or less what I have always thought. Sounds like his followers just had to come up with an explanation of why he died at all.
The whole religious theology is abhorrent...suffering , pain, payback, revenge...geez where is the exit
Probably meth for you lmfao
Best solution is to avoid the "entrance."
If you are interested in the 'exit' you may want to read up on the the gnostics!
This adoration of death, torture and martyrdom must be a psychiatric pathology. I believe Jesus would be horrified to see that people are worshipping his tortured corpse instead of his message. Entering Carholic churches should be R Rated! But they prefer to shame women's bodies - their mother's bodies.
Hence the pleasure in this podcast - as a human endeavor of incredible reach and influence, religion requires understanding if we are to understand humans. I have learned so much from Dr. Ehrman's writings and this great podcast that goes beyond early Christian scholarship!
Brilliant and useful episode. Thank you both.
I haven’t watched the discussion yet, but my theory is that the historical Jesus said nothing about his death on the cross because he didn’t see it coming. He thought he was the messiah and probably the only authentic part of the crucifixion is when he says “God why have you forsaken me?” When you think of it that statement makes no sense in terms of the story because supposedly he knew he would be crucified. All the stuff about the resurrection the empty tomb, etc. were post hoc rationalizations by his followers to explain why the messiah was able to be killed by the Romans
If you think "My god my god why have u forsaken me" as legit, He was quoting Psalms 22.
Which again highlights Messianic verses, making him prophetic.
I do wonder how he reacted to his arrest and if he tried to reverse the sentence.
@@nob1130 Ehrman talks about this specific verse in this video. He points out that there is nothing in Psalms to indicate that the person who suffered is the messiah. That was another post hoc rationalization by Christians. It is hardly surprising (much less an example of fulfilling prophecy) that a teacher raised in and preaching his version of the old testament (the historical Jesus) would quote a poem about suffering and feeling forsaken by God from the old testament as he was dying and suffering on the cross.
If God can do whatever he likes with no restrictions then there was no need for any creature to suffer, or make restitution to God. The god model is entirely man made nonsense which I do not believe.
God is Nature.
Your understanding, judging by the opinions that you express every week, seem to be quite limited to your supposed disbelief in God.
It is a tiny little bubble.
So, if god is everything (nature), how’s that remotely helpful for a discussion? If god is everything, then isn’t god nothing? Doesn’t that make me god? I’m certain you’d reject that last notion. And good job not engaging with the man’s argument. If you’ve read Plato, it might’ve stood out to you as a fair point.
@@sirrevzalot The op stated that the God he continually professes not believe in is supposed to be able to _do whatever he likes with no restrictions._
The argument against his own assertion is that the God he does not believe in chose to do something contrary to what he thinks would be necessary.
Someone's personal incredulity cannot be argued against because there is literally nothing to it.
It's not generally believed that God can do whatever he wants: God can't lie, cheat, be unjust, and so on. Ironically, this makes man capable of many things impossible for God.
What yardstick are you using to arrive at your conclusions?
My favorite Podcast Team
The idea of dying for sins is nonsense. I think part of this is they were shocked when he was executed and more shocked when he didn't return. How to explain it? Slowly the idea of literalizing the Paschal lamb that was sacrificed to save the Israelites took hold." Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:29).
Gregory Riley points out in "One Jesus, Many Christs", that the common thread unifying divergent thoughts about Jesus was the death of the Hellenistic hero. This fits in with Bart's assertion that without the death and resurrection , (which mainly might have been primarily in dream and vision) you have no religion.
Or as one might say "If he had died of the flu, would it have had the same impact".
For some reason I am thinking of the concept of the whipping boy. Allegedly, the growing prince could not be struck with a rod or whip. So when he gave an incorrect answer or misbehaved in class another designated schoolboy would be beaten in his place. If the prince got to feel badly about the suffering the whipping boy endured for him, that was a good sign. If the prince was unmoved it was a bad sign for his kingdom, because they would be next.
@@ninatrabona4629 Atonement theory postulates a God whose love is highly conditional. "Because you were sinful (or WORSE, a long ago *ancestor* was sinful, (they actually came up with that) there must be a price exacted to set thing right. Moreover I will incarnate myself as my own son to receive this punishment but the religion will claim this barbarity came from me and worse, if peope don't straighten up and/or don't accept that this incarnation is the savior, then i will send them to everlasting torment? ????????
In what Universe does this even begin to make sense? I can't get into it now but conventional (not mystical) Christianity has no, zero, zip idea of what God is and who Jesus was. One clue. God is not a person or entity in an anthropomorphic way with human emotions or desires. What God is, is way beyond that and this theology bears no relationship to God.
I need to watch this again. Stunningly incredible.
Correct me if I am wrong - The Bartman is saying that the Christian religion had to adapt the doctrine that Jesus had to die for our sins as an afterthought because Jesus had died? Prior to that they would never have thought that their king would have to die, yeah?
Correct!
Although His followers needed to explain His death, it did not need to be that particular explanation.
@@brothermine2292 Agree., They had to come up with some narrative to fit the dogma. Now they can just use ChatGPT to do it. Easy peasy.
@@brothermine2292 it was the most abvious explanation in greek roman mythology where the many greek gods behaved like humans, and did require sacrifices to pay for a debt
>homer1273 : First, "most obvious" doesn't imply "most reasonable." It only implies the first one to be thought up.
Second, it's arguable whether it was the most obvious explanation. My understanding is that Greeks, Romans and Jews sacrificed animals and opposed human sacrifice.
Third, other possible explanations seem fairly obvious too: to demonstrate by his resurrection that death isn't final or death can be defeated or Jesus was special, or his kingly throne was in heaven and flesh remains on Earth.
Much is made about Jesus’ suffering during the crucifixion, ignoring the fact that thousands of people were crucified and suffered similarly. Millions of people during the course of history have suffered incredible torture, often torture that endured for much more than a day. Millions of people have suffered painful illnesses, died slow deaths of starvation, malnutrition. For some reason Jesus’ one day of suffering is unique while the massive suffering of others is unremarkable. I do not understand this.
He knew people would get angry about their suffering and confusion here on earth so he needed to be the example of how to go through that. He did that in the hardest way possible- he gave his ONLY son to die for ZERO reason- so that we could understand that he loves us and understands what we're going through.
You guess and dream to much, but have no experience to back it, the drama of jesus is that at least notionally what he did was intentional, while your guessed imaginary millions were in and of themselves unremarkable and heir dreamed/guessed/imagined /supposed suffering was or perhaps was accidental and incidental not related to any aim but so much guess work and that form of dreaming that is belief surrounds events that took place long ago(if at all) that it is difficult -if not impossible to filter anything out of the dreaming that is believing which tends to stupefy the reason, but the jesussey(tale of jesus ) is so cunningly contrived that it seems designed so that you will take it as other than a work of art-a species of drama none of which can be verified as if were anything *other_ than* a work of art, but the trick of good art is that is seems as if it were what-is-called real, but it is tale that speaks to different types and levels, just as Hamlet does; you too will suffer and die -there is no avoiding it , but you can dismiss the resurrection nonsense s the impossible nonsense it is; it is not remotely relevant to the drama of christ, the message or thrust if which is, don't ask me chum, I don't have a clue, but it is gripping stuff possibly objective art of some sort. the loons distract themselves from the essence of it by supposing that is anything other that an extremely gripping work of art-but they don't tie themselves in knots over whether not Hamlet existed the themes of Hamlet and the jesussy being effectively identical; no more do you get videos from lunatic literalist hillbilly bigots about " new evidence that Hamlet's father was poisoned through his ear" on fooltube.
Either the jesussey speaks directly to some part or level of whatever you are or it does not. it speaks and spoke to a lot of beings whether they understood anything of it or not but the loons got the wrong end the stick and suppose it has something to do with the stupefying weakness and form of dreaming that is belief, which has *fcuk_nothing* to do with belief- faith being subtle psychological skill that has *absolutely_ nothing* to do with belief(but you see any fool can believe) water runs downhill and electricity to earth, or as it says in smother other work of art( Aeniad )puts it:
"Aeneas was praying and holding on the altar when the prophetess started to speak: “Blood relation of Gods,noble Trojan, son of Anchis, the way down to Avernus is easy.
Day and night black Pluto’s door stands open. But to retrace your steps and get back to upper air, this is the real task and the real undertaking.”
@JA-ru3il you clearly have suspended all of your God given intelligence and common sense just to BELIEVE. But more power to you.
@@Phill_TheDeal So don't use your brain - just believe what the priest tells you to believe.
@@saltydog584 What? you may be confused sir.
I'm not on the side of some fictional man-god-father complex and the suffering of us supposed only son for the sins of a bunch of A-hole humans who would not appreciate it anyways.
I’ve listened to so many of Barts Great Courses tapes and other podcasts which opened my eyes to basic theology. Thankyou Bart this is easily the most informative lecture on my most problematic aspect of Christianity . As an aside I firmly believe Christianity is an invention of Paul with little regard for the tenets of Jesus.
Love this conversation about the atonement so much. I grew up in the LDS Church where everything it built on Jesus Christ and his atonement.
Thinking too much about the atonement and then realizing that there are so many problems with this story, made me leave Christianity.
Thank you so much for educating us all and sharing your incredible knowledge of the Bible. I was definitely taught so much from the scriptures with the missing background, like you cited Isaiah. Never noticed all the contradictions throughout the Bible (and Book of Mormon) until really digging into the scriptures.
Religions are so man-made 🤪
What an interesting topic to say the least 😊❤
Did Mark’s Gethsemane scene really happen?
James Boswell
Recently I sent a question to eminent New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman [see link below].
My question: “After stating that Jesus several times predicted for himself a God-willed death, how could the author of Mark have written a Gethsemane scene in which Jesus expressed strong qualms about fulfilling God’s will unless the scene reflects an event that actually happened?”
Ehrman responded by stating his firmly held conviction that Jesus never predicted or expected his death, and for that reason Mark’s Gethsemane scene must be a creation of the gospel’s author that cannot be historical, even though it portrays a Jesus who, Ehrman says, “was in deep despair, did not want to die, and could not understand why” he had to die.
“I don’t think that indicates that it really happened,” Ehrman insists. “I mean the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane. We are told explicitly that Jesus took Peter, James, and John and left the other disciples behind, and then he left Peter, James, and John and went off by himself and prayed privately. And right after that, he was arrested, they fled, and he was crucified. So where would Mark get the information about what Jesus prayed? There was nobody there! And so I don’t think that’s an indication of historicity.”
In response, I must wonder why Ehrman insists that Jesus prayed privately. Mark 14:35-42 clearly states that Jesus asked Peter, James, and John to sit nearby, and then repeatedly urged them to keep watch with him while he prayed. And where does Ehrman find support for his claim that Jesus “could not understand why he must die”? Jesus’ repeated words indicate only that he did not want to die and was asking whether his heavenly “Abba” could possibly find a way to fulfill his will without requiring Jesus’ death (14:36).
In that difficult hour, Jesus’ anguished admission that his and his Father’s will were not in complete accord is itself a convincing indication that Mark’s Gethsemane scene really did take place, for it proved troubling to later Christian thinking. And instead of “not understanding” the reason for his death, in Mark 10:45 and 14:24 Jesus foresaw the “many” for whose sake he ultimately yielded to his Abba’s self-denying love. (Note too the “many” in Isaiah 53:11-12.)
Startling as it is, Mark’s Gethsemane scene likely rests on historical bedrock. It happened.
Link: ruclips.net/video/BFNU5NeWsMk/видео.html. The question appears at minute 46:14.
See also Dale C. Allison: “The standard argument … that the disciples could not have heard or observed anything because they were asleep has always struck me as indecisive, even lame… If Jesus and a few disciples really went to Gethsemane, did all but Jesus irresistibly fall into slumber the second they entered the place?” …[Moreover] “the ancients typically prayed not silently but rather out loud.” (Constructing Jesus, 2010, p. 427).
Boswell is a retired Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) pastor living in Normal, IL.
Isn't it great when these concepts are finally defined, and you suddenly realise what you've unquestioningly accepted all your life! I too have wondered why Jesus's suffering was that much greater than the millions of humans who've died in terrible and painful ways.
My favourite topic! I wish I could talk with Bart more about it.
Re: Suffering of Jesus: More likely retrodiction than prediction.
The Good Rev. Dr. Bart Ehrman!!!! I did NOT learn this in Sunday School 🤣🤣🤣🤣 . I am become a more informed Christian and I LOVE IT!!!
There's been a whole range of theories about why God would sacrifice his Son. The one you mentioned was only invented around 500 years ago.
Outstanding podcast!
Thank you both 💓
I enjoy listening to these podcasts and appreciate having these insights made available to the general public.
In this podcast, if I understand Dr Erman correctly, the view that Jesus had to die for our sins was an outgrowth of ancient religions' (including Judaism's) belief that there had to be a sin sacrifice to atone for sins. I can't speak about other religions but that's not at all reflective of the Torah's teachings.
There are many different types of sacrifices in the Torah but only 2 that relate to sin. One is the "Sin Sacrifice" (Korban Hatat) that is for UNINTENTIONAL sins. The other is the "Guilt Sacrifice" (Korban Asham) which is for a sacrifice in which someone expresses their guilt for what they have done -- the caveat being that they cannot have been caught.
But in numerous Tanach (Old Testament) verses, God and the prophets teach that true atonement comes ONLY through repentance and that God DOES NOT want our sacrifices as our attempt to atone for our transgressions.
• “For I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.” Hoseah 6:6 .
• “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good, what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:6-8
• “Sacrifice and burnt offering You have not desired but my ears You have opened, burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.” Psalm 40:7 - 40:6 in a Christian Bible (this psalm is mistranslated in Hebrews 10:5 as “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure| -- that’s NOT the original Hebrew)
• Riches will not avail on the day of wrath, but charity will save from death. (Proverbs 11:4)
• With loving-kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated, and through fear of the Lord one turns away from evil. (Proverbs 16:6)
• Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:3
• “Nevertheless, O king, let my advice be agreeable to you. Redeem your error with charity, and your sin through kindness to the poor, so that there will be an extension to your tranquility.” (Daniel 4:24)
• In addition, blood sacrifice was never obligatory for the forgiveness of sin. There is atonement by a cereal offering designed for poor people (Leviticus 5:11-13); atonement by the burning of incense (Numbers 16:46; Hebrew 17:11); atonement by gold (Numbers 31:50).
A fabulous lesson and discussion. I’m not a Bible believer anymore…..just too many problems , so illogical and dark …I love the figure Jesus Christ. Wish He would be real…but no one knows. And I don’t like His words about hell. I hope they were added and that He didn’t say them….the Old Testament makes me ill. I could never accept that image of a supreme being.
Always interesting...my favourite podcasts.
Saint Jerome said that even he didn't want to use the Septuagint writing to translate the Hebrew Bible based on all of the words that had been mistranslated on by Symmachus when Symmachus mis-wrote the Septugint
Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time
Greece is just Lovely. We tend to visit at least one Island every year. Somehow however this year i got fooled i to Tenerife by my travelling buddy....
This is so brilliant, thank you so much 🙏🏻
The story of the self-announced killing of Jesus as metaphysical atonement contradicts logically and psychologically with the rest of the other threads of stories in the same Gospels, mainly in Mark and Matthew. In Matthew, it is so ludicrous to the point that the priests know better than the disciples of Jesus about his prophecy regarding his own killing and resurrection, and they advise setting guards at the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body, when the disciples themselves do not expect any resurrection.
Misquoting Jesus is always good. Thank you to both Bart and Megan. I'm not a believer, but I can see both sides: why Christians believe Isaiah prophesizes a Messiah and why non-believers don't. I need to watch another 5 videos and read another 5 books on the subject. I'll probably still be confused even though I have a strong opinion. .
They start at 4:40
I would like to see Prof. Bart have discussions with JEWISH Biblical Scholars such as Rabbi Michael Skobac, Rabbi Tovia Singer and Prof. Amy-Jill Levine.
Possibly my favorite video of Bart's so far. The difference between FORGIVENESS and ATONEMENT is so important in considering what Christianity is, or has become. It seems to be at the core of the difference between Jesus' teachings vs Paul's. To me, practicing forgiveness may actually "succeed" in the goal of religion, to raise conscientiousness and therefor raise consciousness. Something shifts within us with forgiveness; we feel somehow closer to seeing the world with less fear and anger, more love, closer to the whole. It dissipates our egos and eases our sense of separation.
Paul's teaching of atonement, on the other hand, is decidedly more externalized of a process. It requires belief in a claim that somebody else did something for you. Therefor you, yourself, don't need to change from within (let go of anger and blame). You only have to "believe" that someone else did the work on your behalf.
Because the repentant are forgiven, His atoning sacrifice could serve only the unrepentant.
Hosea 6:6. No blood sacrifice necessary.
Jesus announced the imminent kingdom: peace and happiness for all. It didn't happen. End of story.
Not imminent. But future. Actually 2,000 years into the future. The Revelation is about happenings in the last century up to now. And a bit more in the days ahead.
excellent!!
Indeed, Jesus taught forgiveness conditional on repentance even among ourselves, though this is often overlooked: Luke 17:3-4 says ”…if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Matthew 18:15-17 says “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
great topic!!!
How do we deal with a "mistaken" Jesus?
James Boswell
Biblically, I am opposed neither to “liberal” nor to “conservative” scholarship. I am opposed only to Bible scholarship that is “shallow,” whether it be considered liberal or conservative.
For that reason, I must regard as shallow any biblical scholarship which refuses to admit that Jesus, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, and all the authors of the New Testament were expecting the end of the world to arrive within the lifetime of their own generation. Although that did not happen, the scriptural evidence that they were expecting exactly that is overwhelmingly irrefutable, as follows:
Evidence for John the Baptist believing that: Luke 3:7,9,16-17. For Jesus: Mark 1:19; 9:1; 13:18,24-27,30; 14:62; Luke 11:50-51. For Paul: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 1 Corinthians 7:29-31; 15:51-52; Romans 13:11. For other New Testament authors: Hebrews 10:37; James 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7,17; Revelation 1:1-3.
Recently, some former Bible literalists have begun publishing internet videos wherein they reveal how they came to lose their fundamentalist faith when they realized they could no longer honestly deny scriptural evidence as convincing as that cited above. Compelled to agree with most credible “historical Jesus” scholars that even Jesus had unfulfilled end-of-time expectations, they lost and renounced their faith in him.
That is regrettable, for although Jesus himself acknowledged human limitations to his authority, his status, and his knowledge (Mark 10:40; 10:18: 13:32), he reluctantly but obediently came to believe that his Father’s all-encompassing kindness would be made possible only through Jesus’ God-willed death (Mark 14:36; 10:45 and 14:24; see Isaiah 53:11-12).
So seen, the limitations in Jesus’ expectations are of negligible importance compared to his amazing inclusivity - for he went to his death believing that everyone on earth, including even those who were about to send him to a Roman cross, would soon be given abundant reasons for rejoicing when it was revealed to all the world that Jesus had become God’s redeeming gift of forgiving love intended for absolutely everyone. As Jesus himself assured the opposing Temple authorities, they - even they! - would see him “sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” to bring God’s wonderful Kingdom to all the earth - thus fulfilling Daniel chapters 2 and 7 and Isaiah 53.
That did not happen in their lifetimes, nor has it happened since. Even so, if honest scholarship can deepen our appreciation for this all-inclusive Jesus, any struggles enabling such appreciation should be more than welcome.
Boswell is a retired pastor of The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) now living in Normal.
That's an easy one.
No. Jesus didn't have to suffer.
If God is omnipotent, God makes the rules. He didn't have to make a rule that sin required a sacrifice. The only reason that rule exists in Christianity is because it's a holdover from Judaism. There's no reason an omnipotent god needs anything from anyone.
Sacrifices are not made for God. They are a fine on men for doing sinful things. That is why you had to give up the best of your flock, etc. So that sin costs you something.
What's easy to see is this is what Christianity is, while it is not what Judaism is.
@@onejohn2.26. A fine paid to whom, though? To God.
@@howardvenze9956 AFAIK, YWH isn't a tri-omni god, so Judaism doesn't have this contradiction.
@@BrianHartman
God did not reap anything from the fine. The point was to cost you something for committing sin so that hopefully you would sin no longer.
As someone from Greece , I am really happy to see that you like our islands , and will even be visiting again... and that you will be talking about New Testament studies with other people, that is such a unique way to enjoy our islands !!!
Another excellent podcast and rebuttal of the Christian doctrine.
No of course he didn't have to suffer. God didn't need to create the world like this.
God created a perfct "good" world and gave his creation FREE WILL. God foresaw where THAT would go and it went the way of the world we see today: FALLEN. So He provided a solution before the *foundation of the world* was laid. 1 Peter 1:19-20, Revelation 13:8. Jesus had to experience such suffering to KNOW the full of spectrum of EVIL. He endured the agonies of the flesh and a slow death to be Resurrected into ETERNAL Life in JOY... Being in Essence GOD He could do that: as our (((Glorious God))) in ACTION He's the Incredible *Love of God* displayed and Fulfilled.
He didn't create this situation for us, we did. Our mother and father Adam and Eve were tricked into biting into the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because of their iniquity. Think of Adam and Eve like being born into wealthy and powerful families in a gated neighborhood with all they could ever want or need- one day Adam and Eve decide to start doing drugs and this cannot be allowed in the gated community so they are kicked out into the slums where the coup starters were banished to. God, like a loving father wants us back but we have to prove we are done with drugs and ready to come back to him to live a sober life with him again.
Some advice from the LI Ministry of Tourism: go to the North rim of the Grand Canyon, then take a dip in
the Great Salt Lake.
Bart might try listening to white noise on his headphones in the coffee shops. It is usually the sound of a fan, and RUclips videos are available that last up to 10 hours. White noise will block out the sounds of the coffee shop without itself becoming a distraction. One soon becomes oblivious of it.
Hello Scholars great program. Can you clear up the problem people have. Who is the Christ who came into the world and spoke to God and JESUS who was a Son of God are they the same .🤔
My opinion. Not everyone believes in one God. Different groups believe in other Gods, is there a problem with that I can't say, people believe in something when they don't know it. What ever works for them. 1 Corinthians 2 1-8 . They didn't know who Jesus was if they would have KNOWN we would have never Crucified him that's something to think about.😮
Maybe try next time to write a book in a "coffee shop" in Amsterdam, Bart? 😜😁
My theory about Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I think he had an eye condition. He had vision problems on the road to Damascus. Also in one of his letters he ends the letter by writing in his own handwriting in big letters. Did he dictate his letters because he could not write smaller letters? As a tent maker he did not need good vision
Bart, there are Christians that don't believe in substitutionary atonement or imputed righteousness, although as you can imagine, this teaching is being heavily rejected by most christian "teachers" as heretical. Would love for you to have a conversation with Sean Griffin from Kingdom in Context on this subject.
Doctor, have you considered the possibility to add Spanish subtitles to your videos? I think it would be great if Latin American people could have access to material like yours.
Is it possible Jesus thought when he got to Jerusalem he was going to get the Isaac treatment and was surprised when he was hung on a cross?
Well the thing is the Pharisees were not popular according to Josephus . The Roman’s were hated.
We know Judaism at that time was diverse. We know Jesus entry was an event. We also know the Pharisees wanted him arrested but never could “for fear of the crowd.” If Jesus wasn’t popular I don’t think Pilote would have seen him. He most likely heard of this preacher who came in on a donkey with many calling him king. He also started a riot in the temple and the Pharisees had to arrest him at night.
So Jesus was probably very popular. Reason (if we take the resurrection story out of it) his followers refused to let him die and why Christianity grew so fast. We know Josephus says Jesus, John the Baptist and James were good men . We also know after James was killed many of those in Jerusalem were angry. Meaning the Jerusalem church had grown to be maybe majority .
So I think Jesus was far more popular than the Bible tries to say among the Jewish people. Sadly most perished in the Jewish Roman war.
I'm curious how you (anyone here) would respond to someone saying the concept of forgiveness and atonement aren't really that different. This is the argument I would anticipate from Christians. When a debt is being forgiven, wiped clean, someone is still kind of paying for it: the person to whom a debtor owes a debt. Say I pay $10 for someone's meal, they owe me $10, I forgive them their debt; but I still paid $10. If the sin is being forgiven by God, then God as recipient of wrongdoing is still paying for the sin (by enduring it, if that makes sense-by having $10 taken from him through our sin); if the sin is being atoned for, God in Christ is paying for it. Either way someone is enduring the damage of the sin. So if Jesus preaches forgiveness, is it really that different from the teaching of atonement? I know the logic breaks down somewhere, but I can't articulate why I don't think this is the same... Anyone able to explain?
I asked that question in my mind and I decided that it did not matter if there was no suffering, and just the required death.
If God could create all this, then God could create anaesthetic and so Jesus did not feel what he had to endure.
..
Would that matter to me..
Hell NO.
..
What about Mark 10:45?
Thank you.
The most significant event in the entire existence happened in 1980 when a guy named Mike was falsely accused and executed by lethal injection in the state of Tennessee. You may not have noticed but that seemingly ordinary event fundamentally changed the nature of reality itself.
Abraham's son was to be sacrificed but spared by Gods intervention. This i believe is the best evidence for a fulfilment in Jesus's death. It was in this way prophesied.
Did Jesus have to Suffer?
Kinda mixed on this question since we hardly know anything about the kind of person the historical Jesus was like as for all we know, Christ may have not been as wholesome as he’s made to look in the Bible.
However, if there is any truth to the altruistic deeds the historical Jesus did in scripture, then probably not but I feel like he did put himself in that position of being a target by the Roman authority given that he was preaching the end for Roman dominion over the Jews and indirectly implied ascension as a King. So surely he understood the penalty of being viewed as a rebel.
The forgive thing is about the only decent Jesus thing that I can think of good things he brought forth, and I'm sure he's not the first to suggest this. It's not like the Jesus character was offering super genius ideas for the times. Without the supernatural stuff, which is about as silly as it gets for campfire stories, I really don't think we'd have heard of any of this without the sacrifice junk to confuse and exacerbate the story, so that it's was an "ancient box-office hit". Can't seem to dismiss all the murderous advertising campaigns in the centuries since. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
If Jesus had to suffer, then God is definitely not all powerful.
Well , well ,uhh but. he. . god😂😂
There is no god
Bible's illogical and irrational doctrines.
1. Original Sin.
2. Trinity.
3. Redemption.
4. Atonement.
How are those irrational/illogical?
@@tookie36
1. Original sin - look at any infant.
2. Trinity - Join kindergarten.
3. Redemption and atonement - Go to any Judicial Court.
@@HHasan-of2vi original sin doesn’t say we are “bad” but instead says we are born in a fallen state. All of creation needed salvation. Not just babies but the trees, the planets, etc. creation itself
Trinity. In order to be love there is a lover, a loved, and a love that is shared. Triune god.
Redemption/atonement goes back to original sin. Creation is in a fallen state and needs to be redeemed.
Plenty of other reasons not to be a Christian but these aren’t great examples
@@tookie36 Explanation of those term is more illogical.
I recall reading Matthew for the first time. My takeaway was that if we identify Jesus with God, then God is showing us that He does not put us through anything that He would not go through himself. I found this thought salvific, and a neat solution to theodicy. I’m glad this thought was rejected and ridiculed or I would not be the atheist I am today.
It's all a convoluted unfathomable mess.
Megan doesn't talk about her own upcoming event on Friday May 24, when she and Josh join Paulogia Live 's Toast 2 Toast Podcast. Be there. Will be wild.
Mark 15:28 verse according to what the Codex Vaticanus show's was written way after the time of the crucification because it was never written or found written originally on by the writer of the book of Mark
The Codex Corbeiensis 2 also show's that the genealogy of Jesus wasn't written the correct way that it was written like how it was written on in the gospel of Luke
Saint Jerome today would say, You Christians shouldn't believe what was written on in the Old Testament or the New Testament because of what Symmachus did when he mistranslated Isaiah 7:14 verse and Genesis 24:43 verse by substituting the word neanis with the word ("parthenos,") vigin
Why did Yeshua hang around for only a short time after his crucifixion?
I wonder if Jesus is likening the forgiveness he expects God will give us to the Jubilee years of the Old Testament, in which debts were forgiven? Given he expected the apocalypse, that might seem to be a sort of cosmic jubilee.
23:43 - Yep, I spent a lot of time on the atonement of Jesus, and it just doesn't make sense. Jesus died for nothing, it was a historical accident that his followers had to justify after the fact.
I am very interested in Jesus being linked to the Greeks!!
Are the Greeks linked to Babylon?
Why is it not a subject of debate that a God experienced suffering on the cross? Is not docetism a valid belief. Or the writers of the gospel invented the suffering for theological reasons?
The Orthodox view is that Jesus was not a sacrifice for forgiveness, nor a victim substituted in our place. He did stand in our place, by becoming incarnate, and he died and took the place that we were bound to in death, but he didn't RE-place us. So he became like us in all things but sin, and therefore was not containable by death, and so he created a Passover back to life that is the path for all flesh to the resurrection from the dead. It is a mechanism of destroying the curse of fallen human nature, not of getting our sins forgiven (which God gives upon repentance) nor payment, nor substitution. Ransom, victim, sacrifice are all loaded terms that have subtle meanings and can be used carefully to describe what happened, but it's not a legal proceeding.
Imagine we live in a nightmare and the only way to wake up is something loud and abrupt such as the dreamer sacrificing their son in the dream?
Did jedus or god demande people or saints to share his sufferings. Its sounds illogical since people are allready forgiven
The Codex Vaticanus show's that verses throughout the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John and also the book of Acts were not written originally on by the New Testament writer's
I would argue that Jesus taught repentance and reconciliation, which is something beyond simple forgiveness
The gist of forgiveness is the release or letting go of a claim. The gist of atonement is the resulting unity or 'onement'. The gist of 'kippur' is the covering or forgetting of the claim. The key question is actually whether a sacrifice is the necessary prerequisite.
A related question: Is repentance difficult enough to be a type of sacrifice?
@@brothermine2292 It comes down to your overall worldview when it comes to 'necessity'. My personal view is that God is the author of the universe story, so that the 'necessity' would just be God's artistic vision for what repentance stories look like. In other words, the notion is that the idea of someone else making rules that God must obey is incoherent.
>johndavis5104 : I'm unsure whether you understood my reply, so I'll elaborate. According to Bart, gospel says God forgives people who repent. That implies people who repent do not need to atone... they don't need to sacrifice or have someone else suffer on their behalf. Unless repentance itself is considered a sacrifice of some kind.
A corollary of Bart's point is that Jesus' suffering atones only for _unrepentant_ sinners. (People who repent don't benefit from His atonement because they're already forgiven.) In other words, _everyone_ is saved... because Jesus saved everyone who didn't save themselves. Unfortunately, that would imply we can all be as evil & unrepentant as we desire.
@@brothermine2292 We're at cross-purposes here. My point was that God is an author, not a vending machine. Harry Potter CHOSE to destroy the elder wand because that's how J.K. Rowling wrote the story. Our story has all of Romans 3:25, Romans 9:18, and Romans 9:22.
>johndavis5104 : Don't cherry-pick elements of God's story. Don't assume we know the true story... many people have faith in ideas that are false, due to a feeling -- certitude -- that the brain can generate that shuts down reasonable skepticism. And don't forget that a story must be interpreted by its readers, who aren't omniscient, which can result in misinterpretation.
Drop another what if? If Jesus was sentenced to spend the rest of his life at the oar of a Roman galley? Would the Church have an oar instead of a cross? Or would Jesus just disappear into the Roman slave class?
Did Jews at the time of Jesus have the idea of a suffering Messiah? If they had, how wide spread was it?
It is irrational that Jesus needs to suffer due to someone else’s sins. It is irrational that people are born in sin due to Adam and Eve’s sins. Christianity must have been made up by scribes or changed from what it actually was.
If it was necessary to kill Jesus for salvation, then why the effort to live according to his teachings when just believing is enough? Why say "forgive them for they know not what they do".
Those that believe that he had to die hiding behind the killers: calling them bad whilst supporting the murder in their hearts.
Then on the final note, are we saying that one man's death 2000 years ago has atoned for the future sins of future humans up till now.
""Jesus suffering on the cross"" is a debate and this must be understood if one is to understand Christianity. Suffering is a concern for all major religions. They all offer some sort of way to avoid suffering. If one is to believe the ""Lives of the Saints"" then the absence of suffering on the infliction of trauma (torture) is a sign of a saint and it would be no different for Jesus. This is also a sign of a saint in India. The path to God is freedom from suffering, which is central to Christianity.
It is easy to understand if you replace “sin” with the sin of Israel.
The punishment is the destruction of the temple
To atone for sins, the priest enters the sanctuary once a year to make atonement
21:27 "... No. You don't need to pay anything. And nobody has to pay for you. God will forgive you. He's like a father. And when the child says -- You know, I'm sorry! -- the father forgives him [or her]. The father doesn't have to beat him [or her] now. [...] So, this is the teaching of Jesus with respect to God and then also with respect to how humans ought to relate to each other."
21:54 "So, if Jesus taught that God forgives sins, why does he then have to suffer? ..." 22:05 "... a really big theological problem: Why does God require His Son to die?... That's what the Christian tradition says and it doesn't seem to be what Jesus taught..."
I was struck by Dr Ehrman's reference to the prohibition of wearing clothing made of a mixture of wool and linen as something that obviously no sane human being would pay heed to. Perhaps Dr Ehrman is unaware of the status of this biblical no-no for some presumably sane people today. Whenever I buy a suit or a coat made of wool, I bring it to a textiles expert versed in the halacha (Jewish lifestyle rules and guidance) pertaining to sha'atnez (mixtures of wool and linen). My purchase gets examined and tested and any sha'atnez is removed and the garment is labeled as sha'atnez-free.
One man's irrelevancy is another man's Godly command. Living in accordance with God's directions for life is at the core of my faith.
Is there a useful purpose for that particular command?
Bart comes for vacations in the Greek islands and gives lectures as a bonus, and the Greek Atheist union has no idea about it. How could that be happening? Are we going to lose him again like Agenors' sons lost Zeus after he kidnapped Europa and island-hopped the Aegean? This is so embarrassing! I can't believe it! We have to get him somewhere, I bet he'll pass from Patmos, we have to set up a guard there...
It blows the mind of Christians when I explain to them that 1st Century Judaism had no concept of a "savior".
They keep talking about the messiah, and I have to tell them it's another term they don't understand either.
Reverse engineering from the Christian view, this shouldn’t surprise Christians - the whole point was that the Jews weren’t expecting this kind of ‘messiah’ - so as to reject him and put him to death, thus being the atonement as per Isaiah 53…God has blinded the Jews…As it is written:
*Isaiah 6:8-10*
Also I (Isaiah) heard the voice of the LORD, saying:
“Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?”
Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”
And He said, “Go, and *tell this people* :
*‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’*
*“Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”*
Do you see?
it was in God’s plan that the messiah be put to death, as it is written:
*Zechariah 13:7*
“Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
Against the Man who is My Companion,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
“Strike the Shepherd,
And the sheep will be scattered”
Written in the Jewish scriptures.. hundreds of years prior to Christ; it was foretold 🙏🏾
@@ScottyyyB96
If you have free time watch Blogging theology chanel video section please,there you will find some very good academic discussions.
Thanks
Yes Jesus did not fit the descriptioon so they did not accept him as such, which PO'd Christianity for thoudsands of years. (Still does.)
Ehhhhh second temple Judaism was crazy diverse. Those Jews that considered Enoch , Ezra canon very much believed in a 2 power in heaven and the son of man being this second power. So it depends
@@ScottyyyB96 Isaiah has nothing at all to do with Jesus and neither does Zechariah. In fact if you read Zechariah literally, you're denying the Trinity. You have a Christian idea of the messiah. In Judaism the messiah is a HUMAN king raised up by Yahweh to conquer the earthly enemies of the Israelites before the Judgement Day. Jesus quite possibly believed he was the messiah, but it has nothing to do with dying on a cross for anyone's sins.
We "ground" our children. We lock them in for their own good ...? We do require sacrifice from our children and from each other too! In fact we do that for each other daily why would a heavenly family be any different? I would think Gods Heavenly family would come with great prestige and would require great sacrifices as well.
Seems like he suffered because he was crucified by the Romans. The idea that Jesus had to suffer to “save” humanity seems like an idea created by certain Church leaders. I run from church leaders who claim to know the mind of God and try to dictate what is or is not necessary for God to redeem the world.
I think the first amendment needs to be amended.
No one gets to say anymore-
I speak FOR god and god wants you to know I am his mouthpiece.
So many cult leaders would be stopped in their tracks.